ONLY BELLIGERENTS HAVE RIGHTS

we-the-people-session-vii-rights-of-the-accused-39-638The individual Rights guaranteed by our Constitution can be compromised or ignored by our government. For example, in United States v. Johnson, 76 F. Supp. 538, 539 (D. Pa. 1947), Federal District Court Judge James Alger Fee ruled that,
 

“The privilege against self-incrimination is neither accorded to the passive resistant, nor to the person who is ignorant of his rights, nor to one indifferent thereto. It is a FIGHTING clause. It’s benefits can be retained only by sustained COMBAT. It cannot be claimed by attorney or solicitor. It is valid only when insisted upon by a BELLIGERENT claimant in person.” McAlister vs. Henkel, 201 U.S. 90, 26 S.Ct. 385, 50 L.Ed. 671; Commonwealth vs. Shaw, 4 Cush. 594, 50 Am.Dec. 813; Orum vs. State, 38 Ohio App. 171, 175 N.E. 876. The one who is persuaded by honeyed words or moral suasion to testify or produce documents rather than make a last ditch stand, simply loses the protection. . . . He must refuse to answer or produce, and test the matter in contempt proceedings, or by habeas corpus.” [Emphasis added.]

 

Notice the verdict’s confrontational language: “fighting”, “combat”, and most surprising, “belligerent”. Did you ever expect to ever read a Federal Court condemn citizens for being “passive” or “ignorant”? Did you ever expect to see a verdict that encouraged citizens to be “belligerent” IN COURT…?
 
Better go back and re-read that extraordinary verdict. And read it again. And commit it to memory, for it succinctly describes the essence of the American legal system.
 
Clearly, we must do SOMETHING, for as Sir Edmund Burke said,
 
“The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.”
But apathy (“doing nothing”) isn’t simply a function of cowardice or indifference; “apathy” is a synonym for “ignorance”.
 
What is it — apathy or ignorance? “I don’t know and I don’t care.”
 
Ignorance makes the public more “manageable” in the courts and in confrontations with the government. Insofar as government naturally seeks to expand its powers at the expense of the citizen’s Rights, government has a vested interest in the public’s ignorance and consequent apathy. The interest in expanding its powers encourages the government to provide little, no, or even false, education on what our Rights should be.
 
If you are a product [victim] of the public school system then consider this, The Department of Education gets what it pays for. …and you need to ‘get yourself smart’ — the sooner the better! This is not a good time for ‘dumb-ass’.
 
‘Silence gives consent’, is the rule of business life. To stand by, in silence, and see another sell your property, binds you. Silence gives rise to fraud – or – silence gives rise to agreement. What better way to acquiesce than to not object?

Acquiescence is acceptance!
“The right of a person under the 5th Amendment to refuse to incriminate himself is purely a personal privilege of the witness. It was never intended to permit him to plead the fact that some third person might be incriminated by his testimony, even though he was the agent of such person.” — Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43.

Not only that, but if you allow anyone to “represent you”, instead of being “the belligerent claimant in person” (Hale v Henkel, i.s.c.), you become a “ward of the court”. Why? Because obviously, if someone else has to defend your rights for you, you must be incompetent! Clients are called “wards” of the court in regard to their relationship with their attorneys. See a copy of “Regarding Lawyer Discipline & Other Rules”, as well as Canons 1 through 9.

Also, see Corpus Juris Secundum (CJS), Volume 7, Section 4, Attorney & client:

“The attorney’s first duty is to the courts and the public, not to the client and wherever the duties to his client conflict with those he owes as an officer of the court in the administration of justice, the former must yield to the latter.” (emphasis mine)

Lord Yeshua the Christ said in Luke 11:52

“Woe unto you lawyers for ye have taken away the key of knowledge; ye entered not in yourselves, and them that were entering in ye hindered.”

And also in Matt 23:13,33 (NIV)

“You shut the kingdom of heaven in men’s faces. You yourselves do not enter, nor will you let those enter who are trying to … How will you escape being condemned to hell?”

“A lawyer cannot claim that you have rights.” U.S. v. Johnson, 76 F. Supp. 538

Lawyers cannot defend your rights because they are franchisees of the English bar association, a corporation that licenses its franchisees and regulates their activities. All a lawyer can do is get the master of the ship to go easy on you if you confess to the fictional claim against you. A lawyer will not help you prove your sovereignty for fear of being disbarred. The United States Supreme Court has ruled that the only person who can claim his rights is the belligerent claimant in person. To effectively accomplish this you must be able to establish the record with certifiable knowledge of the law.

