We Refuse To Surrender Our Sovereignty

Signatures 1308 total

Page: « ‹ 1, ... 24, 25, 26, 27

1. 1301
   Name: Paula Stroud on Jun 15, 2010

   Comments: WE THE PEOPLE STAND BEHIND THE CONSTITUTION AS WRITTEN AND SIGNED BY OUR FOREFATHERS AND PROCLAIM WE WILL PROTECT IT WITH ALL WE HAVE. GOD BLESS AMERICA.

   Flag
2. 1302
   Name: Angela Wambaugh on Jun 15, 2010

   Comments:

   Flag
3. 1303
   Name: Ron Kvetensky on Jun 17, 2010

   Comments:

   Flag
4. 1304
   Name: Michael Richard Renner on Jul 24, 2010

   Comments: I think it should be required of ALL politicians, to explore the lessons of governments and/or tyrannies throughout the history of mankind, tho much suffering has been instituted by both of the above, they too eventually ceased, because without Freedoms and liberties, the masse will 1 day rise up! In this current time of danger from without and within, those who have lost everything, no longer have nothing to loose, and will surely 'loose it'. Mike

   Flag
5. 1305
   Name: Robert Richardson on Aug 23, 2010

   Comments:

   Flag
6. 1306
   Name: Chris on Aug 24, 2010

   Comments:

   Flag
7. 1307
   Name: Matthew Tucker on Sep 29, 2010

   Comments: Obama and his traiterous minions must be removed. Obama is a Fraud and everyone in Washington knows it. They are all in bed with the enemy. Why would a President who took an oath to protect and defend the U.S and the Constitution run to Copenhagen to sign away our Sovereignty. and why would they keep trying to destroy our right to own and bare arms, answere: "A Theif hates a well Armed Adversary"!! If we rise and I feel its comming soon, it will not be like the Confederacy, it will not be a war between the States, it will be all 50 States rising a couple hundred million strong standing United to take our Nation back from the hands of these traiterous Racketeering Bilderberg Criminals and may they all hang by the kneck till dead on the front lawn of the White House sent around the Globe for the world to see what happens to traiters here!!! We will then confiscate all their TRILLIONS of dollars and use it to pay off the deficits they have deliberately created to financially break this nation in an attempt to destroy her and shove their perverted New World Order down our throats and enslave the planet!! No, they will all die. For our Nation, for our Fore Fathers, For all who have died before us to keep her free, for our children and our childrens children lets get this over with so they can all live in Peace and Freedom in a Free Marketplace where they can all be successfull and become wealthy should it be within them to do so with absolutely NO government standing in their way!!

