150 Militia Take Over Makhuer National Wildlife Preserve Headquarters

Sheriff Shithead holds a presser (starts at 22:00), check the comments, nothing at all like twitter -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7gUUD4g96s8

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by midnight rambler

Sheriff Shithead holds a presser (starts at 22:00), check the comments, nothing at all like twitter -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7gUUD4g96s8

---

That's because twitter is populated by a bunch of fucking moronic millennials.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ares

That's because twitter is populated by a bunch of fucking moronic millennials.

---

I get the impression there may also be bots on twitter to drive perception.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by midnight rambler

I get the impression there may also be bots on twitter to drive perception.

---

Most likely belonging to Government IP addresses.

I do however like this comment from the video: :)

Balance is Key 3 hours ago
The People are desperate and tired of the criminal regime known by all as the US government, whom roam this earth in cause of imperialism, leaving death and destruction behind in its wake of insatiable the need for more, and still.
You have betrayed the people of the United States by allowing filthy zionist to infiltrate into its well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ares

Most likely belonging to Government IP addresses.

---

Or partners Joogle, FB, yawhoo, etc....like there's a difference.

This video raises a lot of good points. Like how some of these protesters are staying at local motels without any issue. This does seem like a government led psy-op.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=STL0hciFJf0

RamZPaul:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p_s1CJMRA3E

Monty's video in a more appropriate place.

https://youtu.be/T424sWq1SkE

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JohnQPublic

Monty's video in a more appropriate place.

---

I watched her rousing video about the Constitution. Is SHE gonna take HER gun to Oregon and start shooting Federal oppressors?

Reminds me of loudmouth Josie Outlaw who stopped posting her videos a year ago.

Technology has neutered most of us so in truth we pretty much only care about ourselves and won't really risk standing for anything too serious.

The only time I see Americans (Whitey) doing anything is if food prices become 40%+ of the average income of Whitey. People won't leave their comfort zones unless they absolutely have no choice.

If the government tried to do a hardcore gun grab that would set something off, but it would only be a few radicals doing it while everyone shitposts on comment sections about how they support the revolution.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shami-Amourae

The only time I see Americans (Whitey) doing anything is if food prices become 40%+ of the average income of Whitey. People won't leave their comfort zones unless they absolutely have no choice.

---

Funny, the declaration of independence says the same thing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by declaration of independence

all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JohnQPublic

Monty's video in a more appropriate place.

https://youtu.be/T424sWq1SkE

---

the reason I posted it in the gun control thread was her comment about no "pen big enough" inmreference to executive orders. I was going to post it here in this thread also, but my internet connection wasn't co-operating.

Here is an email from Kirk MacKenzie:

HAMMOND RANCH

JURISDICTION IS THE STORY!


Wrong Focus


Coverage of the Hammond Ranch situation is an example of why we don’t win. Nearly all coverage is focused on the wrong thing—the situation and its specific concerns, rather than the global issue! We can do better than People Magazine! Ammon and the others are there to bring focus on the issue, not on themselves. If we don’t do that, we all lose.


JURISDICTION is the story!


The Constitution created a government of limited scope. It was fenced in. The name of that fence is “Jurisdiction”. The federal government only has legislative, judicial, and executive powers within its Jurisdiction. The fight to limit federal overreach is synonymous with the fight over Jurisdiction. It is fruitless to fight the first without supporting the second.


The Opportunity


If there ever was one, this is the time—the opportunity—to unite the movement and fight federal overreach by shouting JURISDICTION from the “rooftops”—in every email, Facebook posting, Tweet, blog, and website. I encourage every one and every organization to do just that!


If you don’t understand Jurisdiction, study the DRA Jurisdiction page and my Jurisdiction white paper, or any other source you choose.


If you do understand Jurisdiction, now is the time to educate everyone else.


Quick Facts


The only legislative authority or ownership the federal government has over land is spelled out in Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 of the Constitution, repeated below.


“The Congress shall have power to ... exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings.”―Article I, Section 8, Clause 17


The federal government is only permitted to own and exercise exclusive legislative authority over Washington D.C. and lands acquired from the states(called federal enclaves), in accordance with stated procedure, and only for enumerated defense purposes.


That’s it!


No other clause in the Constitution gives the federal government right to own or legislate over any other land. Where there is no legislative authority, there is no jurisdiction. The Constitution has never been amended to expand that authority.


In what I consider to be a corrupt decision, the Supreme Court decided the federal government could acquire lands outside the Constitution. Corrupt or not, it is crucial to understand that in so doing, the Court declared that in this circumstance the federal government acted in the capacity as any other buyer. It did not acquire any legislative authority or jurisdiction over the lands thus purchased. It obtained only a “proprietorial interest", i.e., the interest of a proprietor, an owner, not the authority of a government.


3. Jurisdiction remains with the states! By not exercising this jurisdiction or stepping in in defense of their citizens, “our" state and local governments are selling us out.



Our Objectives


Train and unite every one and every organization on Jurisdiction.


Get that story out.


Take control of local and state governments. Focus the majority of political efforts on this objective, especially in Rural America where we have the best chance of making a difference. The federal government is beyond hope.

Yep Jurisdiction is key. But what the Hammonds did was give the Federal Government Jurisdiction by responding to the Criminal Complaint and creating a joinder hence they volunteered themselves into Federal Jurisdiction and are unfortunately now paying the price for it..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ares

Yep Jurisdiction is key. But what the Hammonds did was give the Federal Government Jurisdiction by responding to the Criminal Complaint and creating a joinder hence they volunteered themselves into Federal Jurisdiction and are unfortunately now paying the price for it..

---

They did,,unknowingly but I did a little search on Supreme Court rulings, jurisdiction can be challenged any time, even on appeal. And there is no statute of limitations. Its late, I am going to sleep. Tomorrow I will search for some cases and post them.

remember, militia hype = okc...which begat crackdown on unfriends of nyc/dc

after they hype this for a while......do it again?