 


“The privilege against self-incrimination is neither accorded to the passive resistant [Jesus style], nor the person who is ignorant of his rights, nor to one indifferent thereto. It is a fighting clause. Its benefits can be retained only by sustained combat. It can not be retained by attorney or solicitor. It is valid only when insisted upon by a belligerent claimant in person…once he testifies to part, he has waived his…he must refuse to answer or produce, and test the matter in contempt proceedings, or by habeas corpus.”~ US v Johnson, 76 F. Supp 538, 540 (1947).

The “Real-World” Example:

 

The Frederick, Maryland kidnapping of the baby: We can recall from the Lawrence case that this girl has cross examined cops before, and knows how to enter evidence to the record of the court. So she went into the FREDERICK, MARYLAND DISTRICT JUVENILE COURT with a script and a game-plan.

The judge asked four times consecutively, “Are you sure you don’t want a court appointed attorney???”

Her only reply was “That she was with TITLE 42 SEC. 1986 certifiable knowledge of the law and that she will be representing the name on the docket of the court.”

The Attorney for the state went blah, blah, blah, and when the young Mother cross-examined the cops she ripped the cop to shreds like a Momma eagle feeds little strips of bloody rabbit flesh to her baby eagles. She turned it into a trial of the State where the cop confessed that he committed at least two felonies. She asked him these questions:

1. State your name.
2. What’s your badge number?
3. What’s your rank?
4. Who do you work for?
5. How do you get paid?
6. Is that in the form of a bank check, direct deposit?
7. Would that be considered commerce?
8. When you were hired, did you take an oath to uphold the Constitution for the United States of America?

Right about there is where the State’s case started breaking down, because the cop said, “I took an oath but I don’t know if it was for America.” – busted!!! –The judge stepped in and said “every public servant has to take an oath! Did you get a warrant to enter the motor home?!?” and “This is a perfectly competent mother with more care and attention to detail than any other I’ve ever seen. I’m going to order that the State release the child back to the mother immediately.” Co-incidentally, the Attorney for the State approached me and said that he had spent quite a bit of time at my web site and he handed me a hardbound copy of “Constitutional Law” from his personal library.

The judge’s personal assistant found the Mom at a restaurant later that day and spent half an hour with her over lunch just to tell her that the judge was totally impressed, and that has never happened in the history of FREDERICK, MARYLAND DISTRICT JUVENILE COURT with the suspended rules where anything the judge says goes. She said that the STATE always holds a child for a minimum of 30 days and that this is the first time in the court’s history that any one has ever proven that the STATE has no claim, Especially a 22-year old single mom.

I guran-freakin-tee that a lawyer won’t do that for you!

So fire him and move on!


Their Secret about the “Sovereign Citizen” That They Won’t Tell You

First off; anyone who refers to themselves as a “sovereign citizen” is falling into a propaganda trap set by the Anti-Defamation League and the Southern Poverty Law Center. The term “sovereign citizen” in itself is an oxymoron, because the word “sovereign” refers to a supreme authority… which could also never be a “citizen”.

“Sovereign citizen” is an easy label they can slap on anyone who they want to shut down. The “sovereign citizen” is really just an updated and more sinister sounding label demonizing Americans by creating a negative catch phrase like they have in the past with terms such as “conscientious objector”, and “conspiracy theorist”. This term has been specifically manufactured to label Americans as violent extremists. I don’t know anyone but feds, provocateurs, and lame-stream media who use the term “sovereign citizen”.

Here’s how it works:

1) Attorney gets posed with questions that could not only damage his reputation if he gives and honest answer to, but also get him in trouble with his boss (the courts and ABA) by revealing the fraud they have perpetrated.

2) Meanwhile there are entities such as the ADL and SPLC that have been using a staged false flag event in 2010 to label and demonize these people who they say are self proclaimed “sovereign citizens” when really no one identifies as a “sovereign citizen”.

3)How the people get identified as “sovereign citizens” is when that attorney we were talking about before starts using the term to demonize individuals that could potentially cause problems for the entire system and generously applies the label and then people go and google the term and then see all the propaganda by the ADL and SPLC and then associates the wild claims made by the attorney with the targeted dissenters.

4) No one ever stipulates to being a “sovereign citizen” and I challenge you to find me one person who claims to be one. They simply don’t exist… they are a “boogeyman” invented for the sole purpose of eliminating the threat to their racketeering scam.

Arnold Law is now implying in it’s latest motion to dismiss that people have been labeling themselves “Sovereign Citizens”. I want to know EXACTLY who it was who referred to themselves as a “sovereign citizen” so that I can help them from their confusion. I want names Mike, and I want them now. And if you don’t have any names or self admitted “sovereign citizens” then I want you to make a public apology for fabricating information.

