SECEEDING FROM THE UNION


I believe Sucession from the Union, should be the main priority or agenda that is most talked about in this country. It is very important that Sucession should be taken seriously by every State in the Union. Doing everything phisically possible to enure that every citizen in America is protected from our Federal Government. The Government works for the people because we have allowed them to, and they only exist because we allow them to exist. The People of America have the right to abolish our Federal Governement if they overreach their boundies or thier very existence is so out of control that we are to take arms in order to protect ourselves from such Communists.

Arizona


Article VI: This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

Please refer to the Folloewing links for information on Secession.
http://secessionnews.com/
http://www.associatedcontent.com/topic/39377/secession.html?cat=37
http://secessionuniversity.com/

 

 

November 14, 2012 by Tim Brown

Secession Movement Sweeps All 50 States

Since my first report of Texas and Louisiana residents petitioning the federal government to peacefully withdraw from the United States, the numbers have grown, until now all 50 states have petitions going and many of them have already succeeded in making their goal and topping the 25,000 necessary signatures, which triggers an official response from the White House.

While some commenters have claimed that is was only a 100,000 or so people that were pushing this, the figures are pushing upwards of 1 million and that is just since Saturday. The petitions are gaining national attention and I’ve received many emails in support of the effort and some that are against it.

Let me say those who are opposed believe that this is what Barack Obama wants: divide and conquer.

Well, stop and think for a moment. We are divided in this society. It wasn’t just Barack Obama doing it though. Mitt Romney made the comment that there are 47% living on the government dole and Obama supporters. Well, that wasn’t completely true as I wrote about here. However, both men saw the country divided ideologically. It is. There is no getting around that.
But here’s the good news. These petitions to peacefully withdraw so a common unity around the principles that the Founders united around. Remember, the Revolutionary War was not wanted by the majority of the people. Neither was the War of Northern Aggression. But both were fought on principles and both were fought because of an oppressive government.

I do not wish to see bloodshed here in America with a war. In fact, that is the last thing I want. It is the last thing these petitioners want. Their petitions are for a “peaceful withdraw,” not a forcible one.

With all of this said, it will be interesting to see exactly how the White House responds. I’m guessing they will basically blow it off and say there will be no withdrawing, but then again look who is being petitioned. However, I think the public knowledge that there are those of us who are fed up with an ever encroaching federal government by both parties is healthy for the country as a whole. These states will not be divided. I am confident that we will look out for each other, but those of us who do not believe it is government’s place to be charitable would like to voluntarily do that, not be forced to do so.

Though you can find in my previous article a list of states and petitions, I’m providing and updates and alphabetized list here for quick reference.

May things remain peaceful and God grant us changed hearts of our leaders and our people and true repentance of His own people, the Church, and may He heal our land.


http://freedomoutpost.com/2012/11/secession-movement-sweeps-all-50-states/#ixzz2JRUkV9QK

Source:
http://freedomoutpost.com/2012/11/secession-movement-sweeps-all-50-states/

Read More:
http://patriot-newswire.com/2012/11/union-dissolving-40-states-now-petitioning-white-house-for-secession/

www.successcouncil.com



DECLARING SOVEREIGNTY

Articles
Increasing Number of States Declaring Sovereignty
Oklahoma House defends its sovereignty from D.C. intrusion
21 States Claiming Sovereignty
Our 10th Amendment Sovereignty Resolve, Will Defeat the New World
States Rights, 10th Amendment & Secessionist Movement 2009
New Hampshire and Washington legislators reaffirm states' rights UPDATE: 8 more states
States take the tenth
State Sovereignty Movement Quietly Growing
Federalism and the 10th Amendment
Oklahoma declares Sovereignty!
States Rights Movement vs Federal Government

21 States Claiming Sovereignty

21 States Claiming Sovereignty

Ernest Hancock 

Freedom’s Phoenix
February 12, 2009

21 States Claiming Sovereignty: AZ, AL, AK, AR, CA, CO, GA, HI, ID, IN, KS, ME, MI, MO, MT, NH, NV, OK, PA, TX, & WA

http://www.mrstep.com/politics/az-wa-mo-nh-ok-claiming-sovereignty/

Wow… it will be interesting to see how this turns out… it’s about time people started stepping up and speaking out.  As people have pointed out in comments, all of these (except for HI) are explicit restatements of what has always been in place, but not necessarily enforced, as detailed by the 10th Amendment.  HI is actually aiming for total sovereignty as it is claimed that HI was never really a state of the U.S. to begin with.  However, I believe the intent of these bills is to let the federal government know that the states’ sovereignty will not be overwritten… say in case certain gun ban laws get passed… or other “War Time / Martial Law” type plans come into play.  Check them out:

