Teknosis

Vote Ron Paul News Update - January 27th, 2012

Ron Paul Highlights from the Florida Republican Presidential Debate

Ron Paul Supporters Overwhelm CNN Pundits in the Pre and Post Debate Coverage

Retired U.S. Army Colonel Douglas Macgregor Endorses Ron Paul

Colonel Douglas Macgregor explains why Rep. Ron Paul’s plan to cut the defense budget would actually strengthen the U.S. military.

Watch Video

Newt Gingrich: A Space Oddity

Jon Stewart calls out Newt Gingrich and defends Ron Paul.

Watch Video

VoteRonPaul.com is 100% Grassroots and is not paid for or endorsed by any candidate.

For more information on Ron Paul please visit:

Ron Paul's 2012 Presidential Campaign Website
Congressman Ron Paul's Official Website

FAIR USE NOTICE: This website may contain copyrighted material. Such material is made available for educational purposes only. This constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 of the US Copyright Law.

47 W. Polk St. Suite 100-408, Chicago, IL 60605

January 27, 2012 in Current Affairs | Permalink

"The United States in these provisions, means the States united." Judge Pablo De La Guerra, People v. De La Guerra

http://www.supremelaw.org/fedzone11/htm/chaptr11.htm

http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/gilberts/swornaff.htm#delaguerra

     As  it   was  the   adoption  of  the  Constitution  by  the
     Conventions of  nine States that established and created the
     United States***,  it is  obvious there  could not then have
     existed any person who had been seven years a citizen of the
     United  States***,   or  who   possessed  the   Presidential
     qualifications of  being thirty-five years of age, a natural
     born citizen,  and fourteen  years a  resident of the United
     States***.   The United States*** in these provisions, means
     the  States united.  To be twenty-five years of age, and for
     seven years  to have  been a  citizen of  one of  the States
     which  ratifies the Constitution,  is the qualification of a
     representative.   To be a natural born citizen of one of the
     States which  shall ratify  the Constitution,  or  to  be  a
     citizen  of   one  of  said  States  at  the  time  of  such
     ratification, and  to have  attained the  age of thirty-five
     years, and to have been fourteen years a resident within one
     of the  said States,  are the  Presidential  qualifications,
     according to the true meaning of the Constitution.

                [People v. De La Guerra, 40 Cal. 311, 337 (1870)]
                                                 [emphasis added]

http://www.supremelaw.org/rsrc/twoclass.htm

A Collection of Court Authorities
in re
Two Classes of Citizens

by

                Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.

            (All Rights Reserved without
 Prejudice)

Before the 14th amendment [sic] in 1868:

   A citizen of any one of the States of the union,  is held to

   be, and  called a  citizen of  the United  States,  although

   technically and  abstractly there  is no  such  thing.

   To conceive a citizen of the United States who is not a citizen

   of some  one of  the States, is totally foreign to the idea,

   and inconsistent  with the  proper construction  and  common

   understanding of the expression as used in the Constitution,

   which must  be deduced  from its  various other  provisions.

   The object then to be attained, by the exercise of the power

   of naturalization,  was to  make citizens  of
 the respective

   States.

                          [Ex Parte Knowles, 5 Cal. 300 (1855)]

                                          [bold emphasis added]

   It is true, every person, and every class and description of

   persons, who  were at  the  time  of  the  adoption  of  the

   Constitution recognized  as  citizens in the several States,

   became also  citizens of  this new political body;  but none

   other;   it was  formed by  them,   and for  them and  their

   posterity, but for no one else.  And the personal rights and

   privileges  guarantied   [sic] 
 to   citizens  of  this  new

   sovereignty  were intended to  embrace  those only  who were

   then members of the several state communities, or who should

   afterwards, by  birthright  or  otherwise,  become  members,

   according to  the provisions  of the  Constitution  and  the

   principles on which it was founded.

              [Dred Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. 393, 404 (1856)]

                                               [emphasis added]

... [F]or  it is  certain, that  in the  sense in  which the word

"Citizen" is  used in  the federal Constitution, "Citizen of each

State," and  "Citizen
 of  the United  States***," are convertible

terms;   they mean  the same  thing;   for "the  Citizens of each

State are  entitled to  all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens

in
 the  several States,"  and "Citizens  of the United States***"

are, of course, Citizens of all the United States***.

                   [44 Maine 518 (1859), Hathaway, J. dissenting]

                    [italics in
 original, underlines & C's added]

After the 14th amendment [sic] in 1868:

It is  quite clear,  then, that 
 there is  a citizenship  of  the

United States**  and a citizenship of a State, which are distinct

from each  other and  which depend upon different characteristics

or circumstances in the
 individual.

                              [Slaughter House Cases, 83 U.S. 36]

                                          [(1873) emphasis added]

The  first  clause  of  the  fourteenth  amendment  made  negroes

citizens of 
 the United  States**, and  citizens of  the State in

which they  reside, and  thereby created two classes of citizens,

one of the United States** and the other of the state.

                             [Cory et al. v. Carter, 48 Ind. 327]

                              [(1874) headnote 8, emphasis added]

We have  in our  political system  a  Government  of  the  United

States** and  a government  of each  of the several States.  Each

one of  these
 governments  is distinct  from the others, and each

has citizens of its own ....

