Points of Clarification

Administrator Brown's Kangaroo Tribunal fails, despite a valiant attempt to sway the jury in favor of the prosecution's arguments and subvert justice, to find all statute violators guilty. In order to fully understand the lead-in sentence, a few deliberate misunderstandings and misrepresentations need Clarification. First and foremost is the misunderstanding that has been regurgitated by the Government's Educational System for many, many years:  The Constitution is the 'Law of The Land'. Nothing could be further from the truth than that statement.

The 'Law of The Land' referred to in the Constitution is 'Common Law' as opposed to the 'Law of The Sea' or 'Admiralty Law' which is one portion of what Today's Legal System employs to determine if a violation has occurred. Another deliberate misrepresentation is that of Court. Courts were places where the 'law of the land' was applied and determined. Today's Legal System has no Judges or courts where Law is applied or determined:  the Legal System closed or displaced all Common Law Courts;  however, a few have regained lawful Jurisdiction, Judge Anna von Reitz, Alaska State Superior Court.

The American Legal System convenes an Administrative Public Policy Tribunal and the person presiding over its proceedings is the Administrator. The Administrator, if no Jury is called to take up the matter, (actions or in-actions [the issue or contest]) against Public Policy Statutes (U.S and State Legislative bodies discuss and generate Public Policy Statutes not Law), and determines if legislative statutes have been violated and assigns 
innocence or guilt, fines and fees, and any other penalties. 



The Legal System has misrepresented itself and taken on the appellation of Court (to which it is not entitled since Law is not practiced or applied) and it has misrepresented statute as Law. United States Code (USC), as well as State Statutes, are NOT Law (Common Law) they are Legislative Statutes. In today's Legal Jurisdictions Corporate Citizens are subjected to regulation (control) by Statute:  this applies to all U.S. Citizens (since the United States is Incorporated and Congress generates Statutes) and all State Citizens (since all States are Incorporated and Legislatures generate Statutes).  

Although the Legal System continues to completely disregard lawful matters brought before Administrative Public Policy Tribunals, Americans are beginning to awaken to the Legal Fraud being perpetrated on the American People. Legal Matters vs Lawful Matters are once again beginning to be viewed by the American Public. Discussion and arguments over the meaning and validity of these current concepts and what they meant during earlier times are again being discussed at the dinner table and in the family rooms of America. Americans are being forced to examine the Legal System and the abuses and issues it has fostered. 

These same abuses and issues were once fought over by our forefathers. The 
Declaration of Independence was an instrument of Grievance and a remedy. 

The Revolutionary War and it's outcome (independence from King George [sovereignty for individuals and the inherent rights gained] and the right to The Law of The Land 'Common Law') have once again become prominent issues in need of Points of Clarification.
. 

What about Reason and Law

The un-elected Governor, Kate Brown, of Oregon has stated her intent to enact by Executive Order a Ban on some types of firearms, mainly rifles and carbines. The executive action can only be understood as a restriction or infringement of our unalienable right to self defense and defense against deadly force toward others.

"And that said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe…or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms."

~ Sam Adams ~

I see where the Bush administration has initially indicated support for extending the Clinton-Feinstein-Schumer ban on scores of semi-automatic rifles and on magazines holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition that the Clinton Administration imposed on America back in 1994.  I am seriously disappointed in that decision if it holds.

Laws against violent crimes such as murder, robbery or assault are already on the books and do not require a gun to be used in their commission to be considered criminal acts.  The only thing any criminal needs to carry out such deviant behavior is some means of providing a force advantage over the victim and he could use almost anything for that.

A criminal can just as easily kill or rob with a knife, a baseball bat or his bare fists so what difference does it make which gizmo is used to provide that force advantage over the victim—none whatsoever to my way of thinking.  It’s the act itself that makes such behavior a crime, not the tool used.

Laws are needed to deal with harmful deeds inflicted on people by the misfits of society—those whose behavior deviates from the accepted norm and thus becomes injurious to others.  They are needed to deal with the behavior that inflicts such harm —nothing more complicated than that. 

Crime is the result of socially unacceptable behavior and it is the behavior that determines the crime.  The operative word here is behavior not the implement used by some degenerate. A criminal can choke a person to death with his own mother’s apron strings as well as shoot him.  Is the victim any more dead if a gun is used or is the criminal any guiltier?  I think not. 

There are already laws punishing deviant behavior therefore to my way of thinking, laws pertaining specifically to guns are laws focused on objects incapable of behavior.  A mother’s apron strings can be just as deadly as a gun if the one exhibiting such criminal behavior chooses to use them in that way so should we have laws governing apron strings? Gun-centric laws only restrict, limit, prevent—infringe—upon your right to keep and bear 
arms and do nothing to address violent behavior.

Those 20,000 gun specific laws such as limited magazine capacity, rate of fire, barrel length, registration, licensing, waiting periods, and concealed carry without government permission as examples, do nothing but limit your right of access to guns—infringements upon your rights.  Such is not the mark of a free society.  What harm is there in a 15 round magazine or carrying a gun under your coat?  It’s when that gun is used to harm others that the crime is committed and it’s the criminal behavior that is the crime not the gun.  The gun is obviously incapable of behaving in any way whatsoever—but we all know that don’t we? 

Keep in mind the Second Amendment states, “…the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”  There are no qualifiers to that statement, as “…shall not be infringed except for…” and you fill in the blank with any of those 20,000 gun laws.

