Oregon standoff..an RT America special
Friday, January 15, 2016 20:10
% of readers think this story is Fact. Add your two cents.
Oregon standoff: RT America special – YouTube
It’s been two weeks since an armed militia took over a federal wildlife refuge in eastern Oregon. In this special report, we’ll first hear from Ammon Bundy, the leader of the militia, as well as the Burns Paiute tribal chairwoman who disputes that ranchers are the ‘rightful owners’ of the refuge. Then, RT’s Simone Del Rosario sits down with the mayor of Burns, Oregon the town of the occupation, and a former employee of the Bureau of Land Management, the agency cited by the militia as a reason for occupation.
Source: http://blogdogcicle.blogspot.com/2016/01/oregon-standoffan-rt-america-special.html
What a Bunch of Lies, the BLM Burnt homes, Ranches and Cattle, and when the Owners asked for to be Payed for Damages the BLM told them to go Get Fcked, The People there that are supporting the BLM, Mayor, Judge, and Sheriff are all part of a Organized Crime, who are lining their pockets and work for the Gov, RT keeps saying the Militants, they are Militia there for the Security of a FREE State from Gov over reach, ALL the Media is a Bunch of Lying Scum, who Fear the Gov, and must play along, the Media is like the rest of the Treasonous, Communist Scum working to destroy the White Man and the rest of America.
Governments Have Descended to the Level
of
Mere Private Corporations
Supreme Court Building
Clearfield Doctrine
Supreme Court Annotated Statute, Clearfield Trust Co. v. United States 318 U.S. 363-
371 1942
Whereas defined pursuant to Supreme Court Annotated Statute: Clearfield Trust Co. v.
United States 318 U.S. 363-371 1942: “Governments descend to the level of a mere
private corporation, and take on the characteristics of a mere private citizen . . . where
private corporate commercial paper [Federal Reserve Notes] and securities [checks] is
concerned . . . For purposes of suit, such corporations and individuals are regarded as
entities entirely separate from government.”
What the Clearfield Doctrine is saying is that when private commercial paper is used by
corporate government, then government loses its sovereignty status and becomes no
different than a mere private corporation.
As such, government then becomes bound by the rules and laws that govern private
corporations which means that if they intend to compel an individual to some specific
performance based upon its corporate statutes or corporation rules, then the government,
like any private corporation, must be the holder-in-due-course of a contract or other
commercial agreement between it and the one upon who demands for specific
performance are made.
And further, the government must be willing to enter the contract or commercial
agreement into evidence before trying to get the court to enforce its demands, called
statutes.
This case is very important because it is a 1942 case that was decided after the UNITED
STATES CORPORATIOON COMPANY filed its “CERTIFICATE OF
INCORPORATION” in the State of Florida (July 15, 1925). And it was decided AFTER
the ‘corporate government’ agreed to use the currency of the private corporation, the
FEDERAL RESERVE. The private currency, the Federal Reserve Note, is still in use
today.
[4] Corporations are not and can never be SOVEREIGN. They are not real, they
are a fiction and only exist on paper.
5] Therefore, all laws created by these government corporations are private
corporate regulations 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 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?
[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. [Bond v. U.S., 529 US 334-2000]
(iii) Our Government is Just Another Corporation
Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616 1886:
“It is the duty of courts to be watchful for the constitutional rights of the citizen, and against any stealthy encroachments thereon.”
Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425 1886:
“An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation as though it had never been passed.”
Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438 1928:
“Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the government’s purposes are beneficent. Men born to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil-minded rulers. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well meaning but without understanding.”
Basso v. Utah Power & Light Co. 395 F 2d 906, 910
“Once challenged, jurisdiction cannot be assumed, it must be proved to exist.”
“Jurisdiction can be challenged at any time.” Basso v. Utah
Power & Light Co., 495 F 2nd 906 at 910.
“It is axiomatic that the prosecution must always prove territorial
jurisdiction over a crime in order to sustain a conviction therefor.” U.S.
v. Benson, 495 F.2d, at 481 (5th Cir., 1974).
“The law provides that once State and Federal Jurisdiction has been
challenged, it must be proven.” Main v. Thiboutot, 100 S. Ct. 2502
(1980).
“Where there is absence of proof of jurisdiction, all administrative
and judicial proceedings are a nullity, and confer no right, offer no
protection, and afford no justification, and may be rejected upon direct
collateral attack.” Thompson v Tolmie, 2 Pet. 157, 7 L. Ed. 381;
and Griffith v. Frazier, 8 Cr. 9, 3 L. Ed. 471.
“The United States is entirely a creature of the Federal Constitution,
its power and authority has no other source and it can only act in accordance
with all the limitations imposed by the Constitution.” Reid v. Covert,
354 U.S. 1, 1 L. Ed. 2nd. 1148 (1957).
“The rights and liberties of the citizens of the United States are not
protected by custom and tradition alone, they are preserved from the
encroachments of government by express/enumerated provisions of the Federal
Constitution.” Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1, 1 L. Ed. 2nd. 1148
(1957).
“The prohibitions of the Federal Constitution are designed to apply to
all branches of the national government and cannot be nullified by the executive
or by the executive and the senate combined.” Reid v. Covert, 354
U.S. 1, 1 L. Ed. 2nd. 1148 (1957).
“Where rights as secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be
no rule making or legislation which will abrogate them.” Miranda v.
Ariz., 384 U.S. 436 at 491 (1966).
“Congress may not, by any definition it may adopt, conclude the matter,
since it cannot by legislation alter the Constitution.” Eisner v.
McComber, 252 U.S. 189 at 207.