                                [U.S. v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542]

                                          [(1875) emphasis added]

One may  be a  citizen of  a State  and yet  not a citizen of the

United States.  Thomasson v. State, 15 Ind. 449;  Cory v. Carter,

48 Ind.  327 (17  Am. R. 738);  McCarthy v. Froelke, 63 Ind. 507;

In Re Wehlitz, 16 Wis. 443.

                             [McDonel v. State, 90 Ind. 320, 323]

                                        [(1883) underlines added]

A person who is a citizen of the United States** is necessarily a

citizen of  the particular  state in  which he  resides.   But  a

person may  be a  citizen of a particular state and not a citizen

of the  United States**.   To  hold otherwise would be to deny to

the state  the highest  exercise of its sovereignty, -- the right

to declare who are its citizens.

                               [State v. Fowler, 41 La. Ann. 380]

                                [6 S. 602 (1889), emphasis added]

The first  clause of  the fourteenth  amendment  of  the  federal

Constitution made  negroes citizens  of the  United States**, and

citizens of  the state  in which they reside, and thereby created

two classes of citizens, one of the United States** and the other

of the state.

                              [4 Dec. Dig. '06, p. 1197, sec. 11]

                              ["Citizens" (1906), emphasis added]

There are,  then, under  our republican  form of  government, two

classes of  citizens, one  of the  United States** and one of the

state.  One class of  citizenship may  exist in a person, without

the other,  as in  the case  of a  resident of  the  District  of

Columbia;  but both classes usually exist in the same person.

                   [Gardina v. Board of Registrars, 160 Ala. 155]

                          [48 S. 788, 791 (1909), emphasis added]

There is a distinction between citizenship of the United States**

and citizenship  of a  particular state,  and a person may be the

former without being the latter.

                               [Alla v. Kornfeld, 84 F.Supp. 823]

                        
      [(1949) headnote 5, emphasis added]

A person  may be  a citizen of the United States** and yet be not

identified or identifiable as a citizen of any particular state.

                                         [Du Vernay v. Ledbetter]

                                   [61 So.2d 573, emphasis added]

... citizens  of the  District of  Columbia were  not granted the

privilege of  litigating in  the federal  courts on the ground of

diversity of  citizenship.   Possibly no 
 better reason  for this

fact exists  than  such citizens were  not  thought of  when  the

judiciary article  [III] of the federal Constitution was drafted.

... citizens of the United States** ... were also not thought of;

but in  any event  a citizen of the United States**, who is not a

citizen of any state, is not within the language of the [federal]

Constitution.

                            [Pannill v. Roanoke, 252 F. 910, 914]

                                                 [emphasis added]

                             #  #  #

"The Brown View is Flawed: Exposing an Attorney’s Habitual Mistakes," by Paul Andrew Mitchell, Private Attorney General (circa 5/29/2011)

----- Forwarded Message -----

From: Paul Andrew Mitchell <supremelawfirm@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, January 27, 2012 8:50 AM
Subject: "The Brown View is Flawed: Exposing an Attorney’s Habitual Mistakes," by Paul Andrew Mitchell, Private Attorney General (circa 5/29/2011)

http://www.supremelaw.org/authors/mitchell/Brown.View.Flawed.htm

The Brown View is Flawed:
Exposing an Attorney’s Habitual Mistakes
 
by
 
Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Private Attorney General, 18 U.S.C. 1964(a)
 
 
Summary:  This article exposes several widespread errors that appear in attorney Ellen Brown’s article entitled “Japan shows how to defuse debt time-bomb,” as published in The Asia Times on May 28, 2011.
 