If I could ask the founders their opinion on this question, I would ask if felons, the insane or the immature should be denied access to firearms.  Felons have proven to be unfit members of society and by their own choices have surrendered their rights to fully participate in our society. The insane are not responsible members of society for medical reasons.  The immature, let’s say those that do not know the difference between life and death, and that do not know the difference between right and wrong, and have had no firearms training for the sake of argument, are not yet fully responsible because they are still in the formative years of their lives.

So call me whatever you like but the laws against murder, robbery, and assault exist in Common Law and should be seriously enforced with harsh punishment for violating them—the type of weapon used is entirely irrelevant to the behavior involved.  We should address the behavior of the criminal and leave the law abiding among the rest of us alone. Our right to keep and bear arms is an unalienable right and not a Government granted privileged to be assigned or removed at the whim of anyone. 

Of course, such an approach would allow the general population to be fully armed and capable of resisting an out-of-control government if need be, so maybe that wouldn’t do after all—perhaps that thought just scares the living daylights out of some politicians.  Might that fear then be the genesis of the 20,000?  Remember the words of Thomas Jefferson, 

“When citizens fear their government, you have tyranny; when the government fears its citizens, you have freedom.”

The Founder’s intent underlying the Second Amendment is easy to understand. 
It is fair to say the Founders and Framers obvious intent was to ensure that an individual’s right to keep and bear arms was never threatened or infringed by any government action.

So what have the courts said over the years about such a “radical concept?”  Many times we’re told by anti-gun elements that the courts have maintained no individual right to keep and bear arms exists and pro-gun advocates are just too stupid to understand the intricacies of constitutional law.

Have the courts universally denounced the individual’s right to keep and bear arms over the past 200 years and are you really too stupid to read and understand what the Constitution plainly says?  To believe any of that anti-gun bilge, you’d have to be terminally stupid.  

Let’s read a few examples of what several courts across the country and across history had to say in the years after the Constitution was adopted.  Please judge for yourself and draw your own conclusions. 

One note before starting:  I suspect the Esteemed Readers will never see any of these quotes or rulings either reported or cited on the evening news but that would be just a guess.


1803:  George Tucker, Judge of the Virginia Supreme Court and U.S. District Court of Virginia in I Blackstone COMMENTARIES Sir George Tucker Ed., pg. 300 (App.)

“The right of self-defense is the first law of nature; in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest possible limits...and [when] the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction.”


1822: Bliss vs. Commonwealth, 12 Ky. (2 Litt.) 90, at 92, and 93, 13 Am. Dec. 251

"For, in principle, there is no difference between a law prohibiting the wearing of concealed arms, and a law forbidding the wearing such as are exposed; and if the former be unconstitutional, the latter must be so likewise. But it should not be forgotten, that it is not only a part of the right that is secured by the constitution; it is the right entire and complete, as it existed at the adoption of the constitution; and if any portion of that right be impaired, immaterial how small the part may be, and immaterial the order of time at which it be done, it is equally forbidden by the constitution."


1846: Nunn vs. State, 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243, at 251

" The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.' The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right."


1859:  Cockrum v. State, 24 Tex. 394, at 401-402

"The right of a citizen to bear arms, in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the "high powers" delegated directly to the citizen, and `is excepted out of the general powers of government.' A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power."


1871: Andres v. State, 50 Tenn. (3 Heisk) 165, 178

“....the right to keep arms necessarily involves the right to purchase them, to keep them in a state of efficiency for use, and to purchase and provide ammunition suitable for such arms, and to keep them in repair.”

“The rifle of all descriptions, the shot gun, the musket and repeater are such arms; and that under the Constitution the right to keep and bear arms cannot be infringed or forbidden by the legislature.”  [ANDREWS V. STATE; 50 TENN. 165, 179, 8 AM. REP. 8, 14 (TENNESSEE SUPREME COURT)]


1876: The Supreme Court, in U.S. v. Cruikshank (92 U.S. 542)

Recognized that the right to arms preexisted the Constitution. The Court stated that the right to arms "is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence."


1878: Wilson v. State, 33 Ark. 557, at 560, 34 Am. Rep. 52, at 54

"To prohibit a citizen from wearing or carrying a war arm . . . is an unwarranted restriction upon the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of constitutional privilege."


1921: State vs. Kerner, 181 N.C. 574, 107 S.E. 222, at 224

"The maintenance of the right to bear arms is a most essential one to every free people and should not be whittled down by technical constructions."


1922: People vs. Zerillo, 219 Mich. 635, 189 N.W. 927, at 928

"The provision in the Constitution granting the right to all persons to bear arms is a limitation upon the power of the Legislature to enact any law to the contrary. The exercise of a right guaranteed by the Constitution cannot be made subject to the will of the sheriff."  


2000: Tuesday, June 13th. Let’s fast-forward to the Clinton years of judicial activism and see how an attempt was made to unscrupulously bastardize this long venerated inalienable right by a dangerously anti-gun, anti-constitution administration in U.S. v. Emerson.

Early accounts from those who attended the week's oral arguments on U.S. v. Emerson (see FAX Alert Vol. 7, No. 23) revealed, with no uncertainty, how the Clinton-Gore Administration truly viewed our Right to Keep and Bear Arms. The attorney representing the government, William Mateja, said that the Second Amendment offers law-abiding U.S. citizens no protections against the government prohibiting them from owning any firearm. Judge William Garwood, one of three judges on the panel that heard arguments, had the following exchange with Mateja:

Judge Garwood: "You are saying that the Second Amendment is consistent with a position that you can take guns away from the public?  You can restrict ownership of rifles, pistols and shotguns from all people?  Is that the position of the United States?"