   Flag
8. 1308
   Name: Ed Johnston on Jan 22, 2011

   Comments: Send this letter and ask all to send it to your senator and house members that our publicly employed by legal Republic Americans to honor their ORIGINAL US Constitutional LAW oath or vote them out. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVAhr4hZDJE This is not spam I want to ask each of you to consider doing the following when you are talking on the phone to any US customer service representative that is based in a foreign country (like India,Canada,China, Philippines,England, any others that was missed ). I have done this twice and it works! Any time you call an 800 number (for a credit card, banking, charter communications, health insurance, insurance, you name it) and you are transferred to a representative (like in India), please consider doing the following: After you connect and you realize that the customer service representative is not from the USA (you can always ask if you are not sure about the accent), please very politely (very politely - this is not about trashing other cultures) say, "I'd like to speak to a customer service representative in the United States of America." The rep might suggest talking to his/her manager, but, again, politely say, "Thank you, but I'd like to speak to a customer service representative in the USA ." YOU WILL BE IMMEDIATELY CONNECTED to a rep in the USA . It only takes less than one minute to have your call re-directed to the USA . Tonight when I got redirected to a USA rep, I asked again to make sure - and yes, she was from Fort Lauderdale our were on American soil . you can ask to call back to be sure. Imagine if tomorrow, every US citizen who has to make such a call and then requests a US rep, imagine how that would ultimately impact the number of US jobs that would need to be created ASAP. Imagine what would happen if every US citizen insisted on talking to only US phone reps from this day on. If I tell 10 people to consider this and you tell 10 people to consider doing this - see what I mean...it becomes an exercise in viral marketing 101. Remember - the goal here is to restore jobs back here at home - not to be abrupt or rude to a foreign phone rep. If you agree, please tell 10 people you know and tell them to tell 10 people they know....etc...etc... Sad but all too true!!!!! Now you know what is wrong with this country…HIGH SCHOOL -- 1957 vs. 2009,, This is the change of the voters <<<SEE WHAT Democracy IS and has done>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KFXuGIpsdE0&feature=player_embedded Now you know what is wrong with the country… http://constitution.org/fed/federa48.htm HIGH SCHOOL -- 1957 vs. 2009 [] Scenario 1: Jack goes quail hunting before school and then pulls into the school parking lot with his shotgun in his truck's gun rack. 1957 - Vice Principal comes over, looks at Jack's shotgun, goes to his car and gets his shotgun to show Jack. [] 2009 - School goes into lockdown, FBI called, Jack hauled off to jail and never sees his truck or gun again. Counselors called in for traumatized students and teachers. Scenario 2: Johnny and Mark get into a fist fight after school. [] 1957 - Crowd gathers. Mark wins.. Johnny and Mark shake hands and end up buddies. [] 2009 - Police called and SWAT team arrives -- they arrest both Johnny and Mark. They are both charged with assault and both expelled even though Johnny started it. Scenario 3: Jeffrey will not sit still in class, he disrupts other students. [] 1957 - Jeffrey sent to the Principal's office and given a good paddling by the Principal. He then returns to class, sits still and does not disrupt class again. 2009 - Jeffrey is given huge doses of Ritalin. He becomes a zombie. He is then tested for ADD. The school gets extra money from the state because Jeffrey has a disability. Scenario 4: Billy breaks a window in his neighbor's car and his Dad gives him a whipping with his belt.. [] 1957 - Billy is more careful next time, grows up normal, goes to college and becomes a successful businessman. 2009 - Billy's dad is arrested for child abuse. Billy is removed to foster care and joins a gang. The state psychologist is told by Billy's sister that she remembers being abused herself and their dad goes to prison. Billy's mom has an affair with the psychologist. Scenario 5: [] Mark gets a headache and takes some aspirin to school. 1957 - Mark shares his aspirin with the Principal out on the smoking dock. [] 2009 - The police are called and Mark is expelled from school for drug violations. His car is then searched for drugs and weapons. Scenario 6: Pedro fails high school English. 