Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Government Terrorist in action.

Expand Messages
  • Jerry Stanton
      Government  Terrorist in action. ... Final Opinion and Judgment, does not show the Appellant that he, as a sovereign citizen of the state of Michigan, is
    Message 1 of 3 , Mar 23, 2013
    • 0 Attachment


      Government  Terrorist in action.
      Is the FBI, and Southern Poverty Institution,[ A Den of B.A.R ATTORNEYS] that make's the claim the sovereign people, that claim their unalienable rights, of these union States are terrorist and subject slaves to the Corporate FEDERAL and STATE governments and there pretend codes laws, without proof or evidence of their claim of such powers, to even make such an insane claim. 
       When did the people of these union States ever consent to being subjects of anyone's rule, that was repugnant to their unalienable rights guaranteed them, by the Declaration of Independence. 
       This is part of an affidavit I put before the Michigan Supreme Court, in 2006, that refused to follow their own court rules and refused to allow make the claim to be heard. I believe this is a preponderance of facts and evidence, that no reasonable sane man can deny.
       Which in turn would make the Federal Bureau of Investigation and Southern Poverty Institution now, actually the real terrorist and in a active plot to over throw the Government of the people of these union states and enslave its people in an entrapment of foreign laws and powers, outside of any authority given to them by the people.
      Written, 2006 to the Michigan Supreme Court .    
      5.      Tribunal Judge Michael A. Stimpson, in his Final Opinion and Judgment, does not show the Appellant that he, as a sovereign citizen of the state of Michigan, is subject to a property tax since the Appellant does not receive a benefit from, is employed by, or is a political holder of the state of Michigan.
      Tribunal Judge, Michael A. Stimpson, referred to MCL 21.1.1, .2; in his opinion and quoted the following:  “A person or party asserting exemption from taxation under the laws of the State of Michigan must establish that the law unambiguously provides for an exemption and that he, she or it, without doubt or cavil, fall within the provisions affording such an exemption”.  Appellant asserts that he is not a “person” as stated by this MCL and this is supported by
      Church of Scientology v. U.S. Dept. of Justice (1979) 612 F.2d 417, 425.,
      “the word “person” in legal terminology is perceived as a general word which normally includes in its scope a variety of entities other than human beings.”  Appellant has stated and documented from the beginning that he is a natural and sovereign “citizen” of the state of Michigan and is a living and breathing human being.
      Will v. Michigan Dept. of State Police, 491 U.S. 58 (1989), at 72,
      “the word “persons” is ordinarily construed to exclude the sovereign;” 
      Wilson v. Omaha Tribe, 442 U.S. 653, 667 (1979),
      “The court invokes, first the “often-expressed understanding” that  “in common usage, the term ‘person’ does not include the sovereign, [and] statutes employing the [word] are ordinarily construed to exclude it.”
      United States v Cooper Corp., 312 U.S. 600, 604 (1941),
      “in common usage, the term ‘person’ does not include the sovereign, [and] statues employing the [word] are ordinarily construed to exclude it.”
      6.     Appellant alleges that there is a collection of palatable errors in this case, thereby violating his due process and constitutional rights under the law and brought fraud upon the court.
      Marbury v. Madison, 5th U.S. (2 Cranch)  137,180
      “All laws, rules and practices which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void” 
      Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616, 635
       “It is the duty of the courts to be watchful for the Constitutional rights of the citizen and against any stealthy encroachments thereon” 
      The Constitution of the State of Michigan, Article I – Bill of Rights, Section 10, states in part: 
      “and in civil cases, in which personal liberty may be involved, the trial by jury shall not be refused.”  