Meanwhile our good friends in th unarmed cuntry of the UK spreads this...


Oregon Group's List of Demands Largely Indecipherable Due to Spelling
BURNS, OREGON - Efforts to resolve a standoff at the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge in Burns, Oregon were stymied when the armed group occupying the refuge delivered a list of demands that was largely indecipherable due to spelling errors."Every now and then we came across a word in the list we could kind of piece together,” Harland Dorrinson, the official leading the crisis task force, said. “For example, we’re pretty sure that by ‘guvvinmin’ they mean government. But much of the list remains, at this point, gibberish.” As progress in deciphering the list slowed to a crawl, authorities called in a team of master code-breakers from the N.S.A. to provide assistance. "The N.S.A. people say that this spelling is more effective than any encryption software on the market," Dorrinson said.

Oregon Considers Wall to Keep Out Angry White Men

BURNS, OREGON (The Borowitz Report)—A majority of Oregonians favor building a twenty-foot wall along the border of their state to prevent angry white men from getting in, a poll released on Monday shows.


The survey indicates that Oregonians are fed up with irate male Caucasians pouring into their state and bringing with them guns, violence, and terrorism.


“This used to be such a nice state,” said Oregon State Senator Carol Foyler, a pro-wall lawmaker. “Since the angry white men came here, parts of it are unrecognizable.”


But even as support for the Oregon wall grows, critics of the proposal say that it does nothing to address the fact that there are already thousands of angry white men living in the state.


Those critics favor forcibly removing the angry white men through mass deportations and resettling them elsewhere, possibly in Texas.
While some argue that the deportation of angry white men would separate them from their families, others believe that their families would be O.K. with seeing them go.

Here is real word from the Oregon standoff

This is the real deal, so I figured I'd post it in full, especially since it says exactly what I said - that this was all set up by the government and false truthers.

From Christian Yingling:

Ok ...Everybody... please gather around and listen to what I am about to say..Then either shut your mouth, or share this far and wide. If you have ANY faith in me as a leader you will heed what I am about to say. If not..I want nothing to do with you. simple as that.

The key to victory in any battle is the ability to remain calm in any given situation. What we are seeing right now is a whole bunch of people acting based solely on raw emotion. This is very bad and I'm about to explain exactly why. I am not letting my emotions make my decisions for me, but instead, looking at this from a calm, level headed, common sense approach.

What you are all witnessing right now right now in Oregon has the makings of a full on false flag event. And I will prove that to you to the absolute best of my ability. Should you choose to look at this from a logical perspective you will see I am 100% correct. Some of what I will tell you is speculation based on my own experience and experiences of others I have talked to throughout this ordeal, but most of what I am going to tell you is documented verifiable fact.

Back during the Bundy situation, Ryan Payne declared himself the unofficial "leader" of the militias present at the Bundy ranch. Nothing could have been further from the truth. In fact, none of the militias listened to him at all. The ONLY ones who listened to him were the Bundy's, Blaine Cooper, who Payne claimed was a "professional security consultant', who turned out to be nothing more than an ex con, and buddah bear (nice name) who he also claimed was a "professional security consultant", but was later discovered to be nothing more than a tattoo artist thug. The militias ignoring these three, is precisely why that situation didnt turn into a blood bath. (strangely enough all three are present at the refuge)

I and Scott Woods were asked on one occasion, by Payne to go and destroy BLM equipment in the middle of the night. We refused, stating that that's not why we were there. We were there solely to defend the family. That very same night he rushed off in a car with a loaded AR to START a violent altercation with LEOs who supposedly had pulled over members of the Armenian Militia off exit 10 near the ranch. This report was never vetted nor was it looked into before he rushed off. It is also well documented that Payne had tried to incite other militia members to start violent altercations with the authorities who were present there. all of which were refused by militia members..all for the same reason...we were NOT there to start a fight...but to DEFEND the family. When people refused, Payne, Cooper, and Buddah ostracized them and ran them off the ranch. This is why most militias left the ranch when they did. One other point worth mentioning was there were militia members present with long range 50 cal sniper rifles... but instead of positioning them on the hilltops surrounding the ranch, Payne had them stationed down in a valley where they were effectively useless...does that sound like the makings of a solid leader to you? And also Payne was always sure to make certain that there was ONE completely UNDEFENDED access point to the ranch.. I brought this up to him asking why he would leave our back door completely open and undefended... and he completely blew me off... What he was doing in fact, was leaving an access point open for authorities to bum rush the ranch if that's what they felt needed to be done. And I have the witnesses to prove it.

Now throughout the situation Payne made repeated threats to law enforcement on NATIONAL media. There's VIDEO of him doing this..its not hard to find. Yet oddly enough with all that evidence he was never charged with anything during or after the standoff. Does that seem ODD to anyone but me? (not if you're a paid provocateur) Now in this situation at the refuge, he has publicly stated to a reporter that he has snipers set up to kill any federal official who approaches the refuge. Yet still.. no charges are being filed against him. making threats like that, you'd think they'd swoop in and scoop him up... but noooo.. because they're giving patriots time to get there... Don't think for one second that with a couple of phone calls to the proper alphabet agencies, those shmucks wont be SORELY outnumbered. Tell you what... if you think LEO's don't take threats against them seriously... go find the nearest cop and walk up to him and tell him you plan to kill police officers and see what happens to you.. See how long it takes for you to end up in prison.. yet Payne roams free..as does Cooper. Better yet go ask Schuyler Barbeau what happens when you threaten a public official... oh wait...you can't... hes in prison... because of a facebook post. Funny how that works huh? Also... has anyone else noticed that until this situation popped up

Payne was damned near SILENT on social media? Wonder why that is... Hell, Most of you don't even know who he is... He also claimed to be an Army Ranger, But when we had someone at the Ranger School check their records... they said NO Ryan Payne had EVER attended that school... whoda thunk it?