I want to know EXACTLY who is out there calling themselves "sovereign citizens".
I want to know EXACTLY who is out there calling themselves “sovereign citizens”.
Liberal use of the label to demonize those who oppose.
Liberal use of the label to demonize those who oppose.

Have a look at the following articles to learn more and see these tactics in action by a high profile attorney:

A simple request to Arnold Law Firm

The True Story About The Burns, Oregon Peaceful Protest

A Unique Arraignment Case Study

A Slave From The Cradle To The Grave

Be Careful Who You Listen to and Trust

Please be careful who you listen to, who you trust. Even be careful with what I say, use your own intuition. After all we are blessed with intuition and the ability to differentiate right from wrong. I would even expect you to question me and what I say, even though I know I would never intentionally lie to you.

The reason why I bring this topic up, is because there are infiltrators and provocateurs out there that are casting huge nets with which to build lists of names of individuals to be used later when larger scale “round ups” of liberty minded patriots begins.

The ones that are the ones that you should suspect first are those who close channels of communication rather that keep them open by responding and communicating with fair, open, and responsive communications. Those who do not respond or respond with slander, orders, negativity, or even just remaining silent are all signs that they may not be someone that you can trust. After all, these agencies and officers of government are only supposed to be there to serve and protect the rights and property of the people. There is no other reason for government, except perhaps defense of the homeland.

These agent provocateurs will also try to keep you in a narrow viewpoint about the situation, and not only will they express a narrow viewpoint, they will usually always try to influence you in a particular way. Sometimes they will try and convince you to not trust a particular individual, sometimes they will exhaustively promote particular individuals or groups.

These plants and government shills also commonly won’t give you a straight answer when you ask them a simple question, and their favorite response is to imply that there is a defect with the complainant to sidestep the actual complaint.

When I talk about those who should be suspected and placed under further scrutiny and background review, I am not just talking about individuals, there may also be shill groups, or organizations. And the ones that should be scrutinized the MOST are those who claim to either be actively affiliated with or employed by government, or those actively promoting ideologies claiming that the government is fair, just, honest, or unbiased.

13133243_244191322636622_309713294813844185_nNaturally those working for the government or benefiting from the government in some way are highly suspect, because they stand to lose the most by withdrawing or losing their support for the broken corrupt system. They are dependent on the government, why challenge it? They will also contradict themselves; for example they may express sympathy and support for the protesters, but at the same time will express support for the government and the “court system” in particular. Like the fox guarding the hen house, they will usually be slick talkers as well. But will rarely offer citations or evidence to prove their claims.

While we are on this subject, I would like to talk briefly about lawyers. And I have more information here if you are interested in learning more. But who has more to lose from the government than a lawyer? Not just any lawyer, but a lawyer that makes his living by arguing cases in government courthouses?

Don’t you think that the government would want to make sure that there were “attorneys” to defend the protesters? Keep them in the casino, where their chances are not good. And by not just any attorneys, but maybe even an attorney from the “Top 100” list of all trial attorneys to prepare their defense. One who has worked their whole career arguing in support of subjects of government who were mainly charged with “code” or “statute” violations. A vast majority of them without a victim, like DUII cases, and other trumped up “code” violations.

I don’t know about you, but after doing years of research on this topic. I have never found in the founding documents where the founders of this country ever suggested or implied that the people were bound by any “code”, “statute”, “rules”, “regulations” or “policy” of government. As a matter of fact the Declaration of Independence says exactly this: “…all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,…” Continue reading “Be Careful Who You Listen to and Trust”

A Simple Request…

” Section 1. Natural rights inherent in people. We declare that all men, when they form a social compact are equal in right: that all power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority, and instituted for their peace, safety, and happiness; and they have at all times a right to alter, reform, or abolish the government in such manner as they may think proper.—”  Oregon constitution; Article One, Section One.

I have been having an exchange with the entity on Facebook that is doing business as “ARNOLD LAW FIRM”, and I have been trying to get him to answer one simple question… Why wouldn’t you challenge jurisdiction?

I think that asking for evidence of jurisdiction would be a great idea, and I bet you will too once you read this previous article I posted a few months ago which provides evidence that the feds really do not have jurisdiction to prosecute these men and women from the Malheur, Oregon or Bunkerville, Nevada events.

(See chapter 2 of my book “How to Reclaim Your Power” for much more on this topic and related topics. Also have a look at this article.)