 
Beginning any article with a dubious quote by a former Vice Chairman of the Federal Reserve is one way to demonstrate a writer’s habitual bias.  Ellen Brown quotes Alan S. Blinder as wondering why any responsible person would “flirt” with the idea of “threatening default” on a government’s debts.  Right out of the gate, Brown and Blinder appear to be disconnected with some key historical facts.
Number one, the U.S. Federal government was secretly bankrupted in the year 1933, exactly 20 years after the Federal Reserve Act was pushed through Congress under very questionable circumstances.  Instead of telling the truth, Brown repeats the same old song and dance that FDR declared a “bank holiday” and took the U.S. off the gold standard.  Brown also prefers to conceal that secret bankruptcy.
Attorneys are supposed to be officers of the Courts, and they are also charged with knowledge of the law.  House Joint Resolution 192 was only a Resolution, and Resolutions are not Acts of Congress.
Number two, in March 2009 the U.S. Federal government did publicly admit bankruptcy by declaring its insolvency before the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Washington State.  Specifically, the United States declared its insolvency with respect to obligations allegedly owed to the Federal Reserve banks.
This formal declaration was done for some very important legal and historical reasons.  Chief among those reasons are the lack of any Act of Congress which creates a specific liability for income taxes imposed by subtitle A of the Internal Revenue Code, and the key bankruptcy law which activates an automatic STAY prohibiting any further collection efforts by a bankrupt debtor’s creditors.
Number three, Federal income taxes are not being used to pay for any Federal government services.  The Grace Commission found that those funds were being used to pay for interest on the Federal debt, and income transfer payments to beneficiaries of entitlement programs like Federal pension plans.
It is here where Brown takes another giant detour from reality and repeats another insidious lie, namely that “the Federal Reserve now returns the interest it receives to the government.”  It is sheer nonsense to confuse a law, on the one hand, and compliance with that law, on the other hand.  The gangsters who currently rule the roosts on Wall Street have never seen a law they didn’t like to break.
Brown’s is another truly astounding statement, particularly in light of the fact that the Federal Reserve has never been audited.  And, despite courageous efforts by Rep. Ron Paul and his Co-Sponsors in the U.S. House of Representatives, it does not appear that the Federal Reserve will be audited any time soon either.
So, it is rather disingenuous to claim that the FED “returns the interest to the government” when no audit confirming that claim has ever been done, not since the birth of the FED in 1913, right up to now and most probably tomorrow too!
The FED really should be abolished immediately: spending millions in taxes on an audit of the FED is a gigantic waste of time and money.  It assumes cooperation on the part of “banksters” who have already demonstrated their own habitual contempt for the rule of law in America, spanning many generations.
If you have any doubts about the last sentence, just treat yourself to a careful viewing of the film “Inside Job,” directed by Charles Ferguson.  While you’re watching that excellent film, do yourself a favor and make a list of all the key players who refused to be interviewed during its production.
Now, onto the biggest error in Brown’s superficial article:  allow the Treasury to borrow directly from its own central bank, interest free.
In point of fact, what Americans will never hear from Wall Street partisans like “Mr. Blunder” is the direct coupling that currently exists between money creation in America, and increases in the debt ceiling authorized by Congress.
This coupling is diabolical at best, chiefly because Congress has already enacted laws which expressly define Federal Reserve Notes as “obligations of the United States”.
Obligations to whom?  Obligations to what?  You ask!
Instead of allowing the Federal Reserve to perpetrate its long standing structural thefts from the American People one more day, the solution which all Americans need to contemplate is utterly simple in its effectiveness:  the Bureau of Engraving and Printing needs to stop printing U.S. bonds that end up in the hands of corrupt banksters, and start printing U.S. Notes that end up in the hands of Federal employees and Federal government contractors -- for services rendered.
Brown is correct about this one thing:  such U.S. Notes can and should be issued “interest free”.  This simply means that U.S. Notes will not be legally defined as “obligations of the United States”.  Certainly not to a central bank which is corrupt from head to toe, and has been ever since its creation in 1913, to say nothing of the predatory tendencies of this private syndicate’s major stockholders.
Those major stockholders have already become filthy rich from this systematic rip-off; it’s time they politely removed themselves from the financial stages of America, and elsewhere in the world too.
Lastly, all Federal Reserve Notes, currently circulating anywhere on planet Earth at the present time, need to be recalled in a generous, well publicized and non-invasive program of over-the-counter exchanges, one-for-one, in which all American banks and financial institutions are authorized to participate.
The U.S. Treasury already knows how to write rules, and the Regulations required to implement this recall of FRNs are a simple and straightforward task for many career public servants employed by that Department.  If they balk at this simple task, they should be retired and replaced with public servants who can and will do it right.
 
 
About the Author:  Paul Andrew Mitchell is a Private Attorney General currently living and working in Seattle, Washington State.  He was the Principal who legally represented the United States before the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Washington.  His website is the Supreme Law Library:  www.supremelaw.org

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell <supremelawfirm@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 8:47 AM
Subject: Re: Shining a Light on the Shadow Banking System

She has no valid license to practice law in California, however:

http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/aol2/criminal.complaint.4.htm

The following was emailed on 12/2/2010 to Ellen Brown:

My office is quite familiar with FED propaganda, Ellen ...

Except that the FED is now legally barred from any further collections --
pursuant to the AUTOMATIC STAY authorized by 11 U.S.C. 362 --
because the United States has now formally declared its insolvency
as to obligations allegedly payable to the Federal Reserve Banks:

http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/fox2/insolvency.htm (see AUTOMATIC STAY supra)
http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/fox2/interpleader.htm

And, furthermore, there is no Statute at Large which created any
specific liability for income taxes imposed by subtitle A of the
Internal Revenue Code:

http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/williamson2/appeal/nad06.htm (see Item (7) )
http://www.supremelaw.org/press/rels/subpoena.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/sls/2amjur2d.htm (can't do it with a Regulation!)

We do have bankruptcy laws in this country, Ellen, and
my reading of the Constitution says that those laws are uniform
(or should be uniform) throughout the nation:

http://www.supremelaw.org/ref/whuscons/whuscons.htm#1:8:4

     To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform
Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States ....

Aren't you supposed to be supporting that Constitution?

See sections 6067 and 6068 in the California Business and
Professions Code:

http://www.supremelaw.org/ref/cbpc/

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=bpc&group=06001-07000&file=6060-6069

6067. Every person on his admission shall take an oath to support
the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California, and
faithfully to discharge the duties of any attorney at law to the best of his knowledge and ability.
A certificate of the oath shall be indorsed upon his license.

