Oregon’s marijuana legalization: Gateway to unintended consequences

Sen Doug Whitsett

by Sen. Doug Whitsett

According to the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), deaths from drug overdose have increased 137 percent since 2000.  A total of 47,055 Americans died from drug overdoses in 2014 – about 130 people a day – representing a 6.5 percent increase over the previous year.

During the past ten years, highway fatalities in the United States have fallen more than 25 percent, according to the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration. Even though 2014 was the safest traffic period recorded during the past 40 years, a total of 32,675 Americans lost their lives in crashes, about 90 traffic-related deaths each day.

Incredibly, Americans are about 44 percent more likely to die from a drug overdose than in a traffic crash.

The rate of death from over-dosage of opioids has soared more than 200 percent over the past 15 years. According to CDC Director Tom Frieden, M.D., “the increasing number of deaths from opioid overdose is alarming. The opioid epidemic is devastating American families and communities. To curb these trends and save lives, we must help prevent addiction and provide support and treatment to those who suffer from opioid use disorders.”

Strong evidence detailing how the use of marijuana, alcohol and tobacco serve as thresholds to the use of more addictive and harmful drugs is undeniable. There is no doubt that marijuana serves as an entry-level drug, especially among adolescents.

The Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia (CASA) recently released a study showing that children between 12 and 17 years of age who use gateway drugs such as tobacco, alcohol and marijuana are up to 266 times more likely to use cocaine than those who do not use gateway drugs. Former Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare and current CASA President Joseph A Califano, Jr. stated that “this study, the most comprehensive national assessment ever undertaken, reveals a consistent and powerful connection between the use of cigarettes and alcohol and the subsequent use of marijuana, and between the use of cigarettes, alcohol and marijuana and the subsequent use of cocaine and other illicit drugs.”

CASA’s study establishes a clear progression, starting with gateway drugs, and leading to cocaine use. It states that “nearly 90 percent of people who have ever tried cocaine used all three gateway substances first. More than half followed a progression from cigarettes to alcohol, to marijuana and then on to cocaine.”

A recent research paper published in the Journal of American Medical Association Psychiatry describes the increasing prevalence of marijuana use disorder in the United States. The National Institute of Health sponsored a study disclosing that nearly six million Americans, or 2.5 percent of the entire adult population of the United States, suffer from marijuana use disorder.

That study evaluated the use of drugs and alcohol, as well as related psychiatric conditions, among more than 36,000 participants over the age of eighteen during the 12-month period between 2012 and 2013. The research revealed that “past-year and lifetime marijuana use disorders were strongly and consistently associated with other substance use and mental health disorders.”

The research shows those who smoke marijuana most heavily, and for the longest periods, are most susceptible to marijuana use disorder. They are strongly and consistently prone to a lifetime of “association with other substance use disorders, effective disorders, anxiety, and personality disorders,” as well as other mental health disease. The researchers found that the risk for onset of the disorder peaks during late adolescence and among people in their early twenties, especially among young males.

The director of the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism commented that “the new analysis complements previous population-level studies by Dr. Grant’s group that show that marijuana use can lead to harmful consequences for individuals and society.” This study removes any ambiguity regarding how marijuana serves as a gateway, or threshold level, drug.

Marijuana use has already been legalized by the states of Oregon, Colorado, Alaska, Washington and the District of Columbia. According to BallotPedia, ballot proposals to either decriminalize or legalize marijuana have been proposed in 16 additional states this year.

Marijuana remains an illegal controlled substance under federal law. Two synthetic cannabinoids, nabilone and dronabinol, have been approved for use by the Food and Drug Administration.

The U.S. Supreme Court recently considered whether to hear a marijuana-related federal lawsuit filed in 2014 by the states of Nebraska and Oklahoma. The suit asked the courts to overturn a Colorado Amendment adopted by the people in 2012, which legalized the use of recreational marijuana. The lawsuit argues that “the State of Colorado has created a dangerous gap in the federal drug control system” that has caused “irreparable injury” to its two neighboring states.

That case was ultimately dismissed by the Supreme Court on procedural grounds, but not on its merits.

Nevertheless, Oregon is serving as a national leader in the efforts to make the use of both medical and recreational marijuana not only legal, but commonplace. Perhaps more parents and lawmakers should take the time to read these sobering research analyses.

Senator Doug Whitsett is the Republican state senator representing Senate District 28 – Klamath Falls

Post to Twitter Post to Facebook Post to LinkedIn Post to Reddit

Posted by at 06:40 | Posted in Marijuana | 30 Comments |Email This Post Email This Post |Print This Post Print This Post
  • Brian Kelly

    Mr. Senator,

    Oh please. Stop the lying and the scare tactics.

    Do you know what else is listed on the government’s CDC website?

    The number of overdose deaths from marijuana has remain ed the same since the CDC was formed.

    A whooping ZERO marijuana overdose deaths in the entire history of mankind.

    Politicians who continue to demonize Marijuana, Corrupt Law Enforcement Officials who prefer to ruin peoples lives over Marijuana possession rather than solve real crimes who fund their departments toys and salaries with monies acquired through Marijuana home raids, seizures and forfeitures, and so-called “Addiction Specialists” who make their income off of the judicial misfortunes of our citizens who choose marijuana, – Your actions go against The Will of The People and Your Days In Office Are Numbered! Find new careers before you don’t have one.

    The People have spoken! Get on-board with Marijuana Legalization Nationwide, or be left behind and find new careers. Your choice.

    Legalize Nationwide!

    • Brian Kelly

      The “Gateway Myth” has been proven false over and over again. Correlation doesn’t equal causation.

      If you really want to protect families from a drug proven to destroy lives and families, then you should be up in arms, protesting the legality of booze. Alcohol is the drug that causes the most traffic fatalities and domestic violence by a huge landslide.

      More so than all other drugs, combined.

      Why doesn’t that concern you even more?

      “Marijuana Is Gateway Drug” Theory Debunked, Again

      http://www.opposingviews.com/i/marijuana-is-gateway-drug-theory-debunked-again

      Marijuana a “Gateway” Drug? Scientists Call Theory Half-Baked

      http://www.cbsnews.com/news/marijuana-a-gateway-drug-scientists-call-theory-half-baked/

      Marijuana as a Gateway Drug: The Myth That Will Not Die

      http://healthland.time.com/2010/10/29/marijuna-as-a-gateway-drug-the-myth-that-will-not-die/#ixzz2s5nDwiDS

      Seven Studies That Debunk the Gateway Myth

      http://inorml.com/blog/2012/11/25/seven-studies-that-debunk-the-gateway-myth/

      • Brian Kelly

        There is absolutely no doubt now that the majority of Americans want to completely legalize marijuana nationwide. Our numbers grow on a daily basis.

        The prohibitionist view on marijuana is the viewpoint of a minority and rapidly shrinking percentage of Americans. It is based upon decades of lies and propaganda.

        Each and every tired old lie they have propagated has been thoroughly proven false by both science and society.

        Their tired old rhetoric no longer holds any validity. The vast majority of Americans have seen through the sham of marijuana prohibition in this day and age. The number of prohibitionists left shrinks on a daily basis.

        With their credibility shattered, and their not so hidden agendas visible to a much wiser public, what’s left for a marijuana prohibitionist to do?

        Maybe, just come to terms with the fact that Marijuana Legalization Nationwide is an inevitable reality that’s approaching much sooner than prohibitionists think, and there is nothing they can do to stop it!

        Legalize Nationwide!…and Support All Marijuana Legalization Efforts!

        • Brian Kelly

          “While U.S. officials defend their monopoly, critics say the government is hogging all the pot and giving it mainly to researchers who want to find harms linked to the drug.

          U.S. officials say the federal government must be the sole supplier of legal marijuana in order to comply with a 1961 international drug-control treaty. But they admit they’ve done relatively little to fund pot research projects looking for marijuana’s benefits, following their mandate to focus on abuse and addiction.

          “We’ve been studying marijuana since our inception. Of course, the large majority of that research has been on the deleterious effects, the harmful effects, on cognition, behavior and so forth,” said Steven Gust, special assistant to the director at the National Institute on Drug Abuse, which was created in 1974.”

          Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2014/03/19/221721/feds-accused-of-steering-funding.html#storylink=cpy

          • Brian Kelly

            Legalizing Marijuana will not create a massive influx of marijuana impaired drivers our roads.

            It will not create an influx of professionals (doctors, pilots, bus drivers, etc..) under the influence on the job either.

            This is a prohibitionist propaganda scare tactic.

            Truth: Responsible drivers don’t drive while intoxicated on any substance period!

            Irresponsible drivers are already on our roads, and they will drive while intoxicated regardless of their drug of choice’s legality.

            Therefore, legalizing marijuana will have little impact on the amount of marijuana impaired drivers on our roads.

            The same thing applies to people being under the influence of marijuana on the job.

            Responsible people do not go to work impaired, period. Regardless of their drug of choice’s legality.

          • Brian Kelly

            Fear of Marijuana Legalization Nationwide is unfounded. Not based on any science or fact whatsoever. So please prohibitionists, we beg you to give your scare tactics, “Conspiracy Theories” and “Doomsday Scenarios” over the inevitable Legalization of Marijuana Nationwide a rest. Nobody is buying them anymore these days. Okay?

            Furthermore, if all prohibitionists get when they look into that nice, big and shiny, crystal ball of theirs, while wondering about the future of marijuana legalization, is horror, doom, and despair, well then I suggest they return that thing as quickly as possible and reclaim the money they shelled out for it, since it’s obviously defective.

            The prohibition of marijuana has not decreased the supply nor the demand for marijuana at all. Not one single iota, and it never will. Just a huge and complete waste of our tax dollars to continue criminalizing citizens for choosing a natural, non-toxic, relatively benign plant proven to be much safer than alcohol.

            If prohibitionists are going to take it upon themselves to worry about “saving us all” from ourselves, then they need to start with the drug that causes more death and destruction than every other drug in the world COMBINED, which is alcohol!

            Why do prohibitionists feel the continued need to vilify and demonize marijuana when they could more wisely focus their efforts on a real, proven killer, alcohol, which again causes more destruction, violence, and death than all other drugs, COMBINED?

            Prohibitionists really should get their priorities straight and/or practice a little live and let live. They’ll live longer, happier, and healthier, with a lot less stress if they refrain from being bent on trying to control others through Draconian Marijuana Laws.

          • Brian Kelly

            The “War on Marijuana” has been a complete and utter failure. It is the largest component of the broader yet equally unsuccessful “War on Drugs” that has cost our country over a trillion dollars.

            Instead of The United States wasting Billions upon Billions more of our tax dollars fighting a never ending “War on Marijuana”, lets generate Billions of dollars, and improve the deficit instead. It’s a no brainer.

            The Prohibition of Marijuana has also ruined the lives of many of our loved ones. In numbers greater than any other nation, our loved ones are being sent to jail and are being given permanent criminal records which ruin their chances of employment for the rest of their lives, and for what reason?

            Marijuana is much safer to consume than alcohol. Yet do we lock people up for choosing to drink?

            Even The President of the United States has consumed marijuana. Has it hurt his chances at succeeding in life? If he had gotten caught by the police during his college years, he may have very well still been in prison today! Beyond that, he would then be fortunate to even be able to find a minimum wage job that would consider hiring him with a permanent criminal record. Let’s end this hypocrisy now!

