Please help and please listen Mr. Chris-:Walker dose very good presentation to save his freedom by law. Branford says he dose not need an oath of office . Chris walker kidnap and held for ransom for protecting his bloodline. Chris Court again November 6 2014 To destroy him and his family just like he will do to you .I lived a simulated hell by this man destroyed my family in 2004 Im disable on oxygen attempts on my life liberty my next time if I dont comply with the devil contractors November 17 2014 9am, who know what this contractor will do to me, also he implies disable men and woman Children have no rights., as he has s for their own personal gain of Statutes and codes.. Courts are not open for public record what ????? Judges say the people need to blame the house and senators members listen for yourself, ,, Dose anyone care about thy fellow lawful rights any more. No Victim No Crime.. peace and god bless Jesus. This could possible happen to you https://youtube/watch?v=MGU8yX5FFX8, Thomas Branford in Lincoln County Circuit Court October 16 2014 AD Thomas Branford in Lincoln County Circuit Court October 16 2014 AD image Thomas Branford in Lincoln County Circuit Court October ... View on youtube Preview by Yahoo Chirs was tapping to tape for my records of the criminal acts for my kidnapping rape, and attempts on my life, image Judge has no Oath Chris Unlawful Hearing 10-28-2013 View on youtube Preview by Yahoo Judge has no Oath Chris Unlawful Hearing 10-28-2013 Rights to Travel Explained Oct 14 City of Toledo Ore City Council Rights to Travel Explained Oct 14 City of Toledo Ore City Council image Rights to Travel Explained Oct 14 City of Toledo Ore Cit... View on youtube Preview by Yahoo A public official” has no rights in relation to their employer, the state or federal government: “The restrictions that the Constitution places upon the government in its capacity as lawmaker, i.e., as the regulator of private conduct, are not the same as the restrictions that it places upon the government in its capacity as employer. We have recognized this in many contexts, with respect to many different constitutional guarantees. Private citizens perhaps cannot be prevent...ed from wearing long hair, but policemen can. Kelley v. Johnson, 425 U.S. 238, 247 (1976). Private citizens cannot have their property searched without probable cause, but in many circumstances government employees can. OConnor v. Ortega, 480 U.S. 709, 723 (1987) (plurality opinion); id., at 732 (SCALIA, J., concurring in judgment). Private citizens cannot be punished for refusing to provide the government information that may incriminate them, but government employees can be dismissed when the incriminating information that they refuse to provide relates to the performance of their job. Gardner v. Broderick, [497 U.S. 62, 95] 392 U.S. 273, 277 -278 (1968). With regard to freedom of speech in particular: Private citizens cannot be punished for speech of merely private concern, but government employees can be fired for that reason. Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138, 147 (1983). Private citizens cannot be punished for partisan political activity, but federal and state employees can be dismissed and otherwise punished for that reason. Public Workers v. Mitchell, 330 U.S. 75, 101 (1947); Civil Service Commn v. Letter Carriers, 413 U.S. 548, 556 (1973); Broadrick v. Oklahoma, 413 U.S. 601, 616 -617 (1973).” [Rutan v. Republican Party of Illinois, 497 U.S. 62 (1990)] Supreme courts ruled Without Corpus delicti there can be no crime “In every prosecution for crime it is necessary to establish the “corpus delecti”, i.e., the body or elements of the crime.” People v. Lopez, 62 Ca.Rptr. 47, 254 C.A.2d 185. •In every criminal trial, the prosecution must prove the corpus delecti, or the body of the crime itself-i.e., the fact of injury, loss or harm, and the existence of a criminal agency as its cause. People v. Sapp, 73 P.3d 433, 467 (Cal. 2003) [quoting People v. Alvarez, (2002) 27 Cal.4th 1161, 1168-1169, 119 Cal.Rptr.2d 903, 46 P.3d 372.]