AZ: http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/legtext/49leg/1r/bills/hcr2024p.htm
AL: (Still searching for link – not officially posted, but analysts expect it is in the works)
AK:  (Still searching for link – not officially posted, but analysts expect it is in the works)
AR:  (Still searching for link – not officially posted, but analysts expect it is in the works)
CA: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/93-94/bill/sen/sb_0001-0050/sjr_44_bill_940829_chaptered
CO:  (Still searching for link – not officially posted, but analysts expect it is in the works)
GA: http://www.legis.state.ga.us/legis/1995_96/leg/fulltext/sr308.htm
HI: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/07-1372.htm
ID:  (Still searching for link – not officially posted, but analysts expect it is in the works)
IN:  (Still searching for link – not officially posted, but analysts expect it is in the works)
KS:  (Still searching for link – not officially posted, but analysts expect it is in the works)
ME:  (Still searching for link – not officially posted, but analysts expect it is in the works)
MI:http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(21rmjiv1sl0wvw55yxurwl55))/documents/2009-2010/Journal/House/pdf/2009-HJ-01-22-002.pdf
MO: http://www.house.mo.gov/content.aspx?info=/bills091/bills/HR212.HTM
MT: http://data.opi.mt.gov/bills/2009/billhtml/HB0246.htm
NH: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2009/HCR0006.html
NV:  (Still searching for link – not officially posted, but analysts expect it is in the works)
OK: http://www.ok-safe.com/files/documents/1/HJR1089_int.pdf
PA: (Still searching for link – not officially posted, but analysts expect it is in the works)
TX: (not officially declared recently, but is supposedly sovereign since it was never willfully ceded to the States – put on planning list)
WA: http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?year=2009&bill=4009

Ernest Hancock

Freedom’s Phoenix

February 12, 2009

21 States Claiming Sovereignty: AZ, AL, AK, AR, CA, CO, GA, HI, ID, IN, KS, ME, MI, MO, MT, NH, NV, OK, PA, TX, & WA

http://www.mrstep.com/politics/az-wa-mo-nh-ok-claiming-sovereignty/

Wow… it will be interesting to see how this turns out… it’s about time people started stepping up and speaking out. As people have pointed out in comments, all of these (except for HI) are explicit restatements of what has always been in place, but not necessarily enforced, as detailed by the 10th Amendment. HI is actually aiming for total sovereignty as it is claimed that HI was never really a state of the U.S. to begin with. However, I believe the intent of these bills is to let the federal government know that the states’ sovereignty will not be overwritten… say in case certain gun ban laws get passed… or other “War Time / Martial Law” type plans come into play. Check them out:

AZ: http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/legtext/49leg/1r/bills/hcr2024p.htm

AL: (Still searching for link – not officially posted, but analysts expect it is in the works)

AK: (Still searching for link – not officially posted, but analysts expect it is in the works)

AR: (Still searching for link – not officially posted, but analysts expect it is in the works)

CA: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/93-94/bill/sen/sb_0001-0050/sjr_44_bill_940829_chaptered

CO: (Still searching for link – not officially posted, but analysts expect it is in the works)

GA: http://www.legis.state.ga.us/legis/1995_96/leg/fulltext/sr308.htm

HI: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/07-1372.htm

ID: (Still searching for link – not officially posted, but analysts expect it is in the works)

IN: (Still searching for link – not officially posted, but analysts expect it is in the works)

KS: (Still searching for link – not officially posted, but analysts expect it is in the works)

ME: (Still searching for link – not officially posted, but analysts expect it is in the works)

MI: http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(21rmjiv1sl0wvw55yxurwl55))/documents/2009-2010/Journal/House/pdf/2009-HJ-01-22-002.pdf

MO: http://www.house.mo.gov/content.aspx?info=/bills091/bills/HR212.HTM

MT: http://data.opi.mt.gov/bills/2009/billhtml/HB0246.htm

NH: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2009/HCR0006.html

NV: (Still searching for link – not officially posted, but analysts expect it is in the works)

