FAQ

Comments

officerkirkland's picture

http://constitutionclub.ning.com/profiles/blogs/bill-of-rights-defend-it...
Locked laws that are not for bid ,sale , or vote , or change)

 

 

First Amendment

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
 
No unconstitutional acts committed from goverment institutions and agency's and administrations of delegated powers.  The goverment institutions shall not use the Amendments the locked amendments upon the people they serve. 
 
They shall not have the ability to use it against its people they serve.  The religious foundation  shall not be infringed and encroached for the goverment ,or the peoples religions is private and its a free agency of choice.. The freedom of religion is a private fundamental God given inheratant right. 

 

Second Amendment

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
 
No other sub paragraph to encroach and infringe of individual Americans right -fundamental inheratant god given right to obstruct to have a weapon of choice to secure- the locked laws that are enumerated in the bill of rights -all Americans shall be armed and ready to defend each other and the states and the nation as a whole in harmony, shall be a weapon behind every grain of grass.

 

Third Amendment

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner; nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
 
The people we the people shall not allow any goverment intuitions or supporting elements to secure our homes our property or our Constitution- in any form of encroachment or infringement during any emergency.

 

Fourth Amendment

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
 
No officer of the oath or delegated powers shall violate the fourth amendment- by unconstitutional acts , nor by  hidden so called laws , statues, and codes- shall not be in conflict -only shall be in harmony. all laws must be construed to the Constitutions of all states and the nation as a whole by the locked laws and the limitations of the branches delegated powers.   

 

Fifth Amendment

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself; nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.
 
No one shall change the word of the Constitution and the bill of rights , shall not be infringed and encroached, nor the 5th amendment shall not apply to those who are serving the people as a commission and delegated power , nor to plead the fifth amendment, nor shall the goverment utilize the fifth amendment when a investigation of violation of the Conditions at a state level or federal level, nor a violation of the  oath that they swearer to govern by  and to protect and preserve.  Under article 6 paragraph 2. let the candid world be submitted the facts. 

 

Sixth Amendment

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.
 
The goverment intuitions and administration, judges lawyers , under the due process clause shall not violate the oath and they shall not enforce illegal laws , unconstitutional laws , and no judge and lawyer may trick by scam to give up ones inheratant rights and the beneficiary of the Constitution.  Nor put anyone they serve in jail without a victim or property damage or a violation against the Constitutions they are to preserve and protect.  No judge or lawyers can have equity on the illegal bill of attainder and a direct tax , and a capitation of scheme. 

 

Seventh Amendment

In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury shall be otherwise reexamined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of common law.
 
During a trial the judge and the lawyers are obligated to put the Constitution rule of law first during the trial, and to know the definition of their  job and part, and shall know the law . The trial by factor , and the prosecutor , and the defense ,
 
shall be impartial and except written collect discovery for evidence.  Indirect and direct. or verbal or written. No judge  or majesty can act like the prosecutor or defense attorneys or appointed pro si, in a court of law. the judge shall construe the states and codes to the Constitution, and if he fails to then all orders are void, and is considered a violation of article 6 paragraph 2. 

 

 

Eighth Amendment

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
 
No goverment institutions  or administration shall violate the eighth amendment nor any enumerated bill of rights , and no judge and lawyer or delegated commission officer  have no equity in the matter of  bail and excessive fines and cruel punishment , nor put anyone in jail for a victimless crime without a actual victim or property damage or a violation against the Constitutions of the state of the union.

 

 

Ninth Amendment

The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
 
If any violations of delegated power at any level of goverment , shall give all power back to the people , or replace them with new Constitutional republic officers.

 

Tenth Amendment

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
 
When proven infringement and encroachment in levels of high goverment that does not operate  by contract as the agreement- to govern by Constitution , all illegal acts and illegal laws are void and nullified , and power returned to the people of the states , then shall have a convention to appoint new Goverment Constitutional officer of the republic , old republic of the founding fathers of the nation. 

 

 

https://youtu.be/xICk1dvzYno?list=PL2412E3407B30A1AB

 

Aresposito49's picture

i am trying to learn all I can ever since I realized how corrupt our courts have gotten. mY FIRST, goal is to learn everything and my second is to get my son, who was railroaded into 73 yrs of his life in prison, Home. Is there anyone who can mentor me? Im willing to do what I have to but I need guidence and advice. Can anyone help me? Please contact me if you can. Thank you and God Bless.

officerkirkland's picture

Unconstitutional Official Acts

16 Am Jur 2d, Sec 177 late 2d, Sec 256:

    The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any statute, to be valid, must be In agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows:

 

    The General rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of it's enactment and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.
 

 

    Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it.....
 

    A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law. Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the lend, it is superseded thereby.

    No one Is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.

Jon Roland:

Strictly speaking, an unconstitutional statute is not a "law", and should not be called a "law", even if it is sustained by a court, for a finding that a statute or other official act is constitutional does not make it so, or confer any authority to anyone to enforce it.

 

All citizens and legal residents of the United States, by their presence on the territory of the United States, are subject to the militia duty, the duty of the social compact that creates the society, which requires that each, alone and in concert with others, not only obey the Constitution and constitutional official acts, but help enforce them, if necessary, at the risk of one's life.
 

