Jump to navigation
No time like now to stick the foot up their ass, it's the American way. Screw the CCP, screw congress , Make America Great Again.
Chinese scientist escapes China to expose Covid China Agenda
Really interesting anti- vaxx websites...
Found on Quora.com by expert
KFC sources chicken from both halal and non-halal sources. In the U.S., almost all of the chicken is technically halal as most of the suppliers are large enough to maintain the standards.
However, to prevent franchises from trying to get a competitive advantage, it does not allow franchisees to advertise they offer halal chicken or to obtain halal certification
Not much American owned major companies left. Support your local mom and pop stores, restaurants .
Center for Individual Rights
1100 Connecticut Ave., N.W
Washington, DC 20036
Our nation is going to crap thanks to Low Biden
These look good.
Courts should no longer be only option to require holding local and state officials accountable . The Criminal Justice Reform Bill passed by corrupt Pritzker should also include future warrants by citizens against abuse of power against governors, municipal and county officers that force vaccine mandates and other un-constitutional demands at random against citizens.
As Ronald Reagan would say, " Government was created to protect people , not rule their lives".
A good resource.
These wealthy scum like Gates, and democrats are doing all they can to destroy our country under the disguise of social justice and reform.
Old interesting website.
Yes Biblical Law will always be The Law over man- made statutes, codes, etc.
Share your cop abuse
I have yet to read this book. From the title sounds damn good. "It is Dangerous to Be Right When Government is Wrong by Judge Andrew Napolitano.
These informative websites will wake the hell people up. Unless they are extreme liberal scum!
GOFUNDME goes Woke
BLM more racist than KKK
It is funny what happened to all the so called white supremicists the media always conjures up? Biden owns them likely
Just look how Roger Stone has been treated by the feds. That's how they try to silence patriots.
So Steve Bannon's War Room on on America's Voice News on Pluto.TV has shared this colored woman's website exposing Marxism.
Anyone to believe this garbage has no interest in our freedoms.
I know a buddy that took the vaxx. He is losing lots of weight. Likely won't live long.
Our country is headed that way.
Money and Power: Corruption in Local Sheriff Departments
The New York Times looks at how corruption is tolerated and even encouraged in some county sheriff offices.
by Stephen Raher, December 20, 2017
A lengthy and thoroughly researched article in last week’s New York Times provides a detailed look at how corruption is tolerated and even encouraged in some county sheriff offices. The story focuses on Sheriff Ana Franklin, of Morgan County, Alabama; but, it also points to some larger issues that can easily be found in communities throughout the country. In particular, there are three issues in the article that deserve repeating: food, rodeos, and populism.
(And the hidden ways sheriffs make money)
Sheriff Franklin’s time in office has been marked by controversy for several reasons, but one transgression is a real attention grabber. The sheriff invested $150,000 in public funds in a car dealership owned by someone who had been convicted of financial fraud (the dealership subsequently filed for bankruptcy). This questionable use of public money was facilitated by a bizarre quirk of state law:
In most [Alabama] counties — Morgan included — food money is deposited not into government accounts, but into sheriffs’ personal accounts. Nearly a decade ago, when inmates’ lawyers demanded to know how much of this money Alabama sheriffs were keeping for personal use, the state sheriffs’ association instructed them not to answer.
This practice has led to an unfortunate temptation: some sheriffs try to spend as little as possible on jail food (a cruel practice that also raises public health concerns), so that they can keep any unspent funds for themselves. While this scheme may be legal in other counties, Sheriff Franklin ran into trouble because she was subject to an unusual level of oversight: the Southern Center for Human Rights had sued Franklin’s predecessor for inadequate food at the jail, and the litigation ended in a consent decree that requires the food budget to be spent entirely on food.
The Times article also explores out how this specific incident fits into a bigger trend that impacts jails all over the country, even in jurisdictions without Alabama’s lax budgetary practices. The more jails seek to generate revenue from incarcerated people, the more opportunities for unfairness will arise:
Sheriffs have found other ways to squeeze money out of inmates. Some take a percentage of service contracts, including commissary sales and telephone charges. In Morgan County, a company that just won the jail phone contract pays the county a 90 percent commission on all its revenue from prisoners’ calls. In St. Johns County, Fla., the sheriff brings in tens of thousands of dollars a year by charging inmates “processing fees.”
Prison Policy Initiative has been tracking monetization schemes like phone systems and commissary for a while. But this article makes an important point: as more incarcerated people are held in county jails, the potential profits for unscrupulous parties increases.
(and sheriffs’ questionable “charitable” fundraising)
The Times article also reveals some surprising details about law-enforcement related fundraising. Sheriff Franklin has expanded the size (and revenue) of Morgan County’s sheriff’s rodeo, amid allegations that deputies sold program advertisements while on duty, and were asked to work at the event without pay. Even more dismaying, it’s not clear whether the stated goal of the rodeo is even being met:
Sheriff Franklin said the rodeo brought in about $20,000 a year in profit, but she has never publicly accounted for all the money, except to say that it went to local charities and law enforcement. She promised to produce financial records for her rodeo, but a month later gave only names of charities and no amounts. The rodeo’s financial records, she said, were “reviewed by a C.P.A. firm.”
In interviews, the sheriff gave differing accounts about who processed the rodeo cash. First she said the money went through a tax-exempt organization set up a couple of years ago called Morgan County Sheriff’s Rodeo. Before that, the money was kept in a regular account, she said.
After The Times could find no group by that name registered with the Internal Revenue Service, Sheriff Franklin corrected herself, saying rodeo proceeds had actually gone to a different nonprofit: Morgan County Sheriff’s Mounted Posse, founded in 1963.
Normally, tax-exempt organizations must file annual financial reports for public inspection. But Sheriff Franklin’s is exempt from public disclosure because of an I.R.S. loophole for charities affiliated with government agencies. “The I.R.S. assumes organizations controlled by governmental entities will be good tax citizens,” said Marc Owens, former director of the I.R.S. division of exempt organizations.
(And law enforcement’s anti-government rhetoric )
Not only are the accounting irregularities concerning, but the very nature of the fundraising activities highlights sheriffs’ highly political role and the ability to monetize the image that comes with the office. The article notes that some sheriffs have adopted a particularly anti-government platform which has gained popularity in recent years:
“In certain jurisdictions there is a feeling by sheriffs that this is my fiefdom — I am in charge, my way or the highway,” said Sarah Geraghty, a lawyer at the Southern Center for Human Rights in Atlanta, which has filed lawsuits against a number of sheriffs. “Sometimes that kind of culture can lead to sort of a sheriffs-gone-wild kind of behavior.”
“Mostly we protect people from criminals, but sometimes we protect them from an overreaching government,” said Brad Rogers, the sheriff of Elkhart County, Ind. He added: “I’m answerable to the people. I have a face and a name. Try asking the federal government for a face and a name.”
This rhetoric can be found across the country, from Sheriff Rogers in Indiana, to former sheriff Joe Arpaio in Arizona, to Sheriff Glenn Palmer in Oregon (who publicly supported the protestors that seized the Malheur Wildlife Refuge in 2016). These populist law enforcers share a common tactic: they build and justify their own unaccountable power by attacking the legitimacy of other politicians or government entities. Because of the vast powers given to county sheriffs, it is critical that reformers closely monitor their local sheriffs and challenge policies that are grounded in emotional appeals to voter fear.
The Times has done a good job of illustrating some common problems that arise from sheriffs’ unchecked power. The question facing the rest of us is what can be done to reverse this trend. Sheriffs can be challenged at the next election, but unseating an incumbent sheriff is quite unusual. As the article briefly notes, litigation and the rare criminal prosecution can be useful tools. And other elected officials may not have the ability to hire or fire a sheriff, but can often use the power of the purse to force operational changes. As usual, there is no uniform simple solution to this intractable problem, but any meaningful change must begin with an informed an active general public.
Stephen Raher is a volunteer attorney at the Prison Policy Initiative. (Other articles | Full bio | Contact)
Critical Race Theory violates civil rights laws, says expert
07/03/2021 / By Franz Walker
Critical Race Theory, the idea which forces people to not say certain things or avoid taking certain stances may infringe on people’s civil and constitutional rights. This is according to Dr. Carol Swain, a former professor of political science and law at Princeton University and Vanderbilt University.
The driving force behind Critical Race Theory is the idea that the people of the world are divided into oppressors and the oppressed. In the United States, “all white people are considered oppressors who benefit from undeserved advantages,” said Swain in an interview with the Epoch Times.
“[Whites] are deemed guilty of having set up a system of systemic racism,” she continued. “The demonization of one group of people because of the color of their skin is something that is discriminatory.”
Civil Rights Act protects people against having Critical Race Theory forced on them
In her interview with the Epoch Times, Swain pointed out that white people who’re forced into Critical Race Theory-based training do not realize that they’re protected in the same way that black people are protected. This is thanks to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, skin color, religion, national origin and disability, Swain explained.
“We’re not a country where it’s acceptable to bully and shame people because of the color of their skin,” she pointed out.
She explained that Critical Race Theory can create a hostile environment at work or may cause psychological harm to children at school. On the latter, she noted that parents have reported depression, trauma or other problems in their children who’d been told that, because of the fact that their ancestors inflicted harm or just because of their whiteness, they are also guilty of oppression. (Related: Critical race theory is just anti-white racism.)
In addition, Swain also pointed out that the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution guarantees certain protection to all people, regardless of whether or not they’re American citizens.
Finally, she pointed out that, if a public institution such as a school tries to restrict people’s speech or behavior, it may also count as a violation of the First Amendment.
Teaching Critical Race Theory in colleges and universities is a problem
Swain has raised particular concern about how Critical Race Theory was being pushed in colleges and universities around the country. She discussed as much during a recent interview with Fox News‘ “Fox & Friends,” pointing out that because of this, nearly half of college students have been given a negative view of America, according to a survey.
Swain pointed out that, in both public and private colleges and universities, the overwhelming majority of administrators and faculty are either liberal Democrats or are “steeped in Critical Race Theory and anti-Americanism.”
More importantly, many of these colleges and private universities are getting millions of dollars in federal funding – with some as much as half a billion – despite teaching anti-Americanism.
She stated that these universities are “cheating their students. They are cheating them and they’re harming our country because if you hate America, why would you risk your life to go into the military to fight for a country that’s evil?”
In addition to hating the country, she pointed out that Critical Race Theory teaches white youths to hate themselves. This, she said, has led to an increase in suicides among the youth.
“We have created a hostile learning environment, the suicide rate for youth, you know, is exploding. And we wonder why.”
Finally, she concluded with how teaching Critical Race Theory in college doesn’t unify but rather divides. In her words, it teaches “division between males and females, [that] males are the oppressors, females are the victims. With the critical race theory, Whites are the oppressors, minorities are the victims. ”
“They are destroying everyone’s life and we need to stand up and we are.”
Follow PoliticalCorrectness.news for more on how Critical Race Theory is running rampant in America.
Tagged Under: anti-white, brainwashing, civil rights, Civil Rights Act, Civil Rights Act of 1964, College, Critical Race Theory, dr. carol swain, education, indoctrination, political correctness, public education, race wars, racism, Twisted, university, uprising
Predatory, illegal and exploited: why booting may have been illegal all along
On November 8, 2017 • By Cameron Lineberry
Photo by Vanessa Johnson | The Signal
Booting in Atlanta might have been illegal all along if local law firms can prove unlawful behavior from companies. The Kevin Patrick Law Firm and the Werner Law Firm filed against Atlanta booting companies for alleged illegal activity.
According to the Werner Law Firm’s lead counsel Matt Wetherington, the only way booting can be legal within a city is if the local government passes an ordinance.
“Look at any sign in the city of Atlanta and compare it to the statute. Note that it doesn’t comply with the city of Atlanta ordinance. Both law firms leading the suit, filed against unnamed booting companies in Atlanta, are limited to the information they can give due to privacy and legality,” he said.
The signs are stating who the contractors are but not who owns the parking lot. However, the booting companies are still booting even though the sign doesn’t state what the law says it’s supposed to state.
“The goal,” Wetherington said, “is to get everyone who’s been booted their money back.”
This suit, if won, will bring about new restrictions and guidelines for booting companies. The awareness of fake booting companies will increase and hopefully they can begin to be apprehended.
The firms involved have stated that their clients have felt like it was predatory, illegal and an exploited practice. Wetherington said, “What they are doing is illegal. It’s false imprisonment. Booting is a form of false imprisonment and once that person has been falsely imprisoned and are forced to pay a fee, then that is extortion.”
Wetherington said most, if not all, booting companies in Georgia don’t comply with the law. The lack of action in dealing with fixing the signs in the unauthorized areas will help the plaintiff’s argument. This accusation insinuates that illegal activity has been happening in Atlanta for years without any action. The law firms involved stated that the suit is against a number of companies in Atlanta and the surrounding areas, however, the names of the involved companies cannot be disclosed.
Willy Ellis, the booting companies’ lead counsel, declined to comment to The Signal.
Booting in the City
Kevin Patrick Law Firm’s owner, Kevin Patrick, said he’s “concerned with booting tactics becoming predatory.“
“People have expressed concern about patronizing businesses and restaurants in Atlanta because of the fear of a booted vehicle,” he said.
Both firms express their concern with the negative impact booting has caused and will continue to cause on the city’s growth and development.
The city, which creates the ordinance to regulate booting, and the companies are allegedly not complying with the ordinances. However, booting isn’t the only questionable activity brought up by the suit.
“The police aren’t doing a ton of enforcement involving fake companies,” said Patrick.
Companies are required to cap their fees at $75 in the allowed areas. If the areas do not have ordinances, then the legality of booting companies comes into question.
Sgt. John Chafee of Atlanta Police Department (APD) Public Affairs expressed that when officers respond to booting disputes, they check if the booter is in compliance with the guidelines of the law. If they are not in compliance, they could be issued a citation or arrested for violating the city ordinances. In regards to fake companies who boot cars and charge a raised price, citizens can check to ensure the booter is in compliance with the law by asking whether the booter has a permit, ensuring his vehicle is properly marked and checking if the parking lot has the proper signage.
Georgia State Regulations
Chris Connelly, Director of Marketing and Operations, explained that Georgia State owns the parking decks and lots, however, the streets and everything not labeled as Georgia State belongs to the city. Connelly said if a student has received a ticket outside of Georgia State owned parking decks and lots, then the school is not involved. However, when the school does issue a boot in Georgia State parking areas, then Georgia State parking services sends someone to boot the vehicle. The maximum fee the school has allowed for booting on school property is $40.
Georgia State also requires either parking services or Georgia State Police Department to remove the boot from the vehicle.
Georgia State student Maggie Williams said she was booted in Midtown after having dinner at Noodle. She walked off of the parking lot to Sweet Hut and less than five minutes later, found a boot on her car.