Meteja (attorney for the government): "Yes".

Garwood: "Is it the position of the United States that persons who are not in the National Guard are afforded no protections under the Second Amendment?"

Meteja: "Exactly."

Fortunately, the court rejected the Clinton-Gore argument—this time.

It’s frightening how tenuous is the jewel of liberty and how easily it can be incrementally eroded if left unguarded by the people and totally entrusted to the Machiavellian machinations of insidious politicians.

James Madison had it pegged, 

"I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of the freedoms of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations.”

If the un-elected Governor, Kate Brown, of Oregon begins legislating from the Executive Branch of the Oregon State Government, she shall be subverting the intent of the Oregon State Constitution, the Law, and the Legal System she was sworn to uphold. Then again, maybe she does not care about reason, the Law, or the Legal System.

It’s my uncompromising conviction that unless the people jealously guard our jewel at every turn and strongly reject any attempt to incrementally infringe on our freedom, we will eventually and unwittingly lose it—piece by little piece.  Once it is lost however, it might be lost for generations. Generations that won’t even know what they’ve lost.

Sources:

Excerpts from:  What The Courts Said by Colonel Dan

http://fixamerica-fredmars.blogspot.com/2015/01/one-more-time-gun-laws.html

Some People Think Everything Is Political, or Some People Think It's All Just A Game, or Tell That to Those That Gave It All

Since there was no armed take over, no stand off, no shoot out, no threat made to anyone, by the Hammonds or the Bundy's or anyone else involved with the Malheur Refuge Incident. The more one reads the official reports and commentary made by various officials and participants the more things seem terribly wrong and incorrect. Murder, deceit, lies, false statements, missing evidence, collusion, negligence in office, failure to uphold oath of office, corruption, conflict of interest, Government kick-back, at the local, state, and national levels and more, much more are being reported everyday. Very little by the Government controlled Privately Owned Major Media.

Americans are constantly held captive by distractions and misdirection (Television, Team Sports, Non-existent threats, success, and who won, just to name a few), and it is they who will suffer for their inattention to what is now happening all around them. while Americans are dreaming of sugar plums and creamy tarts, those with no heart and hob-nailed boots are carrying out the plans for complete domination.

"...nationhood as we know it will be obsolete; all states will recognize a single, global authority."
Strobe Talbott, Deputy Secretary of State 1994-2001 

"That the UN wants you to give up your national independence and become a Global Citizen?" 
(Ref: United Nation New Centre - Sept. 12, 2003

The UN has targeted the local church for eradication by regulating it out of business. 
(Ref: United Nations Conference on Human Settlements, May 31-June 11, 1976, Agenda Item 10).

UN plans call for replacing all Christian based religions with a one world religion based on the Gaia hypothesis, the paganistic worship of "mother earth" having its origin and roots in The Temple of Understanding. 
(Ref: UN Millennium Peace Summit of Religious and Spiritual Leaders, Aug. 28-31, 2000, New York)"
Source: UN-FREEZONE.ORG

The Esteemed Readers, who read of Mr. Finicum's tragic demise or watched the moment by moment events unfold in the drone video recording or the cell phone recording of the events unfolding inside the truck Mr. Finicum was driving, might be wondering what is the force driving the Megalomaniacal Insanity cloying at Americans; their property, their Rights, their minds, and their lives?  Many articles of information regarding the how; when, where, why, and who have been published on the Fix America internet site.

With the failure of the League of Nations to ensnare America a new enterprise was immediately begun, The United Nations. Established in 1945 by 51 countries, the stated purpose of the United Nations was, "to preserve peace through international cooperation." That being said, then why is the UN meddling in the domestic affairs of sovereign Nations?  This exercise did not rely on gaining American acceptance, it simply controlled the National financial and monetary system and then bankrupted the system. All of this and so much more was carried out by Lawyers operating unlawfully without the knowledge and informed consent of the American people. Deceit, lies, false statements, collusion, conspiracy, negligence in office, failure to uphold oath of office, corruption, conflict of interest, Government kick-back was carried out in order to allow the UN d.b.a. IMF to purchase the bankrupt Corporation (The United States of America, Inc.) and all of it's alleged assets. All of this and so much more are all still in full swing with no end in sight.

"The UN is militantly anti-property rights?

The UN is dominated by socialist, communist, and other collectivist regimes that are hostile to private property, the basis of our freedom and prosperity. Karl Marx wrote in the Communist Manifesto that "the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: abolition of private property." Marx continued: "In one word, you reproach us with intending to do away with your property. Precisely so; that is just what we intend."

The UN intends to carry out Marx's plan?

In true Marxist fashion, the report of the UN "Habitat I" Conference declares that private land ownership "contributes to social injustice.... Public control of land use is therefore indispensable...." Agenda 21, the UN's massive environmental manifesto, envisions a UN empowered to control and micro-manage our planetary environment and the actions of every person on Earth. It says: "All countries should undertake a comprehensive national inventory of their land resources" and "develop national land-management plans." The UN's Assessment would "reallocate" property rights and have "stakeholder groups," instead of property owners, make decisions on private land use.

Our own U.S. government is adopting many of the UN's anti-property 
rights and policies and treaties?

