|View single post by Joe Kelley|
|Posted: Sun Oct 7th, 2018 06:43 pm||
|" It and a few other steps removes one from being in ‘ Dishonor ‘ and a debt slave to being ‘On Honor’ and being a live man the people again with authority to use the correct system to put the courts in order so you a live man a non- citizen national can contract correctly with those court and enforcement Corporations as the corporate officers are now personally liable and their respective bonds can have a lien filed on them for costs."
If the people claiming that someone is in dishonor are perpetrating a fraud, then why would anyone want to go along with that fraud? According to the criminals perpetrating this fraud, there is a step by step method for the victims of their fraud to get free from this fraud, so long as the victims follow the rules set up by the same people who perpetrate the fraud in the first place?
And so, the story goes that if there is a misstep made by one of the victims of this fraud, then the victim remains a victim of this fraud.
I'm not buying into this wild goose chase. This type of response credits (giving support to) an ongoing fraud. How about an analogy? If a victim of the modern scam involving a "Prince" in Africa spamming email lists, whereby this "Prince" claims to need someone to help him transfer millions of dollars into a new bank account opened by the victim of this scam were to seek remedy from this scam would it then be wise for the victim to follow the rules set-up by the "Prince" for that purpose? Get out of my trap the "Prince" claims, just follow these steps I have laid so generously at your feet.
How about another analogy?
If a group of criminals kidnap, torture, rape, and enslave people for generations, is it a good idea to seek remedy according to the criminals currently perpetrating those crimes upon you?
What is it about the natural law that is so hard to understand, such as the natural law that criminals (by their willful actions) do not obey moral laws?
If someone claims that the Amended (Bill of Rights) Constitution of 1789 is their source of authority, then the people through their common law trial by jury tribunals must be asked before anyone can be lawfully punished, according to that authority.
In other words the people (represented in tribunals), not the government (represented through election into office, or not), judge fact, guilt, and what does or does not constitute remedy in any case of any significance or, it is bogus, fake, fraudulent, and ought not be supported in anyway, and rather than supporting it, it ought to be defended against peacefully, lawfully, according to common principles that constitute our common laws.
Prosecutor's Duty to Disclose Exculpatory Evidence Lisa M. Kurcias
"The Supreme Court held that the suppression of favorable evidence violated Brady's rights under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. 69
69. Id. at 86. The Due Process Clause states that "[n]o State shall ... deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." U.S. Const. amend. XIV."
"While the Supreme Court requires prosecutors to disclose certain evidence to the defense, consequences for withholding such evidence do not exist in the criminal justice system."
87. See Weeks, supra note 78, at 878 ("[T]he prospect of a civil suit under federal law for a Brady violation simply does not exist. We will have to look elsewhere to discover the incentive for prosecutors to comply with their constitutional obligation to disclose exculpatory evidence.").
"In fact, the Supreme Court has granted prosecutors absolute immunity from civil liability for failure to disclose exculpatory evidence.88"
88. See Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 430 (1976); see also Bruce A. Green, Policing Federal Prosecutors: Do Too Many Regulators Produce Too Little Enforcement?, 8 St. Thomas L. Rev. 69, 79 n.54 (1995) [hereinafter Green, Enforcement] (stating that "prosecutors have absolute immunity for misconduct related to their prosecutorial function"). "
So there is a crime scene. People willfully counterfeit lawful authority as proven by their official records.
What ought to be done, ask them how we are supposed to defend our liberties, and follow their suggestions obediently: without question?