“I was so confused,” she said. “I only walked across the street for like five minutes, so they had to have watched me as I left the parking lot.” She explained how there was a sign but it wasn’t clear as to the guidelines of what would happen if she left the premises. She was charged $75.
We are not qualified to give you advice on when and where to invest. However, if you need help as to when and where to invest go to www.soundmindinvesting.com. If you are seeking a financial advisor, go to www.moneywise.org and then go to “Find a local professional”
The following clip will definitely help you.
The Bible provides us with four primary guidelines for investing.
1. Be a steady plodder
The fundamental principle for becoming a successful investor is to spend less than you earn and regularly invest the surplus. In other words, be a steady plodder. The Bible says, “Steady plodding brings prosperity, hasty speculation brings poverty” (Proverbs 21:5, TLB). Nothing replaces consistent, month-after-month investing.
2. Avoid risky investments
God warns us to avoid risky investments, yet each year thousands of people lose money in highly speculative investments and scams. The Bible says, “There is another serious problem I have seen everywhere—savings are put into risky investments that turn sour, and soon there is nothing left to pass on to one’s son. The man who speculates is soon back to where he began—with nothing” (Ecclesiastes 5:13-15, TLB).
How many times have you heard of people losing their life’s savings on a get-rich-quick scheme? Sadly, it seems that Christians are particularly vulnerable because they trust others who appear to live by their same values. The strategy for avoiding risky investments is to pray, seek wise counsel from your spouse and others, and do your homework.
Money can be lost on any investment. Stocks, bonds, real estate, gold—you name it—can perform well or poorly. Each investment has its own advantages and disadvantages. Since the perfect investment doesn’t exist, we need to diversify and not put all our eggs in one basket. “Divide your portion to seven, or even to eight, for you do not know what misfortune may occur on the earth” (Ecclesiastes 11:2).
4. Count the cost
Every investment has costs: financial, time, effort, and sometimes even emotional stress. For example, a rental house will require time and effort to rent and maintain. If the tenant is irresponsible, you may have to try to collect rent from someone who doesn’t want to pay—talk about emotions! Before you decide on any investment, consider all the costs.
Apply the Principles: When and Where to Invest
Now, let’s apply those four investing principles.
When deciding where to invest, you need to consider your goals, timeframe and tolerance to risk. The concept of risk is important because, as the “Time & Risk” diagram shows, investments with the best track record also carry the greatest potential for loss—at least in the short run.
In other words, the more time you have, the more you can afford to invest in stocks, mutual funds or real estate—all investments that can lose value in the short term but historically offer the best opportunity over the long term. If you have ten or twenty years before you need the money, you can probably recover from most market downturns, but if you need it in less than five, alter your approach.
This means using different investments for different goals. An investment that is suitable for a fifteen-year goal is simply not appropriate for money you will need in two years. If you need the down payment to buy your home in two years as opposed to funding your retirement in fifteen years, you will invest the money differently. Move your money into more conservative investments as you get closer to the time you will need to spend it.
With that in mind, here are strategies to consider over the short (less than five years) and long (more than five years) term.
Less than five years. When you need the money in less than five years, invest in what are known as cash equivalents: money market funds, certificates of deposit (CDs), and Treasury notes.
Longer than five years. The most common investments of longer than five years are mutual funds, stocks, bonds, and real estate.
Mutual funds. The biggest advantage of investing in mutual funds is that you can apply the biblical principles of diversification and professional investment advice. There are many kinds of mutual funds. Some are composed of stocks, some of bonds; some contain both. Others mutual funds consist of international stocks or are limited in their selection to a investment, such as real estate. There are also many types of bond funds—those invested in government bonds, corporate bonds or tax-free municipal bonds. A balanced mutual fund invests in cash-equivalents, stocks and bonds. Choose funds that have solid track records for a minimum of ten years.
Stocks. When you buy a stock, you are purchasing part of a company. Generally, stocks have one of the greatest opportunities for profit, but you also can lose a lot if the company does not perform well. Some stocks pay a dividend.>
Bonds. When you buy a bond, you loan money to a business or the government, and they pay you interest. Investors buy government bonds for safety, municipal bonds for tax-free returns, and corporate bonds for higher yields. It is important to realize that when interest rates rise, the value of bonds decline, and vice versa.
Real estate. People buy property for income or appreciation. There are tax advantages for owning buildings because depreciation is deductible. However, unlike publicly traded stocks or bonds that can be sold quickly, real estate may require a long time to sell.
Remember, the name of the game is to be a steady plodder—consistently add to your investments and allow them to compound.
Copyright (c) 2011 by Compass-finances God’s way TM. All rights reserved.
COVID is a bioweapon meant to destroy America’s economy and spread Communism: Scientist who fled China
Dr. Li-Meng Yan escaped from China to the United States to expose China’s cover-up of the military lab origins of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Chinese virologist Dr. Li-MengLoose Women / Youtube
Mon Nov 8, 2021 - 1:41 pm EST
(Mercola) – Today, we continue our discussion of the COVID-19 pandemic and its origin with a fascinating guest who has been a leader exposing the corruption and fraud with respect to the origin of the virus. Li-Meng Yan is both an M.D. and Ph.D., with specific training in coronaviruses. She escaped from China’s influence while in Hong Kong to the United States, to warn us of what she believes is a massive cover-up.
Yan went to medical school, followed by a Ph.D. program in ophthalmology. The school where she got her Ph.D. was originally a military medical university, which helps explain some of her personal network. She has contacts in both civilian and military research laboratories and hospitals in mainland China.
After finishing her studies, she decided to pursue research. For two years, she worked in an ophthalmology lab in the University of Hong Kong, where she researched stem cells, drugs and artificial tissue development. She was then invited to join the lab of Professor Malik Peiris.
Yan’s husband had worked with him and Peiris was impressed with Yan’s skillset. She jumped at the chance to learn more about emerging infectious diseases. She worked with Peiris for five years, until she escaped to the U.S. in April 2020.
“I worked on the influenza virus, universal influenza vaccine development, and then focused on the SARS-CoV-2 after the outbreak,” she says.
SARS-CoV-2 was made in a Chinese military lab
At the end of December 2019, Yan’s supervisor, Dr. Leo Poon, who is also an emerging infectious disease expert with the World Health Organization, assigned her to conduct a confidential investigation into a mysterious new pneumonia-like infection.
Colleagues and friends at universities and hospitals around China gave her information, which she forwarded to Peiris and Poon. They did not follow up on it, however, which she says “shows that they want [to] help China to cover it up.”
In January 2020, Poon asked her to look into whether the raccoon dog, a civet cat-like animal, which was a host for the original SARS virus, might also be an intermediary host for SARS-CoV-2. Yan’s research, however, was indicating that the virus did not come from nature. Poon warned her to keep silent or “you will be disappeared.”
According to Yan, SARS-CoV-2 was made in a Chinese military lab. The Third Military Medical University in Chongqing, China, and the Research Institute for Medicine of Nanjing Command in Nanjing, had discovered a bat coronavirus called ZC45. The discovery of ZC45 was published in early 2018.
“If you compare this virus genome and the SARS-CoV-2 virus genome, you will realize [this is the] smoking gun,” Yan says. She’s convinced that ZC45 was used as a template and/or backbone to create SARS-CoV-2.
In mid-May 2020, shortly after she’d left Hong Kong, the journal Nature published a paper Yan had co-written, detailing the pathogenesis and transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in golden hamsters. This experiment showed SARS-CoV-2 primarily spreads via aerosol.
Top of Form
Bottom of Form
In mid-September 2020, Yan published an open access paper on Zenodo, in which she and her two co-authors laid out the evidence and their theory for SARS-CoV-2 being manmade.
Almost immediately, four “reviewers” of her work denounced it as being an “opinion” piece that was “flawed” and not scientifically in line with currently accepted knowledge of the origin of the virus. One reviewer said, “The manuscript attempts to refute our current understanding of the origins of SARS-CoV-2. Briefly, the consensus is that SARS-CoV-2 is a zoonosis and originated in bats with perhaps an intermediate host before spilling over into humans.”
A year later, in 2021, numerous indicators show that dismissing the lab leak hypothesis was premature and there is no “consensus” of a zoonosis origin.
Documents obtained through a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request by The Intercept also point directly to a lab origin, so much so that the WHO’s director general, Tedros Ghebreyesus, called for a new investigation into it, writing in the October 13, 2021, edition of the journal Science, “A lab accident cannot be ruled out until there is sufficient evidence to do so and those results are openly shared.”
The escape from China
Initially, Yan had released information via an American YouTube blogger that was very popular in China. By the end of April 2020, a colleague warned Yan she was at risk of being “disappeared.” That’s when she decided to flee to the U.S.
Luckily, she already had a valid visa. Her husband was deeply opposed to her leaving, as you might imagine. She explains:
“I didn’t know it would happen like [it did]. From January to April , I didn’t tell him what I had done. I tried to protect him, because at that time, in Hong Kong, there were a lot of people fighting against government for democracy and freedom. They can get disappeared easily.
But if their family don’t know what they have done, it’s kind of safe for the family. That’s why I tried to protect him. But when I heard that I need leave, I tried to bring him with me. He’s not Chinese. He’s from Sri Lanka. When I told him, he was outraged, which was really not like him. He warned me, saying ‘We can go nowhere. They are everywhere. We can do nothing’.”
Her husband even threatened to have her killed if she left. The next two weeks were a dangerous time for Yan. Her husband kept her under surveillance, and she developed a sudden heart problem. The day before she left, she went for a checkup. She had a resting heart rate of 130, which is a sign of sinus tachycardia.
Yan suspects foul play, saying the Chinese government prefers to “disappear” people by making it look like a natural death. “Like this virus,” she says. According to Yan, infections and heart attacks are common strategies used to get rid of dissenters. Yan also suspects her husband may have been helping them.
Fortunately, since entering the U.S., the attacks have been relegated to discrediting her and ruining her reputation. “For example, they created thousands of fake accounts on social media, using at least seven languages, to spread [lies about me] and attacks to discredit me,” she says.
According to Yan, this has been verified by FireEye, a cybersecurity company that also does work for American intelligence agencies. Her family, who are in mainland China, friends and even alumni are also under strict surveillance by the Chinese government, she says.
While the whole world denied the possibility that SARS-CoV-2 was manmade for over a year, in recent months, the truth has finally entered the mainstream. A number of reporters have wrestled with excuses, trying to justify or explain away their long-held denials.
“Last year in July, when I was first on Fox News, I told them the WHO and the CCP are corrupted and are in the cover-up together,” Yan says.
“At that time, it was a bombshell. Now, most people realize [the virus] is not from nature. That is a very good turning, and I keep helping other people to realize the evidence.
I explain to them the CCP’s style and the evidence. Now, I see that even some mainstream media are starting to talk about the possibility of [it being a] bioweapon. I think it is very encouraging. Because people need to realize that China is using this virus together with their misinformation campaign and propaganda to attack all over the world.”
Who’s running the show?
While the Chinese military may be responsible for the physical creation of the virus, there’s ample evidence showing the U.S. funded at least some of the research that resulted in this pandemic.
The flow of money from Dr. Anthony Fauci’s National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), the EcoHealth Alliance run by Peter Daszak, and the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) is well-documented. Ralph Baric, Ph.D., at the University of North Carolina has also conducted research that appears to have been applied to SARS-CoV-2.
The sequence of events is confusing, however, and it’s unclear just who is the real string-puller in all of this. When asked what her take is, and who she believes might be running the show, Yan replies that even without American funding, China certainly would still have managed to create this virus.
“The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) … they are a giant octopus and they have tentacles. The brain is the CCP. Those scientists, especially the military scientists and coronavirus experts [such as] my previous supervisor, Dr. Malik Pieris, they are the ones that had the real evil ideas.
They enjoy it, and they want to command this knowledge … Even China cannot use their tentacles … if they cannot use infiltration to get your money, they will still manage to get your technology and do it in China. That’s the key point. The money from American taxpayers, it looks a lot. Yes, it’s millions [of dollars]. However, compared to the money donated by the Chinese government, it’s just a very small piece …
They developed this virus and other things in their unrestricted bioweapons program. They want to destroy Americans’ economic and social order, destroy your civilization. [While the virus has attacked worldwide], they always list America as a primary enemy and the biggest problem.
So, when they show you this kind of propaganda, through TikTok and other social media [where Chinese citizens] tell you, ‘Oh, in China we control the outcome and it’s good, and we love our government.’ American people will feel, ‘Yeah, maybe we should give up our democracy and turn to try communism.’ That’s all they want to do.”
Chinese data collection
Since the start of the pandemic, it’s been near-impossible to determine how many Chinese have actually been affected. According to Yan, the CCP will only release data that benefits itself.
“Chinese people all know not to trust any data that comes from our government,” she says. “They don’t do statistics. They just sit there. Whatever data they want, they write it down. That’s how they [produce] data.”
According to Yan, the CCP has been using the converse strategy used in the U.S. and elsewhere. Rather than inflate case numbers, they’ve been suppressing them. One way they’ve been doing this is by delaying diagnosis, so deaths are not listed as COVID-19 deaths.
“It’s totally opposite,” she says. “For example, in America, once a person has been diagnosed with COVID, even if they later died of some other problem, they still will be [counted] as a COVID case.
“But in China, they can use a ventilator to make the patient survive until the test comes out negative. They have thousands of ways to handle it. Importantly, they also gave early treatment, including hydroxychloroquine and other drugs.”
According to Yan, military scientists in China have also filed a patent to use hydroxychloroquine to treat COVID-19. “That made them earn the top anti-COVID award by Chairman Xi last year,” she says. Hydroxychloroquine is also sold over the counter in China, so it’s easy to get a hold of. She believes part of the reason why the death toll in the U.S. has been so high is because hydroxychloroquine was suppressed and censored.
Is there a connection between the COVID shots and the CCP?
The COVID-19 pandemic has clearly been capitalized upon by greedy drug companies, and the suppression of early treatment drugs appears to have been an intentional strategy to make the COVID shot — which is turning out to be extraordinarily hazardous to your health — the only alternative. How does the COVID “vaccine” tie into the theory that SARS-CoV-2 is a CCP bioweapon? Yan says:
“Definitely there is a clear connection between the vaccine and the CCP’s strategies … Some people … try to explain that the vaccine will kill people, and therefore it is another bioweapon. But this is not an accurate reason. First China released the virus they developed in the military labs. This virus doesn’t have a high death rate … That’s why I called it an unrestricted bioweapon. It looks like it’s natural occurring.
Once you realize something is wrong, they use misinformation and denial to confuse you. So, when China released it — and China controls the scientific community to spread misinformation, and censored [information] to let people believe it’s come from nature — what will people do?
They will think about drugs, the drugs they already have. The other way is a vaccine, because people are educated to accept a vaccine can end a pandemic.
In this case, useful drugs like hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin are so cheap. How could they use this to earn huge profits? The CCP also had a lot of stock shares from Pfizer, Moderna and other big pharmaceutical companies. Check the money they put in … And then big pharmaceutical companies, they all say, ‘OK, now we can use this chance to make money’.”