OK: http://www.ok-safe.com/files/documents/1/HJR1089_int.pdf

PA: (Still searching for link – not officially posted, but analysts expect it is in the works)

TX: (not officially declared recently, but is supposedly sovereign since it was never willfully ceded to the States – put on planning list)

WA: http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?year=2009&bill=4009

http://www.infowars.com/resources/states-rights.html

 

SPECIAL ACTION - Due Process

and Request for Admissions
Discovery - Aberment
AZ Rules of Civil Procedure 8d

other cases: Include CV2010-007, CR2009-096, CR2008, CV2005-022

IN AND FOR THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA
IN THE COUNTY OF GRAHAM

Name , ex rel People of State of Arizona
                                      Plaintiff,
v.
STATE OF ARIZONA - GRAHAM COUNTY
Presiding Superior Court Judge; R. Douglas Holt,
Superior Court Judge; D. Corey Sanders,
JP Judge; Gary Griffith,
County Attorney Kenneth Angle,
Deputy County Attorney; Leslie Capace,
Deputy County Attorney; Stuart G. Ross,
Judge Robert C. Pursley,
Judge Richard M. Jernigan,
Judge Chris C. Long,
                                       Defendants,


CV2009-300 Discovery Questions
43 Questions, name

1. Do you agree Arizona Revised Statutes Annotated Title 38 Ch. 1 Genneral Provisions Article 1 Definitions 101.Definitions for Office Board or Commission, Public Institution, Officer, or Public Officer, is the subject matter?
IF NO ANSWER IS OTHERWISE PROVIDED THE ANSWER IS YES, IF THE ANSWER IS NO, PLEASE PROVIDE THE AUTHORITY TO SUPPORT YOUR POSITION, OR APPLICABLE LAW.

2. Do you agree, there is a mandate on a public official to indorse thereon his official bond, by the officer, and the approving officer in reference to Tiltle 38-253?
Arizona Revised Statutes, 1901 Chapter 19, Section 231. 1912 adopted as the law of Arizona.
IF NO ANSWER IS OTHERWISE PROVIDED THE ANSWER IS YES, IF THE ANSWER IS NO, PLEASE PROVIDE THE AUTHORITY TO SUPPORT YOUR POSITION, OR APPLICABLE LAW.

3. Do you agree, that (Title 38-253 Approval of Bond Filing), is the time prescribed for filing the oath and the bond one day prior to taking any office? Revised Statutes of Arizona, 1901 Chapter 19 Section 227 and 228. 1912 adopted as the laws of Arizona.
IF NO ANSWER IS OTHERWISE PROVIDED THE ANSWER IS YES, IF THE ANSWER IS NO, PLEASE PROVIDE THE AUTHORITY TO SUPPORT YOUR POSITION, OR APPLICABLE LAW.

4. Do you agree bonds of deputies and employees, shall be filed with the officer appointing the deputy or employee? Revised Statutes of Arizona, 1901Chapter 15, Section 210 and 215. 1912 adopted as the laws of Arizona.
IF NO ANSWER IS OTHERWISE PROVIDED THE ANSWER IS YES, IF THE ANSWER IS NO, PLEASE PROVIDE THE AUTHORITY TO SUPPORT YOUR POSITION, OR APPLICABLE LAW.

5. Do you agree the board of supervisors under such limitations and restrictions as are prescribed by law, may: 1Supervise the official conduct of all county officers and officers of all districts of and other subdivisions of the county charged with assessing, collecting, safekeeping, managing, or disbursing the public revenues see that such officers faithfully perform their duties and direct prosecutions for delinquencies, and, when necessary, require the officers to renew their official bonds, make reports and present their books and accounts for inspection. ARS Title 11-251, Powers of the Board. See Soruce: Revised Statutes of Arizona, 1901, chapter 14, Section 200. 1912 adopted as the laws of Arizona.
IF NO ANSWER IS OTHERWISE PROVIDED THE ANSWER IS YES, IF THE ANSWER IS NO, PLEASE PROVIDE THE AUTHORITY TO SUPPORT YOUR POSITION, OR APPLICABLE LAW.

