A Rebuttal to the Southern Poverty Law Center's Ignorance

The Southern Poverty Law Center published an article on April 12th, 2017 in which the author, who was afraid to expose his or her name or names hiding behind something called "Hatewatch Staff" exposed either an extreme amount of ignorance or its complicit in an organized overthrow of the government of the united States of America. Here we will observe the flaws in this article published about the people being attacked in Colorado and how government agents who are not in fact government officers.

Let us start with the opening line in the article.

It should be no surprise that anti government folks seeking redress want someone besides the government to adjudicate for them.

It is typical big government and foreign agent's rhetoric to call anyone who works to make our government behave lawfully to refer to those people as "anti-government". BAR members and other big government proponents who consider themselves superior to the people always attempt to label those who demand a lawful government as anti-government. It is their way of discrediting those who point out the unlawful activities of said "government agents".

The rest of the statement "seeking redress want someone besides the government to adjudicate for them." reveal even more ignorance. Those who are doing the adjudicating are not, in fact, "the government". The "government" has not been seated on the federal level since roughly 1946 and the states have not been seated since the last one was incorporated in the late 1960's. As has been proven and included in the Notice of Fraud, none of those who are listed on the Notice of Fraud are on a valid oath of office. As one will learn by reading the Notice of Fraud, most of the judges and other "public servants" are not on a valid oath of office nor are they bonded as required by law. What this means is those who are wearing the black robes are criminally impersonating judges. Since the Constitution for the United States of America very specifically requires an oath be taken to uphold The Constitution for the United States of America at Article VI, Clause 3. The oath specified in Section 453 of title 28 has now completely eliminated the Constitution entirely by a small change in wording. Remember, every word has meaning and every word matters.

It is no surprise that the Southern Poverty Law Center would make such claims. After all, they are infested with members of the BAR. The BAR members are foreign agents assigned a title of nobility of "esquire". The Constitution at Article I, Section 9, Clause 8 forbids the united States from granting titles of nobility. The Constitution at Article I, Section 10, Clause 1 forbids the states from granting titles of nobility. So, "esquires" are by definition foreign agents required to file as such according to the Foreign Agent Registration Act of 1938. The original 13th Amendment to the constitution for the United States of America disallows anyone with a title of nobility from serving in public office. As a matter of fact, it strips citizenship to the United States from anyone who accepts a title of nobility from any foreign entity. Now remember, US citizen was redefined in the 14th Amendment to enslave everyone else after transferring ownership of the newly freed slaves from the plantation owners to the government.

Now attorneys claim, very feebly I might add, that "esquire" is not a title of nobility. However, it takes little to learn this is a false statement made by these foreign agent BAR members to hide this fact. Let us take a look in Black's Law Dictionary 1st, edition that was published in 1891.

In English law. A title of dignity next above gentleman, and below knight. Also a title given to sheriffs, sergeants, and barristers at law, justices of the peace, and others. 1 BL.Comm. 406; 3 Steph.Comm. 15, note; Tomlins.

The reason it specified "in English law" is because we did not have titles of nobility in these united states. However, once the BAR was established and the BAR member started conspiring to overthrow the government of the united States through the courts and judicial system, the definition was altered by adding a second definition to hide the fact that "esquires" were foreign agents.

On the use of use of this term in American law, particularly as applied to justices of the peace and other inferior judicial officers, see Christian v. Ashley County, 24 Ark. 151; Com. v. Vance, 1 Serg. & R., Pa., 37.

Note, however, that the definition is for officers in the inferior courts. Note also, that we must use the oldest definition as close to our founding documents as possible. If all the BAR members had to do is redefine a term to suit the needs of those in power, then any and all constitutions would become void. So readers should keep in mind that all BAR members are foreign agents working to overthrow the government of the united States of America. This makes them, in fact, anti-government. Now some attorneys will produce case cites that claim any argument that claims "esquire" is a foreign agent as frivolous should be view from the lens that the judge who made the decision is also a foreign agent from the same private club. And by the way, a BAR card is not a license to practice law. It is merely a membership card in a private incorporated club.

But let's look at some of the rest of the inaccuracies in this article. This will take a while, because there are so many of them for such a short article.

As a result, common law courts have sprung up across the United States.

Common law courts have been around since the settlers first arrived on our shores. As a matter of fact, Black's Law Dictionary defines with great accuracy in the 4th edition what a court of record is and its definition includes that it proceeds according to the common law.