Any unconstitutional act of an official will at least be a violation of the oath of that official to execute the duties of his office, and therefore grounds for his removal from office. No official immunity or privileges of rank or position survive the commission of unlawful acts. If it violates the rights of individuals, it is also likely to be a crime, and the militia duty obligates anyone aware of such a violation to investigate it, gather evidence for a prosecution, make an arrest, and if necessary, seek an indictment from a grand jury, and if one is obtained, prosecute the offender in a court of law.

lawman2's picture

Hi April. I take it you are new to the NLA website? If so, please navigate to the top of the page and go to the section titled "Free Courses". When you hover your mouse over that link, you will see several menu options. You will want to begin your education here at NLA by completing this free U.S. Constitution course. Afterwards, I would highly recommend you take the free Civics course. 
When you have completed both courses, you may want to go to the "Education" taba t the top of the screen, and choose the "Judicial" menu. From there you can access several useful resources in helping you understand how courtroom rules and procedures are conducted. Finally, you can reach outr to any of the leadership members at NLA, and they may be able to offer more specific recommendations regarding your son's prison sentence, and what you can do to assist him.
I hope that is helpful to you. 
     David

Romona's picture

Recently I was charged with a Feloney (Tampering with a witness) which I did not know about until I received a letter from a bonds man requesting to go my bond. I called him and told him I didn't have a warrant and had done notthing to break the law. He told me to go online at closenet.com and I would see that I had charges and a warrant. I did, and to my surprise , he was right. I called the sheriff and he said he had not gotten around to arresting me and to go to the police and turn myself in and post a $4900.00 bond. I told him I was not guilty of a crime and had very little money and he said I would have to go to jail for 23 + days until my court date. When I asked about a Jury and due process he got upset and said " Look lady I am just doing my Job". I told him he was not doing his job and then had to go post bond. I have been unable to even function with this pending and the way the law is operating here.  I am not guilty of a crime, the state took the police report and file charges of Tampering when all I did was ask a "Friend" to please drop the charges against my niece. She told the law I threatened her and all I did was warn her that drugs were responsible for all of hers and my nieces problems and I was going to do something about all the drugs.  I did not threaten her about not dropping the charges. Now I am guilty until I prove that I am innocent. This will cost more money and could cost me my rights and freedom. I am considering filing papers concerning jurisdiction but I am afraid, because the law is not following the law. Just thought I would share this to get it off my chest.

officerkirkland's picture

Duane Kirkland's discovery and notes.......... claim your contract under the Constitution. Then during due process , file motion to have the victim and the property damage come forward.  You will find that there is no victim or property damage.  You can ask the judge to construe the statutes or codes to the Constitutions. 
No victim no crime, no property damage  and no violations of the bill of right Constitutions then they have no crime.  simple.  Try and you find they will not win-  but don't give up.  spc/kirkland pro si , Any appearance you make , make sure you file a motion to claim to be the beneficiary of the Constitution, and don't sign anything waiving your rights, if you sign anything at all, make sure you sign U.C.C 1-207 w/o prejidice.  Under remdy and recourse. 
(http://disc.yourwebapps.com/discussion.cgi?disc=149495;article=128747)
 
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.
 
Unconstitutional Acts The court follows the decision of the highest court in the state in construing the constitution and the laws of the state unless they conflict with or impair the efficacy of some principle of the constitution or of the federal statutes, a rule of the commercial or general law. The decision of the state courts and questions relating to the existence of its subordinate tribunals and the eligibility of election or appointment of their officers and the passage of its laws are conclusive upon federal courts.
Now, the most important thing is “While acts of defacto incumbent of an office lawfully created by law, an existing are often held to be binding from reasons of public policy. That‟s a very important point…Public Policy.  You want to watch out for the term “Public Policy…” it‟s often confused with the state‟s right of eminent domain of police powers. Police powers and public policy are almost the same thing, except that one is done without law because they want to, and the other is done because they‟re claiming a police authority to do so.
When they‟re talking about public policy, the acts of the person assuming to fill and perform the duties of an office which does not exist can have no validity whatever in law. An unconstitutional act is not law,  It confers no rights, it imposes no duties, it affords no protections, it creates no office, it is in legal contemplation as inoperative as though it had never been passed.
Now, if you take these basic cases that we have gone over so far, you will have gone a long way in getting your constitutional rights back. This book (Citizens Handbook) It includes the Constitution, jury instructions, arguments, and a lot more. Some of the important arguments in it go along with what I‟ve been talking about.
All laws which are repugnant to the constitution are null and void Marbury v Madison 5 U.S. 137  Where rights secured by the constitution are involved there can be no rule or law making legislation which would abrogate abolish them Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 An unconstitutional act is not law. It confers no rights, it imposes no duties, it affords no protections, it creates no office, it is in legal contemplation as inoperative as though it had never been passed   Norton v Shelby County 118 US 425 The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute though having the form and name of law in in reality no law, but is totally void. 16 Am Jur Vol. 2, sec 177, 256 Officers of the court have no immunity from liability when violating constitutional rights  Owen v. City Of Independence , 445 U.S. 622, and Maine v Thiboutot, 448 U.S.1 24  No state shall convert secured liberties into privileges and issue a license and a fee for it  Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105 If the state does convert your liberty in to a privilege you can engage in that right with impunity.  
Shuttlesworth v. City of Birmingham, 373 U.S. 262 The court is to protect against any encroachment of constitutionally securities   Boyd v United States, 116 US 616 Constitutional rights must be interpreted in favor of the citizen   Bryars v United States,  273 U. S. 28 We have covered all of these cases thoroughly, so that you can see clearly In the Citizen‟s Rule Book….
“The jury has the right to judge both the laws as well as the facts” John Jay, first chief justice of the Supreme Court. “The jury has the right to determine both the law and the facts” Samuel Chase, Supreme Court Justice.
“The jury has the power to bring in a verdict in the teeth of both law and fact”  Oliver Wendall Holmes, U. S. Supreme Court “The law itself is on trial quite as much as the cause which is to be decided” Harlan F. Stone, chief justice, Supreme Court The pages of history shine on instances of the jury‟s exercise of it‟s prerogative to disregard the instructions of the judge” United States v Dougherty 473 fed 2nd, 113.
 