6. Do you agree, the board of supervisors has the power to fill by appointment all vaccancies occorring in county or precinct offices? See Ref. (ARS Ttile 11-251 Paragraph 16.) See source: Revised Statutes of Arizona, 1901. 973, 1000, 1012, 1027, 1044, Laws of 1912. Chapter 62, Section 1.
IF NO ANSWER IS OTHERWISE PROVIDED THE ANSWER IS YES, IF THE ANSWER IS NO, PLEASE PROVIDE THE AUTHORITY TO SUPPORT YOUR POSITION, OR APPLICABLE LAW.

7. Do you agree, that a failure to qualify or take the oath of office, or to file the official bond within the time prescibed results in an absolute loss of the right to enter on the office? See source Revised Statutes of Arizona, 1901 Chapter 19, Section 250, and 254. 1912 adopted as the laws of Arizona.
IF NO ANSWER IS OTHERWISE PROVIDED THE ANSWER IS YES, IF THE ANSWER IS NO, PLEASE PROVIDE THE AUTHORITY TO SUPPORT YOUR POSITION, OR APPLICABLE LAW.

8. Do you agree, that where statute provides that an officer who failed within a timely mannor to qualify to file his bond shall be deemed to refuse such office? See source: Revised Statutes of Arizona, 1901 Chapter 19, Section 250, and 254. 1912 adopted as the laws of Arizona.
IF NO ANSWER IS OTHERWISE PROVIDED THE ANSWER IS YES, IF THE ANSWER IS NO, PLEASE PROVIDE THE AUTHORITY TO SUPPORT YOUR POSITION, OR APPLICABLE LAW.

9. Do you agree, that it has also been held however that a defacto board or body cannot create a dejure officer?
IF NO ANSWER IS OTHERWISE PROVIDED THE ANSWER IS YES, IF THE ANSWER IS NO, PLEASE PROVIDE THE AUTHORITY TO SUPPORT YOUR POSITION, OR APPLICABLE LAW.

10. Do you agree that one who is not entitled to hold or perform the functions of more than one at one time, may not collect compensation for more than one office, for the same period, unless authorized by law.
IF NO ANSWER IS OTHERWISE PROVIDED THE ANSWER IS YES, IF THE ANSWER IS NO, PLEASE PROVIDE THE AUTHORITY TO SUPPORT YOUR POSITION, OR APPLICABLE LAW.

Questions 11. - 43. , Comming Soon!

John Stossel

John Stossel - Free Market

As a libertarian, Stossel says that he believes in both personal freedom[15] and the free market. He frequently uses television airtime to advance these views and challenge viewers' distrust of free market capitalism and economic competition. He received an Honoris Causa Doctorate from Francisco Marroquin University, a libertarian university in Guatemala, in 2008. He told The Oregonian, on October 26, 1994:


“ I started out by viewing the marketplace as a cruel place, where you need intervention by government and lawyers to protect people. But after watching the regulators work, I have come to believe that markets are magical and the best protectors of the consumer. It is my job to explain the beauties of the free market.[16] ”

“ I'm a little embarrassed about how long it took me to see the folly of most government intervention. It was probably 15 years before I really woke up to the fact that almost everything government attempts to do, it makes worse.[17] ”


Stossel argues that personal greed creates an incentive to work and to innovate.[18] He has promoted school choice as a way to improve American schools, because he believes that when people are given a choice, they will choose the better schools for their children.[19] Referring to educational tests that rank American students lower than others he says:

“ The people who run the international tests told us, "the biggest predictor of student success is choice." Nations that "attach the money to the kids" and thereby allow parents to choose between different public and private schools have higher test scores. This should be no surprise; competition makes us better.[20] ”


He has also criticized government programs as inefficient, wasteful, and harmful.[21]


Stossel opposes corporate welfare and bailouts.[22]


He opposes legal prohibitions against pornography, marijuana, gambling, ticket scalping, prostitution, homosexual activity, and assisted suicide,[23] and believes most abortions should be legal.[24]


He opposes the war in Afghanistan and the war in Iraq.[5]


LIBERTY, FREEDOM, LIBERTY, FREEDOM, LIBERTY, FREEDOM, LIBERTY

John Stossel Show, Monday July 5, 2010.
More Guns, Less Crime.


(Braidy Bill, Campaine, Vice President - Dennis Hennigan is against gun rights.)

Stossel discussed the right for students at a college campus to carry concealed weapons.