            The government should never attempt to legislate morality by creating victim-less marijuana “crimes” because it simply does not work and costs the taxpayers a fortune.

            Marijuana Legalization Nationwide is an inevitable reality that’s approaching much sooner than prohibitionists think and there is nothing they can do to stop it!

            Legalize Nationwide! Support Each and Every Marijuana Legalization Initiative!

          • Brian Kelly

            In the prohibitionist’s world, anybody who consumes the slightest amount of marijuana responsibly in the privacy of their own homes are “stoners” and “dopers” that need to be incarcerated in order to to protect society.

            In their world, any marijuana use equates to marijuana abuse, and it is their God given duty to worry about “saving us all” from the “evils” of marijuana use.

            Who are they to tell us we can’t choose marijuana, the safer choice instead of alcohol for relaxation, after a long, hard day, in the privacy of our own homes?

            People who consume marijuana are smart, honest, hard working, educated, and successful people too, who “follow the law” also.(except for their marijuana consumption under it’s current prohibition of course) .

            Not the stereotypical live at home losers prohibitionists make them out to be. They are doctors, lawyers, professors, movie stars, and politicians too.

            Several Presidents of The United States themselves, along with Justin Trudeau, Bill Gates, and Carl Sagan have all confessed to their marijuana use. As have a long and extensive list of successful people throughout history at one point or other in their lives.

            Although that doesn’t mean a dam thing to people who will make comments like “dopers” and “stoners” about anybody who uses the slightest amount of Marijuana although it is way safer than alcohol.

            To these people any use equals abuse, and that is really ignorant and full of hypocrisy. While our society promotes, advertises, and even glorifies alcohol consumption like it’s an All American pastime.

            There is nothing worse about relaxing with a little marijuana after a long hard day than having a drink or two of alcohol.

            So come off those high horses of yours. Who are you to dictate to the rest of society that we can’t enjoy Marijuana, the safer choice over alcohol, in the privacy of our own homes?

            We’ve worked real hard our whole lives to provide for our loved ones. We don’t appreciate prohibitionists trying to impose their will and morals upon us all.

            Has a marijuana consumer ever forced you to use it? Probably not. So nobody has the right to force anybody not to either.

            Don’t try to impose your morality and “clean living” upon everybody else with Draconian Marijuana Laws, and we won’t think you’re such prohibitionist hypocrites.

            Legalize Nationwide! Support Each and Every Marijuana Legalization Initiative!

          • Beau Gist

            Brian K-Y Jelly-Kelly Terry Bean slipperier again and again. Snows without saying that Sean Ball Peen hammer likes his strokes and may even underwrite him for an interview with El Chapo on how to expand supplication’s.

          • MrBill

            tldr

  • Fr33dom

    So to recap Sen. Whitsett:

    1) Marijuana (which cannot cause death) is a gateway drug that leads to morphine (aka heroin).

    2) Morphine (unlike weed) is deadly so we should ban weed while keeping morphine legal.

    3) People use and buy weed in surrounding states, not because they want weed, but because CO no longer criminalizes it.

    In the words of Barack Obama, “I’m not willing to engage in a debate with the flat earth society.”

  • Sam Shillings

    Every study you mention has been refuted, along with the fallacy of cannabis use disorder. The basis for ” use disorder ” is flawed. Do you crave candy, soda, or coffee? Have it more than once a week? Sir, you have a use disorder. Your arguments are laughable. The troubling aspect is that some believe you.

    Using conjecture to promote cannabis prohibition in the name of harm reduction and public safety all while acknowledging the real issue…. legal opiates. Simply amazing from a logical perspective. Since harm reduction is your goal and death being the worst possible outcome I challenge you to actually make a difference. Here is a list of substances both legal and illegal. I left out heroin, we will assume your aware of this epidemic.
    Source: https://www.drugabuse.gov/related-topics/trends-statistics/overdose-death-rates

    Fact: Opioids will kill 44 today
    Fact: Alcohol will kill 300 today
    Fact: Tobacco will kill 1,180 today
    Fact: Adverse reaction to legal drugs wlll kill 87 today
    Fact: All other elicit drugs will kill 46 today.
    Fact: Non-inflammatory drugs(Aspirin) will kill 20 today
    Fact: Cannabis will kill 0 today

    • Just say d’oh to Brian Kelly

      Lung cancer from can-of-bliss is off the chart.
      Nuts to ewes sheeple shepherded by insane facets,

  • Robert Collins

    Marijuana overdose? Bwahahahaha
    These people just don’t quit.

  • thevillageidiot

    1. Cocaine is not an opioid. in the study mentioned more than half at some point started using Cocaine. Nuff said about the opioid connection.
    2. you listed all the other dis-functions exhibited by the addicts. which came first the addiction or mental and personnel dis-functions. Usually the dis-functions.
    perhaps you need better researchers or park you opinions at the door of reality check.

    So who are you to determine what I may or may not ingest or use? You are no different than any other politician that thinks the Government is the only answer. You philosophy is Somebody like you shall determine what is good for me. get out of my life.

    This from National institute on Drug abuse. and yes this in an excerpt and but you did not get your stats here.
    Marijuana use has increased since 2007. In 2013,
    there were 19.8 million current users—about 7.5 percent of people aged
    12 or older—up from 14.5 million (5.8 percent) in 2007.

    Use of most drugs other than marijuana has stabilized over the past decade or has declined.
    In 2013, 6.5 million Americans aged 12 or older (or 2.5 percent) had
    used prescription drugs nonmedically in the past month. Prescription
    drugs include pain relievers, tranquilizers, stimulants, and sedatives.
    And 1.3 million Americans (0.5 percent) had used hallucinogens (a
    category that includes ecstasy and LSD) in the past month.

    Cocaine use has gone down in the last few years. In
    2013, the number of current users aged 12 or older was 1.5 million.
    This number is lower than in 2002 to 2007 (ranging from 2.0 million to
    2.4 million).

    Methamphetamine use was higher in 2013, with 595,000 current users, compared with 353,000 users in 2010.

  • Robert Collins

    This kind of foolish screed is why Republicans cannot be taken seriously in Oregon.

    • .

      A buggerer ewe Robby Collinsbater?

  • Myke

    “nearly 90 percent of people who have ever tried cocaine used all three
    gateway substances first. More than half followed a progression from
    cigarettes to alcohol, to marijuana and then on to cocaine.”

    Other studies have shown that 100% of people who have ever tried cocaine used all three first gateway, gateway substances first. More that half followed a progression from milk to sugar, to candy and soda and then on to caffeine.

    This article is so poorly written it stinks through the wire. How many of those 47,055 Americans who died from drug overdoses actually died from marijuana? Likely, none. You want a gateway drug, look to your local pharmacist and pill pedaling doctor.

  • Jack B Nimble

    Give it up Senator. This is nothing but pure demagoguery.

  • ed johnston

    District attorneys or hear say witnesses No injured Woman man or
    Children no Crime Corpis DelitiDistrict attorneys or hear say witnesses
    No injured Woman man or Children no Crime Corpis Deliti

    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
    Justice Department warns local courts about illegal enforcement of fees and fines
    http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/justice_department_warns_local_courts_about_illegal_enforcement_of_fees_and

    “An
    attorney for the plaintiff cannot admit evidence into the court. He is
    either an attorney or a witness”. (Trinsey v. Pagliaro D.C.Pa. 1964, 229
    F. Supp. 647).

    “Care has been taken, however, in summoning
    witnesses to testify, to call no man whose character or whose word could
    be successfully impeached by any methods known to the law. And it is
    remarkable, we submit, that in a case of this magnitude, with every
    means and resource at their command, the complainants, after years of
    effort and search in near and in the most remote paths, and in every
    collateral by-way, now rest the charges of conspiracy and of gullibility
    against these witnesses, only upon the bare statements of counsel. The
    lives of all the witnesses are clean, their characters for truth and
    veracity un-assailed, and the evidence of any attempt to influence the
    memory or the impressions of any man called, cannot be successfully
    pointed out in this record.” Telephone Cases. Dolbear v. American Bell
    Telephone Company, Molecular Telephone Company v. American Bell
    Telephone Company. American Bell Telephone Company v.. Molecular
    Telephone Company, Clay Commercial Telephone Company v. American Bell
    Telephone Company, People’s Telephone Company v. American Bell Telephone
    Company, Overland Telephone Company v. American Bell Telephone
    Company,. (PART TWO OF THREE) (03/19/88) 126 U.S. 1, 31 L. Ed. 863, 8 S.
    Ct. 778.

    EYEWITNESS RULE is that, in absence of eye-witness, or
    of any obtainable direct evidence as to what deceased did or failed to
    do by way of pre-caution, at and immediately before injury, pre-sumption
    is that he, prompted by natural instinct, was in exercise of care for
    his own safety, obtains. Edwards v. Perley, 223 Iowa 1119, 274 N.W. 910,
    915.

    “Factual statements or documents appearing only in briefs
    shall not be deemed to be a part of the record in the case, unless
    specifically permitted by the Court” – Oklahoma Court Rules and
    Procedure, Federal local rule 7.1(h).
    “Manifestly, [such statements]
    cannot be properly considered by us in the disposition of a case.”
    United States v. Lovasco. 431 U.S. 783, 97 S. Ct. 2044, 52 L. Ed. 2D 752
    (06/09/77).
    “No instruction was asked, but, as we have said, the
    judge told the jury that they were to regard only the evidence admitted
    by him, not statements of counsel”, Holt v. United States, (10/31/10)
    218 U.S. 245, 54 L. Ed. 1021, 31 S. Ct. 2,
    Professional statements of
    litigants attorney are treated as affidavits, and attorney making
    statements may be cross-examined regarding substance of statement.
    Frunzar v. Allied Property and Casualty Ins. Co., (Iowa 1996)† 548
    N.W.2d 880.

    Porter v. Porter, (N.D. 1979 ) 274 N.W.2d 235 ñ The
    practice of an attorney filing an affidavit on behalf of his client
    asserting the status of that client is not approved, inasmuch as not
    only does the affidavit become hearsay, but it places the attorney in a
    position of witness thus compromising his role as advocate.

    “Statements
    of counsel in brief or in argument are not facts before the court and
    are therefore insufficient for a motion to dismiss or for summary
    judgment.” Trinsey v Pagliaro, D.C.Pa. 1964, 229 F.Supp. 647.; Jones Vs
    General Elec. Co., 87 F.3d 209,211 (7th Cir. 1996).

    “Statements
    of counsel in brief or in argument are not facts before the court and
    are therefore insufficient for a motion to dismiss or for summary
    judgment.” Trinsey v Pagliaro, D.C.Pa. 1964, 229 F.Supp. 647.; Jones Vs
    General Elec. Co., 87 F.3d 209,211 (7th Cir. 1996).
    Pro Per and pro
    se litigants should therefore always remember that the majority of the
    time, the motion to dismiss a case is only argued by the opposing
    attorney, who is not allowed to testify on the facts of the case, the
    motion to dismiss is never argued by the real party in interest.

    Statutes
    forbidding administering of oath by attorney’s in cases in which they
    may be engaged applies to affidavits as well. Deyo v. Detroit Creamery
    Co (Mich 1932) 241 N.W.2d 244.