. As a general principal, standing to invoke the judicial process requires an actual justiciable controversy as to which the complainant has a real interest in the ultimate adjudication because he or she has either suffered or is about to suffer an injury. People v. Superior Court, 126 Cal.Rptr.2d 793. .. please listen Mr.Walker dose very good.. Oaths - Lawless in Lincoln County Oregon May 30, 2014 image Oaths - Lawless in Lincoln County Oregon May 30, 2014 View on youtube Preview by Yahoo Eds unlawful hearing and arrest again 10132014 image Eds unlawful hearing and arrest again 10132014 View on youtube Preview by Yahoo NOTICE: It is a crime for any government office or any official to auction or otherwise sell in any way, private or business property of any individual WITHOUT FIRST HAVING DUE PROCESS OF LAW, to determine the cause of action and the recourse in law. The sale of any property outside this means is illegal, and all those involved with such a sale, including those purchasing said property, are personally liable for damages, and subject to criminal charges under Racketeering (RIC...O) laws, and for violation of civil and Due Process rights. All government officials have the Greater Duty to know the law and comply with it, and if you are involved with such an auction without Due Process for the owner, you are in breach of your fiduciary duty and you can be held personally liable by those harmed by this fraud. Any challenge to property taxation or property sale made by any citizen requires you to respond, point by point, and to prove up your position in law. The United States is entirely a creature of the Constitution. Its power and authority have no other source. It can only act in accordance with all the limitations imposed by the Constitution. Reid v Covert 354 US l, 1957. Any laws created by government which are repugnant to the Constitution carry NO force of law and are VOID:An unconstitutional law states and codes cannot operate to supersede any existing law. Indeed insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, (the Constitution JTM) it is superseded thereby. No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it. Bonnett v. Vallier, 116 N.W. 885, 136 Wis. 193 (1908); NORTON v. SHELBY COUNTY, 118 U.S. 425 (1886). See also Bonnett v Vallier, 136 Wis 193, 200; 116 NW 885, 887 (1908); State ex rel Ballard v Goodland, 159 Wis 393, 395; 150 NW 488, 489 (1915); State ex rel Kleist v Donald, 164 Wis 545, 552-553; 160 NW 1067, 1070 (1917); State ex rel Martin v Zimmerman, 233 Wis 16, 21; 288 NW 454, 457 (1939); State ex rel Commissioners of Public Lands v Anderson, 56 Wis 2d 666, 672; 203 NW2d 84, 87 (1973); and Butzlaffer v Van Der Geest & Sons, Inc, Wis, 115 Wis 2d 539; 340 NW2d 742, 744-745 (1983). The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute and codes, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void and ineffective for any purpose, since its unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment... In legal contemplation, it is as inoperative as if it had never been passed... Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no right, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection and justifies no acts performed under it... A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. 20.181-192United States Code: Title 28a,Rule 5.1. Constitutional ... law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode28a/usc_sec_28a... Cached42 USC 1986 provides: 42 USC 1986 provides: Every person who, having knowledge that any of the wrongs conspired to be done, and mentioned in the preceding section (1985 of Title 42) are about to be committed, and having power to prevent or aid in preventing the commission of same, neglects or refuses so to do, if such wrongful act be committed, shall be liable to the party injured, or his legal representatives, for all damages caused by such wrongful act which such person by reasonable diligence could have prevented; and such damages may be recovered in an action on the case; and any number of persons guilty of such wrongful act, neglect, or refusal, may be joined as defendants in the action. (Civil Rights)Mandatory Reporting laws Appliers Elected and public employees and commercial contractors Defendants can be held in actions under 42 USC 1983, even,This includes Elected and public employees,Effective January 1, 2013, employees of Oregon higher education institutions are considered by law to be subject mandatory reporters of child abuse.oregon.gov/dhs/abuse/pages/mr_employees.aspx though they did not act willfully. Even though they did not have a specific intent to deprive the plaintiff of a federal right, such defendants can be held to civil responsibility. Monroe v. Pape, 365 U.s. 167, 1961.24.215-219, the assaults on this man or reported again An conspiracy is actionable under 42 USC 1985, when there has been an actual of denial of due process.