Do Gun Control Laws Kill

Mark Walters defended himself by revealing to the robber, that he was carrying a weapon for self defense, which gave the robber good intention to leave, at that time.
Gun Possession, Prevents Crime.

Mark Walters has a Radio show called "Armed American Radio"


Stossel also discussed the new U.S. Supreme Court Ruling, "McDonald v. City of Chicago" Gun Rights Case.

A New York Senator said well we have locks on asprin, why not on guns.


John Stossel  
http://www.johnstossel.com/

In 2002 The Oath of Office was filed by public officers in the State of Arizona correctly!

The Graham County Human Rights Association petition the Arizona Supreme Court with 150 signitures of qualified elctors living in Arizona, And informed them that their was no public officer in Graham County that has taken the proper oath required by law. IN 2002 the Arizona Supreme Court went to every county in the state and made all public officials take the proper Oath of Office. Now in 2010, The Graham County Human Rights Association, and others have found that most of the public officers in Graham County have either failed to file an oath of office, vacant in the office from not filing timely, or have failed to file the correct Oath of Office.

The Political Outlook on Freedom!

People standing in the fight for liberty and Justice, for all Americans.


Rand Paul
http://www.randpaul2010.com/


Ron Paul - Texas
http://www.ronpaul.com/



Sylvia Allen - AZ Senate
http://sylviaallen.wordpress.com/
http://www.allenazsenate.com/


Judge Andrew P. Napolitano - New Jersey -
Freedom Watch, Constitutional Watch Dog
http://www.judgenap.com/


Richard Mack - Ret. Sheriff
http://www.richardmack.com/

Headlines:

DNA Testing - Texas
http://www.innocenceproject.org/index.php

Wrongful Prosecution and Imprisonment in IL.
http://www.exonerated.org/content/

Patriots standing in the rain holding signs and flags!

Friday, April 02, 2010

TEA PARTY EXPRESS III: TOPEKA, TULSA EDITION--Updated
I'm way behind schedule this morning, so I'll point you in the direction of Marathon Pundit--Topeka, Fred Phelps, Tea Party Express III. What could possibly go wrong?TPX TV Topeka at 10:00 am CST; Tulsa at 4:00 pmMore to come...***UPDATE: This just in from Andrea Shea King in Topeka, Kansas--TPX III:Andrea reported to me this morning that it's pouring rain in Topeka and the TPX rally was moved inside. As they were riding the bus to the venue, most figured no one would show up in this downpour. While talking with Andrea, the bus turned on the street where the rally is to be held, and there they were... crowds of cheering, freedom-loving Americans standing out in the rain with umbrellas, signs, and flags!! I could hear the cheers over the phone, overwhelming.(Andrea corrects me: The Topeka rally was never moved to an inside venue; the crew was just wondering if it would be due to weather.)UPDATE II: Andrea reports that Lloyd Marcus hit the stage with "Singin' in the Rain," and the crowd joined in.It's a great day to be an American.****

Labels: Andrea Shea King, John Ruberry, Lloyd Marcus, Marathon Pundit, Morton Grove Illinois, Tea Party Express III, The Radio Patriot, Topeka, Tulsa

http://thirdwavedave.blogspot.com/2010/04/tea-party-express-iii-topeka-tulsa.html

PUBLIC OFFICER, ARE MANDATED, AND SHALL QUALIFY FOR THE OFFICE, BEFORE TAKING THE OFFICE!

ARIZONA SESSION LAWS

OFFICIAL BOND

1971 Ch. 125 Sec. 2

1972 Ch. 42   Sec. 2

1984 Ch. 275 Sec. 1 & 3

1984 Ch. 201 Sec. 2

2000 Ch. 88 Sec. 50

2003 Ch. 70 Sec. 8 & 9

2003 Ch. 70 Sec. 7

2008 Ch. 80 Sec. 9


ARS STATUTE GUIDE

Title 1 –
1-215.29

Title 11 - COUNTIES
Corporate Status of the County Ref. 10-204

11-218 - Subpoena of witnesses; production of books and papers

11-251 - Powers of board

11-223 - Misconduct by supervisor; penalty

11-253 – County Officers


Title 22

22-121 - Justices of the peace pro tempore; appointment; term; reappointment; extension of duties; powers and duties

22-122 - Qualifications of justices of the peace pro tempore; residence; compensation