Arguing  Jurisdiction Now this is an important case, if you are going to be in this seriously battling and want to argue jurisdiction…Which is a very good defense on almost anything they can pull on you, you‟re gonna have to read these cases:  Erie Railroad v Tompkins 304 U.S. p. 64.  It‟s vital that you understand these arguments. I just finished battling a United State‟s Attorney and we were arguing and he‟s talking about “This is all gibberish”, and I told him, I said “Sir, I don‟t think you are well read on law.” All you have to do is read several of these cases and they‟ll tell you that One there is a duality of citizenship, Two it has to be clearly defined and Three I have defined it.
And now I‟m asking you to prove that I‟m not a party, or prove that I am a party, you tell me. It‟s your burden…You‟re the one making the complaint. You make the complaint, you get the burden of proof. Who says so?  McNutt v General  Motors Acceptance Corp.  56 S.Ct. 502. You made it…You prove it. And if you don‟t prove it timely, I motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action for which relief can be granted, and I will beat your little tail.  
Now if you think this stuff doesn‟t work, let me tell you something here…today the government came and told me “motion dismissed”. The United States of America hereby moves pursuant to federal rules of criminal procedure for leave to dismiss the indictment. 
They can‟t argue. I don‟t care if we go to court…In fact I like it…‟Cause I know who‟s going to win. And I pray to God that he‟ll help me do that.
So, if they want to go to court I tell them “Make my day.” When I‟m in court and the guy tells me “Well…we can get you for income tax evasion, and you might win one, but you won‟t win them all.” I looked at him most calmly and I said “Sir, I‟m gonna advise you to go look in those law books real carefully, because I‟m gonna tell you straight arrow, I have had occasion to look in them law books, and I‟m telling you sir if you bring that complaint against me I‟m going to tell you to „make my day‟, „cause I‟m a pretty serious fellow, and I‟m not going to fool with you. I‟ll sue your sox off and attach everything you own, bank, business, and home. So the best thing I can tell you sir is that before you make a complaint sir I would highly recommend that you seriously consider the merits of your facts before you go writing a bunch of drivel. 52  The bottom line is if you know your facts, and you got your stuff together I‟m telling you that you can do this stuff.
Now let‟s talk about procedure.  If you‟re going to go to court and be your own attorney, You have to be sharp. You have to keep records. You go to court you write it down.  You get any paperwork, you write it down. You send them anything you write it down. Dates and times are vital. If you don‟t take care of your own business…they aren‟t going to do it for you….You‟re your own attorney. If you want to be your own attorney ya gotta have records and keep on top of things.
Every time you do something you write it down…And you make sure you can go back and say “Yeah, I remember on such and such date at such and such a time this happened”. You can construct a chronological order of events. Also write down all important numbers of anybody that has anything that has to be done.
 