I am afraid that it would not be such an easy question for a representative of ARNOLD LAW FIRM to answer the question, because to give a direct, responsive, straight answer would be to reveal a huge fraud that has been perpetrated and subsequently stolen the lawful authority on this land from we the people. (Notice in the screenshots below: I get one straight answer out of him and it allows me to expose quite a bit, then he refrains from offering anymore straight answers because I am not messing around and he knows it. Every straight answer he gives will lock him in even deeper.)

Have a look at this excerpt my recent exchange on Facebook with ARNOLD LAW FIRM.
Have a look at this excerpt my recent exchange on Facebook with ARNOLD LAW FIRM. Click image to view larger version.
After some of my comments, ARNOLD LAW FIRM decided to start diagnosing mental disorders.
After some of my comments, ARNOLD LAW FIRM decided to start diagnosing mental disorders.
Continuation of the above thread by ARNOLD LAW relating to DSM-5 diagnosis.
Continuation of the above thread by ARNOLD LAW relating to DSM-5 diagnosis.

Seems like no matter how you spell it out for them, it still falls on deaf ears. These guys thought they would be able to label and dismiss the people that they are supposed to be serving. The more they say, the deeper a hole they dig. This is why they have resorted to diagnosing people with mental disorders… because this is much easier for them than telling the truth.

In case you didn’t know… The ABA and the SPLC and the ADL are all FOREIGN AGENTS acting as FOREIGN TERRORISTS, calling Americans DOMESTIC TERRORISTS. They fool only those who don’t know B.A.R. has no lawful or legislative authority to even walk into a courtroom. According to the Statutes at Large when Black’s Law dictionary was claiming that Lawyers had legislative authority, they did NOT. Then they claim they have licenses to practice law, when they do NOT. Then there is no lawful authority for B.A.R. Attorneys to hold offices of Trust. The B.A.R. has no ability to satisfy the requirement within the Naturalization Act of 1802, as they are all foreign agents. They’re members of a closed union, and a monopoly in violation of the Clayton Trust Act, the Taft-Hartley Act, and the Smith Act. All Crown Temple B.A.R. Agents are of the Middle Temple, the Inns of the Court, in City of London, which is owned and run by the Jesuit Bankers.

In simpler terms, the I.B.A., the A.B.A., and the London Lawyers Guild are a big bunch of lying Pirates, pushing the U.N./I.M.F. Agenda. As a matter of fact, they’re Foreign Terrorists, committing barratry, land-piracy, and press-ganging, and they’re making fun of people who KNOW IT. It seems to me they should get on their knees and beg for forgiveness BEFORE the rest of the population figures out they belong behind bars. They’re bringing Admiralty-Maritime Law of the sea onto land to rob everyone’s Estate Trust, to Attorn it to the Crown. When an Attorney calls you a Sovereign Citizen, you call him a Foreign Agent, without a license. The STATE doesn’t give them a license. The B.A.R. gives them B.A.R. Cards. Imagine! Everything they do is a lie!

Legal: The undoing of God’s Law.

They deal in DEBT, the JOHN H. DOE. There is no Judge over living men, since 1789. Read Article XI from the Bill of Rights. They’re foreign Crown Agents. They enforce COMMERCIAL CODE upon people. To: Arnold Law Firm

Comment from Glenn that explains why ARNOLD LAW FIRM is prohibited from giving me a straight answer.
Comment from Glenn that explains why ARNOLD LAW FIRM is prohibited from giving me a straight answer.

It seems that Glenn may really be on to something here, but if my comments don’t get deleted, I will have a chance at hopefully helping many others to learn about the grand deception that is occurring here in the land of the free… home of the brave.

You too can make the District Attorney speechless in under 4 questions!

My (very interesting) conversation with a couple of Washington County District Attorneys

Handing out copies of my book in front of the courthouse and jail.
Handing out copies of my book in front of the courthouse and jail.

Last week when my sister was being held illegally against her will, I went and handed out free copies of my new book “Freedom from Government; How to Reclaim Your Power” around the courthouse and jail area. I had nice pleasant conversations with many people, but I had one book left and I happened upon a male and female attorney having a casual conversation and even playing on a recently felled old growth in front of the courthouse.

I approached them and asked “Are you attorneys?

They replied, “Yes, we are.

And I said, “You don’t mind me asking you a few questions do you?

And the male attorney standing on a large log says, “You don’t already have an attorney do you?

I replied, “Definitely not.” as I removed the last of my books that I had brought with me from my briefcase, flipped open to chapter 2, titled “Attorneys and Representation“.

I wasted no time and immediately went on with “So, as an attorney … where does your loyalty lie? To whom is your first duty? The court, or the client?Continue reading “You too can make the District Attorney speechless in under 4 questions!”