Does the Court Automatically Have Jurisdiction?

Attorneys would have you believe that the court always automatically has jurisdiction according to a geographic border. If the “STATE OF OREGON” essentially is composed of articles of incorporation on paper that is commonly referred to as the Oregon Constitution, what does that have to do with the inhabitants or land?

My question is, how exactly does a piece of paper (Oregon Constitution), that I have not ever nor will I ever be a party to, give authority to a commercial entity to prosecute me without a victim or valid cause of action? Answer: it doesn’t.

The only duty we have delegated to government is the authority to PROTECT and DEFEND rights of the people, not GRANT or REVOKE them.

I think that they would AT LEAST need to show exactly where I agreed to participate in their tribunal with full disclosure and clean hands. If they can’t then I don’t care what they presume about me being their subject, it simply IS NOT TRUE until proven.

Check out how slick Arnold Law Firm is in his motion to dismiss based on subject matter jurisdiction, while at the same time he EXPRESSLY ADMITS PERSONAL JURISDICTION! This is a sneaky attorney move to close doors and lock Ammon Bundy in for the ride. Tell me what you think about this??? And then go ask Mike Arnold of Arnold Law what his strategy was here? Don’t be surprised if he ignores you or implies that you have a mental condition.

Arnold Law Firm playing typical attorney tricks.

Arnold Law Firm playing typical attorney tricks.

It is obvious to me that Mike Arnold is counting on you to remain ignorant. He has put a price tag of almost $14 million to take this case to trial and he stands to lose all that by challenging personal jurisdiction.

Comment excerpts from the same post:

Some comments on Arnold Law Firm post about pricing.
Some comments on Arnold Law Firm post about pricing.

Please contact Arnold Law and demand answers! This attorney’s job is to not let the fish (the client) off of the hook.

Does the government’s constitution say anything about being guaranteed “representation by an attorney”? Or does it protect “assistance of counsel”? Is there a difference between them? What is the difference? And the KICKER – IF there is no requirement in the bill of rights to be “represented by an attorney”, why would an attorney tell you that you HAVE TO be “represented by an attorney”? (PS – The lies they tell wouldn’t work on you if you knew your rights.)

Allow me to present, the Bill of Rights Amendment VI (look at the last sentence):

“In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.”

Does it EVER refer to being “REPRESENTED” by an “ATTORNEY”? Those words do not even appear in the text of the amendment, so my question now is… why do they say that you have to be “REPRESENTED by an ATTORNEY”??? Why are they lying to us? Why are they lying to us?

What they will never tell you is that challenging jurisdiction is one of the best defenses you can make, because if you use the right argument it is almost impossible for you to lose!

In rem jurisdiction (Latin, “power about or against ‘the thing'”) is a legal term describing the power a court may exercise over property (either real or personal) or a “status” against a person over whom the court does not have in personam jurisdiction.

Do they even have the authority to hear the matter?
Do they even have the authority to hear the matter?

If they attempt to tell you that you can’t question their jurisdiction you can easily shut them up with these court rulings!

“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.” Melo v. US, 505 F2d 1026.
“The law requires proof of jurisdiction to appear on the record of the administrative agency and all administrative proceedings.” Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U. S. 533.
Read US v. Lopez and Hagans v. Levine both void because of lack of jurisdiction. In Lopez the circuit court called it right, and in Hagans it had to go to the Supreme court before it was called right, in both cases, void. Challenge jurisdiction and motion to dismiss, right off the bat. If you read the supreme Court cases you will find that jurisdiction can be challenged at any time and in the case of Lopez it was a jury trial which was declared void for want of jurisdiction. If it [jurisdiction] doesn’t exist, it can not justify conviction or judgment. …without which power (jurisdiction) the state CANNOT be said to be “sovereign.” At best, to proceed would be in “excess” of jurisdiction which is as well fatal to the State’s/ USA ‘s cause. Broom v. Douglas, 75 Ala 268, 57 So 860 the same being jurisdictional facts FATAL to the government’s cause ( e.g. see In re FNB, 152 F 64).