1957 - Pedro goes to summer school, passes English and goes to college. [] 2009 - Pedro's cause is taken up by state. Newspaper articles appear nationally explaining that teaching English as a requirement for graduation is racist. ACLU files class action lawsuit against the state school system and Pedro's English teacher. English is then banned from core curriculum. Pedro is given his diploma anyway but ends up mowing lawns for a living because he cannot speak English. Scenario 7: Johnny takes apart leftover firecrackers from the Fourth of July, puts them in a model airplane paint bottle and blows up a red ant bed. [] 1957 - Ants die. [] 2009 - ATF, Homeland Security and the FBI are all called. Johnny is charged with domestic terrorism. The FBI investigates his parents -- and all siblings are removed from their home and all computers are confiscated. Johnny's dad is placed on a terror watch list and is never allowed to fly or buy a gun again. Scenario 8: Wally falls while running during recess and scrapes his knee. He is found crying by his teacher, Nancy. Nancy hugs him to comfort him. [] 1957 - In a short time, Wally feels better and goes on playing. 2009 - Nancy is accused of being a sexual predator and loses her job. She faces 3 years in State Prison... Wally undergoes 5 years of therapy. WATCH http://www.stansberryresearch.com/pro/1011PSIENDVD/EPSILCBS/PR?o=230996&s=233622&u=42797961&l=197931&r=MiloTHIS YOUR Future Or is it.. British and Selected Elected and public employees unions paid for by Legal Americans/ SEND ALL ILLEGALS IS THE ONLY WAYS TO SAVE THE COUNTRY CALLED THE USA AND YOUR EMPLOYMENT,,PLEASE TAKE THE BLINDERS OFF Watch the truth,, About The Illegal MAN OBAMA. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KFXuGIpsdE0&feature=player_embedded http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=stij8sUybx0&feature=related Must watch http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oIngAmbelxc&feature=sub http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-4FqVRWgrNw&feature=related http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PMe5dOgbu40 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AMfUajhL24I&annotation_id=annotation_269418&feature=iv http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OG4uDaBdYv0&NR=1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NO24XmP1c5E&feature=fvw http://www.freedomsphoenix.com/News/069290-2010-05-24-dont-tread-on-me-rise-of-the-republic-full-movie.htm?EdNo=001&From= 1. Eyes of Fire - Fornication under christian king F.U.C.K. - Fornication Under Consent of the King (This indicated in England during the middle ages you could only have intercourse if the King first gave you permission. www.eyesoffire.net/demo/fornication.html - Cached 2. You have to pay the state for the privilege for your family 1. What does 'Fornication Under Consent of the King' mean? Nearly all these 'acronym' explanations for common words such as f*** and sh** are nonsense. Any good reference dictionary will tell you the origin of such words ... wiki.answers.com/Q/What_does_ %27Fornication_Under... - Cached With out means www.oregontrackers.com>>>>> This should hit every email inbox to show how stupid we have become!! At The lack of teaching our children responsible and moderation. Its easier to pass the debt , control and lost of Constitutional Republic freedom on. Is This called Marshall Law. Remember the USA went to wars to protect us from this kind of control to your life.Don't sign for debt. I would not sign my constitutional born rights two or more generation <Only apply>away on any documents,, I wright I do not give my constitutional BORN rights to any one, Or to some one you trust with you life, an that is hard to find. By the way the Constitutional rights apply to Americans only two are more generations,Illegals have no rights on American soil. STOP being divided for the Elected and public employees unions.This includes closing American public owned hunting fishing grounds. to control your life, by commerce. Making food the new privilege. Watch this on http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread637364/pg1 Lets not forget the ODFW failed in raising Legal Oregonians food resources. As their original Public employment proscribes 1899.. Fallen dead birds eaten by America's homeless Examiner.com "The dead birds in this incident were exclusively pigeons, but for the homelesses, they were food. One man had already cleaned his fowl and was arguing with ... See all stories on this topic » Legal Americans Stand BY http://www.delalbright.com/Articles/rs2477.htm http://www.oregonriverrights.com/admissions_act.htm Oregon Treaty - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia * Background| * Negotiations| * Treaty definitions| * See also The Oregon Treaty is a treaty between the United Kingdom and the United States that was signed on June 15, 1846, in Washington, D.C. The treaty brought an end to the Oregon boundary... en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Treaty - Cached Read about your true right in legal American court system 1. Pamela Gaston -- Sui Juris; The Truth In The Record Additional Title. SUI JURIS; THE TRUTH IN THE RECORD . By Pamela Gaston. Sui Juris is the book teaching People how to defend themselves in today's courtrooms ... www.newswithviews.com/guest_opinion/ guest1.htm - Cached 2. SUI JURIS - THE TRUTH IN THE RECORD - Gaston Especially see the Back Cover: SUI JURIS. THE TRUTH IN THE RECORD A PROCESS FOR THE PEOPLE TO ACCESS THE COURTS. By Pamela and Will Gaston familyrights.us/bin/sui_juris - Cached >>>>>> please give gift of $5,00 to the disabled With out means www.oregontrackers.com>>>>> 1. 