UCC - REMEDY AND RECOURSE FULL REPORT:>>http://freedom-school.com/the-ucc-connection.htmlEvery system of civilized law must have two characteristics: Remedy and Recourse. Remedy is a way to get out from under that law, and you recover your loss. The Common Law, the Law Merchants, and even the Uniform Commercial Code all have remedy and recourse, but for a long time we could not find them. If you go to a law library and ask to see the Uniform Commercial Code, they will show you a shelf of books completely filled with the Uniform Commercial Code. When you pick up one volume and start to read it, it will seem to have been intentionally written to be confusing. It took us a long time to discover where the Remedy and Recourse are found in their UCC. They are found right in the first volume, at 1-308 (old 1-207) and 1-103. REMEDY The making of a valid Reservation of Rights preserves whatever rights the person then possesses, and prevents the loss of such rights by application of concepts of waiver or estoppel. (UCC 1-308 (old 1-207).7)It is important to remember when we go into a court that we are in a commercial international jurisdiction. If we go into court and say, " I DEMAND MY CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS ," the judge will most likely say, "You mention the Constitution again, and I'll find you in contempt of court !" Then we don't understand how he can do that. Hasn't he sworn to uphold the Constitution? The rule here is: you cannot be charged under one jurisdiction, and defend under another. For example, if the French government came to you and asked where you filed your French income tax in a certain year, do you go to the French government and say, "I demand my Constitutional Right?" No. The proper answer is: THE LAW DOESN'T APPLY TO ME - I'M NOT A FRENCHMAN. You must make your reservation of rights under the jurisdiction in which you are charged - not under some other jurisdiction. So in a UCC court, you must claim your reservation of rights under (pursuant to) the [their] U.C.C. 1-308 (old 1-207). UCC 1-308 (old 1-207) goes on to say: When a waivable right or claim is involved, the failure to make a reservation thereof, causes a loss of the right, and bars its assertion at a later date . (UCC 1-308 (old 1-207).9) You have to make your claim known early. Further, it says: The Sufficiency of the Reservation - Any expression indicating an intention to reserve rights, is sufficient, such as "WITHOUT PREJUDICE." (UCC 1-308 (old 1-207).4)Whenever you sign any legal paper that deals with Federal Reserve Notes -in any way, shape or manner - under your signature write: Without Prejudice UCC 1-308 (old 1-207). This reserves your rights. You can show, at 1-308 (old 1-207).4 that you have sufficiently reserved your rights.It is very important to understand just what this means. For example, one man who used this in regard to a traffic ticket was asked by the judge just what he meant by writing "without prejudice UCC 1-308 (old 1-207)" on his statement to the court. He had not tried to understand the concepts involved. He only wanted to use it to get out of the ticket. He did not know what it meant. When the judge asked him what he meant by signing in that way, he told the judge that he was not prejudiced against anyone .... The judge knew that the man had no idea what it meant, and fined him an additional $25.00 for a frivolous defense. You must know what it means. WITHOUT PREJUDICEpursuant to UCC 1-308When you see "Without Prejudice" UCC 1-308 in connection with your signature, you are saying: "I reserve my right not to be compelled to perform under any contract, commercial agreement or bankruptcy that I did not enter knowingly , voluntarily , and intentionally . And furthermore, I do not and will not accept the liability of the compelled benefit of any unrevealed contract or commercial agreement or bankruptcy."Actually, it is better to use a rubber stamp, because this demonstrates that you had previously reserved your rights. The simple fact that it takes several days or a week to order and get a stamp shows that you had reserved your rights before signing the document. What is the compelled performance of an unrevealed commercial agreement? When you use Federal Reserve Notes instead of silver dollars, is it voluntary? No. There is no lawful money , so you have to use Federal Reserve Notes - you have to accept the benefit. the government has given you the benefit to discharge your debts with limited liability, and you don't have to pay your debts. How nice they are! But if you did not reserve your rights under 1-308 (old 1-207).7, you are compelled to accept the benefit, and are therefore obligated to obey every statute , ordinance and regulation of the government, at all levels of government - federal, state and local. If you understand this, you will be asked to explain it to the judge when asks. And he will ask, so be prepared to explain it to the court. You will also need to understand UCC 1-103 - the argument and recourse. If you want to understand this fully, go to a law library and photocopy these two sections from the UCC. It is important to get the Anderson [Anderson, Uniform Commercial Code , Lawyers Cooperative Publishing Company] edition. Some of the law libraries will only have the West Publishing version, and it is very difficult to understand. In Anderson, it is broken down with decimals into ten parts, and most importantly, it is written in plain English. RECOURSEThe Recourse appears in the Uniform Commercial Code at 1-103.6, which says: The Code is complimentary to the Common Law, which remains in force , except where displaced by the code. A statute should be construed in harmony with the Common Law, unless there is a clear legislative intent to abrogate the Common Law . This is the argument we use in court: The Code recognizes the Common Law. If it did not recognize the Common Law, the government would have had to admit that the United States is bankrupt, and is completely owned by its creditors. But, it is not expedient to admit this, so the Code was written so as not to abolish the Common Law entirely. Therefore, if you have made a sufficient, timely, and explicit reservation of your rights at 1-308 (old 1-207), you may then insist that the statutes be construed in harmony with the Common Law. If the charge is a traffic, you may demand that the court produce the injured person who has filed a verified complaint. If, for example, you were charged with failure to buckle your seatbelt , you may ask the court who was injured as a result of your failure to "buckle up." However, if the judge won't listen to you and just moves ahead with the case, then you will want to read to him that last sentence of 1-103.6 which states: The Code cannot be read to preclude a Common Law action. Tell the judge: "Your Honor, I can sue you under the Common Law, for violating my right under the Uniform Commercial Code." I have a remedy, under the, UCC to reserve my rights under the Common Law. I have exercised the remedy, and now you must construe this statute in harmony with the Common Law, you must come forth with the damaged party."If the judge insists on proceeding with the case, just act confused and ask this question: "Let me see if I understand, Your Honor. Has this court made a judicial determination that the sections 1-308 (old 1-207) and 1-103 of the Uniform Commercial Code, which is the system of law you are operating under, are not valid law before this court?" Now the judge is in a jamb! How can the court throw out one part of the Code and uphold another? If he answers, "yes," then you say: "I put this court on notice that I am appealing your judicial determination."Of course, the higher court will uphold the Code on appeal. The judge knows this, so once again you have boxed him into a corner. PRACTICAL APPLICATION - TRAFFIC COURThttp://freedom-school.com/the-ucc-connection.htmlAPFN" group.To post to this group, send email to APFN@googlegroups.comFor more options, visit this group athttp://groups.google.com/group/APFN?hl=enAPFN-1 YahooGroups:Subscribe: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/apfn-1/joinUnsubscribe: apfn-1-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.comAPFN MSG BOARD:`In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.'http://disc.server.com/Indices/234999.htmlAPFN CONTENTS PAGE:http://www.apfn.org/old/apfncont.htm"RADIO YOUR WAY" APFN POGO NETWORK (( WOW!! ))"All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people ofgood conscience to remain silent" -- Thomas Jeffersonhttp://www.apfn.net/POGO.HTMFind elected officials, including the president, members ofCongress, governors, state legislators, local officials, and more.http://congress.org/congressorg/dbq/officials/APFN,PMB 206, 7549 W. CACTUS RD. #104, PEORIA, AZ 85381
carl miller ............... know your Constituion.
https://youtu.be/WWLQPz3-M7M
iron clad contract........
http://www.freedom-school.com/acceptance/constitutional-law-by-carl-mill...
 
 
 

