THE CONSENT OF THE GOVERNED

THE CONSENT OF THE GOVERNED

THE GOVERNMENT HAS MADE IT IMPOSSIBLE TO CONSENT TO BE GOVERNED.

United States Declaration of Independence; We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers FROM THE CONSENT OF THE GOVERNED, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Article 21 of the United Nation’s 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that “The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government”.

All government power comes from the consent of the governed. Do you consent to be governed? Can you consent to be governed today? My theory is no one really can. Why? Because true consent calls for a meeting of the minds where both sides clearly understand all aspects of each others intentions in the deal. Think of it like a contract with full disclosure. Since government never gives full disclosure, This “Government Transparency” does not exist thus there can be no lawful consent. 99% of what the government does every day they have no authority to do. They act like they do not have to answer our questions when clearly by law and the 1st amendment they do.

“If money is wanted by rulers who have in any manner oppressed the People, they may retain it until their grievances are redressed, and thus peaceably procure relief, without trusting to despised petitions or disturbing the public tranquility.” Journals of the Continental Congress. 26 October, 1774©1789. Journals 1: 105©13.

Black’s Law Dictionary 4th Edition
REDRESS. The receiving satisfaction for an injury sustained.

CONSENT. A concurrence of wills. Voluntarily yielding the will to the proposition of another; acquiescence or compliance therewith. Twin Ports Oil Co. v. Pure Oil Co., D.C.Minn., 26 F.Supp. 366, 371. Agreement; the act or result of coming into harmony or accord. Glantz v. Gabel, 66 Mont. 134, 212 P. 858, 860.

1 Story, Eq.Jur. § 222; Lervick v. White Top Cabs, La.App., 10 So.2d 67, 73. Consent is an act of reason, accompanied with deliberation, the mind weighing as in a balance the good or evil on each side.

People v. Kangiesser, 44 Cal. App. 345, 186 P. 388, 389. It means voluntary agreement
by a person in the possession and exercise of sufficient mentality to make an intelligent choice to do something proposed by another.

Regina v. Day, 9 Car. & P. 722. There is a difference between consenting and submitting.
Every consent involves a submission; but a mere submission does not necessarily involve consent.

The theory of Literal consent holds the logical position that, valid consent must, by definition be both continuous and revocable; this therefore implies that the People have the absolute sovereign power to overrule their government at any time, via popular vote (or as stated in the Declaration of Independence, “the right of the People to alter or abolish” their government). Without this unfettered power, theorists hold that true consent cannot exist; and that any government is therefore despotism, via governing the People by force without their actual consent.

Butler v. Collins, 12 Calif., 157. 463.”Consent in law is more than mere formal act of the mind. It is an act unclouded by fraud, duress, or sometimes even mistake.”

“Silence can only be equated with fraud where there is a legal or moral duty to speak, or where an inquiry left unanswered would be intentionally misleading. . .” U.S. v. Tweel, 550 F.2d 297, 299. See also U.S. v. Prudden, 424 F.2d 1021, 1032; Carmine v. Bowen, 64 A. 932.

Fraud: Deceit, deception, artifice, or trickery operating prejudicially on the rights of another, and so intended, by inducing him to part with property or surrender some legal right. 23 Am J2d Fraud § 2. Anything calculated to deceive another to his prejudice and accomplishing the purpose, whether it be an act, a word, silence, the suppression of the truth, or other device contrary to the plain rules of common honesty. 23 Am J2d Fraud § 2. An affirmation of a fact rather than a promise or statement of intent to do something in the future. Miller v Sutliff, 241 111 521, 89 NE 651.

Citing: Federal Crop Ins. Corp v. Merrill, 332 U.S. 380, the Supreme Court held: “Whatever the form in which the government functions, anyone entering into an arrangement with the government takes a risk of having accurately ascertained that he who purports to act for the government stays within the bounds of his authority, even though the agent himself may be unaware of the limitations upon his authority.”

