• "Spreading the ideas of freedom loving people on matters regarding metals, finance, politics, government and many other topics"

Ron Gibson on allodial title via your land patent

Bigjon

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Midas Supporter
Joined
Apr 1, 2010
Messages
4,610
Likes
4,531
#41
Are you able to define the fraud?
https://famguardian.org/Subjects/Activism/Activism.htm

How Scoundrels Corrupted Our Republican Form of Government

3. Graphical Depiction of the Corruption
With the above in mind, we will now add all of the corrupting influences accomplished to our system of government over the years. These are shown with dashed lines representing the application of unlawful or immoral force or fraud. The hollow end of each line indicates the sovereign against which the force or fraud is applied. The number above or next to the dotted line indicates the item in the table that follows the diagram which explains each incidence of force or fraud.

1599543967506.png


After our corrupt politicians are finished socially re-engineering our system of government using the tax code and a corrupted federal judiciary, below is what happens to our original republican government system. This is what we refer to as the “De facto U.S. Government”. It has replaced our “De jure U.S. Government” not through operation of law, but through fraud, force, and corruption. One of or our readers calls this new architecture for social organization “The New Civil Religion of Socialism”, where the collective will of the majority or whatever the judge says is sovereign, not God, and is the object of worship and servitude in courtrooms all over the country, who are run be devil-worshiping modern-day monarchs called “judges”. These tyrants wear black-robes and chant in Latin and perform exorcism on hand-cuffed subjects to remove imaginary “demons” from the people that are defined by majority vote among a population of criminals (by God’s law), homosexuals, drug abusers, adulterers, and atheists. The vilification of these demons are also legislated into existence with ”judge-made law”, which is engineered to maximize litigation and profits to the legal industry. The legal industry, in turn, has been made into a part of the government because it is licensed and regulated by government. This profession “worships” the judge as an idol and is comprised of golf and law school buddies and fellow members of the American Bar Association, who hobnob with the judge and do whatever he says or risk having their attorney license pulled. In this totalitarian socialist democracy/oligarchy shown below, the people have no inalienable or God-given individual rights,, but only statutory “privileges” and franchises granted by the will of the majority that are excise taxable. After all, when God and Truth are demoted to being a selfish creation of man and a politically correct vain fantasy, then the concept of “divine right” vanishes entirely from our political system.

1599574844218.png


Would you rob your neighbor? No you say? Well then, would you look the other way while someone else robs him in your name? Government is YOUR AGENT. If government robs your neighbor, God will hold you, not the agent who did it for you, personally responsible, because government is your agent. God put you in charge of your government and you are the steward. Frederic Bastiat described the nature of this horrible corruption of the system in the following book on our website:

The Law, by Frederic Bastiat​
If you want to know what the above type of government is like spiritually, economically, and politically, read the first-hand accounts in the book of Judges found in the Bible. Corruption, sin, servitude, violence, and wars characterize this notable and most ignominious period and “social experiment” as documented in the Bible. Now do you understand why God’s law mandates that we serve ONLY Him and not be slaves of man or government? When we don’t, the above totalitarian socialist democracy/tyranny is the result, where politicians and judges in government become the only sovereign and the people are there to bow down to and “worship” and serve an evil and corrupt government as slaves.
 
Last edited:

Silvestor

Silver Member
Silver Miner
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
224
Likes
162
#42
Maybe there is some loophole that allows one to get allodial title on property, but I suspect if enough people were to do this then the loophole would be closed. Property taxes don't bother me; its just HIGH property taxes that I have a problem with.
 

arminius

Argentate Bluster
Platinum Bling
Midas Supporter ++
Joined
Jun 6, 2011
Messages
6,210
Likes
9,372
#43
Property taxes don't bother me; its just HIGH property taxes that I have a problem with.
So the sin is ok, the problem is with the magnitude of the sin.


:laughing:
 

Silvestor

Silver Member
Silver Miner
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
224
Likes
162
#44
Taxes are a sin? How would anything(roads, schools, police, fire, street lights) get paid for? Donations? The libertarian fantasy of everthing private is a garbage notion that will never happen. Some community property and service are neccessary.
 
Last edited:

arminius

Argentate Bluster
Platinum Bling
Midas Supporter ++
Joined
Jun 6, 2011
Messages
6,210
Likes
9,372
#45
No taxes are just fine, so just and proporationate. Just tax anything you want.

Collecting is a whole nother ballgame...
 

Bigjon

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Midas Supporter
Joined
Apr 1, 2010
Messages
4,610
Likes
4,531
#46
Taxes are a sin? How would anything(roads, schools, police, fire, street lights) get paid for? Donations? The libertarian fantasy of everthing private is a garbage notion that will never happen. Some community property and service are neccessary.
I believe the founders of this country envisioned that commerce would be taxed to pay for all the infrastructure that supported that commerce. More like a value added tax than a property tax.

The land is not taxed just the production of the land is taxed. Sort of like god's ten percent.
 

snoop4truth

Silver Miner
Joined
Mar 21, 2015
Messages
598
Likes
126
#47
Chieftain,

YOUR COMMENT: So how would you explain essentially decades of the same unconstitutional crap that has the American nation and its people in such a diabolical state?

MY RESPONSE: There is no decades of "unconstitutional crap" to explain. Your perception otherwise is mistaken. The fact that you do not like the law will not make it "unconstitutional". The Constitution does not protect us from laws that some of us regard as unpopular.

YOUR COMMENT: Many people have come and gone from public offices (some have overstayed their welcome) and from both sides of the political landscape, so...?

MY RESPONSE: The current system has some defects (ALL OF WHICH ARE CONSTITUTIONAL). These defects result in many of our elected representatives having a conflict of interest. Under current law, campaign contributions largely determine who Americans vote for on election day.. So, those who contribute the most money to political campaigns unduly influence election outcomes in the United States.

Ordinary Americans are always "outspent" in elections by large corporations, the billionaire class, defense contractors, big banks, big insurance Wall Street and AIPAC, etc. Because many of our elected officials are more loyal to those who finance their campaigns than the ordinary Americans they supposedly represent, our elected representatives have divided loyalties. That is the problem. BUT, IT IS CONSTITUTIONAL says the current Supreme Court.

All of this could be corrected by a Constitutional amendment (or possibly legislation) requiring public funding of elections campaigns and banning all private campaign contributions. Under public funding of elections, no elected representative would have to be subservient and loyal to private donors, like large corporations, the billionaire class, defense contractors, big banks, big insurance Wall Street and AIPAC, etc. This way, our elected representatives could afford to be loyal to ordinary Americans.

Under this system, every party running for the same elected office would receive the same amount of public funds for their campaign. So, political ideas would determine election outcomes, not private donations. While this may sound expensive on the surface, this expense pales in comparison to the cost of the current system whereby Americans pay for multi-trillion dollar wars to advance the interests of private oil companies and to insure that oil is traded in Federal Reserve currency and to install Rothschild-owned central banks in conquered nations or to pay for tax breaks for the rich, etc. Nothing is more expensive to ordinary Americans as the current system. Nothing.

Further, our elected republican form of government is under attack by political partisan operatives at the state level under the authority of the governor. Under current law, STATE law governs FEDERAL elections (tenth amendment). So, political operatives in state government rig Congressional elections by gerrymandering. By drawing the correct lines on a map, these operatives can predetermine the outcome of all Congressional races, even when the opposing party is actually the majority party in the state. Operatives have developed software that is so precise that it takes into account the party affiliation and previous voting patterns of every household in the state. These party affiliations and voting patterns determine where district lines are drawn to insure the desired outcome.

Note that the people corrupting our republican form of government ARE NOT THE GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS THEMSELVES. The people corrupting our republican form of government ARE PEOPLE OUTSIDE THE GOVERNMENT who finance legislation to advance their own interests. It is these people who are our real enemies.

Finally, these political operatives engage in secret "voter roll purging" under authority of the state governor. This fraud involves operatives secretly deleting the names of registered voters from the voter rolls (so that their vote will not be counted even when they vote). The pretext that these operatives use for committing this secret fraud is to "prevent voter fraud". These operatives use three pretexts (excuses) for what they do.

First, in states where "convicted felons" are not allowed to vote and "Willie Jones" is a convicted felon who resides in that state, operatives secretly DELETE ALL PERSONS WITH THE NAME "WILLIE JONES" FROM ALL VOTER ROLLS. The end result is that 10,000 voters are secretly deleted from the voter rolls allegedly to prevent a single felon from voting illegally. But, the REAL objective in doing this is to delete thousands of black men from voter rolls because "Willie Jones" is a common name for black men and black men tend to vote Democratic. The former governor of Florida, JEB Bush ensured that his brother, George W. Bush, won that state election (and therefore, won the White House) by using this very stunt. In response, Florida voters passed a referendum amending the Florida Constitution to allow non-violent, convicted felons to vote again precisely to prevent a governor from ever engaging in this stunt again.

Second, these operatives delete from voter rolls all the names of voters in one state if a person in a neighboring state has the same (or similar) name. Again, ethnic names are targeted because they often reflect a race and a party voting preference. So, if "Juan Garcia" lives in one state and another "Juan Garcia" lives in a neighboring state, operatives secretly delete all voters named "Juan Garcia: from all voter rolls allegedly "to prevent Juan Garcia from voting twice by crossing state lines and voting again in another state". But, the real objective is to reduce the impact of Hispanic voters in elections.

Third, operatives in many states use a similar stunt to delete unwanted voters from their voter rolls. The pretext they use is to delete "inactive voters" from voter rolls. Again, ethnic names are targeted because of likely voter preferences. Here's how it works. If "Shewanda Williams" did not vote in the last election cycle, her name is secretly deleted from voter rolls because she is "inactive". As similar version of this fraud involves election officials sending a legal document to ethnic neighborhoods in the mail. In complicated legal terms, the document tells the recipient to fill out the form and return it to the elections office to let election officials know whether they still live at the same address or whether they have moved elsewhere. Recipients in ethnic neighborhoods rarely fill out these forms, much less return them. Not surprisingly, a recipient who does not return the form in ethnic neighborhoods is secretly deleted from the state voter rolls. The state of Georgia was just caught deleting 333,000 voters from their voter rolls using this particular stunt in the most recent election.

YOUR COMMENT: Surely you see the disconnect between the statutes and rules of questionable legitimacy and what is actually happening in the country?

MY RESPONSE: The only laws that I regard as questionable or illegitimate that are harming the country are the Federal Reserve Act (a statute), The Patriot Act (a statute), "Citizens United" (a court decision) and "Shelby County v. Holder" (a court decision). Otherwise, my concerns are expressed above.

With Respect,

Snoop
 
Last edited:

chieftain

Too much pawpcorn
Joined
Jan 4, 2020
Messages
2,891
Likes
4,178
#48
There is no decades of "unconstitutional crap" to explain. Your perception otherwise is mistaken. The fact that you do not like the law will not make it "unconstitutional". The Constitution does not protect us from laws that some of us regard as unpopular.
From my understanding, the Constitution should offer considerable protection from unjust and idiotic statutes by virtue of it limiting what the government can do and its power.

As for your writing about campaign funding, I can't fault it.

The only laws that I regard as questionable or illegitimate which are harming the country are the Federal Reserve Act (a statute), The Patriot Act (a statute), "Citizens United" (a court decision) and "Shelby County v. Holder" (a court decision). Othwise, my concerns are expressed above.
And all the statutes and rulings that have stemmed from the Federal Reserve Act.
 

snoop4truth

Silver Miner
Joined
Mar 21, 2015
Messages
598
Likes
126
#49
From my understanding, the Constitution should offer considerable protection from unjust and idiotic statutes by virtue of it limiting what the government can do and its power.

As for your writing about campaign funding, I can't fault it.

And all the statutes and rulings that have stemmed from the Federal Reserve Act.
Chieftain,

YOUR COMMENT: From my understanding, the Constitution should offer considerable protection from unjust and idiotic statutes by virtue of it limiting what the government can do and its power.

MY RESPONSE: The only limits on legislation are those expressly stated in the Constitution. There is no Constitutional prohibition for what you call unjust and idiotic statutes. Even the Federal Reserve Act (which is absolute madness) is Constitutional, because no Constitutional prohibition existed which prevented Congress from delegating its money creation duties to private interests (although there should be such a Constitutional prohibition).

YOUR COMMENT: As for your writing about campaign funding, I can't fault it.

MY RESPONSE: Yep. Public campaign funding alone would result in the Federal Reserve being shut down.

YOUR COMMENT: And all the statutes and rulings that have stemmed from the Federal Reserve Act

MY RESPONSE: I agree that some legislation is purchased by campaign contributions traceable to the Federal Reserve (directly or indirectly). But, court rulings are not affected by the Federal Reserve Act because federal judges and Supreme Court Justices do not depend on campaign contributions to get a seat on the bench.

With Respect,

Snoop
 
Last edited:

snoop4truth

Silver Miner
Joined
Mar 21, 2015
Messages
598
Likes
126
#50
https://famguardian.org/Subjects/Activism/Activism.htm

How Scoundrels Corrupted Our Republican Form of Government

3. Graphical Depiction of the Corruption
With the above in mind, we will now add all of the corrupting influences accomplished to our system of government over the years. These are shown with dashed lines representing the application of unlawful or immoral force or fraud. The hollow end of each line indicates the sovereign against which the force or fraud is applied. The number above or next to the dotted line indicates the item in the table that follows the diagram which explains each incidence of force or fraud.

View attachment 179798

After our corrupt politicians are finished socially re-engineering our system of government using the tax code and a corrupted federal judiciary, below is what happens to our original republican government system. This is what we refer to as the “De facto U.S. Government”. It has replaced our “De jure U.S. Government” not through operation of law, but through fraud, force, and corruption. One of or our readers calls this new architecture for social organization “The New Civil Religion of Socialism”, where the collective will of the majority or whatever the judge says is sovereign, not God, and is the object of worship and servitude in courtrooms all over the country, who are run be devil-worshiping modern-day monarchs called “judges”. These tyrants wear black-robes and chant in Latin and perform exorcism on hand-cuffed subjects to remove imaginary “demons” from the people that are defined by majority vote among a population of criminals (by God’s law), homosexuals, drug abusers, adulterers, and atheists. The vilification of these demons are also legislated into existence with ”judge-made law”, which is engineered to maximize litigation and profits to the legal industry. The legal industry, in turn, has been made into a part of the government because it is licensed and regulated by government. This profession “worships” the judge as an idol and is comprised of golf and law school buddies and fellow members of the American Bar Association, who hobnob with the judge and do whatever he says or risk having their attorney license pulled. In this totalitarian socialist democracy/oligarchy shown below, the people have no inalienable or God-given individual rights,, but only statutory “privileges” and franchises granted by the will of the majority that are excise taxable. After all, when God and Truth are demoted to being a selfish creation of man and a politically correct vain fantasy, then the concept of “divine right” vanishes entirely from our political system.

View attachment 179818

Would you rob your neighbor? No you say? Well then, would you look the other way while someone else robs him in your name? Government is YOUR AGENT. If government robs your neighbor, God will hold you, not the agent who did it for you, personally responsible, because government is your agent. God put you in charge of your government and you are the steward. Frederic Bastiat described the nature of this horrible corruption of the system in the following book on our website:

The Law, by Frederic Bastiat​
If you want to know what the above type of government is like spiritually, economically, and politically, read the first-hand accounts in the book of Judges found in the Bible. Corruption, sin, servitude, violence, and wars characterize this notable and most ignominious period and “social experiment” as documented in the Bible. Now do you understand why God’s law mandates that we serve ONLY Him and not be slaves of man or government? When we don’t, the above totalitarian socialist democracy/tyranny is the result, where politicians and judges in government become the only sovereign and the people are there to bow down to and “worship” and serve an evil and corrupt government as slaves.