Myself and Scott begged the Bundys, after we left (via phone) to stop listening to Payne..that he was a plant. But they refused to listen. Payne wouldn't let ANYONE talk to the Bundy's with out him being present..or close by. The Bundy's are good God fearing Christians but they are TERRIBLY naive. They truly believe Payne is one of the good guys. Which is why they are at the refuge now. Do you honestly think for one second it was AMMON's idea to take that building? If you do... you're a fool. They're not that type of people. Ammon has been suckered into this standoff by Payne and Cooper. He truly went up there with the intention of helping the Hammonds, and when they were refused,

The Bundy's were made to believe that taking a stand against the BLM was the answer.

Nothing could be further from the truth. Now Cliven is on his way there.. and the govt is finally going to get their revenge on the Bundy's and in doing so gain the access they need to their land. All the major players in the operation of that Ranch will soon be together at the wildlife refuge... thats no coincidence. I assure you.

Payne, Cooper, Pete Santili... All well trained provocateurs who are doing everything in their power to lure patriots to the ranch.. Case in point...Santili just released a video try to say that the FBI was TRYING to shut him down.. Dont you think if that were the case...with ALL of the resources the FBI has, they would just go ahead and do it...do you really think this shmuck is smart enough to outsmart the ENTIRE FBI? Think about it...

Let us continue on.. why the wild life refuge? how in the blue hell did they even know it existed if this wasn't PRE-PLANNED? And why were their trailers staged up there THURSDAY night if this was all "unplanned"? And if they wanted support so bad...why not let the Oregon 3%ers and militia in on this? I'll tell you why.. because they would have had no part in it and vehemently refused if they had known.... as was demonstrated by their response once they found out. SO..that being said.. why pick a place so remote.. I'll tell you why.. the same reason the Bundy ranch was picked.. it's remote... no civilian casualties. And if everyone out there is killed there's no witnesses allowing the govt to write the narrative of what happened afterwards..You can bet any reporters out there will be silenced should they actually get close enough to catch anything worth documenting unless of course they're willing to report what they're told to... the reason it failed at the Bundy ranch was because the community got so involved... NOT the case at the refuge.

Next.. why has a detachment of Delta Force been deployed to the area? (does anyone remember that Delta was ALSO at WACO?) 19 sets of orders were cut for operators to be at waco. Why in the Blue hell would they send Delta to squash a bunch of unorganized mostly unarmed protesters? I'll tell you why.. one of the things Delta specializes in is hostage rescue.. I.E. blow open a door rush in and shoot the bad guys but save the good guys.. I.E. embedded reporters from the national media who can later report the protesters fired first.

This is happening EXACTLY the same way WACO did... you know who else claimed, "We won't fire first but if attacked we'll fire back.."? David Koresh. Again well documented fact. This situation is going to turn out the exact same way. If these guys don't stand down now, while the sheriff is giving them an opportunity to, I promise you.. its going to turn out the exact same way. I'll bet my life on it.

Now lets look at poor John Ritzheimer. This guy is exhibiting all the classic signs of PTSD. It is my belief that he is not in on this plan but like the Bundy's... has been suckered into believing what he is doing is right. This poor bastard is still fighting the war in his head and Assholes like Payne and Cooper are feeding into his delusions that dying for this cause is what he needs to do. They are taking advantage of his big heart and his undying love for the country he fought for and twisting him into a suicidal maniac. Im sorry if that stings.. but I assure you its the cold hard truth. How could ANYONE in their right mind think that dying trying to fight the BLM of all things is going to "change the govt"? How ignorant do you have to be to think that fighting and dying out there is going to somehow make the BLM fold up shop and stop what they are doing. Sorry kids... the ONLY people who can stop the BLM are in DC.. and I assure you, as long as People like Harry Reid and the like are around... the BLM is not going anywhere.. no matter how much we fight them and run them off. We ran them off at the Bundy ranch...and how much did that slow them down..? we ran them off at the sugar pine mine... how much did that slow them down...? What makes anyone think this will be any different? Mind boggling I tell you.

Now to those of you who are buying into this whole "this will galvanize the movement line of crap".. What this is REALLY going to do is crush the patriot movement. They are going to hit these people with such force with such blinding speed and a level of violence of action that most patriots are going to turn and look at their own children and go there's no way in HELL I want that to happen to MY family... thus the reason there are women and Children being taken to the refuge. The govt has already shown at WACO and Ruby Ridge just how willing they are to kill American Children. Don't think for a second they wont do it here as well.

All the classic signs of a psyop. They plan to frighten the people into not even daring to ever take a stand against them again.

So what then of the militias? We'll still be here but will be forced into hiding.. those who aren't will be scooped up and charged as Domestic Terrorists. Do you for even ONE second really believe that this happening at the same time as Obama prepares to announce a whole new slew of gun restrictions is really a coincidence? Its not.. Not at all. What this is going to be used for is an EXCUSE to show why we need to disarm the American people for their own safety.. or put into place such SEVERE restrictions on owning firearms that we will NEVER be able to properly defend ourselves against a tyrannical govt. Hitler did it... Stalin did it... Mao did it... now Obama's doing it. History is repeating itself in front of our own eyes and we're too blinded by raw emotion to recognize it.

If everyone picked up and left that refuge tomorrow, what do you think Payne and Cooper would do? They're so die hard...think they'd stay and fight? I mean that's what they're saying... they're not leaving right? Prepared to die for the cause....right?.... My ASS ! Nope... they'll slink back into the shadows and wait for the next opportunity to bamboozle good patriots into signing their own death warrants. And of course... once again.. neither will be charged with anything. And good peoples lives will be risked for nothing.

We're being goaded into a fight here people...you NEED to see that. And every ONE of you who is advocating for this...Know this... if these people die... it will be YOUR fault. Not mine, nor will it be the fault of ANYONE in ANY unit I command. I simply wont allow it. THIS is the reason my troops follow me.. because I take the time to think these things through...to look at them from ALL directions... not based on sheer emotion as so many of you are doing now.