      Black’s Law Dictionary, 7th Edition, liberty is defined as “1.  Freedom from arbitrary or undue external restraint, esp. by a government.” 
      US V. SCROGER, 98 F3d 1256 (10th Cir. 1996),
      “Government has burden of proving that nonconstitutional error was harmless.”
      Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 528, (1974),
      “The law requires proof of jurisdiction to appear on the record of the administrative agency and all administrative proceedings.”
      Louisville R.R. v. Motley, 211 U.S. 149, 29 S. Ct. 42, (1908),
      “If any tribunal finds absence of proof of jurisdiction over person and subject matter, the case must be dismissed”
      Merritt v. Hunter, C.A. Kansas 170 F2d 739.
      “Where a court failed to observe safeguards, it amounts to denial of due process of law, court is deprived of juris.”
      Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43 at 47 (1905),
      “This Sovereign individual paradigm is explained by the following U.S. Supreme Court case:  “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 such duty [to submit his books and papers for an examination] 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 [Common Law] 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.  Among his Rights are refusal to incriminate himself, the immunity of himself and his property from arrest or seizure except under a warrant of the law.  He owes nothing to the public so long as he does not trespass upon their Rights.” 
      Hale V. Henkel has been cited a total of 144 times since 1905 by the Supreme Court.  A fact more astounding is that since 1905, Hale V. Henkel has been cited by all the federal and state appellate court systems a total of over 1600 times and none of the various issues of this case has ever been overruled.
      HAINES V KERNER, 404 US 519, 30 LEd2d 652, 92 SCt 594 (1972),  
      “Pro se litigations pleadings are to be construed liberally and held to less stringent standard than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers; if court can reasonably read pleadings to state valid claim on which litigant could prevail, it should do so despite failure to cite proper legal authority, confusion of legal theories, poor syntax and sentence construction, or litigant’s unfamiliarity with pleading requirements.” 
      MIRANDA V. ARIZONA, 384 U.S. 436, 491 (1966),  
      “Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them.”
      SMITH V. ALLWRIGHT, 321 US 649, 644,
      “Constitutional rights would be of little value if they could be indirectly denied,” and
      GORMILLION V. LIGHTFOOT, 364 U.S. 339, 345,
      “or manipulated out of existence.”
      7.         Appellant states that he cannot be forced into a contract with any government corporation or state entity against his will, which forces him to give up his constitutional rights as the ruling by Judge Stimpson has done in this case
      US V. GUTHRIE, 789 F3d 1243 (D.C. Cir. 1996),
      “For the government to punish a person because he had done what the law plainly allows him to do is a due process violation of the most basic sort.”
      Brady v U.S., 397 U.S. at 749, 90 S.Ct. 1463 at 1469 (1970)
      Fuentes v. Shevin, 407 U.S. 67 (1972);
      Brookhart v. Janis, 384 U.S. 6 (1966);
      Empask V. U.S., 349 U.S. 1990 (1955);
      Johnson V. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 58 (1938)
      “Waivers of constitutional rights not only must be voluntary but must be knowingly intelligent acts done with sufficient awareness of the relevant circumstances and likely consequences.”
      8.         Appellant states that his due process and constitutional rights were violated by the Michigan Court of Appeals when they denied his leave to appeal without citing any law or statute.
      United States Constitution, Bill of Rights, Article V – “Nor be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.”
      Constitution of the State of Michigan, Article I, §17 – “Nor be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law.”
      That due to the above, Appellant is seeking the relief as stated on the front of this document.
      Sworn to by:
      Jerry James Stanton,