Amateur legal theorists are unable to use the law itself to prove their bullshit claims about the law. So, they use non-law in an effort to prove their bullshit claims about the law, like the bullshit above. But, cut-and-paste bullshit written by other amateur legal theorists does not prove the law, it only proves what amateur legal theorists MISTAKENLY BELIEVE the law is (which is always OPPOSITE to what the law actually is).

But, the one and only way to prove the law IS BY USING THE ACTUAL WRITTEN WORDS OF THE LAW ITSELF.. But, this simple legal principal is simply too complex for amateur legal theorists to comprehend. So, they desperately look everywhere for proof about the law EXCEPT FOR THE WRITTEN WORDS OF THE LAW ITSELF.

Look guys, this is simple. If there is a case that says it, then it is the law. If there is no case that says it, then it is not the law. THAT IS PRECISELY WHY I POST CASE LAW HERE IN MY POSTS, to show actual PROOF of what the law actually is. But, amateur legal theorists are either unable or unwilling to read the actual written words of the law itself. This is why they always remain ignorant of the law and why they fall prey to charlatans who peddle amateur legal theories about the law (which are always OPPOSITE to what the law actually is).

This is why amateur legal theorists mindlessly idolize and worship know-nothing, uneducated posers like Ron Gibson (above), David Lester Straight, Rod Class, Anthony Troy Williams, Call Miller, Eddie Craig, Marc Stevens, Karl Lentz, Bob Thornton, John Smith, Mark Passio and all the rest of them. With these posers, amateur legal theorists will never have to read a single word of the law because these posers do not teach the law. They teach a false belief system which justifies the mindless hatred that amateur legal theorists have for the ELECTED government and the law of "We the People" that they do not know the first thing about.
 
Last edited:

Bigjon

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Midas Supporter
Joined
Apr 1, 2010
Messages
4,610
Likes
4,531
#51
Amateur legal theorists are unable to use the law itself to prove their bullshit claims about the law. So, they use non-law in an effort to prove their bullshit claims about the law, like the bullshit above. But, cut-and-paste bullshit written by other amateur legal theorists does not prove the law, it only proves what amateur legal theorists MISTAKENLY BELIEVE the law is (which is always OPPOSITE to what the law actually is).

But, the one and only way to prove the law IS BY USING THE ACTUAL WRITTEN WORDS OF THE LAW ITSELF.. But, this simple legal principal is simply too complex for amateur legal theorists to comprehend. So, they desperately look everywhere for proof about the law EXCEPT FOR THE WRITTEN WORDS OF THE LAW ITSELF.

Look guys, this is simple. If there is a case that says it, then it is the law. If there is no case that says it, then it is not the law. THAT IS PRECISELY WHY I POST CASE LAW HERE IN MY POSTS, to show actual PROOF of what the law actually is. But, amateur legal theorists are either unable or unwilling to read the actual written words of the law itself. This is why they always remain ignorant of the law and why they fall prey to charlatans who peddle amateur legal theories about the law (which are always OPPOSITE to what the law actually is).

This is why amateur legal theorists mindlessly idolize and worship know-nothing, uneducated posers like Ron Gibson (above), David Lester Straight, Rod Class, Anthony Troy Williams, Call Miller, Eddie Craig, Marc Stevens, Karl Lentz, Bob Thornton, John Smith, Mark Passio and all the rest of them. With these posers, amateur legal theorists will never have to read a single word of the law because these posers do not teach the law. They teach a false belief system which justifies the mindless hatred that amateur legal theorists have for the government and the law of "We the People" that they do not know the first thing about..
Written be a Lieyer.
nuff said.
 

snoop4truth

Silver Miner
Joined
Mar 21, 2015
Messages
598
Likes
126
#52
Written be a Lieyer.
nuff said.
YOUR COMMENT: Written be a Lieyer. nuff said.

MY RESPONSE: Not according to the actual written words of the law itself.

And, that is all that matters.

Not the worthless allegations of an amateur legal theorist.

To win a debate about the law and the legal system, you will need to use the actual written words of the law itself.

Amateur legal theories, cut and paste claims written by other amateur legal theorists and petty little insults ("lieyer") will not do the trick.

Because you oppose any contact with the actual written words of the law itself, you are always destined to lose any legal debate with anyone.

Stop mindlessly parroting the claims of delusional, uneducated, illiterate charlatans and posers who know nothing of the law.

Try using the actual written words of the law itself for a change.


It will empower you like nothing else ever will.

Only then do you become a real threat in a legal debate (and in court).

Best Regards,

Snoop
 

arminius

Argentate Bluster
Platinum Bling
Midas Supporter ++
Joined
Jun 6, 2011
Messages
6,210
Likes
9,372
#53
No one in their right minds want to go in your loaded, totally self incorporated money making so called court "businesses" pretending to be faux government but are real corporations, intended for profit, not for justice. There are many ways to avoid your bullshit fucking pretend justice, or rather your JUST US lier agenda to subvert true enacted law for lawyer profit.
 

Bigjon

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Midas Supporter
Joined
Apr 1, 2010
Messages
4,610
Likes
4,531
#54
YOUR COMMENT: Written be a Lieyer. nuff said.

MY RESPONSE: Not according to the actual written words of the law itself.

And, that is all that matters.

Not the worthless allegations of an amateur legal theorist.

To win a debate about the law and the legal system, you will need to use the actual written words of the law itself.

Amateur legal theories, cut and paste claims written by other amateur legal theorists and petty little insults ("lieyer") will not do the trick.

Because you oppose any contact with the actual written words of the law itself, you are always destined to lose any legal debate with anyone.

Stop mindlessly parroting the claims of delusional, uneducated, illiterate charlatans and posers who know nothing of the law.


Try using the actual written words of the law itself for a change.

It will empower you like nothing else ever will.

Only then do you become a real threat in a legal debate (and in court).

Best Regards,

Snoop
The courts you defend can indict a ham sandwich and if there were any money in that we would soon see that.
Seat belt laws.
Mask laws.
Smart virus law, where the virus knows to only infect/injure in mom and pop stores while not infecting customers of any large corporation stores.
We see your mindless went to school judges in action every day.

Will your system you call law make us take the jab of toxic poison or be kept from rights to travel, work, buy, sell and live as free men?
I think so.
I think you represent the scum of the earth.

Your system is tyranny for we the people, while it protects all the liars and thieves.
 
Last edited:

Bigjon

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Midas Supporter
Joined
Apr 1, 2010
Messages
4,610
Likes
4,531
#55
These guys are exposing snoops version that she calls law:

Don't think this would last 1 country minute if the people were in charge of the courts.
The shit that is going on takes a system of organized crime by lieyers who wear black robes.


These guys are exposing the wonderful Public Private Partnership "our" laws have created.
 
Last edited:

Bigjon

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Midas Supporter
Joined
Apr 1, 2010
Messages
4,610
Likes
4,531
#56
Snoop says professional courts are the rule.

I say they are lieyers, thieves and scoundrels providing an inferior product for a greater expense.

Professional equals Piled Higher and Deeper.

h ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iUH5nW10aW8

Jacquie Figg - Without The Right Seal It Is Not A True Court

h ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OtZBBLmFYWw


Jacquie Figg's Step By Step Explanation - Abatement of Court Action
 
Last edited:

Bigjon

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Midas Supporter
Joined
Apr 1, 2010
Messages
4,610
Likes
4,531
#57
John Whitehead's Commentary
Justice Sleeps and ‘We the People’ Suffer: No, the U.S. Supreme Court Will Not Save Us
https://www.rutherford.org/publicat...er_no_the_u.s._supreme_court_will_not_save_us


124 15 8
By John W. Whitehead
September 21, 2020

“The Constitution is not neutral. It was designed to take the government off the backs of the people.”—Justice William O. Douglas


The U.S. Supreme Court will not save us.

It doesn’t matter which party gets to pick the replacement to fill Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg’s seat on the U.S. Supreme Court. The battle that is gearing up right now is yet more distraction and spin to keep us oblivious to the steady encroachment on our rights by the architects of the American Police State.

Americans can no longer rely on the courts to mete out justice.

Although the courts were established to serve as Courts of Justice, what we have been saddled with, instead, are Courts of Order. This is true at all levels of the judiciary, but especially so in the highest court of the land, the U.S. Supreme Court, which is seemingly more concerned with establishing order and protecting government interests than with upholding the rights of the people enshrined in the U.S. Constitution.

As a result, the police and other government agents have been generally empowered to probe, poke, pinch, taser, search, seize, strip and generally manhandle anyone they see fit in almost any circumstance, all with the general blessing of the courts.

Rarely do the concerns of the populace prevail.

When presented with an opportunity to loosen the government’s noose that keeps getting cinched tighter and tighter around the necks of the American people, what does our current Supreme Court usually do?

It ducks. Prevaricates. Remains silent. Speaks to the narrowest possible concern.

More often than not, it gives the government and its corporate sponsors the benefit of the doubt, which leaves “we the people” hanging by a thread.

Rarely do the justices of the U.S. Supreme Court— preoccupied with their personal politics, cocooned in a world of privilege, partial to those with power, money and influence, and narrowly focused on a shrinking docket (the court accepts on average 80 cases out of 8,000 each year)—venture beyond their rarefied comfort zones.

Every so often, the justices toss a bone to those who fear they have abdicated their allegiance to the Constitution. Too often, however, the Supreme Court tends to march in lockstep with the police state.

In recent years, for example, the Court has ruled that police officers can use lethal force in car chases without fear of lawsuits; police officers can stop cars based only on “anonymous” tips; Secret Service agents are not accountable for their actions, as long as they’re done in the name of “security”; citizens only have a right to remain silent if they assert it; police have free reign to use drug-sniffing dogs as “search warrants on leashes,” justifying any and all police searches of vehicles stopped on the roadside; police can forcibly take your DNA, whether or not you’ve been convicted of a crime; police can stop, search, question and profile citizens and non-citizens alike; police can subject Americans to virtual strip searches, no matter the “offense”; police can break into homes without a warrant, even if it’s the wrong home; and it’s a crime to not identify yourself when a policeman asks your name.

The cases the Supreme Court refuses to hear, allowing lower court judgments to stand, are almost as critical as the ones they rule on. Some of these cases have delivered devastating blows to the lives and rights enshrined in the Constitution. By remaining silent, the Court has affirmed that: legally owning a firearm is enough to justify a no-knock raid by police; the military can arrest and detain American citizens; students can be subjected to random lockdowns and mass searches at school; and police officers who don’t know their actions violate the law aren’t guilty of breaking the law.

You think you’ve got rights? Think again.

All of those freedoms we cherish—the ones enshrined in the Constitution, the ones that affirm our right to free speech and assembly, due process, privacy, bodily integrity, the right to not have police seize our property without a warrant, or search and detain us without probable cause—amount to nothing when the government and its agents are allowed to disregard those prohibitions on government overreach at will.

This is the grim reality of life in the American police state.

In fact, our so-called rights have been reduced to technicalities in the face of the government’s ongoing power grabs.

In the police state being erected around us, the police can probe, poke, pinch, taser, search, seize, strip and generally manhandle anyone they see fit in almost any circumstance, all with the general blessing of the courts.

This is what one would call a slow death by a thousand cuts, only it’s the Fourth Amendment being inexorably bled to death by the very institution that is supposed to be protecting it (and us) from government abuse.

Remember, it was a unanimous Supreme Court which determined that police officers may use drug-sniffing dogs to conduct warrantless searches of cars during routine traffic stops. That same Court gave police the green light to taser defenseless motorists, strip search non-violent suspects arrested for minor incidents, and break down people’s front doors without evidence that they have done anything wrong.

Make no mistake about it: this is what constitutes “law and order” in the American police state.

These are the hallmarks of the emerging American police state, where police officers, no longer mere servants of the people entrusted with keeping the peace, are part of an elite ruling class dependent on keeping the masses corralled, under control, and treated like suspects and enemies rather than citizens.

Whether it’s police officers breaking through people’s front doors and shooting them dead in their homes or strip searching motorists on the side of the road, in a police state such as ours, these instances of abuse are not condemned by the government. Rather, they are continually validated by a judicial system that kowtows to every police demand, no matter how unjust, no matter how in opposition to the Constitution.

The system is rigged.

Because the system is rigged and the U.S. Supreme Court—the so-called “people’s court”—has exchanged its appointed role as a gatekeeper of justice for its new role as maintainer of the status quo, the police state will keep winning and “we the people” will keep losing.

By refusing to accept any of the eight or so qualified immunity cases before it this past term that strove to hold police accountable for official misconduct, the Supreme Court delivered a chilling reminder that in the American police state, ‘we the people’ are at the mercy of law enforcement officers who have almost absolute discretion to decide who is a threat, what constitutes resistance, and how harshly they can deal with the citizens they were appointed to ‘serve and protect.”

This is how qualified immunity keeps the police state in power.

Lawyers tend to offer a lot of complicated, convoluted explanations for the doctrine of qualified immunity, which was intended to insulate government officials from frivolous lawsuits, but the real purpose of qualified immunity is to rig the system, ensuring that abusive agents of the government almost always win and the victims of government abuse almost always lose.

How else do you explain a doctrine that requires victims of police violence to prove that their abusers knew their behavior was illegal because it had been deemed so in a nearly identical case at some prior time?

It’s a setup for failure.

A review of critical court rulings over the past several decades, including rulings affirming qualified immunity protections for government agents by the U.S. Supreme Court, reveals a startling and steady trend towards pro-police state rulings by an institution concerned more with establishing order, protecting the ruling class, and insulating government agents from charges of wrongdoing than with upholding the rights enshrined in the Constitution.

Indeed, as Reuters reports, qualified immunity “has become a nearly failsafe tool to let police brutality go unpunished and deny victims their constitutional rights.”

Worse, as Reuters concluded, “the Supreme Court has built qualified immunity into an often insurmountable police defense by intervening in cases mostly to favor the police.”

For those in need of a reminder of all the ways in which the Supreme Court has made us sitting ducks at the mercy of the American police state, let me offer the following.

As a result of court rulings in recent years, police can claim qualified immunity for warrantless searches. Police can claim qualified immunity for warrantless arrests based on mere suspicion. Police can claim qualified immunity for using excessive force against protesters. Police can claim qualified immunity for shooting a fleeing suspect in the back. Police can claim qualified immunity for shooting a mentally impaired person. Police officers can use lethal force in car chases without fear of lawsuits. Police can stop, arrest and search citizens without reasonable suspicion or probable cause. Police officers can stop cars based on “anonymous” tips or for “suspicious” behavior such as having a reclined car seat or driving too carefully. Police can forcibly take your DNA, whether or not you’ve been convicted of a crime. Police can use the “fear for my life” rationale as an excuse for shooting unarmed individuals. Police have free reign to use drug-sniffing dogs as “search warrants on leashes.” Not only are police largely protected by qualified immunity, but police dogs are also off the hook for wrongdoing.