    The practice of an attorney filing
    an affidavit on behalf of his client asserting the status of that
    client is not approved, in as much as not only does the affidavit become
    hearsay, but it places the attorney in a position of witness thus
    compromising his role as advocate. Porter v. Porter, (N.D. 1979 ) 274
    N.W.2d 235 ñ.
    “The prosecutor is not a witness; and he should not be
    permitted to add to the record either by subtle or gross improprieties.
    Those who have experienced the full thrust of the power of government
    when leveled against them know that the only protection the citizen has
    is in the requirement for a fair trial.” Donnelly v. Dechristoforo,
    1974.SCT.41709 ¶ 56; 416 U.S. 637 (1974) Mr. Justice Douglas,
    dissenting.
    “The right to privacy includes an “individual interest in
    avoiding disclosure of personal matters.” Whalen v. Roe, 429 US 589
    (1977).
    “Under no possible view, however, of the findings we are
    considering can they be held to constitute a compliance with the
    statute, since they merely embody conflicting statements of counsel
    concerning the facts as they suppose them to be and their appreciation
    of the law which they deem applicable, there being, therefore, no
    attempt whatever to state the ultimate facts by a consideration of which
    we would be able to conclude whether or not the judgment was
    warranted.” Gonzales v. Buist. (04/01/12) 224 U.S. 126, 56 L. Ed. 693,
    32 S. Ct. 463.
    “Where there are no depositions, admissions, or
    affidavits the court has no facts to rely on for a summary
    determination.” Trinsey v. Pagliaro, D.C. Pa. 1964, 229 F. Supp. 647.

  • ed johnston

    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?

  • ed johnston

    Whereas : We are here to make sure Are Lawful Bloodline Americans of the Civil War 1866

    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 , 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)]

    “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

    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

  • ed johnston

    1776 Constitution with the Queens Stamp I paid for this to be
    published . Poisoned me in jail , Several-days after I filed on them in a
    truck wreck almost took my life. living on Oxygen and nitro, Sen.Gary
    said this would happen you where their ted, Denied medical and pain
    meds in Lincoln county can prove the corruption. spinal cord worse lots
    of new medical .. since the wreck, Told if I don’t pay driving privilege
    I will Executed , Toledo county as filed Lawful Bloodline Americans
    have rights, illegals and legals don’t as filed with judge Sculia aeperation lawful bloodline American V legal a10
    days before hes murder . Treaty of 1213 I still demanded the Vatican’s
    popes souls for payment as published . 1215 magna carta
    Filed with the Vatican and has the queens of England stamp
    As I have paid for this to be Publish certified mail with no disagreements from any one,. please print http://www.specialcollections.uws.ac.uk/documents/1.pdf
    http://www.specialcollections.uws.ac.uk
    specialcollections.uws.ac.uk

    I revoke all and any consent actual or implied to act as or be
    considered a voluntary surety, trustee, volunteer, a corporate officer
    of any kind, a Un-Constitution tax payer, commercial driver, corporate
    franchise operator, warrant officer, licensee, beneficiary of the public
    charitable trust or any other individual or employee subject to the
    British Crown or Vatican Pope the British King in any capacity
    whatsoever.

    Elected and Public servants have thirty to Comply with your Order of Constitution Oath obligation from Treaty of 1213
    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

  • ed johnston

    5×10 available ORS Recreational vehicle 446.003:[33) horseless
    carriage&CoveredWagons All Elected and public servant’s Peace,
    Policeman/ women are required to take an Constitution oath of office to
    support an defend which is held on file to get their DPSST
    Certification. As a part of this oath they swear to uphold the 1778
    Constitution , According to Supreme Court decision, Is the Supreme Law
    of our Land Federal Law also prohibits Cities and Counties from issuing
    citations against businesses, see Title 18 U.S.C.891-896, quoting
    Section 891 Recreational Vehicle&Boat means a vehicle with or
    without motive power, that is designed for human occupancy and to be
    used temporarily for recreational, seasonal or emergency purposes and as
    further defined, by treaty of 1846 Oregon Inhabitants The 1778 Ratified
    constitution , Authorizing Statutes: ORS 803.035, 803.040 and 803.310,
    Optional Titling and Registration. Rights to Travel explained to Toledo
    Oregon city council Oct 14 2014 youtube (oregontrackers)All rights
    reserved title 18 241-241-306-308 I 207 This will be a call to introduce
    most people to the four historical written Instrument; by our
    Forefathers, their Laws (the 1776 A Declaration, the 1777-1787
    Confederation, the 1787 proposed Constitution for the United States of
    America, the 1789 Unanimous ratified Constitution for the United States
    of America, and the 1789 ARTICLES, in addition to, and Amendment of the
    Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and
    ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the
    fifth Article of the original Constitution…) and the methods of word
    usage (including case structure and punctuation). P.S This invitation is
    the only withstanding invitation. Although some People have received
    this exact information with “aditional
    information/propaganda/agenda/agendas” from other sources, this source
    is only about the aforementioned. Judge Rules that Government Debt is
    Covered by FDCPA, Forcing …
    http://www.lawblogs.net/2014/12/18/judge-rules-that-government... Cached Judge
    Rules that Government Debt is Covered by FDCPA, Forcing Collection
    Agency to Defend. Texas Attorney General Launches Investigation into
    Debt Collection Scamgave the Untied States of America only freedom on
    this planet wake up protect this god given right Merely being native
    born within the territorial boundaries of the United States of America
    does not make such an inhabitant a Citizen of the United States subject
    to the jurisdiction of the Fourteenth Amendment” … Elk v. Wilkins, Neb
    (1884), 5s.ct.41,112 U.S. 99, 28 L. Ed. 643. “The fact is, property is a
    tree; income is the fruit; labour is a tree; income the fruit; capital,
    the tree; income the ‘fruit.’ The fruit, if not consumed (severed) as
    fast as it ripens, will germinate from the seed… and will produce
    other trees and grow into more property; but so long as it is fruit
    merely, and plucked (severed) to eat… it is no tree, and will produce
    itself no fruit.” Waring v. City of Savennah. 60 Ga. 93, 100 (1878.}
    PUBLIC NOTICE: Whereas this Constitution for the united States of
    America, Lawful children, women and the men, Title 7 USCA CHAPTER 6 §
    136 (Page 3) (d) Animal The term “animal” means all vertebrate and
    invertebrate species, including but not limited to man and other. Now
    are you a form of and or you maybe practicing cannibalism. This is a
    question of these union States 50 now totally recognize how the criminal
    fraud against us are being played out, by our elected, appointed, and
    hired leaders/employees, Religious organization we are left with no
    other choice but to demand the following adjustment be made to our
    political system: We have a right to know If you stand with We the
    People of these United States of America, now 50, 1776 constitutional
    laws print copy notarized and Pass on to all peace and god bless Jesus..
    the Greatspirit

    NO COP CAN DRAG U INTO JURISDICTRION “No officer
    can acquire jurisdiction by deciding he has it. The officer, whether
    judicial or ministerial, decides at his own peril.” Middleton v. Low
    (1866), 30 C. 596, citing Prosser v. Secor (1849), 5 Barb.(N.Y) 607,
    608. “The innocent individual who is harmed by an abuse of governmental
    authority is assured that he will be compensated for his injury.” Owens
    v. City of Independence, 100 S.Ct 1398 (1980)Confirming link God thru
    your forefathers of kings from a foreign land saw the great sprite and
    filed the Constitution Paper that is filed with the Queen todate who’s
    appearance not to be of royal bloodline and a Convicted Pirate this is
    to includes any other further kings or Queens of England and Vatican
    None negotiable instrument filled , constitution reference numbers
    included 1993,, 1776 law of the United State of Americans soil only God
    gave United States of Americans the garden of Eden. read copy and print http://www.specialcollections.uws.ac.uk/documents/1.pdf http://www.specialcollections.uws.ac.uk
    Merely being native born within the territorial boundaries of the
    United States of America does not make such an inhabitant a Citizen of
    the United States subject to the jurisdiction of the Fourteenth
    Amendment” … Elk v. Wilkins, Neb (1884), 5s.ct.41,112 U.S. 99, 28 L.
    Ed. 643. Public Notice It is a crime for any government office or any
    official to auction or otherwise sell in any way, private or business
    property of any individual WITHOUT FIRST HAVING DUE PROCESS OF LAW, to
    determine the cause of action and the recourse in law. The sale of any
    property outside this means is illegal, and all those involved with such
    a sale, including those purchasing said property, are personally liable
    for damages, and subject to criminal charges under Racketeering
    (RIC…O) laws, and for violation of civil and Due Process rights. All
    government officials have the “Greater Duty” to know the law and comply
    with it, and if you are involved with such an auction without Due
    Process for the owner, you are in breach of your fiduciary duty and you
    can be held personally liable by those harmed by this fraud. Any
    challenge to property taxation or property sale made by any citizen
    requires you to respond, point by point, and to “prove up” your position
    in law. by http://www.oregontrackers.com and the United States of America We
    the People Standing By our God fearing forefathers bloodlines to protect
    The 1776 God given Freedom Law of the land http://www.specialcollections.uws.ac.uk/documents/1.pdf Filed
    law of the united states for American’s bloodline [EDWARD MALONE
    JOHNSTON II ] a Birth Certificate fraud scheme, dead entity; American
    National, Heir, Successor, and Beneficiary, Living, Breathing, Bloodline
    Flowing Human , Animal , Being. U.C.C. 1-308 =I 207 All Rights
    Reserved; :www.oregontrackers.com http://www.oregontrackers.org

  • ed johnston

    Blessings, to Public Servant Judge Dale, retired http://www.westernjournalism.com/cnn-reporter-fact
    – party…/

    U.C.C.1-241,242,308,306, 308=1-207 All Rights Reserved: a published document.

    Disclaimer: a man, Given name edward malone johnston II non-corporate
    entity reserve the right to amend or make further corrections to this
    document as further information becomes available. Furthermore, I do not
    agree to any Civil and or Criminal Penalties whereas documents taken
    from Congressional Record, IRS Code, Farm Bills, Trading With the
    Enemies Act, Legislative Procedures Act, Court rulings and decisions and
    the Bankruptcy Acts – now 4 – of these United States, et al and Birth
    Record Fraud Scheme, Bond, C.U.S.I.P., Commodities Fraud, Theft of and
    or misuse of CESTA QUE VIE TRUST, AKA, ONE PEOPLES PUBLIC TRUST ACCOUNTS
    which were
    to be established so the men and women could pay their
    debts as all lawful money was stolen from us, treason against the
    Constitution, by Roosevelt and his coconspirators AKA the Vatican,
    British Empire, International

    Bankers, et al. The FEDERAL RESERVE
    NOTE a debt instrument merely discharges the debt, Breach of Public
    Trust and Misprision by the Congress of the United States, AKA federal
    employees, Fiduciary Trustees, in dealing with the Bankruptcy Act(s) of
    1933 and acts of TREASON by Franklin D. Roosevelt, Congress and the
    Receivers of the Bankruptcies. 1779 without amendment the UNITED STATES
    OF AMERICA, dba,

    CORPORATION, a French Corporation – Congress has
    refused to provide names of the 3 parties who formed this Corporation –
    an act of treason. (28 U.S.C. @ 3002 Definitions 15) United States
    means A) a Federal Corporation – de facto government. Between March 3 – 5
    1861 12 States walked out of Congress in Secession,

    see Rulings
    of the Attorney General B. J. Black published 1863, and Congress was
    forced to adjourn Without Day; became Sin Die, never to meet again, the
    next day as they did not have enough votes to call the next session –
    see Congressional Record March 5 – July 15, 1861. Every Legislative Act
    since is fraud in the inducement. Welcome to the Dictatorship – de facto
    Government. It should be herein noted that in the 1933 Bankruptcy Act
    all Offices, Agencies and Departments were turned over to the Receivers,
    unknown, of the
    Bankruptcy, via the United Nations – 12 years
    before that became and Organization, and All Law and Statutes became
    international law and copy written AKA Lawless America. Any nation once
    bankrupt is no longer sovereign. Are you practicing Corporate Policy
    instead of law? Prove it. Also read the 16th American Jurist prudence,
    Second Edition, Section 177…any law written in violation of this
    Constitution is as though it were never written and no one is obligated
    to obey it…….; massive voter fraud.