Where would one find your indorsed "certificate"
as mentioned at CBPC section 6067 above?

http://members.calbar.ca.gov/search/member_detail.aspx?x=79248

We can serve you formally with the pleadings above.
Is this address correct?

26375B Oak Highland Dr
Newhall, CA 91321-4373

p.s. Please do NOT try to tell me that a Private Attorney General
cannot represent the United States: I have done it many times.
Also Google "U.S. ex rel." -- 1.12 Million hits as of today

HAVE A NICE DAY :)

--
Sincerely yours,
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Private Attorney General, 18 U.S.C. 1964
http://www.supremelaw.org/decs/agency/private.attorney.general.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/reading.list.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/index.htm (Home Page)
http://www.supremelaw.org/support.policy.htm (Support Policy)
http://www.supremelaw.org/guidelines.htm (Client Guidelines)
http://www.supremelaw.org/support.guidelines.htm (Policy + Guidelines)

All Rights Reserved without Prejudice

On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 8:24 AM, Greg Melick <greg@fxdimensions.com> wrote:

See this article by Ellen Brown, posted Wed 1/25 on Truthout. Ellen is the author of “Web of Debt”; generally speaking a very good book, except that she advocates paper money controlled by central government as the solution to current global monetary problems (a point she manages to work into the end of this article as well).

This article elucidates (somewhat) certain hidden elements of the banking scandal running rampant through the world – and Obama’s recent effort to get the State Attorneys General to sign off on an agreement with the banks in order to minimize and cover up the extent of the frauds and deceptions that have been (and are being) perpetrated.

http://www.truth-out.org/why-all-robo-signing-shining-light-shadow-banking-system/1327502824

January 27, 2012 in Current Affairs | Permalink

Romney Blood Money Video

The Blood Money Video

Romney Wishes Wasn't.

In the end, the Republican primary is about electing the man who will beat

Barack Obama. Before you decide who you want going toe-to-toe with

Obama, watch the video. And consider, what else don't we know?

Think you know Mitt? Think again.

Vote for Ron Paul before it’s too late.

http://tekgnosis.typepad.com/tekgnosis/2012/01/ron-paul-many-people-who-watch-this-whole-video-change-their-vote.html

January 27, 2012 in Current Affairs | Permalink

Is the Judicial Branch Dead?

View this message as a web page.

Is the Judicial Branch Dead?

Juan,

One of my earliest childhood memories is of my parents talking about Nixon and the Watergate scandal. I remember the newspaper headline: “Nixon Resigns!” President Nixon’s fight against court subpoenas made international news. Yesterday President Obama completely ignored a court subpoena, and the world shrugged.

Obama’s behavior yesterday is even more disturbing than Nixon’s. Nixon at least respected the judicial branch enough to have his attorney’s show up in court and follow procedure. Nixon’s fight in the courts followed existing law. Nixon acknowledged the authority of the judicial branch even while he fought it. Obama, on the other hand, essentially said yesterday that the judicial branch has no power over him. He ordered his attorneys to stay away from the hearing. He didn’t petition a higher court in a legitimate attempt to stay the hearing. Instead he showed complete contempt for the entire judicial branch and for the rule of law. Rather than respecting the legal process, Obama went around the courts and tried to put political pressure directly on the Georgia Secretary of State. When that failed, he simply ignored the judicial branch completely.

The rule of law, and our three-branch system of government, now hang in the balance. If the Georgia court issues a ruling on the merits and an order finding Obama in contempt of court, and if that contempt order actually results in real punishment of some kind, then we will still have a Constitutional Republic. If this doesn’t happen, then Obama will have been rewarded for showing complete contempt for the judicial branch.

Understand that the goal of the Georgia ballot challenge was to have a court rule on the merits of the Constitutional question: Does the term “natural born citizen” in Article II of the Constitution require a Presidential candidate to have two parents that were U.S. citizens at the time the candidate was born? Obama wants to avoid having a court rule on this question. That is why he didn’t show up and ordered his attorneys to not show up. Obama was hoping that the Georgia court would enter a default judgment rather than rule on the merits. If the court enters a default judgment, Obama will have succeeded in avoiding the Constitutional eligibility question. He will then appeal the default judgment, get the appellate court to suspend the default judgment pending appeal, and then delay the appeal until after the primary. This is undoubtedly Obama’s plan.

If the Georgia Court rules that Supreme Court precedent must be followed and therefore Obama simply does not meet the minimum Constitutional requirements to hold the office of President, then we will at least have succeeded in finding one court in the nation willing to do its job. If that court finds Obama in contempt of court, then we still have three viable branches of government. The Georgia court has the authority to do both of these things. The world should be holding its breath.

Unfortunately the world is apparently unaware that our great Republic is on life support. The Roman Empire died a slow death. It’s death was so gradual that few people living at that time probably noticed the individual events that marked the death throes of that great empire. Apparently the same is true of America. Yesterday marked a stunning turn of events in the constant power struggle between the three branches of our government. Our President openly showed that he believes he is completely above the law. I wonder if the court even noticed its own death certificate. We will see in a few days.

I will certainly try to explain this to the court in our proposed findings of fact and law that the court requested we file before February 5th. Please pray with me that Judge Malihi rules on the merits of our case.