The U.S. has signed Agenda 21 and has begun implementing the UN's "Wildlands Project," an incredible plan to push millions of Americans off their land to make vast nature preserves out of half of the nation. Also, under the UN's 1988 Convention on Narcotics, the U.S. has adopted unconstitutional "asset forfeiture" laws that allow seizure of property without due process.

UN treaties could destroy our heritage of freedom?

Nobel Prizewinning economist, Friedrich A. Hayek, noted that "the system of private property is the most important guaranty of freedom, not only for those who own property, but scarcely less for those who do not. It is only because the control of the means of production is divided among many people acting independently that nobody has complete power over us, that we as individuals can decide what to do with ourselves."
Source: UN-FREEZONE.ORG

From the unlawful takeover of the American Union (The united States of America) by a succession of Foreign Corporations deliberately controlling all American financial concerns through a cyclical monetary system of eternal debt and bankruptcy, this sickness has spread across America to the current owners of the United States of America, Inc. (a.k.a. UNITED STATES) The UNITED NATIONS DBA (International Monetary Fund) IMF, DBA The United States of America, Inc. (a private corporation incorporated in France). Fueled by greed, money, and easily obtained power, this type of activity draws the easily controlled mental defectives (narcissists, megalomaniacs, sociopaths, psychopaths [those who exhibit an overwhelming need to control and manage everyone around them, and who will use whatever means are at hand to accomplish those ends]. 

"To achieve One World Government it is necessary to remove from the minds of men their individualism, their loyalty to family traditions and national identification."
Brock Chisholm, while director of UN World Health Organization

The same succession of Foreign Corporations infiltrated the political structure of the united States of America (both parties and the overlying structure that controls them) and then each State and it's political structure by means of umbrella Corporations or Franchises, in many cases right down to the city level (a perfect example is Burns, Oregon (where it is painfully clear that local government is corrupt to the core and has no concern for the people on the land, except to control them and move them  off the land). Through concepts such  as; regionalism, Core education, wildlife conservation, endangered species, environmental protection, resource management, smart cities, smart grid, Homeland Security, TSA, NDRP, argumentum ad nauseam - argumentum ad infinitum.

Education:

"As long as the child breathes the poisoned air of nationalism, education in world-mindedness can produce only rather precarious results."
-UNESCO-produced pamphlet in the Toward World Understanding series

"The people who have taught us to believe whatever they were told by their parents or their teachers are the people who are the menace to the world."
-Dr. G. Brook Chrisholm, former Director General of the UN's World Health Organization

"Families must also become the medium for promoting new values and behavior consistent with the rights of individual family members, as established by various United Nations instruments." 
-Program for the UN's "International Year of the Family," 1994


Wildlife Conservation-Endangered Species-Environmental Protection:

"Does ... the Wildlands Project advocate the end of industrial civilization? 

Most assuredly. Everything civilized must go."
-Editor John Davis, 'Wild Earth', UN Wildlands Project's journal, 

"The collective needs of non-human species must take precedence over the needs and desires of humans."
- Wildlands Project Co-architect Reed Noss

"Humanity must undergo a radical change in its attitudes, values, and behavior ... a new global ethics is taking form, and it is finding expression in international law."
- International Union for the Conservation of Nature's Earth Ethics magazine (Spring 1996)

The same succession of Foreign Corporations infiltrated the other two Branches of Governance. The legislative Branch was slowly and unlawfully changed from it's mandated authority of enacting laws within it's jurisdiction to passing Public Policy Statutes and finally Administrative Public Policy Statutes and Regulations. The Judicial Branch of Governance slowly moved from it's mandated authority of American Common Law jurisdiction of the Land to the Admiralty Law jurisdiction of the Sea. These current Administrative Tribunals (courts) are not Lawful. Time and time again facts are presented over and over that prove these and other facts and current Administrative Tribunals (courts) ignore it all or do not respond (because they can not argue with facts). Tribunals (courts) can only unlawfully argue legal issues which are not laws.

"WAR ON THE WORLD

American blood and taxes are being used for military operations unrelated to U.S. defense?

A May, 2000 Joint Chiefs of Staff report states that since 1990 more than 55 "Operations Other Than War" (military engagements now called "peace-keeping" or "humanitarian" missions), have cost U.S. taxpayers over $21 billion -- more than $4 billion in 2000 alone.  Of course, there is no price tag imaginable for American soldiers who have been killed in UN-sanctioned, UN-led "Operations Other Than War" such as Somalia.

That our own government is committed to making the UN more powerful than any nation on Earth?

In 1961, President John F. Kennedy presented to the UN a three-stage disarmament program entitled Freedom From War. "In Stage III," said this State Department document, "progressive controlled disarmament... would proceed to a point where no state [nation] would have the military power to challenge the progressively strengthened UN Peace Force." The disarmament program originally presented in Freedom From War has never been withdrawn. It remains the official policy of the United States.

The UN is being given control of our military?

U.S. forces have been sent to the Persian Gulf and Somalia to carry out UN resolutions. They were sent to the Balkans under the authority of NATO, a regional subsidiary of the UN. In the Balkans and Somalia, they have been placed under foreign commanders who view the secretaries-general of the UN and NATO -- not the U.S. President -- as their commander in chief.

U.S. military personnel are being prepared to become United Nations soldiers?

About 300 U.S. Marines stationed at Twenty-Nine Palms, California, got a reality check in 1994 when they were required to participate in a "Combat Arms Survey" asking how they felt about statements such as:

1. "[T]he President of the United States has the authority to pass his responsibilities as Commander-in-Chief to the UN Secretary General";

2. "I would swear to the following code: 'I am a United Nations fighting person...'"; and 

3. "I would fire upon U.S. citizens who refuse or resist confiscation of firearms banned by the U.S. government."