Clearly, many who support and push the COVID shot know full well that they’re bound to cause health problems. Yan herself was asked to work on a COVID vaccine but she declined after looking into the available science. No coronavirus vaccine has ever been released, despite scientists working on it for two decades.
The reason? The vaccines cause too many injuries. They’re lethal. Yan did not believe these problems could be overcome for SARS-CoV-2. Peiris himself discovered antibody-dependent enhancement during efforts to develop a vaccine against the original SARS virus. Still, when money is being thrown at scientists, they’re usually not going to turn it down.
Vaccine passports will usher in a Social Credit System
Of course, the COVID shots and the vaccine passports also fit into the CCP agenda by making the whole world accept and adopt the CCP’s social control system. The vaccine passports are clearly designed to usher in a social credit system like they have in China. And with that, you get 24/7 digital surveillance and an unbelievable amount of control over every single person.
As explained by Yan, in China, the digital surveillance system is so advanced, if your phone GPS shows you were near an infected person, you are automatically ordered into isolation.
What’s more, if parents or grandparents fail to get the COVID shot, the family’s children are barred from school, even if they got the shot. Every aspect of life is linked together through this system, so a poor social credit score will also have financial ramifications, and will dictate if, where and how you’re allowed to travel.
Yan points out that Americans, being unaware of the Chinese surveillance system, don’t understand that by agreeing with vaccine mandates and passports, they are saying yes to a total surveillance system that will dictate their entire lives. They’re also saying yes to being guinea pigs for an endless stream of questionable vaccines.
“Once you support mandate for two doses, then you have to support for the booster, and then support 60 boosters, 199 boosters. It [will be] endless,” she says. “And you’ll be tied into this [social] credit system you built.”
China wants world dominance by 2035
According to Yan, China’s goal is to achieve world dominance by 2035. With that aim in mind, they’ve spent decades developing unrestricted bioweapons. With COVID-19, they’re well on their way.
“They want to use all this to overcome the world, and America is their primary enemy,” Yan says. “So we have to stand up for the future, for our next generations. We cannot keep silent. This will be the last chance we have to fight against such communist evil plans, and to save all of us. And, most importantly, we have to all work together to stop the next pandemic or attack that comes out of China …”
“[Just look at] what’s happening in Hong Kong now. In two years, from 2019 until now, China destroyed the systems of law, democracy and freedom in Hong Kong. They also enacted national security laws. Basically, they own your privacy. They own your freedom, and you are forced to listen to them.
There is no reason they can’t do whatever [they want] to you. Basically, you are a slave living in a modern society. No doubt, once China overcomes America, it will be the same here, and maybe worse because they will have other technology at that time.”
When asked what actions Yan believes we need to take to resist and derail this plan, she says:
“I want Americans to know that, first, adults should realize the evilness of Communism, Maoism, Marxism, no matter what name it changes to … And once you realize that, speak out about it, because they are using propaganda to brainwash people, to brainwash the kids.
Also, you must let your policymakers, legislators, know this. I’m a foreigner, but you are an American citizen. You can vote, so you must let them understand the importance and push them to do something. Don’t believe the Chinese government and don’t give any mercy to the CCP.
Also, you have to update your own system. Study the weakness in your whole system, [the weakness that allows them] to divide America. Once you do all these things, hold them accountable and don’t let them do more. That’s the end of the pandemic.”
You can follow Yan on Twitter for frequent updates and breaking information. Her only authentic Twitter account is @Dr.LiMengYan1.
Reprinted with permission from Mercola
By daniel_g October 13, 2021
Dr. Robert Malone – Fully Vaccinated Are COVID-19
Dr. Robert Malone has spoken truth to power during COVID-19 hysteria.
A major contributor to the invention of mRNA technology, Dr. Robert Malone is highlyqualified
to discuss the potential side effects of mRNA injections.
And he has spoken about the dangers of this foolish mass vaccination program.
Dr. Malone warned about the risk of ADE that causes the virus to become more infectious.
Trending: BREAKING: Inside Source Reports Governor Newsom Injured By Moderna
He has even called for a stop to the COVID-19 jab rollout.
The latest podcast featuring Dr. Malone helped dispel another mainstream media lie.
The “Pandemic of the Unvaccinated” narrative that Biden repeats.
Follow on Telegram @WeLoveTrumpNoah
Unvaccinated individuals are called “super-spreaders” and blamed for the latest wave of
According to Dr. Malone, the opposite is true.
In fact, the fully vaccinated are the “super-spreaders.”
Check it out:
“The idea that if you have a workplace where everybody's vaccinated, you're not going
to have virus spread is totally false. A total lie.” — Dr. Robert Malone, recognized for
his role in inventing mRNA vaccine technologyhttps://t.co/HjUnWbfdHf
— Robert F. Kennedy Jr (@RobertKennedyJr) October 13, 2021
Fully Vaccinated Are COVID ‘Super-Spreaders,’ Says Inventor of mRNA Technologyhttps://t.co/b55JIJ2dcX
Dr. Robert Malone Resource Pagehttps://t.co/7K5aGFYGbo
COVID-19 Vaccine Adverse Event Tracking System
— sunfellow (@sunfellow) October 13, 2021
Fully Vaccinated Are COVID ‘Super-Spreaders,’ Says Inventor of mRNA Technology
". Dr. Robert Malone .said, “The idea that if you have a workplace where everybody's
vaccinated, you're not going to have virus spread is totally false. A total
— Zbigniew Hałat (@drhalat) October 13, 2021
The Defender reported:
Malone referenced two instances where citizens are being “enticed” to take what he
refers to as the “experimental” vaccine.
SIGN THE PETITION: Completely DEFUND Sanctuary Cities Now!
“There was a period where West Virginia was trying to get people to get vaccinated,”
Malone said. “And so they had a shotgun lottery. And in Canada, there was a policy of
offering free ice cream to children to get them to take the jab even without their
parents’ approval. So those are just two particularly clear examples of unfair coercion
… It’s not actually legal.”
Malone likened what’s going on today with COVID vaccines to the illegal medical
experiments conducted by Nazi Germany. “[During the Second World War], Jews and
other ethnic groups were subjected to horrible experimental medical research,” Malone
said. “And they justified it by saying it was for the common good.”
Malone said the Western World “agreed we weren’t going to do that anymore. Yet,
from time to time we seem to forget, and of course, Tuskegee is one example, and
frankly, this is another example.”
In an attempt to clear up misinformation coming from the medical establishment,
Malone said fully vaccinated individuals can spread COVID. “The idea that if you have
a workplace where everybody’s vaccinated, you’re not going to have virus spread is
totally false. A total lie,” Malone said.
The vaccinated are actually the “super-spreaders” that everyone was told about in the
beginning of the pandemic, Malone argued.
Watch “The Hidden Gateway” episode below:
Key to Winning – Subject Matter Jurisdiction https://youarelaw.org/key-to-winning-subject-matter-jurisdiction/
November 11, 2017November 11, 2017 MJT challenge, jursidiction, law, legal, tax
WHEN YOU CHALLENGE SUBJECT JURISDICTION, IT IS TO BE SHOWN AND PROVED BEFORE COURT PROCEEDS. PERIOD, BUT NOT IF YOU DON’T MAKE IT AN ISSUE, YOU LOSE. YOU MUST MOVE YOUR COURT.
If you are arguing about the strawman, all capital letters, or anything else, citizenship, etc – you are missing they key to it all…Just make the accuser prove it exists.
In a court of limited jurisdiction, whenever a party denies that the court has subject-matter jurisdiction, it becomes the duty and the burden of the party claiming that the court has subject matter jurisdiction to provide evidence from the record of the case that the court holds subject-matter jurisdiction. Bindell v City of Harvey, 212 Ill.App.3d 1042, 571 N.E.2d 1017 (1st Dist. 1991) (“the burden of proving jurisdiction rests upon the party asserting it.”).
Until the plaintiff submits uncontroversial evidence of subject-matter jurisdiction to the court that the court has subject-matter jurisdiction, the court is proceeding without subject-matter jurisdiction. Loos v American Energy Savers, Inc., 168 Ill.App.3d 558, 522 N.E.2d 841(1988)(“Where jurisdiction is contested, the burden of establishing it rests upon the plaintiff.”).
The law places the duty and burden of subject-matter jurisdiction upon the plaintiff. Should the court attempt to place the burden upon the defendant, the court has acted against the law, violates the defendant’s due process rights, and the judge under court decisions has immediately lost subject-matter jurisdiction. In a court of limited jurisdiction, the court must proceed exactly according to the law or statute under which it operates. Flake v Pretzel, 381 Ill. 498, 46 N.E.2d 375 (1943) (“the actions, being statutory proceedings, … were void for want of power to make them.”) (“The judgments were based on orders which were void because the court exceeded its jurisdiction in entering them. Where a court, after acquiring jurisdiction of a subject matter, as here, transcends the limits of the jurisdiction conferred, its judgment is void.”); Armstrong v Obucino, 300 Ill. 140, 143, 133 N.E. 58 (1921) (“The doctrine that where a court has once acquired jurisdiction it has a right to decide every question which arises in the cause, and its judgment or decree, however erroneous, cannot be collaterally assailed, is only correct when the court proceeds according to the established modes governing the class to which the case belongs and does not transcend in the extent and character of its judgment or decree the law or statute which is applicable to it.” In Interest of M.V., 288 Ill.App.3d 300, 681 N.E.2d 532 (1st Dist. 1997) (“Where a court’s power to act is controlled by statute, the court is governed by the rules of limited jurisdiction, and courts exercising jurisdiction over such matters must proceed within the strictures of the statute.”); In re Marriage of Milliken, 199 Ill.App.3d 813, 557 N.E.2d 591 (1st Dist. 1990) (“The jurisdiction of a court in a dissolution proceeding is limited to that conferred by statute.”); Vulcan Materials Co. v. Bee Const. Co., Inc., 101 Ill.App.3d 30, 40, 427 N.E.2d 797 (1st Dist. 1981) (“Though a court be one of general jurisdiction, when its power to act on a particular matter is controlled by statute, the court is governed by the rules of limited jurisdiction.”).
“There is no discretion to ignore that lack of jurisdiction.” See Joyce v. US, 474 F2d 215. “A universal principle as old as the law is that a proceedings of a court without jurisdiction are a nullity and its judgment therein without effect either on person or property.” See Norwood v. Renfield, 34 C 329; Ex parte Giambonini, 49 P. 732.
“Jurisdiction is fundamental and a judgment rendered by a court that does not have jurisdiction to hear is void ab initio.” See In Re Application of Wyatt, 300 P. 132; Re Cavitt, 118 P2d 846.
“Thus, where a judicial tribunal has no jurisdiction of the subject matter on which it assumes to act, its proceedings are absolutely void in the fullest sense of the term.” See Dillon v. Dillon, 187 P 27.
“A court has no jurisdiction to determine its own jurisdiction, for a basic issue in any case before a tribunal is its power to act, and a court must have the authority to decide that question in the first instance.” See Rescue Army v. Municipal Court of Los Angeles, 171 P2d 8; 331 US 549, 91 L. ed. 1666, 67 S.Ct. 1409.
“A departure by a court from those recognized and established requirements of law, however close apparent adherence to mere form in method of procedure, which has the effect of depriving one of a constitutional right, is an excess of jurisdiction.” See Wuest v. Wuest, 127 P2d 934, 937.
“Where a court failed to observe safeguards, it amounts to denial of due process of law, court is deprived of juris.” See Merritt v. Hunter, C.A. Kansas 170 F2d 739.
“the fact that the petitioner was released on a promise to appear before a magistrate for an arraignment, that fact is circumstance to be considered in determining whether in first instance there was a probable cause for the arrest.” See Monroe v. Papa, DC, Ill. 1963, 221 F Supp 685.
“Jurisdiction, once challenged, is to be proven, not by the court, but by the party attempting to assert jurisdiction. The burden of proof of jurisdiction lies with the asserter.” See McNutt v. GMAC, 298 US 178. The origins of this doctrine of law may be found in Maxfield’s Lessee v. Levy, 4 US 308.
“A court has no jurisdiction to determine its own jurisdiction, for a basic issue in any case before a tribunal is its power to act, and a court must have the authority to decide that question in the first instance.” See Rescue Army v. Municipal Court of Los Angeles, 171 P2d 8; 331 US 549, 91 L. ed. 1666, 67 S.Ct. 1409. “Once jurisdiction is challenged, the court cannot proceed when it clearly appears that the court lacks jurisdiction, the court has no authority to reach merits, but, rather, should dismiss the action.” See Melo v. US, 505 F2d 1026. “The law provides that once State and Federal jurisdiction has been challenged, it must be proven.” See Main v. Thiboutot, 100 S. Ct. 2502 (1980). “Once jurisdiction is challenged, it must be proven.” See Hagens v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 533. “Where there is absence of jurisdiction, all administrative and judicial proceedings are a nullity and confer no right, offer no protection, and afford no justification, and may be rejected upon direct collateral attack.” See Thompson v. Tolmie, 2 Pet. 157, 7 L.Ed. 381; Griffith v. Frazier, 8 Cr. 9, 3L. Ed. 471. “No sanctions can be imposed absent proof of jurisdiction.” See Standard v. Olsen, 74 S. Ct. 768; Title 5 U.S.C., Sec. 556 and 558 (b). “The proponent of the rule has the burden of proof.” Title 5 U.S.C., Sec. 556 (d). “Jurisdiction can be challenged at any time, even on final determination.” See Basso v. Utah Power & Light Co., 495 2nd 906 at 910. “Mere good faith assertions of power and authority (jurisdiction) have been abolished.” See Owens v. The City of Independence, 445 US 622 (1980). “A departure by a court from those recognized and established requirements of law, however close apparent adherence to mere form in method of procedure, which has the effect of depriving one of a constitutional right, is an excess of jurisdiction.” See Wuest v. Wuest, 127 P2d 934, 937. “In a court of limited jurisdiction, whenever a party denies that the court has subject-matter jurisdiction, it becomes the duty and the burden of the party claiming that the court has subject matter jurisdiction to provide evidence from the record of the case that the court holds subject-matter jurisdiction.” Bindell v City of Harvey, 212 Ill.App.3d 1042, 571 N.E.2d 1017 (1st Dist. 1991) (“the burden of proving jurisdiction rests upon the party asserting it.”). “Until the plaintiff submits uncontroversial evidence of subject-matter jurisdiction to the court that the court has subject-matter jurisdiction, the court is proceeding without subject-matter jurisdiction.” Loos v American Energy Savers, Inc., 168 Ill.App.3d 558, 522 N.E.2d 841(1988)(“Where jurisdiction is contested, the burden of establishing it rests upon the plaintiff.”).