    NOTICE: The UNITED STATES
    OF AMERICA IS A CROWN/VATICAN/SWISS BANK Property the result of land
    theft by the Pope from the Great Marzocco. ( A fraud scheme the result
    of the 1933 Bankruptcy Act & G5. Trustees Are: The Pope, British
    Monarch, U.S. Postmaster See 28 U.S.C. @ 3002 Definitions 15) United
    States means A) a Federal Corporation. AKA French.

    Now consider
    the beginning of the Court Fraud Scheme and the establishment of the
    Court system AKA Renaissance whereas the CATHOLIC CULT AKA CHURCH via
    4-Popes, AKA, Jesuits, and bought into the Courts and Royalty and remain
    to this day controlling the Judicial system, AKA, the Bank. The Court
    case number is the Account number from which the Court, aka, Bank is
    running their Bond, C.U.S.I.P. , and commodities fraud scheme against
    all defendants, pro se, and private man/woman P.A.G. litigants who enter
    thereof. It is a Ponzi Scheme. Contracting in violation of uberrimae
    fidei – of utmost good faith and uberrima Fideas – utmost good faith.
    (Ref. BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY 8th EDITION pg. 1558.) No court papers are
    disclosing as a contract; Nor have a proper identity from the OFFICE OF
    MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET (OMB NUMBER), fail to provide their Commodities
    license information nor their Bonding information nor the C.U.S.I.P.:
    (CUSIP stands for Committee on Uniform Securities Identification
    Procedures. Formed in 1962, this committee developed a system
    (implemented in 1967) that identifies securities, specifically U.S. and
    Canadian registered stocks, and U.S. government and municipal bonds.) 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
    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.

    Is Britain
    owned by the Vatican(Treaty 1213)? Follow . 2 answers 2. … Britain by
    the Governments own figures has 7.85 million of working age not
    working?
    Is it true that the Pope claims to own the entire… Jan 15, 2009 13 answers

    Is these statements true?…Can you help me… Jan 13, 2009 4 answers
    According to this contract, the Vatican owns all… inquiringminds.cc/according-to-this-contract-the-Vatican
    ..

    In 1213, King John was … The contract is known as the “Treaty of
    Verona” and it undertook to … the Vatican owns all of England and all
    of the British …

    Cracking The Legal Code Of King James Bible of Enslavement https://realitybloger.wordpress.com/
    …/cracking-the-legal-c…/

    Cusip Slavery – Finding Your Birth Certificate …www.morningliberty.com/2011/07/22/cusip-slavery-finding

    Jul 21, 2011 · … Finding Your Birth Certificate Bond Tutorial.
    666kirk666 Tue, … It ties it all in t the Vatican too. … Rockefeller
    Foundation Owns Zika Patent;

    Understanding How Vatican city British Admiralty And Common Law Apply To You
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yZjhM385kBs&sns=fb

    The Arraignment, Your Secret Phrases, UCC, And The Crown Empire
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BSTIsWTawJ4

    The Vatican Owns Your Soul – ALL Birth … lunaticoutpost.com/showthread.php?tid=416332

    The Vatican Owns Your Soul – ALL Birth Certificates are held in Vatican
    Vaults. … by the sale of the birth certificate as a Bond to the
    private central bank of the …

    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

    WHAT IS HJR 192? Can we Discharge our Debts to the…http://understandcontractlawandyouwin.com/hjr-192-discharg

    …/ Jun 7, 2014 … House Joint Resolution 192 was then passed by
    Congress on June 5, 1933. This law was passed to do away with the gold
    clause For lawful Bloodline American …

    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 …

    Gonzales v. Oregon, 546 U.S. 243 (2006),
    was a decision by the United States Supreme Court, which ruled that the
    United States Attorney General could not enforce the federal Controlled
    Substances Act against physicians who prescribed drugs, in compliance
    with Oregon state law, for the assisted suicide of the terminally ill.
    It was the first major case heard under the leadership of Chief Justice
    John Roberts.[1]

    My case rests to be true thereof:

    By The GreatSpirit God Bless , Jesus , Jes US. We the Lawful Bloodline American People come in Peace.

    Request for Coroner’s Inquest (continued)
    STATE OF Oregon
    Affirm JURAT
    County of Lincoln

    On this the 15th_day of February in the year of our LORD 2016 AD, Before me, a Notary
    Republic, the Autograph

    ___________________________________ personally appeared,

    Autograph – Without Prejudice:
    Given Name Edward Malone Johnston II. Non-corporation, Lawful American Bloodline, thereof:
    Domicile: Inhabitant Land Owner – Non- State Register Cooperation
    CONON -Cooperation ~1540 North Nye Street Oregon Territory Near Toledo
    DMM [email protected](e)2 Zone Improvement Plan (ZIP CODE) not required
    [x] known to me, or [x] satisfactorily proves to be the Natural Human Being who’s name is subscribed
    to this instrument, Sworn and acknowledged that he/she executed the same for the stated purpose
    thereof. In Witness Whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and Notary Seal.
    My Commission expires ___________________________

    Treaty of 1213 Contract Elected and public servants honor thy oath of
    Servitude for their public service, Lawful Bloodline American
    1884
    by Born Rights , Rights are not privileges and Immunities clause when
    Fraud and or rico has been committed .are AKA Birth Records are said
    Lawful Bloodline American of the date 1884. or owners of the note 1884
    as filed. 1903 Citizen until they fifth generation by congress
    Registered including Elected and public servants,Register Church members
    aka Voters ,, have to deregulation their Soul From the Crown and Only
    All Foreigners and foreigners have to pay back it the system. for the
    Privilege to live in the usa As woman , man and child would have to do
    in another country get it yet

  • ed johnston

    Whereas it is a crime not to report a criminal act this
    matter has been reported to the Supreme Court, Ohio, Attorney General,
    UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF STATE, and others as these are crimes
    against humanity. They all sit in silence and refuse to do their OATH OF
    OFFICE.

    Please Bless by help pass this information to other professionals in your area of expertise.

    Thank you for your time in this Financial matter.

    Furthermore all CUSIP,, Bonds, Trust(s), Commodities, al et al, shall
    be made hole, from the beginning, due and payable immediately, in lawful
    money 12 U.S.C. 411: 48 Statute 337.

    The COUNTY/TERRITORY/STATE
    OF OREGON west coast to OHIO east coast dba CORPORATION shall CEASE AND
    DESIST any further fraudulent activities against the residents of this
    state relating to Birth Records. This CORPORATION shall also make hole
    again to every resident of this state/STATE where they have been
    deceived by these birth records.

    Furthermore the residents of
    this state demand full access to our CESTA QUE TRUST ACCOUNTS as granted
    us underneath the 1933 Bankruptcy Act and legislative Acts, al et al,
    which followed and your office shall file charges against the Congress
    of the UNITED STATES for breach of fiduciary duty as they were trustees
    of the Bankruptcy. These charges shall include: Fraud, Civil RICO,
    Collusion, Treason against the Constitution, Breach of Public Trust for
    starters.

    Respectively submitted,
    This is a copy of the original. How can you make a copy of something if there were no original?

    ___________________________________
    edward malone; family of boyd

    All Rights Reserved Not for profit.

    CC: Supreme Court, 65 South Front Street; 8th Floor, Columbus, Ohio
    Peter Elliot U.S. Martial
    Steven M. Detterbach, U.S. Attorney
    Notice of Service sent on this the 8th Day of April 2013 first class mail UNITED STATES POST OFFICE

    I am now asking for a Coronors’ Inquest into,fraud by trickery, Birth
    Record aka Record of Live Birth and BIRTH CERTIFICATE and the Death of
    [EDWARD MALONE JOHNSTON II], [EDWARD JOHNSTON], et al, as well as
    [Edward Malone Johnston], [Edward Johnston], et al, and that the Corpus
    Delicti be produced thereof. Where is his grave and Death Certificates?
    See HOLY TRINITY CHURCH vs U.S.( 1892?)

    Please produce these
    Financial Documents as well: Birth Certificate Bond, CESTA QUE VIE
    TRUST, aka, ONE PEOPLES PUBLIC TRUST Accounts and all Commodities
    against this name traded and sold on Wall Street and D&B, owned by
    the American Bar Association, under C.U.S.I.P. Numbers and those
    produced by Pseudo Corporate Court/Banks by Case Number and C.U.S.I.P.
    Numbers thereof. Whereas all Government debt is paid and covered by
    FDCPA why this fraud scheme other than to steal and pilferage the trust
    accounts and bonds herein fraudulently created; I would strongly suggest
    a Grand Jury investigation into these matters. Whether of not the man
    [DAVID LEE BUESS], et al, is dead I, the living man, have the lawful
    right to make claim as all these are the Creation by Fraud in the
    Inducement and without my knowledge and consent thereof. See 1933 House
    Resolution 192 Lawful American non debt.

    In 1779 the United
    States of America became a Federal Corporation, without Amendment, an
    act of Treason. This is verified by 28 U.S.C. § 3002 Definitions 15)
    United States means A) A Federal Corporation. This act of Treason was
    neither questioned by our former members of Congress nor the President
    thus are Co-conspirators to this fraud scheme. This fraud enacted to
    overthrow our Constitutional Government and the Republican form of
    Government therein established; see “Supreme Law of the Land” defined
    page 1482 BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY 8TH EDITION. 1. The U.S. Constitution.
    [Cases: Constitutional law Key: 1.1] 2. Acts of Congress made in
    accordance with the U.S. Constitution 3.U.S. Treaties. See SUPREMACY
    CLAUSE. The children, women and the men of these union states, now 50,
    are not federal/state employees subject to this de facto Federal
    Corporation, CORPORATE POLICY, thereof and said corporation is operating
    in fraud within these union States as this Corporation is not lawfully
    registered with the OHIO SECRETARY OF STATE nor the DEPARTMENT OF
    CORPORATIONS and neither are they paying their Corporate Taxes thereof.
    This Federal Corporation has no standing in law thereof against any
    child, woman and man of these union states. Their Corporate policies
    must comply to the 1776 Constitution for the United States of America
    Ratified 1778 thereof. No government entity, employee, officer
    what-so-ever has any immunity from Prosecution (civil rights) Norton vs.
    Mcshane 14 L.Ed 2d 274. Also see
    htttp://www.specialcollections.uws.ac.uk/documenhts/1.pdf thereof.

    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:

    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 ‘GOD’ promised
    mine and your bloodline of this United States of America for all mankind
    thereof.

    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).

    Note Added: The unlawful 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.

