yes the Freemasons are good people.Quote:
Originally Posted by monty
Printable View
yes the Freemasons are good people.Quote:
Originally Posted by monty
Despotic Judge Bans Constitution in Court House
Constitution is BANNED in Federal Courthouse
THE DEFENSE IS EXPECTED TO BEGIN THEIR CASE ON MONDAY, APRIL 3RD
March 21, 2017 BLM, Constitution, Featured, Nevada 2
http://www.avantlink.com/gbi/11653/2...9211/image.jpg
https://i0.wp.com/redoubtnews.com/wp...size=641%2C360
US Constitution is BANNED in Federal Courthouse
by Shari Dovale
The trial for the Political Prisoners in Las Vegas, Nevada continues this week. The prosecution has presented their case over 5 weeks, even extending it beyond what they originally stated.
Judge Gloria Navarro has allowed the prosecution much leeway, but has ruled that the defendants will not need the same concessions. She has micro-managed the defense case repeatedly and has now decided the six defendants will only need a week to present their case.
The government’s case, though it was scheduled to be completed already, does not expect to rest until this Friday, March 24, 2017. The court will then take a week off. The defense is expected to begin their case on Monday, April 3rd.
Witnesses have told me that the US Marshals have decided that they will no longer allow copies of the US Constitution to be brought into the courthouse. They have even gone so far as to remove them from ladies’ purses to be discarded into the trash. It is not limited to just those that are showing from shirt pockets.
Defendant Eric Parker, who has consistently placed a copy of the Constitution in his pocket during these proceedings, was forced to remove it and told to keep it flat at the defendants table so the jury could not see it.
The jury cannot be allowed to even look at the Constitution!
Gregory Burleson, Eric Parker, Orville Scott Drexler, Steven Stewart, Todd Engel and Richard Lovelien are the first of 17 defendants to stand trial in the Bunkerville Protest trial. They are each accused of 10 charges including conspiracy, firearm offenses and assault on a federal officer. They each face up to 101 years in prison if convicted of all charges.
Cliven Bundy, along with his sons Ryan and Ammon Bundy and two others are expected to begin their trial in May. Another trial for even more co-defendants is expected to begin in August.
The government is continuing their attempt to control the narrative in this case. It was not an armed standoff. This was a protest. A protest in which no shots were fired, no one was injured and the cows were set free.
These men were left free for 2 years, to live their lives without fear. The government then decided to round them up, refuse them bail, and are now trying to send them to prison for the rest of their lives, all for voicing their disagreement with the Federal Government.
And now the US Constitution has been demonized by this same government.
2 COMMENTS ON CONSTITUTION IS BANNED IN FEDERAL COURTHOUSE
- http://0.gravatar.com/avatar/9af3812...identicon&r=pg Neil Wampler MARCH 21, 2017 AT 11:18 PM The Constitution is of course the founding charter of the federal Govt. The only legitimate authority the fed has is through this charter,created by the states. Now when they see a constitution, they act like Dracula seeing a cross…AAARGH ! Could someone make a video of one of the Marshalls throwing a Constitution in the trash ?
- http://0.gravatar.com/avatar/60ca66b...identicon&r=pg Sue Barr MARCH 22, 2017 AT 11:13 AM What is going on in this trial? It sounds very one-sided for the prosecution by what was written in this article and that the judge is taking sides rather than being impartial. What a shame, after watching the hearing of Judge Gorsuch, Supreme Court Nominee, yesterday and hearing him expound on what good judges do, it sure seems that the Judge Gloria Navarro is not at all impartial in this case. I am not a liberal, but I certainly think the government overstepped their boundaries in this event and the ensuing judicial matter and trial. Why don’t we just take all the rancher’s lands from them and be done with it. Then the government can make lots more money fining any of us who trespass on the “national lands” and they can strip the areas bare of all minerals and water, and any other money-making/valuable parts of the land. Sounds like many in the Federal Government have already banned the Constitution and are barging ahead with their own agendas.
andrea Olson- Parker and John Lamb Update 3/22 Bundy Trial
http://youtu.be/cEHI6UOQJFY
https://youtu.be/cEHI6UOQJFY
Can this thread either die already or get moved from general discussion?