(Civil Rights) Jennings v. Nester (1954, Ca. 7 Ill.) 217, F.2d 153, CERT DEN 349 U.S. 958, 99 L.Ed. 1281, 75 S.ct. 888.Thus, the particular phraseology of the constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written constitutions, that a law repugnant to the Constitution is void; and the courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument. Marbury v Madison, 5 US 1803 (2 Cranch) 137, 170?180, and NORTON v. SHELBY COUNTY, 118 U.S. 425. When an act of the legislature is repugnant or contrary to the constitution, it is, ipso facto, void. 2 Pet. R. 522; 12 Wheat. 270; 3 Dall. 286; 4 Dall. 18. [p]owers not granted (to any government) are prohibited. United States v. Butler, 297 U.S 1, 68 (1936).43.359-365 Purpose: Generally, this section further protects civil action for deprivation of rights protects constitutional rights from invasion by persons acting under state or federal authority. (Civil Rights) Weise v. Reisner, DC Wis. 1970, 318 F.Sup. 580, quoted from U.S.C.A. 1972 pocketpart, P. 40 Title 42, Sec. 1983, Note Paragraph 8,,,,,. Liability in damages for unconstitutional or otherwise illegal conduct has the very desirable effect of deterring such conduct. Indeed, this was precisely the proposition upon which 42 USC section 1983 was enacted. Judges may be punished criminally for willful deprivations of constitutional right on the strength of 18 USC Section 241- 242. (Civil Rights) (Imbler vs Pachtman, U.S. 47 L.Ed. 2nd 128, 96 S.Ct.) 44.367-374 This section was passed to enforce U.S.C.A. Constitution Amendment 14 and to protect form interference the rights secured thereby, as well as other constitutional rights; it is directed against conspiracies of private persons; and there is no requirement that conspiracy be under color of law. (Civil Rights) U.S.C.A. 1972 Pocket P. 1675, Title 42, Sec. 1995, Note 28.242-248 The Seventh Circuit of Appeals has held that a public official does not have immunity simply because he operates in a discretionary situation. It indicated that public servants are to be held liable when they abused their discretion or acted in a way that is arbitrary, fanciful, or clearly unreasonable. (Civil Rights) Littleton v. Berbling (1972, Ca. 7 Ill.), 468 F.2d 389.36.304-308 Governmental immunity is not defense in suits brought under this section making liable every person who under color or state law deprives another person of his civil rights. Westberry v. Fisher, DC Me., 1970, 309 F.Sup. 95.18 USC § 2381 - Treason | Title 18 241-242- Crimes and Criminal ...law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2381 Cached ... is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; .. Common-Law Grand-Juries.Blacks Law Dictionary, 4th Edition Attorney General... He is the chief law officer of the federal and state governments with the duty of representing the sovereign, national or state. Johnson v. Commonwealth, ex rel. Meredith, 291 Ky. 829, 165 S.W.2d 820, 826. Insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, (constitution) it is superseded thereby. (16 Am Jur 2d 177, Late Am Jur 2d. 256) ...all laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void (Marbury v Madison, 5 US 1803 (2 Cranch) 137, 174, 170). Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them. - Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 491. The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime. Miller v. U.S., 230 F 2d 486, 489. There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of this exercise of Constitutional rights.- Sherar v. Cullen, 481 F. 945. To disregard Constitutional law, and to violate the same, creates a sure liability upon the one involved: State officers may be held personally liable for damages based upon actions taken in their official capacities. Hafer v. Melo, 502 U.S. 21 (1991). I have a right to question and challenge any Publicly owned taxing activities by Any Public court, their Elected and public employee government,,non-for profits and any affiliates agency as to their validity and legal standing: Anyone entering into an arrangement with the government takes the risk of having accurately ascertained that he who purports to act for the government stays within the bounds of his authority, even though the agent himself may be unaware of limitations upon his authority. The United States Supreme