It was stated, dare I say, TAUGHT to me today by a close friend who is an ex special forces operator, that wars are not won by people taking rash actions such as the ones that have been taken here. Wars are won with proper planning. That shit hit me like a brick.. And I Will NEVER forget those words as that is the smartest thing I have heard throughout this entire ordeal.

1. Plan
2. Equip
3. Rehearse
4. Execute

THAT'S how you win a battle. THAT'S how you minimize casualties.. THAT'S how you win a war. None of that was done here. Therefore, these guys are all as good as dead.. Why do you think the local sheriff there just said these guys need to leave WHILE THEY STILL CAN... Because he KNOWS whats going to happen to them! He's OFFERING them a way out and DAMNIT THEY NEED TO TAKE IT! The first thing I teach my guys is when they make unexpected contact with the enemy is, the proper response is to fall back, reset and take back the initiative.

That's what we need to do here. Will it look like a loss in the eyes of the people? Absolutely. But hey, you all had better get used to the fact that we are not going to win every battle.. BUT... in the eyes of those who put this whole bullshit plan together... this will be a CRUSHING defeat...Even though it will never be made public knowledge. We have let the enemy pick the time and place of our fight...and that is about to prove to be a fatal mistake. Mark my words..

But we can still snatch victory out of this whole screwed up mess...if ONLY you will listen to me. How do we win then? Well I'll tell you...

We get those people out of there!!!!! Anyone and everyone who has contact with the people there needs to PLEAD with them to get the hell out of there... Then, we regroup, and WE pick the time and place of our fight...not the enemy. WE make THEM react.. WE pick ground that is most sensible for a proper defense, not a building in the middle of a field that has absolutely NO defensible positions as in the case of the refuge. Then we properly equip, plan, rehearse, and execute. If you want to win a war...that's how you have to do it. Most importantly.. we expose frauds like Cooper and Payne for who they truly are. and drum them out of the movement before they really get someone killed.

So that my take on this mess... listen to me if you want, ignore me at your own peril... either way it is of no consequence to me. I will not debate this issue, and NO ONE will change my mind about this... I have done too much research into this situation to allow ANY armchair commando to dictate my actions for me. This is the war you all wanted so badly... now either lead follow or get the fuck out of the way. End of story. (please note this post has been edited to provide more factual evidence to include mention of Delta at Waco.)
http://82.221.129.208/ifyouareinamericayouprobablycantseethisi3.html

I would like to know if a National Heritage Area designation has ever been proposed for this area of Oregon.

1. Plan
2. Equip
3. Rehearse
4. Execute

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by monty

They did,,unknowingly but I did a little search on Supreme Court rulings, jurisdiction can be challenged any time, even on appeal. And there is no statute of limitations. Its late, I am going to sleep. Tomorrow I will search for some cases and post them.

---

Challenge Jurisdiction
"Once jurisdiction is challenged, the court cannot proceed when it clearly appears that the court lacks jurisdiction, the court has no authority to reach merits, but, rather, should dismiss the action." Melo v. US, 505 F2d 1026.


"The law requires proof of jurisdiction to appear on the record of the administrative agency and all administrative proceedings." Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U. S. 533.


A judgment rendered by a court without personal jurisdiction over the defendant is void. It is a nullity. [A judgment shown to be void for lack of personal service on the defendant is a nullity.] Sramek v. Sramek, 17 Kan. App. 2d 573, 576-77, 840 P.2d 553 (1992), rev. denied 252 Kan. 1093 (1993).


"A court cannot confer jurisdiction where none existed and cannot make a void proceeding valid. It is clear and well established law that a void order can be challenged in any court" OLD WAYNE MUT. L. ASSOC. v. McDONOUGH, 204 U. S. 8, 27 S. Ct. 236 (1907).


"There is no discretion to ignore lack of jurisdiction." Joyce v. U.S. 474 2D 215.


"Court must prove on the record, all jurisdiction facts related to the jurisdiction asserted." Latana v. Hopper, 102 F. 2d 188; Chicago v. New York, 37 F Supp. 150.


"The law provides that once State and Federal Jurisdiction has been challenged, it must be proven." Main v. Thiboutot, 100 S. Ct. 2502 (1980).


"Jurisdiction can be challenged at any time." and "Jurisdiction, once challenged, cannot be assumed and must be decided." Basso v. Utah Power & Light Co., 495 F 2d 906, 910.


"Defense of lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter may be raised at any time, even on appeal." Hill Top Developers v. Holiday Pines Service Corp., 478 So. 2d. 368 (Fla 2nd DCA 1985)


"Once challenged, jurisdiction cannot be assumed, it must be proved to exist." Stuck v. Medical Examiners, 94 Ca 2d 751. 211 P2d 389.


"There is no discretion to ignore that lack of jurisdiction." Joyce v. US, 474 F2d 215.


"The burden shifts to the court to prove jurisdiction." Rosemond v. Lambert, 469 F2d 416.


"A universal principle as old as the law is that a proceedings of a court without jurisdiction are a nullity and its judgment therein without effect either on person or property." Norwood v. Renfield, 34 C 329; Ex parte Giambonini, 49 P. 732.


"Jurisdiction is fundamental and a judgment rendered by a court that does not have jurisdiction to hear is void ab initio." In Re Application of Wyatt, 300 P. 132; Re Cavitt, 118 P2d 846.


"Thus, where a judicial tribunal has no jurisdiction of the subject matter on which it assumes to act, its proceedings are absolutely void in the fullest sense of the term." Dillon v. Dillon, 187 P 27.


"A court has no jurisdiction to determine its own jurisdiction, for a basic issue in any case before a tribunal is its power to act, and a court must have the authority to decide that question in the first instance." Rescue Army v. Municipal Court of Los Angeles, 171 P2d 8; 331 US 549, 91 L. ed. 1666, 67 S.Ct. 1409.