Continue reading “Does the Court Automatically Have Jurisdiction?”

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”

New details reveal more misinformation about the Roadbock by Deschutes County Sheriff’s office

ROADBLOCK 862 FEET, 574 FEET, 386 FEET See for yourself.

Measuring device zeroed out at roadblock.
Measuring device zeroed out at roadblock.
Measuring device reads 386 feet at Horse Camp.
Measuring device reads 386 feet at Horse Camp.
Measuring device reads 386 feet at Horse Camp.
Measuring device reads 386 feet at Horse Camp.
Roadblock in view at 386 feet.
Roadblock in view at 386 feet.
574 feet at first sign.
574 feet at first sign.
View at 574 feet. No visibility of roadblock.
View at 574 feet. No visibility of roadblock.
First sign at 574 feet. No visibility of roadblock.
First sign at 574 feet. No visibility of roadblock.
Measuring device reads 862 feet with no visibility of roadblock.
Measuring device reads 862 feet with no visibility of roadblock.
Measuring device reads 862 feet with no visibility of roadblock.
Measuring device reads 862 feet with no visibility of roadblock.
Pullout area at 862 feet. No visibility of roadblock.
Pullout area at 862 feet. No visibility of roadblock.

We’re Watching


When the PIO for Deschutes County Sheriff said in the press briefing that the roadblock could be seen from 862 feet with plenty of time to stop, I saw a lie.

Having been there several times viewing, driving it, and studying it, It was obvious to me they were issuing another false narrative. I’ll add some video view at 70 mph later but just looking at the still shots, it’s pretty easy to tell that the roadblock wasn’t really visible until he closed within 386 feet of the ambush.

His Brake lights come on at the Horse Camp Jct. when he see’s the Roadblack. At nearly the same time shots ring out and strike his vehicle three times.

There are four distinct landmarks that I referenced and the distances are as follows;
1. The pullout – This is on the East side of the Hwy just as he enters the turn at 9:06 in the attached FBI video.
At this location, in contrast with the DSCO press release the Road block is NOT visible at all. Standing still in the middle of the roadway, you can barely make out the second sign (Southbound sign) to the Joaquin miller Camp. It’s harder to see in the video because of the snow but its the dark spot on the shoulder at 9:06 in the video.

2. The First Joaquin Miller sign – For Northbound traffic, this is the first sign you see in the video. It is 574 ft from the roadblack. From this vantage point, standing in the center of the road, you can aarely make out my Black SUV parked on the left (Southbound) shoulder. It’s very difficult to see and the park lights were on. While driving it is not really visible and his brake lights are still not on at this location

3. Horse Camp entrance – The entrance to the Camp is at 386 ft from the roadblock and it is at this jct. that he begins to apply brakes. The roadblock location is somewhat visible at this point.
4. The second Sign – This is the Southbound sign on the west side of the hwy. As you see in the video, he applies his brakes midway between the first sign (574 ft) and the second sign (250 ft)
directly in front of the entrance to the camp (386 ft.)

The Sheriff PIO also stated that the OSP police van following him at the same speed of 70 MPH was able to stop with no problems.
This is a ludicrous statement because he obviously had the advantage of KNOWING about the roadblock and seeing the brake lights on the vehicle ahead of him.

This was a very insulting statement as was the one of 862 feet visibility.
It’s clear what their doing, simply putting the lies out there and a vast number will believe it because he’s an “Official” with a shiny piece of tin on his lapel.

Many however, are beginning to see and understand what the game is. They put it out there and people accept it as gospel regardless of truth or accuracy they believe they can do whatever they wish and explain it away with misinformation.

I had hoped as many of you did that our distinguished members of law enforcement would tell the truth and give us facts. Instead, they gave us misinformation and TRIED to lead us astray.

Once again, this deadmans roadblock is illegal use of deadly force prior to any of the shooting events. They clearly violated his 4 th amendment rights with illegal search and seizure methods and in my opinion gave him and the occupants of the truck lawful ability to defend themselves.