Police can subject Americans to strip searches, no matter the “offense.” Police can break into homes without a warrant, even if it’s the wrong home. Police can use knock-and-talk tactics as a means of sidestepping the Fourth Amendment. Police can carry out no-knock raids if they believe announcing themselves would be dangerous. Police can recklessly open fire on anyone that might be “armed.” Police can destroy a home during a SWAT raid, even if the owner gives their consent to enter and search it. Police can suffocate someone, deliberately or inadvertently, in the process of subduing them.

To sum it up, we are dealing with a nationwide epidemic of court-sanctioned police violence carried out with impunity against individuals posing little or no real threat. In this way, the justices of the United States Supreme Court—through their deference to police power, preference for security over freedom, and evisceration of our most basic rights for the sake of order and expediency—have become the architects of the American police state.

So where does that leave us?

For those deluded enough to believe that they’re living the American dream—where the government represents the people, where the people are equal in the eyes of the law, where the courts are arbiters of justice, where the police are keepers of the peace, and where the law is applied equally as a means of protecting the rights of the people—it’s time to wake up.

We no longer have a representative government, a rule of law, or justice.

Liberty has fallen to legalism. Freedom has fallen to fascism.

Justice has become jaded, jaundiced and just plain unjust.

And for too many, the American dream of freedom and opportunity has turned into a living nightmare.

Given the turbulence of our age, with its police overreach, military training drills on American soil, domestic surveillance, SWAT team raids, asset forfeiture, wrongful convictions, profit-driven prisons, and corporate corruption, the need for a guardian of the people’s rights has never been greater.

Yet as I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People,, neither the president, nor the legislatures, nor the courts will save us from the police state that holds us in its clutches.

So we can waste our strength over the next few weeks and months raging over the makeup of the Supreme Court or we can stand united against the tyrant in our midst.

After all, the president, the legislatures, and the courts are all on the government’s payroll.

They are the police state.

WC: 1995
ABOUT JOHN W. WHITEHEAD
Constitutional attorney and author John W. Whitehead is founder and president of The Rutherford Institute. His new book Battlefield America: The War on the American People is available at www.amazon.com. Whitehead can be contacted at johnw@rutherford.org.
Publication Guidelines / Reprint Permission
John W. Whitehead’s weekly commentaries are available for publication to newspapers and web publications at no charge. Please contact staff@rutherford.org to obtain reprint permission.
 
Last edited:

Bigjon

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Midas Supporter
Joined
Apr 1, 2010
Messages
4,610
Likes
4,531
#61
David Straight tells how you lost your land while you even had a land patent on it.
You have to get your status changed from being a US Citizen Slave to one of the people as a State National.
49 minute mark if vid doesn't start in right place.


h ttps://youtu.be/eMmzwmKYhGY?t=2955

 

snoop4truth

Silver Miner
Joined
Mar 21, 2015
Messages
598
Likes
126
#62
ABOUT RENOUNCING U.S. CITIZENSHIP.

David Lester Straight seems sincere, well-meaning and acts as if he believes what he says about the law and government. But, he has a number of amateur misconceptions about the law and government. So, he is unwittingly misleading his followers.

Straight recommends using his form "affidavit" to renounce U.S. citizenship which he claims will render a person exempt from the legal obligation to pay property taxes and mortgage payments, the application of U.S. laws, U.S. income tax obligations and other U.S. financial obligations. Straight does not know that his affidavit alone WILL NOT WORK to renounce U.S. citizenship in the first place and would not operate to absolve a person of U.S. law, U.S. tax obligations and U.S. financial obligations even if it did work to renounce U.S. citizenship.

In "IN RE YUSKA, Bankr. Court, Iowa 2017", the court held, " [The affiant's] ATTEMPT to unilaterally declare himself free of citizenship and its responsibilities WAS ... INEFFECTIVE. HE CANNOT CONTINUE TO RESIDE HERE IN THE UNITED STATES AND CONTINUE TO ENJOY THE BENEFITS OF CITIZENSHIP WHILE SIMULTANEOUSLY CLAIMING HE IS NOT A U.S. CITIZEN. 8 U.S.C. § 1481 (setting forth the ways a citizen may renounce citizenship). AN AFFIDAVIT PURPORTING TO RENOUNCE CITIZENSHIP IS NOT EFFECTIVE UNDER 8 U.S.C. § 1481, because, among other things, "A THRESHOLD REQUIREMENT UNDER THESE PROCEDURES IS THAT THE CITIZEN BE OUTSIDE THE BORDERS OF THE UNITED STATES in order for his renunciation to take effect." Duncan v. U.S. Dep't of State, No. 7:08-CV-00564, 2008 WL 4821323, at *1-2 (W.D. Va. Oct. 30, 2008)." See the last 6 full paragraphs here. https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=15933401354161493454&q=yuska+2017+iowa+"He+cannot+continue+to+reside+here"&hl=en&as_sdt=40003

Further, the law applies exactly the same to citizens as non-citizens, state citizens or non-state citizens, U.S. citizens or non-U.S. citizens, state nationals or non-state nationals, legal aliens and illegal aliens. Status changes nothing whatsoever. Travel.state.gov puts it this way, "Persons who wish to renounce U.S. citizenship should be aware of the fact that RENUNCIATION OF U.S. CITIZENSHIP MAY HAVE NO EFFECT ON THEIR U.S. TAX ... OBLIGATIONS (contact the Internal Revenue Service or U.S. Selective Service for more information). In addition, THE ACT OF RENOUNCING U.S. CITIZENSHIP DOES NOT ALLOW PERSONS TO AVOID POSSIBLE PROSECUTION FOR CRIMES WHICH THEY MAY HAVE COMMITTED OR MAY COMMIT IN THE FUTURE WHICH VIOLATE U.S. LAW, or escape the repayment of financial obligations, including child support payments, previously incurred in the United States or incurred as United States citizens abroad. "https://travel.state.gov/content/tr...nship/Renunciation-US-Nationality-Abroad.html.

So, there is no advantage in attempting to renounce U.S. citizenship whatsoever. Renouncing U.S. citizenship does not render your property exempt from property taxes, foreclosure or imminent domain.

More importantly, Straight has fabricated at least part, if not all of his his background, credentials (former special forces, former secret service, former deputy sheriff, member of presidential task force, gets people out prison, etc.) and all of his legal alleged victories (personally recovered 250 children wrongfully kidnapped by the CPS and responsible for drafting the paperwork that resulted in 800 court victories, referring to his worthless affidavit). So, not only do we have a competence problem, we also have a character and integrity problem.

I am an attorney with access to information which others do not have. Straight's history of all-out war against our federal, state and local governments goes back for decades and is a matter of record. I have copies of that record. There is no mention in that entire record that Straight was ever a Navy Seal, secret service agent, a deputy sheriff, a member of a Presidential Task Force, etc. If more be necessary, Straight's anti-government conduct as reflected in his record disqualifies him for governmental employment IN ANY CAPACITY, much less in a law enforcement capacity whereby he would be issued a firearm.

Moreover, Straight claims to have authored the "paperwork" which has resulted in 800 legal victories in court (a reference to his ineffective "affidavit" renouncing U.S. citizenship). As an attorney, I can assure you that is claim is false. Straight mistakenly believes that his "affidavit" is effective to renounce U.S. citizenship (something not true when the person renouncing citizenship is standing on U.S. soil). Further, Straight mistakenly believes that renouncing U.S. citizenship makes a person exempt from U.S. law, U.S. taxes and U.S. debts. But, none of this is so. Non-citizens are treated exactly the same as citizens under the law. That means Straight's premise is so fatally flawed, his "paperwork" could not possibly result in legal victories of any type. Suffice it to say, Straight NEVER authored any "paperwork" which resulted in 800 legal victories in court.

Finally, Straight claims to have recovered 250 children from Child Protective Services. (Straight lost his own children to CPS early in his adult life which explains the genesis of his hatred for government). Straight claims he achieves this miraculous success by threatening to report CPS officials for imaginary crimes that he mistakenly believes they commit in the performance of their duties protecting children. But, CPS officials do not commit the crimes that Straight believes they commit. As an attorney, I can assure you that this release of 250 children NEVER occurred. Only a judge can release a child from CPS (not CPS officials threatened with extortion) and Straight is forbidden to even speak to a judge in a CPS case (unless the children in question are his own and Straight does not have 250 children). Suffice it to say that Straight NEVER caused 250 children to be released from CPS. NEVER.

I am an attorney who investigates fake legal gurus, like those below. In my experience, I have concluded that EVERY FAKE LEGAL EXPERT ASSUMES QUALIFICATIONS, EXPERIENCE AND CREDENTIALS THEY DO NOT ACTUALLY HAVE to dupe their followers into believing them.

DAVID LESTER STRAIGHT IS NO DIFFERENT FROM ALL THE REST OF THEM!

Examples:

Rodney DALE Class pretended to be "Judge DALE (retired)" when writing FAKE legal books which revealed FAKE legal information about a FAKE legal system which does not exist. Class currently claims to be a "private attorney general" (which, unknown to Class, actually means the "civil rights" client of an attorney in federal court) and a "14th amendment, section 4 bounty hunter" (which, unknown to Class, actually means a Civil War soldier who enlisted in the Union Army to collect an enlistment bonus, then called a "bounty") . Class even wears a fraudulently-marked costume and drives a fraudulently-marked vehicle fraudulently indicating such. In reality, Class is a multi-convicted, weapons-related felon who is on the U.S. terrorist watch list who has a long history of mental illness for which he has been repeatedly and involuntarily incarcerated in mental institutions. Class has lost every single case in which he has ever purported to represent himself or others, all 77 consecutive cases in a row. http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?99447-Rod-Class-his-many-hoaxes

Anthony Troy Williams claims to be a "private attorney general (which, unknown to Williams, actually means the "civil rights" client of an attorney in federal court) and a "sovereign peace officer" (something which does not exist). Williams actually carries a fake badge, a fake ID and wears a fake lanyard indicating such (effectively a law enforcement "costume"). In reality, Williams is a career criminal and multi-convicted felon who has lost 90 plus cases in a row and who will spend the rest of his life behind bars for charging customers thousands of dollars each for a FAKE foreclosure defense scheme which did not actually work. https://www.waccobb.net/forums/show...x-(Anthony-Troy-Williams)&p=231850#post231850

Debra Jones claims to be a "former policewoman", "former attorney", a medical "doctor" and even claimed that she was "groomed" by the Police Benevolent Association to be "PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES". In reality, Jones was never any of these things. She has NEVER has a professional license of any type. So, she could not possibly be a former attorney. Jones made a small fortune marketing seminars wherein she pretended to be a "legal insider" who confessed to diabolical (and imaginary) corruption inside the legal system, all while pretending to be a former police officer and a former attorney. https://www.waccobb.net/forums/show...uot&highlight=Debra+Jones&p=230352#post230352;

Eddie Craig claims to be a "former deputy sheriff". But this is not so. The closest that Eddie Craig ever came to being a "former sheriff deputy" was for a period of two weeks in 1992 when he was a "PART TIME" "JAILER" in Nacogdoches County, Texas at which time, he was unceremoniously FIRED, "NOT ELIGIBLE FOR RE-HIRE". Eddie Craig has lost every case in which he has ever been involved, including all five of his own cases, one of which was his own criminal misdemeanor speeding case. http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?99564-Eddie-Craig-the-former-deputy-sheriff-hoax

Carl Miller (real name "Richard Champion") claims to be a "Constitutional Scholar" with a "92% winning record in court". But, this is not so. Miller is actually a multi-convicted, weapons-related career felon who has lost every single case in which he ever represented himself in court, 26 consecutive losses in a row. Miller was deemed unfit for military service and discharged from the military and has been institutionalized TWICE in mental hospitals in Michigan, once as a 14 year old child and once as an adult. https://www.waccobb.net/forums/showthread.php?131638-Carl-Miller-Richard-Champion

Ron Gibson claims to be a book author, "counselor at law" who is becoming a "private attorney general" (which, unknown to Gibson, actually means the "civil rights" CLIENT of an attorney in federal court), an expert in land patents and allodial title and claims to have studied "Constitutional Law" in college. (Constitutional Law is only taught in Law School and not in college.). None of Gibson's claims about himself are true except that he has organized and written some legally erroneous material on land patents and allodial title which he refers to as his "book". Click here and scroll down to the bottom of the page. https://josephfarleyshow.com/2019/02/21/what-you-need-to-know-about-land-patents-ron-gibson/

DAVID LESTER STRAIGHT IS NO DIFFERENT FROM ALL THE REST OF THEM!

All of these posers create FAKE qualifications, FAKE credentials and FAKE expertise, so that their followers will take them seriously and believe their claims. But, their qualifications and credentials are as FAKE as is their claims about the law and the legal system itself.

These posers simply tell a pack of lies to support a pack of lies.

It is an absolute disgrace.

BEWARE OF THESE OTHER FAKE LEGAL EXPERTS (all of whom have a 100% failure rate in court when representing themselves and when pretending to represent others)

For the hoaxes of ROD CLASS (who has LOST 77 consecutive cases in a row), click here.http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?99447-Rod-Class-his-many-hoaxes

For the hoaxes of EDDIE CRAIG (who has LOST every case in which he has ever been involved), click here. http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?99564-Eddie-Craig-the-former-deputy-sheriff-hoax

For the hoaxes of ANTHONY WILLIAMS (who has LOST 90+ consecutive cases in a row), click here. https://www.waccobb.net/forums/show...x-(Anthony-Troy-Williams)&p=231850#post231850

For the hoaxes of CARL MILLER (who has LOST 28 consecutive cases in a row), click here.https://www.waccobb.net/forums/showthread.php?131638-Carl-Miller-Richard-Champion

For the hoaxes of DEBRA JONES (who have never won or lost a single case), click here.https://www.waccobb.net/forums/show...uot&highlight=Debra+Jones&p=230352#post230352;\

For the hoaxes of DEBORAH TAVARES (who has never won or lost a single case), click here.https://www.waccobb.net/forums/show...ather-fires-depopulation)&p=226016#post226016
 
Last edited:

arminius

Argentate Bluster
Platinum Bling
Midas Supporter ++
Joined
Jun 6, 2011
Messages
6,210
Likes
9,372
#63
The only disgraceful lying lawyer poser duping folks here is you.

Your law is the devils law.

You and those like you are the absolute disgrace to our society.
 

snoop4truth

Silver Miner
Joined
Mar 21, 2015
Messages
598
Likes
126
#64
Rod Class is an affiliate of David Lester Straight (above). They teach FAKE law at "seminars" to people who do not know any better.

THE DECISION BELOW IS THE FINAL DECISION ON ROD CLASS' D.C. GUN CASE. WITH THIS DECISION, CLASS BECOMES A CONVICTED FELON FOR THE 2ND TIME (THE 1ST TIME WAS HIS 2001 OHIO FELONY CONVICTION FOR POSSESSION OF A SAWED-OFF SHOTGUN AND NIGHT STICKS OUTFITTED WITH CONCEALED RAZOR BLADES)


930 F.3d 460 (2019)UNITED STATES of America, Appellee,
v.
Rodney CLASS, Appellant

No. 15-3015.
United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.
Argued March 13, 2019.Decided July 19, 2019.

On Remand from the Supreme Court of the United States.