Court, Federal Crop Ins. Corp, v. Merrill, 332 US 380-388 L1947) The individual may stand upon his constitutional rights as a citizen. He is entitled to carry on his private business in his own way. His power to contract is unlimited. He owes no duty to the state or to his neighbors to divulge his business, or to open his doors to an investigation, so far as it may tend to criminate him. He owes no such duty to the state, since he receives nothing therefrom, beyond the protection of his life and property. His rights are such as existed by the law of the land long antecedent to the organization of the state, and can only be taken from him by due process of law, and in accordance with the Constitution. United States Supreme Court reminds us in Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43 (1906): The legal right of an individual to decrease or ALTOGETHER AVOID his/her taxes by means which the law permits cannot be doubted --Gregory v. Helvering, 293 U.S. 465 A public official” has no rights in relation to their employer, the state or federal government: “The restrictions that the Constitution places upon the government in its capacity as lawmaker, i.e., as the regulator of private conduct, are not the same as the restrictions that it places upon the government in its capacity as employer. We have recognized this in many contexts, with respect to many different constitutional guarantees. Private citizens perhaps cannot be prevent...ed from wearing long hair, but policemen can. Kelley v. Johnson, 425 U.S. 238, 247 (1976). Private citizens cannot have their property searched without probable cause, but in many circumstances government employees can. OConnor v. Ortega, 480 U.S. 709, 723 (1987) (plurality opinion); id., at 732 (SCALIA, J., concurring in judgment). Private citizens cannot be punished for refusing to provide the government information that may incriminate them, but government employees can be dismissed when the incriminating information that they refuse to provide relates to the performance of their job. Gardner v. Broderick, [497 U.S. 62, 95] 392 U.S. 273, 277 -278 (1968). With regard to freedom of speech in particular: Private citizens cannot be punished for speech of merely private concern, but government employees can be fired for that reason. Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138, 147 (1983). Private citizens cannot be punished for partisan political activity, but federal and state employees can be dismissed and otherwise punished for that reason. Public Workers v. Mitchell, 330 U.S. 75, 101 (1947); Civil Service Commn v. Letter Carriers, 413 U.S. 548, 556 (1973); Broadrick v. Oklahoma, 413 U.S. 601, 616 -617 (1973).” [Rutan v. Republican Party of Illinois, 497 U.S. 62 (1990)] Supreme courts ruled Without Corpus delicti there can be no crime “In every prosecution for crime it is necessary to establish the “corpus delecti”, i.e., the body or elements of the crime.” People v. Lopez, 62 Ca.Rptr. 47, 254 C.A.2d 185. •In every criminal trial, the prosecution must prove the corpus delecti, or the body of the crime itself-i.e., the fact of injury, loss or harm, and the existence of a criminal agency as its cause. People v. Sapp, 73 P.3d 433, 467 (Cal. 2003) [quoting People v. Alvarez, (2002) 27 Cal.4th 1161, 1168-1169, 119 Cal.Rptr.2d 903, 46 P.3d 372.]. As a general principal, standing to invoke the judicial process requires an actual justiciable controversy as to which the complainant has a real interest in the ultimate adjudication because he or she has either suffered or is about to suffer an injury. People v. Superior Court, 126 Cal.Rptr.2d 793. .. please listen Mr.Walker dose very good.. All government officials and agencies, including all State legislatures, are bound by the Constitution and Shall NOT create any defacto 1871 1933 banking act laws which counter the Constitution: The U.S. Supreme Court, in 1895, ruled unconstitutional a federal law... containing unlawful income taxes, senate and house Bills ones birth certificate , statutes and codes with arguments concerning class warfare and the definition of a direct tax. Herein...Ohios Doctrine of Governmental Immunity was held unconstitutional and others to numerous to mention. (Civil Rights) (Krause vs Ohio, app 2d 1 L.N.W. 2d 321 1971.) Reich vs State Highway Dept. 336, Mich 617: 194 N.W. 2d 700 197Employees of a city or state are not immune from suit under statute relating civil