Charlie Sprinkle’s Law Suit

This is the law suit Charlie Sprinkle used to defeat the state of California in their attempt to extort money from him for “driving” without a license. Because of this suit, the state backed down and Charlie traveled in his automobile until his death some 40 years later without a “drivers license”:


Charles Sprinkle’s Section 1983 Case from 1975

Charles Sprinkle                                                                             Filed 3 January 1975

10580 Creek Road Ojai, California 93023

Plaintiff Pro Se.

U.S. District Court

Central District of California

312 Spring Street, Los Angeles California

Charles R. Sprinkle

plaintiff

v

Governor Ronald Reagan,

his wife Nancy Reagan,

District Attorney Stanley Trom,

his wife Joan Trom,

Deputy Dist. Atty. William Hinkle,

his wife Mary Hinkle,

Judge Benjamin Ruffner,

his wife Jacqueline Ruffner,

Judge Donald Polack, his wife Georgia Polack,

Judge Richard Heaton,

his wife Anne Heaton,

Officer Glen White,

his wife Judy White,

Officer Gary Hardman,

his wife Patricia Hardman,

Judge Robert Soares,

his wife Kathryn Soares,

Defendants

Case # CV 75-13 dww(k)

            Complaint for Money Damages for:

            Deprivation of Constitutional Rights,

            Conspiracy do Deprive Plaintiff of Constitutional Rights, and

Failure to Protect Plaintiff from Conspiracy to Deprive Plaintiff of his Constitutional Rights.

Jury is hereby Demanded.

1.         Comes now the Plaintiff above named in his own natural person and complains against Defendants above named for depriving Plaintiff of constitutional rights under color of State Law, custom or usage, conspiracy to so deprive and/or failure, neglect or refusal to protect plaintiff from said conspiracy although it was within the power to do so.

Jurisdiction

2.         This Court has jurisdiction under 28 USC 1343 (1), (2), (3), and (4) and under USC 1938, 1985.

3.         Plaintiff and individuals, named are citizens and residents of the State of California. Defendants are employees of the State of California and The County of Ventura.

1st Cause of Action

4.         Plaintiff is a resident of the County of Ventura, State of California for the past thirteen years.

5.         Ronald Reagan is Governor of the State of California;

6.         Robert Soares is Judge in the Municipal Court County of Ventura State of California.

7.         Stanley Trom is District Attorney for the County of Ventura, State of California.

8.         William L. Hinkle is Deputy District Attorney for the County of Ventura, State of California;

9.         Glen White is Court Officer for the State Highway Patrol, County of Ventura, State of California.

10.       Gary Hardman is Highway Patrol Officer in the County of Ventura, State of California;

11.       Benjamin Ruffner is Judge in Superior Court, County of Ventura, State of California:

12.       Donald Polack is Superior Court Judge, County of Ventura, State of California;

13.       Richard Heaton is Superior Court Judge, County of Ventura, State of California;

14.       Nancy Reagan, Joan Trom, Mary Hinkle, Ann Heaton, Judy White, Jacqueline A. Ruffner, Georgia L. Polack, Patricia Hardman and Kathryn A. Soares are to the best of Plaintiff’s knowledge and belief, the wives, respectively of Defendants named above;

15.       They are joined as a protection to Plaintiff against their husbands unlawful dissipation of assets or attempted conveyances of property in a attempt to defraud legitimate creditors.

16.       By Law, Article XX Section 3 of the Constitution, State of California, Defendants, Reagan, Soares, Trom., Hinkle, White, Ruffner, Heaton, Hardman and Polack, have been required by Oath of affirmation, to support and defend Plaintiff’s Constitutional rights when or where they clam to have jurisdiction over or official duties with the Plaintiff.

Stopped by Highway Patrol on Jan 15, 1974

17.       On or about Jan. 15, 1974, Plaintiff while driving a 1967 Triumph automobile on State of California Highway, Plaintiff was arrested and ordered to obtain a Drivers License and a automobile License.