Leonard R. Powell, Washington, DC, argued the cause for appellant. With him on the briefs was Jessica Ring Amunson, Washington, DC.
Lauren R. Bates, Assistant U.S. Attorney, argued the cause for appellee. With her on the briefs were Jesse K. Liu, U.S. Attorney, and Elizabeth Trosman, Chrisellen R. Kolb, Jeffrey Pearlman, and Valinda Jones, Assistant U.S. Attorneys.
Before: Griffith and Srinivasan, Circuit Judges, and Sentelle, Senior Circuit Judge.
462*462 Griffith, Circuit Judge:

Federal law prohibits the possession of firearms on the grounds of the United States Capitol. 40 U.S.C. § 5104(e). Rodney Class pleaded guilty to violating this law after parking a car containing three guns on a street near the Capitol. He now argues that, as applied to his case, the law violates the Second Amendment and the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. THESE CLAIMS LACK MERIT, AND WE AFFIRM THE CONVICTION.

I

In May 2013, Rodney Class drove to the United States Capitol in Washington, D.C. He parked his car in one of the many angled parking spots that line the 200 block of Maryland Avenue SW (the "Maryland Avenue lot"). That parking spot sits just north of the United States Botanic Gardens and approximately 1,000 feet from the entrance to the Capitol itself. The street is accessible to the general public, but the parking spot Class used is reserved on weekdays (like the Thursday he parked there) for employees of the House of Representatives. The parking lot is marked by a sign indicating a permit is required. Class locked his car and walked inside the Capitol. Upon his return, several police officers were peering into his car. One asked Class if he had any weapons inside, and he answered that he did. The officer told Class that it was illegal to have weapons on Capitol Grounds and took Class to Capitol Police headquarters. When the car was searched, three firearms were found.

Class was indicted for possession of a firearm while on the grounds of the Capitol, in violation of 40 U.S.C. § 5104(e)(1) (the "Capitol Grounds ban"). He filed several motions seeking to dismiss the indictment, arguing, inter alia, that the Capitol Grounds ban violated his Second Amendment right to bear arms. The district court denied these motions from the bench, holding that the Capitol Grounds ban "does not burden conduct protected by the Second Amendment," because "laws prohibiting individuals from carrying firearms in sensitive places, such as government buildings, are presumptively lawful." Tr. of Mot. Hr'g at 18, United States v. Class, No. 1:13-cr-0253-1 (D.D.C. Oct. 27, 2014), Dkt. No. 193. Class subsequently entered an unconditional guilty plea.

Class appealed his conviction on both constitutional and statutory grounds. United States v. Class, No. 15-3015, 2016 WL 10950032, at *1 (D.C. Cir. July 5, 2016). We affirmed his conviction, holding that his unconditional guilty plea waived his 463*463 right to appeal on those grounds. Id. at *2. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that Class did not waive his constitutional claims because they challenged the government's very power to make his conduct criminal. Class v. United States, ___ U.S. ___, 138 S.Ct. 798, 805, 200 L.Ed.2d 37 (2018).

On remand, we now consider the merits of those claims: first, that the ban as applied to Class's conduct violates his Second Amendment right to bear arms, and second, that the ban violates the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause because the law defining the Capitol Grounds is complicated enough that Class lacked notice that he was on them. Because these claims present questions of law, we review them de novo. United States v. Yakou, 428 F.3d 241, 246 (D.C. Cir. 2005).[1] The district court had jurisdiction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3231. We have appellate jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291.

II

To evaluate the constitutionality of firearms regulations, we first determine "whether a particular provision impinges upon a right protected by the Second Amendment." Heller v. District of Columbia (Heller II), 670 F.3d 1244, 1252 (D.C. Cir. 2011). If it does, we ask "whether the provision passes muster under the appropriate level of constitutional scrutiny." Id. Because we conclude that the Capitol Grounds ban does not "impinge[] upon a right protected by the Second Amendment," we do not reach the second question.

The Second Amendment protects the right to own and carry a firearm out-side the home. Wrenn v. District of Columbia, 864 F.3d 650, 657-58 (D.C. Cir. 2017); see District of Columbia v. Heller (Heller I), 554 U.S. 570, 635, 128 S.Ct. 2783, 171 L.Ed.2d 637 (2008). But the right is not unlimited. The Supreme Court has been careful to note that "longstanding prohibitions" like "laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings" remain "presumptively lawful." Heller I, 554 U.S. at 626, 627 n.26, 128 S.Ct. 2783. A challenger may rebut this presumption only by "showing the regulation [has] more than a de minimis effect upon his right" to bear arms. Heller II, 670 F.3d at 1253.
With respect to the Capitol itself, there are few, if any, government buildings more "sensitive" than the "national legislature at the very seat of its operations." Jeannette Rankin Brigade v. Chief of the Capitol Police, 421 F.2d 1090, 1093 n.3 (D.C. Cir. 1969). And tragically, gunmen have targeted the Capitol before. Francis Clines, Capitol Hill Slayings: The Overview; Gunman Invades Capitol, Killing 2 Guards, N.Y. TIMES (July 25, 1998), https://www. nytimes.com/1998/07/25/us/capitol-hill-slayings-the-overview-gunman-invades-capitol-killing-2-guards.html.

Class, however, was found with a firearm in the Maryland Avenue parking lot, not the Capitol itself. He argues that Heller I refers only to bans on possession "in sensitive places like government buildings," and the "Maryland Avenue outdoor parking lot, like most of the Capitol Grounds, is certainly not `in a government building.'" Suppl. Class Br. 22. As a result, he claims, the ban is "outside of any presumption of constitutionality that applies only `in' sensitive places." Id. This argument 464*464 slices Heller I too thin. The Supreme Court was careful to note that Heller I's list of "presumptively lawful" regulations was not exhaustive, see 554 U.S. at 627 n.26, 128 S.Ct. 2783, and we have little trouble concluding that the same security interests which permit regulation of firearms "in" government buildings permit regulation of firearms on the property surrounding those buildings as well. Indeed, Class appears to concede this point elsewhere in his brief, agreeing with the government that the White House lawn, for instance, is "sensitive" for purposes of the Second Amendment. See Suppl. Class Br. 25 n.7.

As for the Maryland Avenue parking lot, although it is not a government building, we conclude that it is sufficiently integrated with the Capitol for Heller I's sensitive places exception to apply. Accordingly, we conclude that the Second Amendment does not give Class the right to bear arms in the Maryland Avenue lot. Several facts lead us to this determination.

First, though it is open to the public, the Maryland Avenue parking lot may be used during working hours only by Capitol employees with a permit. This makes the area a potential stalking ground for anyone wishing to attack congressional staff and disrupt the operations of Congress. The operation of the national legislature depends not only on the ability of members of Congress and their staff to conduct business inside the Capitol, but also on their ability to freely and safely travel to and from work. The same special security concerns that apply to the employees while in the Capitol apply when they walk to and from their cars on Capitol property.

Second, the lot is close to the Capitol and legislative office buildings. Class possessed a firearm less than 1,000 feet away from the entrance to the Capitol, and a block away from the Rayburn House Office Building. Although there is surely some outer bound on the distance Congress could extend the area of protection around the Capitol without raising Second Amendment concerns, Congress has not exceeded it here.
Finally, as the owner of the Maryland Avenue lot, the government—like private property owners—has the power to regulate conduct on its property. See Adderley v. Florida, 385 U.S. 39, 47, 87 S.Ct. 242, 17 L.Ed.2d 149 (1966) (observing in the free-speech context that the government, "no less than a private owner of property, has power to preserve the property under its control for the use to which it is lawfully dedicated"); cf. Bonidy v. U.S. Postal Serv., 790 F.3d 1121, 1126 (10th Cir. 2015) (observing that when the U.S. Postal Service acts "as a proprietor rather than as a sovereign, [it] has broad discretion to govern its business operations according to the rules it deems appropriate").

In sum, because the Maryland Avenue lot has been set aside for the use of government employees, is in close proximity to the Capitol building, and is on land owned by the government, we consider the lot as a single unit with the Capitol building, and conclude that the lot is a "sensitive" place where firearms prohibitions are presumptively lawful. Accord id. at 1125-28 (finding that a post office parking lot is "sensitive" for Second Amendment purposes); United States v. Dorosan, 350 F. App'x 874, 875 (5th Cir. 2009) (same).

Class raises two counterarguments. First, he tries to distinguish the Maryland Avenue lot from other outdoor government property that is protected by security or not accessible to the public. In support, he points to language from Wrenn, where we concluded that the Second Amendment "enables self-defense at least against the level of threat generally faced by those 465*465 covered by the Amendment: responsible and law-abiding citizens." 864 F.3d at 664. Class argues that the need to have a gun for self-defense is lessened in places that are off-limits to the public (like the White House lawn) or protected by metal detectors and security guards (like the Capitol building). Because neither is true of the Maryland Avenue parking lot, Class contends that law-abiding citizens need to be able to carry firearms for self-defense. Suppl. Class Reply 4.

Class reads too much into Wrenn. That case raised the question of whether the right to bear arms extended outside the home and who could exercise that right; this case raises the question of where outside the home a person authorized to carry a firearm may do so. For this inquiry, we do not look to the "level of threat" posed in a sensitive place. Many "schools" and "government buildings"—the paradigmatic "sensitive places" identified in Heller I—are open to the public, without any form of special security or screening. In an unsecured government building like a post office or school, the risk of crime may be no different than in any other publicly accessible building, yet the Heller I opinion leaves intact bans on firearm possession in those places. As one court put it, those places are "sensitive" for purposes of the Second Amendment because of "the people found there" or the "activities that take place there." Georgia-Carry.Org, Inc. v. Georgia, 764 F. Supp. 2d 1306, 1319 (M.D. Ga. 2011), aff'd, 687 F.3d 1244 (11th Cir. 2012).

Next, Class contends that because the Capitol Grounds ban was only extended to the Maryland Avenue parking lot in 1980, with respect to that lot, the ban is not the sort of "longstanding" regulation that is "presumptively lawful" under Heller I. See Suppl. Class Br. 25-26. It is true, as we explained in Heller II, that "[a] requirement of newer vintage is not ... presumed to be valid." 670 F.3d at 1253. Class's argument, however, misinterprets what it means for a regulation to be "longstanding." Under Class's reading, the ban in that location must have been longstanding. But this makes little sense when viewed through the language of Heller I, which spoke generally of "schools" and "government buildings." 554 U.S. at 626-27, 128 S.Ct. 2783. The relevant inquiry is whether a particular type of regulation has been a "longstanding" exception to the right to bear arms. See Heller II, 670 F.3d at 1253-56. A new post office is no less a government building than one built in 1789, just as a new wing of the Capitol is still part of that building.

Because the Maryland Avenue parking lot is a sensitive place, the ban on carrying firearms there is "presumptively lawful." Heller I, 554 U.S. at 627 n.26, 128 S.Ct. 2783. To rebut that presumption, Class must show that the ban has "more than a de minimis effect upon his right" to bear arms. Heller II, 670 F.3d at 1253. He cannot. Class contends that the Capitol Grounds ban prevents him from exercising his right to self-defense while moving about the District, but we rejected a similar argument in Wrenn, observing:

and on carrying only in small pockets of the outside world (e.g., near "sensitive" sites) impose only lightly on most people's right to "bear arms" in public. As Judge Posner writes: "[W]hen a state bans guns merely in particular places, such as public schools, a person can preserve an undiminished right of self-defense by not entering those places."

864 F.3d at 662 (quoting Moore v. Madigan, 702 F.3d 933, 940 (7th Cir. 2012)) (citation omitted). The Maryland Avenue parking lot is just the kind of "small pocket of the outside world" where a ban imposes only "lightly" on the right to carry a 466*466 weapon in the District of Columbia. If Class "wanted to carry a gun in his car but abide by the ban," he could have done so but parked elsewhere. See Dorosan, 350 F. App'x. at 876.

Class argues that the Capitol Grounds, which include almost 300 acres of the District, are not a small pocket of the outside world, and claims that the ban on possession makes it "practically impossible to travel to other areas around the Capitol with a firearm for self-defense." Suppl. Class Reply 8. We see no such problem. While this portion of Maryland Avenue could be used to travel from one part of the District to another, nothing about the ban prevents a person who wishes to carry a firearm for self-defense from taking an alternate route that avoids the Capitol Grounds.

Class counters by arguing that the boundaries of the Capitol Grounds are not publicly posted and are therefore "indistinguishable from nearby areas where firearms are permitted." Suppl. Class Br. 14. As a result, he claims that the fear of violating the ban by accident impinges on his ability to carry a firearm for self-defense even in areas of the District that are not technically covered by the ban. To the extent that he complains about lack of notice, we address that issue in our discussion of his due process claim. For purposes of his Second Amendment claim, the Maryland Avenue lot is "distinguishable" from other nearby areas because Congress has set apart the Capitol Grounds from the rest of the district for the use of the national legislature.

III

Class next argues that he lacked notice his conduct was criminal because of how difficult it is to determine the boundaries of the Capitol Grounds. Couching his challenge in terms of vagueness, Class suggests that absent such notice, his conviction violates the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. We disagree.

The government violates the Due Process Clause when it "tak[es] away someone's life, liberty, or property under a criminal law so vague that it fails to give ordinary people fair notice of the conduct it punishes, or so standardless that it invites arbitrary enforcement." Johnson v. United States, ___ U.S. ___, 135 S.Ct. 2551, 2556, 192 L.Ed.2d 569 (2015). Most vagueness challenges involve assertions of "indeterminacy," in which the defendant claims that a criminal statute is so "shapeless" that even a person aware of the law cannot know what conduct is prohibited. Id. at 2558, 2560. The text of the Capitol Grounds ban, in contrast, is quite clear: "An individual ... may not carry on or have readily accessible ... on the Grounds or in any of the Capitol Buildings a firearm." 40 U.S.C. § 5104(e). Indeed, Class does not—and could not—argue that any of these terms are "indeterminate" or "shapeless." An ordinary citizen would readily understand from the text of the statute that he may not carry a firearm on the Capitol Grounds or inside the Capitol. Nor does Class argue that the boundaries of the Capitol Grounds are "shapeless." The metes and bounds of the Capitol Grounds are precisely defined: with a map of the city and the appropriate legal references, it can be determined with certainty that the 200 block of Maryland Avenue SW is subject to the ban.

Confronted with a clear statute, Class takes a different approach. He argues that, regardless of the precision of the text, the structure of the statute and lack of signage identifying the Maryland Avenue lot as a restricted area makes it "exceedingly difficult" for an ordinary citizen to actually figure out that the parking lot is part of the Capitol Grounds. Suppl. Class Br. 33. 467*467 So difficult, according to Class, that an armed person in the lot lacks fair notice that his conduct is prohibited. In support of his position, Class relies on the circuitous route an individual must take to determine whether the lot is part of the Capitol Grounds. First, a person must look to the U.S. Code, which defines the grounds by reference to a 1946 map on file in the Office of the Surveyor of the District of Columbia. 40 U.S.C. § 5102. The map does not contain the Maryland Avenue lot. However, the statute goes on to say that the boundaries of the Grounds "includ[e] all additions added by law" after the map was recorded. Id. So the second step a person must take is to find Public Law 96-432, which in 1980 expanded the Grounds to include "that portion of Maryland Avenue Southwest from the west curb of First Street Southwest to the east curb of Third Street Southwest." Act to Amend the Act of July 31, 1946, as amended, Relating to the United States Capitol Grounds, and for Other Purposes, Pub. L. No. 96-432, (5), 94 Stat. 1851, 1851 (1980). The Maryland Avenue lot falls squarely within this area, but Class argues that the combination of these steps and lack of other identifying features puts determining the boundaries of the Capitol Grounds "beyond the ken of someone of ordinary intelligence and diligence." Suppl. Class Br. 34.