rights for deprivations of rights on ground that officials were acting within the scope of their ground that officials were acting within the Scope of their responsibilities of performing a discretionary act. (Bunch vs Barnett 376 F.Sup. 23.)Title 28 Section 1391, this section makes it possible to bring actions against government officials and agencies in district court outside D.C. (Civil Rights) (Norton vs Mcshane 14 L.Ed. 2d 274.)A suit in detinue or replevin in personam should lie to gain possession of property seized by the state. (Civil Rights) Stephen, Pleading (3rd Am ed) p. 47, 52, 69, 74; Ames Lectures on legal history, p. 64, 71; Wilkins v. Despard, 5 Term Rep- 112; Roberts v. Withered, % Mod. 193, 12 Mod. 92. This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof;... shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby... The Senators and Representatives and members of the State legislature, and all executive and judicial officers of the United States and the several States, shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding. The Constitution of the united States of America, Article VI, Cl 2, 3.5 U.S.C. 2906, 3331,The oath of office taken by an individual under section 3331 of this title shall be delivered by him to, and preserved by, the House of Congress, agency, or court to ..Sec. 3331-3333. Oath of office - Subchapter II - Oath of Office - U.S. Code - Title 5: Government Organization and Employees - January 01, 2011 - Order: 2 - 19265805 ...To protect the people from their elected and public employees,,Many of our people seem to believe that their state government has jurisdiction to stop the common law Grand Juries. However,the state government only has authority over statutory (ie. State) law, not common law. The common law of England was used to establish the U.S. Constitution, so it existed before it and, thus, it is superior to it. The common law is time immemorial. The state government did not create the common law, so it has no authority to abolish it or control it, unless we allow ourselves to be tricked to putting common law under statutory law, where its their house, their rules. However, if we operate outside the statutory rules by invoking common law, no state government has the authority or jurisdiction to dictate, control or abolish what we do. They only have authority to enforce our decisions. If the U.S. Supreme Court acknowledged the authority of the common law Grand Jury (U.S. v. Williams), why would the state have authority to counter that opinion? The common law is superior to all statutory law, and we must only invoke it in the right way to have superior standing. We need to stop putting the common law and the Grand Juries underneath their inferior statutory laws. The people (singular AND plural) have the ultimate authority!18 USC § 2381 - Treason | Title 18 - Crimes and Criminal … law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2381 ... is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; ... Eds unlawful hearing and arrest again 10132014 image Eds unlawful hearing and arrest again 10132014 View on youtube Preview by Yahoo NOTICE: It is a crime for any government office or any official to auction or otherwise sell in any way, private or business property of any individual WITHOUT FIRST HAVING DUE PROCESS OF LAW, to determine the cause of action and the recourse in law. The sale of any property outside this means is illegal, and all those involved with such a sale, including those purchasing said property, are personally liable for damages, and subject to criminal charges under Racketeering (RIC...O) laws, and for violation of civil and Due Process rights. All government officials have the Greater Duty to know the law and comply with it, and if you are involved with such an auction without Due Process for the owner, you are in breach of your fiduciary duty and you can be held personally liable by those harmed by this fraud. Any challenge to property taxation or property sale made by any citizen requires you to respond, point by point, and to prove up your position in law. The United States is entirely a creature of the Constitution. Its power and authority have no other source. It can only act in accordance with all the limitations imposed by the Constitution. Reid v Covert 354 US l, 1957. Any laws created by government which are repugnant to the Constitution carry NO force of law and are VOID:An unconstitutional