The law places the duty and burden of subject-matter jurisdiction upon the plaintiff. Should the court attempt to place the burden upon the defendant, the court has acted against the law, violates the defendant’s due process rights, and the judge under court decisions has immediately lost subject-matter jurisdiction. In a court of limited jurisdiction, the court must proceed exactly according to the law or statute under which it operates. Flake v Pretzel, 381 Ill. 498, 46 N.E.2d 375 (1943) (“the actions, being statutory proceedings, … were void for want of power to make them.”) (“The judgments were based on orders which were void because the court exceeded its jurisdiction in entering them. Where a court, after acquiring jurisdiction of a subject matter, as here, transcends the limits of the jurisdiction conferred, its judgment is void.”); Armstrong v Obucino, 300 Ill. 140, 143, 133 N.E. 58 (1921) “The doctrine that where a court has once acquired jurisdiction it has a right to decide every question which arises in the cause, and its judgment or decree, however erroneous, cannot be collaterally assailed, is only correct when the court proceeds according to the established modes governing the class to which the case belongs and does not transcend in the extent and character of its judgment or decree the law or statute which is applicable to it.” In Interest of M.V., 288 Ill.App.3d 300, 681 N.E.2d 532 (1st Dist. 1997) (“Where a court’s power to act is controlled by statute, the court is governed by the rules of limited jurisdiction, and courts exercising jurisdiction over such matters must proceed within the strictures of the statute.”); In re Marriage of Milliken, 199 Ill.App.3d 813, 557 N.E.2d 591 (1st Dist. 1990) (“The jurisdiction of a court in a dissolution proceeding is limited to that conferred by statute.”); Vulcan Materials Co. v. Bee Const. Co., Inc., 101 Ill.App.3d 30, 40, 427 N.E.2d 797 (1st Dist. 1981) (“Though a court be one of general jurisdiction, when its power to act on a particular matter is controlled by statute, the court is governed by the rules of limited jurisdiction.”);
Thus, neither Judges nor Government attorneys are above the law. See United States v. Isaacs, 493 F. 2d 1124, 1143 (7th Cir. 1974). In our judicial system, few more serious threats to individual liberty can be imagined than a corrupt judge or judges acting in collusion outside of their judicial authority with the Executive Branch to deprive a citizen of his rights.
In The Case of the Marshalsea, 77 Eng. Rep. 1027 (K.B. 1613), Sir Edward Coke found that Article 39 of the Magna Carta restricted the power of judges to act outside of their jurisdiction such proceedings would be void, and actionable.
[W]hen a Court has (a) jurisdiction of the cause, and proceeds inverso ordine or erroneously, there the party who sues, or the officer or minister of the Court who executes the precept or process of the Court, no action lies against them. But (b) when the Court has not jurisdiction of the cause, there the whole proceeding is [before a person who is not a judge], and actions will lie against them without any regard of the precept or process . . . Id. 77 Eng. Rep. at 1038-41.
A majority of states including Michigan have followed the English rule to find that a judge had no immunity from suit for acts outside of his judicial capacity or jurisdiction. Robert Craig Waters, ‘Liability of Judicial Officers under Section 1983’ 79 Yale L. J. (December 1969), pp. 326-27 and 29-30). Also as early as 1806, in the United States there were recognized restrictions on the power judges, as well as the placing of liability on judges for acts outside of their jurisdiction. In Wise v. Withers, 7 U.S. (3 Cranch) 331 (1806), the Supreme Court confirmed the right to sue a judge for exercising authority beyond the jurisdiction authorized by statute. In Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349 at 360 (1978), the Supreme Court confirmed that a judge would be immune from suit only if he did not act outside of his judicial capacity and/or was not performing any act expressly prohibited by statute. See Block, Stump v Sparkman and the History of Judicial Immunity, 4980 Duke L.J. 879 (l980). It is clear that a judge who acts in the absence of subject matter jurisdiction may be held liable for his judicial act. Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 98 S. Ct. 1099, 55 L. Ed. 2d 331 (1978) and Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. (13 Wall.) 335, 20 L. Ed. 646 (1872).
Judicial immunity may only extend to all judicial acts within the courts jurisdiction and judicial capacity, but it does not extend to either criminal acts, or acts outside of official capacity or in the ‘clear absence of all jurisdiction.’ see Stump v. Sparkman 435 U.S. 349 (1978). When a judge knows that he lacks jurisdiction, or acts in the face of clearly valid Constitutional provisions or valid statutes expressly depriving him of jurisdiction or judicial capacity, judicial immunity is lost.” Rankin v. Howard 633 F.2d 844 (1980), Den Zeller v. Rankin, 101 S.Ct. 2020 (1981).
As stated by the United States Supreme Court in Piper v. Pearson, 2 Gray 120, cited in Bradley v. Fisher, 13 Wall. 335, 20 L.Ed. 646 (1872), ‘[w]here there is no jurisdiction, there can be no discretion, for discretion is incident to jurisdiction.’ The constitutional requirement of due process of the law is indispensable:
“A judgment can be void . . . where the court acts in a manner contrary to due process.” Am Jur 2d, §29 Void Judgments, p. 404.
“Where a court failed to observe safeguards, it amounts to denial of due process of law, court is deprived of juris.” —Merritt v. Hunter, C.A. Kansas 170 F2d 739.
“Moreover, all proceedings founded on the void judgment are themselves regarded as invalid.” Olson v. Leith 71 Wyo. 316, 257 P.2d 342.).
The jurisdiction over the subject-matter is the right of the court to exercise judicial power over that class of cases, and is said to be essential, necessary, indispensable and an elementary prerequisite to the exercise of judicial power. US v Cotton, 535 US 625 (2002); Joy v Two-Bit Corp., 287 Mich 244; 283 NW2d 45 (1938); Prosecuting Attorney for Ingham County v American Amusement Co. Inc., 71 Mich App 130; 246 NW2d 684 (1976), cf, 21 CJS “Courts” § 18, p, 25. Without such jurisdiction existing, an order entered by the court is absolutely void. In re Matter of Hague, 412 Mich 532, 544; 315 NW2d 524 (1982). Therefore, a defense based upon the lack of jurisdiction cannot be waived and may be asserted at any time. Menna v New York, 423 US 61, 62-63 (1975)(citing People v Carpentier, 446 Mich 19; 521 NW2d 195 (1994) cf, Fox v Board of Regent of Michigan University, 375 Mich 238, 242; 134 NW2d 146 (1965).
SUMMARY: Jurisdiction is not just important it is everything and is rarely properly challenged when one has an attorney, who tends to want to argue by the hour until there is a settlement, vs attack the main issue…jurisdiction (*and the court rarely has it in No Harmed Party Cases).
Share on FacebookShare on TwitterShare on Google+
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
WE THE PEOPLE, et al
) CASE No. 1:04CV01211
v. ) JUDGE: Emmet G. Sullivan
UNITED STATES, et al )
I, __________________________________________, being duly sworn, depose and say:
1. I am a party to the action captioned above; I am over eighteen years of age.
2. I have properly petitioned Defendants for a Redress of Grievances relating to:
a) The war powers clauses of the Constitution and the Iraq Resolution.
b) The “privacy” clauses of the Constitution and the USA Patriot Act.
c) The taxing clauses of the Constitution and the direct, un-apportioned tax on labor.
d) The money and “debt” clauses of the Constitution and the Federal Reserve System.
3. By communicating information, expressing facts and opinions, reciting grievances,
protesting abuses and praying for answers to specific questions, I have given expression
essential to the end that government defendants may be responsive and accountable to the
Constitution and to the sovereignty of the People and that changes may be obtained by
lawful and peaceful means.
4. The Defendants have failed to properly respond to my Petition(s) for Redress.
5. The very idea of a government, republican in form, implies a right on my part, as a citizen, to
meet peaceably with other citizens for consultation with respect to public affairs and to
effectively petition the government defendants for a redress of grievances.
6. The Right to Petition is among the most precious of the liberties guaranteed by the Bill of
Rights; the value in the Right of Petition as an essential element of self-government is
7. The unfettered Petition for Redress is the only non-violent approach in a constitutional
Republic for the free individual and the free minority to hold their servant government
accountable to the Constitution and Bill of Rights; the ballot is merely for the majority: my
behavior in this matter is the epitome of good citizenship.
Printed Name :______________________________________
Sworn to before me Address: ___________________________________________
this ________day of ___________________________________________
____________, 2004 Phone: ___________________________________________
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
WE THE PEOPLE, et al
) CASE No. 1:04CV01211
v. ) JUDGE: Emmet G. Sullivan
UNITED STATES, et al )
I, __________________________________________, being duly sworn, depose and say:
1. I am a party to the action captioned above.
2. I have properly petitioned defendants for a Redress of Grievances relating to:
a) The taxing clauses of the Constitution and the direct, un-apportioned tax on labor.
b) The war powers clauses of the Constitution and the Iraq Resolution.
c) The money clauses of the Constitution and the Federal Reserve System.
d) The “privacy” clauses of the Constitution and the USA Patriot Act.
3. By communicating information, expressing facts and opinions, reciting grievances,
protesting abuses and praying for answers to specific questions, I have given expression
essential to the end that government defendants may be responsive and accountable to the
Constitution and to the sovereignty of the People and that changes may be obtained by
lawful and peaceful means.
4. The defendants have failed to properly respond to my Petition(s) for Redress; twice,
defendants have publicly uttered their intention to respond to Petitions such as mine through
5. Knowing that a Right that is not enforceable is not a Right and wishing to peaceably enforce
my individual, unalienable Rights, I have given further expression to my Rights under the
First Amendment to Speech, Assembly and Petition, by not withholding and turning over to
government defendants money earned by me as a result of my labor.
6. Such further expression by me is not an abuse, but an extension of these First Amendment
Rights and any intervention by defendants against such expression of these First
Amendment Rights represents a curtailment of my Rights and is forbidden.
7. However, defendants are retaliating against me in one or more of the following ways: by
sending me threatening letters; placing liens on my property; levying and seizing my
property and/or wages; raiding my home and/or office; forcing me to appear before
administrative, civil and/or criminal tribunals; denying me due process; or by some other
8. Defendants are retaliating against me by attempting to disqualify me from taking a public
position on matters in which I am financially interested, depriving me of my Right to Petition
in the very instance in which that right is of the most importance to me.
9. Defendants’ retaliation against me is without reasonable cause; it is not objective; I know of
no clear and present danger to the government defendants that would justify their
punishment of me for performing a self-government function; the Petition clause was
included in the First Amendment to ensure the growth and preservation of democratic selfgovernance;
it is as much my duty to question as it is the defendants’ duty to administer.
10. The very idea of a government, republican in form, implies a right on my part, as a citizen, to
meet peaceably with other citizens for consultation with respect to public affairs and to
effectively petition the government defendants for a redress of grievances.
11. The Right to Petition is among the most precious of the liberties guaranteed by the Bill of
Rights; the value in the Right of Petition as an essential element of self-government is
12. Except in the most extreme circumstances I cannot be punished for freely exercising this
right without experiencing a denial of those fundamental principles of liberty and justice,
which lie at the base of all civil and political institutions.
13. The harm I am suffering is immediate and irreparable; with each new dawn the harm
accumulates –injury suffered daily as a result of defendants’ infringement upon and
denial of my First Amendment Rights of Speech, Assembly and Petition; instead of
unfettered Rights – liberating and free of restraints-- I am forced to fear and fight against
the chilling effect the defendants’ enforcement actions are having on my exercise of the
Right to Petition and my other unalienable Rights.
14. A balancing of the equities argues for the granting of the motion for injunctive relief; any
harm to the federal government during the period will be minimal at best; even if we
were talking about significant sums of money (which is not the case), whenever the
government needs money it need only run its printing presses; defendants cannot show
any immediate or irreparable harm if the motion is granted. I, on the other hand, will
suffer immediate and irreparable harm if the motion is not granted.
15. Defendants have an alternative immediately available to them; they can formally
respond to my Petition for Redress by answering its questions.
16. I on the other hand have no alternative to the retention of my money without yielding my
17. The unfettered Petition for Redress is the only non-violent approach in a constitutional
republic for the free individual and the free minority to hold their servant government
accountable to the Constitution and Bill of Rights; the ballot is merely for the majority: my
behavior in this matter is the epitome of good citizenship.
Sworn to before me
this _____day of _________, 2004
SPECIAL POLICE OFFICER BULLETIN
U.S. COURT DECISIONS CONFIRM "DRIVING A MOTOR VEHICLE" IS A
CITIZENS RIGHT AND NOT A GOVERNMENT GRANTED PRIVILEGE.
By Jack McLamb (from Aid & Abet Newsletter)
For many years Professionals within the criminal justice System have acted upon the belief that traveling by motor vehicle upon the roadway was a privilege that was gained by a citizen only after approval by their respective state government in the form of the issuance of a permit or license to that Particular individual. Legislators, police officers and court officials are becoming aware that there are now court decisions that prove the fallacy of the legal opinion that" driving is a privilege and therefore requires government approval, i.e. a license". Some of these cases are:
Case # 1 - "Even the legislature has no power to deny to a citizen the right to travel upon the highway and transport his property in the ordinary course of his business or pleasure, though this right may be regulated in accordance with the public interest and convenience. - Chicago Motor Coach v Chicago 169 NE 22
("Regulated" here means traffic safety enforcement, stop lights, signs, etc. NOT a privilege that requires permission i.e.- licensing, mandatory insurance, vehicle registration, etc.)
Case # 2 - "The right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by carriage or by 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."- Thompson v Smith 154 SE 579.
It could not be stated more conclusively that Citizens of the states have a right to travel, without approval or restriction (license), and that this right is protected under the U.S. Constitution. Here are other court decisions that expound the same facts:
Case # 3 - "The right to travel is a part of the liberty of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the 5th Amendment." - Kent v Dulles, 357 U.S. 116, 125.
Case # 4 - "Undoubtedly the right of locomotion, the right to remove from one place to another according to inclination, is an attribute of personal Iiberty, and the right, ordinarily, of free transit from or through the territory of any State is a right secured by the l4th Amendment and by other provisions of the Constitution." - Schactman v Dulles, 96 App D.C. 287, 293.
As hard as it is for those of us in Law enforcement to believe, there is no room for speculation in these court decisions. The American citizen does indeed have the inalienable right to use the roadways unrestricted in any manner as long as they are not damaging or violating property or rights of another.
Government, in requiring the people to file for "drivers licenses, vehicle registrations, mandatory insurance, and demanding they stop for vehicle inspections, DUI/DWI roadblocks etc. without question, are "restricting", and therefore violating, the Peoples common law right to travel.
Is this a new legal interpretation on this subject of the right to travel? Apparently not. The American Citizens and Lawmen Association in conjunction with The U.S. Federal Law Research Center are presently involved in studies in several areas involving questions on constitutional law. One of the many areas under review is the area of "Citizens right to travel." In an interview a spokesmen stated: "Upon researching this subject over many months, substantial case law has presented itself that completely substantiates the position that the "right to travel unrestricted upon the nations highways" is and has always been a fundamental right of every Citizen."