(Source: Arizona Session Law)


Title 38 Public Officers and Employees

38-231 - Officers and Employees Loyalty Oath and Form
g.
e. Overthrow of Government
Judicial Commission Board

38-232 - Time of Oath

38-233 – Filing Oaths of Record

38-292 - Vacancy in Office

38-234 - Unauthorized Intrudes Himself into Office

38-251 – State Officers and Employees Blanket Bond

38-254 – Bond for Performance of Duties of Office

38-255 – Recording of Bond, Provide Certified Copies

38-256 – Form of Official Bond

38-258 – Limitations of Liability

38-259 – Extent of Liability of Official Bond

38-260 – Beneficiaries of Official Bond

38-261 – Successive Recoveries on Bond

38-262 – Defects in Bond Form

38-264 – Additional, Bond

38-265 – Liability of Original & Additional Bonds

38-268 – Bonds of Persons Appointed to Fill Vacancies

38-272 – Affidavit of Plaintiff in Action to Recover on Bond that Defendant Owns Real Property

38-273 – Recording Notice of Ownership of Real Property, Lien of Judgment.

38-291 – 6, 7, & 9 Vacancy Defined (Case Law)

38-292 – Notice of Vacancy in Office for Removal or Convicted of a Felony

38-293 – Effect of Conviction of Officer

38-294 - Resignation

38-295 – Term of Office, Until Successor is Qualified

38-361 – Powers and Duties of Successor in Office, Subject to Previous Officer Liabilities.

38-321 - Judgment

38-341 – Accusation by Grand Jury

38-442 – Persons Acting as Public Officer Without Qualifying

38-443 – Nonfeasance in Public Office

38-446 – Liabilities During Acts in Good Faith

38-462 – Powers and Duties of Deputies

38-463 – Liability of Officer on Bond for Acts Deputies and Assistants

38-542 – Financial Disclosure Statement

Arizona State Constitution Article 6 Section 28 - Justices and judges; dual office holding; political activity; practice of law

Judicial Tactics of Blocking Reports of High Corruption in Governement

Judicial Tactics Blocking Reports Of High Corruption Related To Catastrophic Events
During the period 1978 to 1982, former federal agent Rodney Stich sought to report the culture and corruption within the government's aviation safety offices that enabled to occur a long list of airline disasters. Stich filed these actions in the U.S. District Court at San Francisco, which were then dismissed without receiving the evidence.

The statutory authority requiring criminal activities to be reported to a federal court (or other federal officer), and the mandatory responsibility of any federal judge to receive the information and evidence, arises under the mandatory crime reporting requirements of Title 18 U.S.C. § 4, and the right under Title 28 U.S.C. § 1361.

Title 18 U.S.C. § 4. Misprision of felony. Whoever, having knowledge of the actual commission of a felony cognizable by a court of the United States, conceals and does not as soon as possible make known the same to some judge or other person in civil or military authority under the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
Title 28 U.S.C. § 1361. Action to compel an officer of the United States to perform his duty. The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of any action in the nature of mandamus to compel an officer or employee of the United States or any agency thereof to perform a duty owed to the plaintiff.

Each of the filings were blocked by motions filed by Department of Justice lawyers, and then dismissed by federal judges. (Details of these lawsuits in Unfriendly Skies: 20th and 21st Centuries and Defrauding America.

Court filings in the lawsuit against the FAA, in 1974 and 1975, revealing the corruption and related deaths over a period of years.

Stich then filed petitions for writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court. That filing made the Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court aware of the crimes against the United States and the obstruction of justice tactics by federal judges over whom they had supervisory responsibilities.
Federal law requires that federal judges recognize the allegations stated in the complaint as true, in opposing dismissal. Every court filing had multiple allegations constituting federal causes of actions, in addition to reporting federal crimes.

Dennis v. Sparks 449 U.S. 24 (1980)(“For the purposes of testing sufficiency of the complaint, the allegations of the complaint must be accepted as true.”)