Driver License is Title of Nobility

18.       Both are Titles of nobility.

19.       Said order was in violation of Article 1 Section 10 of the Constitution

Section 10. No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation; grant letters of marque and reprisal; coin money; emit bills of credit; make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts; pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts, or grant any title of nobility.

No state shall, without the consent of the Congress, lay any imposts or duties on imports or exports,except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it’s inspection laws: and the net produce of allduties and imposts, laid by any state on imports or exports, shall be for the use of the treasury of the United States; and all such laws shall be subject to the revision and control of the Congress.

No state shall, without the consent of Congress, lay any duty of tonnage, keep troops, or ships of war in time of peace, enter into any agreement or compact with another state, or with a foreign power, or engagein war, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent danger as will not admit of delay.
Close .

Federal Reserve notes not backed by silver and gold

20.       Defendant Hardman, Highway Patrolman, also required me to pay for said License with Federal Reserve Notes, That are not backed by gold or silver coin, as stipulated in Article 1 Section 10 of the U.S. Constitution.

21.       Defendant Hardman threatened Plaintiff with deprivation of Liberty and property with out due process of Law.

22.       All this was done under, Color, Custom and Usage of California State Vehicle Code.

23.       Defendant White acting in conspiracy with Hardman and under color, custom and usage of law, ordered Plaintiff to court.

24.       The constitutes a violation of his Oath of Office as covered by Title 18, USC 241and 242.

25.       Defendant Soares was assigned to Court wherein Plaintiff appeared as defendant in a criminal Traffic Case.

26.       Plaintiff filed a motion for counsel of his own choice, as is his right, as set forth in the 6th Amendment of our U.S. Constitution.

27.       Defendant Soares in concert with the California State Legislature, has denied Plaintiff’s motion for counsel of his own choice.

28.       Plaintiff is guaranteed Freedom of Speech and Freedom of association under the First Amendment to the U.S. constitution.

29.       Therefore, Plaintiff is free to associate with counsel of his choice and to have a spokesman (counsel of his choice to speak for him).

Denial of Due Process

30.       Plaintiff is guaranteed Due process of Law by the Fifth Amendment of our U.S. Constitution.

Denial of Counsel of Choice

31.       The Bill of Rights includes, Counsel of choice in the 6th amendment.

32.       Due Process is guaranteed by the both the 5th and the 14th amendments to the constitution.

Infliction of Excessive and therefore Cruel and Unusual Punishment

33.       Under the 8th Amendment, cruel and unusual punishment may not be applied against Plaintiff.

34.       Defendants have imposed just such cruel and unusual punishment upon Plaintiff by the mental stress placed upon Plaintiff as a result of Defendant Soares’s denial of Counsel of choice.

35.       Under the 9th amendment to the constitution Plaintiff’s right to counsel of choice is protected from encroachment by any individual or government body under the 10th amendment to the constitution.

36.       Plaintiff reserves all powers not specifically delegated to the Federal or State Government and he has not waived any of the rights aforementioned, which for the most part are natural rights, but which are also protected by the constitution.

Infliction of Peonage and Involuntary Servitude

37.       Under the 13th. amendment to the constitution Plaintiff is protected against peonage and involuntary servitude, where the actions of Defendants appear to destine Plaintiff.

38.       Under the 14th amendment of the, Plaintiff is protected under Title 18 USC, Sec. 241and 242 from the acts of Defendants.

California Bar in Violation of Sherman Antitrust Act

39.       Defendants , Under Color, Usage and Custom of California set forth in Article VI Sec.9 of the California constitution (attached hereto as Exhibit A) and made a part here of as though stated in total herein, in their capacity of public ministers have denied plaintiff the unalienable right to counsel of Plaintiff own choice, Who may or may not be a member of an exclusive organization, Which Organization may well be in Violation of the Sherman antitrust Act 25 USC 1,2,3,

40.       Defendants Trom and Hinkle Conspired in concert with other Defendants, Hardman, White, Soares, Reagan, Ruffner, Polack and Heaton, acting outside their Lawful Duties, To bring to bear upon Plaintiff unconstitutional acts under Color, custom and Usage of State laws.