This means that the "beliefs and opinions" our state legislators, the courts, and those of as involved in the law enforcement profession have acted upon for years have been in error. Researchers armed with actual facts state that U.S. case law is overwhelming in determining that - to restrict, in any fashion, the movement of the individual American in the free exercise of their right to travel upon the roadways, (excluding "commerce" which the state Legislatures are correct in regulating), is a serious breach of those freedoms secured by the U.S. Constitution, and most state Constitutions, i.e - it is Unlawful.
THE REVELATION THAT THE AMERICAN CITIZEN HAS ALWAYS HAD THE INALIENABLE RIGHT TO TRAVEL RAISES PROFOUND QUESTIONS TO THOSE WHO ARE INVOLVED IN MAKING AND ENFORCING STATE LAWS.
The first of such questions may very well be - If the States have been enforcing laws that are unconstitutional on their face, it would seem that there must be some way that a state can legally put restrictions, such as - licensing requirements, mandatory insurance, vehicle registration, vehicle inspections, D.W.I. roadblocks, to name just a few, on a Citizens constitutionally protected right. Is that not so?
For the answer to this question let us Iook, once again, to the U.S. courts for a determination on this very issue.
The case of Hertado v. California , 110 U.S. 516. states very plainly: "The State cannot diminish rights of the people."
"the assertion of federal rights, when plainly and reasonably made, is not to be defeated under the name of local practice."- Davis v. Wechsler, 263 U.S. 22, 24.
Would we not say that these judicial decisions are straight to the point - that there is no lawful method for government to put restrictions or Iimitations on rights belonging to the people?
Other cases are even more straight forward:
"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.
"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. ( There is no question that a citation/ticket issued by a police officer, for no drivers license, no current vehicle registration, no vehicle insurance etc. which carries a fine or jail time, is a penalty or sanction, and is indeed "converting a Right into a crime".)
We could go on, quoting court decision after court decision, however, In addition, the Constitution itself answers our question- "Can a government legally put restrictions on the rights of the American people at anytime, for any reason"? (Such as in this particular case - when the government believes it to be for the safety and welfare of the people).
The answer is found in ARTICLE SIX of the U.S. Constitution:
"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof;..shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary not withstanding". (This tells us that the U.S. Constitution is to be upheld over any state, county, or city Iaws that are in opposition to it.)
In the same Article it goes on to say just who it is within our governments that is bound by this Supreme Law:
"The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution;". - ART. 6 U.S. CONST.
We know that Police officers, are a part of the Executive branch. We are "Executive Officers".
Article 6 above, is called the SUPREMACY CLAUSE, and it clearly states that, under every circumstance, the above listed officials in these United States must hold this documents tenets supreme over any other laws, regulations, or orders. Every U.S. Police officer knows that they have sworn a oath to the people of our nation that we will not only protect their lives and property, but, that we will uphold, and protect their freedoms and rights under the Supreme laws of this nation, - the U. S. Constitution.
In this regard then, we must agree that those within government that restrict a Citizens rights, (such as restricting the peoples right to travel,) are acting in violation of his or her oath of office and are actually committing a crime against such Citizens. Here's an interesting question. Is ignorance of these laws an excuse for such acts by officials?
If we are to follow the "letter of the law (as we are sworn to do), this places officials that involve themselves in such unlawful acts in a unfavorable legal situation. For it is a felony and federal crime to violate, or deprive citizens of their Constitutionally protected rights.
Our system of law dictates the fact that there are only two ways to legally remove a right belonging to the people. These are - #1 - by lawfully amending the constitution, or #2 - by a person knowingly waiving a particular right.
Some of the confusion in our present system has arisen because many millions of people have waived their right to travel "unrestricted" upon the roadways of the states and opted into the jurisdiction of the state for various reasons. Those who have knowingly given up these rights are now legally regulated by state law, the proper courts, and "sworn, constitutionally empowered officers-of-the-law," and must acquire proper permits, registrations, insurance, etc.
There are basically two groups of people in this category:
#1 - Any citizen that involves themselves in "commerce," (business for private gain), upon the highways of the state.
Here is what the courts have said about this:
"...For while a citizen has the right to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, that right does not extend to the use of the highways, either in whole or in part, as a place for private gain. For the latter purpose no person has a vested right to use the highways of the state, but is a privilege or license which the legislature may grant or withhold at its discretion..." - State v Johnson, 243 P. 1073, 1078.
Other U.S. court cases that confirm and point out the difference between the "right" of the citizen to travel and a government "privilege" are - Barney v Board of Railroad Commissioners; State v City of Spokane, 186 P. 864.; Ex Parte Dickey (Dickey v Davis), 85 S.E. 781.; Teche Lines v Danforth, 12 So.2d 784.
There are numerous other court decisions that spell out the JURISDICTION issue In these two distinctly different activities. However, because of space restrictions we will leave it up to officers to research it further for themselves. (See last page for additional references).
#2 - The second group of citizens that are legally under the jurisdiction of the state is the individual citizen who has voluntarily and knowingly waived their right to travel "unregulated and unrestricted" by requesting placement under such jurisdiction through the acquisition of a state - drivers license, vehicle registration, mandatory insurance, etc. (In other words "by contract only".)
We should remember what makes this "legal," and not a violation of the individuals common law right to travel "unrestricted" is that they knowingly volunteer, freely, by contract, to waive their right. If they were forced, coerced or unknowingly placed under the states powers, the courts have said it is a clear violation of their rights.
This in itself raises a very interesting question. What percentage of the people in each state have filed, and received, licenses, registrations, insurance etc. after erroneously being advised by their government that it was mandatory?
Many of our courts, attorneys and police officials are just becoming informed about this important issue and the difference between "Privileges vs. Rights". We can assume that the majority of those Americans carrying state licenses, vehicle registrations etc., have no knowledge of the rights they waived in obeying laws such as these that the U.S. Constitution clearly states are unlawful, i.e. "laws of no effect". In other words - "LAWS THAT ARE NOT LAWS AT ALL."
OUR SWORN DUTY
An area of serious consideration for every police officer, is to understand that the most important law in our land he has taken an oath to protect, defend, AND ENFORCE, is not state laws, nor city or county ordinances, but, that law that supersede all other laws in our nation, - the U.S. Constitution. If laws in a particular police officer's state, or local community are in conflict with the SUPREME LAW of our nation, there Is no question that the officer's duty is to "uphold the U.S. Constitution."
What does this mean to the "patrol officer" who will be the only sworn "Executive Officer" on the scene, when knowledgeable Citizens raise serious objections over possession of insurance, drivers licenses and other restrictions? It definitely means these officers will be faced with a hard decision. (Most certainly if that decision effects state, city or county revenues, such as the issuing of citations do.)
Example: If a state legislator, judge or a superior tells a police officer to proceed and enforce a contradictory, (illegal), state law rather than the Supreme Law of this country, what is that "sworn officer" to do? Although we may not want to hear it, there is but one right answer, - "the officer is duty bound to uphold his oath of office" and obey the highest laws of the nation. THIS IS OUR SWORN DUTY AND IT'S THE LAW!
Such a strong honest stand taken by a police officer, upholding his or her oath of office, takes moral strength of character. It will, without question, "SEPARATE THE MEN FROM THE BOYS." Such honest and straight forward decisions on behalf of a government official have often caused pressure to be applied to force such officers to set aside, or compromise their morals or convictions.
As a solace for those brave souls in uniform that will stand up for law and justice, even when it's unpopular, or uncomfortable to do so...let me say this. In any legal stand-off over a sworn official "violating" or "upholding" their oath of office, those that would side with the "violation" should inevitable lose.
Our Founding Fathers assured us, on many occasions, the following: Defending our freedoms in the face of people that would for "expedients sake," or behind the guise, "for the safety and welfare of the masses," ignore peoples rights, would forever demand sacrifice and vigilance from those that desired to remain free. That sounds a little like - "Freedom is not free!"
Every police officer should keep the following court ruling, that was covered earlier, in mind before issuing citations in regard to "mandatory licensing, registration and insurance" - verses - "the right of the people to travel unencumbered":
"THE CLAlM AND EXERCISE OF A CONSTITUTIONAL RlGHT CANNOT BE CONVERTED INTO A CRIME." - Miller v U.S., 230 F 2d 486. 489.
And as we have seen, "traveling freely," going about ones daily activities, is the exercise of a most basic right.
GOVERNMENT HAS BECOME IDOLATRY AND A FALSE RELIGION
SOURCE: Great IRS Hoax, section 4.4.13.
Related articles and resources:
God, in Exodus 20:3, as part of the Ten Commandments, said:
"You shall have no other gods before Me."
Our life as Christians should revolve around putting God at the top of our priority list. That means supporting His causes with the first fruits of our labor and tithing to the church. Here’s the scripture to back up this assertion:
“Honor the Lord with your possessions, and with the firstfruits of all your increase; so your barns will be filled with plenty, and your vats will overflow with new wine.”
[Prov. 3:9-10, Bible, NKJV]
But how can we tithe to the church and put God first, if we illegally pay almost 50% of our income to all the following combined taxes before God even gets his first dime in out tithes?:
Instead, the first fruits of our labor and almost 50% of our living income (and 100% of our assets when we die) go to the GOVERNMENT first in the form of income taxes, before we ever even see a dime of our own income, and we put way too much emphasis and reliance on the government to help us. In effect, we allow or permit or volunteer ourselves to become government slaves and they become our masters and thus we lose our sovereignty and thereby make God of secondary importance, presumably because we want a hand-out and government “security”. But listen to what God says about this type of abomination:
“Cursed is the one who trusts in man [and by implication, governments made up of men], who depends on flesh for his strength and whose heart turns away from the Lord. He will be like a bush in the wastelands; he will not see prosperity when it comes. He will dwell in the parched places of the desert, in a salt land where no one lives. But blessed is the man who trusts in the Lord, whose confidence is in Him. He will be like a tree planted by the water that sends out its roots by the stream. It does not fear when heat comes; its leaves are always green. It has no worries in a year of drought and never fails to bear fruit.”
[Jeremiah 17:5-8, Bible, NIV]
By surrendering our sovereignty and letting government become our god, we have committed idolatry: relying more on government and man than we do on God or ourselves to meet our needs. Jesus Himself, however, specifically warned us not to do this:
“Away with you , Satan! For it is written, ‘You shall worship the Lord your God, and Him ONLY [NOT the government!] you shall serve.’”
[Matt. 4:10, Bible, NKJV]
This kind of pernicious evil violates Psalm 118:8-9, which says: "It is better to trust in the Lord than to put confidence in man. It is better to trust the Lord than to put confidence in princes." I translate “princes” to mean “government”. Likewise, such idolatry also violates Psalm 146:3, which says: “Put not your trust in princes, [nor] in the son of man, in whom [there is] no help. “
But can government REALLY be a religion from a genuine legal perspective and can we prove this in court? Absolutely! Lets look at the definition of “religion” from Black’s Law Dictionary to answer this question, and notice the highlighted words:
“Religion. Man's relation to Divinity, to reverence, worship, obedience, and submission to mandates and precepts of supernatural or superior beings. In its broadest sense includes all forms of belief in the existence of superior beings exercising power over human beings by volition, imposing rules of conduct, with future rewards and punishments. Bond uniting man to God, and a virtue whose purpose is to render God worship due him as source of all being and principle of all government of things. Nikulnikoff v. Archbishop, etc., of Russian Orthodox Greek Catholic Church, 142 Misc. 894, 255 N.Y.S. 653, 663.”
[Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p. 1292]
Now we will take the highlighted words from this definition of “religion” above and put them into a table and compare worship of God on the left to worship of government on the right. The results are very surprising. The attributes in the left column of the table below are listed in the same sequence presented in the above definition and have asterisks next to them. Those attributes without asterisks provide additional means of comparison between worship of God and worship of government (god with a little “g”).
Table 1-1: Worship of God (Christianity) v. Worship of Government (idolatry)
Attributes of “religion”
Worship of God
(Christianity: “God” with a Big “G”)
Worship of Government
(Idolatry: “god” with a little “g”)
"The Beast": Rev. 13:11-18
God (see Isaiah 33:22)
Legislature or democratic majority
1. Constitution, statutes, and regulations (in a republic)
Purpose of obedience to Law
Protection (see Isaiah 54:11-17)
Protection (see section 4.3.1)
Method of rendering “worship”
4. Service to fellow man/family
5. Reverencing (respecting) God
“Submission to mandates and precepts of”*
Man (The Beast/Satan)
President/Congressmen/Mammon (the BEAST/Satan)
What makes “superior beings” superior
Agents of a sovereign God
Not subject to the same laws as everyone else (hypocrisy)
Church or clergy discipline, censure, or excommunication
Source of power
“Rules of conduct”*
God’s law (Bible or Natural Law)
Man’s law (statutes)
Absence of IRS harassment for not paying taxes
1. Slavery to sin for those who disobey.
2. Eternal damnation
Harassment, oppression for those who challenge government authority
“Bond uniting man” to “superior being”*
Government- granted “Privileges”, covetousness, limited liability (in the case of corporations)
Source of “virtue”*
“God” and his worship
“Self” and “Vain Rulers” and their aggrandizement
Object of belief/faith*
Trust in God (see Psalm 118:8-9)
Trust in man/the flesh (see Jeremiah 17:5-8)
Influence spread through
How spokespersons are appointed
Appointed by President/Governor
Representatives of spokesperson
Lawyers (scumbag Pharisees)
Attire of spokesperson
Title of spokesperson
Apostles (qty 12)
Grand Jury (qty 12)
Petit Jury (qty 12)
How representatives are appointed
Licensed by state Supreme Court
Persons who violate laws are
Sinners (God’s law)
Criminals (man’s/god’s law)
“…knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law but by faith in Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we might be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law; for by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified.” (see Gal. 2:16)
“I am a criminal because no one can obey all of man’s laws. There are too many of them!” (see section 5.12 entitled “The Government’s REAL approach to tax law”)
“If you love me, keep my commandments” (see John 14:15)
Follow the law or we will throw you in jail and steal your property! (fear)
Control by “superior being” imposed through
Criminal punishment for violating law.
Court (worship the judge/lawyers)
Place of worship
Language of worship service
Latin (Roman Catholic church)
Latin (habeus corpus, malum prohibitum, ex post facto, etc.)
Method of removing evil from the world
Court and/or jail
Pleadings to the superior being (Sovereign) for help take the form of
(petitions to courts used to be called “prayers” and those that go in front of the Supreme Court are still called “prayers” in some cases).