A. A judicial tribunal having attributes and exercising functions independently of the person of the magistrate designated generally to hold it [Jones v. Jones, 188 Mo.App. 220, 175 S.W. 227, 229; Ex parte Gladhill, 8 Metc. Mass., 171, per Shaw, C.J. See, also, Ledwith v. Rosalsky, 244 N.Y. 406, 155 N.E. 688, 689][Black's Law Dictionary, 4th Ed., 425, 426]

B. Proceeding according to the course of common law [Jones v. Jones, 188 Mo.App. 220, 175 S.W. 227, 229; Ex parte Gladhill, 8 Metc. Mass., 171, per Shaw, C.J. See, also, Ledwith v. Rosalsky, 244 N.Y. 406, 155 N.E. 688, 689][Black's Law Dictionary, 4th Ed., 425, 426]

C. Its acts and judicial proceedings are enrolled, or recorded, for a perpetual memory and testimony. [3 Bl. Comm. 24; 3 Steph. Comm. 383; The Thomas Fletcher, C.C.Ga., 24 F. 481; Ex parte Thistleton, 52 Cal 225; Erwin v. U.S., D.C.Ga., 37 F. 488, 2 L.R.A. 229; Heininger v. Davis, 96 Ohio St. 205, 117 N.E. 229, 231]

D. Has power to fine or imprison for contempt. [3 Bl. Comm. 24; 3 Steph. Comm. 383; The Thomas Fletcher, C.C.Ga., 24 F. 481; Ex parte Thistleton, 52 Cal 225; Erwin v. U.S., D.C.Ga., 37 F. 488, 2 L.R.A. 229; Heininger v. Davis, 96 Ohio St. 205, 117 N.E. 229, 231.][Black's Law Dictionary, 4th Ed., 425, 426]

E. Generally possesses a seal. [3 Bl. Comm. 24; 3 Steph. Comm. 383; The Thomas Fletcher, C.C.Ga., 24 F. 481; Ex parte Thistleton, 52 Cal 225; Erwin v. U.S., D.C.Ga., 37 F. 488, 2 L.R.A. 229; Heininger v. Davis, 96 Ohio St. 205, 117 N.E. 229, 231.][Black's Law Dictionary, 4th Ed., 425, 426]

Note what definitions A and B say. Under A the judge is not allowed to make any decisions or orders, because he is not the tribunal. And as stated in B, it proceeds according to the common law. Under common law, there are no statutes. So again the SPLC is wrong.

Many members of these courts are sovereign citizens who believe their judgments supersede federal and district court decisions

This is becoming quite comical. There is no such thing as a "sovereign citizen". These people are suppose to be experts in law. Who exactly is a sovereign?

In our country the people are sovereign AFROYIM v. RUSK, 387 U.S. 253 (1967)

Hmmm. I don't see how it can be more clear than this. We use federal and district court case cites all the time. As a matter of fact, we have compiled a whole list of case cites that support what we do on a regular basis. There is nothing professed on this site that does not have case law to back it up. But since, the admiralty courts have been doing nothing but administering the bankruptcy of the United States Corporation, since 1938, you will never see an attorney use a case cite from before 1939. Although we do have case cites from as recently as the 1990s that support what we do.

So then, what are citizens. If we read the 14th Article of Amendment it defines very clearly what a citizen is.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

So as explained elsewhere, there are two conditions that must be met to be a US citizen and one of those is one must be a subject. As such, it is impossible to be a sovereign citizen. This is terminology thrown around by either ignorant people or conspirator foreign agents to discredit those who know the law in the eyes of those who do not. This is why one should never hire an attorney. People who hire attorneys are considered by said attorney and judges to be "infants or one of unsound mind." I was recently introduce to a retired municipal court judge who has been doing a bit of research and when I was telling her my thoughts about hiring an attorney and when I got to the point where I was explaining that "one who hires an attorney is a ward of the court and a wards is", she interrupted to finish my sentence for me and said "incompetent".

So let us move on the false statement.

Prior to this Doucette had a “trial” in Costilla County, Colorado where he found local officials guilty and demanded they resign.

No such trial was ever held. The people of Colorado did what the people are authorized to do under a republican form of government. So let us see first what a republican form of government is.

Republican government. One in which the powers of sovereignty are vested in the people and are exercised by the people, either directly, or through representatives chosen by the people, to whom those powers are specially delegated. [In re Duncan, 139 U.S. 449, 11 S.Ct. 573, 35 L.Ed. 219; Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. (21 Wall.) 162, 22 L.Ed. 627." Black's Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, p. 626.

As we can see, the people are in fact sovereign and as such they do in fact have the authority to handle their own business. These foreign agent BAR members do not want people to know this, because they cannot maintain their control over the people if the people know they don't need them. So in Colorado the people selected a real grand jury, one that operates outside the courts as was opined by Justice Scalia in U.S. v. Williams in 1992. The notice of fraud was delivered to the judges and other public servants and they were given 40 days to cure their defective oaths and bond before any other action was taken against them. It was only when they refused to correct their oaths that any further action was taken against the public servants. Some of these public servant were honorable and once informed they were in dishonor, resigned. Most of them are of the belief that they are the peoples'1 rulers and are not subject to the law. The grand jury is the highest level of law enforcement for the people and it was a grand jury that was convened, not a trial. That is just more ignorance from attorneys who do not know law.