    Where is the
    Constitution for this -UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, dba, A FEDERAL
    CORPORATION? There is none thus no consent by any lawful American(s)
    from any union State. The Law of this United States of America http://www.specialcollections.uws.ac.uk/documents/1.pdf

    written Instrument; by our Forefathers, their Laws (the 1776 A
    Declaration, the 1777-1787 Confederation, the 1787 proposed Constitution
    for the United States of America, the 1789 Unanimous ratified
    Constitution for the United States of America, and the 1789 ARTICLES, in
    addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of
    America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the
    several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original
    Constitution…) and the methods of word usage (including case structure
    and punctuation).SUPREME COURT RULING: Police Have No Duty To Protect
    The general public …gunssavelives.net/blog/supreme-court-ruling-police-have

    We are on our own for protection. While we are quite sure most police
    officers will help someone in need when required, just remember the next
    time you feel you might help they are there as pirate’s collecting
    revenue for the Elected and public piracy mayor and city council only
    …title 5 2906 3331-3333 honor thy oath for public service , No injured
    life or party , No Property damage, No Crime No Victim. Legal Maximum
    When the law of man cannot prevail the law of nature must. The reason
    not to work in this nation is because we have a de facto government who
    daily violate their 1776 Constitution for the United States Oath of
    Office thereof – Remedy – HONOR THEY OATH OF OFFICE!

    WHAT IS
    SOVEREIGNTY? It is the inherent right from God from himself gave the
    United States of Americans to travel without impede subsistence hunt,
    fisheries, food gathering on all public land rights of ways, highways
    byways fairways ,water ways rivers and flood plans, tide pools and
    beaches and our ocean. This is not provided by prerogative of foreign
    agents of civilized people to rule itself, and Not to dictate all of the
    forms and conditions of the institutions it sets up to carry out this
    rule. Ironically, the U.S. SUPREME COURT agrees with those people who
    claim to be SOVEREIGN citizens of the American Republic! Bond vs. UNITED
    STATES, 529 US 334 – 2000, The Supreme Court held that the American
    People are in fact Sovereign and not the States or the Government. Would
    someone please inform the FBI Profilers this ruling! The court went on
    to define that local, state and federal law enforcement officers were
    committing unlawful actions against the Sovereign People by the
    enforcement of the laws and are personally liable for their actions.
    Bond v. United States, 529 US 334 – 2000 – Supreme Court – Cited by 761
    litigants in other cases. Bond v. US, 131 S. Ct. 2355 – 2011 – Supreme
    Court – Cited by Bond v. US, 1 F. 3d 631 – 1993 – Court of Appeals, 7th –
    Cited by 66 “

    What are the implications of this 2000, U. S. Supreme Court ruling?

    1] The delegates to the first Federal Convention prohibited the use of
    corporations by all governments representing the American Republic.
    Therefore, all of these corporate governments and their corporate laws
    are a usurpation of the organic Constitution of the United States of
    America. All State Governments are now sub-corporations of the federal
    Government, making all Courts and all law enforcement personnel,
    corporate federal agencies or employees. [See: James Madison Journal of
    the Federal Convention, 392 Vol. 2, P. 722] and [Pull up your State Code
    on your PC and search the Code for the words “District of Columbia” and
    “Federal Government.” You will receive about 1000 references linking
    your state to the federal government.]

    2] The state and federal
    government are de facto corporation(s) and therefore the Congress, State
    Legislatures, City Councils, Municipalities and all State and Federal
    Courts are corporate entities posing as Constitutional branches of
    government – voter fraud – civil RICO.

    3] Corporations are
    privately owned businesses, meaning that the Corporate United States
    belongs to one or more private individuals aka shareholders, which is
    always governed by a Board of Directors the company ran by the CEO and
    other officers. The Corporate United States is privately owned by a
    group of European Royal and Elite individuals tied to the Federal
    Reserve System and the letters of incorporation are recorded in the
    Vatican. The President of the United States of America, dba A Federal
    Corporation is actually their CEO and the Congress and all others are
    corporate employees. Everything they do is in the interest of the
    corporate owners! I can’t access those documents because of National
    Security. Congress has some 111 Federal Corporations – WHY? Perhaps to
    hide the embezzlement.

    4] In order to promulgate and enforce
    Criminal Laws to govern the SOVEREIGN public, government must be
    SOVEREIGN too, which is an accepted RULE of LAW derived from the,
    Ancient Law of Kings. Corporations are not and can never be SOVEREIGN.
    They are not real, they are a fiction and only exist on paper – black
    ink on white paper and made of laws, statute, Charter, Bond,Business
    License, et al.

    5] Therefore, all corporate policy, not law and
    statute, created by these de facto government corporations are private
    corporate regulations they called public law, statutes, codes and
    ordinances to conceal their true nature. Do the Judge and your lawyer
    know about this? You bet they do!

    6] Since these government
    bodies are not SOVEREIGN, they cannot promulgate or enforce CRIMINAL
    LAWS; they can only create and enforce CIVIL LAWS, which are duty bound
    to comply with the Statutes Codes administration rules and regulations
    and LAW of CONTRACTS. The Law of Contracts requires signed written
    agreements and complete transparency! Did you ever agree to be arrested
    and tried under any of their corporate statutes? For that matter, did
    you ever agree to contract with them by agreeing to be sued for
    violating their corporate regulations? Forced to sign under threat of
    Contempt of court?

    [Citations and Complaints are contracts but
    they lack transparency because you were never told what might happen to
    you if you agree to contract, and that you had a right to refuse the
    accommodation!]

    7] Do any of Americas Courts have Jurisdiction
    over a SOVEREIGN? Yes … but only by your consent to be judged by the
    Court. Can they compel [Summon or Subpoena] you to appear or participate
    in their process? No … they can’t compel you and Yes … they can ask but
    you can reject the accommodation in writing and nothing can be done
    about it because you have refused to give the court jurisdiction over
    you!

    8] Enforcement of these corporate statutes by local, state
    and federal law enforcement officers are unlawful actions being
    committed against the SOVEREIGN public and these officers can be held
    personally liable for their actions. [Bank v. U.S., 529 US 431 2000]

    9] There being no Constitutional Criminal Laws or Transparency in the
    American Justice System, everyone arrested, convicted and sentenced to
    prison under these CIVIL LAWS are in prison by CONSENT, forced by
    Foreign agents AKA judges and or police at gun point or threat of life
    liberty and pursuit of thy happiness and therein, all American Jails are
    actually Unconstitutional DEBTORS PRISONS for foreign! Reference
    Administration Procedures Act and Trading with the Enemies Act and
    Paperwork Reduction Act 3500 – 3520 Specifically 3512 Public Protection.

    10] Most to all of the Juvenile Facility’s, County and State Prisons
    and all of the Federal Prisons are privately owned corporate businesses
    for profit, which kick back to the sentencing Judges and jailers. The
    Bureau of Prisons Privatization Management Branch provides general
    oversight, for these institutions. So if you are have been kidnap by a
    Pirate convicted in these foreign Courts, you can possibly expect to
    serve some jail time for public funding of piracy committed on Americans
    ! Now you know why America has such high prison populations!

    11]
    Can the State Government and Courts take Custody of your children? Only
    with your consent this includes public school registration, otherwise
    their agents and officers can be held personally liable for their
    actions! Orphans are a different matter and can be- come wards of the
    Court until emancipated.

    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.

  • ed johnston

    Collins English Dictionary

    1. (Historical Terms) a member of the trading or mercantile
    class of a medieval city
    2. (Government, Politics & Diplomacy) a respectable citizen; bourgeois
    3. (Historical Terms) a citizen or inhabitant of a corporate town, esp on the Continent
    4. (Historical Terms) history
    a. a citizen of the Cape Colony or of one of the Transvaal and Free State republics
    b. (as modifier): burgher troops. American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition
    1. A citizen slave of a town or borough.
    2. A comfortable or complacent member of the middle class.
    3. a. Rmember of the mercantile class of a medieval European city.

    b. Any citizen of a medieval European city.
    Random House Kernerman Webster’s College Dictionary
    an inhabitant of a town or borough, esp. a well_to- do member of the middle class.
    John
    Bouvier. Published 1856. Serf SERF. During the feudal times certain
    persons who were bound to perform very onerous duties towards others,
    were so called. Poth. Des Personnes, p. 1, t. 1, a. 6, s. 4. There is
    this essential difference between a serf and a slave; the serf was bound
    simply to labor on the soil where he was born, without any right to go
    elsewhere without the consent of his lord; but he was free to act as he
    pleased in his daily action: the slave on the contrary is the property
    of his master, who may require him to act as he pleases in every
    respect, and who may sell him as a chattel. Lepage, Science du Droit, c.
    3, art. 2,Sec. 2

    The Elected and Public Servants Corps revenue
    system or based on Municipality BONDS including traffic citation
    unlawful Taxes that or unlawful to American Bloodline that or Legal for
    legal citizen including Elected and Public servants includes local
    Hospital Taxes, Property taxes and loans , INTEREST ON BANKING
    TRANSNATIONAL 1933 on the good faith of the voluntary taxpayer from
    Lawful Americans should be able to expect the same from their Servants
    government servants in its enforcement and collection activities ,
    Registered church members are mandatory. If that is the case we hope
    our message is clear. This sort of deception will not be tolerated and
    if this is routine it should be corrected immediately.” U.S. v. Tweel,
    550 F.2d 297, 299. See also U.S. v. Prudden, 424 F.2d 1021, 1032;
    Carmine v. Bowen, 64 A. 932.2.7-14
    Whereas :
    Every person who,
    under color (SHOULD THIS SAY UNDER COLOR OF LAW??) or of any statute,
    ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any state or territory,
    either subjects or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United
    States or other person to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or
    immunities secured by the constitution and laws, shall be liable to the
    party injured in an action at law, equity, or other proper proceeding
    for redress.(Civil Rights) 42 U.S.C. 1963

    Questions for a public Servant:

    1) Do you understand that under Trezevant v. City of Tampa that I will be charging you 1000 per minute?

    2) Where is the emergency?

    3)
    Do you understand under Macias V. Ihde, if you are obstructing my
    rights, you may be liable, in both your personal and public capacity?

    4)
    Are you aware that all of your individual assets can and will be
    lawfully subject to seizure by lien(s) which cannot be removed by any
    court of law, but only by me, for high crimes and misdemeanors?

    5) Are you aware that anything you do or say can be used against you?

    6) Do you consider yourself to be above the law?

    7) Are you aware that you are contracting with me?

    8) Whom do you work for think about this one, the state, county or city?

    9) Can you state for the record which branch of the government you work for-Elective, Judicial, or Executive?

    10) Do you have a valid oath of office and faithful performance bond on file with the Secretary of State of Oregon

    11) Do you have your valid DBA validly registered with the Secretary of State of Oregon?

    12) Are you aware that impersonating a government employee is a high crime and misdemeanor?

    13) Do you believe that you are the injured party aka Victim?

    14) Where is the strict-proof of assessment of damages from the injured party?

    15) Have you sworn to uphold the 1778 Ratified Constitution of the united states of America?

    16) Were you solely representing your agency or were there others with you?

