Profile image
Story Views

Last Hour:
Last 24 Hours:

Oregon RT America special

Friday, January 15, 2016 20:10
% of readers think this story is Fact. Add your two cents.

(Before It's News)

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.


Report abuse


Your Comments
Question   Razz  Sad   Evil  Exclaim  Smile  Redface  Biggrin  Surprised  Eek   Confused   Cool  LOL   Mad   Twisted  Rolleyes   Wink  Idea  Arrow  Neutral  Cry   Mr. Green

Total 4 comments
  • 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
    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
    This case is very important because it is a 1942 case that was decided after the UNITED
    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

    [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

    “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

    “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.

Top Stories
Recent Stories



Email this story
Email this story

If you really want to ban this commenter, please write down the reason:

If you really want to disable all recommended stories, click on OK button. After that, you will be redirect to your options page.