So what is law in these untied states?

Due process of law is process according to the law of the land .... . . . Due process of law in the latter [the Fifth Article of Amendment to the Constitution) refers to that law of the land which derives its authority from the legislative powers conferred upon Congress by the Constitution of the United States, exercised within the limits therein prescribed and interpreted according to the principles of the common law .... Mr. Justice Matthews, delivering the opinion of the court in Hurtado v. California, 110 U.S. 516, 3 Sup. Ct. 111,292,28 L. Ed. 232 (1884).]

So "law" refers to the common law. It is the "law of the land" and it is upheld in one of those "judgments of federal and districts courts" that SPLC believes their "judgments supersede". What this shows is that these foreign agent BAR members only like to use case cites that support their control methodology and not those that uphold the people are not subject to their rule. Statutes are not law. As William Blackstone once opined in London in 1752 in what has been recorded as Blackstone's Commentaries, "2/3 of Europe proceeds according to the common law, but not one single law school teaches it." This is intentional, of course, If not even those who are to know and "lawyers" know the law, then nobody else will know the law, as well.

Doucette claims he has set up these kangaroo courts...

Doucette has never claimed he setup "kangaroo courts", but since we are on the subject of kangaroo courts, let us look at the courts that are run by the foreign agent BAR members. In the kangaroo courts run by the foreign agent BAR members, members of the same private club serve as pro se cuters, the judge and the defense. This is in direct violation of Taft-Hartley Act, The Clayton Trust Act, the Sherman Antitrust Act, and the Smith Act, as they are running a closed union shop. These courts are not courts of record and as such are all inferior courts. The foreign agent BAR members use trickery and deceit to sucker people into consenting to the inferior court. Arraignment is one of the methods used in these kangaroo courts to fool people. Under a republican form of government, government agents must always get the consent of a people governed to be held accountable to any government rule. When a people is brought before a judge after being accused of violating a statute, the judge will ask for the victims consent by asking for him to plead "guilty, not guilty or no contest". What the judge is doing is trying to get the victims consent to leave the common law and be held accountable to the "code" or statute.

If the victims enters a plea of not guilty, what he is actually saying is, "I consent to leave the common law, no I am not guilty according to your code." If instead the victim of this kangaroo court objects to the jurisdiction, the judge now has a choice. He can either dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction or he can commit at least 6 felonies. When the judge enters a plea for the victim, he commits perjury, obstruction of justice and due process of law, conspiracy against the victim rights in violation of 18 USC 241, deprives the victim of his rights in violation of 18 USC 242, seditious contempt of constitution and treason for attempting to overthrow the republican form of government. So the term "kangaroo court" really describes what the fake judges and attorneys, most of which are not on a valid oath of office, are running.

But wait, there is so much more good ignorance in this article.

his fake courts coordinate with groups of fake U.S. Marshals.

So we now know the fake courts are the ones the foreign agent BAR members are running. However, Doucette has never been associated with "U.S. Marshals" as was stated in this article. The U.S. Marshals is an organization that was formed back in 1778, the same year the American BAR Association was formed. The U.S. Marshals lost their charter back in 2015 or 2013 and are no longer funded by the United States corporation. Those who still claim that title are taking short term contracts with local law enforcement and local courts. These contracts usually run for several months at a time and must be renewed. Just for an example, there were some "US Marshals" that arrested some Continental united States Marshals in New Mexico. These marshals had US marshal on their jackets, but had New Mexico state police badges. One such marshal was referred to as a US marshal in one news article and in a recent one is referred to as a state police officer. They also did not have any valid arrest warrants for anyone who was arrested.

The Continental united States Marshals or CuSA marshal or continental marshals are a creation of the national assembly which voted in the creation of this new law enforcement office for the specific protection of the people from these foreign agents' schemes to harass the people and steal their private property. What we can expect from the foreign agent BAR members is more propaganda to fool the people into believing that they cannot exist without these foreign agent BAR members. It is widely known now that whether one calls the FBI, the sheriff or any other level of "law enforcement" to report any kind of government corruption, the honest law enforcement officer will be asked to drop the case by a supervisor. It happens regularly. It was for this reason that the people in a national assembly voted to create the CuSA marshals last year. The people are not required in a republican form of government to get the permission from the servant government to conduct its business. It is no secret that our representatives have not been representing the people for decades. It may not be common knowledge yet, but the people when creating their government did not waive their rights to be the subjects of said government servants.

