Quest for Fair Trial in Concord, NH
posted by The Freedom Fellowship at
11:45 PM
Sign the Ed and Elaine Petition
(click on image for addresses)
PLEASE WRITE TO Ed & Elaine!
Let them know that we still care!
To contribute to their commissary accounts,
GO TO the links below and click on "Inmate money page"
Click here to contribute to Ed's commissary account
Click here to contribute to Elaine's commissary account
Click here to read the legal pleadings in Ed & Elaine's case
Click here to read about the great "capstone right" of We The People: our "Right To Petition"
Click here to read about the Right-to-Petition “V” Protest
If you have not already done so, please register an account at MakeTheStand.com so that we may alert you to important news alerts regarding the Ed & Elaine stand.
*****************************
Business Speaker
ShowEdTheLaw.com
Aaron Russo RIP
1943 - 2007
Subscribe to
Posts [Atom]
SITEMETER
15 Comments:
RE:
"Move over Gandhi..." ---
NOTICE AND AFFIRMATION
Whereas the Declaration of Independence states with clarity that all individuals are endowed with certain unalienable rights; and,
Whereas the Declaration illustrates that said rights are independent of any government; and,
Whereas I affirm that I possess said unalienable rights, and thus possess individual sovereignty; and,
Whereas in Common Law an individual is free to do whatever one wishes, as long as that individual does not trespass upon the rights or property of another individual and honors all lawful contracts;
Now Therefore:
I refuse your paperwork that alleges violations of law or contract foreign to my venue, which no oath, promise, or common law attaches me thereto.
Your documents were received but not accepted.
All items are refused for cause without dishonor and without recourse to me.
Your paperwork is returned herewith because it is irregular, incomplete, and void process.
Further foreign intrusion upon my sovereignty by you or any agent of yours shall result in my charge of $200.00 per hour (or portion thereof) for any time that I must spend responding.
Recovery of charges shall be pursued in de jure common law superior court.
No response from you or your agency/department/entity will be taken as agreement with the statements contained in this Notice and Affirmation, according to de jure common law.
I affirm and attest that, to the best of my knowledge, the above is true and correct. So stated by Affiant: Scott C. Haley, in Skagit County, Washington
(signature)_________________________________
Date _____________
Notice and Affirmation received by:
(print name) _________________________________
(signature)_________________________________
Date ______________
--------------------------------
Will the authorities respect and abide by the above NOTICE, should you have reason to send it to them? No, they won't. So, one might ask, what's the point?
The point is civil disobedience; this Notice is a tool to that end. The point is an unequivocal statement that we are onto their game. The point is to speak up via this Notice.
Sincerely,
Scott
http://individualsovereignty.blogspot.com/
Scott,
Short, sweet and right to the point. It could not be clearer. Awesome.
There's a mentality in this country (and many others) that the government is a controlling element that they must obey. That is utter nonsense. Government is "choice" by individual.
To David---
Thanks very much.
I agree with your view of government. Once that was common knowledge in this country.
Scott:
Been there done that. Result: I no longer live in the US. You will ultimately be faced with three choices: 1. Pay up 2. Go to jail after massive legal defense expenses in time and money fail and then pay up or 3. Leave. Unless you can achieve your goal of mass civil disobedience which overwhelms the current system those who sign and serve such documents will ultimately be gotten to and face the above choices. If you are able to achieve your goal of mass civil disobedience and overwhelm the current enforcement mechanism the fiat USD will collapse leading to one heck of a mess. As much of a long shot as Ron Paul's candidacy is at this point in time it is the most favorable scenario for an orderly return to a constitutionally limited government. Now is the time to work in support of Dr. Paul. Fourteen months is a short time to invest after all the years and sacrifice many have put into this cause. If Dr. Paul cannot be elected on a platform of liberty maybe Americans just don't want to be free. This is so shocking of a concept that at first I could not get my mind around it but it explains a lot of things. From the outside looking in I think this just might be the fundamental flaw in our cause. The flame of liberty does not seem to burn as brightly as it once did in men’s hearts.
To expat---
Yes, I'm aware of the consequences; that's why it has to be done on a massive scale. I've said before that civil disobedience takes as much (or more) courage as does armed revolt. [Plus, the NOTICE is only one tool; there are many others.]
As to our fiat money collapsing, that is only a matter of time anyway.
If you, or anyone, wish to spend your time working for the candidacy of Ron Paul, I sincerely applaud you and wish you well. As for me, I believe it is a complete waste of time and effort. [EXCEPT for the benefit of getting out the message of Liberty, thus possibly recruiting more folks to our cause.] We are WAY past the time when success at restoring the Republic can be accomplished by working within the Establishment system. The fix is in, and has been for a long time.