Ron Flick's picture

See COS Flyer 2 - Under the COS Tab and fist drop down - regarding the Second Militia Clause that DIRECTLY AND UNEQUIVOCALLY DEMANDS THAT 57 MILLION MALES UPHOLD THE LAW OF THE LAND!  There are roughly 57 million males between the ages of 17-45. Only 7.3% of the total population have served in the military (23,000,000) of which 10% are females.  Many of these ex military are over 45.  Roughly 2,300,000 females have served in the military. So, the vast majority of the 17-45 aged males who make up the Unaffiliated Militia - many of whom hunt in the forest, target shoot, own guns for self defense, or collect guns, and many not even even owning a gun have never read or studied the Constitution. Therefore, many,if not MOST have no clue as to THEIR Constitutional duties under the Militia Clauses of the several states.    This is a gross neglect of our representative government – the Oath Takers.  We have a problem Houston.  The Constitution is not working because our Representatives are not following the Four Militia Clauses of the Several states and the law of the Land.  Our Public School System and Department of Education is failing the nation in teaching the Constitution.   Clearly We the People have to start somewhere to correct this problem and the most direct route is the Second Duty of the Militia: to protect against enemies DOMESTIC.  The 57 million males between 17-45 need to get a course in the Constitution under their belt if we are to save the nation from the destructive path it is currently on. Just 34 pages and 30 days to learn it, and We, the People could enforce a major detour in this train wreck.  Please address any of the following parties to invite to your COS presentation: persons that might be members of a shooting club itself, a gun club, pawnshop owners, gun collectors, a patriot group. They might be members of a survivors group, a search and rescue group, a field medical group, a volunteer fireman’s unit. They might be HAM radio operators, ex-military intelligence, ex special forces, veterans of foreign wars. They might be retired military, policemen, SWAT team members, and/or belong to Oath Keepers.  They might be your neighbor, your father, your brother, your friend, your son, your husband, your doctor, dentist, auto mechanic and dry cleaner guy.  All of them might be between the ages of 17-45 so they need to be at your COS presentation. Set a Date, Reserve a room at the library where a projector is already there and just plug into it and show the COS video. Make up a Flyer with the Contact data on it ...the date, location (draw a map) and time of meeting with your name and phone number on it and staple it together with the COS Flyer 2 and start with the above fellows and Getter Done. Take a yellow marker and highlight the entire Second Duty of the Militia paragraph.  Need more input on the urgency...  https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC5E6LLbzQMYl6-6ntSjJ5nw     

 

Rhode Island Jim's picture

I brought this up at a Monday night meeting nearly one month or more ago, and it was discussed, agreed upon by all who were engaged in the conversation, but to my knowledge, this has never happened. My question is why not? Everyone appeared to think it was a good idea.

americanmister's picture

How can I get some. I tried to order but it is sold out is there a way to backorder

Jan@NLA's picture

we are currently sold out, and have not placed another order yet. You can go here and download a copy. https://www.nationallibertyalliance.org/sites/default/files/Grand%20Jury%20Hand%20Book%20Final.pdf

Jeffersontfreeman-MO's picture

Hello everyone our new NlA chatroom system is up and running  ,when logged in it will be located bottom Right corner of screen ,then scroll list for PUBLIC CHATROOM .. OR you can pm message another member directly just click on their profile name ,,Spread the word  ..westill need more communication if we are to reach CRITCCAL MASS...vEry pleased to see this communication line opened up so we can chat with eah other from state to state.Information and Education should flow  well .And great for New members to ask questions as well .WE hope to see you come by and visit this onsite chatroom and get to know your neighbor states.I have been seeing a few people come and go in chatroom but we need more people to come in and start communicating as the people.Once again its agreat place to come and get any questions one might have answered.

jkwilborn's picture

Hello, I have unwittingly damaged the Blue Ray disk that I keep all the sites agreements. I don't seem to be able to find or down load them here...

Is there a link for these kinds of questions?

BTW If you want donation, don't give them the option of $60 ($5 X 12) or a $20 one time shot. Let them give what they wish to donate.

I get repeated emails, "Donate 5 bucks", which is not true, there is no $5 option (only with the 'monthly' option.) Going to donate $10 bucks but you won't take it, so you don't need it very much. You won't see any monies from me with this setup and I don't know how much money you have lost from others, that feel as I do, that didn't take the time to tell you.

Ron Flick's picture

In a world of Paypal and Visa, Checks and Cash are still king. I have used the latter from day one.....the last 33 months and never missed a month. If you really want to donate to the cause, simply mail your check or Money Order to:

National Liberty Alliance
3979 Albany Post Road, Suite 107
Hyde Park, New York, 12538
Fax - 888-891-8977

rls4979's picture

Is there any way to email somebody, anybody for help? I have searched and searched. I am taking the Constitutional course. I just started and doing the introduction, question 3...The word “unalienable” means incapable of being alienated; that is, ____ and ___________. (Separate words by space)

My answer sold transferred that is exactly what it says...UNALIENABLE RIGHTS – The word “unalienable” is synonymous with inalienable which means incapable of being alienated; that is, sold and transferred. [Black’s 4th]

But for some reason I get it wrong and I cannot advance until I get it right. I came here wanting to learn more but all I did was frustrated!

Sagji@aol.com's picture

hello
i am still on chpt 8 trial by jury can't advance bc i cannot get an answer from kathleen. does anybody know why? my answers are; 1 free administration 2 rents 3 had reason 4 natural right 5 peacefully 6 accomplice 7 proportion 8 voluntary 9 groundless 10 malice 11 lawlessness thanks again anyone at this point
cindy

KathyNYPutnam's picture

If you send me an email, I will respond.  I did not get an email from you.  Make sure you send it to Kathleen@NationalLibertyAlliance.org    I respond many times a day, and every day.    Kathleen

pkhileman's picture

I can not access the civics course. Am signed in. There are only 2 places to click. One for updating the years of experience and the other is quizzes. When I click on the here for the years experience it says I am not allowed access. Can I get some help? Thanks.

grizzlyhopehugger's picture

Q: Is there an app that can be downloaded that will allow me to access the material that requires flash, such as the civics course audio?

A: Yes. You should be able to downloading Puffin, Dolphin, or Photon Browser through playstore for free and then open nationallibertyalliance.org through it. I've had the most success with Puffin for both my tablet and android cell phone which do not support flash.

Here is a link that maybe helpful for ipad devices:
http://www.ispringsolutions.com/articles/can-i-play-flash-on-ipad-yes.html

God bless!