For an example of these courts not being "fake", there were several CuSA marshals arrested in New Mexico when going to take into custody someone who had been charged under the statutory system. The CuSA marshals were going to transfer the prisoner from the admiralty jurisdiction, which is only supposed to be enforced on the sea, and into the common law as guaranteed by the Constitution for the United States of America. While there, the marshals were arrested and charged with "taking contraband" into a building that houses prisoners. They were also being charged for "conspiring to take contraband" into a place that houses prisoners. The CuSA marshals were in the process of placing their sidearms and folding knives into the lockers as directed by the deputy sheriff before going into the building to collect their prisoner. However, a group of the fake U.S. marshals rushed out from behind a building and arrested them for having knives. The guns were not even mentioned in the charging documents. A counterclaim was filed in the federal court of record and the charges made against the four were dropped. That case is just about over and it does not look like it is going well for the counterdefendants.

According to the indictment, they “collaborated with one or more of the other principals and/or complicitors as part of a long term scheme and endeavor to initially attempt to influence various Colorado-based public servants, including Colorado State and Municipal Court Judges, prosecutors, sheriffs, and other public officials who in their legal capacities had responsibilities related to a legal matter which involved a member of this enterprise.”

This is one of the poorest indictments this author has ever read. Notice the broad stroke accusation made in the above cited comment from the indictment. Nowhere in the indictment does the indictment state exactly what was done to do any of the broad stroke claims. Not only that, the indictment claims that the state was aware that these things were going on back in 2014. Law enforcement is required to pursue crimes when they become aware of them. Why did the state wait for three years to take action? Could it be that they knew they were in the wrong? Also, why did the FBI make the arrests and only use state code for the charges? Hmmm. Could it be the state knew they were in the wrong and had to call in the FBI traitors to make these charges?

In this case, a counterclaim has been filed and as in the New Mexico case mentioned above, the United States of America is one of the claimants and the United States corporation is one of the defendants. Most people do not know that there are two United States, one that is the de jure United States of America that operates under the strict guidelines of the Constitution for the United States of America and the corporation that only has authority in the ten miles square of Washington DC and it territories. It is the corporation that has usurped the jurisdiction of the USA and is acting against the people without authority.

The conspiracies began when one member of the enterprise was named in a criminal or civil proceeding and the outcome was unfavorable.

This is a typical tactic used by the foreign agent BAR members. The people are being accused of operating an "enterprise". The counterclaim that has been filed in the De Jure District Court of the United States proves that the public servants are in fact running and international criminal enterprise. The people are not an enterprise at all. They were the real grand jury. A real grand jury operates outside the court system as Justice Scalia upheld in US v. Williams. So the grand jury  People are not subject to statutes, so when some public servant attempts to hold one of the people to a statute and the people objects to the code, when the public servant continues against the people, he is committing multiple crimes, six of which were listed above. Naturally, these foreign agent BAR members are going to deny this is what is happening. After all, one of the crimes these foreign agents BAR members is committing is treason and that is a capital offense. We now have an audio recording of one of these foreign agent BAR member acting as a judge admitting that he takes his orders from England. They have been getting away with their crimes for so long, they think they are immune. The problem they have is people are swearing in to serve as CuSA marshals everyday. Those who are swearing in to serve as continental marshals include veterans of both the military and law enforcement. We have said for a long time that not all public servants are corrupt. Most are just operating out of ignorance based on the edicts of their supervisors. However, most, upon learning the truth, discontinue what they learn is criminal behavior.

The case in Colorado is the foreign agent BAR members who are criminally impersonating judges retaliating against a legitimate grand jury. These judges who have been proven to not be on valid oaths and bonds, which means they are merely impersonating judges, do not have any authority as judges. That means they are merely criminally operating their foreign enterprise. The tide is turning very rapidly against these foreign agents. They are obviously desperate to stop the people from taking back their country and kicking out the traitors from within. Some of these traitors will be dealt with in an appropriate manner that traitors should be dealt. So, it would behoove those who remain to consider the next time that a people objects to his jurisdiction to consider that said people standing before him, might know the law better than the average guy he screws over everyday. The arrests that have occurred in Colorado against a lawfully seated grand jury and real superior court judges has been a boon for recruitment into the assemblies, grand juries and continental marshals. The time for the foreign agent BAR members running these united states from England will be ending soon.

1The term people may be used in the single or the plural. People have been lead to believe the the term people is the plural of person, when in fact, persons is the plural of person. So the correct way to indicate a single people is possessive it people's and the correct way to indicate multiple people as possessive is peoples'.

Defend Freedom™