INTRODUCTION TO THE CONSTITUTION

I ask that because I like in person learning for I do better.  

Is there going to be a constitution class ever in like Pendleton Oregon 97801?  It would be cool to have one if possible or have it in Milton Freewater Oregon.  I would for sure attend.  I'm trying to get my hands on the pocket book of the constitution.  

Now: Arguments on taxes. And also we should tell you that if anyone violates your rights, title 42 USC 1983: Every person who under color of statute, ordinance or regulation, customary usage of any state or territory, or the District of Columbia subjects or causes to be subjected any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the depravation of any rights or immunities secured by the constitution or the laws shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law suit in equity or other proper proceeding for the redress. For the purpose of this section any act of congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia. They have created a duality of citizenship under the 14th Amendment. They‟re claiming there‟s common law rights…Where everybody gets their constitution, and there‟s national rights where you waive all your constitutional rights, where you waive your constitutional rights.  Now, which do you want?  Remember 1-207?  Right? Now, since the constitution of the United States in the supreme law of the land, we.ve got  a unique argument here.   Except as to the rule of apportionment the United States has indefinite discretion to make requisitions for men and money (That means they can ask). But they have no authority to raise either by regulations extending to the individual citizens of America. That‟s why we don‟t have a title 26 that applies to you. The consequences of this is that though in theory their resolution concerning those objects are lost constitutionally binding on the members of the union, yet in practice they are mere 53  recommendations which the states observe or disregard at their option. This is the intent of the framers. Cohen v Virginia  19 US 264 (1821) says this is the exact intent. They never intended to have an internal revenue, ever. They hated people that operated like that…That operated a tyranny against the people. Wise politicians will be cautious about fettering the government with restrictions that cannot be observed because they know that every breach of the fundamental laws, though dictated by necessity impairs that sacred reverence which ought to be maintained in the breast of rulers towards the constitution of the country, and forms a precedent for other breaches where the same plea of necessity does not exist at all, or is less urgent and palpable. publius.  And it teaches us in addition to the rest how unequal parchment provisions are to struggle with public necessity. This constitution and the laws of the United States which shall remain in pursuance thereof and all treaties made thereof shall be made under the authority of the United States shall be the supreme law of the land, and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby. Anything in constitutions and laws in any state to the contrary is notwithstanding. The indiscreet zeal of the adversaries to the constitution has betrayed them into an attack on this part of it as also as without which it would have been evidently and radically defective. To be fully sensible of this we need only suppose for a moment that the supremacy of the state‟s constitution had been left complete with a saving clause in their favor. In the first place, as these constitutions invest the state legislature with absolute sovereignty in all cases not accepted but existing articles of confederation. All the authorities contained in the proposed constitution so far as they exceed those enumerated on the federation would have been annulled. And the new congress would have been reduced to the same impotent condition with their predecessors.   USC Title 31 section 742 “Except as otherwise provided by law all stocks, bonds treasury notes and other obligations of the United States Government shall be exempt from the state, local, and municipal authority. This exemption extends to every form of taxation that would require that either the obligations or the interest thereon or both be considered directly or indirectly in the computation of the tax.” See Memphis Bank & Trust Cs. V Garner, 459 U.S. 392 (1983) What this case is, is a Supreme Court case that says that Title 31 USC section 742 is the supreme law of the land. And it does so on a diversity of tax arguments based on discriminatory franchise of bond holdings. Basically what the Supreme Court war title 31 section 742 was the supreme law of the land. And recorded in here is exactly what I just quoted to you “Except as otherwise provided by law all stocks, bonds 54  treasury notes and other obligations of the United States Government shall be exempt from the state, local, and municipal authority.‟ Now what does this mean? “This exemption extends to every form of taxation that would require that either the obligations or the interest thereon or both be considered directly or indirectly in the computation of the tax.” This is a unique tax argument. See, when the states went off the Article 1 section 10 gold and silver standard, you can‟t pay anyway because of Michigan compile laws act 21.153 you can‟t tender anything but gold or silver to an officer of the government without being a party to a felony. On top of that how do they figure the taxes? Let‟s look at our property taxes…This is a big issue. A lot of people get involved with this property tax. They‟re tired of being taxed right out of their home. This tax argument is specifically for you.  They come to your house and they set a value on your house, they tell you that your house is worth $100,000, so we‟re going to tax it at a 50% interest, so it would be $50,000 that‟s a 50% amortization value, we‟ll figure your house has a $50,000 value bracket area, and we‟re going to go 7 points on that, so that‟s 7%... Now…Stop for a second. How did they figure the value on your house? Well, they said $50,000. There are no dollars…What dollars? You ain‟t got no dollars. Dollars of what? The bottom line is they‟re talking about Federal Reserve notes. And they‟re putting the commodity item at the reserve notes. Now what did they just do?   “Except as otherwise provided by law all stocks, bonds treasury notes…What is a Federal Reserve note?  It’s a Treasury Note… and other obligations of the United States…What obligations? Title 12 Section 411 says “Said note shall be deemed to be obligations of the United States Government…Whoops.  Now wait a minute…Let‟s look at this again: “Except as otherwise provided by law all stocks, bonds treasury notes and other obligations of the United States Government shall be exempt from taxation. By or under state, municipal or local authority. Does that mean they can‟t figure a tax by using obligations of the United States Government? You‟re right, you‟re absolutely right.  “This exemption extends to every form of taxation that would require either the obligations, or the interest thereon, or both be considered directly or indirectly in the computation of the tax. Now, what are they doing when the figure this 50% amortization of value and then they add so many points…percent, and they tack that on and then they say “well you owe us this much.” Aren‟t they using Federal Reserve notes indirectly? They are, aren‟t they? And they‟re forbidden from doing that. The Supreme Court says this is the supreme law of the land. 55  Guess what, folks?  