We disagree. It is a bedrock principle that "[c]itizens are charged with generally knowing the law." United States v. Bronstein, 849 F.3d 1101, 1107 (D.C. Cir. 2017). Fair notice usually requires a legislature to "do nothing more than enact and publish the law, and afford the citizenry a reasonable opportunity to familiarize itself with its terms and to comply." Id. (quoting Texaco, Inc. v. Short, 454 U.S. 516, 532, 102 S.Ct. 781, 70 L.Ed.2d 738 (1982)). Although determining that the ban applies to the Maryland Avenue lot is not completely straightforward, we cannot say that the law is so difficult to understand that it violates the Constitution, for "perfect clarity and precise guidance have never been required even of regulations that restrict [protected] activity." Ward v. Rock Against Racism, 491 U.S. 781, 794, 109 S.Ct. 2746, 105 L.Ed.2d 661 (1989).

The statutory provisions at issue here were enacted and published decades ago. See Act of Oct. 20, 1967, Pub. L. No. 90-108, 81 Stat. 275, 276 (banning firearms on Capitol Grounds); Pub. L. No. 96-432 (extending Grounds to include the Maryland Avenue lot). The laws do not use complicated phrasing or specialized vocabulary, referring only to the names of streets that appear on road signs and which can be located on widely available maps of the District. And though it is true that the relevant provisions of the U.S. Code do not themselves reference the Maryland Avenue lot, Class points to no case in which a court has held that due process turns on whether a law was codified or merely enacted and published as a Public Law. Class's argument has even less force when considered alongside the version of the U.S. Code published by the Government Printing Office, which includes as an appendix to the text of 40 U.S.C. § 5104 a section entitled "Changes in United States Capitol Grounds." 40 U.S.C. § 5104 (2012). That section contains the text of enactments altering the boundaries of the Grounds, including the 1980 amendment that added the Maryland Avenue lot. Id.

The only case that Class identifies in which a court has struck down a law due to the difficulty of determining geographic boundaries is Doe v. Snyder, which involved a statute that prohibited registered sex-offenders from coming within 1,000 feet of "school property" used for "educational instruction" or "sports or other recreational activities." 101 F. Supp. 3d 468*468 672, 682-83 (E.D. Mich. 2015). The district court concluded that the law violated due process because it was unclear how to measure the 1,000 feet (i.e., from the entrance to the building or from the edge of school property lines) and it would be "difficult for ... registrants to parse through school-owned real property [records]" to determine which parcels were used for covered activities. Id. at 682-85. We are of course not bound by the reasoning of that district court, but in any event, Doe is easily distinguishable. The Capitol Grounds are defined by a map and a specific list of intersections and streets that are part of the public law. A citizen concerned about violating the ban need not make detailed measurements, sort through voluminous real estate records, or speculate about the uses of various parcels of land. He must simply, as is the case with any criminal law, open the statute book—even if here he may need two.

This case more closely resembles Klein v. San Diego County, 463 F.3d 1029, 1039 (9th Cir. 2006), in which the Ninth Circuit upheld a ban on picketing within 300 feet of a dwelling. That court conceded that the ordinance might be unconstitutional "if it were impossible for the picketers to determine the 300-foot boundary with any precision." Id. But maps showing where dwellings were located were available in the County Tax Assessor's office, and a "would-be picketer, with the lot map in hand," could "estimate the boundary with some level of precision." Id. Indeed, the Capitol Grounds ban asks even less of a would-be visitor to the Capitol, because no estimation or measurement is required.

Class nevertheless resists the conclusion that the law provides sufficient notice. He argues that even if the Capitol Grounds ban is not impossible to understand, a heightened level of review is applicable here and requires us to strike down the law. He suggests this is so because "[t]he degree of vagueness that the Constitution tolerates—as well as the relative importance of fair notice and fair enforcement—depends in part on the nature of the enactment." Village of Hoffman Estates v. Flipside, Hoffman Estates, Inc., 455 U.S. 489, 498, 102 S.Ct. 1186, 71 L.Ed.2d 362 (1982). Class is correct that our analysis must be more searching in cases in which a law imposes criminal penalties, "threatens to inhibit the exercise of constitutionally protected rights," and lacks a scienter requirement. Id. at 498-99, 102 S.Ct. 1186; see Suppl. Class Br. 33. Class is also right that all three of those factors triggering additional skepticism are present here. First, the Capitol Grounds ban imposes significant criminal penalties. 40 U.S.C. § 5109. Second, the ban at least implicates the right to bear arms, even if it does not violate the Second Amendment. Cf. N.Y. State Rifle &Pistol Ass'n, Inc. v. Cuomo, 804 F.3d 242, 265 (2d Cir. 2015) (applying a "more stringent" vagueness standard to a gun regulation).

The third factor "affecting the clarity that the Constitution demands of a law" is whether a statute possesses a scienter requirement, an inquiry that, at least in this appeal, needs some explanation. Hoffman Estates, 455 U.S. at 499, 102 S.Ct. 1186. "Scienter" is "the degree of knowledge sufficient to `mak[e] a person legally responsible for the consequences of his or her act or omission.'" Rehaif v. United States, ___ U.S. ___, 139 S.Ct. 2191, 2195, 204 L.Ed.2d 594 (2019) (quoting BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY 1547 (10th ed. 2014)). Here, the district court interpreted the Capitol Grounds ban as requiring knowledge as to the possession of a firearm, but not as to presence on the Capitol 469*469 Grounds.[2] According to Class, the fact that an armed person who unknowingly wanders onto the grounds could violate the statute counsels against concluding that the law provides sufficient notice of the conduct it proscribes.

We agree that the district court's determination that the Capitol Grounds ban lacks a scienter requirement means "that the Constitution tolerates" a lesser "degree of vagueness" than would be permissible had the court reached the contrary conclusion. Hoffman Estates, 455 U.S. at 498, 102 S.Ct. 1186. Indeed, we have relied on the presence of a scienter requirement to uphold laws in the face of vagueness challenges. See, e.g., Wash. Mobilization Comm. v. Cullinane, 566 F.2d 107, 118 (D.C. Cir. 1977) (holding that a regulation prohibiting the crossing of a police line comports with the Due Process Clause so long as "the location of the line is clearly indicated and if adequate notice is given"); accord United States v. Nieves-Castano, 480 F.3d 597, 603-04 (1st Cir. 2007).

The question on appeal, however, is not whether the more searching standard from Hoffman Estates applies. It does. The question on appeal is whether Class's conviction violates the Due Process Clause because of how vague the statute is. It does not. As we noted above, the steps necessary for determining the special status of the Maryland Avenue lot are not the most straightforward. But the statute is sufficiently clear to "give [a] person of ordinary intelligence a reasonable opportunity to know what is prohibited." Hoffman Estates, 455 U.S. at 498, 102 S.Ct. 1186 (quoting Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408 U.S. 104, 108-09, 92 S.Ct. 2294, 33 L.Ed.2d 222 (1972)). That is ultimately what the Due Process Clause requires, and that standard has been met. Cf. Klein, 463 F.3d at 1039 (upholding against a vagueness challenge a picketing ban despite the lack of a scienter requirement).

We note in closing that the lack of a scienter requirement in the ban might raise issues of statutory construction. But Class has waived those arguments. In two cases, including one decided very recently, the Supreme Court has concluded that restrictions on the possession of firearms require proof of scienter. Rehaif, 139 S.Ct. at 2200 ("[T]he Government must prove both that the defendant knew he possessed a firearm and that he knew he belonged to the relevant category of persons barred from possessing a firearm."); Staples v. United States, 511 U.S. 600, 619, 114 S.Ct. 1793, 128 L.Ed.2d 608 (1994) ("[T]o obtain a conviction, the Government should have been required to prove that [the defendant] knew of the features of his [gun] that brought it within the scope of the [prohibition]."). The parallel is clear: Rehaif concerned a ban on possession of a gun by a person with a particular immigration status; Staples concerned a ban on possession of a particular type of gun; and this case concerns a ban on possession of a gun in a particular place.

But those cases resolved only "question of statutory construction," not the constitutional right to due process. Staples, 511 U.S. at 604, 114 S.Ct. 1793; see Rehaif, 139 S.Ct. at 2194. That is, Staples and Rehaif both concluded that Congress had not intended to impose criminal penalties for possession of a gun without proof of scienter; neither case addressed whether or not Congress lacks the power to impose such penalties. And here, the Supreme Court held only that the claims which survived Class's guilty plea were those that "challenge the Government's power to 470*470 criminalize" his conduct. See Class, 138 S. Ct. at 805. We therefore reiterate our prior holding that Class waived his statutory claims. And to succeed on his constitutional challenge, it is not enough for Class to show that the best reading of the law requires proof of scienter. Instead, Class must show that the law is so difficult for the average person to understand that the Constitution forbids his conviction without such proof.

He cannot meet that heavy burden. As we discuss above, determining that the ban applies to the Maryland Avenue lot is not a perfectly straightforward exercise, but citizens are presumed to know the law, and the task of ascertaining the boundaries of the Capitol Grounds is not so difficult that Class's conviction violates the Constitution.

IV

For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is affirmed.

So ordered.

[1] The government argued during Class's first appeal that we should review his due process claim for plain error because he had not raised it in the district court. See Gov't. Br. 29-30. On remand, the government has not revived this argument, and agrees with Class that our review of his constitutional claims is de novo. See Suppl. Gov't. Br. 31.

[2] As we discuss in greater detail below
 
Last edited:

snoop4truth

Silver Miner
Joined
Mar 21, 2015
Messages
598
Likes
126
#65
I. CLASS MAY NO LONGER POSSESS FIREARMS

Article 54A.
The Felony Firearms Act.
§ 14-415.1. Possession of firearms, etc., by felon prohibited.
(a) It shall be unlawful for any person who has been convicted of a felony to purchase, own, possess, or have in his custody, care, or control any firearm or any weapon of mass death and destruction as defined in G.S. 14-288.8(c). For the purposes of this section, a firearm is (i) any weapon, including a starter gun, which will or is designed to or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive, or its frame or receiver, or (ii) any firearm muffler or firearm silencer.
This section does not apply to an antique firearm, as defined in G.S. 14-409.11.

II. CLASS IS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR THE RESTORATION OF HIS FIREARMS RIGHTS

§ 14-415.4. Restoration of firearms rights.
(a) Definitions. – The following definitions apply in this section:
(1) Firearms rights. – The legal right in this State of a person to purchase, own, possess, or have in the person's custody, care, or control any firearm or any weapon of mass death and destruction as those terms are defined in G.S. 14-415.1 and G.S. 14-288.8(c).
(2) Nonviolent felony. – The term nonviolent felony does not include any felony that is a Class A, Class B1, or Class B2 felony. Also, the term nonviolent felony does not include any Class C through Class I felony that is one of the following:
a. An offense that includes assault as an essential element of the offense.

b. An offense that includes the possession or use of a firearm or other deadly weapon as an essential or nonessential element of the offense, or the offender was in possession of a firearm or other deadly weapon at the time of the commission of the offense.
c. An offense for which the offender was armed with or used a firearm or other deadly weapon.

d. An offense for which the offender must register under Article 27A of Chapter 14 of the General Statutes.
(b) Purpose. – It is the purpose of this section to establish a procedure that allows a North Carolina resident who was convicted of a single nonviolent felony and whose citizenship rights have been restored pursuant to Chapter 13 of the General Statutes to petition the court to remove the petitioner's disentitlement under G.S. 14-415.1 and to restore the person's firearms rights in this State. If the single nonviolent felony conviction was an out-of-state conviction or a federal conviction, then the North Carolina resident shall show proof of the restoration of his or her civil rights and the right to possess a firearm in the jurisdiction where the conviction occurred. Restoration of a person's firearms rights under this section means that the person may purchase, own, possess, or have in the person's custody, care, or control any firearm or any weapon of mass death and destruction as those terms are defined in G.S. 14-415.1 and G.S. 14-288.8(c) without being in violation of G.S. 14-415.1, if otherwise qualified.
(c) Petition for Restoration of Firearms Rights. – A person who was convicted of a nonviolent felony in North Carolina but whose civil rights have been restored pursuant to Chapter 13 of the General Statutes for a period of at least 20 years may petition the district court in the district where the person resides to restore the person's firearms rights pursuant to this section. A person who was convicted of a nonviolent felony in a jurisdiction other than North Carolina may petition the district court in the district where the person resides to restore the person's firearms rights pursuant to this section only if the person's civil rights, including the right to possess a firearm, have been restored, pursuant to the law of the jurisdiction where the conviction occurred, for a period of at least 20 years. The court may restore a petitioner's firearms rights after a hearing in court if the court determines that the petitioner meets the criteria set out in this section and is not otherwise disqualified to have that right restored.
(d) Criteria. – The court may grant a petition to restore a person's firearms rights under this section if the petitioner satisfies all of the following criteria and is not otherwise disqualified to have that right restored:
(1) The petitioner is a resident of North Carolina and has been a resident of the State for one year or longer immediately preceding the filing of the petition.
(2) The petitioner has only one felony conviction and that conviction is for a nonviolent felony. For purposes of this subdivision, multiple felony
G.S. 14-415.4 Page 2
convictions arising out of the same event and consolidated for sentencing shall count as one felony only.
(3) The petitioner's rights of citizenship have been restored pursuant to Chapter 13 of the General Statutes or, if the conviction was in a jurisdiction other than North Carolina, have been restored, pursuant to the laws of the jurisdiction where the conviction occurred, for a period of at least 20 years before the date of the filing of the petition.
(4) The petitioner has not been convicted under the laws of the United States, the laws of this State, or the laws of any other state of any misdemeanor as described in subdivision (6) of subsection (e) of this section since the conviction of the nonviolent felony.


III. CLASS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR A CONCEALED CARRY PERMIT


§ 14-415.12. Criteria to qualify for the issuance of a permit.

(b) The sheriff shall deny a permit to an applicant who:
(1) Is ineligible to own, possess, or receive a firearm under the provisions of State or federal law.
(2) Is under indictment or against whom a finding of probable cause exists for a felony.
(3) Has been adjudicated guilty in any court of a felony, unless: (i) the felony is an offense that pertains to antitrust violations, unfair trade practices, or restraints of trade, or (ii) the person's firearms rights have been restored pursuant to G.S. 14-415.4.
 
Last edited:

snoop4truth

Silver Miner
Joined
Mar 21, 2015
Messages
598
Likes
126
#66
ROD CLASS LOSES TWO NEW CASES FOR PRETENDING TO BE A "PRIVATE ATTORNEY GENERAL"

https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=2307749472914989893&q=+"Rodney+Dale+Class"&hl=en&as_sdt=40003


KENDRA ROSS, Plaintiff,
v.
ROYALL JENKINS, et al., Defendants.
KENDRA ROSS, Plaintiff,
v.
THE PROMISE KEEPERS, INC., et al., Defendants.

Case Nos. 17-2547-DDC-TJJ, 19-2091-DDC-TJJ
United States District Court, D. Kansas.
July 24, 2019.