They also fired 3 shots at him in their estimation at the location of the second sign. It appears further back to me but I cant measure their timing as I don”t believe that the videos are properly synchronized.

More details later, but this should debunk their claims of 862 feet, it was less than half that amount. It appear they are using stationery methods of visibility from the right shoulder of the road straining to see some object at the roadblock location.
Mr. Finicum was not stationery nor was he on the east shoulder, he was clearly on the incoming side of the centerline and moving at a brisk 70 mph and watching his rearview mirror to see if they were continuing to shoot from behind as they had already done.


Source: Brad Steffey

The Corporate Overthrow of the American Government and People

For the last two weeks or so, I’ve been going back into the C-Span Archives to watch programs concerning the President’s Council on Sustainable Development (PCSD) that was created by Executive Order 12852 in 1993.  I was doing that as a part of my research on the Bureau of Land Management related to the Bundy Family, the Hammond Family, the Yantis Family and countless other ranching families that the federal government declared war on.

Ammon Bundy and the Malheur Occupiers called attention to the BLM’s war on ranchers and for that I, as an American citizen am grateful because the issues they exposed are just the tip of the iceberg.   They have done a great service for this nation that goes well beyond the war on ranchers.

The second meeting of the PCSD was held on October 18, 1993.  The meeting was hosted by the Department of Commerce.  Ron Brown was the Secretary of Commerce.   He was the first speaker at the meeting.



In four minutes, Ron Brown laid at the strategy for what was a coup d’etat on the American government and the establishment of a system to facilitate the development of a global commercial crime syndicate.  Here are the main points from Ron Brown’s four minutes of truth:

  • Department of Commerce was the Department of Sustainability
  • Sustainability is the confluence of three areas
  • Trade
  • Technology
  • Environmental Policy
  • NIST & Technology Administration (Office of Technology Administration) were developing technologies(public money spent for private profit through technology transfer under the heading of “research”).
  • Bureau of Economic Analysis – Developing Green Accounting – Green GDP
  • International Trade Administration – selling environmental technology around the world
  • Elimination of boundaries – working across government and private sector boundaries – Ron Brown alluded to elimination of national boundaries with his reference to region in front of country.   (Note:  Tim Wirth actually talked about “arbitrary lines” in reference to borders.
  • The Plan was dependent upon “reinvention of government”

Clinton appointed Katie McGinty to head up the Office of Environmental Policy.  On April 21, 1994, McGinty held a press conference with three cabinet officials – Carol Browner, EPA Administrator, Hazel O’Leary, Secretary of Energy and Bruce Babbitt, Secretary of the Interior.  The title of the briefing is Global Environmental Briefing.

I took a brief clip of Katie McGinty and Bruce Babbitt.  McGinty was the perfect person to put in charge of the Office of Environmental Policy.  She was too young and clueless to understand the treachery of the people she was working for.   I’m including this clip here for two reasons.  Katie McGinty tells you about the coordination of government agencies toward a single mission of “sustainability”.  In other words, it was the centralization of power for the purpose of setting coordinated government policy across all agencies of government.  That means the Economic Development Administration (EDA), HUD, HHS, BLM, USFS, Department of Ag, Department of Energy – and worst of all, the Department of Education to propagandize and indoctrinate our youth – turning them into terrified little eco-fascists.

Bruce Babbitt tells you about the establishment of regional management plan to manage entire regions – “landscape management” aka eco-management.  He mentions the Bay Area and Sacramento Delta.  The regional governing structure, Plan Bay Area is the subject of a lawsuit brought by Michael Shaw and Rosa Koire.    For the record, Idaho is participating in an unconstitutional regional organization that includes Canadian provinces.