This case was originally brought in the matter of People v Shepherd out of Lansing, and after that case they went in all the law books  and they pulled out title 31, section 742…That‟s how scared they are of this title. We went to Sheppard‟s Citations and we noted that in Sheppard‟s Citations there was no note that said “annulled, repealed, or otherwise transferred to some other law.” There‟s a hole there, folks, that starts at Title 31 section 734, and then there is a hole and then it goes to 752. What happened here? They went into all the law books and pulled this argument out.  Why do you think they did that?  Because every state in the union that went off the gold and silver standard under Article 1 Section 10 was locked out of taxing the citizenry in any capacity, by the use of obligations of the United States Government, and that‟s the only thing you have in your hand, folks. So, rather than play that game they went into all the law books and pulled it out. Then they went into Sheppard‟s Citations and instead of putting a note down there as to what happened, they just created a void. What is that evidence of? FRAUD. And does not fraud void the contract? Last time I checked it did. Now I want you to pay attention to this stuff and get locked in on this argument…Don‟t try this until you have at least practiced a little bit…But anybody that‟s getting jammed on their property taxes and any other taxes for the state, lock their heels is all I got to say. Now, one last argument in income taxes…And I‟m not advising you as your attorney…I‟m telling you what I have found as a scholar. In the law books, I have found these arguments and if you want to use them that‟s your free choice, „cause in America last time I checked you have the right under the constitution. We‟ve argued this before the Supreme Court and it cannot be argued against…It‟s pretty strong. Now, since the constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land, we have a unique argument here. It says in Article 1 Section 9 paragraph 4, most clearly, “No capitation or other direct tax shall be laid unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken…That‟s Article 1 section 2 clause 2 which says income taxes and representations shall be by apportionment. Representatives and taxes shall be by apportionment among the several states which may be included within the union according to their respective numbers which shall be determined by adding the whole number. Article 1 section 9 clause 4 “No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in 56  Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.”  Well, folks, they‟re not using the census, and they‟re not using the apportionment rule at all…They‟re evading it totally. Now, there are several arguments here, and it‟s very catchy, so I want you to pay close attention. One of the arguments I want to share with you is brought by an infamous outstanding judge, Judge Beers. He‟s the gentlemen who actually lived the book “Cheaper by the Dozen”. He had 2 wives and twelve children by each.    Judge Beeres got mad and he called up Jimmy Carter and he told him “look, we need to have a raise for our judges because we‟re not keeping up with inflation, etc.” Jimmy told him “No way, Jose.‟ So Judge Beers filed in court a case called Evans v Gore 253 US 245. Judge Evans sued I. R. Gore of the IRS because he claimed that the IRS diminished his salary during his continuance in office. We all know that judges in the Supreme Court and inferior courts shall hold their office during good behavior, and shall receive for their services as a valuable compensation which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office…That‟s Article 3 paragraph 1. The judicial power of the United States shall be vested in the Supreme Court and such inferior courts may from time to time establish the judges both of the Supreme Court and inferior courts shall hold their office during good behavior, and shall receive at stated times for their services a compensation which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office. Well guess what your honor…They diminished my salary during my continuance in office. You‟ll notice there was no diminishment specified, so all diminishment is forbidden…And since all diminishment is forbidden, I am constitutionally immune from your income taxes. The Supreme Court came back and said “Excellent argument, the 16th amendment didn‟t create any new taxing power whatsoever, and clearly Judge Evans is immune from income taxes.  It‟s based on the Article 3 paragraph 1, constitutional immunity.  So the up jumped the devil in the deep blue sea…Jimmy Carter was most unhappy, so he had to give the judges all a raise to shut them up. And he took his wrath out on Judge Beers and went and published the fact that Judge Beers was a bigamist and kinda trashed him and got him disbarred and thrown off the bench. Which I don‟t think was a very nice thing to do at all…‟Cause Judge Beers was a good judge. Now, how does this affect you? Basically this case Evans v Gore makes 2 basic statements. One: the 16th Amendment didn‟t create any new taxing power, and Two: There was an acceptable, 57  possible immunity…To the income tax. Whoa I said…Let‟s go back to Article 1 section 9 paragraph 4: “No capitation or other direct tax shall be laid unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.” Didn‟t I have a right to be free from a direct tax on my property? A direct tax is one where I come in your pocket and I tax it. I had a right to be free from a direct tax on my property unless by the rule of apportionment is herein before directed to be taken in Article 1 section 2 clause 2. Does that mean I‟m constitutionally immune? It sure does. But you have to tell them, and demand that it is a direct tax. You have to say it‟s a direct tax on my property. And what are they gonna do?  They‟re going to come around and tell “This isn‟t under Title 26, this is under Title 27…And that really you‟re a coal miner, You‟re a miner of some kind, You‟re manufacturing handguns someplace… So you ask them “OK Let‟s see the form 4456.”  They will send you the form 4456, and sure enough they‟re gonna have you down as under some kind of excise tax, where they‟re charging you under some BATF for having some fraudulent claim that you‟re involved in mining or something that requires an excise tax, and for the privilege of doing business you have to pay a fee, because you‟re a corporation, an officer of a corporation, or you reside in the District of Columbia. Now let‟s ask…That‟s section 6331 (a) of the code. Look up section 6331 (a)…Those are the only guys that the department can levy against. That‟s the only ones. Are you any of those? NO.  How could that be? If you‟re not any of those they can‟t levy against you, and if they can‟t levy against you there‟s no jurisdiction over you.  Got me?  If they could levy against you they would have jurisdiction…But if the levy against you and you pay them, you have just given them jurisdiction. You sign your documents; if you don‟t put down there UD 1-207 w/o prejudice, guess what?  You‟re in. Isn‟t that fraud? And doesn‟t fraud void the contract? You need to read, folks. You need to get one of these books and read it cover to cover. And you need to be able to rattle it off backwards and forwards upside and down. And you need to kick some tail and try to coordinate this program.

