Skip to comments.FBI warns of threat from anti-government extremist
Posted on 02/06/2012 11:10:08 PM PST by yank in the UK
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Anti-government extremists opposed to taxes and regulations pose a growing threat to local law enforcement officers in the United States, the FBI warned on Monday. These extremists, sometimes known as "sovereign citizens," believe they can live outside any type of government authority, FBI agents said at a news conference.
(Excerpt) Read more at mobile.reuters.com ...
Anti-government extremists opposed to taxes and regulations pose a growing threat to local law enforcement officers
I thought they were talking about Los Angeles, only they arent citizens.
As opposed to those who see stealing money from EARNERS and handing it to parasites for their votes is a "GOOD THING"?????
I guess the First American Revolution was by a bunch of "Anti-government extremists", too?
From the first legal treatise published after Constitutional Ratification and written by the man considered to be the Father of American Law:
In the United States of America the people have retained the sovereignty in their own hands: they have in each state distributed the government, or administrative authority of the state, into two distinct branches, internal, and external; the former of these, they have confided, with some few exceptions, to the state government; the latter to the federal government.
Since the union of the sovereignty with the government, constitutes a state of absolute power, or tyranny, over the people, every attempt to effect such an union is treason against the sovereignty, in the actors; and every extension of the administrative authority beyond its just constitutional limits, is absolutely an act of usurpation in the government, of that sovereignty, which the people have reserved to themselves.
Preliminary Remarks, St. George Tucker, View of the Constitution
From the article: “Legal convictions of such extremists, mostly for white-collar crimes such as fraud, have increased from 10 in 2009 to 18 each in 2010 and 2011, FBI agents said.”
Are you kidding me? 10 or 18 crimes a year, Their are 300 million americans and our FBI says they are getting inundated with 18 such crimes.
We are living in the twilight zone... We are in big trouble people, big trouble.
No, I don’t.
NOt if either obammy or mitt are leading.
“Funny thing is 3 1/2 years ago I would think any one is crazy for believing in the FEMA camp thing.”
My moment came in 2008. 2008 was so nostalgic. Tinfoil is archived now.
Well, we all knew the day would come that the thought police would reign the day.
The camel’s nose started under the tent with the establishment of Homeland Security and now the whole camel is in the tent.
Hate crimes, thought crimes, protecting our bill of rights and the constitution are all grounds to be call a terrorist and consequent incarceration for simply exercising your rights under them.
It’s even come to the point that we don’t have anyone to vote for in the upcoming election. Even that decision has already been made by the GOP...the guys upon who’s watch let all of this happen over the past 30 years.
I’m afraid if it comes to outright revolution, it will fizzle due to government domesticated citizens being too timid to fight for their rights.
I have as much respect for the memory of the deceased, and as much sympathy for the sufferings of the living, if suffering there be, as any man in this House, but we must not permit our respect for the dead or our sympathy for a part of the living to lead us into an act of injustice to the balance of the living. I will not go into an argument to prove that Congress has no power to appropriate this money as an act of charity. Every member upon this floor knows it. We have the right, as individuals, to give away as much of our own money as we please in charity; but as members of Congress we have no right so to appropriate a dollar of the public money.
We cannot, without the grossest corruption, appropriate this money as the payment of a debt. We have not the semblance of authority to appropriate it as a charity. Mr. Speaker, I have said we have the right to give as much money of our own as we please. I am the poorest man on this floor. I cannot vote for this bill, but I will give one weeks pay to the object, and if every member of Congress will do the same, it will amount to more than the bill asks.
It is not the responsability of the Fed Gov to do this, it is the responsibility of the States.
It is not the responsability of the Fed Gov to do this, it is the responsibility of the People and the States.
ETL’s research & collection of FACTS is a great resource to counter leftist lies.
Kudos to you!
Also, merely by being a member of this forum makes one a prime candidate for the first roundup.
READ the constitution and you will see that our Founding Fathers intended for the people to be “Sovereign”.
They must “Demonize” people who LEARN THE TRUTH about the constitution, because they can’t have people learning that they can actually tell the Federal Government to go phock themselves...