1593. Benjamin Franklin (1706-90). Respectfully Quoted: A ... A republic replied the Doctor if you can keep it.” When McHenry’s notes were included in The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787, ed. Max Farrand, vol. 3 ... www.bartleby.com/73/1593.html - Cached >>>>>> please give NEW YEARS gift of $5,00 to the disabled With extremely little means .www.oregontrackers.com>>>>> http://www.infowars.com/iphone-snitch-network-launched/ http://www.prisonplanet.com/conspiracy-theory-with-jesse-ventura-police-state.html http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OG4uDaBdYv0&NR=1 1. Jesse Ventura’s “Police State” Episode featuring Alex ... Several days ago, truTV decided to wipe clean of any mention of the bombshell “Police State” episode. At one Time the website read: “Police State” www.wearechange.org/?p=4665 - Cached 2. Jesse Ventura on Fusion Centers, FEMA Camps and the Police State Diary: Former Governor Jesse Ventura goes where few others would dare with the latest installment of his TruTv series 'Conspiracy Theory With Jesse Ventura'. Into the ... www.opednews.com/Diary/Jesse-Ventura-on- Fusion-Ce-by-Ed... - Cach http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-4FqVRWgrNw&feature=related Opinion for GREENE V. CAMRETA, 06-35333 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=stij8sUybx0&feature=related http://www.stansberryresearch.com/pro/1011PSIENDVD/EPSILCBS/PR?o=230996&s=233622&u=42797961&l=197931&r=Milo >>>>>> please give a gift of $5,00 to the disabled With out means www.oregontrackers.com>>>>> PEACE AND GOD BLESS Opinion for GREENE V. CAMRETA, 06-35333 http://www.patriotnetwork.info/Citizens_rule_book.htm http://www.oregontrackers.com/general_comment.htm http://www.oregontrackers.com/2007%20House%20Bills/index.htm Destroying Americans rights on public owned land, For personal gain, of The Elected and public Employees unions. Disarming The legal American and the USA POSTED IN: News and Culture Turn in a Gun This Saturday, At Least Get a Burger Got unwanted firearms laying around?<<,Them Give them to your American neighbors Stay protected>> You can turn them in this Saturday, Dec. 18 at the annual Gun Turn-In event sponsored... BY Stacy Brownhill Thursday 10:00 AM 3 1. Driver Licensing vs. the Right to Travel ... takes on the burdens of the contract and bargains away ... Kent v. Dulles (1958) 357 US 116, 125. "The right to travel is a well-established common right that does not ... www.barefootsworld.net/sui_juris/right_ to_travel.html - Cached Read my web site www.oregontrackers.com Opinion for GREENE V. CAMRETA, 06-35333 1. 2001 SENATE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION Ed Johnston. Citizen. Toledo, Oregon. Testifies in favor of the bill. Says that these surveys have been placed in both of his children’s permanent records. arcweb.sos.state.or.us/.../senate/ education/SED021_1.htm - Cached Watch the truth,This is not spam but real facts, About The Illegal MAN OBAMA. British who do business and Selected American Elected and public employees unions paid for by Legal Americans taxes/ Dividend use as our constitutional laws superseded that our for-father wrote in 1775l What if the tea-party of 1776 all about.. SEND ALL ILLEGALS IS THE ONLY WAYS TO SAVE THE COUNTRY CALLED THE USA AND YOUR EMPLOYMENT,,PLEASE TAKE THE BLINDERS OFF An to day the disabled and elderly have rights that our ignored by the our elected and public employees. Raising-cost that has no representation. But the greed of MONEY. Turning us back to the KING GAME and into self slavery render unto ceazer what Is his. What is the story of Historicity of Jesus STOP SELLING PUBLIC LAND For OUR SUBSISTENCE Legal American HUNTING AND FISHERIES. Watch the truth,, About The Illegal MAN OBAMA. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KFXuGIpsdE0&feature=player_embedded http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=stij8sUybx0&feature=related http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-4FqVRWgrNw&feature=related http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PMe5dOgbu40 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AMfUajhL24I&annotation_id=annotation_269418&feature=iv http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OG4uDaBdYv0&NR=1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NO24XmP1c5E&feature=fvw Watch this one http://www.prothink.tv/?cat=16 http://www.freedomsphoenix.com/News/069290-2010-05-24-dont-tread-on-me-rise-of-the-republic-full-movie.htm?EdNo=001&From= 1. Case Filed in Court Challenges Barack Obama's Citizenship [Aug 23, 2008] Case Filed in Court Challenges Barack Obama's Citizenship ... (Guest) 03/23/2010 Idon't care if BHO was born on the White ... ~ by Nicholos Gene Poma B.S. ( 24 comments ) www.associatedcontent.com/article/ 977502/case_filed_in... - Cached 2. Opponents of Barack Obama's presidency claim small court ... Supporters of a case that disputes the legitimacy of Barack Obama's presidency claimed a small victory today when U.S. District Judge David O. Carter told them to fix ... latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2009/07/ opponents-of... - Cached Barack Obama Admits He Is Illegal - Video Results Play VideoEric Holder Admits He Didn't Read Arizona Law Before Criticizing ... Play VideoConservatives express outrage about charges that their attacks ... Play VideoScarborough, Buchanan mislead on Obama's tax plan | Media Matters ... 1. Court won't review Obama's eligibility to serve ... [Dec 8, 2008] ... from a New Jersey man who says President-elect Barack Obama is ... If the Supreme Court decides not to consider the case, Donofrio said there "won't be any ... www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/ chi-obama-birth... - Cached YouTube - Conspiracy Theory with Jesse Ventura: 9/11 ** http://www.facebook.com/ConspiracyThe... The idea that a missile or explosives—not a hijacked jetliner—damaged the Pentagon on September 11, 2001 seems ... www.youtube.com/watch?v=f9tvrYg85qU - Proxy - Highlight http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page 1. IRS, 16th Amendment, Never Ratified, so Why Pay? (US District Court Judge, James C. Fox, 2003) The 16th Amendment states;--"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived ... thesop.org/story/politics/2010/01/30/ irs-16th-amendment... - Cached 2. YouTube - America Freedom To Fascism Part 1 Inaccuracies: Aaron Russo reads a quote attributed to U.S. District Judge James C. Fox: "If you...examined [The 16th Amendment] carefully, you would find that a ... www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rx3HGjzWNHE - Cached .Play Video How can the US Attornies represent a criminal matter inbehalf of a tax paid to a private banking corporation??? The FRB cannot claim any injury/standing-a necessary elemnt to any criminal/civil action. I thought this was over in 2005, I am not certain of the dates-just the FACTS as neither Congress nor a President can confer any taxing, law making nor police powers to a non gov't, private corporation Why do these tax gurus & lawyers argue Code 26 instead of this act being UNconstnl-wrongful taking of private property-is this the power of the secret societies referred to by JFK & why Judge Mahoney they were murdered??? credit river decision Home | Income Tax Slavery Channel Channels #1 Public Enemy 9-11: Conspiracy 9-11: Coverup 9-11: Crime 9-11: Enemy Within 9-11: Unanswered Questions 9-11: Who Benefits? Abortion Industry/ Human Organ Trade AIDS Al Martin Alan Cantwell Astrology Avian Flu/ Anthrax Scam Bad Law, Bad Judges Beyond the Beyond Bilderbergers Biowarfare BP Oil Disaster Bush/ Clinton Crime Family Chemtrails Cheney/Halliburton Fraud CIA (Criminals In Action) CIA Drug Trafficking CIA-Bush-Nazis Cops Gone Wild Corporate-Govt Fraud Criminal Government Culture (sic) DoJ Dyncorp Crimes Enron Money Laundry FDA-Big Pharma Fraud-Conspiracy Federal Reserve Scam Fraud (Financial) Fraud (Military) Genetic Engineering Globalism Guns/Control History Recovered Humor Illuminati Income Tax Slavery Iran-Contra Iraq (Nam) Israel/ Zionism Julian Robertson Lawsuit Archives Killer Spooks Media Liars Media Whores Michael Riconosciuto Military Guinea Pigs Military Tech Mind Control Moon Landing Scam National ID Cards/ Microchips/ RFID New World Order Osama bin Scapegoat Pentagon Fraud Phony "Conservatives" Phony "Progressives" Phony Global War on Terror (GWOT) Phony Religion Phony War on Drugs Phony War on 'Terrorism' Police State-Dictatorship Princess Diana: Murder-Coverup Prisons/Slave Labor PsyOps Resist War Ron Paul Schwarzenegger Suppressed Science TSA: Govt Sex Offenders USA PATRIOT Act (Treason) Vaccination Scam Voodoo Science Vote Fraud - USA War on Gold Whistleblower: James Casbolt Whistleblower: Oswald LeWinter Whistleblower: Rodney Stich Whistleblower: Sue Arrigo, M.D. News Links Forum No Conspiracy: IRS Agent Joe Banister Acquitted (continued) by JOHN TURNER No Conspiracy: IRS Agent Joe Banister Acquitted The rial began on Tuesday, June 14. The charges were 1) Conspiracy to Defraud the United States and 2) Aiding and Abetting in the Preparation of False and Fraudulent Returns. The government alleged that Banister had impeded and impaired the ascertainment, assessment, and collection of tax, and that he had