Wrong!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by Tumbleweed
The Bundy's were on public ground having grazing rights. They were told to move their cattle off and they didnt and some shit happened to them...end of story!
Let it die!
There are three more trials to go through. If the mods want to move that is fine.Quote:
Originally Posted by 7th trump
Wrong. You claim to be an expert on law, maybe you should read up on property rights.Quote:
Originally Posted by 7th trump
oh, and you should watch these proceesings, it could be you sooner than later.
Never claimed I ever was an expert at law. However, I study a lot of tax law to a point I'm no longer liable for income taxes.Quote:
Originally Posted by monty
I stopped the employer from categorizing my earnings as 26usc 3121(a) "wages" (box 3 on the W4). As a result of not being categorized as 26usc 3121(a) "wages" (social security) they are also not deemed 26usc 3401(a) "wages" (box 1 on the W4) for income tax purposes.
No taxes being withheld. Iowa income laws piggy's back the federal code, so no state taxes being withheld either. And the employer loves me because the employer is now off the hook for 50% of what was my Social Security taxes.
Win win for the both of us!
All because the SS regulations say Social Security is voluntary. Its voluntary because in order to participate you must confess to being a "US citizen" who dont have the protections of the Bill of Rights.
And the law states no laws can be passed that blocks any American from the protections of the Constitution....hense why Social Security is voluntary!
That simple and that easy!
They dont own the land and the grazing rights on public land can be revoked anytime for any reason they see fit.....and they were revoked. The bundy's refused to accept that fact...they lost and will continue to lose.
Two things that are against them:
1. They are federal US citizens.
2. They are grazing on public lands that can be revoked anytime.
"They dont own the land and the grazing rights on public land can be revoked anytime for any reason they see fit.....and they were revoked. The bundy's refused to accept that fact...they lost and will continue to lose. "
I do not wish to be disagreeable and I really do not have deep knowledge of this case or the law, however that never holds me back from throwing in my two cents.
I think the operative phrase here is "public land."
It appears that the the federal government took over state land. Now "public land" has a new definition and becomes "federal lands". I think the Bundy's are trying to have the state, not the federal government decide on their grazing rights, as I believe was the way it worked for them for decades in Nevada. Does the state of Nevada no longer have any administration authority of "public lands" in their state? I know these are rhetorical questions but they seem to more correctly zero in on the crux of what is at issue here.
You are mis-informed. They do not own the land nor do they claim to. Nor is it Public land Bardon v. Northern Pacific Rail Road.Quote:
Originally Posted by 7th trump
The Bundy family has owned grazing rights, not BLM permits since the late 1800,s. These rights are private property under Nevada law. The Congress created the Bureau of Land Management in 1946 and gave them power to write their own rules and regulation under the Administrative Procedures Act of 1946. The Bundy family, like most ranchers signed a contract with the newly minted BLM to pay for managment costs. All the Acts of Congress relating to the BLM say they wiil respect all prior rights, water, mineral, grazing, etc that have been appropriated to the people. The BLM ignored the Congress in the writing of their regulations. In 1993 the regulations were becoming so stringent Cliven Bundy canceled his contract with the BLM. Without a contract they cannot accept payment. Bundy offered the money to Clark County, Nevada who refused it. He put it on deposit in the bank.
The original grazing and water rights recognized by Congress and by Nevada are still intact. He still owns the right to the feed and the water. He also owns the improvements to the springs and fences. The only thing he has done is refuse to contract with the Bureau of Land Management who is required by law to respect his rights.
The jurisdiction of the US District Court and the attorneys is doubtful. Newcomers who do not have vested grazing rights may enter into a contract for a grazing permit. But the must own a base property and water rights. A grazing permit may be revoked. Rights cannot.