THE LAW OF THE LAND
1. The highest law of the land is theU.S. Constitution which incorporates the Bill of Rights;
2. Underlying the U.S. Constitution are the State Constitutions / Statutes;
3. Underlying the Constitutions is English Common Law.
Higher law overrules lower law. Lower laws may not infringe or contradict or be in conflict with higher laws. Laws must be ratified by “we the people”. (See § 22 of California Civil Procedure for a definition):
The Constitution is pretty straight forward. Most people when they read it (or if they read it!), can understand what it says. For example, taking the 1st Amendment which reads as follows:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,” -[I.e. Congress cannot make a law specific to a denomination or religion],
“or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;” -[however, they also cannot prevent the practice of religion -so the Court’s telling you that you cannot pray in school or put a cross or the 10 Commandments anywhere is total bullshit, to put it politely]
“or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;” -[most people know this one, they can’t stop you criticizing the government, if someone wants to burn a flag (which does no harm other than send a message) then they can express themselves. The government cannot tell the press that they can’t show pictures of our soldiers coffins returning from Iraq, the press can print whatever they want. Recognize that this freedom of speech is still subject to libel law - you can’t tell lies]
“or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” -[The government can also not stop people marching or gathering peacefully to protest, they certainly cannot prevent someone who is wearing an anti-war or anti-president tee-shirt from going anywhere! You are allowed to say what you want when you want and you can do it with as many people as you like - you can give the government and cops the ‘up-yours sign’ any time you want]
That’s no so hard. The law is pretty straight forward. You do not need a lawyer of judge to understand the law, in fact if you do, then it is not law! See the section on Common-Law must be understood by the common man.
There are so many tremendous rights our Founding Fathers embedded within the constitution to prevent the government from messing with us. Like the right to bear arms - The government cannot tell us we can’t have pistol grips on our rifles! The right to bear arms was established so that we the people had just as powerful weapons as the government (See 2nd Amendment). Rights can’t diminish either, see opposite:
Common Law dictates that there are three mandatory elements for every criminal charge:
1. MENS REA - willful intent,
(menz ray-ah) n. Latin for a “guilty or evil mind,” or criminal intent in committing the act.
In order to determine intent, it is necessary for those judging to understand the mind of the person charged. We need to ask if intent can be tried by anyone but a jury of peers? i.e. if you form a jury of people who think completely differently to the person charged, the jury will not be able to judge whether the person really intended to commit the crime.
2. actus reus - the act or crime,
3. CORPUS DELICTI - the body of the crime, the actual damage.
The fact of a crime having been actually committed as reflected in the body of damage caused by the offence. I.e. to charge someone with murder you need to show that a person has been murdered, there needs to be a dead body.
The core construct to English Common Law, verses other legal constructs such as Roman Dutch Las is the construct of “innocent until proven guilty”. Under Roman Dutch Law, which has typically been employed by tyrannical regimes, you are “guilty until proven innocent”.
Criminal vs. Civil Law
The Constitution distinguishes between Criminal and Civil law and identifies Common Law as the underlying law for both. However the Constitutions, both Federal and State overrule Common Law.
Civil Law: provides remedy for wrongs
Criminal Law: provides punishment for wrongs
Public Law and Private Law:
Lawyers and Courts tend to differentiate between Public and Private Law. Public Law is the Law of the Land Private Law deals with contracts between persons. A person can either be an human or a corporation. Contracts under Private Law can effectively enforce almost anything. All law is however under Public Law.
A contract is an agreement that involves the exchange of legal rights (to money, property, ones labor, etc.). Anything can be put in a contract, however, contracts cannot undermine the Law of the land, you can still be criminally liable/responsible. Failure to perform ones part of an agreement can lead to a charge of breach of contract. It is suggested that much of our government’s actions against us are conducted under the guise of Contract Law - that is they get us to agree to be subject to contractual obligations, such as in signing a ticket they get us to agree to appear in “Their Court” under “Their Code” - see Infractions.
Law of Torts
Tort law is concerned with breaches of legal duty that result in some kind of injury that merits compensation. Torts are used to categorize allegations. There are three major Tort categories: Intentional torts, negligence, and strict liability:
Intentional Torts: Trespass, defamation (libel/slander), assault and battery, and false imprisonment.
Negligence: A breach of the duty of due care. Everyone in society has a duty to refrain from taking unreasonable risks associated with certain kinds of actions and omissions.
Strict Liability: Strict liability torts involve narrow classes of action where the person performing the action is liable for harms he produces even if the harms are unintentional and could not have been prevented by exercising reasonable care.
Strict Liability: (No ‘Mens Rea’/’willful intent’ requirement):
Criminal Liability: Liable only if actually aware of the harmful or wrongful nature of his/her conduct.
Objective Liability: Liable if a reasonable person in relevantly similar circumstance.
Rights Shall Not Diminish
Remember your rights cannot diminish - any right you are granted cannot later be taken away by the government U.S. Const. Amend IX:
“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”
The 9th is critical law which wipes out most of what the government has passed, including the right to be free of property taxes, including the Patriot Act, including all the Presidential Executive Orders like Roosevelt’s theft of gold, the draft, bench warrants, traffic tickets, the governments claim to sovereign immunity etc. etc.