Source of truth
Whatever the judge says
Absolute and sovereign
Relative to whoever is in charge (and whatever corrupted politicians will let even more corrupted judges get away with before they get removed from office for misconduct)
Method of supporting “superior being”
Power expanded by
1. Obfuscating law
2. Attorney licensing
3. Legal “terrorism” (excessive or unwarranted or expensive litigation)
4. Unconstitutional or unlawful acts
5. Lies, propaganda, and deceit
6. Judges allowing juries to rule only on facts and not law of each case.
Isn’t that interesting? The other thing you MUST conclude after examining the above table is that if anyone in government is a “superior being” relative to any human in the society they govern, then the government unavoidably becomes an idol and a god to be “worshipped” and submitted to as if the government or its servants individually were a religion. In the feudal system of British Common Law from which our legal system derives, they even call judges “Your Worship”:
“worship 1. chiefly Brit: a person of importance—used as a title for various officials (as magistrates and some mayors) 2: reverence offered a divine being or supernatural power; also: an act of expressing such reverence 3: a form of religious practice with its creed and ritual 4: extravagant respect or admiration for or devotion to an object of esteem <~ the dollar>.”
[Websters Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary, 1983, ISBN 0-87779-510-X]
We started with a government of law and not of men but we ended up with the opposite because of our apathy and ignorance:
“The government of the United States has been emphatically termed a government of laws, and not of men. It will certainly cease to deserve that high appellation, if the laws furnish no remedy for the violation of a vested legal right.”
[Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137, 1 Cranch 137, 2 L.Ed. 60 (1803)]
A government run by judges, instead of law is called a “kritarchy”. Such a government is described as a government of men and not of law. Since judges are also “public servants”, then a “kritarchy” also qualifies as a “dulocracy”:
“Dulocracy. A government where servants and slaves have so much license and privilege that they domineer.”
[Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p. 501]
The book of Judges in the Bible shows what happens to a culture that trusts in man and the flesh and their own feelings rather than in God’s law for their sense of justice and morality. Below is an excerpt from our Bible introducing the Book of Judges to make the moral lessons contained in the book crystal clear:
The Book of Judges stands in stark contrast to Joshua. In Joshua an obedient people conquered the land through trust in the power of God. In Judges, however, a disobedient and idolatrous people are defeated time and time again because of their rebellion against God.
In seven distinct cycles of sin to salvation, Judges shows how Israel had set aside God’s law and in its place substituted “what was right in his own eyes” (21:25). The recurring result of abandonment from God’s law is corruption from within and oppression from without. During the nearly four centuries spanned by this book, God raises up military champions to throw off the yoke of bondage and to restore the nation to pure worship. But all too soon the “sin cycle” begins again as the nation’s spiritual temperance grows steadily colder.
The Book of Judges could also appropriately be titled “The Book of Failure.”
Deterioration (1:1-3:4). Judges begins with short-lived military successes after Joshua’s death, but quickly turns to the repeated failure of all the tribes to drive out their enemies. The people feel the lack of a unified central leader, but the primary reasons for their failure are a lack of faith in God and lack of obedience to Him (2:1-2). Compromise leads to conflict and chaos. Israel does not drive out the inhabitants (1:21, 27, 29, 30); instead of removing the moral cancer [IRS, Federal Reserve?] spread by the inhabitants of Canaan, they contract the disease. The Canaanite gods [money, sex, covetousness] literally become a snare to them (2:3). Judges 2:11-23 is a microcosm of the pattern found in Judges 3-16.
Deliverance (3:5-16:31). In verses 3:5 through 16:31 of the Book of Judges, seven apostasies (fallings away from God) are described, seven servitudes, and seven deliverances. Each of the seven cycles has five steps: sin, servitude, supplication, salvation, and silence. These also can be described by the words rebellion, retribution, repentance, restoration, and rest. The seven cycles connect together as a descending spiral of sin (2:19). Israel vacillates between obedience and apostasy as the people continually fail to learn from their mistakes. Apostasy grows, but the rebellion is not continual. The times of rest and peace are longer than the times of bondage. The monotony of Israel’s sins can be contrasted with the creativity of God’s methods of deliverance.
Depravity (17:1-21:25). Judges 17:1 through 21:25 illustrate (1) religious apostasy (17 and 18) and (2) social and moral depravity (19-21) during the period of the judges. Chapters 19-21 contain one of the worst tales of degradation in the Bible. Judges closes with a key to understanding the period: “everyone did what was right in his own eyes” (21:25) [a.k.a. “what FEELS good”]. The people are not doing what is wrong in their own eyes, but what is “evil in the sight of the Lord” (2:11).
The hypocrisy and idolatry represented by a government of judges or of men rather than law not only violates the first and greatest Commandment in the Bible found in Exodus 20:3, but is also more importantly violates the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
How do government servants make themselves or the government they are part of into a “superior being”? Here are just a few highly unethical and evil ways:
TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 77 > Sec. 1589.Sec. 1589. - Forced labor
Whoever knowingly provides or obtains the labor or services of a person -
(3) by means of the abuse or threatened abuse of law or the legal process,
shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both. If death results from the violation of this section, or if the violation includes kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or the attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, the defendant shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or life, or both
By making itself a “superior being” relative to the people it governs and serves and using the color but not actual force of law to compel the people to pay homage to and “worship” and to serve it with their stolen labor (extorted through illegally enforced income taxes), Congress has mandated a religion, with all the many necessary characteristics found in the legal definition of “religion” indicated above, and this is clearly unconstitutional. The only way to guarantee the elimination of the conflict of law that results from putting government above the people is to:
There is no other rational conclusion one can reach based on the above analysis. There is simply no other way to solve this logical paradox of government becoming a religion in the process of making itself superior to the people or the “U.S. citizens”. The definition of “religion” earlier confirmed that God must be the origin of all earthly government, when it said:
“Bond uniting man to God, and a virtue whose purpose is to render God worship due him as source of all being and principle of all government of things.”
One of our readers, Humberto Nunez, wrote a fascinating and funny article showing just how similar government and most religions really are as follows:
GOVERNMENT IS A PAGAN CULT AND WE’VE ALL BEEN DRINKING THE KOOL AID
By: Humberto Nunez
Government is a pagan cult. When you join the Armed Forces, the first thing they do is shave your head. Just like in many cults, where they shave your head. The Army also uses sleep deprivation in Boot Camp, just like many cults do, to brainwash their people.
Secret Service Agents are willing to “die for their beliefs” (in defense of The President: their cult leader).
Many men say that they would “die for their country”. This is a form of pagan Martyrdom for the pagan cult State.
Many today say that “religion has caused more war… “ and blah blah blah.
But the fact is that governments send out draft cards, not churches. Governments started WWI and WWII, not religion. In fact, during times of peace governments hate religion because religion is the governments’ #1 competition for allegiance, and during times of war, governments use religion for their own agenda.
Another similarity to cults: FBI Agents even dress similar to Mormons, and have the same type of haircuts. Many cults have a dress code of some kind, just like in the Army, and even in the Corporate world.
When you join the Moonies you would probably end up selling flowers for them, and the Moonies will keep all the profits from the work you do. When you work today, the pagan cult State takes your profits (in the form of income taxes), and they won’t let you leave their cult (the State). If you attempt to not pay your taxes, you would be arrested and branded a criminal.
Now, I did a little research into the symptoms and signs of a cult and found these 5 Warning Signs: (to distinguish a cult from a ‘normal’ religion)
Now, let’s break these down one by one.
1. The organization is willing to place itself above the law; this is probably the most important characteristic.
Example: Death Penalty.
What is the purpose and intention behind State sponsored Death Penalty? The primary purpose and intention behind State sponsored Death Penalty is not to deter crime, nor is it to be tough on crime. To understand the purpose and intent behind this, we must study psychology, in particular, behavioral psychology; like in training a dog. To train a dog, one must use behavioral modification techniques. For example, the primary purpose and intention behind anti-smoking laws is to get you to obey the State. Before you can train a dog to kill, you must first train the dog to obey simple commands; like sit, and roll over. The same is true of recycling laws. Glass bottles are actually much safer for the environment than plastic bottles. The primary purpose and intention behind recycling laws is not to save the environment, it is a behavioral modification technique to get the people to obey the Government.
Now, back to State sponsored death penalty laws. The primary purpose and intention behind Death Penalty laws is to get people used to the idea that the State is above the law. It is illegal for people to kill and to murder. With State sponsored Death Penalty laws, the State is Above the Law.
There you have symptom #1:
2. The leadership dictates, (rather than suggests) important personal (as opposed to spiritual) details of followers’ lives, such as whom to marry, what to study in college, etc.
I can give a dozen examples of this behavioral modification ploy of cults. Recycling and anti-smoking laws were two examples I explained above. Dictating the behavior of Americans today is pervasive throughout our entire society.
3. The leader sets forth ethical guidelines members must follow but from which the leader is exempt.
We can see this today very clearly when it comes to violence. Many Americans today are forced to attend Anger Management Courses while at the same time the State uses violence (like in the Iraq War).
4. The group is preparing to fight a literal, physical Armageddon against other human beings.
Three words: War on Terrorism
5. The leader regularly makes public assertions that he or she knows is false and/or the group has a policy of routinely deceiving outsiders.
I don’t think that last symptom (of a cult) needs further explanation.
Well there you have it; the Government has all of the 5 major signs/symptoms of being a cult.
For the philosophy behind The Nature of Government I recommend this read:
It is A MUST READ for all Americans and all freedom loving peoples of the world. It is so good that if I start quoting from it, I’ll just end up pasting the entire article here in my article. So I’ll just leave it at that and say you the reader here MUST READ IT.
Now, the atheist says “Show me God.” I say, “Show me government.” I do not believe in the existence of government. Now hold your horses, I know that sounds silly at first, but let me explain.
Let’s say you were on a ship full of people. Now the people in that ship went insane and started hallucinating, thinking that you were an alien from another planet and that you must be killed. If those people on that ship killed you, you would really be dead, literally. Just because of the reality of the consequences of that mass hallucination (you being dead) does not prove that you were really an alien. It just proves that the people were suffering from mass hallucination. So, just because the so-called ‘government’ can arrest you and put you in jail, that does not prove the existence of government. It just proves mass hallucination.
Let’s start again now:
The atheist says “Show me God.” I say, “Show me government.” Now don’t tell me the White House. That is not ‘government’. That is a building. That’s just as if I were to show an atheist a church (a building), that would not prove the existence of God.
Ok now, you might show me a Police Officer in uniform, and offer proof on how he can actually arrest me, to prove the existence of Government.
Well, I can show an atheist a priest in uniform, but that would not prove the existence of God. Even if Congress gave priests the authority to arrest people on the streets that would still not prove the existence of God to an atheist. Just like a cop in uniform does not prove the existence of government, it only proves that the people are suffering from mass hallucination.
People today are obsessed with the laws of the pagan-cult State. The Constitution, the Bill of Rights, etc. etc, people meditating day and night on the ‘laws’ of the pagan-cult State, as opposed to the Law of God. Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, these men have become cult figures. They have replaced Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Noah, Moses, as the men of God to be pondered on and studied.
Sacrifice for Protection
In ancient times, people performed human sacrifice to their pagan false gods for ‘Protection’ from the gods. They believed their gods also played the role of ‘Provider’ by performing human sacrifice for rain for their crops for example.
Today, the US Fed. Govt. is asking for “Sacrifice for Protection’. The State today is now saying that the people must sacrifice their Freedoms and Liberties for ‘Protection’ from terrorism (demons, evil spirits, etc.) and that the State will then ‘Provide’ them with safety.
This is metaphorically a form of human sacrifice. It is not a human sacrifice where you literally kill someone (like in the Death Penalty), but it is a “human” sacrifice. I mean, the State is not asking the animals to sacrifice their Freedoms and Liberties, it is asking us humans, so it is a “human” sacrifice as opposed to an ‘animal’ sacrifice in that sense. Also, there is death involved; the death of our Freedoms and Liberty.
By the way, State sponsored Death Penalty is another form of human sacrifice for the pagan-cult State, and State sponsored abortion is a form of child sacrifice for this pagan-cult State.
Black Robes: Judges and Devil worshippers
Judges wear Black Robes just like Devil worshippers. The Judges’ Desk is the altar of baal. They bring men tied up in handcuffs before the altar (Judges’ desk) and these men are for the human sacrifice and the entire court proceeding is a satanic ritual.
Sounds crazy? Is it a coincidence that the ‘language of the court’ is Latin (ex: Habeas Corpus) just like the ‘language of a Catholic Exorcism’ is also in Latin? Lawyers speak Latin in the court room just like Priests use Latin when performing exorcisms when you have a ‘case’ of full DEMONIC POSSESSESION.
Also, the same type of ‘respect’ a Priest would expect from a visitor to his church is the same type of respect a Judge expects in his court room. There’s even a penalty for disobeying this ‘respect’; it’s called “Contempt of Court”.
Another psychological conditioning behavior modification technique being applied on the American Public is this: Television shows like Judge Judy, Judge Joe, all these People’s Courts television shows. The primary intention and purpose behind these so-called Court Room Justice shows is to condition the public to get used to entering a court room with NO Trial by Jury. In not one of any of these types of shows do you ever see a Trial by Jury; that is not a mistake, it is intentional, and by design.
I can go on and on with this article and offer a million more details.
To conclude, if the US Govt. plans to attack Iran, North Korea, etc. in the future. And if there is the possibility that this War on Terrorism might lead to WWIII. Then, that is nothing but pagan-cult MASS SUICIDE. And the US Govt. is a pagan cult, and WE’VE ALL BEEN DRINKING THE KOOL AID. [Does Jim Jones from Ghana ring a bell?]
Now, some readers of this article (especially neoconservatives) would automatically brand me an Anarchist. I am not an Anarchist, what I am questioning is the role of government. According to the Founding Fathers of America, the role of government was to protect your Individual Rights. NOT TO TAKE THEM AWAY.
And finally, if the people will not serve God, they will end up serving and being slaves of government. I am sure many Christians would believe this, and even some followers of eastern philosophies; for this is a form of 'Bad Karma'.
And, if man will not serve God, then woman will not serve man. This is also a form of 'bad karma' [and it may also explain why the divorce rate is so high].
Another fascinating and funny article that helps to clarify just how God-like our government has become is as follows:
The Ten Commandments of the U.S. Government
I. I am the Lord of the Talmud, thou shalt have no Biblical God before me.
II. Thou shalt not make unto thee any but Satanic images: the witch, symbol of the city government and police department of Salem, Massachusetts; the five-pointed occult pentagram of Sirius, of the state religion of Egypt, emblem of the Department of Defense and our Armed Forces, and the badge of US law enforcement at all levels; the pyramid of Pharaoh, capped by the all-Seeing Eye of Horus, emblazoned on the currency in the denomination of one shekel.
III. Thou shalt not take the name of thy god in vain: thou shalt not blaspheme the name Rabbi, Israeli, Zionism, "U.S. government", or any politician or agency.
IV. Remember the Wal Mart sale on the Sabbath Day, and keep it holy by spending. Seven days must thou labor, that thereby thou shalt spend ever more.