criminally conspired with Al Thompson in so doing. The charges were related to Joe's association with Redding businessman, Walter "Al" Thompson, where Joe, as a CPA, prepared amended Form 1040X tax returns for three tax years. The returns were a calculated protest and every effort was made by Al and Joe to adhere to written and verbal guidance they sought and received from the IRS. Key evidence in the trial were two video tapes. The first tape was about 2 hours in length had been filmed at Cencal Aviation, the business of Walter "Al" Thompson, in July of 2000. Mr. Thompson had researched the law and concluded that he was not an "employer" as defined within Title 26, the income tax code, nor was he required to withhold money from the paychecks of those who worked for him. He called this meeting so as to inform his 25 employees of this decision to stop withholding from their paychecks, and invited Joe Banister, former IRS CID special agent, to assist him in communicating to the employees. Also in attendance was Mr. David Cay Johnson, 30 year veteran of covering tax issues and writing articles for the New York Times, whom he had invited only the day before. Of interest, was the fact that this tape was introduced into evidence by the government, not Mr. Banister. Viewing the content of the tape, which greatly favored Mr. Banister, one would question the judgment of the government. What had happened in pre-trial wrangling was that the government had lost their bid to keep that piece of evidence out. In a strategy that is common for such circumstances, the government probably thought that they could do 2 things to try and minimize the evidence: be the one that introduced the evidence instead of the defense and do it early in the trial so that the jury might forget about it as the trial concluded. Whatever it was, their strategy failed. The so-called "Cencal Aviation" tape was replayed for the jury during their deliberation after all evidence was in, and in post-verdict interviews, jurors who would consent to talk with us admitted that this evidence was extremely important in persuading the jury's decision for Mr. Banister. The second viewing was key in swinging the remaining 4-5 jurors who still were not voting to acquit. The tape covered a lot of ground but a partial summary is as follows: Joe Banister explained how he came to be employed by the IRS and what caused him to have to resign nearly 6 years later. He emphasized that he was not there to tell people what to think or what to do but merely to tell them what he learned and what he was doing about his discovery. "What he was doing" included asking the government to demonstrate the error of his analysis which started with the 95-page report he submitted to his supervisor, Robert Gorini, with the request that it go to the "top" for a response. The response was administrative leave and inevitable resignation and the reply that the government would not address his questions. The other tape was a deposition of Banister's former manager, Robert Gorini, in Washington, D.C., who retired from the IRS in early 2000, less than a year after Mr. Banister resigned from the IRS by Banister's attorney, Jeffrey Dickstein. Mr. Gorini had nothing but good things to say about Joe's character, his work as a criminal IRS investigator and many other areas. The very last question by Dickstein was to ask Gorini if he could name the law that required Mr. Banister to file income tax returns and pay income tax, to which Mr. Gorini replied that he could not. This tape was a huge credibility boost for Joe with the jury. A key element in the charges was "willfulness" and the jury unanimously concurred that Joe, right or wrong in his beliefs about aspects of tax law administration, truly believed the things which caused him to resign. A highly interesting item of a technical nature was concerning the discussion on the subject of Rule 29 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. At the conclusion of the government's presentation of their case, the defense moved for dismissal of all charges and effectively and persuasively convinced the judge that the government had failed to make it's case, that is, it had failed to provide evidence to prove it's case that matched the charges against Banister. It appeared that the judge was very tempted to dismiss and might very well do so, however, he ultimately displayed his unwillingness to allow the government to be in a position of losing with no chance of appeal. The judge knew this was a very high-profile case with potentially serious adverse effects for the government should it lose. The government's case was astoundingly weak and it was apparent that the proper thing to do was to dismiss charges. But that did not happen. The defense began arguing early Friday morning and played the "Gorini" deposition to start. The judge gave a 15 minute recess and upon everyone's