    • Mike
      Jerry, ... Are you registered to vote? If you have registered to vote then you consented to their rule. It means fasten your seat belt Dorothy, cause
      Message 2 of 3 , Mar 23, 2013
      • 0 Attachment

        > When did the people of these union States ever consent to being subjects of anyone's rule

        Are you registered to vote? If you have registered to vote then you consented to "their" rule.

        "It means fasten your seat belt Dorothy, 'cause Kansas is going bye-bye." Cypher, The Matrix

        You need to understand the events that occurred from 1861-68 "Reconstruction". If that title does not indicate the problem then I don't know what will!

        The historical record indicates that Abraham Lincoln (not the President of the United States - they already ceased to exist) formed a new government on July 4, 1861. He was an attorney, do you think it was an accident to chose that date?

        The Lieber Code is the plan to overlay a military dictatorship over civil society. The Lieber Code of April 24, 1863 is also known as "Instructions for the Government of Armies of the United States in the Field, General Order № 100."

        The War of Northern Aggression destroyed State Sovereignty and the Republican form of government. Who paid for these actions?
        Cui bono?

        You should cross reference the case of Dyett v. Turner, 439 P. 2d 266 - Utah: Supreme Court 1968  and the 1967 Congressional Record (copy attached)
        proves that the 14th Amendment (1868) is 
        void ab initio. Quoting at length from that case: 

        "The United States Supreme Court, as at present constituted, has departed from the Constitution as it has been interpreted from its inception and has followed the urgings of social reformers in foisting upon this Nation laws which even Congress could not constitutionally pass. It has amended the Constitution in a manner unknown to the document itself. While it takes three fourths of the states of the Union to change the Constitution legally, yet as few as five men who have never been elected to office can by judicial fiat accomplish a change just as radical as could three fourths of the states of this Nation. As a result of the recent holdings of that Court, the sovereignty of the states is practically abolished, and the erst while free and independent states are now in effect and purpose merely closely supervised units in the federal system.
        We do not believe that justices of once free and independent states should surrender their constitutional powers without being heard from.
        We would betray the trust of our people if we sat supinely by and permitted the great bulk of our powers to be taken over by the federal courts without at least stating reasons why it should not be so. By attempting to save the dual relationship which has heretofore existed between state and federal authority and which is clearly set out in the Constitution, we think we act in the best interest of our country.

        We feel like galley slaves chained to our oars by a power from which we cannot free ourselves
        , but like slaves of old we think we must cry out when we can see the boat heading into the maelstrom directly ahead of us; and by doing so, we hope the master of the craft will heed the call and avert the dangers which confront us all.
        But by raising our voices in protest we, like the galley slaves of old, expect to be lashed for doing so. We are confident that we will not be struck by 90 per cent of the people of this Nation who long for the return to the days when the Constitution was a document plain enough to be understood by all who read it, the meaning of which was set firmly like a jewel in the matrix of common sense and wise judicial decisions. We shall not complain if those who berate us belong to that small group who refuse to take an oath that they will not overthrow this government by force. When we bare our legal backs to receive the verbal lashes, we will try to be brave; and should the great court of these United States decide that in our thinking we have committed error, then we shall indeed feel honored, for we will then be placed on an equal footing with all those great justices who at this late date are also said to have been in error for so many years. See
        Dyett v. Turner, 439 P. 2d 266 - Utah: Supreme Court 1968

        These justices also detail the fraud of the Fourteenth Amendment that parallels the 1967 Congressional Record.

        If you want even more evidence the 14th Amendment makes slaves out of EVERY American, then you should read
        President Andrew Johnson's Veto message of it. A rump "Congress" over-rode that veto.

        The net result of the Fourteenth Amendment was the destruction of our Republic and the establishment of a "legislative democracy" - through CORPORATE FASCISM!

        The U.S. Congress appears to be fully aware of these issues and therefore limited the ONLY LAWFUL Constitution into the "general and permanent laws" of the United States to the Constitution of September 17, 1787.

        As such, this is the only LAWFUL Constitution that State Officers may take an Oath to uphold.

        An in depth review of History provides the proper perspective to consider Congresses determinations in choosing this Constitution to include into the "general and permanent laws".

        Of course it would require satisfactorily answering the difficult question: "What happened to the original 13th Amendment?" There is no indication from the Historical Record that this LAWFULLY RATIFIED Amendment was EVER LAWFULLY REMOVED from the US Constitution. It seems to simply vanish. You can still find the Original 13th Amendment as a part of the 1819 Code of Virginia in any Law Library that maintains these historical records.

        Of course as the the case above points out the states as presently organized are "
        merely closely supervised units in the federal system" which is another reason why"state courts" are the incorrect venue to attempt to collect "a debt" (fines, penalties for "criminal charges") from State National. Cross reference 15 U.S.C. § 1121.

        State Nationals are always "white" and will always be Free Citizens with Natural Rights. Since this may seem like an extreme ideological position here is more information to support this view. Title 42 § 1982: "All citizens of the United States shall have the same right, in every State and Territory, as is enjoyed by white citizens thereof to inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold, and convey real and personal property."

        If the former slaves have the same rights as "white people", why are State Nationals denied the Right to Vote?

        The answer lies in the "new" 13th Amendment.

        The new so-called "13th Amendment" makes "involuntary servitude" unlawful. The issue here is CONSENT. A person can voluntarily give up their Natural Rights for "privileges" granted and guaranteed by the legislative enactments in the same way they can voluntarily become a servant (slave).

        Is there a federal municipal franchise created through voter registration that completely changes a white persons political status that that of the former slaves? Does this make the "federal government" the largest slave owner in the world? It appears so.

        When we look at The National Voter Registration Act of 1993, P.L. 103-31 we find: "TITLE 42 - THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND WELFARE CHAPTER 20 - ELECTIVE FRANCHISE SUBCHAPTER I-H - NATIONAL VOTER REGISTRATION" (emphasis mine).

