Truth and Justice For All!

To the Esteemed Readers and followers of the Fix America Facebook page and this blog, may I present to you the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth!


"Ammon Bundy Totally Vindicated....and Now.....

The Ninth Circuit Court (15-10-117) just ordered the Federales to prove federal subject matter jurisdiction --- not just assume subject matter jurisdiction-- over property "owned" by the federal government.

Federal ownership of land may be (and usually is) merely proprietary--- meaning that the Federales are acting as property managers--- a role that does not create any exclusive use by the federal government and does not create federal subject matter jurisdiction.

This Ninth Circuit case cited above is not directly tied to the Bundy Cases, but addresses the issue of federal subject matter jurisdiction merely presumed to exist on the basis of federal property ownership.

In truth and in fact claims of Federal subject matter jurisdiction require: (1) a Federal use of the land (that is, a use related to the duties directly delegated to the federal government); (2) specific action by the State ceding jurisdiction. Neither one of these conditions were met with regard to the Oregon Wildlife Refuge.

The portions of the Wildlife Refuge including the buildings which the protestors occupied were purchased by the Federales from private land owners back in the 1930's --- under a Congressional Act that not only allowed, but which invited, adverse possession claims such as the protestors brought forward and which additionally ordered the "liquidation" of such properties back to state or private ownership.

Read that as: Federal ownership of the Wildlife Refuge property occupied by the Bundys and others should have been terminated years ago according to the very Acts of Congress which allowed the Federal Government to acquire the property in the first place.

The County Sheriff was always the supreme peacekeeping authority present at the Wildlife Refuge Stand-Off and the officer responsible for protecting the Bundys and enforcing their constitutional guarantees, but instead, Federal Agency personnel---- private corporate subcontractors working for the federal property managers-- were allowed to come in under color of law and assert authority and jurisdiction that they never possessed.

These federal "agents"---- private commercial subcontractors---- were allowed to entrap, ambush, and murder an innocent American rancher, mortally endanger his family, and falsely arrest and imprison all the others for all these months.

And Ammon Bundy stands fully vindicated.

What do I think? I think it is more than past time to prosecute the federal agencies and their personnel to the fullest extent of the organic and public law.

It's time for the men involved in the LaVoy Finicum ambush to be arrested and charged with premeditated murder, conspiracy against The Constitution, and gross violation of Lavoy Finicum's most basic and constitutionally protected rights.

It's time for the mis-named DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, BLM, and FBI corporations, and the appointed politicos responsible for controlling and directing those men involved in spooling up the stand-off and allowing the ambush of LaVoy Finicum to be stripped of any claim of immunity and tried by an international war crimes tribunal for their part in these outrages against Americans who were exercising their right to peaceably assemble and to travel unmolested on the public roads they paid for.

It's time for the numbnutz County Sheriff to be charged with dereliction of duty, breach of trust, breach of contract and breach of oath, willful endangerment, aiding and abetting murder, conspiracy against The Constitution, and false arrest.

Acting in my capacity as an Article X Judge I gave him more than fair Notice prior to all these events taking place and it is firmly established on the public record that I did. There can be no excuse for his failure to know the jurisdictional issues because he was told point blank, not once, but twice. He knew, yet he buckled under the political pressure of federal influence and failed to enforce The Constitution and protect the people who were depending on him.

And because of that Sheriff's failure to exercise his authority and honor and enforce the Law of the Land, a good man, a true American, was ambushed and killed by foreign commercial mercenaries on his way to attend a public meeting.

It's time for that Sheriff to fry in his own oil for it.

It's time for "Governor" Brown to be summarily impeached for moral torpitude, gross incompetence, and conspiracy against The Constitution, to have all pretension of foreign or sovereign immunity stripped away, and to stand trial with the rats from the DOJ and BLM and FBI before an international war crimes tribunal.

It's time for the family of LaVoy Finicum to become multi-millionaires.

It's time for all the others to be set free and for serious compensation to be paid to them and their families for the time they have spent under false arrest and all they have been through and all that they have suffered and risked simply to assert rights and prerogatives that were always theirs to begin with.

It's time for everyone in America to wake up and remember Ruby Ridge, Waco, Oklahoma City, 911, LaVoy Finicum, and so much more----and to see these things in their proper light.

These things are not being done by our government.

These things are being done by British Subjects and by other foreigners and by their hired-gun subcontractors----all in the employ of private, for-profit, mostly foreign bank-owned corporations in the business of providing government services.

The DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, BLM, and FBI are all separate for-profit corporations which have functioned in this instance and in many others as crime syndicates and failed even the most basic tests of competency and good faith. They have violated their charters and besmirched their names and this is not the first time.

I remember reading about Randy Weaver's wife and baby, just as I read about LaVoy Finicum and the siege at Waco and 911.

And I thought then and I think now----these rotten, worthless, criminals are our employees.

They are sticking their filthy paws in our pockets and drawing a paycheck for the "service" of preying upon us--- for racketeering, for falsely arresting, for mischaracterizing, for thieving, for violating our constitutional guarantees, for trespassing upon us and our property, and yes, even for murdering us----all in violation of their commercial contracts and in violation of the treaties allowing them to be here.

They need a jack boot so far up their butts the steel toe sees daylight."

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

There is no joy in Mudville, or He laid down his hammer and he cried, "Lord, Lord," He laid down his hammer and he cried.

Many of Fix America's Esteemed International Readers have asked a 
number of Questions which require real answers.

What in the world has happened in Burns Oregon?  Why are unarmed 
Americans being murdered by Americans?  When are Americans going to 
wake Up and realize what is happening to America, and the peoples' 
Unalienable Rights?

Contrary to U.S. government propaganda the Privately Owned Major Media is 
spewing out onto the ears and minds of the public, the real events are 
quite different. I will attempt to answer these questions as-best-as I 
am able. It is time to make several points very clear.


1. There was a peaceful rally at the County Court House at the County 
    Seat of Burns, Oregon.

       The people in attendance were there to voice their discontent 
       of the actions of the Bureau of Land Management (a for profit 
       private corporation chartered in Porto Rico) in the County. 
       Their complaints regarding the out-of-season Burning of rangeland, 
       Burning of livestock corrals, Burning of ranch Structures on private 
       property, the burning of Live stock, and setting fires and leaving 
       them unattended to burn out of control. These actions have been 
       occurring for more than a decade and local and state authorities 
       have refused to take any kind of action or notice of complaints.
       This activity has resulted in ranchers being literally burned out. 
       of there homes and businesses. The BLM has then purchased the land 
       for a fraction of the amount the ranches they destroyed were worth.

2. Unknown to the Hammonds, Three Percenters, and The Oath Keepers and 
    the general rally goers, the Bundy group decided to occupy the Malheur 
    Wildlife Refuge without telling anyone in advance, and no one at the time they 
    did so.

3. There was no armed takeover, standoff, or shootout at anytime at the Malheur 
    Wildlife Refuge or anywhere on State Highway 395:  although, it should be 
    remembered that a new set of rules has, at the moment, been placed into force
    by the new Owners of the United States Inc. 
It should be remembered also that a takeover is the permanent change 
of residence or ownership, a standoff requires brandishing of weapons 
    by both sides, and A shootout requires fire and return fire from opposing 
    forces.

There was an occupation (old school-sit in) by as few as ten and as 
many as twenty people of the seasonally Closed (open to the public 
Wildlife Refuge). People came and went and no weapons were brandished 
by any of the occupiers at anyone. 

4. Some of the people occupying the Refuge had rifles and pistols. 

This is allowed in Oregon. Oregon is an Open Carry State. Concealed 
        Handgun Licenses are issued by the State of Oregon. Concealed Carry
licenses from some other States are honored. 

5. The FBI arrived in Burns and set up a Local Area of Operations at the Airport.


6. The Judge, Steve Grasty, and the Sheriff, David Ward, had been notified of 
   their unlawful activities by a U.S. Superior Court Judge in regard to their 
   refusal to uphold their respective constitutional duties and were reminded 
   of their Constitutional Oaths of Office and their jurisdictions, of which  
   all had been ignored and continue to be ignored.

7. The people of Harney County formed a Committee of Safety (a time honored 
   procedure - back to Colonial Times) to take matters into the hands of the 
   people when Officials and Authorities ignore the people and their matters of 
   concern. 

8. The committee presented their Proposal of Resolution to the Board of County         
    Commissioners for Harney County, Sheriff Ward, Judge Grasty, the 
    appropriate State and Federal Authorities and in addition was hand delivered 
    to an Agent  of FBI at the Malheur Wildlife Refuge. 

The unnamed FBI Agent stated that it was above his paygrade and would 
be passed up the chain of command.