    17) Do you understand that the 1778 Ratified US Constitution trumps all law?

    by oregontrackers
    Given Name Lawful American Bloodline 1884 Edward Malone Johnston II Non Corporation

    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)]

    Always with respect PLEASE GOVERN YOURSELF ACCORDINGLY

    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,*Confidentiality 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

    Autograph Of Lawful American Bloodline Given Name Edward Malone Johnston II
    _________________________________________________Seal________________>

  • ed johnston

    Federal Law Says You CAN NOT Be Penalized To Opt Out Of Obamacare

    Posted by: Brandon Walker
    Posted date: January 10, 2014
    In: News 7964 20 Google +2 7 19>/p>

    You
    read the title correctly. According to Federal Law, You CAN NOT be
    penalized to opt out of Obamacare. It seems that the government has gone
    to great lengths to get you to enroll in a system that LEGALLY they can
    not enforce.

    It seems we may owe a person that wrote in to the
    D.C. Clothesline, a professor from Cornell University Law School, the
    legal dictionary at Cornell, and one Dr. Eowyn for this information.

    There is a law on the books, that has been tested by the courts, that states:

    No
    individual, company, business, nonprofit entity, or health insurance
    issuer offering group or individual health insurance coverage shall be
    required to participate in any Federal health insurance program created
    under this Act (or any amendments made by this Act), or in any Federal
    health insurance program expanded by this Act (or any such amendments),
    and there shall be no penalty or fine imposed upon any such issuer for
    choosing not to participate in such programs.~ 42 USC § 18115 – Freedom
    not to participate in Federal health insurance programs

    HERE: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/18115

    42
    U.S. Code § 18115 – Freedom not to participate in Federal health
    insurance programs Freedom not to participate in Federal health
    insurance programs

    No individual, company, business, nonprofit
    entity, or health insurance issuer offering group or individual health
    insurance coverage shall be required to participate in any Federal
    health insurance program created under this Act (or any amendments made
    by this Act), or in any Federal health insurance program expanded by
    this Act (or any such amendments), and there shall be no penalty or fine
    imposed upon any such issuer for choosing not to participate in such
    programs.w.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/18115

    This is not a
    joke. This is the actual law as it reads on the books of the United
    States Code and I wonder when people find out how quickly these
    “penalties” will see their day in court.

    From the D.C. Clothesline:

    Ever heard of a federal law 42 USC § 18115: Freedom Not to Participate in Federal Health Insurance Programs?
    I haven’t either.
    But thanks to FOTM reader Joseph, now we all do!
    This is how Cornell University Law School’s website describes 42 USC § 18115:

    No
    individual, company, business, nonprofit entity, or health insurance
    issuer offering group or individual health insurance coverage shall be
    required to participate in any Federal health insurance program created
    under this Act(or any amendments made by this Act), or in any Federal
    health insurance program expanded by this Act (or any such amendments),
    and there shall be no penalty or fine imposed upon any such issuer for
    choosing not to participate in such programs.

    The website further explains that the Act referred to in 42 USC § 18115 is Obamacare:

    This
    Act, referred to in text, is Pub. L. 111–148, Mar. 23, 2010, 124 Stat.
    119, known as the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. For
    complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note
    set out under section 18001 of this title and Tables.

    42 USC § 18115 refers to:
    Title 42 – The Public Health and Welfare
    Chapter 157 – Quality, Affordable Health Care For All Americans
    Subchapter 6 – Miscellaneous Provisions
    Section 18115 – Freedom Not to Participate in Federal Health Insurance Programs
    You
    can see it for yourself by going on the U.S. House of Representatives
    Office of Law Revision Counsel’s website for United States Code.
    This is what the U.S. Code website says about 42 USC § 18115:

    §18115. FREEDOM NOT TO PARTICIPATE IN FEDERAL HEALTH INSURANCE PROGRAMS

    No
    individual, company, business, nonprofit entity, or health insurance
    issuer offering group or individual health insurance coverage shall be
    required to participate in any Federal health insuranceprogram created
    under this Act (or any amendments made by this Act), or in any Federal
    health insurance program expanded by this Act (or any such amendments),
    and there shall be no penalty or fine imposed upon any such issuer for
    choosing not to participate in such programs. (Pub. L. 111–148, title I,
    §1555, Mar. 23, 2010, 124 Stat. 260.)

    References in Text

    This
    Act, referred to in text, is Pub. L. 111–148, Mar. 23, 2010, 124 Stat.
    119, known as the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. For
    complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note
    set out under section 18001 of this title and Tables And here’s a
    screenshot I took from the United States Code page for 42 USC § 18115

    In
    other words, what we’ve been told about Obamacare — that every adult
    American must enroll in a healthcare plan or pay a penalty — is simply
    not true.

    According to federal law 42 USC § 18115:
    1.No one is required to participate in Obamacare.
    2.You can’t be fined or penalized if you decline to participate in Obamacare.

    None
    other than Democrat Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz (Florida)
    has confirmed this at an April 5, 2010, town hall meeting in Fort
    Lauderdale,

    An attendee asked, “Congresswoman, who gave you the
    right or the authority to determine whether or not I have to purchase
    health care?”

    Wasserman Schultz replied: “We actually have not
    required in this law that you carry health insurance. Let me explain
    what we did: What we did is that, just like when you’re treated, that we
    categorize you differently in terms of your tax return when you’re
    married versus single, just like we categorize you differently when you
    are a homeowner versus someone who doesn’t own a home, just like we
    categorize you differently when you have children versus not having
    children — what we are doing is you will be in a different tax status if
    you carry insurance versus not carrying health insurance. So you can
    feel free to choose not to carryhealth insurance. That’s just going to
    be reflected in the tax category that you’re in on your tax return. But
    there is no requirement in this law that you must carry health
    insurance.“

    But what did Wasserman Schultz mean by if you don’t
    carry health insurance it’s “going to be reflected in the tax category
    that you’re in on your tax return”?

    Answer: She’s referring to an IRS code 26 USC § 5000A: Requirement to Maintain Minimum Essential Coverage.

    42
    USC § 18115 directly contradicts another federal law, the IRS’s 26 USC §
    5000A: Requirement to Maintain Minimum Essential Coverage, which says:

    An
    applicable individual shall for each month beginning after 2013 ensure
    that the individual, and any dependent of the individual who is an
    applicable individual, is covered under minimum essential coverage for
    such month.

    26 USC § 5000A further states that if “an applicable
    individual” doesn’t obtain “minimum essential [health] coverage,” he or
    she “shall be liable” to pay a monthly “penalty” in either a flat dollar
    amount or as a percentage of one’s income (see here).

    That’s how
    the deceitful federal government gets around 42 USC § 18115?s
    prohibition against penalizing Americans for not obtaining healthcare
    coverage — by calling it a “tax” and sicking the IRS on us.

    Bottom line:

    There
    is enough contradiction between two federal laws — 42 USC § 18115 vs.
    26 USC § 5000A — to keep an army of lawyers busy and tie up the courts
    in litigation and appeals for years.

    Let the lawsuits begin!

    Helvering v. Davis – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helvering_v._Davis
    Helvering
    v. Davis, 301 U.S. 619 (1937), was a decision by the United States
    Supreme Court, which held that Social Security was constitutionally
    permissible as an ..

    Dear Public Servants:

    PUBLIC NOTICE:
    Invoking: 16th American Jurisprudence Section 177
    (16 Am Jur. 2d. Const. Law Sect. 256)

    The
    State , Church or any Religious organization did not give the Lawful
    American rights, Citizen his 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.

    Municipal corporation , Connected to your Birth Certificate and To the your Religiosity Registration Number

    A
    municipal corporation is the British Foreign Agents legal term for a
    local governing body, including (but not necessarily limited to)
    cities,counties, towns, townships, charter townships, villages, and
    boroughs.Municipal incorporation occurs when such municipalities become
    self-governing entities under the laws of the state or province in which
    they are located. Often, this event is marked by the award or
    declaration of a municipal charter. With the notable exceptions of the
    City of London the Vatican Corporation and the Laugharne Corporation,
    the term has fallen out of favour in the United Kingdom, but the concept
    remains central to local government in the United Kingdom, as well as
    former British colonies influence such as India and Canada. . Lets not
    forget the still have banks their and take resource out or their Country
    Municipal char ters[edit]
    FA city charter or town charter
    (generically, municipal charter) is a Foreign Agent {Woman man and Child
    Mandated to Register with FARA Act 1938 } legal document that
    establishing a municipality such as a city or town on American Soil. The
    concept developed in Europe during the middle ages and is considered to
    be a municipal Of the British version of a Elected and Public Servants
    Employment constitution Contract Oath of Office.
    Traditionally the
    granting of a charter gave a settlement and its inhabitants the right to
    town privileges under the feudal system. Townspeople who lived in
    chartered towns were burghers, as opposed to serfs who lived in
    villages. Towns were often “free” enslavement , in the sense that they
    were directly protected by the king or emperor from harm until the
    Treaty of Verona 1213, and were not part of a feudal fief.[citation
    needed] Religious war . Remember this came from European Counties
    invaders and terrorist todate. not the united State s
    Today the
    process for granting charters is determined by the type of government of
    the state in question. In monarchies, charters are still often a royal
    charter given by the Crown or the state authorities acting on behalf of
    the Crown. In federations, the granting of charters may be within the
    jurisdiction of the lower level of government such as a state or AKA
    Religious province.[citation needed]