        Title 42 concerns "civil rights" otherwise known as "legislative privileges" granted to former slaves.

        It is important to note the definition of "franchise":


        An authorization granted by a government or company to an individual or group enabling them to carry out specified commercial activities.

        The obvious key words here are "specified commercial activities".

        Does this "elective franchise" make a living (white) man a corporation and responsible for "Income Taxes" and other encumbrances of "this state" including a "driver's license"? The federal government seems to have usurped the de jure States through judicial and legislative fiat of the Fourteenth Amendment and other means.
        Additionally Title 42 Sec. 1973gg FINDINGS AND PURPOSES states:
        (a) Findings
        The Congress finds that -
        (1) the right of citizens of the United States to vote is a fundamental right;
        (2) it is the duty of the Federal, State, and local governments to promote the 
        exercise of that right; and
        (3) discriminatory and unfair registration laws and procedures can have a direct 
        and damaging effect on voter participation in elections for Federal office and 
        disproportionately harm voter participation by various groups, including racial 
        minorities. (my! How the tables have turned! Now de jure State Nationals are denied the "right to vote"!)
        (b) Purposes
        The purposes of this subchapter are -
        (1) to establish procedures that will increase the number of eligible citizens who 
        register to vote in elections for Federal office;
        (2) to make it possible for Federal, State, and local governments to implement this 
        subchapter in a manner that enhances the participation of eligible citizens as 
        voters in elections for Federal office;
        (3) to protect the integrity of the electoral process; and
        (4) to ensure that accurate and current voter registration rolls are maintained.

        Sodespite this legislatures claims that the purpose of that Public Law is to increase voter participation there is a deliberate exclusion of State Nationals, lawful State inhabitants who are not also federal citizens.

        This also indicates that there are NO occupied State Offices! They are vacant! "
        eligible citizens as 
        voters in elections for Federal office"

        The "state offices" that exist are federal franchises.

        Also see: United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 US 649, 654-658 (Supreme Court 1898) for a comprehensive opinion on citizenship wherein you may find that when you understand these issues, that you live in a conquered country you may be alien to it and not a citizen.

        Who is responsible for this mess? The people who participate in commerce.

        I hope this helps.

        Notice & Warning: This email contains proprietary business information, trade secrets, restricted and valued information intended for the addressees eyes only. All interceptors, surveillance agents foreign and domestic, enforcement agencies are hereby prohibited from accessing, possessing, using, selling, purchasing, storing, retrieving, and transmitting this valuable information as a product or service for gain. Any monetary profits, benefits or accounting of this information for gain may be prosecuted as a felony offense and cause of action. Persons, whistle blowers, informants may be granted an award for information leading to the successful prosecution of agents committing acts of infringement.

        From: Jerry Stanton <farm_stone@...>
        To: Tips-and -Tricks <tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com>
        Sent: Saturday, March 23, 2013 5:26 PM
        Subject: [tips_and_tricks] Government Terrorist in action.

      • Troy Duwayne, Barclay
        Jerry and Mike, etal, The main attachment and central contrivance to title 42 and all other entanglements with the defacto government is the social security
        Message 3 of 3 , Mar 24, 2013
        • 0 Attachment
          Jerry and Mike, et al,
          The main attachment and central contrivance to title 42 and all other entanglements with the de facto government is the social security number. If you have the number you have placed yourself in their Phantom Law Rules system. Contrary to the long pdf file about SS and how no one can get rid of the number, the lie continues and many believe such dominance over docile people. There is nothing that is saturated with fraud, like SS was/is, that will stand in a real de jure law court. Rescission is the only answer when one discovers the fraud perpetrated upon him/her. The Phantom Law Rules system (i.e. administrative law) is now the so-called "king" of law in this country. It is a so-called 4th branch of government that is all three branches that set our nation up rolled into one and answers to no one but its agencies' bosses. There is no due process available in such phantom law rules system,because you traded or exchanged all your standing in law when you obtained or tacitly agreed to the ss number. This illusion which can only be a pure phantom law rules system which is a pure fiction designed to enslave under a form of self-voluntary slavery that one does to himself.

          I know of several young folks who obtained a Texas DL WITHOUT  a ss number and they still don't have the ss number.  

          Wake up folks that all that you are told by the "authority" is not always truthful and honest and the correct answer. Are you a slave or a freeman?

          For liberty and freedom
          Troy Duwayne, Barclay

        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.