9. The Bundy's and a handful of others were traveling (in two conveyances at the 
    suggestion of Mark McConnell, the most probable Government Mole and 
    infiltration agent) from the refuge to a town meeting at the invitation of meeting 
    organizer Tad Houpt not Grant County Sheriff Glenn Palmer in the nearby    town 
    of John Day in neighboring Grant County where some four-hundred people were                   gathering to hear what the Bundy's had to say. It further has been established by the             other people traveling in the white truck that Robert LaVoy Finicum was unarmed
    as he had left his six shooter at the Malheur Wildlife Refuge.

A peaceful gathering to find out what, if any, progress was being made 
in Burns Oregon with Officials or Authorities. The Sheriff and the Fire
Marshal in Burns had recently resigned and an Unelected Sheriff had been 
appointed by the local Judge, Judge Steve Grasty. The town's only judicial 
representative, Judge Grasty, has for some number of years ruled in favor    
of the BLM or refused to hear legitimate complaints of the residents of 
Harney County regarding the BLM. He very recently stated that only 
        selected people were going to be allowed to attend Public Meetings in 
        Burns Oregon.

10.The Unelected Governor of the State of Oregon, Kate Brown, was under 
      pressure from the Obama Administration in Washington D.C. to "Take 
      care of the problem by whatever means are necessary." She issued orders 
      to the Oregon State Police to take care of matters by whatever means were 
      necessary  and they were aided by the Deschutes County Major Crimes 
      Team. The FBI worked in conjunction with the Oregon State Police and the 
       Deschutes County Team.

11.Initial stop and final Fatal Road Block incident 

At approximately 4:25 p.m. (PST) Tuesday, January 26, 2016, the 
Oregon State Police (OSP) and Federal Bureau of Investigation 
(FBI) began an enforcement action (road blocking several highways-
US 395 was but one), aided by the Deschutes County Major Crimes 
Team. Two vehicles were stopped. The lead first vehicle, a jeep, 
driven by Mark McConnell, security consultant, a passenger, Ammon 
Bundy and Brian Cavalier (AKA: King Booda, Booda Bear, Buddha), 
Bundy's personal Body Guard. In the following second vehicle, a 
truck, traveling as a group to John Day, and driven by Robert 
LaVoy Finicum were, Ryan Payne, Ryan Bundy, Shawna Cox, and 
Victoria Sharp, 18. 

The following second vehicle, a white truck, pulled around the 
Jeep and stopped in the road (according to Mark McConnell). The 
white truck left the initial stop site because authorities began 
shooting blindly into the truck and it was at this time Bundy's 
shoulder was wounded. The white truck traveled a mile further down 
the road and arrived at a previously set up road block. After 
swerving to avoid the roadblock, the truck came to rest in a 
roadside snow bank. At this time, the order of events is unclear, 
whether tear gas was released or whether Flash-Bangs were detonated 
or whether some number of warning shots were fired;  however, some 
number of all were released, detonated, and discharged. The white 
truch sustained more than one hundred bullet holes. It is clear from 
Miss Sharp's account no one in the truck handled or discharged a 
firearm at any time. Robert LaVoy Finicum exited the vehicle and 
words were exchanged with authorities. Unarmed and with hands raised 
Mr. Finicum may have approached the authorities or may have lost 
his balance in the knee deep snow and was shot a number of times. 
According to Miss. Sharp, authorities approached the fallen and 
wounded Finicum and fired three more rounds which killed him.








The unedited footage, which has only been modified to blur out 
aircraft information, was taken by an undisclosed U.S. Agency's 
drone was released by the FBI on 01/28/2016. 






It can be seen at approximately 9:28/26:28 that Mr. Finicum, after 
exiting the truck and walking several steps, with his hands up or 
outstretched, lowers one arm. It has been stated by various eye 
witnesses that Mr. Finicum only dropped one arm in response to being 
wounded in the right side torso by two officers coming from the road 
and as he turned around was wounded several more times by the officer 
who had been approaching Mr. Finicum from his six-o'clock position. 
A total of nine shots with one being in the face were fired. 

It has been established that Robert LaVoy Finicum owned and wore a six 
shot revolver on his right hip but that he had left this pistol at the 
Refuge, and did not carry or own a 9mm of any type, and was carrying no 
firearm of any type in the white truck.

12. The FBI stated that a 9mm handgun was found on or near Mr. Robert LaVoy 
      Finicum. This Drop Gun was later identified as having been stolen in neither 
      Oregon or Nevada, but a different un-named State.

Considering the statements of thoes traveling with Finicum; that he 
was unarmed, that he did not have or own a 9mm, that he had left his 
six shot revolver type pistol at the Refuge, it can only be suggested 
that the handgun was planted by Oregon State Police, Federal Authorities, 
or by some other agency.