law states and codes cannot operate to supersede any existing law. Indeed insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, (the Constitution JTM) it is superseded thereby. No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it. Bonnett v. Vallier, 116 N.W. 885, 136 Wis. 193 (1908); NORTON v. SHELBY COUNTY, 118 U.S. 425 (1886). See also Bonnett v Vallier, 136 Wis 193, 200; 116 NW 885, 887 (1908); State ex rel Ballard v Goodland, 159 Wis 393, 395; 150 NW 488, 489 (1915); State ex rel Kleist v Donald, 164 Wis 545, 552-553; 160 NW 1067, 1070 (1917); State ex rel Martin v Zimmerman, 233 Wis 16, 21; 288 NW 454, 457 (1939); State ex rel Commissioners of Public Lands v Anderson, 56 Wis 2d 666, 672; 203 NW2d 84, 87 (1973); and Butzlaffer v Van Der Geest & Sons, Inc, Wis, 115 Wis 2d 539; 340 NW2d 742, 744-745 (1983). The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute and codes, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void and ineffective for any purpose, since its unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment... In legal contemplation, it is as inoperative as if it had never been passed... Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no right, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection and justifies no acts performed under it... A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. 20.181-192United States Code: Title 28a,Rule 5.1. Constitutional ... law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode28a/usc_sec_28a... Cached42 USC 1986 provides: 42 USC 1986 provides: Every person who, having knowledge that any of the wrongs conspired to be done, and mentioned in the preceding section (1985 of Title 42) are about to be committed, and having power to prevent or aid in preventing the commission of same, neglects or refuses so to do, if such wrongful act be committed, shall be liable to the party injured, or his legal representatives, for all damages caused by such wrongful act which such person by reasonable diligence could have prevented; and such damages may be recovered in an action on the case; and any number of persons guilty of such wrongful act, neglect, or refusal, may be joined as defendants in the action. (Civil Rights)Mandatory Reporting laws Appliers Elected and public employees and commercial contractors Defendants can be held in actions under 42 USC 1983, even,This includes Elected and public employees,Effective January 1, 2013, employees of Oregon higher education institutions are considered by law to be subject mandatory reporters of child abuse.oregon.gov/dhs/abuse/pages/mr_employees.aspx though they did not act willfully. Even though they did not have a specific intent to deprive the plaintiff of a federal right, such defendants can be held to civil responsibility. Monroe v. Pape, 365 U.s. 167, 1961.24.215-219, the assaults on this man or reported again An conspiracy is actionable under 42 USC 1985, when there has been an actual of denial of due process.(Civil Rights) Jennings v. Nester (1954, Ca. 7 Ill.) 217, F.2d 153, CERT DEN 349 U.S. 958, 99 L.Ed. 1281, 75 S.ct. 888.Thus, the particular phraseology of the constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written constitutions, that a law repugnant to the Constitution is void; and the courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument. Marbury v Madison, 5 US 1803 (2 Cranch) 137, 170?180, and NORTON v. SHELBY COUNTY, 118 U.S. 425. When an act of the legislature is repugnant or contrary to the constitution, it is, ipso facto, void. 2 Pet. R. 522; 12 Wheat. 270; 3 Dall. 286; 4 Dall. 18. [p]owers not granted (to any government) are prohibited. United States v. Butler, 297 U.S 1, 68 (1936).43.359-365 Purpose: Generally, this section further protects civil action for deprivation of rights protects constitutional rights from invasion by persons acting under state or federal authority. (Civil Rights) Weise v. Reisner, DC Wis. 1970, 318 F.Sup. 580, quoted from U.S.C.A. 1972 pocketpart, P. 40 Title 42, Sec. 1983, Note Paragraph 8,,,,,. Liability in damages for unconstitutional or otherwise illegal conduct has the very desirable effect of deterring such conduct. Indeed, this was precisely the proposition upon which 42 USC section 1983 was enacted. Judges may be punished criminally for willful deprivations of constitutional right on the strength of 18 USC Section 241- 242. (Civil Rights) (Imbler vs Pachtman, U.S. 47 L.Ed. 