All of your encouragement and prayers have been greatly appreciated. They are needed even more over the next few weeks. This battle is FAR from over. And it has taken on importance beyond what we predicted (which is truly astounding). Please tell everyone you know about Obama’s contempt of the judicial branch. Please explain to them what it really means. Even those that agree with Obama politically and disagree with our ballot challenge should be shocked, appalled, and scared of Obama’s contempt for the judicial system.

In Liberty,

Co-Founder

LIBERTY LEGAL FOUNDATION

Thank you to all who support Liberty Legal Foundation. Without your generous support, this work would not be possible!

Liberty Legal Foundation is an non-profit organization that relies entirely on donations to continue our fight to restore Constitutional limits on government. Please consider making a donation to help us cover our administrative and legal costs. You may make checks payable to "Liberty Legal Foundation" and mail to 9040 Executive Park Dr, Ste 200, Knoxville, TN 37923. Donations can be made online by clicking the link above.

SIDE BAR

Many of you have asked about how the Minor v. Happersett definition of natural born citizen effects the eligibility of Mitt Romney and Marco Rubio to be President. First, let me reiterate that the Constitution should be applied to everyone equally. So, if Mitt, Marco, or anyone else meets the definition of Natural Born Citizen, they meet the minimum Constitutional qualifications to serve as President. If they don’t, they don’t.

The definition of Natural Born Citizen, as defined by the Supreme Court, has two elements: 1) you must be born in the U.S.; 2) both of your parents must be citizens of the U.S. at the time of your birth. If both of these elements are fulfilled, you are a Natural Born Citizen. Assuming Mitt was born in the U.S. and both of his parents were U.S. citizens at that time, then he is a NBC. I’ve been told, but don’t know for sure, that Marco was born here, but that his parents didn’t naturalize until Marco was 14 years old. If this is true, then Marco Rubio can never be a Natural Born Citizen. He can be a Senator, his children could be President, but Marco doesn’t meet the minimum Constitutional qualifications to be President. This means that he can’t be VP either.

Understand that this is a Constitutional matter. It has nothing to do with the experience, value, or skills of the individuals. Our Constitution simply says that you must meet the Natural Born Citizen requirements or you cannot be President.

Help spread the word!

Check out our online stores for Liberty Legal Class Action gear.

Certification Class Action

Immigration Class Action

Obamacare Class Action

Your purchases are another way you can help support the work of Liberty Legal Foundation.

Share This Newsletter

or Forward-to-a-Friend

Got a Question or Comment?

Send me an email!

Visit us on Twitter!

Visit us on Facebook!

Contact Us:

Phone/Fax: 423-208-9953
Email: help@libertylegalfoundation.org

January 27, 2012 in Current Affairs | Permalink

Tomorrow's Presidential Forum to be Simulcast

Mathew Staver, Founder and Chairman
Liberty Counsel

The Florida Presidential Primary is just days away. On Saturday, January 28, from 3:30-5:00 pm EST, Liberty Counsel’s “Florida Awake! Presidential Candidate Forum with Q&A” will open to a capacity crowd. We are pleased to announce that the event will also be simulcast on Liberty Counsel’s website, www.LC.org.

The 2012 elections will be critical for this nation. Now you and I have an unusual opportunity to see the candidates in person and ask our own questions just before the vital Florida Primary! Please read my important message below – Mat.

Juan,

Our nation is at a crucial point in history. Our Christian values and the moral foundation of America are under severe attack. We face unprecedented threats to our faith and freedom.

But although we are at a crossroad, we were born for such a time as this!

As never before, we MUST be informed about the important issues facing us today. That’s why Liberty Counsel is sponsoring a Presidential Forum just days before the Florida Primary at which attendees can listen to the presidential candidates in person and ask their own questions.

I have invited a broad group of organizations to co-sponsor this important event, including the Florida Family Policy Council, the National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference, Champion the Vote, the Latino Partnership for Conservative Principles, and Personhood USA.

The Presidential Forum will be a powerful event. It will be held from 3:30 to 5:00 pm, Saturday, January 28, 2012 at Aloma Church in Winter Park, Florida.

Below is the address. If you have tickets, then you will need to be there early to ensure you have a seat in the main auditorium. The doors will be opened at 1:30 pm.

Presidential Candidate Forum with Q&A
Saturday, January 28, 2012
3:30 p.m. – 5:00 p.m.
Aloma Church, 1815 State Road 436, Winter Park, FL (near Orlando)

++If you do not have tickets, watch the simulcast!

We will have a capacity crowd and are working on overflow arrangements for the Presidential Forum. For those who cannot attend, we are providing a simulcast of the event at www.LC.org. Be sure to watch the simulcast and forward this email to your friends.

Visit www.LC.org and watch the live Presidential Forum. Send the link below to your friends and help us get out the word:

www.LC.org

All presidential candidates have been invited. For more information, visit www.LC.org. You can also call us at
800-671-1776.

Thank you and God bless you!