The forest management plan mentioned by Babbitt that includes a region from Washington to northern California.  The regional commission over that area is shutting the dams down in Northern California.  Debbie Bacigalupi’s family is a ranching family in Northern California.  The regional commission is attempting to put farmers and ranchers out of business throughout California by shutting down the essential element they need – water.  It will make what is very valuable and productive property virtually worthless – until the water is turned back on after the farmers and ranchers lose it.  Fighting this issue has turned Debbie into a full time activist opposing Agenda 21.



The point I’m getting to is that what the “reinvention of government” was – was a government overthrow of the people.   Bill Clinton and Al Gore established a fascist government (merger of corporate and government power) that operates behind the façade of environmentalism.  That’s the meaning of the term Eco-fascism.  The environmentalism is not real environmentalism.  It’s simply a tool to steal your property if they want it – and to control every aspect of your life.  They corporatized our government and designed technocratic systems of control for us.


The feds IN FACT have no jurisdiction to prosecute Bundys

The 1861 Civil-War era law (H. R. 45) isn’t applicable to prosecute the Bundys and the other protesters. The feds IN FACT have no jurisdiction.

Are you a one man militia buying bullets…prepping to protect your home and family? That won’t do against the FBI and DHS. You and your family won’t survive unless WE RISE UP TOGETHER NOW, not on tyranny’s agenda. Do you really believe that another election is going to change the minds of all the enemies arrayed against us? There really is no better time and place to begin Constitutional restoration than to insist the feds release the peaceful protesters, including Cliven Bundy, they have jailed in Portland, Oregon. They all had good reason to feel wrongfully (unlawfully) threatened by the feds and were in fact within their rights to be armed and at the Malheur Refuge while protesting and teaching our Constitution to the citizens in Oregon.

The use of the 1861 Civil-War era law by Greg Bretzing, other FBI agents and their “partners,” most notably the nastiest whore in Oregon, Kate Brown, in their conspiracy to ambush and murder LaVoy Finicum and falsely arrest the other peaceful protesters IS IN FACT BASED ENTIRELY on the premise (false claim) that the peaceful protesters had been “occupying a federal building on federal land, (i.e., what the federal government and their “partners” call the “Malheur National Wildlife Refuge”), and as falsely charged with threats of violence were preventing federal officers from performing their duties.”


FBI “Special agent” Greg Bretzing unlawfully took charge of “law enforcement” in Harney County, Oregon. He either knew he was unlawfully following illegitimate orders, or did not take the time to read our Constitution, i.e., acted irresponsibly.

The ambush and premeditated murder of LaVoy Finicum, and false arrests of numerous other protesters, all now charged with “conspiracy,” is the federal government’s claim that there is a “conspiracy” against the federal government (not against the United States, but against the federal government). Apparently, the feds have decided that their best attempt at prosecution is to accuse the protesters of “conspiracy,” because it is easier to prosecute than an actual crime (where there is no victim, there is no crime) and their claim of “conspiracy” is a classic example of evil claiming to be good and accusing good of being evil.

“Woe to those who call evil good and good evil…” Isaiah 5:20

NOTE: The protesters are accused of “arming up and threatening federal officers with violence to prevent them from performing their duties.” But in fact the “duties” that the feds claim DO NOT EXIST and LaVoy Finicum and other peaceful protesters threatened and injured no one. The feds are in fact claiming to be a victim, but the “duties” they claim are wholly illegitimate. The feds were NOT victims, NOR were any of the citizens of Harney County.

“Our rulers can have no authority over natural rights, only as we have submitted to them. The rights of conscience we never submitted. We are answerable for them to our God. Thelegitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as injurious to others. ” Thomas Jefferson

The facts clearly reveal that, with their premeditated murder of LaVoy Finicum, false arrests and false charges against the other protesters (all victims of a crime) that the feds are attempting to conceal their unlawfully taking (theft) of state lands, i.e., that the feds and their “partners” are in fact the ones who have been conspiring, and with their overt assembling and unlawful use of an army (their private army) are in fact LEVYING WAR against the United States, i.e., in fact COMMITTING TREASON against the United States.