2nd 128, 96 S.Ct.) 44.367-374 This section was passed to enforce U.S.C.A. Constitution Amendment 14 and to protect form interference the rights secured thereby, as well as other constitutional rights; it is directed against conspiracies of private persons; and there is no requirement that conspiracy be under color of law. (Civil Rights) U.S.C.A. 1972 Pocket P. 1675, Title 42, Sec. 1995, Note 28.242-248 The Seventh Circuit of Appeals has held that a public official does not have immunity simply because he operates in a discretionary situation. It indicated that public servants are to be held liable when they abused their discretion or acted in a way that is arbitrary, fanciful, or clearly unreasonable. (Civil Rights) Littleton v. Berbling (1972, Ca. 7 Ill.), 468 F.2d 389.36.304-308 Governmental immunity is not defense in suits brought under this section making liable every person who under color or state law deprives another person of his civil rights. Westberry v. Fisher, DC Me., 1970, 309 F.Sup. 95.18 USC § 2381 - Treason | Title 18 241-242- Crimes and Criminal ...law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2381 Cached ... is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; .. Common-Law Grand-Juries.Blacks Law Dictionary, 4th Edition Attorney General... He is the chief law officer of the federal and state governments with the duty of representing the sovereign, national or state. Johnson v. Commonwealth, ex rel. Meredith, 291 Ky. 829, 165 S.W.2d 820, 826. Insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, (constitution) it is superseded thereby. (16 Am Jur 2d 177, Late Am Jur 2d. 256) ...all laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void (Marbury v Madison, 5 US 1803 (2 Cranch) 137, 174, 170). Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them. - Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 491. The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime. Miller v. U.S., 230 F 2d 486, 489. There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of this exercise of Constitutional rights.- Sherar v. Cullen, 481 F. 945. To disregard Constitutional law, and to violate the same, creates a sure liability upon the one involved: State officers may be held personally liable for damages based upon actions taken in their official capacities. Hafer v. Melo, 502 U.S. 21 (1991). I have a right to question and challenge any Publicly owned taxing activities by Any Public court, their Elected and public employee government,,non-for profits and any affiliates agency as to their validity and legal standing: Anyone entering into an arrangement with the government takes the risk of having accurately ascertained that he who purports to act for the government stays within the bounds of his authority, even though the agent himself may be unaware of limitations upon his authority. The United States Supreme Court, Federal Crop Ins. Corp, v. Merrill, 332 US 380-388 L1947) The individual may stand upon his constitutional rights as a citizen. He is entitled to carry on his private business in his own way. His power to contract is unlimited. He owes no duty to the state or to his neighbors to divulge his business, or to open his doors to an investigation, so far as it may tend to criminate him. He owes no such duty to the state, since he receives nothing therefrom, beyond the protection of his life and property. His rights are such as existed by the law of the land long antecedent to the organization of the state, and can only be taken from him by due process of law, and in accordance with the Constitution. United States Supreme Court reminds us in Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43 (1906): The legal right of an individual to decrease or ALTOGETHER AVOID his/her taxes by means which the law permits cannot be doubted --Gregory v. Helvering, 293 U.S. 465 Where an individual is detained, without a warrant and without having committed a crime, the detention is a false arrest and false imprisonment. Trezevant v. City of Tampa, 241 F2d. 336 (11th CIR 1984) Motorist illegally held for 23 minutes in a traffic charge was awarded $25,000 in damages. The above case sets the foundation for $75,000 dollars per hour, or $1,800,000 dollars per day. Edward-Malone: Johnston U.C.C. 1-308 All Rights Reserved: (Rev. 10 12/2014) Disclaimer: a man, edward-malone johnston , non-corporate entity reserve the right to amend or make further corrections