By the way, you mentioned 14 months of working for Dr. Paul's election. The Repub nomination will be decided in about half that time...although, maybe you meant working for his WRITE-IN candidacy for the Nov '08 election. That's the only way that Dr. Paul will be in the next national election.
It saddens me to come to these conclusions, but that's Realism.
Sincerely,
Scott
p.s. to expat:
I tend to agree with your hypothesis that perhaps many (maybe even most) Americans just don't want to be free---OR, don't really know what freedom entails.
As a Libertarian, I often encounter arguments from my Conservative friends AGAINST the following proposition (really, an axiom): "We are free to do anything we wish, AS LONG AS we do not infringe on the rights or property of others, and as long as we honor all lawful contracts and do not commit fraud." Many Conservatives, never mind those of other political persuasions, believe that is totally wrong.
So... you may very well be right. Or, as I said, maybe most Americans have been dumbed-down and propagandized so much that they simply do not know what Freedom means.
I hope we're wrong.
Scott:
Thank you for your thoughtful replies. I always enjoy reading your posts. We truly are peas in a pod. Remember reading Sherlock Holmes and his crime solving hypothesis that a theory that fits all the facts, no matter how implausible, has to be correct? For us it seems implausible that Americans aren’t drawn to liberty and individual sovereignty, as it is our natural state our heritage and our birthright, but that they would rather live in subrogation under tyrannical rule. Well as implausible as it sounds the facts support this hypothesis. It is impossible to force people to act in their own best interest. Strange but true. Ask any parent. If the masses won't check a square on a ballot for liberty they certainly won't be willing to take up arms or engage in mass civil disobedience. I see Ron Paul's candidacy as a last opportunity for the united States as a constitutional republic. If Dr. Paul doesn't succeed I think my limited time would be better spent on more self serving causes. Just like Camelot maybe our America existed for just one brief shining moment and we were born too late.
PS: My 14 month time frame assumed that Dr. Paul would win the Republican nomination. I am as always the optimist for the cause of liberty as it still does burn in my heart. I know you feel it too.
No argument from me.
Best of Luck,
to us all.
11 th Amendment is in conflict with the third article , sec. 1 clause 2 of the U S constitution could anyone tell me wich of the will prevail ????so how can the justice department judge or rule over anyone especially when it was proat the time of ratication but 11 and 2 th amendment were cast out of the U S constitution. J. L'Amarca
Scott is right about having a website
which will organize us into action,
because civil disobedience will only work if it is done on a massive scale.
If a few dozen people are disobedient
this month and then others the next month, they'll just be arrested.
It must be done on a massive scale at the same time.
To no:
Could you please re-write your last sentence/question? I can't make sense of it.
Sincerely,
Scott
at the time of ratification of the U S Cost. there was 12 articles proposed two of them was not excepted, because the 11th Amendment.Its in conflict then as it is now with the 3rd art. sec.two. of the U S Const. compare the two of them and read it until you understand it then tell me why is the justice department operating unconstitutionally ? if its true that the U S constitution will always superseeds then the eleventh should be thrown out . yours Joe L'Amarca
To no:
In your first comment, you referred to Article III, Section 1, CLAUSE 2.
In your second comment, you referred to Article III, SECTION 2.
So, which is it?
Also, you speak of the Constitution and the Amendments as if they are different things. When an Amendment is passed, it becomes part of the Constitution.
Finally, in your first sentence of your last comment, you say, "...because the 11th Amendment". Did you mean, "...because OF the 11th Amendment"???
PLEASE PROOFREAD your posts.
Thanks,
Scott
p.s. The 11th Amendment is, in part, referring to citizens of one STATE suing another STATE, and only in civil (not criminal) cases. The Amendment gave nonconsenting States (to a suit by a citizen of another State) immunity from the lawsuit. However, later under the 14th Amendment, the Fed Govt was given the power to eliminate State immunity from such lawsuits.
In other words, both Article III (Section 2) and the 11th Amendment deal with the jurisdiction of the Fed Govt over certain types of civil lawsuits. I'm not sure how you related that to your view that the Justice Dept is "operating unconstitutionally", or your question, "how can the justice department judge or rule over anyone[?]...".
The 11th Amendment CHANGED part of Article III, Section 2. That's ONE of the purposes of an Amendment---to legally CHANGE the main body of the Constitution.
p.s. to no---
I certainly agree that the Justice Dept operates unlawfully at times, but not because of Article III versus the 11th Amendment...at least, not as far as I can tell.
Scott Re: the 3rd article , sec. 2 reads The Judicial Powershall extend to all Cases ,in Laws and
Equity, this is in the U S constitution
The 11th Amend. reads The Judicial power of the U S shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity .this is in the year 1794 two years after the Constitution was ratified so from the 11 th amend. and up do you think that the federal mob had something to do with it ?
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home