41.       Defendants Reagan, Soars, Hardman, Trom, Hinkle, Pollack, Heaton, Ruffner and White acted outside the perimeters their Lawful Duties.

42.       Defendants Violated their Oaths of office. They did so under Color, Custom and usage of Federal and State Law. Defendants acted Grossly, Willfully, Wantonly, Unlawfully, Carelessly, Recklessly, Negligently, Maliciously, purposefully, Intentionally and Discriminatingly against Plaintiff and did so taking advantage of Color, Custom and Usage of State Law and custom within a citizen’s fear of State personal prosecuting good citizens for having stood up for their Natural rights protected by the U.S. constitution and the California State Constitution.

Conspiracy. Overt Acts

43.       Defendants conspired together and with others as yet unknown to Plaintiff to deprive him of his rights.

44.       Overt acts committed by Defendants Pollack, Ruffner, Soares, Hardman, White, Reagan, Trom and Hinkle includes that complained of in above paragraph of this complaint.

45.       Denying Plaintiff a right to counsel, are all in collusion with the State Legislative Branches of the State of California.

46.       Defendants named above relying on their own discretion and erroneous interpretation of the Supreme Law of the Land, Which is the Constitution and not any statute in conflict there with issued or coursed to be issued order for plaintiff conspire with Defendants to subvert the constitution by excepting Titles of Nobility and to make something other them gold and silver coin a tender for payment of debt.

47.       All these are contrary Article 1, Sec. 10, of the Constitution.

48.       Defendants aforenamed deprived Plaintiff of his 9th and 10th Amendment rights, which protect him from Oath-breaking so-called “public servants” who wallow in the pubic trough while trampling upon Plaintiff’s Constitutional Rights.

49.       Said defendants, Meanwhile attempt to impose totalitarian Socialism upon the People, Although such a System is the Antithesis of the Constitution, That public servants and duly constituted Authorities are Sworn to uphold

50.       Defendants have exceeded their jurisdiction.

51.       They have abused their discretion.

52.       They have acted outside the Lawful perimeters of their official duties.

53.       They have Grossly, Willfully, wantonly, 19) Unlawfully, Carelessly, Recklessly, Negligently, Intentionally, 20) maliciously, Purposefully, and Discriminatingly Conspired to deprive Plaintiff of his Constitutional rights and They have Refused, neglected or Failed to Protect Plaintiff from said Conspiracy although they have been a position to do so.

54.       Defendants Nancy Reagan, Joan Trom, Mary Hinkle, Judy White, Jacqueline A. Ruffner, Georgia L. Pollack, Anne Heaton, Patricia Hardman, Kathryn A. Soares, are the wives respectively of the afore-named Defendants Who are Employed as Erstwhile “public-servants”;These wives are in effect are “Socialist- Queens”, enjoying and living on the Largess and Unlawful spoils brought home by their husbands as compensation for said husband’s Violation of their Oaths of Office and for their willing perversion of the U.S. Constitution and the California Constitution.

55.       Said wife Defendants named above have failed, refused or neglected to protect Plaintiff from the conspiracy of their husbands and said failure is intentional, purposeful and malicious.

56.       The acts of omission of said wife Defendants named above constitute an overt act of conspiracy to refuse to protect Plaintiff.

57.       Defendant acts as heretofore complained of, Have caused harm and damage to Plaintiff.

58.       Said acts have caused mental and physical suffering, insomnia, worry, financial insecurity, stress and strain in relationships, in his work, with his family, relatives and friends, Defendants activities have impaired Plaintiffs credit standing.