Special Argument developed Now, we‟re going to get into a very special argument…This argument has taken 18 ½ years to develop, and I want you to pay attention. This argument is a unique concept that has been honed like a razor, to a very meticulous edge so that you can understand what‟s going on. Obviously we have established that you have a constitutional right. And obviously we have established that you are the beneficiary of the contract. We have established that the constitution is a contract in writing enforceable in a court of law, and that you have a right to claim specific performance on the contract. We have established that it is supposed to be interpreted in your favor. So if you have an honest constitutional belief, they have to listen.  Now let‟s take that to the next step”  Can a state arbitrarily and erroneously convert your right into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it?  Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105 (1943) (Supreme Court trumps everything else) Murdock is basically a religious test case. A religious group wanted to go out and preach among the public as that is their right to evangelize. Pennsylvania wanted them to have a license to solicit.  The group claimed their first amendment right of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, the right to worship and exercise their religion unencumbered.  The points on the case that are established are “A state may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the federal constitution; and that a flat license tax here involved restrains in advance the constitutional liberty of press and religion, and inevitably tends to suppress the exercise thereof.”   That the ordinance is non16  discriminatory, and that it applies also to peddlers of wares and merchandise is immaterial.  The liberties granted by the first amendment are in a preferred position. Since the privilege in question is guaranteed by the federal constitution, and exist independently of the state‟s authority, the inquiry as to whether the state has given something for which it cannot ask a return is irrelevant. No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. Now a lot of people will come back to me and say “Well, I‟m not a part of that religious group…It doesn‟t apply to me”.   You need to reach. Understand we‟re not talking about whether you are in the religious group or not.  We‟re talking about here is „are you and American and do you have rights?‟ What they are talking about here is that that religious group exercised their rights timely. That they had a right to worship and evangelize as they chose, and that the state came in and arbitrarily converted that right into a privilege and issued a license and a fee for it. That is totally unconstitutional.  Now we took that case as a pioneering case, and we argue that case for all of your constitutional rights. All you need to do is keep in mind that  1. You are an American and that you have constitutional rights.  2. You have to keep in mind “What right”? Can you pull the right out of the constitution? If you can pull the right out of the constitution…and I will give you and example: How about the right to travel freely and unencumbered, pursuant to Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618 (1969)?  How about the right to keep and bear arms? Does the state have the right to require a license and fee for the exercise of the right? And if they do can you ignore the license and fee? The premise of this case is clearly established; NO STATE MAY CONVERT A SECURED LIBERTY INTO A PRIVILEGE ISSUE A LICENSE AND FEE FOR IT, AND REQUIRE YOU TO HAVE THAT: OTHERWISE YOU COMMITTED A CRIME. Let‟s jump to the next case: Shuttlesworth v. City of Birmingham, 373 U.S. 262 (1963)…This is another unique religious case. In this case six ministers were accused of inciting to riot and otherwise create a disturbance…Disturb the peace. They had a sit-down (this case came down in 1962). The city said they needed to have a license to have a public gathering.  It went to the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court said  “No, you don‟t have to have a license for the exercise of a first amendment right to freely assemble.” The gist of the case is that Negro ministers were convicted in the Alabama State Court of “Aiding and abetting in violation of criminal trespass ordinance in Birmingham Ala. The only 17  evidence against them was to the effect that they had incited ten Negro students to engage in a sit-in demonstration at a white lunch counter as a protest against racial segregation. The court held that on the case of Peterson v City of Greenville, 373 U.S. 244 (1963) that the convictions of those ten students for criminal trespass were constitutionally invalid. Since those convictions had been set aside it follows that these petitioners did not incite, aid, or albeit any crime, and therefore the convictions of these petitioners must be set aside. Now basically what they were claiming was their constitutional right to freely assemble; the city was claiming that they had to have a license to put on a demonstration, which they didn‟t have, and they were charging them with a criminal trespass, for not having a valid license to freely assemble and/or protest. Now I want you to see the significance of this case in view of the case we just had. Murdock v Penn clearly established that no state could convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. Shuttlesworth v Birm. Said that if the state does convert your right into a privilege and charge a license and a fee for it you can ignore the license and fee, and engage in the right with impunity. That means they can‟t punish you…they have to let you go. It‟s very important that you understand first your constitution is the supreme law of the land and that you have that right, and that right shall not be infringed, and it‟s supposed to be enforced in favor of you, the clearly intended and expressly designated beneficiary.  