Mathew Staver, Founder and Chairman
Liberty Counsel

P.S. Please pass this important information on to your like-minded friends, church members, and associates. Join us on Saturday, January 28, from 3:30-5:00 for the “Florida Awake! Presidential Candidate Forum with Q&A.”

And remember, you can watch the simulcast at www.LC.org.

Liberty Counsel, Aloma Church, and other sponsoring groups are 501(c)(3) organizations and do not endorse candidates. The Presidential Forum is open to presidential primary candidates as an educational service to the community.

January 27, 2012 in Current Affairs | Permalink

Come to Our Gasparilla Event Tomorrow!!!

Dear friend,

The Gasparilla Parade is the biggest bang for our buck to reach people for Ron Paul right before the primary vote on Tuesday. 300,000 people come out for this event! Can you come meet us at 1:30 pm at the corner of Bayshore and South Magnolia??? Dave Wilcox has set up this event and I am going with my wife and kids! I hope you can make it! Going to be a lot of fun!

Please RSVP:
https://www.facebook.com/events/369904849692095/

In Liberty,
Spence Rogers
Hillsborough Coordinator for Ron Paul 2012

January 27, 2012 in Current Affairs | Permalink

WHO WON THE JACKSONVILLE DEBATE?

Sir David Andrew sends:

-------- Original Message --------

Subject:	WHO WON THE JACKSONVILLE DEBATE?
Date:	Fri, 27 Jan 2012 18:09:46 -0500
From:	Mable Morrison <2saint@comcast.net>
To:	adilia bonneau- <adybonne@yahoo.com>
CC:	mable <2saint@comcast.net>, Margaret <mzappia1540@verizon.net>

WHO WON THE JACKSONVILLE DEBATE? (Poll Closed)
GINGRICH 16.36% (49,603 votes)
PAUL 32.59% (98,813 votes)
ROMNEY 30.23% (91,676 votes)
SANTORUM 20.82% (63,147 votes)

Total Votes: 303,239

Share This

January 27, 2012 in Current Affairs | Permalink

Ron Paul news and information

Ron Paul Highlights – CNN Florida Debate 01/26/12

Posted: 26 Jan 2012 08:35 PM PST

Ron Paul calls out Newt Gingrich CNN Florida Republican Debate 1/26/12

Posted: 26 Jan 2012 06:36 PM PST

CNN Republican Debate Tonight

Posted: 26 Jan 2012 04:05 PM PST

CNN Republican Debate: January 26, 2012 8pm ET on CNN – click to watch Location: University of North Florida in Jacksonville, FL Sponsor: CNN, CNN en Español, The Hispanic Leadership Network and The Republican Party of Florida Participants: Romney, Gingrich, Santorum, Paul

Ron Paul raises $250K to ‘end the TSA’

Posted: 26 Jan 2012 01:01 PM PST

Ron Paul appears headed toward reaching his latest fundraising goal: $250,000 to help end the Transportation Security Administration. The GOP presidential candidate began a “money bomb” shortly after his son, Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul, got stopped at the Nashville airport on Monday after setting off an alarm on a body-scanning machine. The younger Paul declined [...]

Jack Hunter Joins Jerry Doyle Show

Posted: 26 Jan 2012 12:54 PM PST

Jack Hunter Joins Jerry Doyle Show

Bill Maher -When It Comes To Things Like The Drug War & Foreign Policy Ron Paul Is So Great!

Posted: 26 Jan 2012 12:42 PM PST

Bill Maher -When It Comes To Things Like The Drug War & Foreign Policy Ron Paul Is So Great!

Ron Paul – Gold / Fiat Money

Posted: 26 Jan 2012 12:33 PM PST

Ron Paul – Gold / Fiat Money

Veterans For Ron Paul (March On The White House) Feb. 20th ,2012

Posted: 26 Jan 2012 12:14 PM PST

Veterans For Ron Paul (March On The White House) Feb. 20th ,2012

Ron Paul on Orlando, FL 8010 AM Radio 01/25/12

Posted: 26 Jan 2012 11:55 AM PST

Ron Paul on Orlando, FL 8010 AM Radio 01/25/12

Ron Paul on NPR Radio 01/25/12

Posted: 26 Jan 2012 09:57 AM PST

Ron Paul on NPR Radio 01/25/12

January 27, 2012 in Current Affairs | Permalink

Mr. Lendman, Obama cannot sign any Bills! cf. Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189 (1920)

Correct!

http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/obama/third.circuit/vcc.htm

http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/obama/vieira/Obama.Stand.Up.Now.or.Stand.Down.htm

http://www.supremelaw.org/fedzone11/htm/chaptr10.htm

[begin quote]

The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be[,] had the statute not been enacted.

Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, 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. An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law. Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby.

No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law, and no courts are bound to enforce it.

[16 Am Jur 2d, Sec. 177, emphasis added]

[end quote]

From: Peter Ackermann <w4sfd@sccctv.net>
To: TheRevolutionaryCoalition@yahoogroups.com
Cc: Supreme Law Firm <paulandrewmitchell2004@yahoo.com>; "lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net" <lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net>
Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2012 2:30 PM
Subject: Re: [TheRevolutionaryCoalition] Mr. Lendman, Obama cannot sign any Bills! cf. Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189 (1920)

I'll add to this:

"The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The Constitution for these united States is the supreme law of the land, and any statue, to be valid, must be in agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows:

"The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.

"Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principals follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, 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. An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law. Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it superseded thereby.

"No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it."

Sixteenth American Jurisprudence, Second Edition, Section 177. (late Second Ed. Section 256)

On 12/18/2011 12:46 PM, Supreme Law Firm wrote:

I KNOW FOR A FACT THAT YOU DO NOT STORE YOUR HEAD IN THE SAND!!!

http://www.rense.com/general95/pllw.htm

NOW HEAR THIS ...

"Congress cannot by legislation alter the Constitution,
from which alone it derives its power to legislate,
and within whose limitations alone that power can be
lawfully exercised." -- Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189 (1920)

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=252&invol=189

"Congress cannot by any definition it may adopt conclude the matter,
since it cannot by legislation alter the Constitution,
from which alone it derives its power to legislate, and
within whose limitations alone that power can be lawfully exercised."

DO NOT JOIN THE TRAITORS, PLEASE!

Sincerely yours,
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Private Attorney General, 18 U.S.C. 1964(a)
http://www.supremelaw.org/decs/agency/private.attorney.general.htm
Criminal Investigator and Federal Witness: 18 U.S.C. 1510, 1512-13

----- Forwarded Message -----

From: Supreme Law Firm <paulandrewmitchell2004@yahoo.com>
To: WAKE UP AMERICA <timetowake@gmail.com>
Sent: Saturday, December 17, 2011 12:26 PM
Subject: Re: Fwd: [apfn-1] ‘Indefinite Detainment’ Bill Reconciled by House, Senate

http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/obama/third.circuit/vcc.htm

http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/obama/vieira/Obama.Stand.Up.Now.or.Stand.Down.htm

Sixth, and perhaps most importantly, Congress can pass no law while an usurper pretends to occupy “the Office of President.” The Constitution provides that “[e]very Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States” (Article I, Section 7, Clause 2). Not to an usurper posturing as “the President of the United States,” but to the true and rightful President. If no such true and rightful President occupies the White House, no “Bill” will or can, “before it become a Law, be presented to [him].”

If no “Bill” is so presented, no “Bill” will or can become a “Law.” And any purported “Law” that the usurper “approve[s]” and “sign[s],” or that Congress passes over the usurper’s “Objections,” will be a nullity. Thus, if Obama deceitfully “enters office” as an usurper, Congress will be rendered effectively impotent for as long as it acquiesces in his pretenses as “President.”

Sincerely yours,
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Private Attorney General, 18 U.S.C. 1964(a)
http://www.supremelaw.org/ decs/agency/private.attorney. general.htm
Criminal Investigator and Federal Witness: 18 U.S.C. 1510, 1512-13
http://www.supremelaw.org/ support.policy.htm (Support Policy)
http://www.supremelaw.org/ guidelines.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/ support.guidelines.htm (Policy + Guidelines)

All Rights Reserved without Prejudice

On Sat, Dec 17, 2011 at 5:23 AM, Supreme Law Firm <paulandrewmitchell2004@yahoo. com> wrote:

Obama cannot sign any Bills!

http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/o bama/third.circuit/vcc.htm

http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/o bama/vieira/Obama.Stand.Up.Now .or.Stand.Down.htm

Is your short-term memory totally gone??

Sincerely yours,
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Private Attorney General, 18 U.S.C. 1964(a)
http://www.supremelaw.org/decs/agency/private.attorney.general.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/reading.list.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/index.htm (Home Page)
http://www.supremelaw.org/support.policy.htm (Support Policy)
http://www.supremelaw.org/guidelines.htm (Client Guidelines)
http://www.supremelaw.org/support.guidelines.htm (Policy + Guidelines)

All Rights Reserved without Prejudice

From: WAKE UP AMERICA <timetowake@gmail.com>
To: paulandrewmitchell2004@yahoo.com
Sent: Saturday, December 17, 2011 11:47 AM
Subject: Fwd: [apfn-1] ‘Indefinite Detainment’ Bill Reconciled by House, Senate

THE VERY ONES THAT CREATED THIS NIGHTMARE, WILL BE THE ONES INDEFINITELY DETAINED BY IT....MARK MY WORDS AND SPREAD THE TRUTH, STAY IN THE LIGHT, LOOK NOT INTO THE DARK...NAMASTE' BROTHERS AND SISTERS, MOTHERS AND FATHERS, SONS AND DAUGHTERS...WE ARE ALL BLESSED, PROTECTED AND SAFE....HOLD THE ENERGY OF PEACE WITHIN YOU AND SERVE ONE ANOTHER AND EVERYTHING WILL BE OK!!! I PROMISE....as long as we all come together as ONE!!!
We Can Do It!!!

Red Pill or Blue Pill? = www.TheRightofSelfDetermination.com

On Dec 16, 2011, at 5:07 PM, Jerry Pleasant wrote:

House, Senate Pass Reconciled DoD ‘Indefinite Detainment’ Bill

by Conservative Action Alerts on December 15, 2011

Print This Post

Conservative Action Alerts has been sounding the alarm over the recently reconciled and passed National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (NDAA) which threatens American Constitutional liberty by shredding the Bill of Rights.