Any laws created by government which are repugnant to the Constitution carry NO force of law and are VOID:

“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 its unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment… In legal contemplation, it is as inoperative as if it had never been passed… Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no right, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection and justifies no acts performed under it… A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing law. Indeed insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, (the Constitution JTM) it is superseded thereby. No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.” Bonnett v. Vallier, 116 N.W. 885, 136 Wis. 193 (1908); NORTON v. SHELBY COUNTY, 118 U.S. 425 (1886). See also Bonnett v Vallier, 136 Wis 193, 200; 116 NW 885, 887 (1908); State ex rel Ballard v Goodland, 159 Wis 393, 395; 150 NW 488, 489 (1915); State ex rel Kleist v Donald, 164 Wis 545, 552-553; 160 NW 1067, 1070 (1917); State ex rel Martin v Zimmerman, 233 Wis 16, 21; 288 NW 454, 457 (1939); State ex rel Commissioners of Public Lands v Anderson, 56 Wis 2d 666, 672; 203 NW2d 84, 87 (1973); and Butzlaffer v Van Der Geest & Sons, Inc, Wis, 115 Wis 2d 539; 340 NW2d 742, 744-745 (1983).

Martin Luther King, Jr.’s comment in his famous letter from Birmingham Jail: “One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws.”

Declaration of Independence, “…whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government…,”

To disregard Constitutional law, and to violate the same, creates a sure liability upon the one involved:

“State officers may be held personally liable for damages based upon actions taken in their official capacities.” Hafer v. Melo, 502 U.S. 21 (1991).
The Oath of office is a quid pro quo contract cf [U.S. Const. Art. 6, Clauses 2 and 3, Davis Vs. Lawyers Surety Corporation., 459 S.W. 2nd. 655, 657., Tex. Civ. App.] in which clerks, officials, or officers of the government pledge to perform (Support and uphold the United States and state Constitutions) in return for substance (wages, perks, benefits). Proponents are subjected to the penalties and remedies for Breach of Contract, Conspiracy cf [Title 18 U.S.C., Sections 241, 242]. Treason under the Constitution at Article 3, Section 3., and Intrinsic Fraud cf [Auerbach v Samuels, 10 Utah 2nd. 152, 349 P. 2nd. 1112,1114. Alleghany Corp v Kirby., D.C.N.Y. 218 F. Supp. 164, 183., and Keeton Packing Co. v State., 437 S.W. 20, 28]. Refusing to live by their oath places them in direct violation of their oath, in every case. Violating their oath is not just cause for immediate dismissal and removal from office, it is a federal crime. Federal law regulating oath of office by government officials is divided into four parts along with an executive order which further defines the law for purposes of enforcement. 5 U.S.C. 3331, provides the text of the actual oath of office members of Congress are required to take before assuming office. 5 U.S.C. 3333 requires members of Congress sign an affidavit that they have taken the oath of office required by 5 U.S.C. 3331 and have not or will not violate that oath of office during their tenure of office as defined by the third part of the law, 5 U.S.C. 7311 which explicitly makes it a federal criminal offense
(and a violation of oath of office) for anyone employed in the United States Government (including members of Congress) to “advocate the overthrow of our constitutional form of government”

Fraud

vitiates the most solemn contracts, documents and even judgments;” [u.s. vs. Throckmorton, 9B us 61, atpg.6sl.”It is not necessary for rescission of a contract that the party making the misrepresentation should have known that it was false, but recovery is allowed even though misrepresentation is innocently made, because it would be unjust to allow one who made false representations, even innocently, to retain the fruits of a bargain induced by such representations.” [Whipp v. Iverson. 43 Wis Zd L66]. “Any false representation of material facts made with knowledge of falsity and with intent that it shall be acted on by another in entering into contract, and which is so acted upon, constitutes ‘fraud,’ and entitles party deceived to avoid contract or recover damages.” Barnsdall Refining Corn. v. Birnam Wood Oil Co. 92 F 26 BL7

UCC 1-201. General definitions

44. “Value”. Except as otherwise provided with respect to negotiable instruments and bank collections (sections 3-303, 4-210 and 4-211) a person gives “value” for rights if he acquires them:

