I was a few miles east of Chiloquin Oregon in the woods getting some rest when I was rudely awakened by gunshots. I got out of there because I didn’t want to hang out. Then I was followed, and you will never guess what happened??? (Wait for it…)
These videos are from my dual channel dashcam blackbox with GPS available here (http://shop.freedomfromgovernment.org/index.php?route=product/product&product_id=65). I have traveled thousands of miles up and down the west coast this year without incident and I want to tell you that you can do it too. All it takes is some courage and some patience, they have us all controlled through our on fears. I walk with God though, so I have no fear. Actually, God rides shotgun with me because I am on a mission to help people learn how to attain liberty and happiness, while living their life.
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.
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:
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.
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).
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.
Naturally 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”
” 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.
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.)
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
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.
1. Oregonian (State Citizen, highest form, on the land by right, owns land (home), not property (resident). Right to do all except violate another mans rights. Inhabits land that is private, land not owned by United States) Property is that which one has a right to, not ownership of. Property tax is different than a land tax.
2. Resident = Resident Alien (An alien residing on the land by permission.) All “state” license require proof of residency. Taking a license waives rights held by the Oregonian.
3. United States citizen of right 1790 to 1868, (Pre 14th Amendment citizen)
4. 14th Amendment State citizen from 1868 to present. Inferior to all of the above.
(( citizen = subject of a citi, citi is a body politic (unified group of people) ))
Three *proverbial states in America are?
Below are three of the main “state” distinctions one should be aware of.
–1. *state Oregon = the land that is within the exterior boundaries of what we call the *territory of Nebraska. This “state” term is a noun. This state is presently occupied by Nebraskans (native by right).
–2. *state of Oregon (legally styled as – STATE OF OREGON) = a created entity, part of the perpetual union, created by chartered permission pursuant to the United States Constitution. This “state” term is a noun. This *state consists of resident aliens. Resident aliens are not classed as native; they reside only by permission and are governed by the Federal Congress and State Legislative written law.
–3. United States *state = a created entity, created pursuant to the Declaration of Independence, Articles of Confederation (legally styled as The United States of America), and the North West Ordinance. A tool for the Confederacies needs.
So if asked; are you a state citizen, ask which state?
If asked for a resident address; reply by saying do you have any evidence that I am a resident of any state.
Resident is not a location it is a class of privilege, a class that state jurisdiction governs entirely.
US courts have clearly identified the differences in association (contract), and citizenship, of the various states.
One can live in Oregon as a native or as a resident.
A native is by right, a resident is of permission.
Natives are governed by the people’s state of law.
Residents are governed by the state entities that the native people allow to operate on the same land.
A “resident” is a subject to US, state, written law.
A “native” is subject to God’s law.
A resident does business (travel, etc.) as a granted privileges of the state.
A native does business (travel etc.) by grant, permission, of God.
When one gets a state drivers license he is presumed to be a resident of Oregon and thus governed by the state, an alien, not a native. No one can get a state drivers license without signing a document that they are a resident in/of that given state. Natives need no such license for they have a right to the open highways of Oregon
Such license is only considered *prima-facie evidence of residency and can be rebutted because residency is a contract and no contract is valid if a right is given up without full disclosure.
Learn more about maintaining independence (contract avoidance) from any deceptive “state” near you.
I recommend having little association with godless states.
NOTE – A 14th Amendment citizen is vastly different than a “state” citizen, and both of those are vastly different that a Oregon “native” citizen.
5. having become an object of common mention or reference:
1. the condition of a thing, as with respect to attributes
15. of or pertaining to the central civil government or authority.
16. made, maintained, or chartered by or under the authority of one of the commonwealths that make up a federal union:
*prima-facie evidence – evidence / facts considered to be true until controverted.