Again, there is no ambiguity here. The 9th Amendment is blatantly clear and literal. So what is going on? What on earth are lawyers, judges, the president and Congress up to? Hello, anybody got a brain? Perhaps we have lost our mouth (1st amendment) and our arms (2nd amendment) and that is the only reason why we have become slaves to another tyrannical Police State.
For example in England, the Queen claimed that because God put her on the throne, she could commit no wrong and she therefore claimed “sovereign immunity”. However, Art. I Sec. 9 of the U.S. Constitution dictates:
“No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince or foreign State.”
It is impossible for government employees to claim ‘sovereign immunity’ for crimes they commit.
Trial By Jury or Judge
The U.S. Constitution guarantees any person accused of a crime the right to choose a Trial by Judge or a Trial By Jury (U.S. Const. Art III, Sec 2; U.S. Const. Amend VI) and any party to a civil matter entailing damages of more than $20 also has the right to choose between a Trial By Judge or a Trial By Jury (U.S. Const. Amend VII). And that such trials shall be speedy and follow due process.
The elements of a Trial By Jury are so critically important we have placed them on a separate page. The most critically important element is to realize that you the Jury members decide on both the Law and the Fact - The Courts are treasonously denying this well established right.
THE UCC CONNECTION / Howard freeman
This is slightly condensed, casually paraphrased transcript of tapes of a seminar given in 1990 by Howard Freeman. It was prepared to make available the knowledge and experience of Mr. Freeman in his search for an accessible and understandable explanation of the confusing state of the government and the courts. It should be helpful to those who may have difficulty learning from such lectures, or those who want to develop a deeper understanding of this information without having to listen to three or four hours of recorded material.
The frustration many Americans feel about our judicial system can be overwhelming and often frightening; and like most fear, eventually, with the seemingly tyrannical power of some governmental agency and the mystifying and awesome power of the courts. We have been taught that we must “get a good lawyer,” but that is becoming increasingly difficult, if not impossible. If we are defending ourselves from the government, we find that the lawyers quickly take our money, and then tell us as the ship is sinking, “I can’t help you with that - I’m an officer of the court.”
Ultimately, the only way for us to have even a “snowball’s chance ” is to understand the RULES OF THE GAME, and to come to an understanding of the true nature of the Law. The attorney lawyers have established and secured a virtual monopoly over this area of human knowledge by implying that the subject is just too difficult for the average person to understand, and by creating a separate vocabulary out of English words of otherwise common usage. While it may, at times, seem hopelessly complicated, it is not that difficult to grasp - are lawyers really as smart as they would have us believe? Besides, anyone who has been through a legal battle against the government with the aid of a lawyer has come to realize that lawyers learn about procedure, not about law. Mr. Freeman admits that he is not a lawyer, and as much, he has a way of explaining law to us that puts it well within our reach. Consider also that the framers of the Constitution wrote in language simple enough that the people could understand, specifically so that it would not have to be interpreted.
So again we find, as in many other areas of life, that “THE BUCK STOPS HERE!” It is we who must take the responsibility for finding and putting to good use the TRUTH. It is we who must claim and defend our God-given rights and our freedom from those who would take from us. It is we who must protect ourselves, our families and our posterity from the inevitable intrusion into our lives by those who live parasitically off the labor, skill and talents of others.
To these ends, Mr. Freeman offers a simple, hopeful explanation of our plight and a peaceful method of dealing with it. Please take note that this lecture represents one chapter in the book of his understanding, which he is always refining, expanding, improving. It is, as all bits of wisdom are, a point of departure from which to begin our own journey into understanding, that we all might be able to pass on to others; greater knowledge and hope, and to God: the gift of lives in peace, freedom and praise.
Read the whole thing at the link above...
Also for those who think this is crap, then ask yourself why Ron Paul endorses everyone to learn about “Reserving your Rights”
UCC 1-308 now replaces UCC 1-207
Does anyone sign their name “Without Prejudice UCC 1-308”?
Submitted by juliusbragg on Sat, 01/10/2009 - 22:41
note: in 2004 U.C.C. 1-207 was changed to U.C.C. 1-308.
I have a stamp that I ordered that says “without prejudice U.C.C 1-308”.
I carry it everywhere, and anything I sign has the stamp. They say a stamp is better than just writing it, because it shows premeditation of your concern.
I could do so, and quite handily, I assure you, kindly FBI agent. Does *that* ability make me an 'extremist'? If you believe so, I opine you need to change your panties, as you've most certainly wet them in your terror of people desiring nothing of gooberment but to be left alone...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.