(b) As security for or in total or partial satisfaction of a preexisting claim; Usually a person gives value when he is exchanging them for rights he is acquiring as security for that one transaction. Those rights might be in the title to real property, or capacity to sue, or for performance. According to subsection (b), a person (United States) can give value (benefits) for rights (pledge) he (United States) is acquiring from a U.S. citizen, as security for satisfaction of a claim that already exists (national debt). The rights the United States gets from the U.S. citizen secure payment or performance on that preexisting claim the international bankers have against the United States and its sureties. The person giving the value (United States) has supposedly already received a promise of some sort from the U.S. citizen

Bailey v. State of Alabama,219 US 219 You have a right to own and contract your labor as you see fit.

What are your rights worth? We know congress violates their oath of office because it is apparent in the laws they uphold and support. one can not uphold and support a unconstitutional law and the counter constitutional law at the same time. Police officers who enforce unconstitutional law breaking their oath of office and again breaking it again in the violations of other rights as well on the one they are trying to arrest, and then the judge breaks their oath of office when they enforce unconstitutional laws and decree them unconstitutional or unconstitutionally applied. A judge as does the prosecutor and court clerk and what not, knows when he or she is working as a judge in a common law court or a agent in a admiralty or maritime court. They are knowingly committing treason and fraud and racketeering. Did you consent to that?

Clearfield Trust v. United States,318 US 363 Bank of United States v. Planters’ Bank of Georgia , 9 Wheaton (22 US) 904, 6 L. Ed. 24 “Governments descend to the level of a mere private corporation and takes on the character of a mere private citizen [where private corporate commercial paper, Federal Reserve Notes and other negotiable debt instruments are concerned]…. For purposes of suit, such corporations and individuals are regarded as an entity entirely separate from government.”(Emphasis added)

“Inasmuch as every government is an artificial person, an abstraction, and a creature of the mind only, a government can interface only with other artificial persons. The imaginary, having neither actuality nor substance, is foreclosed from creating and attaining parity with the tangible. The legal manifestation of this is that no government, as well as any law, agency, aspect, court, etc. can concern itself with anything other than corporate, artificial persons and the contracts between them.” S.C.R. 1795, Penhallow v. Doane’s Administraters (3 U.S. 54; 1 L.Ed. 57; 3 Dall. 54),-”

“It is well settled in administrative law that: “It is the accepted rule, not only in state courts, but, of the federal courts as well, that when a judge is enforcing administrative law they are described as mere ‘extensions of the administrative agency for superior reviewing purposes’ as a ministerial clerk for an agency…” 30 Cal.596; 167 Cal 762. And;

Apparent agency.

Kotera v. Daioh Int’l U.S.A. Corp,9509-06556; A100452 (Or. 01/30/2002) (In the absence of agency based on actual authority, plaintiff (FRANCHISE TAX BOARD) was required to produce evidence of apparent agency to support personal jurisdiction over (Defendant). Miller v. McDonald’s Corp., 150 Or App 274, 282, 945 P2d 1107 (1997). To establish apparent agency, plaintiff must have offered evidence that (1)?Defendants held out Plaintiff as an agent, and (2) plaintiff justifiably relied on that holding out. See id. at 282-83. Plaintiff alleged neither such “holding out” by Defendants nor reliance on plaintiff’s part. The only evidence of “holding out” came from the affidavit submitted by Defendants, which acknowledged that Plaintiff was a director of the corporation. However, no evidence before the trial court established that plaintiff relied on that information in agreeing to the transaction. Accordingly, there was insufficient evidence before the trial court to support an exercise of personal jurisdiction over Defendant, and the trial court erred in denying Defendant’s motion to dismiss on that ground;

Although courts sometimes have used “apparent authority” and “apparent agency” interchangeably, the distinction is important. “Apparent agency creates an agency relationship that does not otherwise exist, while apparent authority expands the authority of an actual agent.” Miller, 150 Or App at 282 n 4. Thus, apparent authority is relevant only if actual agency already has been established. Here, because plaintiff has offered no evidence to establish the existence of an actual agency, apparent authority is not implicated.);