"A departure by a court from those recognized and established requirements of law, however close apparent adherence to mere form in method of procedure, which has the effect of depriving one of a constitutional right, is an excess of jurisdiction." Wuest v. Wuest, 127 P2d 934, 937.



"Where a court failed to observe safeguards, it amounts to denial of due process of law, court is deprived of juris." Merritt v. Hunter, C.A. Kansas 170 F2d 739.


"The fact that the petitioner was released on a promise to appear before a magistrate for an arraignment, that fact is circumstance to be considered in determining whether in first instance there was a probable cause for the arrest." Monroe v. Papa, DC, Ill. 1963, 221 F Supp 685.
Read US v. Lopez and Hagans v. Levine both void because of lack of jurisdiction. In Lopez the circuit court called it right, and in Hagans it had to go to the Supreme court before it was called right, in both cases, void.


Challenge jurisdiction and motion to dismiss, right off the bat. If you read the supreme Court cases you will find that jurisdiction can be challenged at any time and in the case of Lopez it was a jury trial which was declared void for want of jurisdiction. If it [jurisdiction] doesn't exist, it can not justify conviction or judgment. ...without which power (jurisdiction) the state CANNOT be said to be "sovereign." At best, to proceed would be in "excess" of jurisdiction which is as well fatal to the State's/ USA 's cause. Broom v. Douglas, 75 Ala 268, 57 So 860 the same being jurisdictional facts FATAL to the government's cause ( e.g. see In re FNB, 152 F 64).

http://www.abodia.com/court/files/Challenge%20Jurisdiction.htm

I have seen and previously cited those same quotes on Jurisdiction and I have also seen where the court just ignores the challenge to its jurisdiction and proceeds to run over the person.

In the Kent Hovind case, Paul Hansen had forwarded a letter of notice of conflict of interest for which they convicted him of contempt of court. The court just said the time was past when he could challenge jurisdiction.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bigjon

I have seen and previously cited those same quotes on Jurisdiction and I have also seen where the court just ignores the challenge to its jurisdiction and proceeds to run over the person.

In the Kent Hovind case, Paul Hansen had forwarded a letter of notice of conflict of interest for which they convicted him of contempt of court. The court just said the time was past when he could challenge jurisdiction.

---

I'm convinced that judges go to seminars to teach them how to deal with 'malcontents' who don't want to play along with their religious phantasms.

"I said so and that's that, so there's nothing you can do about it. I'm wearing a black dress and positioned higher than you in our church here. I have all the trappings of authority over you so there. If you don't like it I'll talk even more sternly to you and have my bailiff whap your peepee."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by midnight rambler

I'm convinced that judges go to seminars to teach how to deal with 'malcontents' who don't want to play along with their religious phantasms.

"I said so and that's that, so there's nothing you can do about it. I'm wearing a black dress and positioned higher than you in our church here."

---

Apparently there is remedy for that as well by filing a claim against the judge in his or her personal capacity. But before getting that far you should be going after the prosecutor in his or her personal capacity (There is no such thing as public immunity in common law).

My brother had challenged jurisdiction (He was using Marc Stevens methods) and the judge ignored all documentation and found him guilty when he couldn't even find the paperwork. He said he didn't want to pursue it anymore (it had gone on for over 6 months by this point) so he just paid his fine.

I would of kept going and charged the judge for violating his oath of presuming innocents and rendering judgement without jurisdiction.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ares

I would of kept going

---

Instead you file article III in the supreme court where the case will be filed until the (un)civil war gets settled and a true article III court can sit to hear it. Expect to be long dead by that time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by palani

Instead you file article III in the supreme court where the case will be filed until the (un)civil war gets settled and a true article III court can sit to hear it. Expect to be long dead by that time.

---

They did not disband common law courts. I wouldn't even bother trying to get an Article III court to hear the case for the exact same reasons you stated so why bother even pursuing that avenue? Filing a claim against "John Smith" (The judge in this case) puts him into a position of being a defendant and you aren't going after his office, but him personally. There is nothing stopping anyone from doing this, you would then be in the position of plaintiff and they in the position of defendant. The Judge is then regulated to the status of a referee and the jury has final say (when demanding a court of record) which is not subject to an appeal. The court building is nothing more than Public property it is you who creates the court. Use your 7th Amendment right using the claims process, filing complaints gets you no where.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by midnight rambler

I'm convinced that judges go to seminars to teach them how to deal with 'malcontents' who don't want to play along with their religious phantasms.

"I said so and that's that, so there's nothing you can do about it. I'm wearing a black dress and positioned higher than you in our church here. I have all the trappings of authority over you so there. If you don't like it I'll talk even more sternly to you and have my bailiff whap your peepee."

---

Thanks for providing the fact you don't research and instead listen to conspiracy.

Represetative Walden's speech in Congress last night

Hot air

http://www.c-span.org/video/?402734-...tandoff-oregon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cebu_4_2

Oregon Considers Wall to Keep Out Angry White Men


BURNS, OREGON (The Borowitz Report)—A majority of Oregonians favor building a twenty-foot wall along the border of their state to prevent angry white men from getting in, a poll released on Monday shows.


The survey indicates that Oregonians are fed up with irate male Caucasians pouring into their state and bringing with them guns, violence, and terrorism.


“This used to be such a nice state,” said Oregon State Senator Carol Foyler, a pro-wall lawmaker. “Since the angry white men came here, parts of it are unrecognizable.”


But even as support for the Oregon wall grows, critics of the proposal say that it does nothing to address the fact that there are already thousands of angry white men living in the state.


Those critics favor forcibly removing the angry white men through mass deportations and resettling them elsewhere, possibly in Texas.
While some argue that the deportation of angry white men would separate them from their families, others believe that their families would be O.K. with seeing them go.