59.       They have subjected him to public ridicule and embarrassment.

Prayer

60.       Defendants complained of acts entitle Plaintiff to recover money 21) damages from Defendants and from each of them as follows:

61.       For general damages $ 50,000;

62.       For punitive damages $100,000;

63.       This shall be payable to Plaintiff in Constitutional Lawful Money redeemable in gold or silver coin as set forth in Article 1 Sec. 10 of the constitution.

64.       In addition plaintiff prays such other and further relief as to the jury demanded in this case shall appear just.

65.       Defendants herein are sued in their individual capacities and not as agents of the State of California or The United States.

66.       This is a civil rights Suit and not under the torts claims act.

67.       The United States or the State of California can not be substituted as a party defendant and the consent of the united States or the State of California to be sued is not demanded.

68.       If necessary; Plaintiff demands for all issues to be decided by the Jury Demanded;

69.       If defendants move to dismiss this suit, Plaintiff Demands that it be heard by the jury demanded, and only be dismissed if the Jury considers it lacks merit.

(Respectfully submitted)

Charles Sprinkle, Laborer, Pro Se

Charles Sprinkle

1273 Rice Road #48, Ojai CA 93023

640 0439

Notice of Violation of my Constitutional Rights

Demand to Cease and Desist

Letter #5673

Tuesday, January 28, 2003

Greg Totten
District Attorney
800 South Victoria
Ventura CA 93003

Dear Mr. Totten:

I am a member of a revolutionary group. We forced the King to sign the Magna Charta in 1215 at the point of a sword in a field near Runnymede. Later we wrote the Declaration of Independence which is still recognized authority in some jurisdictions today. Then we wrote the constitution. We the People are the Sovereign described in the Magna Charta, The Declaration of Independence, the U.S. Constitution, and the California Constitution.

I am informed that recently you swore to uphold the constitution. That is why I am writing.

We the People are the Sovereign described in the Magna Charta, The Declaration of Independence, the U.S. Constitution, and the California Constitution.

From:

Charles Sprinkle

Ojai California
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

FEE SCHEDULE CONTRACT

I do not encourage the art of ”holding court at the side of the road” as it can be detrimental to ones health and well being. Therefore, if you choose to hand this Contract to a person in a blue costume, wearing a badge and packing a gun, who is a member of a gang of thugs known as “policemen/police officers” or the like, be forewarned that the majority of them are NOT going to be nice. They do not act as “public servants”. Their master is the CORPORATION which employs them, rather that CORPORATION be a city, state or federal CORPORATION and they advertise that on their badges and on the side of their vehicles.
                             
NOTICE OF FEES

1. I HAVE THE RIGHT TO REMAIN SILENT – I WILL BE EXERCISING THAT RIGHT.

2. I HAVE THE RIGHT NOT TO INCRIMINATE MYSELF – I WILL BE EXERCISING THAT RIGHT.

       2 A. ANY INFORMATION I GIVE TO YOU I GIVE UNDER DURESS AND AT THE POINT OF YOUR GUN IN FEAR THAT YOU MIGHT JAIL OR KILL ME IF I DO NOT COMPLY WITH YOUR DEMANDS.

3. I DO NOT CONSENT TO SEARCHES OF MY PERSON OR MY PROPERTY.

4. IF THIS STOP/DETAINMENT/ARREST IS IN ANY WAY IN VIOLATION OF MY UNALIENABLE RIGHTS, OR IN VIOLATION OF YOUR OATH OF HONOR TO PROTECT THE U.S. CONSTITUTION, THEN THIS CONTRACT WILL BE ENFORCEABLE IN ALL STATES AND THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND FEES WILL BE LEVIED AGAINST YOU AND/OR YOUR BONDING AGENT(S) AND YOUR SUPERIORS IN THE FOLLOWING AMOUNTS:

A. ONE TROY OUNCE OF GOLD FOR EVERY STOP OR DETAINMENT THAT IS IN VIOLATION OF MY RIGHTS, UNALIENABLE OR OTHERWISE, OR WHEN IN VIOLATION OF YOUR OATH OF HONOR.