"[The Security Council is authorized to] take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security."
-UN Charter, Article 42

"Arrangements for the use of this [proposed UN] force should ensure that the United Nations can effectively deter or suppress any threat or use of arms in violation of the purposes and principles of the United Nations."
- UN "Final Document," Adopted - UN General Assembly, 1978 session

"Let me give you this final message. If we use the [U.S.] military, we can make the United Nations a really meaningful, effective voice for peace and stability in the future."
President George Bush, December 1990, prior to the launch of Operation Desert Storm"
Source:  UN-FREEZONE.ORG

The ideas behind such recent movie trilogies as; "The Lord of The Rings", "The Dark Knight", "Captain America", "The Hunger Games", "The Divergent Series; Divergent, Insurgent, Allegiant (being separated into two parts Allegiant and Ascendant)", all deal with and have an underlying theme that spans centuries of people dealing with the very same problems that Americans now face that arise when mentally defective people are placed in charge of anything that has any authority to control (Liberty) or regulate (Freedoms) anyone else.

"The UN's aim has always been to take over our educational system?

The UN launched its Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) in 1946 with the announced intent to usurp parents' rights to educate and train their children. UNESCO heavyweight Dr. Luther Evans stated, "UNESCO's is a radical program.... To make the system of the UN and its specialized agencies work, we must sweep past traditional barriers...." (emphasis added.) Radio newscaster Paul Harvey condemned UNESCO's undermining of patriotism in one of his broadcasts: "Through UNESCO, American children are influenced away from their national allegiance. American children are being indoctrinated with world government."

The UN's Convention on the Rights of the Child would insert government between parents and children?

Proposed for ratification in 1989, its language states that governments shall insure children's rights to "freedom of thought, conscience and religion," "privacy," "rest and leisure," and much more. According to this UN document, parents shall not be allowed to shield their children from harmful groups and philosophies, inspect their rooms for dangerous items, or require them to do their assigned chores.

As article 13 states: "The child shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of the child's choice." Should that kind of "freedom" be mandated for children, parents will have lost any power over what their children may be exposed to.

Harmful UN programs are undermining America's educational system?

In 1990, the "World Conference on Education for All" met in Jomtien, Thailand. Sponsored by UNESCO, UNICEF, the UN Development Program, the UN World Bank and other UN agencies, the conference produced a document entitled "Framework for Action to Meet Basic Learning Needs." Its recommendations became the basis for educational systems in the U.S. known as "Goals 2000," "Outcome-based Education," and "School-to-Work." Congressman Henry Hyde (R-Ill.) has criticized these programs as "a concept for dumbing-down our schools and changing the character of the nation through behavior modification."
Source:  UN-FREEZONE.ORG


Fix America Source Articles:

How - 

When - 

Where - 

Why - 

Who -

All Mimsy Were The Borogoves, And The Mome Raths Outgrabe!

Judge Grasty of Harney County is Incompetent to hold the office he occupies. The best that can be said about about his recent statements are that they put on the record his fallacious reasons, misconceptions, faulty logic, and obvious disregard for the history and laws of the state of Oregon, all of which lead to negligence in office and failure to uphold his constitutional oath of office. Making false statements (Title 18 U.S.C. Section 1001) is the common name for the UNITED STATES federal crime which generally prohibits knowingly and willfully making false or fraudulent statements, or concealing information, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the federal government of the UNITED STATES, even by mere denial. This is more than sufficient reason to remove Mr. Grasty from the office he occupies. 

Other reasons only become apparent when his decisions  and actions are examined retro-actively. He has made legal, not lawful, decisions based on his faulty logic and misinterpretation of the Constitution for the united States of America and with regard to the Oregon Constitution. 


To the Esteemed Readers of Fix America I can only suggest you look up the 
definition of Personage and Barratry. Just for Fun.

All Bar Association licenses are extinguished

APOSTOLIC LETTER OF THE SUPREME PONTIFF FRANCIS
Anna addresses Cardinal George
http://scannedretina.com/2013/07/25/apostolic-letter-of-the-supreme-pontiff-francis/

APOSTOLIC LETTER OF THE SUPREME PONTIFF FRANCIS:

By order of Pope Francis:  All Bar Association licenses are extinguished.

“There will be no seizure of the American retirement accounts, no false flags, no murder, no mayhem, no scalar weapons deployed.There will be no deceptive “offers” in commerce seeking to exchange gold for land or human capital under conditions of non-disclosure and deceit.

There will be an end to this criminality and to the complacency of the Church and of the American Cardinals and Archbishops responsible for the mis-administration of the courts. Or there will be Hell on earth, Cardinal George — literally, and it will not come against the innocent Americans. The Left Hand of God will come for those who are responsible and unrepentant.

The Treaty of Verona is extinguished.

All Bar Association licenses are extinguished.

By order of Pope Francis, all attorneys, all clerks, every member of the judicial system operating these frauds and oppression became 100% individually and commercially liable as of September 1, 2013.

The banking cartels and governmental services corporations have been given three years to clean up their acts from top to bottom, to come into compliance with the Original Equity 
contract owed to the Americans, and to stop operating in criminal default.

I suggest that you get over your idea that it is the voter’s responsibility.

May God bless you to the same extent that you bless others.

Anna Maria Wilhelmina Hanna Sophia: Riezinger-von Reitzenstein von Lettow”

https://shieenalivingwater.wordpress.com/2014/07/26/letter-from-
archbishop-of-chicago-and-response/

ANYONE CAN TAKE THIS INFORMATION ANY WAY THEY WISH. THAT SAID, ONE THING IS ABUNDANTLY CLEAR, WHETHER OR NOT ONE IS AWAKENED ENOUGH TO BELIEVE THE FACTS UNDER THEIR NOSE, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 4 IS A CROWN/VATICAN/SWISS BANK PROPERTY"


I am aware that Judge Grasty has been formally informed of his unlawful actions in light of public documents that he has read and rejected, based on his faulty logic and misinterpretation of the Constitution for the united States of America and with regard to the Oregon Constitution. He is aware, as the Unelected Sheriff is aware of his unlawful actions in light of public documents that he has read and rejected, that the FBI, BLM, FWS, and US Armed Forces have no Jurisdiction to take any action or claim to ownership of  anything within the geographical boundary of Oregon State.

First Open Letter To Sheriff Dave Ward

"Letter to Sheriff Ward in Oregon from judge Anna von Reitz 
01-07-2016 • judge Anna von Reitz

An Open Letter to Sheriff Ward of Harney County Oregon-and to All County Sheriffs in America from Judge Anna



Dear Sheriff Ward,

I am writing to you today to ascertain your office and position with respect to the Hammonds and the developing situation at the Bundy Ranch with respect to "Federal Officers".

My name is Anna Maria Riezinger, also known as Anna von Reitz because my actual name is German and a mile long. I am an American Common Law Superior Court Judge in Alaska where operation of the Seventh Amendment Courts started up again in conjunction with the Common Law Grand Juries more than a year ago and I also serve as a Federal Postal District Court Judge for the Western Region.

As you can clearly see by reading the Seventh Amendment all matters pertaining to living people and their property must be addressed to Common Law Courts. How then, are the Hammonds being addressed by federal admiralty courts?

The answer lies in the past.

During the Civil War the normal court system owed the people in the South shut down and did not immediately reopen. Commanders in the military districts in ten states appointed civilian tribunals to function under "Special Admiralty"----- a euphemism. For the purposes of these military tribunals, people and property could be addressed in an arbitrary fashion without regard for the Law of the Land. This was very convenient for the administrators and very unfortunate for the people.

In 1866 the Supreme Court addressed the situation in Milligan Ex Parte and decided that so long as the American Common Law Courts were running there was no excuse for the use of any form of martial law. Be advised that the American Common Law Courts are up and running.

But both the military administrators and the judges and most particularly, the Bar Associations, had a taste of arbitrary power and the bit in their teeth back then--- and a concerted effort to shut the Common Law Courts down began, so as to usurp their jurisdiction and "move the venue" of the local courts off the land and into the international jurisdiction of martial law and the sea, where power could be exerted against the people and their assets on the land in a comparatively arbitrary fashion.

By 1965 the rats had achieved their ends and almost all Common Law Courts in America were either shut down or functioning with only two offices--- justice of the peace and notary publics.

This allowed the members of the Bar Associations to impose admiralty law on the people and to avoid the guarantees of The Constitution. The use of "Special Admiralty" in a courtroom is signified by the heavy gold fringe on the flag.

A word here about the Bar Associations and some facts about the ABA that deserve to be far more widely known, also some information about the current Court System that you probably don't know:

The American Bar Association is an offshoot of the London Lawyer's Guild, an avowed Communist organization. The American Bar Association and the IRS are both owned and operated by Northern Trust, Inc. They are private, foreign debt collection agencies, not units of government, not "professional associations", and certainly not "non-profit organizations". As an organization representing a foreign (British) government, the Bar Associations are only allowed to function here via a Treaty (the last one in 1947) that they have abundantly violated. Their members are required to present Foreign Agent Statements as part of their credentials in open court, which they hardly ever do.

As a result of their misdeeds and usurpation against the Law of the Land and the people and their violations of both their corporate charter and their Treaty, a commercial obligation lien of $279 trillion dollars has been assessed against the American Bar Association, the International Bar Association, and the "US DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE"----which, it turns out, is just another private subcontractor performing "governmental services" and doing a criminally bad job of it.

The "US District Courts" are also private for-hire subcontractors that run all the related courts in their districts. Please see Title 28, Sections 80 to 131. All these "State" Courts and "County" Courts are being run as franchises of the "US District Court"---and they are all private corporate institutions having no public office or function at all, and being related to the actual state and county only insomuch as they are operating within the geographical boundaries of a state and a county. This can be readily proven by looking up the Dun and Bradstreet Numbers, CAGE numbers, and corporate filings of these organizations. And, as was recently demonstrated by the Lufkin Case in Texas, neither the "US District Court" nor its "State" and "County" affiliates have any authority to collect debts outside the ten square miles of the District of Columbia.

We should also clear up another misunderstanding. Back in 1864, the "United States Congress" acting as a Board of Directors for The United States of America, Inc., changed the meaning of several words by executive fiat, without telling the rest of us. For their purposes and from June 30, 1864 onward, the words "state" and "State" and "United States" are code for "District of Columbia Municipal Corporation". Thus, instead of "US District Court" you should be reading "District of Columbia Municipal Corporation District Court" and the "Idaho State Supreme Court" for example, should be read as "Idaho District of Columbia Municipal Corporation Supreme Court".

Are you beginning to feel as if you have landed in the Land of Oz?

Yes, all this means that until you make some important decisions, you aren't working for the people of your county as an elected public peace officer. You are working as an employee of a federal corporation franchise in a private capacity. Your election is being "interpreted" as an election to an office in a private corporation. You are presently acting as a mall cop. You have no public office, no public bond, and no public oath. If you are like most members of the "law enforcement community" you are not even licensed or bonded or insured in a private capacity by your cheapskate employers. You are working for The Man, not the people.

And all this got off track 150 years ago.

So all those "federal agents" who are harassing the Hammonds and who are offering to arrest them and transport them to a private prison facility? They are private corporate employees of a franchise or subcontractor of the District of Columbia Municipal Corporation having no more authority than a floorwalker at JC PENNY, despite their pretensions otherwise. They are misinformed as to their authority and also misinformed regarding the identity of the Hammonds. These "federal agents" are literally foreign with respect to the Hammonds and have no jurisdiction related to them at all.

As part of the overall outrageous circumstance and fraud scheme the members of the American Bar Association have also contrived to change the citizenship of American State Citizens---- people born on the land of the Continental United States like the Hammonds have been "kidnapped on paper" and their civil records have been falsified--- which is in violation of international law, the Law of War, and the United Nation's Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which both the Federal United States and the British Government have signed.

An examination of the paperwork will reveal that virtually every single American State Citizen has been deemed a "foundling" and ward of the state, the unwanted child of an unwed mother---- almost 400 million of us, and not a Daddy to be found? This is the result of a systematic and repugnant scheme by international commercial banks and the ABA, and again, all serving to change the natural venue on the land to a court venue in the international jurisdiction of the sea.

The fact is that although human slavery has been outlawed worldwide since 1926, it is not against the law to enslave a corporation.

So what have the criminals among us contrived to do? To "redefine" living people as corporations---- specifically as foreign situs trusts doing business under names styled like this: John Quincy Adams, and ESTATE trusts operating under names styled like this: JOHN QUINCY ADAMS, and now, most recently, Puerto Rican public transmitting utilities styled like this: JOHN Q. ADAMS.

Look at the paperwork in your hands seemingly addressed to the Hammonds. Depending on the style used to write their names, you can tell whether the documents are addressed to foreign situs trusts owned and operated by the "State of Oregon, Inc." , a Cestui Que Vie Estate Trust owned and operated by the "STATE OF OREGON, INC." or a public transmitting utility owned and operated by "OREGON"---- a franchise of the UN Corporation.

Please bear in mind that these "legal fiction entities" were created without the Hammond's knowledge or permission and they are completely, 100%, the responsibility of those who created them. If the HAMMONDS referenced are ESTATE trusts belonging to the "STATE OF OREGON" it is high time for someone who is responsible for the "STATE OF OREGON" to pay any debts related to the franchise without delay----and without bothering the living people these franchises are named after.

It also behooves them to leave the living people and their property strictly alone and forego any pretense that the living Americans known as the Hammonds have knowingly or willingly agreed to act as Federal United States Citizens or have any agreed upon responsibility to act as "co-trustees" of the Public Charitable Trust, which they most likely don't make use of and don't even know that it exists.

Bottom line--- these "courts" and their presentments and "orders" have nothing whatsoever to do with the Hammonds as living people, nor their actual physical property assets at all. They have to do with the mis-administration of public trusts and "legal persons" operated by private, mostly foreign-owned corporations which are attempting to entrap and enslave Americans and lay false claims against their property via probate fraud, identity theft, and coercion.

This is the kind of criminality and fraud we are dealing with, Sheriff Ward, and at the end of the day, the pedal hits the metal in your office.

The British Government contrived the means to "press gang" the "land assets"--- living people and their property assets--- of America into the jurisdiction of the sea during the Second World War. They enslaved us and our property assets under false pretenses and via the use of legal chicanery "for the war effort" --- and after the war, they simply continued on with these abuses.

You have a choice.

You can continue to operate as a good little debt slave of the Queen acting on "automatic" and taking orders regardless of where those orders come from----- that is, you can act as a corporate mall cop in a private capacity and take your licks when the people catch up with you, or you can honor the truth---- that the people of your county elected you in Good Faith, with the understanding that you would enforce the guarantees of The Constitution owed to them and faithfully impose the land jurisdiction of the united States of America on any British agents who put a tentacle outside their actual jurisdiction.

As a Sheriff duly elected by the people of your county and operating the land jurisdiction owed to the Continental United States you have the authority to take your lawful Oath of Office, obtain a bond for your own security, and deputize as many men as you require to restrict the "federal agents" to their actual capacity. It is your duty to inform these foreign agents that the living people known as the Hammonds do not "reside" in any "federal territory" nor act in any capacity subject to the District of Columbia Municipal Corporation. You also have the right to collect Bounty from the Secretary of State and the US District Court under the terms of the 14th Amendment to cover any costs you incurr as a result of having to deal with these improper demands and false claims made by their agents.

If these "federal agents" persist, you have the authority to address the "US District Court" responsible and request their removal from your county. If they still won't behave and honor The Constitution and the actual limits of their own jurisdiction, you have the right and responsibility to arrest the whole kit and caboodle, just as you would arrest the keepers of a tavern operating outside the Public Law.

You also have the right and responsibility to inform the "US District Court" and their franchise affiliates operating the "State" and "County" Courts that the American Common Law Courts and Grand Juries are in operation again and any use of martial law including "Special Admiralty" is no longer excusable.