ORCP 21(A) (Defenses and Objections, How presented) (Every defense, in law or fact, to a claim for relief in any pleading, whether a complaint, counterclaim, cross-claim or third party claim, shall be asserted in the responsive pleading thereto, except that the following defenses may at the option of the pleader be made by motion to dismiss: (1) lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter, (2) lack of jurisdiction over the person,“A judge ceases to sit as a judicial officer because the governing principals of administrative law provides that courts are prohibited from substituting their evidence, testimony, record, arguments and rationale for that of the agency.

Additionally, courts are prohibited from their substituting their judgments for that of the agency.” American Iron and Steel v. United States, 568 F.2d 284. And; “. . . judges who become involved in enforcement of mere statutes (civil or criminal in nature and otherwise), act as mere “clerks” of the involved agency…” K.C. Davis., ADMIN. LAW, Ch. 1 (CTP. West’s 1965 Ed.) “…their supposed “courts” becoming thus a court of “limited jurisdiction”as a mere extension of the involved agency for mere superior reviewing purposes.” K.C. Davis, ADMIN. LAW., P. 95, (CTP, 6 Ed. West’s 1977)> FRC v. G.E., 281 U.S. 464; Keller v. P.E.P., 261 U.S. 428. And; A so-called Municipal or District court that is not a constitutional court is a legislative tribunal.

In speaking on this subject in relation to the Constitution for the united States of America, the supreme Court said: “The term ‘District Courts of the United States,’ . . . without an addition expressing a wider connotation, has its historic significance. It describes the constitutional courts created under Article III of the Constitution. Courts of the Territories are legislative courts, properly speaking, and are not District Courts of the United States.” Mookini v. United States, 303 US 201, 205, 58 Sct. 543, 82 Led. 748 ((1938).

The power of the Municipal or District Court is that of the old “justice of the peace” courts which were courts of “limited and special jurisdiction.” State v. Officer, 4 Or. 180 (1871).

Inferior tribunals are subject to the supervisory control (judicial powers), and must show affirmative proof on the face on the inferior tribunal record to sustain a conviction. “If the court is . . . of some special statutory jurisdiction it is as to such proceedings an inferior court, and not aided by presumption of jurisdiction.” Norman v. Zeiber, 3 Or 198.

Inferior tribunals have no presumption of jurisdiction in their favor and all that need to be done by Petitioner, to throw the burden of proving jurisdiction upon Respondent State, is to contest the applicability of the inferior tribunals jurisdiction to Petitioner. ” . . . if the record does not show upon its face the facts necessary to give jurisdiction, they will be presumed not to have existed.” Norman v. Zeiber, 3 Or. 198.

The constitutional rule for inferior tribunals was set down by the Oregon Supreme Court in Evans v. Marvin, 76 Or. 540, 148 P 1119 (1915), a case involving a justice court:” . . . the constitutional rule that justice courts are of limited jurisdiction. …their judgments must be sustained affirmatively by positive proof that they had jurisdiction of the cases they attempt to decide.” Evans v. Marvin, 76 Or. 540, 148 P 119 (1915).

Even the de facto Constitution and the State Statutes will clearly show that the EXECUTIVE AUTHORITY is vested Solely in the office of the Elected County Prosecutor, Deputy Prosecutor, Special Prosecutor and/or Attorney General’s Office.

All so called Judges are in fact and law EXECUTIVE OFFICERS and that is why the so called JUDGE/ADMINISTRATOR CAN PRESUME TO ISSUE A WARRANT FOR YOUR ARREST WHEN YOU FAIL TO APPEAR IN THE AIRSPACE OF “THIS STATE” BEING ABOVE THE LAND OF “THE STATE!”THAT HAS LEGISLATIVE JURISDICITON.