B. TWO TROY OUNCES OF GOLD* FOR EVERY ACT OF CONSPIRACY TO DEPRIVE ME OF MY RIGHTS, UNALIENABLE OR OTHERWISE, OR WHEN IN VIOLATION OF YOUR OATH OF HONOR.

C. TEN TROY OUNCES OF GOLD* FOR EVERY CUSTODIAL ARREST IN WHICH I AM DETAINED AGAINST MY WILL IN VIOLATION OF MY UNALIENABLE RIGHTS WHICH ARE PROTECTED BY THE U.S. CONSTITUTION AND THE MISSOURI STATE CONSTITUTION, OR WHEN IN VIOLATION OF YOUR OATH OF HONOR.

D. ONE-HUNDRED TROY OUNCES OF GOLD* FOR EVERY ARREST IN WHICH I AM PLACED IN CONFINEMENT RATHER THAT CONFINEMENT BE IN HANDCUFFS, A POLICE CAR OR JAIL, WHEN IN VIOLATION OF MY RIGHTS OR WHEN IN VIOLATION OF YOUR OATH OF HONOR.

E. ONE-THOUSAND TROY OUNCES OF GOLD* FOR EVERY TEN HOURS, OR ANY PART THEREOF, OF CONFINEMENT WHEN IN VIOLATION OF MY RIGHTS OR WHEN IN VIOLATION OF YOUR OATH OF HONOR.

 THIS IS A LEGALLY BINDING CONTRACT. IF YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND YOUR RIGHTS, OR MY RIGHTS, PURSUANT TO THIS AGREEMENT, THEN YOU ARE HEREBY ADVISED TO CONSULT WITH COMPETENT LEGAL COUNSEL.   

NOTICE: FAILURE TO SIGN THIS CONTRACT DOES NOT VOID THIS CONTRACT.

*ALL GOLD VALUES ARE DETERMINED TO BE THEIR VALUE AT THE TIME OF VIOLATION(S) OF THIS CONTRACT.

DATED AND SIGNED THIS ______DAY OF________, IN THE YEAR OF OUR LORD, 2013 AT__________(AM/PM).

__________________________________________                           ______________________________________________________

             DETAINING OFFICER                                                                                MYSELF                            

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

 

 

pv-tags-01

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.

Affidavit of Rescission

Referenced in the book, this affidavit is to rescind your signature and contracts with the federal US.

Affidavit of Rescission

——————————————–

Certified Mail Number: __________________________________________

Date: __________________________________________

John Q. Doe
c/o general delivery
Marin County
San Rafael, California Republic
united States of America
zip code exempt (DMM 122.32)

NUNC PRO TUNC ESTOPPEL AT LAW AND
PUBLIC NOTICE RESCISSION AFFIDAVIT
OF JOHN Q. DOE
CALIFORNIA STATE/REPUBLIC   )
)        Subscribed, Sworn and Sealed
MARIN COUNTY                            )

PREAMBLE

I, State Citizen John Q. Doe, being a free Sovereign adult, natural born in Massachusetts, living and working as a State Citizen domiciled in the California Republic since 1952 and I, as such status, hereby make this Special Appearance, by Affidavit, in Propria Persona, proceeding Sui Juris, At Law, in Common Law, with Assistance, Special, neither conferring nor consenting to any foreign jurisdiction, except to the judicial power of California and/or America, and as such I willfully enforce all Constitutional limitations respectively on all government agencies when dealing with them.  Wherefore, the undersigned Affiant, named herein and above, upon affirmation declares and evidences the following: Continue reading “Affidavit of Rescission”

The 2nd Amendment Isn’t Under Attack, You Just Don’t Understand The Difference Between Statutes and Laws

Special thanks to Seiko Seven for this information.