It‟s very important that you understand that no state may convert that right into a privilege and issue a license and fee for it, and if they do. Shuttlesworth says you can ignore the license and engage in the right with impunity…They can‟t punish you. Now, the next case is very important, and it‟s important that you see the argument. U. S. v Bishop, 412 U. S. 346 (1973)…Basically what Bishop does is it sets a standard for what constitutes a criminal violation in terms of willful intent. Willfullness is one of the elements which is required to be proven. In any criminal element you have to prove that 1. You are the party, 2. That you had a method or opportunity to do a thing, and  3. That you did so with a willful intent. Now, when we get to willful intent, willful is defined as an evil motive or intent to avoid a known duty or task under the law with immoral uncertainty. Obviously you have decided that you have relied on the United States Constitution, and you have relied on the decisions of the supreme 18  court. So could you have willfully done any deed or crime? Obviously not. So this case stipulates that you have a perfect defense for the element of willfulness. Since the burden on the prosecution is to prove that you did willfully and knowingly avoid a known duty or task under the law with immoral certainty he cannot perform that task, because you obviously have your constitutional immunity to that. The previous case, Shuttlesworth says they couldn‟t even punish you. The case before that said you don‟t even need a license for the exercise of a right. And the case before that said your constitutional right is supreme over any state law.  So if they pass a law in violation of your constitution, the constitution overwhelms the state law, so the law doesn‟t even exist in law. Now, since the prosecutor does not have a cause of action for which relief can be granted, you honor would it please the court, counsel is specifically precluded from performing his major task, therefore your honor, would it please the court  at this time I would motion most graciously for dismissal with prejudice for failure to state a cause of action for which relief may be granted by this honorable court, and I‟d kinda like to collect my costs and fees for having to defend this patently frivolous and spurious complaint, sir, may it please the court. This argument is a killer argument. It‟s good for every single constitutional right you‟ve got.  All you have to do is fill in the blanks:  What constitutional right, Prove you have the constitutional right, Tell them that the state does not have the right to convert that right into  a privilege, and they can‟t punish you if they do, and then claim that the prosecutor can‟t prove willfulness so you obviously didn‟t do any crime, and then flip around and demand for you dismissal, which is your right, and get your costs and fees for having to defend this frivolous case may it please the court, and I promise you, you will be amazed at the results. These things have personally happened to me…I can relate the exact cases. That goes for practicing law without a license. Obviously you have a right to work…The right to contract you labor as you see fit, not as some arbitrary and capricious bar association sees fit. If you don‟t want to belong to the union, that‟s your right. You are in a “right to work” state. The bottom line is this: They cannot compel you to have a license or pay a fee for the exercise of your right. And if they do, you can ignore the license and engage the right with impunity.  That means they can‟t punish you.  And since you have a perfect defense for the element of willfulness, punish you. They have to dismiss, don‟t have a cause of action. Now this argument, I‟m tellin‟ you, has taken us over 18 years to develop in the courts, and in law libraries over the years; compiling and arguing cases and using this argument…It‟s a killer 19  argument…Have yet have they ever won against us on this argument, nor could they in the United States of America as long as the constitution stands. Pay attention to this argument and start using it.  We‟ll show you some if the techniques later. Now the word willfully has the same meaning, all right?  In controlling the voluntary intentional violation of a known legal duty.  And the distinction between the statute is found in the additional misconduct that is essential to the violation of the felony provision. If they can‟t prove willfulness they can‟t prove nada.