return, directed Mr. Dickstein proceed. Mr. Dickstein shocked everyone by quietly announcing, "Your Honor, the defense rests". The judge stared at him for several seconds as if speechless. Finally, he inquired as to why Dickstein, knowing the calendar of events, had not given the court a "heads up" about this short defense and premature resting. The judge knew that the defense was potentially going to present witnesses and expected Mr. Banister would probably testify on his own behalf. Now, with the defense suddenly and unexpected completed, there was a hole in the day's schedule. No problem. There were more "Rule 29" issues to discuss outside the presence of the jury and the all-important need to come to agreement on the subject of jury instructions. The jury had been dismissed until Tuesay morning so as to allow plenty of time to complete business before bringing the jury back. Friday afternoon, June 17, had to be excruciatingly painful for the government attorney's. The jury instructions they presented to Judge Shubb were so poor that he gave them a severe tongue-lashing and pleaded with them, "help me out". While not in the presence of the jury, he said he would be embarrassed if he had to give those instructions to the jury. He also said, "I hope you have been humbled enough by my earlier comments to become motivated to do better." Judge Shubb said many interesting, perhaps curious things during the week. Once, he uttered, "the law is uncattorney Dickstein softly suggested to the judge that he should not be certain". Another time he declared that no one reads the Internal Revenue Code from cover to cover and that anyone who claims to have done that should be in the "nuthouse". When so quick to believe that (implying that he has read the entire Code), the judge retorted that anyone claiming to have read the Code from cover to cover should be placed in an insane asylum. The judge, prone to temper tantrums and shouting when someone displeased him, all in all, was fair in the conduct of the trial, occasionally displaying a sense of humor. He saw two very skilled, well-prepared defense lawyers and his disappointment in the performance of the government attorneys was apparent at certain times. Brilliant legal work by the law office of Robert Bernhoft was also key in Mr. Banister's acquittal. The trial lawyers, Robert Bernhoft, a Constitution Party member from Wisconsin, and Mr. Jeffrey Dickstein, a seasoned lawyer well-versed in criminal tax defense, recognized the complete lack of evidence to support the government's case and wisely decided that it would add nothing to have witnesses and Banister testify. In any event, they felt they were well positioned should the need to appeal later come into play. I am certain that the government was counting on the opportunity to bolster their weak case by being able to fish around with Mr. Banister on the stand. It didn't happen and the two video tapes entered into evidence overwhelmingly portrayed Banister as credible, honest, intelligent, sincere, honorable, and believable. Mr. Banister's courtroom supporters were numerous. He enjoyed the comfort of many family members, as well as supporters who travelled from as far away as Georgia and Florida, and have come to see him as a patriot and hero for his courageous stand. Mr. Banister and his family have felt the stress of Joe having to prepare for his defense and found great joy and relief at the news of his aquittal. Joseph Banister's efforts to get the government to answer his concerns and questions about the income tax include several trips to the nation's capital, where he has often been accompanied by many others who hold simiar views, including former IRS revenue agent Sherry Jackson and former IRS revenue officer John Turner. He is a plaintiff in a class-action lawsuit, which has been organized by Robert Schulz, founder of "We The People Foundation for Constitutional Education, Inc.", of Queensbury, New York (www.givemeliberty.org). "The care of human life and happiness, and not their destruction, is the first and and only legitimate object of good government."-- Thomas Jefferson Back to Page 1 Other Top Stories The IRS Extortion of the American People by J. BRUCE CAMPBELL (VETERANS TODAY) IRS Investigates Gold & Art Investments by VOICE OF THE WHITE HOUSE (TBR NEWS) IRS Loses; 161 Federal Tax Charges, 0 Convictions by WE THE PEOPLE FOUNDATION Questions and Answers about the IRS by PAUL ANDREW MITCHELL Tax Resistors Claim Income Tax is Illegal by ABC NEWS IRS vs. Former IRS Agent Sherry Peel Jackson by SHERRY PEEL JACKSON Why & how have the courts determined the IRS cannot be sued-US v Lee, Truax v Corrigan-No man is above the Law. Here by judicial fiat they have committed a massive fraud removing the right to a remedy, right of petition against a terrorist, RICO entity HAARP causing worldwide earthquakes Posted: January 14, 2011 by jimmyprophet