---

Well, then I propose Oregon build a direct train line from all inner cities (Detroit, LA, Miami, Chicago, etc.) to Oregon to displace all the "angry white men".

Why Ammon Bundy’s Oregon standoff is doomed to fail


Andrew Romano

January 5, 2016

Reblog

Share

Tweet

Pin it

Send

https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/7H...2158737c5e.jpg<img class="StretchedBox W(100%) H(100%) ie-7_H(a)" src="https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/7HeVHqc.kRlUIJLcRgptxA--/YXBwaWQ9aGlnaGxhbmRlcjtzbT0xO3c9ODAwO2lsPXBsYW5l/http://l.yimg.com/cd/resizer/2.0/FIT_TO_WIDTH-w1280/f489ab8a680d397e4726df5c97304a2158737c5e.jpg"/>
Ammon Bundy addresses the media at the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge near Burns, Ore., on January 5, 2016. (Photo: Jim Urquhart/Reuters)

If you want to understand why the armed men who seized the empty headquarters of Oregon’s remote Malheur National Wildlife Refuge on Saturday are doomed to fail — despite vowing to hunker down for “as long as it takes” to defeat the “tyranny” of Washington, D.C., and threatening “to kill or be killed” if necessary — then you have to understand a few other things first. Things like grazing fees, desert tortoises and the property clause of the United States Constitution.
In short, you have to understand the larger war for control of the American West.
On one side of the Oregon flare-up is the federal government, which owns surprisingly vast swaths of the western half of the country, ranging from 29.9 percent of Montana to 84.5 percent of Nevada, and just over half, 53.1 percent, of Oregon.
On the other side are a bunch of antigovernment types who think that Uncle Sam shouldn’t own this much land, and who, for both economic and ideological reasons, would rather the more laissez-faire states owned it instead.
“Once [the people] can use these lands as free men, then we will have accomplished what we came to accomplish,” Bundy told reporters over the weekend.
SLIDESHOW – Armed militia standoff in Oregon >>>
The basic battle lines here aren’t new. Westerners have always seen themselves as rugged individualists, and the current clash has its roots in a law that Congress passed during Civil War.
But what has changed in recent years is that these Westerners are now willing to use confrontational, even violent, tactics to get their point across — a decision that is almost certain to undermine the larger cause to which they profess their allegiance.
Most of the blame belongs to a single family: the Bundys.
Ammon Bundy, 40, is the ringleader of the posse now occupying the Malheur refuge center; his brother Ryan and another Bundy brother are also reportedly among the occupiers. Last week, Ammon Bundy traveled 1,000 miles north from his home in Phoenix to attend a rally in Burns, Ore., ostensibly in support of Dwight Hammond Jr., 74, and his son Steven Hammond, 46, a pair of local ranchers who were convicted three years ago of burning federal lands in a dispute with the government over grazing rights for their cattle, then ordered in October to return to prison after a federal judge ruled that their original sentences were too short.
As soon as the rally ended, however, the Bundys and at least dozen like-minded outsiders they had summoned to Burns — including Jon Ritzheimer, a former Marine from Phoenix whose anti-Muslim rhetoric and activities triggered an FBI manhunt in November 2015, and other gun-toting vigilantes who travel around the country latching onto various local fights against the federal government — split off and took over a couple of unstaffed Malheur administrative buildings.
https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/zJ...176a5d224b.jpg<img class="StretchedBox W(100%) H(100%) ie-7_H(a)" src="https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/zJffbRjO2jEHA52icj7LnA--/YXBwaWQ9aGlnaGxhbmRlcjtzbT0xO3c9ODAwO2lsPXBsYW5l/http://l.yimg.com/cd/resizer/2.0/FIT_TO_WIDTH-w1280/513ded95266a05eb3462dd82b2529f176a5d224b.jpg"/>
Protesters gather at the Bureau of Land Management’s base camp near Cliven Bundy’s Bunkerville, Nev., ranch on April 12, 2014. (Photo: Jim Urquhart/Reuters)

Such is the Bundy way. In April 2014, Ammon’s father, Cliven, 68, led an armed standoff with the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) at the Bundy family ranch in Bunkerville, Nev., that involved more than 100 antigovernment militiamen and came very close to erupting into the next Waco or Ruby Ridge. “If a car had backfired,” one militiaman told Harper’s, “the shooting would have started.”
Read More

Cliven Bundy’s beef with the BLM was longstanding — and specific to his own circumstances. You can read the whole two-decade timeline here. The short version is that in 1993 the BLM modified Bundy’s grazing permit to reduce the overgrazing of Nevada’s Gold Butte, citing the damage his cows were causing to the habitat of the threatened desert tortoise. (The federal government has owned the land where Bundy’s cows graze since before Nevada became a state.)
In response, Bundy “refused the permit modification, quit paying his fees, and, in an act of pique, turned out more than 900 animals onto the allotment — almost nine times the number stipulated by his permit,” according to Harper’s. Several times the BLM ordered Bundy to remove his cows; several times Bundy refused; several times the courts ruled in the feds’ favor. Eventually, after the defiant Bundy had racked up more than $1.1 million in unpaid grazing fines and fees, insisting all along that the land rightfully belonged to “the sovereign state of Nevada,” the BLM began to impound his herd. Hence the standoff — which only ended when the BLM backed down and agreed to return Bundy’s cows.
“I abide by all of Nevada state laws,” Bundy said at the time. “But I don’t recognize the United States government as even existing.”
Bundy’s issues with Washington, D.C., may have been personal. But they were also symptomatic of a larger Western war that has waxed and waned throughout the 20th century.
In the mid-to-late 1800s, Congress sought to spur settlement on the Western territories it had acquired over the previous half-century by passing various Homestead Acts; in general, these laws decreed that if a U.S. citizen were willing to settle on and farm a particular patch of land for at least five years, he could claim it as his own. To earn a profit, ranchers in some regions needed more room than the 160 acres typically allotted by Congress. They eventually began to pay grazing fees for the right to lease federal land — if they agreed to federal oversight.
The relationship between these ranchers and the federal government wasn’t always a smooth one. In 1905, Western stockmen revolted against the Forest Service for implementing grazing fees and a permit system; in the 1940s and ’50s, an increase in livestock fees sparked a similar backlash.
And yet much of this (largely inhospitable) public land still hadn’t been claimed. In 1932, Pres. Herbert Hoover proposed to deed the surface rights to the unappropriated lands to the states, but the states complained that the lands had been overgrazed and would burden their budgets, which had been squeezed by the Great Depression. The BLM was soon created to administer the public lands that no one else wanted.
https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/at...aee5d68654.jpg<img class="StretchedBox W(100%) H(100%) ie-7_H(a)" src="https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/atmaH9JJ83mhmXL8EryxbQ--/YXBwaWQ9aGlnaGxhbmRlcjtzbT0xO3c9ODAwO2lsPXBsYW5l/http://l.yimg.com/cd/resizer/2.0/FIT_TO_WIDTH-w1280/ed65c12dc62555faf971846c24801caee5d68654.jpg"/>
Rancher Cliven Bundy talks to protesters in Bunkerville, Nev., on April 11, 2014. (Photo: Jim Urquhart/Reuters)