Court Cases and Legal Quotes Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803).  McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. 316 (1819) Title 18 U.S. Code section 2381 Title 5 U. S. Code section 556 (d) Dejammer v Hoskill of Albany Erie Railroad v Thompkins Am Jur vol. 16, sec. 97 Am Jure 16.  Sec 114 – 117 Am Jure 16, sec 165 Am Jur 2nd sec 177 Declaratory judgments 16 am jur sec 255 Am Jur 256: Am Jur 257 16 Am Jur Vol. 2, sec 177, 256 Am Jur 258 Am Jur 260:   Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105 (1943) Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618 (1969) Shuttlesworth v. City of Birmingham, 373 U.S. 262 (1963 Peterson v City of Greenville, 373 U.S. 244 (1963) U. S. v Bishop, 412 U. S. 346 (1973)… Owen v. City Of Independence , 445 U.S. 622 (1980) Maine v Thiboutot, 448 U.S.1 (1980).   Bryars v United States, 273 U. S. 28 (1927).   Boyd v United States,116 US 616 Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). Norton v Shelby County, 118 US 425 Marbury v Madison 5 U.S. 137  United States v Dougherty 473 fed 2nd, 113 Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. 264 (1821) Johnson v. Manhattan Railway Co., 289 U.S. 479 (1933) Marshall v Kansas City, Mo. 35 sw 2nd, p 877 59  Penn Dairies, Inc. v. Milk Control Commission, 318 U.S. 261 (1943).  United States v. Cruikshank 92 US 542 (1876) U.S. v Manning 215 fed sup, p 272 McNutt v General  Motors Acceptance  56 S.Ct. 502   McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. 316 (1819), Swift v Tyson 41 U.S. 1 (1842) Evans v Gore 253 US 245