MAGISTRATE. Person clothed with power as a public civil officer. State ex rel. Miller v. Mc-Leod, 142 Fla. 254, 194 So. 628, 630. A public officer belonging to the civil organization of the state, and invested with powers and functions which may be either judicial, legislative, or executive. But the term is commonly used in a narrower sense, designating, in England, a person intrusted with the commission of the peace, and, in America, one of the class of inferior judicial officers, such as justices of the peace and police justices. Martin v. State, 32 Ark. 124; Ex parte White, 15 Nev. 146,
37 Am.Rep. 466; State v. Allen, 83 Fla. 655, 92 So. 155, 156; Merritt v. Merritt, 193 Iowa 899, 188 N.W. 32, 34. A magistrate is an officer having power to issue a warrant
for the arrest of a person charged with a public offense. Pen. Code Cal. § 807.
The word “magistrate” does not necessarily imply an officer exercising any judicial functions, and might very well be held to embrace notaries and commissioners of
deeds. Schultz v. Merchants’ Ins. Co., 57 Mo. 336.

ALL so called State Court’s are creatures of Statute created by the LEGISLATURE and are merely ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES which only have the authority or jurisdiction conferred by a Statute.

If you search carefully the Senate and House Bills and the 1st Legislative Enactment or Session Law creating the Superior Court’s in your State, you will find that it says right in your own law books, that ALL your so called State Superior Court’s are really LOWER DISTRICT FEDERAL COURTS!

THE PEOPLE HAVE NO STATE JUDICIAL COURT’S AVAILABLE TODAY! “THIS STATE” is a de facto FEDERAL MUNICIPAL CORPORATION and by fraud in the inducement, presents itself as a de jure State, but in fact and law is NOT a State in Original Jurisdiction pursuant to the authority of the 1st Original Judiciary Act wherein the District of Columbia is a de facto for profit copyright private corporation. Did you consent to that?

“WHEREAS, THIS STATE” is a DE FACTO FEDERAL MUNICIPAL CORPORATION under the NEW JUDICIARY ACT wherein the DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA presumes Equal Footing as a de jure STATE. Did you consent to that?

The issue re the use of the terms of art by the legislative branch within the several states identifying their legislative acts as in “this state” goes only to “Definitions” re the statute . . . should the act(s) not rise to malum se within “the state” and thereby give notice of a substantive connection to the subject matter as applying to some form of physical damage or substantive contact going to an actual controversy and a real party in interest . . . the statute has no mechanism granting authority to reach the Sovereign.? Capital crimes therefore are prosecuted by and through the substantive statute as being within “the state” when charged.

When laws are passed that infringe on ANY of your rights they are unconstitutional and unlawful and the judges know it. It is their DUTY to rule them so. It is treason when they do not.

Boyd v. U S, 116 US 616 5th Amendment rights. “…constitutional provisions for the security of person and property should be liberally construed… It is the duty of the courts to be watchful for the constitutional rights of Citizens, and against any stealthy encroachment thereon.”

Owens v. City of Independence,445 US 622, 100 S. Ct. 1398 Maine v. Thiboutot,448 US 1, 100 S. Ct. 2502 Hafer v. Melo, 502 US 21 Officers of the Court have no immunity, when violating a constitutional right, from liability, for they are deemed to know the law.

Murdock v. Pennsylvania 319 US 105 No state shall convert a liberty into a privilege, license it, and attach a fee to it. “A state may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by Federal constitution. at 113, (1943).

Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US 436 “Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be NO rule making or legislation which would abrogate them.”

Norton v. Shelby County, 118 US 425 “Any unconstitutional act is not law, it confers no rights, it imposes no duties, it affords no protection, it creates no office, it is an illegal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed.”

Shuttlesworth v. City of Birmingham, 373 US 262 If a state converts a liberty into a privilege the citizen can engage in the right with impunity.

Byars v. U.S. , 273 US 28 Unlawful search and seizure. Rights must be interpreted in favor of the citizen.

Boyd v. U S, 116 US 616 5th Amendment rights. “…constitutional provisions for the security of person and property should be liberally construed… It is the duty of the courts to be watchful for the constitutional rights of Citizens, and against any stealthy encroachment thereon.”