Conservative Action Alerts has organized petitions against the bill and sent thousands of letters to Congress and Obama regarding this dangerous piece of legislation.

Senator Carl Levin (D-Mi) co-authored the bill with Senator John McCain (R-Az); they initially included language protecting American citizens from indefinite arrest and incarceration in Guantanamo Bay prison.

However, on November 17 the Executive Branch sent Senator Levin a letter claiming that the bill’s language protecting American citizens from terrorism-related arrests was too restrictive.

The DoD bill moved through a Conference Committee earlier this week largely unchanged; it passed in the House 283-136 on December, 14 and the Senate 86-13 the day after.

Harold Pease of Liberty Under Fire describes how the bill violates historic civilian protections from government military force:

The Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, following the Civil War, forbade the U.S. military from performing law enforcement functions on American soil. The American Civil Liberties Union was also blunt. “Since the bill puts military detention authority on steroids and makes it permanent, American citizens and others are at greater risk of being locked away by the military without charge or trial if this bill becomes law.” When asked if it were possible for an American to be shipped to Guantanamo Bay, John McCain, a co-author of the bill, said yes. Senator Lindsey Long was more blunt. “When they say, ‘I want my lawyer,’ you tell them, ‘Shutup. You don’t get a lawyer.’”

The bill will reach Obama’s desk likely tomorrow: if he refuses to veto it, our government — in broad daylight — will have made into law the most un-American, anti-liberty piece of legislation in our history.
Any military personnel who obey any order issued under this edict are violating their oath to support and protect the Constitution and deserve to be shot on sight. ..........Jerry

We were formed as a "Republic" because:
"Democracy never lasts long,
It soon wastes, exhausts and murders itself.
There was never a democracy that
did not commit suicide.'"
John Adams

WAKE UP AMERICA

timetowake@gmail.com

Jurisdictionary® Get educated now!

PUBLIC & PRIVATE NOTICE - This electronic message and any attachments contain confidential information which may be subject to the company-clientel privilege and may constitute private inside information. We will not produce the content of e-mail, as the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2701 et seq., prohibits an electronic communications service provider from producing the contents of electronic communications, even pursuant to subpoena or court order, except in limited circumstances. Our e-mail servers do not retain deleted or sent e-mail. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that your use or distribution of such information, by copying, electronic mail or otherwise, is strictly and hereby with full-notice prohibited. All laws of the Constitution for the united states of America and the Bill of Rights pertain to this communication, its contents and/or the Sovereign. NOTICE TO ALL PUBLIC OFFICIALS and any other government affiliates, your offer and your sworn oath is accepted for value to the contract. This binds performance to all the Amendments to this declaration. The 4th and 5th Amendment to be pointed out protect all private property and natural rights fully and completely. This electronic transmission is legal, lawful and is a commercial notice. To all who see this, YOU HAVE BEEN NOTICED. This transmission and any and all other TRANSMISSIONS ARE PRIVATE ONLY and any and all electronic transfers sending, copying or receiving on this machine are protected by this agreement and notice. You have a commercial duty to obey without any other conditions whatsoever. [McCathy vs. Verson Allsteel Press Co.] If you have received this E-message in error, please notify the sender immediately by replying electronically by e-mail and then remove ALL traces of the electronic E-mail message from your system. *** DISCLAIMER: Free Speech Only. Not intended to be construed as legal, medical, financial, or other advice. Without Prejudice, Without Recourse, All Rights Reserved from the Authority Most High, No Liability Assumed, No Value Assured. ***

Selamat Gajun! Selamat Ja! (Sirian for Be One! and Be in Joy!)

WAKE UP AMERICA

timetowake@gmail.com

Jurisdictionary® Get educated now!

PUBLIC & PRIVATE NOTICE - This electronic message and any attachments contain confidential information which may be subject to the company-clientel privilege and may constitute private inside information. We will not produce the content of e-mail, as the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2701 et seq., prohibits an electronic communications service provider from producing the contents of electronic communications, even pursuant to subpoena or court order, except in limited circumstances. Our e-mail servers do not retain deleted or sent e-mail. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that your use or distribution of such information, by copying, electronic mail or otherwise, is strictly and hereby with full-notice prohibited. All laws of the Constitution for the united states of America and the Bill of Rights pertain to this communication, its contents and/or the Sovereign. NOTICE TO ALL PUBLIC OFFICIALS and any other government affiliates, your offer and your sworn oath is accepted for value to the contract. This binds performance to all the Amendments to this declaration. The 4th and 5th Amendment to be pointed out protect all private property and natural rights fully and completely. This electronic transmission is legal, lawful and is a commercial notice. To all who see this, YOU HAVE BEEN NOTICED. This transmission and any and all other TRANSMISSIONS ARE PRIVATE ONLY and any and all electronic transfers sending, copying or receiving on this machine are protected by this agreement and notice. You have a commercial duty to obey without any other conditions whatsoever. [McCathy vs. Verson Allsteel Press Co.] If you have received this E-message in error, please notify the sender immediately by replying electronically by e-mail and then remove ALL traces of the electronic E-mail message from your system. ***