Last Attempt Prior to 9/11 to Report Corruption Related to OngoingCatastrophic Events
One of the bests descriptions of what followed can be found in a lawsuit filed in the federal courts at Reno, Nevada. Federal judges and Supreme Court Justices repeatedly blocked every attempt to report the criminal activities under the federal crime reporting statute (18 U.S.C. § 4). These facts are detailed in a lawsuit filed in the federal courts at Reno, Nevada. April 24, 2000. (MS Word) (Adobe PDF)

After the 9/11 hijackings occurred, made possible by the corruption that were being reported to the federal judge, Stich filed a declaration that became part of the judicial record. January 21, 2002. (MS Word) (Adobe PDF)

Despite the gravity of the facts stated and the relationship to 3,000 deaths in just the latest consequences, and in only one of the areas affected by the corruption. Judge Reed blocked the action and dismissed it. That dismissal violated the crime reporting statute that required him to receive the information, which then violated other obstruction of justice statutes. Further, the dismissal violated the federal laws that required that he provide a federal court form, provide relief, and order a halt to the violations of federally protected rights.

Continuing the pattern of federal judges blocking the reporting of the criminal activities adversely affecting national security, Judge Reed dismissed that lawsuit.

Stich then filed a timely notice of appeal with the Ninth Circuit court of appeals in San Francisco--the same court of appeal judges that had been blocking the reporting of criminal activities for many prior years. Federal appellate judges refused to allow Stich to file an appeal brief, claiming that a 1984 order permanently terminated his legal and constitutional right to federal court access. This unlawful and unconstitutional order knowingly blocked Stich from reporting the criminal activities. May 15, 2002. (MS Word) (Adobe PDF)

Dismissing Judges Named as Defendants, Immune From Consequences Of Their Criminal Acts
U.S. district judge Edward C. Reed, Jr., Reno, Nevada, signed an order (July 26, 2000) dismissing all defendant federal judges from the lawsuit holding that the "judges are absolutely immune ... even when such acts are in excess of their jurisdiction and are alleged to have been done maliciously or corruptly."

Allegations Stated in the Complaint Must be Accepted As True
The allegations in the Amended Complaint, which under law must be accepted as true at that stage of the proceedings, revealed federal judges acting in a conspiracy to undermine the laws and Constitution of the United States, aiding and abetting criminal and subversive acts by blocking their reports, and engaging in other crimes. The complaint included such charges as federal judges:

Obstructed justice by blocking the reports of criminal activities in government offices, which judges must receive as part of the mandatory administrative duties. They were guilty of obstruction of justice felonies.

Acted without personal and without subject matter jurisdiction as they rendered orders taking Stich's $10 million in assets−which had funded his investigative and exposure activities into high-level corruption in government.

Blocking the reporting of criminal activities in government which Stich--a former federal agent and his group of government agents−sought to report to a federal judge under the federal crime reporting statute, Title 18 U.S.C. Section 4. These obstruction of justice tactics violated various criminal statutes, including Title 18 U.S.C. Sections 2, 3, and 4.

Retaliated against Stich, a former federal agent and witness, for seeking to report the criminal activities in key government offices (as detailed in Unfriendly Skies, Defrauding America, and Drugging America). These are criminal acts under Title 18 U.S.C. Sections 111, 372, 1505, 1510, 1512, and 1513.

Engaged in long continuing conspiracy that violated large numbers of federal laws and constitutional protections as part of a long-continuing scheme to block the reporting of these criminal activities.

And much more, revealing a literal judicial anarchy that has become the culture in the federal courts and is subverting the protections under the laws and Constitution of the United States, converting the courts into a corrupt arm of government, and which protects criminal activities in government. The sequence of these proceedings reveals a pattern of corruption in the federal courts that includes the justices of the U.S. Supreme Court, and which is responsible for continuation of corrupt activities that have inflicted great harm upon the United States, the American people, and specific men and women.

Dismissed the defendant California judges despite their federal offenses under the Civil Rights Act, on the basis of the orders for six years without personal and without subject matter jurisdiction, that violated over 36 California statutes and rules of court, violated federal statutes, violated Supreme Court holdings, and violated numerous constitutional protections. These deliberate violations inflicted grave personal and financial harm upon Stich.

Dismissed each of the attorneys and law firms that committed acts that constitute violations of Stich's civil and constitutional rights under color of state law and under color of federal law, which invoked federal court jurisdiction under the Civil Rights Act and under the Bivens doctrine. Federal law bars the dismissal of any defendant, or the lawsuit, if the allegations state one or more federal causes of actions for which federal relief is available.

Refused to render a declaratory judgment addressing Stich's personal and property rights adjudicated and established in seven judgments, and the validity of those judgments, that had been taken by the defendant California and federal judges. This federal remedy is provided by the Declaratory Judgment Act (Title 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201, 2202) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 57 and falls within the mandatory duty of federal judges. Reed refused to address that issue, claiming that since he dismissed the defendant California judges there was no jurisdiction to address these matters. That legally bankrupt argument was contradicted by the fact that the naming of the judges who rendered the unlawful and unconstitutional orders taking personal and property rights established in seven judgments did not require naming the judges as defendants to have these rights declared. It was the taking of these previously adjudicated rights that served as the basis for 20 years of judicial attacks upon Stich and the basis for taking the $10 million in assets that funded Stich's exposure of government and judicial corruption.
Refused to render a declaratory judgment addressing the void orders by federal judges that seized Stich's $10 million in assets that violated legal and constitutional requirements for a notice of hearing, a hearing, and legally required cause. Supreme Court decisions hold that such orders are void and remain void forever.

Refused to render a declaratory judgment declaring the series of unlawful and unconstitutional orders as void that barred Stich for the remain of his life from access to federal courts that voided for him all rights and protections guaranteed by the laws and Constitution of the United States. These injunctive orders blocked Stich from reporting to a federal court the corrupt and criminal activities that he and his group of former government agents had discovered, and voided for Stich the due process protections in federal laws and the Constitution against the judicially inflicted personal and financial harm arising from the unlawful and unconstitutional orders continuously rendered without interruption for 20 years.

Voided Stich's rights under the Civil Rights Act and the Bivens doctrine, among other law, to get financial damages against the defendant attorneys, law firms, and California and federal judges, whose documented series of unlawful and unconstitutional acts justified damages under these federal civil rights remedies.

Continued the judicial refusal to receive information and evidence of the corrupt and criminal activities that Stich and his group of other former federal agents had sought to report to a federal court under the federal crime reporting statute, Title 18 U.S.C. § 4. This refusal to receive the evidence constitutes obstruction of justice under Title 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 3, and 4.
Orders Stich to pay over $3300 to the State of California for naming California judges in the lawsuit. That order was a continuation of the judicial retaliation for exercising legal and constitutional due process against record-setting violations of federally protected rights. These are the judges who knowingly and repeatedly issued orders for six years without personal and without subject matter jurisdiction, who violated over 36 California statutes and rules of court, who violated federal statutes, Supreme Court decisions, and constitutional protections, causing Stich to suffer horrendous personal and financial harm that will continue until Stich dies. California attorney general Bill Lockyer aided and abetted these judicial violations and in March 2001 demand that Stich pays the $3300 to the State of California.

During the proceedings which sought to expose the corruption in the government's aviation safety offices, in the FBI, and elsewhere, terrorists hijacked four airliners on September 11, 2001. The conditions that made it easy for 19 terrorists to simultaneously hijack four airliners on 9/11 were corrupt activities in primarily the government's aviation safety offices and employees of the FBI-DOJ. Briefly described here.

Stich then filed a declaration, dated January 23, 2002, putting the judge on notice of the catastrophic consequences of what the defendants made possible, and which were further enabled by the judge's block to reporting the corrupt activities. (MS Word) (Adobe PDF)
After receiving that declaration, Judge Reed dismissed the attempts to report these matters, insuring that the same causative conditions would continue, along with the
consequences.

http://www.defraudingamerica.com/judicial_tactics_obstruct_justice.html

NorthEast Alabama Tea Party Association

NorthEast Alabama Tea Party Association Gadsden, AL. The North East Alabama Tea Party Association is a diversified group of citizens united by a deep concern for America’s future and dedicated to the task of educating ourselves, staying informed on governmental issues and sharing them with our friends and neighbors. We stand united with Americans across the country in the desire to take America back and bring our government—at every level in every state--back to fiscal responsibility, limited government, preserving individual liberties and the free market system. We believe this great nation was founded on Godly principles and that we are a Judeo-Christian nation. We stand in protest of our government’s irresponsible spending, lack of ethic reform and continual push toward socialism and we will vote out of office those officials that do not support and stand with us. Our greatest bond is belief in and defending our Constitution and God-given rights and the belief that it is our duty to stay informed and share information with our neighbors.

http://www.teapartypatriots.org/Group/NorthEast_Alabama_Tea_Party_Association