United States v. Bishop, 412 US 346 Relying on prior decisions of the Supreme Court is a perfect defense against willfulness.

Do you have a right to travel? The law says you do on the one hand. The police and judges and congress men say you do not have a right to travel unless you pay them for that right. Did you consent to that?

Shapiro v. Thomson,394 US 618, 89 S. Ct. 1322 A Citizen must be free to travel throughout the [several] United States uninhibited by statutes, rules or regulation.

Thompson v. Smith 154 SE 579. “The right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by a carriage or automobile, is not a mere privilege which a City may prohibit or permit at will, but a common right which he has under the right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of happiness.”

Kent v. Dulles , 357 U.S. 116, 125. “The right to travel is part of the Liberty of which the Citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment.”

Murdock v. Pennsylvania 319 US 105 No state shall convert a liberty into a privilege, license it, and attach a fee to it. “A state may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by Federal constitution. at 113, (1943).

Is a right illegal?

Black’s Law Dictionary 4th Ed. LICENSE Permission by some competent authority to do some act which, without such permission, would be illegal. State ex rel. Zugravu v. O’Brien,
130 Ohio St. 23, 196 N.E. 664; Solberg v. Davenport, 211 Iowa, 612, 232 N.W. 477, 480; Standard Oil Co. (Indiana) v. State Board of Equalization, 110 Mont. 5, 99 P.2d 229, 234.

“The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime.” Miller v. U.S., 230 F 2d 486, 489.

“There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of this exercise of Constitutional rights.”- Sherar v. Cullen, 481 F. 945.

So how are they suppose to handle a right?

“Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them.” – Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 491.

Black’s law dictionary 4th edtion
ABROGATE. To annul, repeal, or destroy; to annul or repeal an order or rule issued by a subordinate authority; to repeal a former law by legislative act, or by usage.

To charge you for a right is fraud it is treason it is criminal. Did you consent to that?

How many rights can you think of they are charging you for today? First you have to ask well what are my rights?

Any laws created by government which are repugnant to the Constitution carry NO force of law and are VOID:

“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 its unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment… In legal contemplation, it is as inoperative as if it had never been passed… Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no right, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection and justifies no acts performed under it… A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing law. Indeed insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, (the Constitution JTM) it is superseded thereby. No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.” Bonnett v. Vallier, 116 N.W. 885, 136 Wis. 193 (1908); NORTON v. SHELBY COUNTY, 118 U.S. 425 (1886). See also Bonnett v Vallier, 136 Wis 193, 200; 116 NW 885, 887 (1908); State ex rel Ballard v Goodland, 159 Wis 393, 395; 150 NW 488, 489 (1915); State ex rel Kleist v Donald, 164 Wis 545, 552-553; 160 NW 1067, 1070 (1917); State ex rel Martin v Zimmerman, 233 Wis 16, 21; 288 NW 454, 457 (1939); State ex rel Commissioners of Public Lands v Anderson, 56 Wis 2d 666, 672; 203 NW2d 84, 87 (1973); and Butzlaffer v Van Der Geest & Sons, Inc, Wis, 115 Wis 2d 539; 340 NW2d 742, 744-745 (1983).

Laws existed long before government did Here in America the government officials have to go by the law as well they can not just make up laws saying them or anyone else is exempt from laws made long before they existed. What could you do and what did our forefathers do before state and federal governments were established?

Well they could buy land and do anything they wanted on their land, they could build houses, no licenses or permits, no one telling them what they could build or how it had to be built, and no taxes, no one to kick you out and steal it from you.

They could grow gardens as well as herb and medicinal gardens, no regulations, no charges, no imprisonment.

They could travel no license no tags no charges no passports and no imprisonment, No one stopping them to search their belongings ( they would have been shot if they tried ), and no one asking them where you been and where are you going. No tickets no fines.

They could own and shoot guns again no charges no imprisonment. In fact ANY type of arms you wanted or could build you could have.

They could hunt, they could trap and they could fish, no charges no imprisonment.

They could carry on a business as they saw fit with out government interference and regulations and taxation.

They could raise and educate their kids as they saw fit. No rules no regulations no taxes no fees not one telling them they could not teach them this or that.

They could have meetings without being spied on or anyone telling them what they could or could not say or discuss. In fact as long as they did not hurt anyone or their property their power of what they could do or say was almost limitless.

The government by treason and fraud and unlawful enforcement have built up a way to charge you for all these and many other rights in violation of their oath of office. They are by actions the very definition of fraud, treason, racketeering, organized crime and terrorist. Did you consent to that?

~ It poisons the blessings of liberty itself. It will be of little avail to the people, that laws are made by men of their own choice, if the laws be so voluminous that they can not be read, or so incoherent they can not be understood. Federalist Number 62 ~

We have over 80 millions laws most unconstitutional and most geared toward lining the pockets of politicians, people in high places in government, corporations, banks and the prison industrial complex, the industrial war complex, the industrial education complex, the industrial government complex and the industrial health system complex. They generate billions if not trillions every year in fines and billions more in taxes to enforce them all. They bring in money for themselves from every side and angle. They make more and more laws for us everyday while exempting themselves from the very same laws they write for us. For over 600 years to commit a crime in England or the United States in its beginnings you had to harm someone or their property. Today they make anything they choose a crime, and make and apply law unconstitutionally in violation of oath of office, the constitution, and in spite of peoples rights, all for money and control. This is nothing less than organized crime and tyranny. Did you consent to that?

No one person knows and understands every law or so called law. To consent legally you have to know what your consenting to. Since no one knows all the laws, all the backdoor dealings going on, and fully understand all the laws, rules, regulations, treaties, statutes, ordinances, codes and acts and understand how they all work together to make the contract valid, The you can not consent to being governed when you can not understand the full contract and rules of that contract. So if there is no one that can legally consent to be governed who are they governing? They are a corporation joined in with other corporations and banks unconstitutionally robing the people of all their properties, their homes their land their money their lives and their rights.

The people who FORCE these rules on us have declared us enemies in Trading With the Enemy Act in 1933. The judges, the police, congress, our city, town, county, state and federal officials are all a part of it knowingly or not. All who take a oath of office to uphold and support the constitution but do not.

On March 9, 1933, Roosevelt issued Proclamation 2040. It referred to the national emergency and again asserted Sec. 5(b) as authority for it. Roosevelt then proclaimed that the Proclamation of March 6, 1933, would remain in full force and effect until proclamation by the president. It remains in force to this day.

Therefore, an effectively permanent law exists that allows the president, by declaring an emergency, to assume the role of dictator. He may designate agencies of his choice to investigate, regulate, and license any transaction of any person (enemy) within the United States, by means of rules and regulations he may prescribe.

In the event the reader has lingering doubt concerning the nature and effect of the Trading With the Enemy Act, it is suggested that he read Senate Report 93-549.

From Senate Report 93-549:

A majority of the people of the United States have lived all their lives under emergency rule. For almost 40 years, freedoms and governmental procedures guaranteed by the Constitution have, in varying degrees, been abridged by laws brought in force by states of national emergency.

They have no problem admitting their violation of oath of office here and in many other places. How many times have you heard a politician declare this is a democracy when the constitution clearly sates and guarantees a republic? Does a democracy or oiligarchy change the form of government? of course it does and violates one’s oath of office as well.

With the act null and avoid according to the law the government have again become criminals of every kind when they enforce any of them on us.

The Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 and the Gun Control Act of 1968, A script stright from the Nazi gun laws, which becomes the primary federal law regulating firearms in the U.S.. Again null and void by law but they do not act like it. Did you consent to that?

All the marijuana and drug laws, null and void. Billions lost in scammed funds.

Traffic laws for those not involved in interstate and foreign commerce, null and void. Billions lost in scammed funds.

What you can and cant do with and own you property, null and void. Billions lost in scammed funds.

The way ad volarem and school tax is applied, null and void. Billions lost in scammed funds.

Building homes on your property the way you want to, all the regulations and fines and permits all gone. Null and Void. Billions lost in scammed funds.

Carrying out your own local business the way you see fit. All the laws gone null and void. Billions lost in scammed funds.

As you can see there is great incentive for those criminals serving us in office and their friends to take what we have. Those who consent to be governed must also become governors to govern, to control and lay down the law for the government they chose to control and lay down the law for them. Can you see the irony in that?

Bennett v. Boggs, 1 Baldw. 60 (1830). “Statutes that violate the plain and obvious principles of common (Natural) right and common reason are null and void.”

It is common reason that we know we can govern, we can control ourselves better than we can govern ( control ) a government.

Hurtado v. United States, 410 US 578 (1973) “It is not every act, legislative in form, that is law. Law is something more than mere will exerted as an act of power…Arbitrary power, enforcing its edicts to the injury of the party and property of its subjects is not law.”

Butchers’ Union Co. v. Crescent City Co.,111 US 746 (1884).” Our rights cannot, by acts of Congress, be bartered away, given away or taken away.”

You once again can not consent to what you can not conceive. Hold those who have taken a oath of office to their oath of office and to the constitution and you will begin to see the America our forefathers had in mind for us and our children and our children’s children for generations to come.

“State officers may be held personally liable for damages based upon actions taken in their official capacities.” Hafer v. Melo, 502 U.S. 21 (1991).

~ The Oath of office is a quid pro quo contract cf [U.S. Const. Art. 6, Clauses 2 and 3, Davis Vs. Lawyers Surety Corporation., 459 S.W. 2nd. 655, 657., Tex. Civ. App.] in which clerks, officials, or officers of the government pledge to perform (Support and uphold the United States and state Constitutions) in return for substance (wages, perks, benefits). Proponents are subjected to the penalties and remedies for Breach of Contract, Conspiracy cf [Title 18 U.S.C., Sections 241, 242]. Treason under the Constitution at Article 3, Section 3., and Intrinsic Fraud cf [Auerbach v Samuels, 10 Utah 2nd. 152, 349 P. 2nd. 1112,1114. Alleghany Corp v Kirby., D.C.N.Y. 218 F. Supp. 164, 183., and Keeton Packing Co. v State., 437 S.W. 20, 28]. Refusing to live by their oath places them in direct violation of their oath, in every case. Violating their oath is not just cause for immediate dismissal and removal from office, it is a federal crime. Federal law regulating oath of office by government officials is divided into four parts along with an executive order which further defines the law for purposes of enforcement. 5 U.S.C. 3331, provides the text of the actual oath of office members of Congress are required to take before assuming office. 5 U.S.C. 3333 requires members of Congress sign an affidavit that they have taken the oath of office required by 5 U.S.C. 3331 and have not or will not violate that oath of office during their tenure of office as defined by the third part of the law, 5 U.S.C. 7311 which explicitly makes it a federal criminal offense (and a violation of oath of office) for anyone employed in the United States Government (including members of Congress) to “advocate the overthrow of our constitutional form of government” ~

This includes ALL office’s Judicial, Legislative, and Executive. This includes everyone working for the government that takes a oath of office like police enforcing unconstitutional codes, statues, acts, ordinances and foreign and international treaties, and judges who also break their oaths enforcing them on the people to rob and steal for themselves and special agendas. Our government is corrupt from top to bottom. Why they are not being round up and jailed is only further proof of how far they have gone. Criminals always protect their fellow partners in crime. It is not ok just because “this is the way we do it now” It is unconstitutional and violates the rights of the people. It robs the people of life liberty property and justice. Enforce the constitution and remove the unconstitutional and criminal elements. Put the oath breakers in prison and charge them with violation of oath of office and what ever other crimes they have committed and seize their assets to pay back the citizens some of what they have stolen from them over the years. Put them in prison where criminals belong. Those that take their place bind them to the constitution and the law as well. If you do not arrest a criminal they WILL continue in the same criminal activities and just get worse until someone stops them. I think everyone can consent to that.

“The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first.” ~Thomas Jefferson~

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s