Any one that has watched this video... Has any one else besides me tried to look up the Supreme Court cases or the USC 18 references that Carl Miller used? Carl Miller said that if we are to take this seriously... we need to do this. Now I ask, Did Carl Miller lie to us, mislead us, or intentionally check to see if we are doing this?
Carl quotes 18 U.S. Code § 2381 at 23:35, but he isn't quoting it.
It says, "Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States."
The one he is actually quoting is 18 U.S. Code § 241
"If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same; or
 
If two or more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the premises of another, with intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege so secured—
 
They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death."
 
I think we need to pay attention and read the actual laws and Supreme Court cases... So we can actually stand on solid ground when we are defending the US Constitution.

President Trump's Executive Order regarding Immigration is premised on the Immigration and Nationality Act(INA). He is enforcing the Law.  Last week a three Judge Panel ruled against President Trump enforcing the Law and in doing so attempted to block enforcing the law. Their decision was politically motivated, not based on the Law and as such the decision itself is unconstitutional and illegal.
 
Article VI II states the U.S. Constitution, and all Laws made in pursuance thereof shall be the supreme Law of the land. Clause III requires Officials in both of the United States and of the several States shall be bound by oath or affirmation to support this Constitution.
 
Article I Section VIII Clause IV delegates to Congress the power to establish a uniform rule of naturalization. Clause XVIII delegates to Congress the power to make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing enumerated Poweers and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
 
The INA is premised on Article VI Clause II and Article I Section VIII Cause XVIII. Congress, thorugh the INA, vested the power to enforce the INA with the Executive branch. thereofer Preisdent Trump was not violating any laws.
 
The Judges by their actions did violate all the above mentioned provisions. Consequenlty they acted in bad behavior with their ruling. They are subject to removal from the Bench through impeachment. Article I Section III Clause I gives the House of Representatives the Power to initiate Impeachment proceedings and as stated by Alexander Hamilton in Federalist Paper #66.
 
Amendment I in the Bill of Rights gives the People the unalienable right to petition the Government for a redress of Grievances There is a petition being circulated for such a purpose in lieu of the above mentioned facts. Exercise your unlaienable Right and let your voice be heard by clicking on the link below to sign a Petition calling for the House of Representatives to initiate Impeachment proceedings against the three Judges on the 9th Circuit who made the unconstitutional ruling.
https://www.change.org/p/tell-u-s-house-of-representatives-impeach-9th-u...

https://www.facebook.com/Constituional/posts/257087951413771
PRESS RELEASE KrisAnne Hall Joins with C­SPAN to Educate Americans on their Rights  C-SPAN2 to broadcast Constitutional Educator KrisAnne Hall’s class on The Duty of Each State:  Functioning as a Constitutional Republic.  Wellborn, Florida, February 15 . 2017: th Constitutional Education & Consulting announced today that CSPAN2 will broadcast, on three separate days, Constitutional Educator, KrisAnne Hall’s class titled: The Duty Of Each State:  Operating as a Constitutional Republic. When describing her class, KrisAnne Hall said; “Americans have many questions about the limits of federal power and the role the States take in checking the federal government."
Ms. Hall went on to say; “This class will answer these questions, not by opinion, not by interpretation, but by fact, history, and the words of those whose designed our Constitutional Republic. Those who have attend this class leave educated, motivated, and empowered to make the real changes necessary to ensure government is operating within its few and defined delegated powers."
When asked about who this class is for Ms. Hall said; “This is a class for Republicans and Democrats alike:  constitutional truths have no relevance to party affiliation.  It’s not a class that is shrouded in legal jargon. It is not written just for attorneys. It is given in plain everyday English so that anyone, no matter who they are, can understand and apply these essential truths.  This is an education that should be taught in our public schools. C-SPAN2 will broadcast this 75 minute class on 
• February 19th 7:00pm EST • February 20th 11:00am EST   About KrisAnne Hall and Liberty First  KrisAnne Hall is a disabled Army veteran, a Russian linguist, a mother and pastor’s wife. She’s also an attorney a former prosecutor and was fired for teaching the Constitution o her own time and now travels the country 265 days a y ear teaching the Constitution and the history that gave us our founding documents.
 
