masyhead

The Cur­rent Year is 6263

Nobody can do every­thing, but every­body can do something!

Work for Peace


Pub­lic Right to Sue!

All of the pub­lic ser­vants have taken an Oath, they are sworn to uphold and defend the Con­sti­tu­tion of the United States against all ene­mies for­eign or Domes­tic! Title 18 Sec­tion 23 81

Our Con­sti­tu­tions laws do not only apply to peace offi­cers, judges, but any pub­lic ser­vant or ser­vants. Ie Con­trac­tors state license boards, Build­ing depart­ments, plan­ning com­mis­sions, Park rangers, any pub­lic ser­vant that vio­lates the Con­sti­tu­tion or that attempt to aid in extor­tion, through unjust enrich­ment of their office through fines or fees that vio­late Con­sti­tu­tional law. Or that aid in tyranny or assist in a dic­ta­tor­ship with the soul pur­pose in design to set aside or sup­plant the United States and its Con­sti­tu­tional law and any of its ammendments

Oath of office Title 18 sect, 2381 Mar­bury vs Madi­son Oath of office Title 18 Sec­tion 2381 6th amend­ment con­sti­tu­tion is supreme all laws must be con­sti­tu­tional or they are mute.

Uncon­sti­tu­tional Offi­cial Acts 16 Am Jur 2d, Sec 177 late 2d, Sec 256: 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. 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 it’s 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.

§2382. Mis­pri­sion of trea­son Who­ever, owing alle­giance to the United States and hav­ing knowl­edge of the com­mis­sion of any trea­son against them, con­ceals and does not, as soon as may be, dis­close and make known the same to the Pres­i­dent or to some judge of the United States, or to the gov­er­nor or to some judge or jus­tice of a par­tic­u­lar State, is guilty of mis­pri­sion of trea­son and shall be fined under this title or impris­oned not more than seven years, or both.

§2384. Sedi­tious con­spir­acy If two or more per­sons in any State or Ter­ri­tory, or in any place sub­ject to the juris­dic­tion of the United States, con­spire to over­throw, put down, or to destroy by force the Gov­ern­ment of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the author­ity thereof, or by force to pre­vent, hin­der, or delay the exe­cu­tion of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or pos­sess any prop­erty of the United States con­trary to the author­ity thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or impris­oned not more than twenty years, or both.

It is high time these social­ist that aid and sup­port Uncon­sti­tu­tional dic­ta­tors are brought to jus­tice. title 18 sec­tion 2382: That any­one of us (We the peo­ple ) can and should file a crim­i­nal com­plaint in a fed­eral court of law, against any pub­lic ser­vant that vio­lates their oath of office. It is also within the power of we the peo­ple to file a com­plaint, a civil suit in a fed­eral court of law as well as a class action law suit under fed­eral juris­dic­tion against any pub­lic ser­vant that vio­lates any of our Con­sti­tu­tional amend­ments. It is our duty by Con­sti­tu­tional law Mis­pri­sion of trea­son! Title 18 Sec­tion 2382

A pub­lic ser­vant or offi­cer of the court can­not claim immu­nity Supreme Court reports 100 vol P.1398 Maine vs fib­bado 1982 100 supreme Court 100 vol p.2502 Also Owen vs city of inde­pen­dence Mis­souri : 1982 Offi­cers of the court claim­ing to act in good faith does not relieve said offi­cers from lia­bil­ity. Will­ful depra­va­tion or igno­rance of the law can­not be claimed by a judge or offi­cer of the law who’s duty is to know the law. No judi­cial immu­nity if you vio­late some­ones con­sti­tu­tional rights! All offi­cials who vio­late a cit­i­zens rights under Con­sti­tu­tional law put them­selves in peril of crim­i­nal and civil recourse! As a cit­i­zen can­not claim igno­rance of the law much less an offi­cial of the court. Sec. 241 & 242 Sec 1983, 1985, 1986 Vio­la­tion of con­sti­tu­tional rights does not relieve from lia­bil­ity any offi­cer of the court. Estab­lishes your right to sue any­one who vio­lates your con­sti­tu­tional rights.

Briers vs U.S. Sec 273 U.S reports vol p.28 Pay atten­tion to note #3 Police cor­rup­tion : Have the right to record or video in pub­lic any pub­lic offi­cial Glik vs Cun­nifee 655 f3d 78 ( 1st cir 2011 All video shall be held as evi­dence in the pros­e­cu­tion of vio­la­tion of oath of office.

{jcom­ments on}

The Truth Revealed

Court Deci­sion: U.S. “Gov­ern­ment Agen­cies” Found Guilty in Mar­tin Luther King’s Assassination

Cir­cuit Court of Shelby County, Ten­nessee Thir­ti­eth Judi­cial Dis­trict at Mem­phis, Decem­ber 1999

Originally published by Washington’s Blog and Global Research in January 2013.

Very few Amer­i­cans are aware of this his­tor­i­cal 1999 civil law suit of the King Fam­ily against the US Gov­ern­ment. (Shelby County Court), Ten­nessee Coretta Scott King: “We have done what we can to reveal the truth, and we now urge you as mem­bers of the media, and we call upon elected offi­cials, and other per­sons of influ­ence to do what they can to share the rev­e­la­tion of this case to the widest pos­si­ble audi­ence.” – King Fam­ily Press Con­fer­ence, Dec. 9, 1999.

Want to know more?

“ille­gal muf­fler“

A story by Ralph Haulk

Sev­eral years ago, I decided to chal­lenge an “ille­gal muf­fler” charge in court, since I had bought the truck with the ille­gal muf­fler and had no aware­ness that it was ille­gal. Actu­ally, I got the case thrown out of court sim­ply by appeal­ing and request­ing a jury trial, but that’s not the point of the story.

Read more: “ille­gal muf­fler“

A Goldbug’s look at bit coin

Bit Coin Image

I been read­ing posts on Bit coin to get an idea about it’s use as money. There are many ideas on that sub­ject pro and con that are insight­ful. One in par­tic­u­lar is of the sen­ti­ment that “We appre­ci­ate the effort of the pri­vate cit­i­zens who gave us this option”. That is an excel­lent way of putting it “We appre­ci­ate the effort” if in fact the effort is being done by the pri­vate citizens.

Read more: A Goldbug’s look at bit coin

A Rad­i­cal Per­spec­tive on Juris­dic­tion

A Rad­i­cal Per­spec­tive on Jurisdiction

The sub­ject of this report is “Juris­dic­tion,” and how it is com­monly obtained by the var­i­ous courts.
Although this author does not claim to have exhausted that ques­tion, it is my prayer that enough infor­ma­tion is con­tained here to help the stu­dent to bet­ter under­stand the issue. The mate­r­ial found here is based on my study of law, and the Holy Scrip­tures, and is Chris­t­ian in per­spec­tive. My main premise is that we have the duty and the right, to set­tle our own dis­putes, and to stay out of the courts of the ungodly.
Read more: A Rad­i­cal Per­spec­tive on Juris­dic­tion
Page 1 of 5

Wise Words

welcome

If you do noth­ing else, Check out the for­got­ten post sec­tion above it’s the rea­son the site was made. If you are going to court read or lis­ten to Free Speech Radio, Seat-​belts 1 & 2 and Cog­ni­tive Dis­so­nance at High Fre­quency! In that order. Posted in Audio and text format.

Web Analytics