HR 45The 1861 bill (H. R. 45) was signed into law by Abraham Lincoln to arrest what were labelled as “secessionists” who had taken the federal government’s forts, naval bases, post offices, and federal court buildings.

First of all, the “secessionists” in 1861 had not taken a “wildlife refuge.” They had only taken buildings that the federal government had erected in accordance with Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17 of the United States Constitution. Nowhere in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17 does it say the federal government is to own or manage lands or to erect buildings on a “wildlife refuge.”

ten Miles square (2)In fact Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17 does not even include the word “land” in it: The very name “Bureau of Land Management” (“BLM”) is IN FACT an act of fraud. As Justice Antonin Scalia stated:

“The Constitution is a legal document, and it says what it says and doesn’t say what it doesn’t say.

Was Justice Scalia murdered…to hide the murder of Lavoy Finicum? Was Justice Scalia going to speak out regarding the feds’ theft of lands?

Second, LaVoy Finicum, the Bundys and all the other protesters in Oregon do not oppose federal power. What they do oppose (and did so peacefully) is the abuse of power by the federal government, including the federal government’s unlawful taking of millions of acres of state lands, including the building that the federal government erected on the “national wildlife refuge”—having nothing to do with the legislative authority granted the federal government in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17 of the United States Constitution.

Third, the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge was taken by Teddy Roosevelt byExecutive Order No. 929, NOT “purchased” as required by Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17 of our Constitution. In other words the federal government has no jurisdiction in the lands the protesters have been are accused of “occupying”. The FBI and its “partners” had no authority to ambush LaVoy Finicum and other protesters — the federal courts have no jurisdiction, NONE WHATSOEVER. In regards to the feds lack of jurisdiction also see US v. Cornell.

The federal prosecutors claim that the protesters had no right to oppose federal enforcement officers whether or not they believed that the federal government has no constitutional jurisdiction over the lands. Such a claim is LUDICROUS in light of the fact that all administrative and “legal remedies” have been entirely exhausted. The federal courts (federal judges) have revealed they are politically motivated and have no intention of following the rule of law—willfully violating and alienating the United States Constitution… and even worse they refuse to acknowledge our Natural Rights to self-defense. It is with their refusal to acknowledge our Natural Rights that they have accused the protesters of being violent simply because they were armed. And yet, not once did LaVoy Finicum nor the other protesters, ever point a gun at anyone. Quite the opposite, they were in fact peacefully and patiently teaching our Constitution to the citizens of Harney County and had been invited to also do so in Grant County when the FBI and its “partners” suddenly decided to be violent, in fact forced LaVoy Finicum and his fellow protesters into what is known as  a “killing field”.

NOTE: The 2nd Amendment of our Constitution supports our Natural Rights to self-defense and the feds and their “partners” have in fact falsely accused law abiding  Americans who felt threatened of “arming up”.

The fact is that the protesters were protesting against individuals in the federal government and their “partners” who have been conspiring, not only against the United States, but against the federal government, i.e., against the constraints on the federal government established for us by our Founding Fathers. Any federal officer, official, judge, agent, or employee, or officer, official, judge, agent, or employee in any of the 50 states who does not speak in the first place in support and defense of our Constitution and subsequently in support and defense of LaVoy Finicum and the protesters now imprisoned, is today committing treason against the United States and MUST BE REMOVED FROM OUR OFFICES !!!!! They do not have a “duties” to violate and alienate our Constitution !!!!!

If the federal court in Portland Oregon (for lack of jurisdiction) does not release all the Bundys and the other protesters who have exposed the feds’ unlawful taking (theft) of the Malheur “Wildlife Refuge” in Harney County, Oregon and the millions of other acres of land belonging to various states, and arrest warrants are not issued for Greg Bretzing, other FBI agents and their “partners,” for the ambush and murder of LaVoy Finicum, and false arrests of the other protesters, (i.e., acts of treason), I will begin returning fire. I cannot sit quietly when war is being levied against the United States !



Continue reading “The feds IN FACT have no jurisdiction to prosecute Bundys”