ML wilson's picture

I have been feeling stuck for a few months, not having Flash and therefore unable to access the civics courses, but that all changed today when I saw the message by grizzlyhopehugger about using Puffin as a browser, I loaded Puffin onto my IPhone 3 from the app store and now I am a happy camper working on the civics course. Thank you Grizzly!

grizzlyhopehugger's picture

Anytime we can help each other it is such a blessing! I'm glad I could share the info. that also helped me, as the civics course is vital to us all learning how to save our Country.

KathyNYPutnam's picture

Thank you!   I will add this information to the "Before you Begin the Quiz" page, so others can know!

Fourth Branch's picture

It maybe better not to argue any traveling infraction on the specifics of the case. Doing is to acknowledge the Nisi Prius Court has jurisdiction over you. Object on the grounds a Nisi Prius Court does not have jurisdiction over you since you are one of the People subject only to Common Law jurisdiction and entitled to due process of law per Amendments V, VI and VII in the Bill Of Rights. Make it clear you do not give consent for the hearing to proceed under Statute Law.

Additionally cite the fact using the roads for personal, not commercial purposes, is to engage in traveling and that traveling is an unalienable right not subject to Statutes. There are many Federal Court opinions affirming this claim. They include but are not limited to Thompson v Smith, 154 SE 579, Schactman v Dulles, 96 App D.C. 287, 293, State v. Johnson, 245 P 1073, Kent v. Dulles 357 U.S. 116, 125, SHAPIRO v. THOMPSON, 394 U.S. 618 (1969) 394 U.S. 618, Hertado v. California, 110 US 516, CANTWELL v. STATE OF CONNECTICUT, 310 U.S. 296 (1940) 310 U.S, Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 491, Shuttlesworth v. City of Birmingham, 373 U.S. 262, Murdock v Pennsylvania 319 U.S. 105, Miller v. U.S. 230 F 486 at 489, Sherar vs. Cullen 481 F 2D 946, (1973),

You can also cite Federal Statute 18 U.S. Code § 31(a) confirming using the road for personal reasons is not subject to Statue Law since you are not operating a motor vehicle as it is defined in the following: (6) - “The term “motor vehicle” means every description of carriage or other contrivance propelled or drawn by mechanical power and used for commercial purposes on the highways in the transportation of passengers, passengers and property, or property or cargo.” Many State Statutes have similar language.

The issue can also be raised a speeding ticket is an Appearance Ticket that does not confer jurisdiction over a defendant. The following cases buttress this claim:

[People v. Gabbay, 670 N.Y.S.2d 962, 175 Misc.2d 421 678 N.Y.S.2d 26,92 N.Y.2d 879, 700 N.E.2d 564 (1997)] "Appearance ticket is not accusatory instrument and its filing does not confer jurisdiction over defendant."

[People v. Giusti, 673 N.Y.S.2d 824, 176 Misc.2d 377 (1998)
"Service of an appearance ticket on an accused does not confer personal or subject matter jurisdiction upon a criminal court."

[U.S. v. Beckford, 966 F.Supp. 1415 (1997)] "Only Congress can make an act a crime, affix punishment to it, and declare court that shall have jurisdiction."

Any traffic ticket is a Bill of Attainder and an ex post facto Law. A Bill of Attainder is a legislative Act that finds a person guilty and imposes a punishment without a trial or conviction. A Bill of Attainder is unconstitutional per Article I Section IX Clause III and Article I Section X Clause I of the U.S. Constitution. An ex post facto law makes illegal an act that was legal (traveling) when the act was committed, increases the penalty of an alleged infraction after the alleged infraction was committed or changes the rules of evidence to make a conviction easier. Traveling, being an unalienable right, is legal but the ticket is attempting to make it illegal. Sometimes a District Attorney will inform the accused just before the hearing the penalty will increase should the accused challenge the ticket and lose thereby increasing the penalty after the alleged infraction was committed. The rules of evidence are changed by the mere fact no evidence can exist against a person who is using the roads solely for personal purposes and not for commercial purposes.

Bradley Amendment's picture

DO the courts have to refund the BOND for alleged speeding tickets, once the alleged defendant shows up to court!  The officer did not sign my ticket and nor did I, and I motioned for appeal! They held me in the county jail, until I paid the BOND.  I used case law and the CONSTITUTIONAL OATH that officers are bound by as the JUDGE made a statement, that the city of COLUMBUS, GEORGIA is a consoldiated government and officers do not have to follow the law! 

Liberty Now's picture

That's a great post! Thank you for taking the time to put it here.

grizzlyhopehugger's picture

Q: What type of government do we have? Obama, politicians, media, websites etc. continue to provide misinformation to this very important question. We are definitely in the age of deception and asleep at the wheel.

A: We are a Republic. What exactly does this mean?

A Republican government is one in which the powers of sovereignty are vested in the people and are exercised by the people, either directly, or through representatives chosen by the people, to whom those powers are specially delegated. [In re Duncan, 139 U.S. 449, 11 S.Ct. 573, 35 L.Ed. 219; Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. (21 Wall.) 162, 22 L.Ed. 627. Black's Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, p. 626]. Ruled by Law. Limiting the government. Property Rights=Freedom!

See the 9th and 10th Amendments to see additional limitations on what Congress can and can't do;, as everything is limited to Constitutionality. For any law that comes in conflict with the Constitution is null and void of law, it bares no power to enforce, no obligation to obey, purports to settle as if it never existed. For unconstitutionality dates from the date of enactment of such a law, not from the date so branded in an open court of law. No courts are bound to uphold it. It operates as a fiction of law. Article 6 Paragraph 2 and supported by the Supreme Court decision in Marbury v Madison Vol. 5 US Pg. 137 (1803 ).

Q: What is a democracy?