For more information about KrisAnne Hall or about the C-SPACN event contact KrisAnne at her website at n http://krisannehall.com, email at info@krisannehall.com, or Facebook page at https://www.facebook.com/krisanne.hall/
 
Sent to Duane Kirklands desk.........

Finished both courses. Whats next to learn. I want more.

I am currently involved with the classes and have questions regarding getting involved locally. Can't get any information.
 
 

Michael Badnarik discussed in one of his talks about the stripes on the neck tie and how that had a specific meaning in the courtroom. I can't find that info now and wonder if anyone remembers where I can find that discussion or what they remember about it. 

http://usuncut.com/news/united-nations-just-made-major-announcement-dako...

NEWS
The United Nations just made a major announcement on the Dakota Access Pipeline
Nathan Wellman | October 28, 2016

71435
SHARES
FacebookTwitter

North Dakota is moving forward with construction of its DAPL pipeline despite a representative from the United Nations explicitly calling on the United States to halt it.
Victoria Tauli-Corpus, the UN Special Rapporteur on the rights of indigenous peoples, issued a press release last September that was officially issued by the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) in defense of the Sioux Tribe and its allies:

“The tribe was denied access to information and excluded from consultations at the planning stage of the project and environmental assessments failed to disclose the presence and proximity of the Standing Rock Sioux Reservation.
“The United States should, in accordance with its commitment to implement the Declaration on the Rights on Indigenous Peoples, consult with the affected communities in good faith and ensure their free, and informed consent prior to the approval of any project affecting their lands, particularly in connection with extractive resource industries.
“I urge the United States Government to undertake a thorough review of its compliance with international standards regarding the obligation to consult with indigenous peoples and obtain their free and informed consent. The statutory framework should be amended to include provisions to that effect and it is important that the US Environmental Protection Agency and the US Advisory Council on Historic Preservation participate in the review of legislation.”

Tauli-Corpus also said the US should defend those protesting the construction of the four-state-long pipeline, saying “The US authorities should fully protect and facilitate the right to freedom of peaceful assembly of indigenous peoples, which plays a key role in empowering their ability to claim other rights.”
Dozens of peaceful protesters were arrested by heavily armed police in riot gear yesterday, with officers deploying potentially ear-damaging sonic cannons in an effort to get the crowds to disperse. In one other instance, improperly licensed mercenaries working for the pipelinedeployed attack dogs on the protesters.
Special Rapporteurs are appointed by the UN Human Rights Council and are tasked to point out human rights concerns as they develop around the world. While these experts are not official UN staff, their work can lead to the UN taking a greater interest in a developing human rights situation.
Nathan Wellman 

Is the CONSTITUTIONAL CLASS on CD?

AWESOME! 

Are De FACTO Child support Guidelines CONSTITUTIONAL? Are JUDGE acting as DE FACTO PROSECUTORS LEGAL?

http://www.thecommonsenseshow.com/2016/06/30/the-un-will-soon-control-fo...

Not trying to be rude but I've seen and read allot of BS. I'd love to donate to the truth but truth has to be felt and without truth you just have another scam.

Sheriff Blocks Feds From Harassing Raw Milk Farmer: “Stem the Tide of Federal Overreach”

http://cdn3.freedomoutpost.com/2016/02/sheriff-blocks-feds-from-harassin...

I am newbee. Is this Sheriff on anyone's list of contact?
I guess that is how this works?
He is someone who is on our side.

It is at the 21 min point in interview TRUNEWS11/26/14SheriffThomasHodgons

I have certified copies of all 6 of Alabama's constitutions

Incredible course and subject matter !!!
I have scoured the interwebs and have only been able to find two places where one can READ the manuscript Badnarik mentions at 29:50, "U.S.of A. the Republic is the house that no one lives in" because the site he mentions is no longer running. AND the site listed in the "About info" above is also incorrect... it is now www.nationallibertyalliance.org
So, what I have done is recompiled the original document he mentions here, the entire book, and created a .pdf document for download which can be read by all readers and Kindle and can be printed, 2up, both sides = 15 sheets of 8.5x11 folded in half.
Here is my link: http://1drv.ms/UFUqV0
Educate yourself & Enjoy!
NLA may make the document available directly also...