Such was the state of affairs until 1976. That was the year Congress passed the Federal Land Policy and Management Act, which formally ended the policy of turning over federally owned land to citizens who wanted to farm or ranch there — essentially locking in federal control.
Realizing that Washington could now enact whatever conservation measures it liked, some Westerners balked — and Western politicians began to listen. The result was what came to be known as the Sagebrush Rebellion. In the late 1970s and early ’80s, at least six Western states passed legislation aimed at nullifying federal ownership of land within their boundaries; Utah Sen. Orrin Hatch proposed a bill that would allow states to apply for control over selected parcels; and former California Gov. Ronald Reagan, then running for president, told supporters in Salt Lake City, “Count me in as a rebel.”
Even so, the rebellion sputtered after Reagan took office — just like the similar rebellions before it. The reasons were complex: opposition from conservationists, Reagan’s push for privatization, the fact that federal grazing fees are actually a great deal for ranchers like Cliven Bundy — not to mention the Property Clause of the Constitution, which clearly gives Congress the authority to manage public lands however it wants.
In the Obama Era, however, Republican lawmakers — with the backing of groups like the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), a nonprofit that drives conservative policy and whose members include Koch Industries and ExxonMobil — have begun to reintroduce land-transfer bills in statehouses across the West. Last year alone, conservatives in Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Montana, New Mexico, Washington and Wyoming put forward legislation that laid the groundwork for transfers of public land to the states.
Their goal is simple: to channel the anti-Washington passions of the tea party into laws that will open up greater stretches of the West to mining, drilling, ranching and other economic activities, generating tax revenue for the states, and, of course, profits for the companies and individuals involved. (Otherwise, the states simply couldn’t afford to manage so much land.)
The problem for conservative lawmakers is that such passions, once unleashed, are very difficult to control. When Cliven Bundy and his acolytes first aimed their rifles at the BLM, many Republican politicians, eager to appeal to voters angry with Washington, stood by him.
Ted Cruz, for instance, described the situation in Bunkerville as “the unfortunate and tragic culmination of the path that President Obama has set the federal government on.” Rand Paul told Fox News that “there is a legitimate constitutional question here” and later reportedly met with Bundy for 45 minutes to discuss federal land management and states’ rights.
https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/30...3aa566f4ee.jpg<img class="StretchedBox W(100%) H(100%) ie-7_H(a)" src="https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/30mvCobg.LjT6uQVk5Aakw--/YXBwaWQ9aGlnaGxhbmRlcjtzbT0xO3c9ODAwO2lsPXBsYW5l/http://l.yimg.com/cd/resizer/2.0/FIT_TO_WIDTH-w1280/896ceab933ae10b8f0f4c50e4606b73aa566f4ee.jpg"/>
A bumper sticker on a private truck parked in front of a residential building at the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge near Burns, Ore. (Photo: Jim Urquhart/Reuters)
Since the standoff, however, Cliven Bundy has wondered aloud whether “Negroes” were “better off as slaves, picking cotton” and aligned himself with the most paranoid of right-wing extremists. In June 2014, two of his self-professed followers went on a shooting spree in Las Vegas, murdering a pair of police officers before killing themselves.
So now, as another Bundy defies the feds in Oregon, Paul and Cruz seem to be singing a different tune. On Monday, Cruz called on Ammon Bundy and his gang to “stand down peacefully”; Paul made a plea for political action instead.
“I’m sympathetic to the idea that the large collection of federal lands ought to be turned back to the states and the people, but I think the best way to bring about change is through politics,” Paul told the Washington Post in an interview. “That’s why I entered the electoral arena. I don’t support any violence or suggestion of violence toward changing policy.”
And that’s why the Bundys’ ongoing crusade may ultimately prove to be counterproductive. The more militant this latest incarnation of the Sagebrush Rebellion starts to seem, the less inclined mainstream politicians — not to mention the people of the American West — will be to support it.

• #the-issues
• #rand-paul
• #ted-cruz
• #cliven-bundy
• #ammon-bundy
• #oregon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bigjon

Here is an email from Kirk MacKenzie:

HAMMOND RANCH

JURISDICTION IS THE STORY!


Wrong Focus


Coverage of the Hammond Ranch situation is an example of why we don’t win. Nearly all coverage is focused on the wrong thing—the situation and its specific concerns, rather than the global issue! We can do better than People Magazine! Ammon and the others are there to bring focus on the issue, not on themselves. If we don’t do that, we all lose.


JURISDICTION is the story!


The Comstitutioncreated a government of limited scope. It was fenced in. The name of that fence is “Jurisdiction”. The federal government only has legislative, judicial, and executive powers within its Jurisdiction. The fight to limit federal overreach is synonymous with the fight over Jurisdiction. It is fruitless to fight the first without supporting the second.