United States Corporate Statutes vs Laws of the Land:

Internal Corporate Restrictive Firearms Statutes as found in U.S. Codes and State Statutes are enacted for Gov’t employees to abide by while they are on the clock so they cannot over power, with Arms, the American People while performing their jobs as ‘public servants’. Statutes are enacted to help run gov’t more efficiently and to keep restrictions on Gov’t employees, not the average American. Because of collective ignorance of the Law; the public fool system, and the gov’t owned media, they have used THEIR OWN internal statutes that are ONLY MEANT FOR THEM to control the rest of us and keep us equipped with less firepower than they themselves have available to secretly and overtly overthrow the American People without a single shot fired.

They add restrictive firearms statutes to THEIR CODES on a daily basis because they have hoodwinked us into believing the internal rules of their corporation, for their own employees that Obama is the CEO of, apply to you an I. We keep abiding by THEIR INTERNAL STATUTES because we’ve never been taught the difference, and it is working out very well in their favor to say the least. Since we keep abiding by THEIR Restrictive Firearms Statutes (only meant for gov’t employees), they keep adding more, more, and more, until eventually they will be the only one’s with guns while you and I are left with nothing more than sticks and stones.

Basically, they’ve pulled the ole switcheroo on us. They are enjoying the Rights of the People, while restricting the People with Internal Corporate Statutes that only apply to them.

This is how they are controlling society instead of SERVING SOCIETY, but the con is being exposed by people who know the Law and know the difference between internal corporate statutes and actual Rights of man.
Continue reading “The 2nd Amendment Isn’t Under Attack, You Just Don’t Understand The Difference Between Statutes and Laws”

NOTICE OF REVOCATION OF ANY PRESUMED AUTHORITY

Special thanks go out to Donald Wayne for showing me this.

Here we go then, http://thelawdictionary.org/city/, start with this definition. A city is a municipal corporation, therefore the Police are Policy Enforcement and NOT Law Enforcement. Now some will say that the legislative statutes are Law, they are NOT and ONLY apply to the citizens who elect to be treated as citizens/Citizens or Civilians. NOW, filing the Assumed Name Certificate REMOVES this presumption. So once you file the Assumed Name and take care of that, you have the Lawful Authority to Sue anyone in any court of Law. So you Sue these people, Cops/Prosecutors/Judges and Clerks in their private capacity. You send them a “Notice of Intent to Sue” and give them 10 days to respond. If they do not rebut your claim and provide proof of Jurisdiction then you file a default and then a criminal action in U.S. District court in your city. They will either dismiss the charges and drop everything or ignore you which is the same thing, Dismissed with prejudice. Read, copy and paste if you can this; Letter to Court or Public Servants

You are hereby NOTICED that I am a living soul standing ONLY under God, my Creator, protected by the legal jurisdiction of the PNLSB of North America, and thereby FREE to work in any common occupation of my choice without taxation and regulation by any Defacto State of the UNITED STATES. By making this response to you with this letter, I am NOTICING to you that I AM NOT conveying any authority of jurisdiction whatsoever to you or this Court. All sovereign Rights are perpetually reserved now and forever.

You are hereby NOTICED that I am not A Corporation, nor am I a U.S. citizen, nor a government created fiction, nor have I ever granted Power of Attorney over myself to the defacto State of the several states of the UNITED STATES or to any Court or its Judges to treat me as if I am a subject citizen, nor do I intend ever to do so in the future. I have NO CONTRACT obligation with the defacto State of any union STATE and NO CONTRACT with any Court or any Judge attempting to fraudulently impose obligations on me to the defacto State of this or any STATE, nor do I ever intend to have any such contracts, as such contracts would violate Sovereign Pembina Nation status and my contracts with my Creator from whom I received my UNALIENABLE Rights in the first place.

FOR AND ON THE RECORD, I hereby revoke, rescind, and void ab initio any and all supposed, alleged, assumed, or presumed signatures, autographs or marks of mine, that you or anyone might have on any non-disclosed contract in your possession without a lawful offer, acceptance, consideration or value provided by both parties, and without a meeting of the minds and full disclosure as to the nature of the contract. I hereby affirm that I would never knowingly, willingly, and voluntarily sign any contract with any State of the union of the UNITED STATES that would steal away my natural God-given Rights and replace those Rights with privileges granted by the State(s) for the purpose of their taxing me for my right to travel or work in a common occupation.

Points in fact:

1. You or your public servant has stopped a Sovereign Nation living member Man/Woman with first right claims upon the land he/she travels upon.
2. This living Man/Woman exists in a completely separate and lawfully distinct jurisdiction recognized by treaty with the UNITED STATES.
3. There are no crossings of the boundaries of jurisdiction where you can apply any laws of the civil and statutory codes of incorporation to the living Man/Woman.
4. State vehicle codes do not apply to the living Man/Woman because of the boundaries of jurisdiction between the incorporated states and the living as well as the recognition of treaty with the United States that cannot be lawfully crossed from the incorporated STATES over to the real world of the living Man/Woman within the jurisdiction of the Sovereign Nation, who travels as a matter of unalienable right within the kingdom of the one creator upon the land, water or air of the earth.
5. You as a Public Servant of any incorporated state operating under defacto color of law jurisdiction cannot cross the boundaries of jurisdiction from your world into the real world of the living Man/Woman because of the nature of a fiction that exists in name or on paper only I. E. Public Servant. The office of Public Servant you hold is a fictional office that is animated by the living Man/Woman who accepts the title of the office he/she holds. The laws of this office cannot be applied to the living Man/Woman, but only to another holding the fictional office of “person” or one who has accepted a privilege from a STATE in the form of a contract I. E. a State issued driver’s license.
6. In order for you to stop Me, you must first have a contract to do so. You have not produced a signed contract between You and Me.
7. For the living Man/Woman to be liable to the codes of the Corporation the living Man/Woman must be so named in the code(s) that you are attempting to apply to the living Man/Woman.
8. No contracts exist between your state and Me the living Man/Woman so there is no assumption of jurisdiction that you can rely upon to assume you have the authority to assume any jurisdiction and you have no authority to demand the living Man/Woman to enter into a contract with you or your STATE. I. E. Traffic Ticket/Citation. States operate in Contract Laws thus a citation is an offer of contract.
9. You will note that there is no STATE issued license plates on the living Man/Woman private property vehicle, which translates to no jurisdiction over the property by the Public Servant or the STATE. My Sovereign tag is Both my Flag and my Tag, and My Flag supersedes your flag by virtue of the Treaty of 1778 and the “Old Crossing Treaty of 1863” first right to the land.
10. As a living Man/Woman, retaining all God given sovereignty, I have not given permission, consent or authority to the Corporation of the STATE, therefore the STATE has no case.

Authority of the Public Servants and Courts.
Blacks Law Dictionary
The word AUTHORITY MEANS:
1. Right
OR
2. Permission

In order for a court to have the right to jurisdiction over a Man or Woman that court must operate in Common Law, which means that under Common Law all Rights are for and in the favor of the Man/Woman and not the Court.

In order for the Court to operate in statutory or Civil Codes or what is mistakenly known as laws against a Man/Woman, they must have permission from the Man/Woman to do so. The Courts operate in commerce, which is the code of contracts, not laws. Laws are reserved for Common Law.

(Revocable authority authors NOTE:)
In general, an authority is revocable, unless it is given as a security, or it be coupled with an interest. The revocation is either express or implied; when it is express and made known to the person authorized, the authority is at an end; the revocation is implied when the principal dies, or, if a Female, marries; or the subject of the authority is destroyed, as if a Man have/has authority to sell my house, and it is destroyed by fire or to buy for me a horse, and before the execution of the authority, the horse dies.

When once the agent has exercised all the authority given to him, the authority is at an end.

An authority is to be so construed as to include all necessary or usual means of executing it with effect and when the agent acts, avowedly as such, within his authority, he is not personally responsible.