A: That form of government in which the sovereign power resides in and is exercised by the whole body of free citizens directly or indirectly through a system of representation, as distinguished from a monarchy, aristocracy, or oligarchy. [Black's Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, p. 388; Bond v. U.S. SCOTUS] recognizes personal sovereignty, June 16, 2011. Ruled by the majority without limits. Rights (Freedom and opportunity) are traded for false damaging security.

In fact Democracy is not mentioned one time in the Constitution and our forefathers warned against having a democracy, saying history has repeatedly shown that it is the most dangerous form of government and never lasts long before it turns into an oligarchy. A debate took place, a Republic form of government was chosen to protect the sovereign people's inalienable rights by limiting the government, and an iron clad contract was made in writing that stands in all courts and cannot be broken.

Q: What is an oligarchy?

A: It is the most common government in history and today in which a group rules (e.g., Ancient Greeks,, Rome, Germany- Hiltler, Russia, Obama, etc.) and will create chaos to take total control. Tyranny of the elite that soon becomes an oligarchy with a monopolistic State controlled system which has ownership of the capital. It`s the idea that rights are privileges. Sounding familiar? History repeating itself.

Q: How do we correctly interpret the words used in the Constitution?

A: The words used in Black`s Dictionary, 2nd edition as cited above, are the words used when the Constitution was signed and the definitions within are enforceable by law! Also see Am. Jurisprudence Vol. 16 Sec. 97 which tells judges how the Constitution is to be interpreted; it's supposed to be interpreted in favor of us, the clearly expressed and designated beneficiary`s. It is supposed to be liberally enforced to protect the rights/property of the citizens.

Gain understanding on our Constitution before it's too late. If you don't know your rights you have none. We must be willing to defend them as so many brave individuals have sacrificed their lives throughout history to give us freedom! Freedom is not free and the burden lies on us to defend our rights by first educating ourselves. The info above was derived from the https://www.1215.org/lawnotes/lawnotes/repvsdem.htm and the free Civics Course available on this site!

God Bless! Jesus is my hero!

Bradley Amendment's picture

GREAT INFORMATION:
 

grizzlyhopehugger's picture

Q: Do we have privileges or rights?

A: One of the fundamental problems in America is that the government has convinced us that we have certain privileges granted to us by the government.

The Truth is, we have been endowed with inalienable rights that we don't have to get permission for. Privileges can be revoked at anytime. We the people grant the government privileges; the powers come from us and go to the government. Not the other way around!

All rights are derived from property. Any dispute as to who has the right to do this, that or the other thing can be solved by answering."Who owns the property?" If you own the property, you can do whatever you want, but you must first know your rights and then assert them in a timely manner.

You cannot grant someone a right! Privileges, on the other hand are generally identified by a permit or a license in which you enter a hidden contract.

Q: How do I learn more about my rights?

A: The bottom line is that we all need to read and fully understand the Constitution. It is the Supreme Law of the land, it is in writing, is still standing, and enforceable in any court of law.

Multiple Supreme Court cases support our rights and we need to learn these cases to use them effectively in our arguments.

Q: What are some examples of case law etc. which can be used when I claim my inalienable rights?

A: Marbury v Madison and Article 6 , paragraph 2 of our Constitution provide strong arguments because the truth is that anything that is in conflict with the Constitution is null and void of law, it bears no power to enforce, no obligation to obey, purports to settle as if it never existed. For the unconstitutionality dates from the enactment of such a law, not from the date so branded in an open court of law. Basically, no courts are bound to uphold it, no citizens are bound to obey it. It operates as a mere nullity or a fiction of law.

Furthermore, Murdock v Penn says that, No states may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a permit/license and fee for it, and require you to have it.

Shuttlesworth v Birmingham Alabama says If the state does convert your right into a privilege, issue a license/permit and fee for it, and require you to have it, you can ignore the license/permit and fee and engage in the right with impunity.

The 9th amendment says, Congress has no authority to add onto the Constitution in such a way that it would take away rights previously guaranteed and no authority to pass laws that are in conflict with the Constitution.

Am Jurisprudence Vol 16 Sec 97 tells the judge how the Constitution is to be interpreted and it is in favor of the clearly intended, specifically designated beneficiary, which is interpreted in favor of we the people.

Title 5 US Code Sec 556D is clear and specific in saying if you are denied due process of the law that all jurisdiction ceases automatically and there are Supreme Court cases to support this right that was intentionally included within the Bill of Rights!

Black`s Law Dictionary, pre- 3rd edition, can clear up any misinterpretations. New editions have purposely taken common law out.

Q: What is the punishment when a public servant violates his/her oath?

A: Individuals hiding under the fiction of law (statutes/codes) under unlawful corporations are guilty and punishable by death, as stated in Title 18-treason! We work under the principles of justice and mercy; public servants are given an opportunity to repent and change their ways. Remedy is integral to receiving justice for damages done.

We will all stand on judgment day before the one true King, Jesus Christ and account for the way we lived. God bless all those who are seeking Truth and do not have blinders on. As for the wicked, they shall perish. Psalms 1

Q: What are the references for the above info?

A: I want to reference and give a big thank you to Michael Badnarik & Carl Miller for each of their Constitution Classes, NationalLibertyAlliance.org for sharing the information, supporting, and taking action, and Jesus Christ for making these Truths known!

God bless! Wake up America, we must defend our Liberties together in a unified front now, before it's too late!

Bradley Amendment's picture

GREAT READ and THANK YOU
 

grizzlyhopehugger's picture

Click on the frowny face on the right side of the page, select the appropriate option that best fits your circumstances, and follow the instructions. Someone will get back with you, as indicated in the instructions.