Kendra Ross, Plaintiff, represented by Benjamin P. Abel, McGuireWoods, LLP, Elizabeth A. Hutson, McGuireWoods, LLP, pro hac vice, Gillian Chadwick, Washburn University School of Law, Jonathan T. Blank, McGuireWoods, LLP, pro hac vice & Katlyn Farrell, McGuireWoods, LLP, pro hac vice. Royall Jenkins, Defendant, pro se.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

DANIEL D. CRABTREE, District Judge.
The Clerk of the Court duly has provided the court with three documents submitted by a movant named Rodney Dale Class. One appears to be an entry of appearance in the case Ross v. The Promise Keepers, Inc., No. 2:19-CV-2091-DDC-TJJ (D. Kan. Feb. 15, 2019). The second document purports to commission Mr. Class as a "Private Attorney General," "Qualified Criminal Investigator," "Federal Witness," and "Bounty Hunter." And, the third document is a copy of Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 45, printed from an online source. All three submissions are attached as Exhibits 1, 2, and 3 to this Order.
The court construes Mr. Class's submissions as attempting to enter his appearance as counsel for defendants The Promise Keepers and The Value Creators. See Ex. 1 at 3 ("Whereas the Promise Keepers and Value Creators are a class of people without Counsel . . . I class, Rodney-Dale enter my appearance for case #. . . 19-CV-02091-DDC-TJJ . . . ."). But, these defendants are business organizations—specifically, corporations and limited liability companies. And generally, in federal court, only an attorney admitted as a member of this court's bar may represent a business organization. Harrison v. Wahatoyas, L.L.C., 253 F.3d 552, 556 (10th Cir. 2001) (citing Flora Constr. Co. v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Co., 307 F.2d 413, 414 (10th Cir. 1962) ("The rule is well established that a corporation can appear in a court of record only by an attorney at law.")); Tal v. Hogan, 453 F.3d 1244, 1254 n.8 (10th Cir. 2006) (collecting cases). Mr. Class isn't admitted to practice before our court. Accordingly, he cannot enter his appearance for the business organizations who are defendants in this case. If defendants wish to seek representation, they must select a properly admitted member of this court's bar. See Perry v. Stout, No. 00-2411, 2001 WL 1158997, at *1 (10th Cir. Sept. 28, 2001) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1654 ("parties may plead and conduct their own cases personally or by counsel")).
The court
attaches these documents to this Order but directs the Clerk not to file them individually as docketed entries in the CM/ECF record of this case.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED BY THE COURT THAT the Clerk of the Court is directed not to file the attached documents from Rodney Dale Class as part of the docket in this case.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED BY THE COURT THAT the Clerk of the Court is directed to mail a copy of this Order to Rodney Dale Class at the address he has provided in Exhibit 1.


https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=17524293256240195298&q=+"Rodney+Dale+Class"&hl=en&as_sdt=40003

RODNEY DALE CLASS, Public Servant Since 2000, a 42 USC 1988 Escrow Proxy for the Public and for the Actual Injured Claimant, Private Attorney General by Legislation Appointment and Constitutional 14th Amendment Bounty Hunter, JOSEPH W. MINES, JR., The Actual Injured Claimant, Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, not in its individual capacity but solely as trustee of SW REMIC TRUST 2015-1, CAMERON H.P. WHITE, in their Official and Personal Capacity, AARON BOWDEN, in their Official and Personal Capacity, CHARLES O. MITCHELL, JR., in their Official and Personal Capacity, KAREN COLE, in their Official and Personal Capacity, et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 17-14849, Non-Argument Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
May 9, 2018.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, D.C. Docket No. 3:17-cv-01068-TJC-JRK.
Before WILSON, JORDAN, and NEWSOM, Circuit Judges.

DO NOT PUBLISH

PER CURIAM.
Rodney Dale Class appeals the district court's sua sponte dismissal without prejudice of his pro se civil lawsuit, filed on behalf of Joseph W. Mines, Jr., raising Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA") and state law claims. Class argues on appeal that the district court abused its discretion in dismissing the action pursuant to local rules because he, as a non-attorney, was permitted to represent Mines as counsel in federal court.[1]

We review the district court's dismissal of an action for failure to comply with a local rule for an abuse of discretion. Kilgo v. Ricks, 983 F.2d 189, 192 (11th Cir. 1993). Although pro se pleadings are entitled to liberal construction, pro se litigants must still comply with procedural rules. Albra v. Advan, Inc., 490 F.3d 826, 829 (11th Cir. 2007).

A district court has authority to dismiss actions for failure to comply with local rules. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Kilgo, 983 F.2d at 192. The district court may exercise that power sua sponte. Pond v. Braniff Airways, Inc., 453 F.2d 347, 349 (5th Cir. 1972).[2] We have held, though, that the district court should not dismiss the action of a pro se plaintiff based on a local rule when "there is nothing to indicate [the] plaintiff ever was made aware of it prior to dismissal." Mitchell v. Inman, 682 F.2d 886, 887 (11th Cir. 1982).

Dismissal with prejudice under Rule 41(b) is an extreme sanction requiring both a clear record of willful conduct and a finding that lesser sanctions are inadequate. Zocaras v. Castro, 465 F.3d 479, 483 (11th Cir. 2006). By contrast, a dismissal without prejudice often will not constitute an abuse of discretion because the affected party can simply re-file. See Dynes v. Army Air Force Exch. Serv., 720 F.2d 1495, 1499 (11th Cir. 1983) (holding that dismissal without prejudice for failure to file a court-ordered brief was not an abuse of discretion). Ordinarily, we apply a "less stringent standard of review to a [d]istrict [c]ourt's dismissal of a suit without prejudice, because the plaintiff would be able to file his suit again." Boazman v. Econ. Lab., Inc., 537 F.2d 210, 212-13 (5th Cir. 1976).

Here, the district court's local rules provided, in relevant part, that "[n]o person shall be permitted to appear or be heard as counsel for another in any proceeding in this [c]ourt unless first admitted to practice in the [c]ourt pursuant to this rule," and that "[o]nly those persons who are members in good standing of the Florida Bar shall be eligible for general admission to the bar of the [c]ourt." M.D. Fla. R. 2.01(a), (b). Local rule 2.02 provides several circumstances in which licensed attorneys who are not members of the Florida Bar may appear before the court. See M.D. Fla. R. 2.02.

Individual parties in federal court "may plead and conduct their own cases personally or by counsel." 28 U.S.C. § 1654. "The right to appear pro se, however, is limited to parties conducting `their own cases,' and does not extend to non-attorney parties representing the interests of others." FuQua v. Massey, 615 Fed.Appx. 611, 612 (11th Cir. 2015) (quoting Devine v. Indian River Cty. Sch. Bd., 121 F.3d 576, 581 (11th Cir. 1997), overruled in part on other grounds by Winkelman ex rel. Winkelman v. Parma City Sch. Dist., 550 U.S. 516, 535 (2007)); see also Wheat v. United States, 486 U.S. 153, 159 (1988) ("Regardless of his persuasive powers, an advocate who is not a member of the bar may not represent clients (other than himself) in court.").

Class's pleadings in the district court made unmistakably clear that he was attempting to represent Mines as his counsel. He stated twice in boldface type that he was acting as counsel on behalf of the actual injured claimant, and he filed an entry of appearance on behalf of Mines. He also acknowledged that he was not a licensed attorney, arguing at length that any requirement that he possess a "ar [c]ard" to represent clients in federal court violated federal law. Accordingly, Class undoubtedly violated the district court's Local Rules 2.01 and 2.02. See M.D. Fla. R. 2.01, 2.02. The district court made Class specifically aware that he was in violation of Local Rules 2.01 and 2.02 in its show-cause order. Because Class was aware that he was in violation of the district court's rules, and because the district court merely dismissed his case without prejudice, the court did not abuse its discretion. See Mitchell, 682 F.2d at 887; see also Dynes, 720 F.2d at 1499; Boazman, 537 F.2d at 212-13.

Class has not shown that the district court otherwise erred in dismissing his suit without prejudice. As a non-attorney, Class could not represent Mines in federal court as a client. See Devine, 121 F.3d at 581; see also Wheat, 486 U.S. at 159. Class has not identified any authority establishing that non-lawyers may represent other individuals as counsel. Specifically, nothing about the "private attorney general" doctrine's fee-shifting provision authorizes non-attorneys to bring claims on behalf of others. See Dowdell v. City of Apopka, Fla., 698 F.2d 1181, 1190 (11th Cir. 1983); see also Newman v. Piggie Park Enters., 390 U.S. 400,401-02 (1968).

AFFIRMED.
[1] We note that Class has failed to preserve two arguments presented in his brief on appeal. Class argues for the first time on appeal that the district court judge violated his oath of office and the canons of judicial ethics by engaging in the unauthorized practice of law and acting as U.S. Bank National Association's attorney. Additionally, for the first time on appeal, he "moves" this Court for summary judgment. These arguments are not properly before this Court, and we will not consider them. See Access Now, Inc. v. Southwest Airlines Co., 385 F.3d 1324, 1331 (11th Cir. 2004).
[2] Decisions of the former Fifth Circuit rendered prior to close of business on September 30, 1981, are binding on this Court. See Bonner v. City of Pritchard, Ala., 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 (11th Cir. 1981) (en banc).
 

arminius

Argentate Bluster
Platinum Bling
Midas Supporter ++
Joined
Jun 6, 2011
Messages
6,210
Likes
9,372
#67
Good God how you love to lord it over people, and scream it at us by your over-capitolized lies...

Speaking of over-capitolization...

Did You Know the Government Is Also a Corporation?

Like your legal name, the government is also not "real" because it is a corporation. In the "United States", the U.S. government is actually a foreign corporation with respect to a state. Click here to see the evidence. Because the U.S. government is a corporation (artificial person), it is a fictitious entity that has no natural rights and power. Its main source of power comes from feeding on the energy of living men and women.

Most people have been tricked to think that the government is a living entity. There is NO government that is living in reality because there is no living man or woman who is the government itself. There are only men and women acting as agents of the government. Because the government is a corporation/artificial person, it cannot think, speak, see, touch, smell, or do anything that a living man or woman can do. As a result of that, the government can only operate in a fictional world that exists in our minds. To function in the real world, it needs a conduit or a liaison of some sort to connect it to the world of living and breathing people made of flesh and blood.

Because the government operates in a fictional world, it cannot deal directly with the real you (the living man or woman made of flesh and blood). To overcome this problem, it needs you to agree to be a conduit or a liaison, so it can connect you to a fictional character of the government. This conduit is the legal name (legal person/legal fiction) which is the name often written in all caps. This legal person is not you; instead, it is a fictitious entity used by the government to do business with you.

The moment you agree to be a legal person (legal name), you create a conduit that connects you to a legal person of the government, allowing the government to do business with you. It also allows the government and the court to have jurisdiction over you. However, if you know the rules of the "game" and how to exercise your natural rights, you can take control of the game.

How You Were Tricked to Agree to Be a Corporation

The process that allows the government to legally claim you as a corporation involves the creation of an artificial person (fictitious character), which is a legal name often written in all CAPITAL LETTERS, and then tricking you to agree to be that artificial person or legal name. This legal name was created shortly after you were born and was recorded on a bond. This bond that recorded the date of your person's birth is known as a birth certificate.

A birth certificate can be used as a certificate of debt which is why it is recorded on a bond. TheLawDictionary.org defines bond as, "A contract by specialty to pay a certain sum of money; being a deed or instrument under seal, by which the maker or obligor promises, and thereto binds himself, his heirs, executors, and administrators, to pay a designated sum of money to another; usually with a clause to the effect that upon performance of a certain condition (as to pay another and smaller sum) the obligation shall be void." This is why, when you agree to be a legal fiction, the government has the legal right to take money from you. Be aware that legal is not the same as lawful. The good news is that a birth certificate works like a stock certificate; therefore, by learning how to use it properly, you can become its beneficial owner.

Why Your Legal Name Is Written in All Capital Letters

Your legal name, which is used by the government to identify you (a body of water or liquid), is written in all CAPITAL LETTERS because it is a piece of liquidated capital. In other words, it has been securitized and turned into a financial instrument. Hence, the phrase "liquidated capital".

To liquidate something is to sell it off entirely, or sell it to pay off a debt. It is called liquidated capital because you, the man or woman who has been securitized, were born in the womb of your mother which was mostly made of water (liquid). You are also mostly made of water. Because you are mostly made of water/liquid and have been securitized, you are considered liquidated capital.

The purpose of liquidating "you" is to turn you into "capital", so the government can sell your capital on the stock market to pay off its debt. When you split the word capital into three words, you get "cap it all." The word capital comes from the Latin word capitalis, which means "of the head," hence "capital, chief, first." It also comes from another Latin word caput, meaning "head" in English.

Dictionary.com defines the word capital using these exact words: "the wealth, whether in money or property, owned or employed in business by an individual, firm, corporation, etc." (Bold emphasis added) It is interesting to know that Webster's Complete Dictionary of the English Language (1886) defines the word capitalize using these exact words: "To convert into capital, as money or stock".

Did You Know You Were Born with a Bounty on Your Head?

When you really think about the information you just read, you should know that the process of turning you into "capital" or "liquidated capital" is their way of saying that you have a "bounty on your head." Your birth certificate is a bond with your legal name written in all CAPITAL LETTERS inside its four corners and therefore is the financial document (capital) that has the value of the bounty on your head. This is why your birth certificate is used to issue bonds that are traded on the stock market.

In the Western world and many Eastern countries, shortly after babies are born, the government puts a bounty on their heads. This is due to the fact that all governments consider their citizens as capitals and properties. Even though you, as a citizen, are considered property of the corporate government, it has no jurisdiction over you as a living man or woman. However, if you agree to be a citizen ("person") of the corporate government, then it has jurisdiction over you. Why? Because by agreeing to be a citizen, you also agree to act in the capacity of an artificial person (fictitious character). As a result of that, you agree to live in the realm of fiction, also known as the realm of the DEAD. Be aware that an artificial person has no natural rights.

In the United States, when you agree to act in the capacity of a U.S. citizen, the U.S. government sees you as an "employee" of the United States, a federal corporation. If you want evidence of this, look near line 15 in Title 28 U.S. Code § 3002 and you should see this phrase ""United States" means— a Federal corporation." Why do you think the United States has a president and a vice president? All major corporations are required to have a president and a vice president. The United States, Inc. is no exception.

Because U.S. citizens are considered "employees" of the United States, like any employees of a corporation (e.g., Walmart), they have to follow the rules of the United States. Based on its rules, U.S. citizens have no natural rights, only privileges, just like employees of a corporation. The good news is that you can choose to not act in the capacity of an employee of the United States whenever you want to, as long as you know how to exercise your God-given rights (natural rights).

Please keep in mind that when I said the “United States” I was talking about the United States (Inc.) or the United States of America (Inc.), and not the country known as The United States of America (unincorporated). The United States (Inc.) resides in Washington D.C., a district that has a 10 mile radius and is controlled by agents working for the British monarchs and the pope. This district is not part of The United States of America (unincorporated). In other words, the United States (Inc.) is a foreign corporation with respect to a state, such as Minnesota or New York. The foreign agents of Washington D.C. are here to do government services for people living on the land of The United States of America (unincorporated), so people should respect them, as long as they are doing their duties properly and not violating the people's natural rights.

Your Legal Name Is a Name of a Corporation

One of the ways to tell if a name on a government document (e.g., driver's license, social security card and birth certificate) is a corporate name of a legal fiction is to look for capital letters. If a name is written in all capital letters, nearly 99 percent of the time it is a corporate name of a legal fiction. It is important to know that even if a name is not written in all capital letters on a government document it could still represent a corporation. Most, if not all, government and financial documents are legal documents, and therefore the names on them are considered designations of corporations.