The Opportunity


If there ever was one, this is the time—the opportunity—to unite the movement and fight federal overreach by shouting JURISDICTION from the “rooftops”—in every email, Facebook posting, Tweet, blog, and website. I encourage every one and every organization to do just that!


If you don’t understand Jurisdiction, study the DRA Jurisdiction page and my Jurisdiction white paper, or any other source you choose.


If you do understand Jurisdiction, now is the time to educate everyone else.


Quick Facts


The only legislative authority or ownership the federal government has over land is spelled out in Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 of the Constitution, repeated below.


“The Congress shall have power to ... exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings.”―Article I, Section 8, Clause 17


The federal government is only permitted to own and exercise exclusive legislative authority over Washington D.C. and lands acquired from the states(called federal enclaves), in accordance with stated procedure, and only for enumerated defense purposes.


That’s it!


No other clause in the Constitution gives the federal government right to own or legislate over any other land. Where there is no legislative authority, there is no jurisdiction. The Constitution has never been amended to expand that authority.


In what I consider to be a corrupt decision, the Supreme Court decided the federal government could acquire lands outside the Constitution. Corrupt or not, it is crucial to understand that in so doing, the Court declared that in this circumstance the federal government acted in the capacity as any other buyer. It did not acquire any legislative authority or jurisdiction over the lands thus purchased. It obtained only a “proprietorial interest", i.e., the interest of a proprietor, an owner, not the authority of a government.


3. Jurisdiction remains with the states! By not exercising this jurisdiction or stepping in in defense of their citizens, “our" state and local governments are selling us out.



Our Objectives


Train and unite every one and every organization on Jurisdiction.


Get that story out.


Take control of local and state governments. Focus the majority of political efforts on this objective, especially in Rural America where we have the best chance of making a difference. The federal government is beyond hope.

---

Here is where the waters get muddy. These shysters use treaties to extend their municipal jurisdiction. It is too long to post here.

http://home.hiwaay.net/~becraft/TREATIES.html

TREATIES: A SOURCE FOR FEDERAL MUNICIPAL POWER
Within the last decade, many people have been utterly astonished at the phenomenal growth and influence of the so-called environmental movement. From its "salad days" of the early seventies, this movement has blossomed so quickly that it now has the visible support of giant corporations and powerful political figures. But, there appears to be a hidden agenda behind the environmental movement with its promotion of an environmental treaty.


Quite obviously, environmental legislation is inherently the proper subject of legislation for the State, and many States currently have such acts in effect within their jurisdictions. At the federal level, the jurisdiction of the United States is constrained by the operation of Art. 1, § 8, cl. 17 of the U. S. Constitution, and the multitude of decided cases regarding this part of the Constitution declares that the United States has territorial jurisdiction solely within Washington, D.C., the federal enclaves inside the States, and the territories and insular possessions of the United States. The possession of territorial jurisdiction is essential under this constitutional provision for federal municipal law such as environmental legislation to apply. Within the territories and possessions of the United States, the federal government possesses power similar to that of a State legislature; see Berman v. Parker, 348 U.S. 26, 31, 75 S.Ct. 98, 102 (1954); and Cincinnati Soap Co. v. United States, 301 U.S. 308, 317, 57 S.Ct. 764, 768 (1937). Therefore, municipal environmental legislation enacted by Congress could readily apply in these areas within the jurisdiction of the United States. Logically, a consideration of solely this part of the Constitution would dictate a conclusion that this type of federal municipal law could apply only within those areas subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, and not within the jurisdiction of the States.

See more:
http://home.hiwaay.net/~becraft/TREATIES.htm

This could not have happened if the unratifed seventeenth amendent was not in the Constitution.

Sounds like they're planning to sit tight and see what happens.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DiXDGm6NOBI

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tumbleweed

Sounds like they're planning to sit tight and see what happens.

---

Just seems too fucked up for them to take over a so called federal building. What's the angle with it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cebu_4_2

Just seems too fucked up for them to take over a so called federal building. What's the angle with it?

---

I'm hearing that the original party are "distancing" themselves from the militia, if that's true whats the mission?

Are they somehow going to relieve other parties around there of some burden?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Horn

I'm hearing that the original party are "distancing" themselves from the militia, if that's true whats the mission?

Are they somehow going to relieve other parties around there of some burden?

---

Somehow this stinks of infiltration. Been following it and it seems there are 3 angles and only one seemed legit in the beginning. Bad white people with guns seems to be the main street news.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cebu_4_2

Just seems too fucked up for them to take over a so called federal building. What's the angle with it?

---

I don't know what their strategy is. I wouldn't have taken control of that building. If they were to try to leave they'd probably end up in jail and if they stay they may get shot. The BLM and most of the people working for the government the Hammonds have dealt with have been corrupt, criminal and abusive in my opinion.

If they sit tight and aren't attacked by the Fed's they have time to educate people on how corrupt and abusive our government has become. If they do that they may win against the Fed's if enough people speak out against what the BLM and what their lackys have been up to.

If the Feds attack and kill them more people will probably wake up to how bad things have gotten in this country.

The Feds can kill them all and walk away and no one will go to jail for it.

This makes me think of the stories of the crazy dog indian warriors that would stake themselves out with a stake and thong then fight to the death all comers.

Looks to me like they've staked themselves out and sung their death song.

those white tea party gun-loving terrists are about to do something that makes nyc/dc xxxxxxxx and xxxxxxxxxx to stem the threat

signed,

nyc blood thirsty money junkies

we MUST keep the printing press in our control......imagine if we had to pay those idiots in gold. it would cut the head off of our snake

end the fed

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tumbleweed

Sounds like they're planning to sit tight and see what happens.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DiXDGm6NOBI

---

Will be interesting to see if the three instigators get busted.