Acting as an elected Officer of the American Common Law Court indigenous to your county, along with the justices of the peace and the notary public, it is your duty to convene the Common Law Grand Jury chosen at random from among the landowners of your county to investigate crimes, including this one against the Hammonds, and to convene a Common Law Trial Jury if necessary before the Justice of the Peace, to decide any and all matters affecting the living people and actual property assets of the county on the land. If there is no one able and willing to serve as Justice of the Peace in your County, a Justice of the Peace may be appointed by any Federal Postal District Judge in your region. Contact me if you need help.

Please also know that as the Sheriff duly elected by the people of your county you have the authority and responsibility to demand the return of any American State Citizen being held in "federal custody" for a non-capital crime (murder or assault with a deadly weapon) within 72 hours of their arrest. So if the "federal agents" make the mistake of arresting the Hammonds under false pretenses and holding them in a private capacity, it is your right and role to present a Public Custody Order to the "US District" or other court responsible demanding that the Hammonds be released to your custody. You may then use your own discretion whether to keep them in custody or release them on parole pending final resolution of the jurisdictional complaint.

These are matters that affect millions of people and they must be addressed openly and with determination. The British Monarch has acted in Breach of Trust against the Americans, Canadians, Australians, and others. This criminality and the resulting surreptitious use of the Americium Bar Association members as licensed privateers operating on our shores is a serious international crime which is being addressed.

The misrepresentations of Americans as "foundlings" and "bastards" resulting in them being declared wards of the corporate "state" and further misrepresentations leading to them being declared "legally dead" are criminal acts of self-interested fraud carried out against us by avowed "allies" and "friends in perpetuity"-- parties who are bound by the most solemn obligations of international trust and treaty, who have abused America and Americans for their own profit.

This same pattern of lying about us and making false claims against us and seeking to "re-venue" us to foreign jurisdictions has also been attempted against our federation of nation-states as a whole. Two weeks ago, international banks and governmental services corporations in their employ appeared before the UN Trust Committee---North America, and claimed that the States of America no longer exist. They claimed among other things that we no longer have a national currency in circulation. They claimed that all 400 million Americans had voluntarily accepted Federal United States Citizenship. They claimed that our country is "civilly dead" and "depopulated" and that there are no American State Citizens.

This was, of course, done behind our backs by people representing secondary creditors of defunct federal "governmental services corporations" claiming to be the beneficiaries and/or creditors of our estates. It's time to set the records straight and for us to act in our naked sovereign capacity.

A Declaration of Joint Sovereignty was issued by lawful heirs of the National Trust(s), together with Sovereign Letters Patent in behalf of the United Colonies of America, the united States of America, and the Native American Nations and delivered to the UN Trust Committee--North America and to the UN Security Council, the Pope, the Queen, Ban Ki Moon, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the Bank of International Settlements.

The criminals responsible for this circumstance are being recognized for who and what they are and the die is cast. We are going to get down to the bottom of this fraud and misrepresentation once and for all.

If you wish to be called "Sheriff" of a county in America, you must now step up and earn the title and begin operating the land jurisdiction owed to the Continental United States. You are under moral and lawful obligation to protect the Hammonds against any "federal agent" and to fully inform those agents of the limitations of their jurisdiction while standing on our soil. If there is no American Common Law Court presently operating in your county, it is your duty to organize one without further delay. In most counties there are active Justices of the Peace who still perform private marriage ceremonies and public notaries are still active. You may draft your Grand Jury and if needed, Trial Juries, from among the landowners listed in the county land records. All actions of the actual County Court should be stamped in red and signed in black. All actions by admiralty courts ---by whatever name they operate under---are stamped in blue.

Sincerely,

Judge Anna Maria Riezinger"




Second Public Letter to Sheriff Dave Ward

"Dear Sheriff Ward,

I have already sent you and the other "federal law enforcement agents" one letter. I did not expect to have to send you two.

There are two kinds of people in this country according to the Definitive Treaty of Peace known as the Treaty of Paris, 1783, Article III and they are-- "the free sovereign and independent people of the United States" and the "inhabitants"-- British Loyalists and subjects of the British Crown who were allowed to stay here after the Revolutionary War.

These are political statuses and as the Expatriation Act explains, the government is forbidden from interfering with our choice in the matter.

This was more recently reiterated by the Geneva Protocols of 1949, Laws of War, Volume II, Article 3 forbids tampering with anyone's political status-- and it is a capital offense war crime if you do.

The Hammonds and the Bundys have all made their political status choice very clear. They are members of the "free sovereign and independent people of the United States." They have self-declared their status and have given you Notice of the same and it is not within the powers of your office to alter this decision or offer to interpret anything about it.

You and all your misinformed buddies owe the Hammonds and the Bundys "essential governmental services" under Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2. And a HUGE apology.

Those "services" do not include armed extortion, trespass on their private property, or any false claims or presumption of any ownership interest in them, their land, or their other assets.

Cattle rustling, as you and your friends need to be reminded, is a capital CRIME in the western states and if you boys get out of line, these ranchers are well within their rights to invoke the Public Law and hang you all from the nearest trees.

Somewhere in the back of your mind, you know that. Are you clear on this point, Sheriff Ward? Do you know the difference between Public Law and corporate codes, statutes, or regulations that apply ONLY to corporations and government agents?

Judge Anna Maria Riezinger"

Source Material:

https://jhaines6a.wordpress.com/2016/01/21/blmoregon-judge-grastys-brother-a-blm-agent-and-scandals-of-the-blm/