Another reason that a legal name is often written in all capital letters is because capital letters are more effective for creating magic spells! If you look at your birth certificate or driver's license, you should see your legal name written in all capital letters. Your birth certificate is not just a record of birth. It is also a legal document that has magic spells. This is why there are sigils (seals) on your birth certificate. Keep in mind that magic can be used for good or evil. Also, keep in mind that when your birth certificate is used wisely, it can be beneficial to you. To a significant degree, your birth certificate is a stock certificate. In other words, it is evidence of your beneficial interest in a corporation (e.g., United States (Inc.)).
 

arminius

Argentate Bluster
Platinum Bling
Midas Supporter ++
Joined
Jun 6, 2011
Messages
6,210
Likes
9,372
#68
Most people know that the word attorney is used to define a person who practices law and is trained in the art of legalese. However, they do not realize that attorneys are "legalese players" of the dead. To find evidence of this, we need to first study some of the definitions of the word attorney. By doing this, we will uncover important information about the hidden roles of attorneys.

According to Dictionary.com, the word attorney means "a lawyer; attorney-at-law" or "an attorney-in-fact; agent". Black's Law Dictionary (5th edition) defines the word attorney using these words:

In the most general sense this term denotes an agent or substitute, or one who is appointed and authorized to act in the place or stead of another. ... An agent, or one acting on behalf of another. ... In its most common usage, however, unless a contrary meaning is clearly intended, this term means "attorney at law", "lawyer" or "counselor at law".

According to A New Dictionary of the English Language (1839), the word attorney means "an agent, or one acting in the turn, or stead of another: in battle, at a tourn, or tourney; in law or other business" (bold emphasis added). The same dictionary defines the word tourn using these words: "A martial or military sport or entertainment, in which the performers displayed their skill in the management of their horses in turning, returning, wheeling, during the engagement or encounter". It can also mean "A court held by the sheriff" (bold emphasis added). Dictionary.com defines the word tourney as "a tournament".

What do people do on a court or at a tournament? They play sports and games, such as basketball, tennis, chess, or poker. Unlike basketball players or poker players, attorneys play the game called legalese and therefore are "legalese players". This game of legalese is played in a courtroom. Did you notice the word court in the word courtroom?

When you walk into a courtroom, you are about to play a game of legalese. This is why the judge is also known as the administrator, which is like a referee, and the agent acting for the defendant is called the attorney. Remember, the word attorney means "an agent, or one acting in the turn, or stead of another: in battle, at a tourn, or tourney; in law or other business" (bold emphasis added).

The word attorney (attorn-ey) is strongly connected to the word attorn. A Dictionary of Law (1889) defines the word attorn using these exact words: "To turn over; to transfer service to a new lord; to recognize as landlord the transferee of a leasehold". According to Etymonline.com, in feudal law, the word attorn means "to transfer homage or allegiance to another lord" (bold emphasis added).

Today, most, if not all, countries still operate under feudal law which is a law of feudalism. Because of this, when you hire an attorney, especially a Bar attorney, you temporarily agree, whether you realize it or not, "to transfer homage or allegiance to another lord".

The lord of attorneys is the dead which is made of corporations. The word corporations can be abbreviated as corps which is phonetically corpse, meaning "a dead body". This is why the word corporation is legally defined as "an artificial person". Keep in mind that by definition states are corporations.

Judges and attorneys work for the State which is a corporation. In other words, they work for a dead body. This is one of the reasons that judges wear black robes. The color black represents death. Judges are like Grim Reapers who know the art of word magic which is why when they walk into the courtroom they say, "all rise". Judges say this because they are raising the dead which are made of corporations and citizens.

The corpses that judges raise from the dead are citizens because in legalese "citizens" can be defined as "persons". Black's Law Dictionary (5th edition) defines the word person using these exact words:

In general usage, a human being (i.e. natural person), though by statute term may include a firm, labor organizations, partnerships, associations, corporations, legal representatives, trustees, trustees in bankruptcy, or receivers. National Labor Relations Act, § 2(1). [Bold emphasis added]

Judges of commercial courts are trained to presume that you are a dead citizen, also known in legalese as a person or corporation, which is why your legal name is written in all capital letters, just like the all caps name on gravestones.

What most people do not know about these commercial courts is that they operate under Satan's Law. Satan rules the kingdom of the dead and therefore judges and attorneys of commercial courts are employees of Satan. This does not mean that they are evil.

The living and the dead relies on each other to thrive, similar to how reality needs light and darkness to exist. The problem is that the dead, such as corporations, has been excessively expanding its jurisdiction by tricking living men and women to act in the capacity of dead entities, such as persons and corporations. To prevent this, living men and women have to learn how to use words wisely, so they can exercise their God-given rights, allowing them to protect their kingdom of the living from the dead.

One of the ways that the dead tricks living men and women to act in the capacity of dead entities is by using attorneys to attorn or turn them away from God's Law, allowing the dead to trick living men and women to live under Satan's Law. Remember, the word attorney is strongly connected to the word attorn, meaning "to transfer homage or allegiance to another lord". The lord of attorney is Satan, also known as the Devil. This is why attorneys are sometimes called "devil's advocates".

To connect the dots, when you hire an attorney to represent you in court, you temporarily agree to turn away from God's Law and live under Satan's Law. This allows the dead to have jurisdiction over you. Satan does not mind having his attorneys helping you; however, Satan always wants something in return. So, when you hire an attorney, be careful what you wish for.
 

Bigjon

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Midas Supporter
Joined
Apr 1, 2010
Messages
4,610
Likes
4,531
#69
Snoopy the troll and forum slider; Post enough gibberish to hide any real content.

David Straight tells how you lost your land while you even had a land patent on it.
You have to get your status changed from being a US Citizen Slave to one of the people as a State National.
49 minute mark if vid doesn't start in right place.


 

snoop4truth

Silver Miner
Joined
Mar 21, 2015
Messages
598
Likes
126
#70
COMMENT: David Straight tells how you lost your land while you even had a land patent on it.

MY RESPONSE: No surprise here. A land patent does not convey allodial title (government title) to a private person. (Only a government can have allodial/government title.). At best, a land patent can only convey fee simple title (regular, ordinary title) to a private person. So, a "land patent" provides no protection whatsoever to a land owner against the loss of his land due to his failure to pay property taxes or mortgage payments. None. Zero. Zip. Nada. As always, a land patent is completely irrelevant in such matters. But, amateur legal theorists do not know this.

COMMENT: You have to get your status changed from being a US Citizen Slave to one of the people as a State National.

MY RESPONSE: This is a legal impossibility. Under the United States Constitution, a person cannot be a citizen of any state (or a "state national" of any state) in the United States without also being a citizen of the United States. Under the United States Constitution, this "dual citizenship" cannot be legally severed (separated). I have provided you with this law before.

Further, a person's status as a United States citizen cannot be changed by any document entered into while that person is standing on United States soil. A person renouncing United States citizenship must be standing on soil OTHER THAN soil of any of the 50 states, districts and territories of the United States. I provided you with this actual law above.

But more importantly, it would not make any difference if a person could change his status from United States citizen to state national citizen. The law treats all human beings who own land exactly the same whether they are a United States citizen, a non-United States citizen, a state national, a non-state national, a state citizen, a non-state citizen, a domestic citizen, a non domestic citizen, a foreign citizen, a non-foreign citizen, a state resident, a non-state resident and so on.

If the law really was different for every human being depending on the status that human being claimed at the particular time, then David Lester Straight would show you dozens of cases proving such. But, he has not. Indeed, he can not. This is because this claim is false. As always, a person's claimed status is completely irrelevant to how that person is treated under the law.

COMMENT: 49 minute mark if vid doesn't start in right place.

MY RESPONSE: The words of David Lester Straight in a video are not the law. Indeed, his words are the exact opposite of the law. Only the actual written words of the law are the law. It is these actual written words of the law that you disparage above in your comment as "gibberish". Your illiteracy and lack of education is the reason you mistakenly believe the claims of such charlatans. You should be embracing these actual written words of the law instead of insulting and ignoring them.

You are working too hard to avoid the law.
 
Last edited:

Bigjon

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Midas Supporter
Joined
Apr 1, 2010
Messages
4,610
Likes
4,531
#71
The United States is an outsider to the united States.
It is not in the united States.
It is a contract government under the Constitution, formed by we the people.
As I type this in Minnesota, I am on land that is not of the United States and never has been under the United States as that Constitution forbid the United States from owning any land in the united States.

That Constitution gave the United States an area of about 100 square miles called the District of Columbia which is outside of the united States.

All that you write proves the point about lieyers.
 
Last edited:

snoop4truth

Silver Miner
Joined
Mar 21, 2015
Messages
598
Likes
126
#72
COMMENT: The United States is an outsider to the united States.

MY RESPONSE: Sure it is.. This is why you have dozens of Supreme Court cases which say this.
.
COMMENT: It is not in the united States.

MY RESPONSE: Of course. This is why you have dozens of Supreme Court cases which say this. .

COMMENT: It is a contract government under the Constitution, formed by we the people.

MY RESPONSE: Sure it is. This is why you have dozens of Supreme Court cases which say this. .

COMMENT: As I type this in Minnesota, I am on land that is not of the United States and never has been

MY RESPONSE: That is just as intelligent as saying that if you live in Minneapolis, then you are not in Minnesota and never have been. The reality is that if you are in Minnesota, then you are also in the United States. Even a person with your education should be able to understand that simple principle. Even a child understands this simple principle.

COMMENT: under the United States as that Constitution forbid the United States from owning any land in the united States.

MY RESPONSE: Really? What part of the Constitution says this? The answer is NONE! Further, if the United States cannot own land in the United States, then how does the United States transfer its legal ownership of its own land to a private person in a "land patent" as described by David Lester Straight and Ron Gibson in every one of their seminars?

COMMENT: That Constitution gave the United States an area of about 100 square miles called the District of Columbia which is outside of the united States.

MY RESPONSE: Such does not preclude the United States from owning land elsewhere. What do you think owned the land in the western United States IMMEDIATELY BEFORE the western states of California, Nevada, Utah, Arizona, New Mexico and Colorado were formed?

COMMENT: All that you write proves the point about lieyers.

MY RESPONSE: Agreed. All that I write proves that lawyers, like myself, know infinitely more about the law than someone, like you, who is functionally illiterate and who never read a single word of the law..
 

arminius

Argentate Bluster
Platinum Bling
Midas Supporter ++
Joined
Jun 6, 2011
Messages
6,210
Likes
9,372
#73
All that I write proves that lawyers, like myself, know infinitely more about the law-
If you mean the fake unenacted corporate code being used as law, by ignoramouses like you, then yeah, it's all about your prevaricating imagination, and all the bullshit you can pull over others sensibilities.

than someone, like you, who is functionally illiterate and who never read a single word of the law.
You have no idea if this is true or not. It's an obvious lie. You don't have a clue what real law is.
 

Bigjon

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Midas Supporter
Joined
Apr 1, 2010
Messages
4,610
Likes
4,531
#74
COMMENT: The United States is an outsider to the united States.

MY RESPONSE: Sure it is.. This is why you have dozens of Supreme Court cases which say this.
.
COMMENT: It is not in the united States.

MY RESPONSE: Of course. This is why you have dozens of Supreme Court cases which say this. .

COMMENT: It is a contract government under the Constitution, formed by we the people.

MY RESPONSE: Sure it is. This is why you have dozens of Supreme Court cases which say this. .

COMMENT: As I type this in Minnesota, I am on land that is not of the United States and never has been

MY RESPONSE: That is just as intelligent as saying that if you live in Minneapolis, then you are not in Minnesota and never have been. The reality is that if you are in Minnesota, then you are also in the United States. Even a person with your education should be able to understand that simple principle. Even a child understands this simple principle.

COMMENT: under the United States as that Constitution forbid the United States from owning any land in the united States.

MY RESPONSE: Really? What part of the Constitution says this? The answer is NONE! Further, if the United States cannot own land in the United States, then how does the United States transfer its legal ownership of its own land to a private person in a "land patent" as described by David Lester Straight and Ron Gibson in every one of their seminars?

COMMENT: That Constitution gave the United States an area of about 100 square miles called the District of Columbia which is outside of the united States.

MY RESPONSE: Such does not preclude the United States from owning land elsewhere. What do you think owned the land in the western United States IMMEDIATELY BEFORE the western states of California, Nevada, Utah, Arizona, New Mexico and Colorado were formed?

COMMENT: All that you write proves the point about lieyers.

MY RESPONSE: Agreed. All that I write proves that lawyers, like myself, know infinitely more about the law than someone, like you, who is functionally illiterate and who never read a single word of the law..
The constitution allows the Federal Govt to own forts, arsenals and needful buildings. But not land. It is very restricted.

"Sean, I'm going to make a statement that the government will consider outrageous," Napolitano warned. "The Constitution simply does not authorize the federal government to own any of this land. All of it is being held unconstitutionally and all of it should be returned to the private property owners from which it was taken or to the states in which it exists, period."

We wanted to hear Napolitano’s legal explanation, but he did not get back to us. However, he is not the first to make this claim and we were able to review the legal record to see whether the federal government lacks the constitutional authority as he said.
The several States are not in or a part of the federal govt and are not inside the federal govt.
The several States are in a geographical area called the United States, which is an entirely different entity than the federal govt.
So as I sit here on land never owned by the Federal govt, I am free to determine my status as a Minnesota National.

Lieyers will always be liars.
 
Last edited:

snoop4truth

Silver Miner
Joined
Mar 21, 2015
Messages
598
Likes
126
#75
Bigjon, I realize that you desperately avoid reading the law at all costs. So, I do not direct the law below to you. You are completely incapable of reading it anyway. Instead, I direct the law below to those members here who are literate enough to read it and intelligent enough comprehend the highlighted words.

WHAT YOU MISTAKENLY THINK IF YOU REFUSE TO EVEN READ THE LAW: The Constitution simply does not authorize the federal government to own any of this land. All of it is being held unconstitutionally and all of it should be returned to the private property owners from which it was taken or to the states in which it exists, period.


WHAT YOU REALIZE AFTER YOU READ THE LAW ITSELF:

426 U.S. 529 (1976)
KLEPPE, SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR
v.
NEW MEXICO ET AL.
No. 74-1488.
Supreme Court of United States.

Argued March 23, 1976.Decided June 17, 1976.APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO.
...

531*531 MR. JUSTICE MARSHALL delivered the opinion of the Court.​


At issue in this case is whether Congress exceeded its powers under the Constitution in enacting the Wild Free-roaming Horses and Burros Act.

The Wild Free-roaming Horses and Burros Act, 85 Stat. 649, 16 U. S. C. §§ 1331-1340 (1970 ed., Supp. IV), was enacted in 1971 to protect "all unbranded and unclaimed horses and burros on public lands of the United States," § 2 (b) of the Act, 16 U. S. C. § 1332 (b) (1970 ed., Supp. IV), from "capture, branding, harassment, or death." § 1, 16 U. S. C. § 1331 (1970 ed., Supp. IV). The Act provides that all such horses and burros on the public lands administered by the Secretary of the Interior through the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) or by the Secretary of Agriculture through the Forest Service are committed to the jurisdiction of the respective Secretaries, who are "directed to protect and manage [the animals] as components of the public lands . . . in a manner that is designed to achieve and maintain a thriving natural ecological balance on the public lands." § 3 (a), 16 U. S. C. § 1333 (a) (1970 ed., Supp. IV). If protected horses or burros 532*532 "stray from public lands onto privately owned land, the owners of such land may inform the nearest federal marshal or agent of the Secretary, who shall arrange to have the animals removed."[1] § 4, 16 U. S. C. § 1334 (1970 ed., Supp. IV).... .