to this document as further information becomes available. Furthermore, I do not agree to any Civil and or Criminal Penalties whereas documents taken from Congressional Record, IRS Code, Farm Bills, Trading With the Enemies Act, Legislative Procedures Act, Court rulings and decisions and the Bankruptcy Acts – now 4 – of these United States, et al and Birth Record Fraud Scheme, Bond, C.U.S.I.P., Commodities Fraud, Theft of and or misuse of CESTA QUE VIE TRUST, AKA, ONE PEOPLES PUBLIC TRUST ACCOUNTS which were to be established so the men and women could pay their debts as all lawful money was stolen from us, treason against the Constitution, by Roosevelt and his coconspirators AKA the Vatican, British Empire, International Bankers, et al. The FEDERAL RESERVE NOTE a debt instrument merely discharges the debt, Breach of Public Trust and Misprision by the Congress of the United States, AKA federal employees, Fiduciary Trustees, in dealing with the Bankruptcy Act(s) of 1933 and acts of TREASON by Franklin D. Roosevelt, Congress and the Receivers of the Bankruptcies. 1779 without amendment the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, dba, CORPORATION, a French Corporation - Congress has refused to provide names of the 3 parties who formed this Corporation – an act of treason. (28 U.S.C. @ 3002 Definitions 15) United States means A) a Federal Corporation – de facto government. Between March 3 – 5 1861 12 States walked out of Congress in Secession, see Rulings of the Attorney General B. J. Black published 1863, and Congress was forced to adjourn Without Day; became Sin Die, never to meet again, the next day as they did not have enough votes to call the next session – see Congressional Record March 5 – July 15, 1861. Every Legislative Act since is fraud in the inducement. Welcome to the Dictatorship – de facto Government. It should be herein noted that in the 1933 Bankruptcy Act all Offices, Agencies and Departments were turned over to the Receivers, unknown, of the Bankruptcy, via the United Nations – 12 years before that became and Organization, and All Law and Statutes became international law and copy written AKA Lawless America. Any nation once bankrupt is no longer sovereign. Are you practicing Corporate Policy instead of law? Prove it. Also read the 16th American Jurist prudence, Second Edition, Section 177...any law written in violation of this Constitution is as though it were never written and no one is obligated to obey it.......; massive voter fraud. NOTICE: The UNITED STATES OF AMERICA IS A CROWN/VATICAN/SWISS BANK Property the result of land theft by the Pope from the Great Marzocco. ( A fraud scheme the result of the 1933 ;Bankruptcy Act & G5. Trustees Are: The Pope, British Monarch, U.S. Postmaster See 28 U.S.C. @ 3002 Definitions 15) United States means A) a Federal Corporation. AKA French. Now consider the beginning of the Court Fraud Scheme and the establishment of the Court system AKA Renaissance whereas the CATHOLIC CULT AKA CHURCH via 4-Popes, AKA, Jesuits, and bought into the Courts and Royalty and remain to this day controlling the Judicial system, AKA, the Bank. The Court case number is the Account number from which the Court, aka, Bank is running their Bond, C.U.S.I.P. , and commodities fraud scheme against all defendants, pro se, and private man/woman P.A.G. litigants who enter thereof. It is a Ponzi Scheme. Show me your conflict of interest statement(s). Contracting in violation of uberrimae fidei – of utmost good faith and uberrima Fideas – utmost good faith. (Ref. BLACKS LAW DICTIONARY 8th EDITION pg. 1558.) No court papers are disclosing as a contract; Nor have a proper identity from the OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET (OMB NUMBER), fail to provide their Commodities license information nor their Bonding information nor the C.U.S.I.P.: (CUSIP stands for Committee on Uniform Securities Identification Procedures. Formed in 1962, this committee developed a system (implemented in 1967) that identifies securities, specifically U.S. and Canadian registered stocks, and U.S. government and municipal bonds.) Now show me your conflict of interest statement(s). My case rests to be true thereof: Autograph on file______________________________________Seal____________ a man living and breathing , edward -malone: johnston (non-corporation)
Posted on: Wed, 05 Nov 2014 06:33:04 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015