V. Honor thy son and thy daughter. Neither spank nor say no to them when they seek to consume the sex and violence that is dangled before them from every lawful venue. Thy daughter shalt dress like a cheap harlot from the age of eight onward, and thy son shall engage in bloody video games, likewise from his eighth year. All of these are legal and profitable, saith the Lord.
VI. Thou shalt not kill the molester of 150 children in his prison cell, and thou shalt condemn the convict who executes the molester, lest such justice be encouraged, and lest it be known that the convict had greater common sense and honor than a legion of our judges.
VII. Thou shalt commit adultery and televise and popularize it throughout the land, and broadcast it into Afghanistan and Iraq, that thereby the Muslims shall be vouchsafed a share in our democracy and freedom.
VIII. Thou shalt not steal from us, for we detest competition.
IX. Thou shalt indeed bear false witness, for by perjury our Law is established.
X. Covet thy neighbor's goods and thy neighbor's wife, for thereby doth our Order prosper.
I’ll bet you never even dreamed that there were so many parallels between Christianity and government, did you? I’ll bet you also never thought of government as a religion, but that is exactly what it has become. The idea of making government a religion or creating false idols for the people to worship is certainly not new. Here is an example from the bible, where “cities” are referred to as “gods”. Notice this passage also criticizes evolutionists when it says “Saying to..a stone 'you gave birth to me.'". Evolutionists believe that we literally descended from rocks that evolved from a primordial soup:
"As the thief is ashamed when he is found out,
So is the house of Israel ashamed;They and their kings and their princes, and their priests and their prophets,
Saying to a tree, "You are my father,'
And to a stone, "You gave birth to me.'
For they have turned their back to Me, and not their face.
But in the time of their trouble
They will say, "Arise and save us.'
But where are your gods [governments] that you have made for yourselves?
Let them arise,
If they can save you in the time of your trouble;For according to the number of your citiesAre your gods, O Judah.”
[Jeremiah 2:26-28, Bible, NKJV]
Leaders know that if you can get people to worship false idols and thereby blaspheme God with their sin, then you can use this idolatry to captivate and enslave them. For instance, in the Bible in 1 Kings 11-12, we learn that Solomon disobeyed the Lord by marrying foreign wives and worshipping the idols of these foreign wives. When Solomon died, his son Rehoboam hardened his heart against God and alienated his people. Then he fought a competitor named Jeroboam over the spoils of his vast father’s remnant kingdom (1 Kings 12). The weapon that Jeroboam used to compete with Rehoboam was the creation of a false idol for the ten tribes of Israel that were under his leadership. This false idol consisted of two calves of solid gold. The false idol distracted ten of the 12 tribes of Israel from wanting to reunite with the other two tribes. To this day, the twelve tribes have never again been able to reunite, because they were divided by idolatry toward false gods. Here is a description of how he did it from 1 Kings 12:25-33:
Golden Calves at Bethel and Dan
25 Then Jeroboam fortified Shechem in the hill country of Ephraim and lived there. From there he went out and built up Peniel.26 Jeroboam thought to himself, "The kingdom will now likely revert to the house of David. 27 If these people go up to offer sacrifices at the temple of the LORD in Jerusalem, they will again give their allegiance to their lord, Rehoboam king of Judah. They will kill me and return to King Rehoboam."
28 After seeking advice, the king made two golden calves. He said to the people, "It is too much for you to go up to Jerusalem. Here are your gods, O Israel, who brought you up out of Egypt." 29 One he set up in Bethel, and the other in Dan. 30 And this thing became a sin; the people went even as far as Dan to worship the one there.
31 Jeroboam built shrines on high places and appointed priests from all sorts of people, even though they were not Levites. 32 He instituted a festival on the fifteenth day of the eighth month, like the festival held in Judah, and offered sacrifices on the altar. This he did in Bethel, sacrificing to the calves he had made. And at Bethel he also installed priests at the high places he had made. 33 On the fifteenth day of the eighth month, a month of his own choosing, he offered sacrifices on the altar he had built at Bethel. So he instituted the festival for the Israelites and went up to the altar to make offerings.
[1 Kings 12:25-33, Bible, NIV]
Similar to Jeroboam, the government conquers the people by encouraging them to become distracted with false idols. These false idols include:
Have you ever visited a doctor’s office for minor surgery? What the doctor does is administer a local anesthetic to numb your senses in the area he will be cutting and operating on so you won't experience pain or feel what he is doing. The government does the same thing. Before they hook you up to “The Matrix” using their umbilical called the “income tax” to painfully suck you dry, they use a “local anesthetic” that numbs your senses and your discretion. This “local anesthetic” is the sin and hedonism and idolatry they try to get you addicted to and distracted with that they use to make you into a slave:
“Most assuredly, I say to you, whoever commits sin is a slave of sin.”
[Jesus in John 8:34, Bible, NKJV]
Once you are a slave to your sin, you are far less likely to give them any trouble about being a host organism for the umbilical they hook up to you called the income tax that sucks your life and your labor and your property dry. They supplement this local anesthetic with a combination of cognitive dissonance, lies and propaganda, ignorance generated by the public schools, and an occasional media report about how they trashed a famous person to keep you in fear and immobilized to oppose their organized extortion and racketeering. This trains you never to trust or respect your own judgment well enough to even conceive of questioning authority or challenging their jurisdiction.
"Surely oppression destroys a wise man's reason.
And a [compelled] bribe [called income tax] debases the heart."
[Ecclesiastes 7:7, Bible, NKJV]
This concept of government as a religion especially applies to the field of taxation. The Internal Revenue Code is 9,500 pages of very fine print. We know because we have a personal copy and read it often. How many people have taken the time to read the Internal Revenue Code in its entirety, and even among those very few people who have read it completely, how many believe that they fully and completely understand it well enough to swear under penalty of perjury that facts they reveal and statements they might make about their own personal tax liability would be completely consistent with it? If you don’t meet these two criteria of having read it completely and often and having a full and accurate understanding about it that is truthful and consistent with its legislative intent, then any statement you make on a tax return that is based on your state of mind in that instance becomes simply a matter of usually misinformed or ignorant “belief”. There’s a good word for this condition of believing something without knowing all the facts. It is called “faith” and it is the foundation of all religions in the world!:
“Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.”
[Heb. 11:1, Bible, NKJV]
Isn’t “faith” based on a “belief” in something which you have not seen sufficient scientific evidence to prove? If you are like most Americans who have never read or even seen any part of the Internal Revenue Code, which is the only admissible “evidence” of your legal tax obligation, then any action you might take and any statement you might make regarding your tax “liability” under such circumstances could be rationally described only as an act of “faith” and “belief”. Here’s the legal definition of “faith”:
“Faith. Confidence; credit; reliance. Thus, an act may be said to be done ‘on the faith’ of certain representations.
“Belief; credence; trust. Thus, the Constitution provides that ‘full faith and credit” shall be given to the judgments of each state in the courts of the others.
Purpose; intent; sincerity; state of knowledge or design. This is the meaning of the word in the phrase “good faith” and “bad faith”. See Good faith.”
[Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p. 599]
Even when you hire an expensive professional to prepare your tax return, you still have all of the responsibility and liability for the content and the accuracy of the return and if the IRS institutes a penalty for errors or omissions, isn’t it you rather than your tax preparer who has to pay the penalty? What exactly are you “trusting” (see the definition of “faith” above) when you sign a tax return and state under penalty of perjury that it is truthful without even reading or knowing or understanding the tax laws? What you are in fact “trusting” is “man” or your “government”. You are trusting what the IRS told you in its publications, right? Or you’re trusting an ignorant and greedy and unethical tax lawyer or a misinformed accountant to tell you what your legal responsibilities are, aren’t you? That is called trusting “man” because a man wrote those publications or gave you the advice that you formed your “belief” from. The Bible says we shouldn’t trust men or a “worthless” government, and instead ought to trust only Him:
“Cursed be he that confirmeth not all the words of this law [God’s Law, not Caesar’s law] to do them. And all the people shall say, Amen.”
[Deu 27:26, Bible, NKJV]
“Behold, the nations are as a drop in the bucket, and are counted as the small dust on the scales.”
[Isaiah 40:15, Bible, NKJV]
“All nations before Him are as nothing, and they are counted by Him less than nothing and worthless.”
[Isaiah 40:17, Bible, NKJV]
“Cursed is the one who trusts in man [or by implication man-made government], who depends on flesh for his strength and whose heart turns away from the Lord. He will be like a bush in the wastelands; he will not see prosperity when it comes. He will dwell in the parched places of the desert, in a salt land where no one lives. But blessed is the man who trusts in the Lord, whose confidence is in Him. He will be like a tree planted by the water that sends out its roots by the stream. It does not fear when heat comes; its leaves are always green. It has no worries in a year of drought and never fails to bear fruit.”
[Jeremiah 17:5-8, Bible, NIV]
Now if our government had stuck to its original charter to be “a society of laws and not men”, then we wouldn’t be forced to have to depend on “men” to know what our tax responsibilities are because we would be able to read the law ourselves without consulting an “expert” and KNOW what we are supposed to do:
If our government had remained honorable and honest, the laws would be simple and clear and short. Read the earlier tax laws: they are very short and easy to understand. These laws were KNOWABLE by the common man. The easiest way to make the law respectable is to make it short and simple enough so that every person can read and understand it. When it grows too large and/or too complicated to be knowable by every citizen, then at that point, we have transformed our society from a society of laws to a society of men, which is the root and the foundation of tyranny and the very reason we rebelled against English monarchs to form this country! That kind of corruption of our laws began starting in around 1913, shortly after the Federal Reserve Act and the Sixteenth Amendment were passed. At that point, our government became a gigantic parasite completely unrestrained by the Constitutional limits that had kept it under control. It became a socialist bureaucracy bent on destroying our liberties and making itself into a false god.
The IRS publications are the only thing that most Americans have ever read that even comes close to claiming to represent what is in the real tax law found in the Internal Revenue Code. Because most people can’t afford a high-priced lawyer or accountant who understands the tax laws completely, and don’t have the time to read the entire IRC or buy and read a comprehensive and complete book on taxes, then Americans in effect are economically coerced into relying on and having a “religious faith” in the IRS publications as their only source of the tax law. Add to that the legal ignorance perpetuated in them by our government schools and you have additional government duress. Worst yet, the federal courts have said that none of these IRS publications are credible and that they “confer no rights”. Read the article on our website about this scam because it will blow your mind!:
Even the IRS says you can’t rely on their own publications in their Internal Revenue Manual:
"IRS Publications, issued by the National Office, explain the law in plain language for taxpayers and their advisors... While a good source of general information, publications should not be cited to sustain a position."
[Internal Revenue Manual (I.R.M.), Section 22.214.171.124.8 (05-14-1999)]
So once again, if you haven’t personally read the entire Internal Revenue Code, don’t understand it completely, or have trusted the IRS publications, then your “faith” is ill-founded and in effect becomes “bad faith” because you are relying on a completely criminal and lawless organization called the IRS to define and fulfill your purported legal responsibilities, and that can only be described as despicable, morally wrong, and biblically unsound:
“Bad faith. The opposite of “good faith,’ generally implying or involving actual or constructive fraud, or a design to mislead or deceive another, or a neglect or refusal to fulfill some duty or some contractual obligation, not prompted by an honest mistake as to one’s rights or duties, but by some interested or sinister motive. Term ‘bad faith’ is not simply bad judgment or negligence, but rather it implies the conscious doing of a wrong because of dishonest purpose or moral obliquity; it is different from the negative idea of negligence in that it contemplates a state of mind affirmatively operating with furtive design or ill will…”
[Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p. 139]
You are not alone in your compelled depravity and violation of God’s law because most Americans, including us, are just like you. But you have to trust “somebody” on this tax subject don’t you, because if you don’t file the government is going to go after you and penalize you, aren’t they? So you are compelled to have “faith” in something, right? You get to choose what that “something” is, but the result is a compelled “faith” or “trust” in “something” because of demands the government is making on you to satisfy your alleged tax responsibilities.
Now if the Constitution says in the First Amendment that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”, and yet the IRS tells you under the “color of law” that you have to in effect trust or have “religious faith” in “something” in order to satisfy their criminal extortion under the “color of law”, then isn’t the government in effect “making a law respecting the establishment of a religion”? When corrupt judges make rulings on tax issues that violate the Constitution and prejudice our sacred rights, aren’t they making law? Isn’t this kind of judicial activism called “judge-made law” and isn’t Congress’ failure to discipline such tyrant judges the equivalent of allowing them to write law that will then be used as precedent in the future? Isn’t the object of that “religious faith” and “trust” that the government compels us to have the fraudulent IRS Publications directly, and the IRS who prepares them indirectly? So in effect, if the income tax is indeed an “enforced” or “compelled” tax, then the government has established “faith in the IRS” as a religion by the operation of law. And then the federal courts of that same government have turned around and said that even though the only basis for most people’s beliefs is the IRS publications, they aren’t trustworthy nor credible, and in fact, you can be penalized for relying on what the IRS told you in them! So you are in effect being compelled to trust or have “religious faith” in a lie, aren’t you? But then out of the other side of that same hypocritical and criminal government’s mouth, the U.S. supreme Court says:
“Courts, no more than the Constitutions, can intrude into the consciences of men or compel them to believe contrary to their faith or think contrary to their convictions, but courts are competent to adjudge the acts men do under the color of a constitutional right, such as that of freedom of speech or of the press or the free exercise of religion and to determine whether the claimed right is limited by other recognized powers, equally precious to mankind. So the mind and the spirit of man remain forever free, while his actions rest subject to necessary accommodation to the competing needs of his fellows.”
“If all expression of religion or opinion, however, were subject to the discretion of authority, our unfettered dynamic thoughts or moral impulses might be made only colorless and sterile ideas. To give them life and force, the Constitution protects their use. No difference of view as to the importance of the freedoms of press or religion exist. They are “fundamental personal rights and liberties” Schneider v. State, 308 U.S. 147, 161, 60 S.Ct. 146, 150, 84 L.Ed. 155. To proscribe the dissemination of doctrines or arguments which do not transgress military or moral limits is to destroy the principal bases of democracy, --knowledge and discussion. One man, with views contrary to the rest of his compatriots, is entitled to the privilege of expressing his ideas by speech or broadside to anyone willing to listen or to read. …
“Ordinances absolutely prohibiting [or penalizing] the exercise of the right to disseminate information are, a fortiori, invalid.”
[Jones v. City of Opelika, 316 U.S. 584, 62 S.Ct. 1231 (1942), Emphasis added]
“Therefore put to death your members which are on the earth: fornication, uncleanness, passion, evil desire, and covetousness, which is idolatry..”
[Colossians 3:5, Bible, NKJV]
“Behold, to obey [God and His Law] is better than sacrifice, and to heed than the fat of rams. For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness is an iniquity and idolatry. Because you have rejected the word of the Lord, He also has rejected you from being king [or sovereign over government].”