THE PROPERTY CLAUSE OF THE [UNITED STATES] CONSTITUTION provides that "Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the TERRITORY OR OTHER PROPERTY BELONGING TO THE UNITED STATES." U. S. Const., Art. IV, § 3, cl. 2.
... .
In brief, beyond the Fort Leavenworth and Paul dicta, appellees have presented no support for their position that the Clause grants Congress only the power to dispose of, to make incidental rules regarding the use of, and to protect federal property. This failure is hardly surprising, for the Clause, in broad terms, gives Congress the power to determine what are "needful" rules "respecting" the public lands. United States v. San Francisco, 310 U. S., at 29-30; Light v. United States, 220 U. S., at 537; United States v. Gratiot, 14 Pet., at 537-538. And while the furthest reaches of the power granted by the Property Clause have not yet been definitively resolved, we have repeatedly observed that "[t]he power over the public land thus entrusted to Congress IS WITHOUT LIMITATIONS." United States v. San Francisco, supra, at 29. See Ivanhoe Irrig. Dist. v. McCracken, 357 U. S. 275, 294-295 (1958); Alabama v. Texas, 347 U. S. 272, 273 (1954); FPC v. Idaho Power Co., 344 U. S. 17, 21 (1952); United States v. California, 332 U. S. 19, 27 (1947); Gibson v. Chouteau, 13 Wall. 92, 99 (1872); United States v. Gratiot, supra, at 537.

The decided cases have supported this expansive reading. It is the Property Clause, for instance, that provides the basis for governing the TERRITORIES OF THE UNITED STATES. Hooven & Allison Co. v. Evatt, 324 U. S. 652, 673-674 (1945); Balzac v. Porto Rico, 258 U. S. 298, 305 (1922); Dorr v. United States, 195 U. S. 138, 149 (1904); United States v. Gratiot, supra, at 537; Sere v. Pitot, 6 Cranch 332, 336-337 (1810). See also Vermilya-Brown Co. v. Connell, 335 U. S. 377, 381 (1948). And even over public land within the States, "[t]he general Government doubtless has a power over ITS OWN PROPERTY analogous to the police power of the several States, and the extent to which it may go in the exercise of such power is measured by the exigencies of the particular case." Camfield v. United States, supra, at 525. We have noted, for example, that the Property Clause gives Congress the power over the public lands "to control their occupancy and use, to protect them from trespass and injury and to prescribe the conditions upon which others may obtain rights in them . . . ." Utah Power & Light Co. v. United States, 243 U. S. 389, 405 (1917). And we have approved legislation respecting the public lands "f it be found to be necessary for the protection of the public, or of intending settlers [on the public lands]." Camfield v. United States, supra, at 525. In short, Congress exercises the powers both of a proprietor (OWNER) and of a legislature over the public domain. Alabama v. Texas, supra, at 273; Sinclair v. United States, 279 U. S. 263, 297 (1929); United States v. Midwest Oil Co., 236 U. S. 459, 474 (1915). Although the Property Clause does not authorize "an exercise of a general control over public policy in a State," it does permit "an exercise of the complete power which Congress has over particular public property entrusted to it." United States v. San Francisco, supra, at 30 (footnote omitted). In our view, the "complete power" that Congress has over public lands necessarily includes the power to regulate and protect the wildlife living there.

...

And when Congress so acts, the federal legislation necessarily overrides conflicting state laws under the Supremacy Clause. U. S. Const., Art. VI, cl. 2. See Hunt v. United States, 278 U. S., at 100; McKelvey v. United States, 260 U. S. 353, 359 (1922). As we said in Camfield v. United States, 167 U. S., at 526, in response to a somewhat different claim: "A different rule would place the public domain of the United States completely at the mercy of state legislation."
... .
For the reasons stated, the judgment of the District Court is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.





220 U.S. 523 (1911)

LIGHT

v.

UNITED STATES.

No. 360.

Supreme Court of United States.


Argued February 27, 28, 1911.Decided May 1, 1911.APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO.

534*534 MR. JUSTICE LAMAR, after making the foregoing statement, delivered the opinion of the court.




The defendant was enjoined from pasturing his cattle on the Holy Cross Forest Reserve, because he had refused to comply with the regulations adopted by the Secretary of Agriculture, under the authority conferred by the act of June 4, 1897, (30 Stat. 35), to make rules and regulations as to the use, occupancy and preservation of forests. ...



"Congress is the body to which is given the power to determine the conditions upon which the public lands shall be disposed of." Butte City Water Co. v. Baker, 196 U.S. 126. "The Government has with respect to ITS OWN LAND the rights of an ordinary proprietor (OWNER) to maintain its possession and prosecute trespassers. It may deal with such lands precisely as an ordinary individual may deal with his farming property. It may sell or withhold them from sale." Camfield v. United States, 167 U.S. 524. And if it may withhold from sale and settlement it may also AS AN OWNER object to its property being used for grazing purposes, for "the Government is charged with the duty and clothed with the power to protect the public domain from trespass and unlawful appropriation." United States v. Beebee, 127 U.S. 342.



The United States can prohibit absolutely or fix the terms on which its property may be used. As it can withhold or reserve the land it can do so indefinitely, Stearns v. Minnesota, 179 U.S. 243. It is true that the "United States do not and cannot hold property as a monarch may for private or personal purposes." Van Brocklin v. Tennessee, 117 U.S. 158. But that does not lead to the conclusion that it is without the rights incident to ownership, for THE CONSTITUTION DECLARES, § 3, Art. IV, that "Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting THE TERRITORY OR OTHER PROPERTY BELONGING TO THE UNITED STATES." "The full scope of this paragraph has never been definitely settled. Primarily, at least, it is a grant of power to the United States of control OVER ITS PROPERTY." Kansas v. Colorado, 206 U.S. 89.



"All the public lands of the nation are held in trust for the people of the whole country." United States v. Trinidad Coal Co., 137 U.S. 160. And it is not for the courts to say how that trust shall be administered. That is for Congress to determine. The courts cannot compel it to set aside the lands for settlement; or to suffer them to be used for agricultural or grazing purposes; nor interfere when, in the exercise of its discretion, Congress establishes a forest reserve for what it decides to be national and public purposes. In the same way and in the exercise of the same trust it may disestablish a reserve, and devote the property to some other national and public purpose. These are rights incident to proprietorship (OWNERSHIP), to say nothing of the power of the United States as a sovereign OVER THE PROPERTY BELONGING TO IT. Even a private owner would be entitled to protection against willful trespasses, and statutes providing that damage done by animals cannot be recovered, unless the land had been enclosed with a fence of the size and material required, do not give permission to the owner of cattle to use his neighbor's land as a pasture. They are intended to condone trespasses by straying cattle; they have no application to cases where they are driven upon unfenced land in order that they may feed there. Lazarus v. Phelps, 152 U.S. 81; Monroe v. Cannon, 24 Montana, 316; St. Louis Cattle Co. v. Vaught, 1 Tex. App. 388; The Union Pacific v. Rollins, 5 Kansas, 165, 176.

...

The decree is therefore

Affirmed.







167 U.S. 518 (1897)CAMFIELD

v.

UNITED STATES.

No. 278.

Supreme Court of United States.

MR. JUSTICE BROWN delivered the opinion of the court.



This case involves the construction and application of the act of Congress of February 25, 1885, c. 149, entitled "An act to prevent unlawful occupancy of the public lands." 23 Stat. 321. The first section of the act reads as follows:



"That all enclosures of any public lands in any State or Territory of the United States,... are hereby declared to be unlawful, and the maintenance, erection, construction or control of any such enclosure is hereby forbidden and prohibited; and the assertion of a right to the exclusive use and occupancy of any part of the public lands of the United States in any State or any of the Territories of the United States, ... is likewise declared unlawful and hereby prohibited."

...

Defendants are certainly within the letter of this statute. They did enclose public lands of the United States to the amount of 20,000 acres, and there is nothing tending to show that they had any claim or color of title to the same, or any asserted right thereto under a claim made in good faith under the general laws of the United States. The defence is in substance that, if the act be construed so as to apply to fences upon private property, it is unconstitutional.

...

While the lands in question are all within the State of Colorado, the Government has, with respect to its own lands, the rights of an ordinary proprietor (OWNER), to maintain its possession and to prosecute trespassers. It may deal with such lands precisely as a private individual may deal with his farming property. It may sell or withhold them from sale. It may grant them in aid of railways or other public enterprises. It may open them to preëmption or homestead settlement; but it would be recreant to its duties as trustee for the people of the United States to permit any individual or private corporation to monopolize them for private gain, and thereby practically drive intending settlers from the market. It needs no argument to show that the building of fences upon public lands with intent to enclose them for private use would be a mere trespass, and that such fences might be abated by the officers of the Government or by the ordinary processes of courts of justice. To this extent no legislation was necessary to vindicate the rights of the Government AS A LANDED (LAND OWNING) PROPRIETOR (OWNER).

...

We are of opinion that, in passing the act in question, Congress exercised its constitutional right of protecting the public lands from nuisances erected upon adjoining property; that the act is valid, and that the judgment of the Circuit Court of Appeals must be

Affirmed.

AS CLOSING NOTE:

IF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT COULD NOT OWN LAND, THEN THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT COULD NOT TRANSFER ITS OWNERSHIP IN LAND TO TO A PRIVATE PERSON IN A "LAND PATENT," AS DESCRIBED BY RON GIBSON AND DAVID LESTER STRAIGHT IN THEIR VIDEOS AND SEMINARS.

IF YOU HAVE CRITICAL THINKING SKILLS, THEN USE THEM!



 
Last edited:

Bigjon

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Midas Supporter
Joined
Apr 1, 2010
Messages
4,610
Likes
4,531
#76
Well the federal govt has an extension called the territorial govt and it deals in territory, with the object to get the best price for all of the American people. Territorial land is not under the same rules as State land.

The govt called the United States only owned land as territory for sale. Not for it's use or enjoyment, not for commercial use, not for any reason other than to create a profit for the American's of the several States which helped finance that lands acquisition.

Once sold most of it became private land. The land I sit on today is private land without the federal United States.

We the people created the 13 States and those States created the Federal govt and they limited it to a ten mile square called Washington DC.

None of the States are in the Federal govt, they created it.

I think you are daft. mixed up in the head.
Or just a lieyer.
 
Last edited:

snoop4truth

Silver Miner
Joined
Mar 21, 2015
Messages
598
Likes
126
#77
Well the federal govt has an extension called the territorial govt and it deals in territory, with the object to get the best price for all of the American people. Territorial land is not under the same rules as State land.

The govt called the United States only owned land as territory for sale. Not for it's use or enjoyment, not for commercial use, not for any reason other than to create a profit for the American's of the several States which helped finance that lands acquisition.

Once sold most of it became private land. The land I sit on today is private land without the federal United States.

We the people created the 13 States and those States created the Federal govt and they limited it to a ten mile square called Washington DC.

None of the States are in the Federal govt, they created it.

I think you are daft. mixed up in the head.
Or just a lieyer.
Well the federal govt has an extension called the territorial govt and it deals in territory, with the object to get the best price for all of the American people. Territorial land is not under the same rules as State land.

The govt called the United States only owned land as territory for sale. Not for it's use or enjoyment, not for commercial use, not for any reason other than to create a profit for the American's of the several States which helped finance that lands acquisition.

Once sold most of it became private land. The land I sit on today is private land without the federal United States.

We the people created the 13 States and those States created the Federal govt and they limited it to a ten mile square called Washington DC.

None of the States are in the Federal govt, they created it.

I think you are daft. mixed up in the head.
Or just a lieyer.
Show me the actual written words of the law that supports this amateur legal theory.
 

Bigjon

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Midas Supporter
Joined
Apr 1, 2010
Messages
4,610
Likes
4,531
#78
Show me the actual written words of the law that supports this amateur legal theory.
You're the lieyer, you show me the written words of the law that say my land is not private land and is owned by the federal United States govt.
I'm not agreeing to be a US Citizen, a resident of the State of Minnesota.
 

arminius

Argentate Bluster
Platinum Bling
Midas Supporter ++
Joined
Jun 6, 2011
Messages
6,210
Likes
9,372
#79
Fugettaboutit. That's all he does is lord over us about his system, which is now showing it's true face of fascism and communism. What he's doing is demonstrating his belief that he (lawyerism with its you can't have law unless you pay us bullfeces) controls your interactions with law, and 95% of that law unenacted, therefore only subject to employees of that corporation, like the US, but not you as an individual. That's why they turn us, our names into corporations, IN ALL CAPS, solely to control you, us. That's not us, unless you accept that liability. It's all about their (lieyer-ism) run around the constitution in order to subjugate us the people to their income stream.

LEGAL is a virus unto the Law...
 
Last edited:

snoop4truth

Silver Miner
Joined
Mar 21, 2015
Messages
598
Likes
126
#80
You're the lieyer, you show me the written words of the law that say my land is not private land and is owned by the federal United States govt.
I'm not agreeing to be a US Citizen, a resident of the State of Minnesota.
COMMENT: you show me the written words of the law that say my land is not private land

MY RESPONSE: It makes no difference whether you own land or whether that land is public or privately owned. You may own private land. But, if you own private land in the state of Minnesota, then Minnesota has jurisdiction over your private land. Minnesota owns land in the state of Minnesota too. https://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/hrd/pubs/ss/sssoland.pdf#:~:text=while the state government owns about 17 percent,management areas, national parklands, and Indian reservation lands.

But, Minnesota's JURISDICTION over land in Minnesota is not confined to land owned by the state of Minnesota. Instead, Minnesota has JURISDICTION over ALL LANDS (public and private) within the borders of the state of Minnesota. So, contrary to your understanding, neither the state nor the federal government needs to "OWN" land to have jurisdiction over it.

COMMENT: you show me the written words of the law that say my land is owned by the federal United States govt.

MY RESPONSE: It makes no difference whether the land you own is owned by the federal government. You may own private land. But, if you own land in the state of Minnesota (A STATE OF THE UNITED STATES), then the federal government of the United States has jurisdiction over that private land IN CONNECTION WITH ANY LEGAL SUBJECT THAT THE STATES DELEGATED TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IN THE U.S. CONSTITUTION. The federal government owns land in the state of Minnesota too.
https://www.worldofmaps.net/en/nort...map-federal-lands-and-indian-reservations.htm. https://ballotpedia.org/Federal_land_policy_in_Minnesota.

But, the federal government's JURISDICTION in the state of Minnesota is not confined to land owned by the federal government. Instead, the federal government has JURISDICTION over ALL LANDS (public and private) within the borders of the state of Minnesota IN CONNECTION WITH ANY LEGAL SUBJECT THAT THE STATES DELEGATED TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IN THE U.S. CONSTITUTION. So, contrary to your understanding, neither the state nor the federal government needs to "OWN" land to have jurisdiction over it.

COMMENT: I'm not agreeing to be a US Citizen, a resident of the State of Minnesota.

MY RESPONSE: What you "agree to" is completely irrelevant. Under the U.S. Constitution, any person born withing the borders of the United States is BOTH a citizen of the United States and a citizen of the state in which they reside.

Amendment XIV
Section 1.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
 
Last edited: