With Rule 41 the FBI Is Now Officially the Enemy of All Computer Users!
With Rule 41 The FBI Is Now Officially The Enemy Of All Computer Users!
POLICE as in POLIC-y E-nforcement function on corporate fiction not on LAW. This is referred to as COLOR OF LAW or fake law which we notice how police violate the federal laws under Title 18 US Code section 241 and 242 without fail. This suggests THEY are the criminals. Not us. EVERY OFFICER in this country MUST take a Constitutional oath, which is a VERBAL CONTRACT to not violate those rights of the individuals to which they abuse in every manner feasible. This suggests they have entirely commited perjury. This suggests they have LIED UNDER OATH. This suggests they have broken their promise to the very individuals who HIRED THEM. The are not enforcing LAW. That is why they are not called LAW enforcement, and the very rationale they are called POLIC(y)E(nforcement) Officers. And yet again, these people are PUBLIC SERVANTS who have no real power over the people in their communities because they were first PUT IN POWER BY THOSE PEOPLE IN THE FIRST PLACE who have EVERY RIGHT TO TAKE THAT POWER FROM THEM WHEN THEY ABUSE IT. WE PAY their paychecks via taxas. They do what WE say. WE are THEIR bosses. We have just overlooked this FACT.
corbettreport reports: Rick Falkvinge, founder of the original pirate party and head of privacy at PrivateInternetAccess.com, joins us to discuss his recent article, “Today, the FBI becomes the enemy of every computer user and every IT security professional worldwide.” We dissect the new “Rule 41” that gives American law enforcement unprecedented leeway to break into any computer in the world, the implications this has for a world in which privacy is increasingly a thing of the past, and what people can do to protect themselves from the New Online Order of global FBI operations.
NOTE FROM RICK REGARDING INTERVIEW: “Our Russian servers were not encrypted as I said, but they contained no logs by design (none of our servers do, which is far better than encrypting), so the Russian authorities didn’t get anything.”
Read Also Grid Down: Get Ready For Electronic Interference As Cyber World War Commences!
BIN NOTE: Most people who use social media have figured out that Facebook and Google are in cahoots with the government, for those who are well aware of the issues it’s high time you switched over to Seen.life. It is a website that is similar to Facebook but without all the censorship.
These People Are A Danger To Themselves And Others! Wake Up!!!!!!
Spread the word! LIKE and SHARE this article or leave a comment to help direct attention to the stories that matter.
Contact Fusion Laced Illusions by email.
You can reach us at [email protected] Letters may be published. Want to see other people talking about Fusion Laced Illusions? Check out our letters to the editor.
Marbury v Madison; anything repugnant to the constitution is null and void from it’s inception.
4th amendment; The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
6 AM Jur 2d (Volume 16 American Jurisprudence, second series) section 177 on Constitutional Law, which states:
“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, an 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 rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it . . . ‘No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.’ ”