[1 Sam. 15:22-28, Bible, NKJV]
The implication of the above scripture is that when the government violates God’s law, they cease to be part of the government and are acting as private individuals absent the authority of law. They are no longer the sovereigns who are serving the public they are there to protect. Instead they are serving themselves mainly and thereby violating the fiduciary relationship they have as part of the public trust known as the “United States government” (see section 2.1 earlier for details). Christians are supposed to disobey such unlawful and immoral actions, including those of courts.
"We ought to obey God rather than men."
[Acts 5:27-29, Bible, NKJV]
So we have a paradox, folks. Either Subtitle A income taxes are mandatory and enforced and “religious faith in the IRS” has become the new religion, or the taxes are instead entirely “voluntary” donations and therefore do not conflict with religious views or the First Amendment. We can’t have it both ways, but the government’s fraudulent way of calling them mandatory conflicts with so many aspects of our Constitution that we may as well throw the whole Bill of Rights in the toilet and tell everyone the truth: which is that all their freedoms are suspended to pay for the extravagant debts of an out-of-control government and everyone is an economic slave and a serf to the government.
In our time, government has not only become a religion, it has also become an anti-religion intent on driving Christianity out of public life so that its only competitor (God) can be eliminated and it can continue to grow in power without resistance and graduate to that of a totalitarian communist state. Christianity, it turns out, is the only competitor to government at the moment for the worship of the people, and the one thing that most minority groups focused on rights (homosexuals, women’s liberation, abortion, etc) have in common is a hate for Christianity, because Christianity is the only check on their corruption and hedonism. Christianity is the salt, the preservative, and the immune system for our society, and when you want to overtake society with sin and disease and death, the first thing you have to attack is its immune system.
The kind of idolatrous thinking that accepts the income tax as legal therefore leads to socialism ultimately, and turns the government into a tyrannical police state that robs citizens of their assets and puts them to use for the alleged "common good." It is a product of mobocracy masquerading as democracy, where less privileged or poorer groups use their voting power to compel the government to plunder the assets of wealthier people for their personal benefit. This is the central approach the demagogues (I mean democrats) use: buy votes with money extorted from hard-working citizens. The Supreme Court agreed precisely with these conclusions below in the case of Loan Association v. Topeka, 20 Wall. 655 (1874):
"To lay with one hand the power of government on the property of the citizen, and with the other to bestow it on favored individuals.. is none the less robbery because it is.. called taxation."
[Loan Association v. Topeka, 20 Wall. 655 (1874)]
The only way a socialist state can justify its existence is to assert that the government knows better how to take care of you than you do, and past experience, especially with the Soviet Union, proves that approach doesn't work! Socialism has never worked throughout all of history, because the corruption of men at the highest levels who are in charge of the public funds always leads to usury, abuse, evil, and tyrannical oppression of the people they are supposed to serve.
“Remember the word that I said to you , ‘A servant is not greater than his master.’ If they persecuted Me, they will also persecute you. If they kept My word, they will keep yours also. But all these things they will do to you for My name’s sake, because they do not know Him who sent Me.”
[Jesus speaking in the Bible, John 15:20-21]
Our own country was formed by Christian patriots more than 200 years ago because they rejected this very thing happening to us! They founded the first country whose legal system was based entirely on Natural Law and Natural Order, which we further explain in sections 3.4 and 4.1.
Socialism also makes us into unwitting slaves of the government. Would anyone argue that we don't already have a police state, where the Gestapo are the tyrants at the IRS, and fear of the IRS is what keeps us paying our "tribute to the king" in the form of income taxes? Would anyone argue that we are not a nation of cowards when it comes to facing our oppressors? Remember that the original American colonies waged an entire violent war of independence and risked everything they had to fight against Britain when their taxes to Britain were only 7%? We’re a bunch of wimps if you ask me!
The point is that it’s much more difficult to put God first with federal income taxes because out of the remaining 50% of our income left after we pay taxes, we have to feed our families and pay our bills. Is it any wonder then that less than 1% of Christians tithe 10% of their income to the church as the bible requires in Malachi 3:8-10? They can't afford to because they are being taxed/raped and financially enslaved by the government illegally! And then the IRS compels churches to shut up about this kind of abuse by taking away their tax-exempt status if they speak up!
But if you didn't have to pay income taxes and the IRS would honor your right to do so legally (why does the IRS call it "voluntary compliance" if we can’t choose not to pay?), wouldn't you give MUCH more to God and put God first? I certainly would! Therefore, implementing the advice found in this document will, in the long run, result in equipping you with the income you need to be more generous to your local church and to the noble causes and preservation of American liberties and freedoms that we all believe in.
HOWEVER: If your intent is to take the money you saved in taxes as a result of following the guidance in this document and spend it on your own selfish desires and not on the church (whatever church you belong to) or helping others, then you are violating the copyright on this document and acting illegally. We demand that you destroy this book and NOT read or use this document because we would submit that you are a less than honorable steward over the gracious gifts that God (whatever God you believe in) has bestowed upon you and deserve to have your income taken away by the tyrants at the IRS. Selfishness and deceit are their own best avengers, and we should rightly reap what we sow. Anything less would be to promote anarchy, hypocrisy, injustice, and oppression in our society. Recall that it was selfishness and vanity on the part of government employees which created the problems so clearly documented in this book to begin with. You can’t cure selfishness with more selfishness, and you will be maligning the tax honesty movement and other noble patriots by abusing these materials for your own selfish gain and associating yourself with them in so doing.
The above comment is based on the following scriptures:
“A man with an evil eye hastens after riches, and does not consider that poverty will come upon him.”
[Prov. 28:22, Bible, NKJV]
“There is a severe evil which I have seen under the sun: Riches kept for their owner to his hurt. But those riches perish through misfortune; when he begets a son, there is nothing in his hand. As he came from his mother’s womb, naked shall he return. To go as he came; and he shall take nothing from his labor which he may carry away in his hand.”
[Eccl. 5:13-14, Bible, NKJV]
Thomas Jefferson, who incidentally was a Christian and the author of our Declaration of Independence, believed that when a government began to be tyrannical, it was the right and even the DUTY of the citizens to rebel against that government. Here is what he said:
“Resistance to tyrants is obedience to God.”
The Christian, however, is called to bear with his government whenever possible, but there must be a limit to that forbearance.
“Those who stand for nothing will fall for anything.” Alex Hamilton
"We ought to obey God rather than men."
Whenever the civil government forbids the practice of things that God has commanded us to do, or tells us to do things He has commanded us not to do, then we are on solid ground in disobeying the government. Blind obedience to government is never right or biblically sound. However difficult or costly it may be, we all must reserve the right to say no to things that we consider oppressive or immoral or sinful. If we don’t and we make government our unquestioned god, here is the future that awaits us (compare Psalm 23 in the Bible):
The 23rd Psalm (A present-day Lamentation)
The politician is my shepherd...I am in want;
He maketh me to lie down on park benches,
He leadeth me beside still factories;
He disturbeth my soul.
Yea, thou I walk through the valley of the shadow of depression and recession,
I anticipate no recovery, for he is with me.
He prepareth a reduction in my salary in the presence of my enemies;
He anointeth my small income with great losses;
My expenses runneth over.
Surely unemployment and poverty shall follow me all the days of my life,
And I shall dwell in a mortgaged house forever.
 Courtesy of Pastor Wayne Teel, a reader of ours. Thanks Wayne!
Supreme Court Texas: Cameras Ruled Unconstitutional, City Has to Pay Back Ticketed Drivers
February 14, 2017
A court ruling declared speed cameras or at least the process they engender is unconstitutional and the city that put them in must repay all tickets, according to Fox News. Speed light cameras are what you might see in a police state. They also take away due process. The court agreed.
The case was complicated and the decision was based on several court cases. The judge agreed with plaintiffs that it was unjust enrichment.
The cameras were put in by despots and a company made money from the practice.
Optotraffic, the private vendor that handled the paperwork, made more than a million dollars off 45,000 people over 15 months. The city wasted over $100,000 defending the cameras when citizens fought back with a class action lawsuit.
A group of three lawyers filed suit in 2013, arguing that New Miami’s automated ticketing ordinance gave vehicle owners no realistic opportunity to defend themselves against the demand for a payment of up to $180 that arrived in the mail.
The city must pay back $3,066,523.00 to people who were ticketed. Butler County Court of Common Pleas Judge Michael A. Oster Jr.’s made the ruling.
“If the government has created an unconstitutional law/ordinance that has taken people’s money without affording them the necessary due process protections, should not justice demand, and the law require, restitution of that money to the people?” Oster asked at the opening of his ruling. “Once the complexities of the law are analyzed, the answer is simple: Yes.”
Speed cameras have nothing to do with safety. It was to make money and it’s theft. They are the modern day highway robbers.
The Ohio Supreme Court chose to not intervene because it’s so obviously true that it’s unconstitutional.
The New Miami officials tried to claim sovereign immunity but the fact that they violated citizens’ constitutional rights, the court would not grant immunity.
This ruling set by the court sets precedent and is good news for Americans all across America.
Other Resources on Fines held as illegal or unfair…
Greetings from Sheriff Bob Songer of Klickitat County, Washington
June 18, 2021 GNCadm1n Local News Comments Offon Greetings from Sheriff Bob Songer of Klickitat County, Washington
Greetings from Sheriff Bob Songer of Klickitat County, Washington.
As the elected Sheriff of Klickitat County, I have taken an oath before the “Supreme Judge of the Universe” to keep the peace and to secure, defend and protect the people of this jurisdiction from threats to their liberties, their livelihoods, and the peaceable enjoyment of their property.
The nature of that solemn oath requires that the actions of the sheriff in the performance of his duty must conform to the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of Washington.
These documents are the supreme law of the land and describe the powers entrusted to the civil government by the consent of the people. They also provide limits to those powers which are absolute, permanent, and perpetual.
Furthermore, these documents are based upon and informed by a philosophy of law and government set forth in the Declaration of Independence which can be summarized as follows:
1) All men and women are created by an Almighty, All-knowing, Eternal God Whose Son, Jesus Christ, is Savior and Lord.
2) God is the Author and Grantor of rights to men and women which are inalienable, universal, and part of His created order. These rights include life, liberty, and property.
3) People form civil governments for the purpose of securing and protecting these God-given rights.
4) Whenever any government becomes destructive of these ends or violative of this purpose it is the right and the duty of the people to take corrective measures with respect to that government.
In March of last year, the Governor of this state issued executive orders closing businesses, churches, schools and denying the people of this state their God-given and constitutionally protected rights to travel, to worship, to assemble, and to exercise personal autonomy respecting wearing face masks or other medical devices. When these directives were first issued, they were accompanied by statements indicating they were an attempt to deal with a medical catastrophe and were expected to extend for only fourteen days.
Despite several judicial rulings that these measures lack constitutional authority, the governor has expanded and extended these orders for more than fourteen months.
During this time there has been a coordinated and constant effort by the media and some government agencies to justify the suspension or denial of God-given, constitutionally protected rights under a plea of emergency; but this is precisely what is forbidden by the Constitution of the United States.
Moreover, the Constitution of Washington provides that all lawmaking power is vested in our state legislature and further provides that the powers and authorities of one branch of government shall not be discharged by an official from a different branch.
Lawmaking power being thus vested in the legislature, the Governor has no constitutional authority to make law. Therefore, the edicts of the Governor (or a health department subordinate), whether they are characterized as mandates, orders, proclamations, or directives, are not law and cannot be lawfully enforced.
In point of fact, no governor, in any state, has the authority to suspend the Constitution. And any attempt by a Governor to suspend Constitutional rights is an act of lawlessness and a violation of his/her oath of office.
When I took my oath of office as Sheriff, I swore obedience and fidelity to the United States Constitution and the Constitution of this State.
I did not swear allegiance to a mayor or a county commissioner or governor or a health department bureaucrat.
Fidelity to my oath requires that I abstain from enforcing any edict or order from a Governor, or an executive, which lacks constitutional authority. Moreover, my sworn duty requires that I resist such edicts and orders and act in such a manner as to shelter and protect the citizenry from all acts of lawlessness, even and especially when they originate from civil authorities.
Accordingly, the Office of Sheriff of Klickitat County, has and will continue to adopt and execute policies and procedures consistent with the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of this state. These policies and procedures apply to the Sheriff, all Deputy Sheriffs, all employees of the Office of Sheriff and anyone acting under the authority of the Office of Sheriff and include, but are not limited to the following:
1) This Office will not enforce, nor in any way assist in the enforcement of any order, edict, mandate, proclamation, directive, regulation, etc., that violates the rights of the people:
a. to move about freely,
b. to wear or not wear any medical device they may choose to wear or not wear, no enforcement of mandatory Covid -19 vaccinations.
c. to freely express their religious beliefs, and to freely engage in the practice thereof,
d. to freely speak their opinions,
e. to assemble,
f. to keep and bear arms,
g. to lawfully engage in business activities without interference by representatives
of any government, or agency or agent thereof, when such interference is based
on the real or ostensible existence of public health emergency including, but not
limited to, Covid-19, Coronavirus, or any related strain or form thereof,
h. to engage in any other activity protected by the Constitution of the United States or by the Constitution of this state.
2) This Office will not enforce, nor in anyway assist in the enforcement of any civil action or any criminal charge against any person for trespass which is based on that person’s failure to comply with unconstitutional mandates, orders, etc.,
3) This Office will arrest, detain, and recommend prosecution of any government
official or agent thereof who knowingly and deliberately violates the rights of the
people under the pretended authority of an unconstitutional order, edict, mandate,
proclamation, directive, or regulation as described above.
4) This Office will arrest, detain, and recommend prosecution of any government official or agent thereof who uses his position or his office to influence any private (non-governmental) person or corporation to act in such a way as to coerce any person or entity to comply with unconstitutional orders, edicts, mandates, proclamations, directives, regulations, etc.
The people of Klickitat County, are entitled to protection of their God-given and constitutionally protected rights. As the elected chief law enforcement official of this jurisdiction, it is the responsibility, duty and privilege of the Sheriff to do everything in his lawful power to protect, defend and secure these rights.
By: Sheriff Bob Songer
Klickitat County, Washington
CC: Washington State Governor Jay Inslee, Washington State Attorney General Bob Ferguson, Klickitat County Board of County Commissioners, Klickitat County Prosecuting Attorney David Quesnel, CSPOA-Sheriff Richard Mack, Washington State Sheriff’s Association, Bingen White Salmon Police Chief Mike Hepner, Goldendale Police Chief Jay Hunziker, KCSO Deputies, KCSO Corrections Deputies, KCSO Support staff, & WSP Sgt. Nathan Hovinghoff
Lots of democrat rights groups are funded by Soros
There will eventually be human rights trials over the treatment of citizens during Covid. For those of you in business, media & government who have worked to abet these injustices: do note that while it’s fun to be in power, when tyranny collapses—and it always does—you will pay
We knew masks were dumb and useless like mayors and governors and WH is!