As to the Second Question asked, "Why are unarmed Americans being 
murdered by Americans?"

He wasn't murdered by Americans, he was killed by mercenaries working 
for a Foreign Corporation operating outside their lawful jurisdiction 
and with the intent to quash the spreading virus (Senator Ron Wyden's 
comment regarding the Americans realization that something is seriously 
wrong with the U.S. Government to Mr. James B. Comey, seventh and 
current Director of the FBI) with overwhelming Force. The United 
Nations (UN) doing-business-as the International Monetary Fund (IMF) 
doing-business-as The UNITED STATES, a Government Services 
       Corporation now recently chartered and incorporated in France has a new 
       set of rules and public policy that will never be accepted by any American. 
       Please, remember what Americans did with the League of Nations which 
       was the second salvo of this same group of Psychopathic Sociopathic 
       Megalomaniacal would be Rulers of the Know World.

13. After the murder of Mr. Robert LaVoy Finicum, an attorney representing the 
      people of Haney County contacted the U.S. Provost Marshall with a request 
      for Military Forces to remove the FBI and U.S. Military Forces that had now 
      occupied the town of Burns. The people stated that they were in fear of 
      loosing their lives. The attorney stated from his memory that the Oath he 
      took stated that the U.S. Armed forces were required to uphold and protect 
      the Constitution and therefore the people from all enemies both foreign and 
      domestic. 

The attorney was told the matter would be passed up the chain of command.





14. It is to be understood clearly that Americans do not have Constitutional 
      Rights:  they do have Unalienable Rights and can not be forced to give 
      them up. The Constitution for the united States of America is on its face 
      an Equity Contract and an enumeration of 19 services that are to be 
      supplied along with enumerated restrictions which the Company or the 
      United States Inc. shall not abrogate and nothing more. It should be taken 
      into account, and there is much that needs to be accounted for, that the 
      company, The United States Inc. and the current UNITED STATES a 
      franchise corporation of the United Nations have all abrogated all of the 
      stipulations covered in the Constitution for/of the u/United States of America 
      and the contract is null and void.

Americans need to understand exactly the types of frauds perpetrated 
by the Federal Government on the people of America and on the States. 
The United States of America Inc. doing-business-as the Federal 
Government (a bankrupt corporation, July 1st 2013) and its franchises 
the fifty States and the seven territories or Quasi-states have no 
lawful jurisdictional standing on the land and no authority. Americans 
need to realize these facts and more.

15. It should be clear to everyone the Federal Government does not reveal the 
      whole truth and the current administration's claim of transparency has been 
      revealed to be completely opaque and worse and this corporation and its 
      franchise corporations are all perpetrating frauds on the American People. 

As to the question of when are Americans going to wake Up and realize what is 
happening to America?

I have thought long and reasoned carefully regarding the method or technique 
with difficulty to awaken the American People to the danger they are facing right 
now. I can state for a fact that Americans have been trained like Pavlov's dogs and have critical attention spans as-short-as the commercials on television and attention spans of about forty-five minutes (the length of the average public school classroom period beginning and ending with the bell. Americans are further hindered by a reduced capacity to read or understand what they have read due to a complete lack of education in attention, reasoning skills, comprehension, to name just a few of the skills necessary to comprehend any discipline. 

Americans have been horribly mentally crippled by the complete lack of the true 
historical events not covered in American Public Education. Events that have 
forced this set of conditions on America (namely, the type of system of 
Governance and its legal and lawful legitimacy and obligations which has been 
in place since the Eighteen Sixties, and has recently changed ownership once 
again. This time to a group of Megalomaniacs who want to rule the world by whatever means are necessary. 

A better understanding of how this came to be can be found in the book "You Know Something Is Wrong When....."An American Affidavit of Probable Cause" by Anna Maria Reizinger & James Clinton Belcher, ISBN-10: 1491279184, ISBN-13: 978-1491279182" This is required reading for any and every American who wants and needs a true account of international business and how it has affected Americans and American History.

Another Companion Book "Disclosure 101: What You Need To Know – July 1, 2014, by David E. Robinson  (Author), Anna von Reitz (Original Author), ISBN-10: 1500352012, 
ISBN-13: 978-1500352011" is a more technical description of what has taken place and is a must read for any and every American who wants and needs a true account and the current state of our country.

Summing up the situation is simple. There is light at the end of the tunnel;  however, the 
tunnel is long and dark.