    united States Bloodline 1884
    American owners of the United States Incorporation , such municipal and
    county corporations are established by charters that are granted either
    directly by a state Corporation legislature by means of local
    legislation, or indirectly under a general municipal corporation law,
    usually after the proposed charter has passed a referendum vote of the
    affected population. Dillon’s Rule
    The theory of state preeminence
    over local governments was expressed as Dillon’s Rule in an 1868 case:
    “Municipal corporations owe their origin to, and derive their powers and
    rights wholly from, the legislature. It breathes into them the breath
    of life, without which they cannot exist. As it creates, so may it
    destroy. If it may destroy, it may abridge and control”.[2] By contrast,
    the Cooley Doctrine expressed the theory of an inherent right to local
    self-determination. In a concurring opinion, Michigan Supreme Court
    Judge Thomas M. Cooley in 1871 stated: “[L]ocal government is a matter
    of absolute right; and the state cannot take it away”.[3] In Municipal
    Foreign invading Corporations (1872), Dillon explained that in contrast
    to the powers of states, which are unlimited but for express
    restrictions under the state or 1778 Ratified federal constitution,
    municipalities only have the powers that are expressly granted to them
    by their Lawful Bloodline From the Civil War.[4] This formulation of the
    scope of municipal power came to be known as the Dillon Rule: that
    municipal governments have only the powers expressly granted to them by
    We the People and the state legislature who work for the People, those
    that are necessarily implied from that grant of power, and those that
    are essential and indispensable to the municipality’s existence and
    functioning;that any ambiguities in the legislative grant of power
    should be resolved against the municipality so that its powers are
    narrowly construed; that when the state has not specifically directed
    the method by which the municipality may implement its granted power,
    the municipality has the discretion to choose the method so long as its
    choice is reasonable. Hundreds of U.S. court decisions have employed the
    Dillon Rule to determine the scope of municipal powers and rights.
    Critics
    of the rule have argued that it imposes unreasonable constraints on the
    ability of communities to Responsibility to govern themselves and
    undermines Republican form of Oath of Service of Honorably Woman and man
    or that local self – government is a matter of natural right that does
    not need to be conferred by higher political structures. Some have
    suggested that Dillon’s approach derived from the contemporary view
    that
    cities were inherently corrupt political organs. Deviations from the
    Dillon Rule remain in the minority, however,despite the significant
    decrease in the public perception of municipal corruption.
    The
    Supreme Court of the United States cited Municipal Corporations and
    fully adopted Dillon’s emphasis on state power over municipalities in
    Merrill v. Monticello,[5] which upheld the power of Pennsylvania to
    consolidate the city of Allegheny into the city of Pittsburgh, despite
    the objections of a majority of Allegheny’s residents. The Court’s
    ruling that states could alter or abolish at will the charters of
    municipal corporations without infringing upon contract rights relied
    upon Dillon’s distinction between public, municipal corporations and
    private ones.David Y. Miller argues that Dillon hit upon a central
    paradox defining American cities: having great political authority while
    having little legal legitimacy. He quotes Dillon as calling
    municipalities “mere tenants at will of their respective state
    legislatures” which could be “eliminated by the legislature with a
    stroke of the pen”. Dillon also said that eliminating local government
    would be “so great a folly, and so great a wrong”.Cooley Doctrine Cooley
    and The General Principles of Constitutional Law in the United States
    of America on municipal corporations[edit]
    Within his treatise The
    General Principles of Constitutional Law in the United States of
    America, on the subject of Municipal Corporations, Cooley wrote “ [i]t
    is axiomatic that the management of purely local affairs belongs to the
    people concerned, not only because of being their own affairs, but be
    cause they will best understand, and be most competent to manage them.
    The continued and permanent existence of local government is, therefore,
    assumed in all the state constitutions, and is a matter of
    constitutional right, even when not in terms expressly provided for. It
    would not be competent to dispense with it by statute.[14] In a
    contrasting legal theorem to that of Dillon’s Rule (which posits that
    towns and cities have no independent authority except as explicitly or
    implicitly granted by a state legislature who have an Constitution
    Responsibility ) the Cooley Doctrine proposed a legal theory of an
    inherent but constitutionally-permitted right to local
    self-determination. In a concurring opinion, Cooley, J., wrote “local
    government is [a] matter of absolute right; and the state cannot [as to
    the case referenced in the main opinion, People v.Hurlbut] take it
    away.”[16] People v. Lynch, 51 Cal. 15 (emphasis added).
    This
    doctrine should not be confused with the now-abrogated “Cooley Doctrine”
    arising from Cooley v. Board of Wardens of the Port of Philadelphia, 53
    U.S. 299 (1851).People v. Hurlbut, 24 Mich. 44, 108 (1871).
    The People ex rel the Detroit and Howell R.R. Co. v. the Township Board of Salem
    USLegal
    In the U.S., proprietary power refers to the unlimited authority vested
    in Congress by the Property Clause of the Constitution to control the
    use of Federal public lands. This power is the foundation for the 1902
    Reclamation Act and provides the authority to sell power generated at
    Federal dams. In Okeson v. City of Seattle, 159 Wn.2d 436 (Wash. 2007),
    the court observed that “A municipal corporation acts within its implied
    proprietary powers if (1) the act is an exercise of a proprietary
    power; (2) the act is within the purpose and object of the enabling
    statute; (3) the act is not contrary to express statutory or
    constitutional limitations; and (4) the act is not arbitrary,
    capricious, or unreasonable.”
    Ballentine’s law dictionary:
    proprietary function The function of a municipal corporation which it
    exercises with respect to its private rights as a corporate body. 37
    AmJ1st Mun Corp § 114. The function of a municipal corporation in which
    it acts and contracts for the private advantage of the inhabitants of
    the city and of the city itself. Omaha Water Co. v Omaha (CA8 Neb) 147 F
    1.proprietary powers.
    The powers of a municipal corporation in
    exercising proprietary functions, as distinguished from its public or
    governmental powers. High Point v Duke Power Co. (CA4 NC) 120 F2d 666.
    See proprietary function.
    West’s Encyclopedia of American Law,
    edition 2, Proprietary As a noun, a proprietor or owner; one who has the
    exclusive title to a thing; one who possesses or holds the title to a
    thing in his or her own right; one who possesses the dominion or
    ownership of a thing in his or her own right. As an adjective, belonging
    to ownership; owned by a particular person; belonging or pertaining to a
    proprietor; relating to a certain owner or proprietor. Proprietary
    refers to ownership or characteristics relating to ownership. It
    describes all the rights that the owner of property can exercise.
    Proprietary articles are items that are manufactured and marketed under
    an exclusive right.
    Municipal corporations have a proprietary
    function, a term describing the duty or capacity of a city to enter into
    business ventures or to perform discretionary acts in the best
    interests of the citizens. Proprietary functions differ from
    governmental functions, which are duties that a city performs as a
    political subdivision of a state. Bouvier. Published 1856 , PROPRIETARY ,
    PROPRIETARY.
    In its strict sense, this word signifies one who is master of his
    actions, and who has the free disposition of his property. During the
    colonial government of Pennsylvania, William Penn was called
    the proprietary.
    2.
    The domain which William Penn and his family had in the state, was,
    during the Revolutionary war, divested by the act of June 28, 1779, from
    that family and vested in the commonwealth for the sum which the latter
    paid to them of one hundred and thirty thousand pounds
    sterling.Understanding Florida’s Home Rule Power History The U.S.
    Constitution makes no mention of the powers related to local governments
    –the
    10th Amendment reserves those powers to the state. During the 18th
    century, cities, counties and parishes across the nation derived their
    powers from their state constitutions, and these local governments
    relied upon their respective state legislatures for all powers. This was
    upheld in an 1860’s court case, called “Dillon’s Rule,” which held for
    most states through the end of the 1800s.
    An example of the difficulty in a non-Home Rule era would be the issue of traffic control signs: if a city
    wished
    to erect signs related to traffic control (horses, wagons, and the
    newly created automobiles), the city first had to obtain state
    permission through a special act, or general law of local application.
    Cities and counties might seek this permission jointly, or by population
    category (“all cities over 10,000 in population shall…” but still had
    to petition their legislators for these bills during each legislative
    session. It was not uncommon in Florida for more than 2,000 special acts
    to be filed in a session during this era.
    In the early 1900s,
    however, states began to adopt “Home Rule” provisions in which cities
    and counties were allowed to enact ordinances at the local level without
    state “blessing” – or without the enactment of special acts, general
    laws of local application, or similar measures. In Florida, Home Rule
    language was proposed in the 1968 Constitutional revision, and was
    adopted by the people. After several legal challenges, the Legislature
    adopted the Home Rule Powers Act in 1973, which ended challenges related
    to city and county powers. The Florida Constitution states in Article
    VIII, Section 2(b) for municipalities:
    “Municipalities shall have
    governmental, corporate and proprietary powers to enable them to conduct
    municipal government, perform municipal functions and render municipal
    services, and may exercise power for municipal purposes except as
    otherwise provided by Constitution law.”These powers do not extend to
    fiscal Home Rule: the state reserves all taxing authority unto itself ,
    {Said Corporation and it members only}. Application The most precious
    powers a city in Florida has are its Home Rule powers. The ability to
    establish its form of government through its charter, and to then enact
    Administration rules , ordinances, codes, plans and resolutions without
    prior state approval is a tremendous authority. To further be able to
    enforce them “at City hall” and to make necessary changes as a city
    grows is a great reflection of the trust that citizens have in their
    respective city leaders.Of course, city Administration rules cannot
    conflict with state Constitution or 1778 Ratified Constitution federal
    law. In the metropolitan Miami
    -Dade County government and in
    certain chartered county governments, some municipal ordinances and
    processes are subject to county review. However, for most of Florida’s
    412 municipalities, Home Rule
    powers ensure that the cities are effectively and efficiently providing for the wishes of their citizens.
    Burgher
    and Serf legal definition USLegal, A citizen or an inhabitant of a town
    or borough is called a burgher. Now, the term burgher is commonly used
    to refer to a conservative middle -class citizen.

  • ed johnston

    What branch of the government is a Police s , cop ,Corporation Sheriff
    Deputies , District Attorneys , the Legislative Branch, Executive Branch
    or the Judicial Branch? IF the Police , cop are not part of the Four
    branches of government, then he is a Corpora Ficta employee, committing
    embezzlement of funds for his employment and high crimes under PRETENDED
    authority of government. The cop has no power of government and uses
    gang like tactics for force compliance with his will alone. Four Branch
    1884 We the lawful American bloodline owners

    Any other law,
    besides 1778 Ratified us Constitutional law, is foreign law and its
    Agents such as Napoleonic law, Maritime British Statutes and codes ,
    Administration rules, Uniform Commercial Code, Civil Law, color of any
    State law, any State statute, any State ordinance, any State regulation,
    or any State custom or any State usage. The officer is striking against
    the constitutional form of government by using foreign law! Under the
    11th Amendment, other states cannot participate in out of state
    violations of the law, Business , Hunting and fishing , driver’s license
    searches without a warrant, or even credit checks without a grand jury
    warrant! “Lawful American bloodline only”;

    5 USC § 3331 Oath of
    office: “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.”
    Treaty of 1213

    Canon 2057 Any Administrator or Executor that
    refuses to immediately dissolve a Cestui Que (Vie) Trust, upon a Person
    establishing their status and competency, is guilty of fraud and
    fundamental breach of their fiduciary duties requiring their immediate
    removal and punishment

    US Constitution Article. II. Section. 4.
    The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United
    States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction
    of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

    Westin,
    The Wire-Tapping Problem, 52 Col. L. Rev. 165 (1952).What is perhaps
    even more noteworthy is its pervasive disregard in practice by those who
    as law officers owe special obedience to law. What is true of the
    federal Act against wiretapping and its violations is widely true of
    related state legislation and its disobedience. Few sociological
    generalizations are more valid than that lawlessness begets lawlessness.

    18 USC 1918 1) advocates the overthrow of our constitutional form of government;

    If
    the cop writes a ticket , citation , She or he’s impersonating a Lawful
    American grand jury, as they are the only ones who can summons you to
    answer. Amendment V. No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or
    otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a
    Grand Jury.

    When the cop serves the summons, an impersonation of a
    Sheriff is taking place. The Sheriff is a member of the executive
    branch of government. The day-to-day enforcement and administration of
    federal laws is permitted, NOT STATE CODES, REGULATIONS OR STATUTES.
    Therefore the cop is only enforcing statutes in violation of the law, as
    vigilantes.

    When the Police aka cop forces you to sign the
    ticket, he or she’s impersonating a Bailiff. The Bailiff is a member of
    the judicial branch of the government. The cop, Foreign agent police is
    not a part of the1860 Lawful American Republican form of government at
    all and the demand to appear does not come from the government at all.

    The
    cop is not a civil officer of the judiciary and the summons did not
    come from any court. The ticket under threat of torture , RICO is pure
    fraud aka Piracy thief of income taxes service un-constitution. .

    When
    the cop commits any crime he or she is a trespasser ab initio. The cop
    owes special duty to the Contract Administration Statuates law of the
    City County or State and when he becomes the “LAW”, aka Statues or codes
    , Administration rules they are not the servant of the 1778 Ratified
    Construction Lawful American Bloodline law, he becomes a trespasser ab
    initio.

    It is a felony for the Sheriff deputies , Police , cop to
    turn on emergency lights when there is no (LIFE OR DEATH) emergency to
    endanger others lives for profits and personal gain.

    It is
    perjury to make a statement that you are driving when you are not a Taxi
    DRIVER, Limo DRIVER, Truck Driver or Shuttle DRIVER, as licenses and
    registrations are only required for commercial activity; that means
    business ONLY. In the LAW, people have the right to travel as a part of
    one’s right to liberty and the pursuit of happiness. 110 US 516, the U.S
    Supreme Court states very … The drivers license can be required of
    people who use the … The Right to Travel vs. Driver’s License Scam

    When
    the cop then asks for your “PAPERS PLEASE” he becomes a communist,
    wherein only a Grand Jury can demand you to answer. in Violation of the
    First and forth Amendment

    When the cop acts on behalf of a
    private Foreign Corps investment banks or private county treasury, he is
    in fact demanding a bribe.

    When the cop holds you for even one minute, it is a fact of law that is arrest and kidnapping without a Grand Jury Indictment.

    The
    Cop can only hold you to answer if you are a public servant and subject
    to impeachment for high crimes and misdemeanors, without a Grand Jury
    summons.

    When the cop works as a Corpora Ficta employee, the cop must carry a license for the firearm they have on their person.

    When
    the cop without an injured party aka Victim, is now acting as an
    injured party wherein there is a conflict of interest as the cop is only
    there to write a illegal writ of attainder, not protect the public from
    all enemies foreign and domestic.

    The cop is an agent for the
    Corporation of the City, County, or State, he is not a member of the
    government at all, while his pay must be from the US Treasury and all
    bills issued by a Grand Jury must be made to the US Treasury.

    The
    very demand that you pay a private treasury is a demand for a bribe.
    The cop in reality is a Corpora Ficta employee and not a government
    employee at all. He has no powers of a government official whatsoever.

    License
    and registration produces commercial connection/nexus to Corporate
    City, County or State. License and registration are commercial
    agreements and not contracts. If one is not involved in commercial
    activity then there is no exercise of a privilege that must be licensed
    and registered.

    When the Cop writes you a ticket for infracting a
    code, regulation or statute with a summons to Court, the cop is now
    impersonating an officer of the court. He is then not part of any of the
    branches of the government, as an employee of the Pretend Government
    Corporation, a Corpora Ficta employee.

    When the Cop writes you a
    ticket for infracting a code, regulation or statute with a summons to
    Court, the cop is giving you a bill of exchange. You cannot lawfully
    sign a bill of exchange, because you are not receiving the original
    copy.

    When the Cop writes you a ticket for infracting a code,
    regulation or statute with a summons to Court, the cop is giving you a
    bill of attainder unlawfully, as you are not a public servant and there
    is a jury required to convict you to make it lawful.

    No one
    person aka Woman or man can serve in two branches of the government at
    the same time. Only a sheriff can execute (serve) a summons, or
    compulsory legal process, and the cop is clearly not a member of the
    executive branch of the government and the ticket is pure fraud and
    thief of unlawful taxes.

    In summary, cops in traffic stops are
    impersonating government officials on an emergency and the one being
    stopped is the emergency. Cops try to get people to validate their
    fraud. Cops impersonate judicial officers, impersonate being a Sheriff
    who is an executive officer, violate the principal of separation of
    powers, and impersonate a court bailiff by signing the false summons
    thereby impersonating a judicial officer a second time. The entire
    summons is a total fraud because it is not a government document at all;
    it is a corporate document being forced upon private People.

    “The
    boundary for defendant’s conduct establishing the “contours of the
    right” involved is the Fourth Amendment, which prohibits unreasonable
    searches. Anderson, 483 U.S. at 639-40, 107 S.Ct. 3038-39. In 1988, the
    case law had unimpeachably established “the cardinal principle that
    searches conducted outside the judicial process, without prior approval
    by judge or magistrate, are per se unreasonable under the Fourth
    Amendment.” Franz v. Lytle, 997 F.2d 784, at 787 (10th Cir. 1993). And;

    “The
    Fourth Amendment’s search and seizure provisions are applicable to the
    defendants through the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. See
    e.g., Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, 655, 81 S.Ct. 1684, 6 L.Ed.2d 1081
    (1961).” Tenenbaum v. Williams, 193 F.3d 581, at 602 (2nd Cir. 1999).
    And;

    “The Fourth Amendment requires that arrest warrants be based
    “upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation”–a requirement
    that may be satisfied by an indictment returned by a grand jury, but not
    by the mere filing of criminal charges in an unsworn information signed
    by the prosecutor. Gerstein v. Pugh, 420 U.S. 103, 117 (1975); See also
    Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443 (1971). Accordingly, since most
    prosecutions in Washington are commenced by information, Washington law
    requires, in compliance with the constitutional command, that an arrest
    warrant be supported by an affidavit “or sworn testimony establishing
    the grounds for issuing the warrant.” Washington Criminal Rule 2.2(a)
    (1995) provides: “A warrant of arrest must be supported by an affidavit,
    . . . or sworn testimony establishing the grounds for issuing the
    warrant. . . . The court must determine there is probable case . . .
    before issuing the warrant.” Kalina v. Fletcher, 522 U.S. 118, at 129
    (December 10, 1997)

    Medical servant of public service and funding

    “We
    think the right at issue in this case is appropriately identified as
    the right not to be deprived of liberty as a result of the fabrication
    of evidence by a government officer acting in a investigating capacity.
    Understood this way, we conclude that the right at issue is a
    constitutional right, provided that the deprivation of liberty of which
    Zahrey complains can be shown to be a result of Coffey’s fabrication of
    evidence.” Zahrey v. Coffey, 221 F.3d 342, at 349 (July 20, 2000). And;

    “We
    conclude that deliberately fabricating evidence in civil child abuse
    proceedings violates the Due Process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment
    when a liberty or property interest is at stake, and that genuine issues
    of material fact exist on the question of deliberate fabrication.. The
    Washington State Supreme Court has also recently concluded that “the
    deprivation of liberty based on fabricated evidence is a violation of a
    person’s constitutional right to due process” in the criminal context,
    and that this principle “applies with equal force in a civil proceeding”
    adjudicating a pharmacist’s license, reasoning that a pharmacist’s
    professional and business licenses are property interests protected by
    the due process clause. Jones v. State, 170 Wash.2d 338, 242 P.3d 825,
    831-32 (2010). . . . In Beltran, we held that social workers are “not
    entitled to absolute immunity from claims that they fabricated evidence
    during an investigation or made false statements in a dependency
    petition affidavit that they signed under the penalty of perjury,
    because such actions aren’t similar to discretionary decisions about
    whether to prosecute.” 514 F.3d at 908. We anologized the social worker
    to “[a] prosecutor [who] doesn’t have absolute immunity if he fabricates
    evidence during a preliminary investigation before he could properly
    claim to be acting as an advocate, or makes false statement in a sworn
    affidavit in support of an application for an arrest warrant.” Id.
    (citing Buckley v. Fitzsimmons, 509 U.S. 259, 275, 113 S.Ct. 2606, 125
    L.Ed.2d 209 (1993); Kalina, 522 U.S. at 129-30, 118 S.Ct. 502). “[A]s
    prosecutors and others investigating criminal matters have no absolute
    immunity for their investigatory conduct, a fortiori, social workers
    conducting investigations have no such immunity.” Beltran, 514 F.3d at
    908-09. Duron’s argument that in filing the declaration, she acted as a
    witness, and therefore deserves absolute immunity under Burns v. County
    of King, 883 F.2d 819, 822-23 (9th Cir. 1989), is unpursuasive in light
    of Beltran’s clearly controlling conclusion to the contrary. Thus, Duron
    is not entitled to absolute immunity from the claims that she
    deliberately fabricated evidence in her investigation and made false
    statements in the sworn declaration submitted in support of the
    guardianship termination proceedings.” Costanich v. Dept. of Social and
    Health Services, 627 F.3d 1101, at 1108-1109 (December 3, 2010). And;

    NO
    Law Requires You To Register or Pledge Your Private Automobile | Pulled
    over today with no license, license plate, or registration http://sitsshow.blogspot.com/2015/09/no-law-requires-you-to-register-or.html

    Due Process Violations, Conspiracy, RICO, Personage, Cannibalism, Piracy, and Home-grown
    Terrorism and violations of 44 U.S.C. 3500 – 3520 Paperwork Reduction Act § 3512 Public

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

    Government Entity rather a for Washington, DC 20431 For profit Corporation operating in fraud
    Foreign Agents against the bloodline American. (see 28 U.S.C. § 3002 Definitions 15) United
    Defendant’s
    States means A) A FEDERAL CORPORATION also see B) and C).and § 9-307.
    LOCATION OF DEBTOR.(h) [Location of United States]
    FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT SERVICE, aka The Federal United States Corporations
    BUREAU OF FISCAL SERVICE, et al are located in the District of Columbia
    P. O. Box 1686Birmingham, AL 3520191686 At no time has this Plaintiff had Due
    Process
    of Law in this matter.UNIVERSAL POSTAL UNION (UPU) International Bureau
    Title 8 USC 1481 stated once an oath of P. O. Box 312 office is taken
    citizenship is relinquished 3000 Berne 15 you become a foreign entity,
    agency, Switzerland or state. That means every public office

    Attention:

    42 U.S. Code § 18115 – Freedom not to participate in Federal health insurance programs | US Law…
    No
    individual, company, business, nonprofit entity, or health insurance
    issuer offering group or individual health insurance coverage shall be
    required to participate in any Federal health insurance program created
    under this Act (or any amendments made by this Act), or in any Federal
    health insurance…
    law.cornell.edu

    Thought some of you might
    like to read this and print it out for all those Obama-care loving
    insurance sales people. I know people who signed up, now paying double
    and triple the insurance fees and double, triple the deductible’s plus
    alleged penalties for not signing up soon enough from “claimed-Maximus
    hearing decisions”[ they were not invited to participate in] read below
    and hand out to all of them time to file lawsuits against them all:

    Obamacare

  • Von

    What a bunch of garbage… For starters, overdose deaths… According to the CDC, approx 50,000 people die from overdose deaths a year… Surprising fact about that, over half of the deaths are legally prescribed and or over the counter medications. As far as illicit drugs, just under half of the total overdose deaths is still far less than the nearly 40,000 annual traffic fatalities in the US. Look at as you will, but those numbers are pretty stable over the last 10 years with the exception of Perscription medication deaths, which are up along with heroin. All other illicit drug overdose deaths decreased. How many of those overdose deaths are caused from marijuana…. ZERO, that’s right ZERO… States that have had medical marijuana for pain management have seen a 25% reduction in opiate Perscription overdose deaths. Those states have also seen a significant decrease in people being prescribed dangerous opiates specifically at the patients request after being allowed medical marjiuana. If these figures were passed on to the rest of the US, you could potentially see a reduction of up to 12,500 overdose deaths, mind you that would drop the overdose fatality number below traffic deaths. Considering the number of people driving on dangerous Perscription overdoses causing traffic fatalities and the prooven fact that marijuana’s role in traffic fatalities is fractional, you could see a reduction in those deaths as well.

Stay Tuned...

Stay up to date with the latest political news and commentary from Oregon Catalyst through daily email updates:

Prefer another subscription option? Subscribe to our RSS Feed, become a fan on Facebook, or follow us on Twitter.

Twitter Facebook

No Thanks (close this box)