Please get involved, as it will take each one of us to save our country!

lennie65's picture

I am a new member and am very interested in doing whatever it takes to bring the legal system and the "government" back in line with the organic Constitution . I have been reading the material provided in the jurist section as well as watching the videos . I find the sheer volume of information amazingly informative and hope I can learn to retain as much of it as humanly possible . I am currently going over the information a number of times in order to retain it . I am convinced we're on the right track and that it can be done , however , I haven't listened to a live discussion yet because , as I have said , I just recently joined and have been studying the information available here . A week and a half to be precise . I am a bit concerned by not seeing much information or responses posted to the current date , 5/31/2015 . If anyone could comment or give any clarification as to why this is , I would appreciate it . I live in Florida if that makes a difference .

grizzlyhopehugger's picture

Q: How do I help to bring the legal system and the "government" back in line with the organic Constitution?

A: We have several committees to join, listed under the Committee Tab. If interested, please contact the director of the committee you are interested in. We truly need participation from everyone at whatever capacity they can give.

Also you can take the Free Civics Course by clicking on the Civics Course Tab at the top of the page to continue educating yourself.

Saving America starts with each one of us taking the very steps you are taking now. We look forward to working with you!!!

John57's picture

Go to Media Tab Upper left , see court filing click on it to see the most recent action taken 5/29 /15 - 5 in May many before.

Ron Flick's picture

Under the Table of Contents could be sub-files regarding subject matter and then at those listings, under that subject matter the actual Tab Category, the Sub heading and the document you wished to locate spelled out there in the NLA Table of Contents. It could probably best follow THE PROCESS John and Gerard is always discussing....or it could follow some sort of train of thought starting with basics of Common Law and some definitions. It could begin with Jurist Orientation....and Tabs one might find such things under. It might follow the items one might find under the Headings at the top of the page and the sub- categories under each and what sort of topics are covered there, in addition to similar subjects closely related that might be found under other tabs and list like-subjects that might apply. This Table of Contents would "cut to the chase" and reduce the present frustration we all have trying to locate subject matter on this huge website.

FAQ should have a Glossary of terms, phrases and words we all use.
Example: A while back NLA was pushing the "3 cent postage" to help the states to afford what they couldn't do for lack of funding. If a new person coming in to NLA wanted to locate such data, they wouldn't know where to look. But if you had a Glossary of terms, which had referenced items, like "3 cents postage" that said See Jurist Tab- Jurist Documents - see list. This would cut out a whole bunch of redundant discussions, which is the basis for FAQ, is it not? Suppose you read an article on MMS and you didn't know what it meant. John D. mentioned it on a call last week. To find out if NLA discussed such things, you could turn to the NLA Glossary and see what it says: See Media tab -Today's issues - G. Edward Griffin. watch first two videos at top of page. Or you wanted to find the Duty of the Sheriff document that was listed in the NLA Glossary....where it said See Welcome Tab - scroll down page - look in right hand margin. Just saying.

This is what I would like to see on this website, and isn't there now and is very frustrating trying to find such things. The paper read last night on the Judges referenced the "Preamble to the Bill of Rights". If one wanted to read this where would then begin to look?? There is no place to look now, so they waste John's time or someone else's or their own looking for something that should already be there. See my point? Both the Table of Contents and the Glossary could be an open-ended project to accommodate the NLA moving target.

Ron Flick
DC #12 - Iowa, Missouri and Arkansas

grizzlyhopehugger's picture

Hello Ron,

Thank you for your comment and sharing your ideas. It was a pleasure speaking with you today. A glossary is a great idea and should be a very helpful resource!!! God bless!

Q: How will the FAQ page be structured when up and running?

A: It will be laid out in the traditional FAQ format, as I am doing now. We will be working on structuring the page in a way that allows people to find answers to their questions quickly. Additionally the page will periodically be renovated to make improvements as we go, taking suggestions into account.

Ruble's picture

How to write and file an Administrative Claim against a judge? And do you have any example to follow?

grizzlyhopehugger's picture

Q: How to write and file an Administrative Claim against a judge? And do you have any example to follow?

A: Click on the Media Tab, as well as the Essays/Lectures Tab under the Menu to research filings, etc.

Askari's picture

Where can I find the letter to the Sheriff at?

garyd's picture

Click "Court Filing" under the "Media" tab in the menu bar and scroll down to "Mandamus_to_sheriff.pdf"

rosanbala's picture

Thanks Jefferson. I missed the chat box and I thought I did what you said..... My comment though, If I can make it comprehensible...and all due respect and is there is much deserved to Gerard and John and Jack ("common Law" conference friday..."we all" got in an oddly outrageous uproar over something about this....seemed that way to me/ "you can lead horse to water but you can't make him drink....." ) Was it Gerard on last night's call?? said something about some of us "participants" Shooting ourselves in the foot..and that could be etc and also I might be using out of context; I've heard that from other "superiors" at a time when I saw it as a controlling judgment by people who were "framing" me or invalidating my judgment /...who would disclaim there was any trespass of my rights and no accountability of observing rule of law or civility in their behaviors....(like a railroading) not to get too insulting I feel that critical in our social system that participants can be too readily denied thought and is so habitual any protest is treated as disruptive and "know it all;" the agencies or Leaders find themselves bereft of thinking followers and have shot themselves in the foot.???. for us who dare to respect our freedom of will we find ourselves ostracized and maybe in jail. that's at the core of Common law ?????

Jeffersontfreeman-MO's picture

Missouri Conference chat fri night 8pm -10 pm in the real time chat room just click on mon night call top left on home page and scroll down page and log into real time chatroom.>>Kelly State coordinator

Jeffersontfreeman-MO's picture

I was wondering why we as a group are not using out real time chatroom more?

proboknows1's picture

Why?
I still have a lot to study.
and, would pay more for this stuff law schools are forbidden to teach

rosanbala's picture

yep

Pages