in HAARP, News Articles Tags: earthquakes, HAARP, volcano, weather, documentary These are the websites that we have to view constantly to register these seismic activities cause it’s going to get worse, including the awakening of many dormant volcanoes. We aint seen nothing yet!! http://www.haarp.alaska.edu/haarp/data.html http://www.iris.edu/seismon/ http://www.liss.org/ 1. diversified Metals Homepage 2. BS-the court lacks Subject Matter Jurisdiction; This $$$ is used in world wide terrist ops & fUNding the NAU to NWO n3 The Internal Revenue Service, and not the United States, was originally named as defendant in this action. However, the United States is correct that the Internal Revenue Service has no capacity to sue or be sued. Blackmar v. Guerre, 342 U.S. 512, 514, 96 L. Ed. 534, 72 S. Ct. 410 (1952). Therefore, the United States is properly substituted for the Internal Revenue Service in this action. This is a major fraud, as the Court granted MSJ to the US, where did the tax $$$ go as taxes r paid to the IRS-a non gov't entity which is nothing but a brutal debt collector for the zionists FRB IRS Collected $2.4 Trillion in FY 2007 As in recent years, about $350 billion in taxes due ... IRS spent an average of 40 cents to collect each $100 of taxes, the lowest cost per $100 in seven years. The IRS ... usgovinfo.about.com/b/2008/03/31/irs-​collected-24... - Cached 9 TRILLION Dollars Missing from Federal Reserve,Fed Inspector ... "missing" or buried in zionist banks We Now Have A Total Gangster Government http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=thR-lVuztIY Top U.S. Official Murdered-Threated Exposure Bio-Weapons Ark. Bird Kill? China to build self-sustained City in a Amerika with Chinese Labor and Inhabitant (Video) The article states, the Govenor of Idaho is inviting the communist Chinese to build a city of there own in the Boise area. http://www.idahostatesman.com/2010/12/31/1472023/chinese-company-eyes-boise.html Chemical Bio Expert Murdered After Arkansas Bird Catastrophe See VIDEO: TUCSON: EMBLEMATIC, ONLY THE CONSTITUTION CAN SAVE US FROM OURSELVES 01-12-2011 Is the root cause of this nation's escalating political vitriol our failure to embrace the Constitution? Can controversies involving government violations of the Constitution be settled in the <i>political</i> arena? DRIVERS LICENSE VS RIGHT TO TRAVEL trafficlights2.gif (2124 bytes) Right to Travel DESPITE ACTIONS OF POLICE AND LOCAL COURTS, HIGHER COURTS HAVE RULED THAT AMERICAN CITIZENS HAVE A RIGHT TO TRAVEL WITHOUT STATE PERMITS By Jack McLamb (from Aid & Abet Newsletter) For years professionals within the criminal justice system have acted on the belief that traveling by motor vehicle was a privilege that was given to a citizen only after approval by their state government in the form of a permit or license to drive. In other words, the individual must be granted the privilege before his use of the state highways was considered legal. Legislators, police officers, and court officials are becoming aware that there are court decisions that disprove the belief that driving is a privilege and therefore requires government approval in the form of a license. Presented here are some of these cases: CASE #1: "The use of the highway for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege, but a common fundamental right of which the public and individuals cannot rightfully be deprived." Chicago Motor Coach v. Chicago, 169 NE 221. CASE #2: "The right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit or permit at will, but a common law right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Thompson v. Smith, 154 SE 579. It could not be stated more directly or conclusively that citizens of the states have a common law right to travel, without approval or restriction (license), and that this right is protected under the U.S Constitution. CASE #3: "The right to travel is a part of the liberty of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment." Kent v. Dulles, 357 US 116, 125. CASE #4: "The right to travel is a well-established common right that does not owe its existence to the federal government. It is recognized by the courts as a natural right." Schactman v. Dulles 96 App DC 287, 225 F2d 938, at 941. As hard as it is for those of us in law enforcement to believe, there is no room for speculation in these court decisions. American citizens do indeed have the inalienable right to use the roadways unrestricted in any manner as long as they are not damaging or violating property or rights of others. Government -- in requiring the people to obtain drivers licenses, and accepting vehicle inspections and DUI/DWI roadblocks without question -- is restricting, and therefore violating, the people's common law right to travel. Is this a new legal interpretation on this subject? Apparently not. This means that the beliefs and opinions our state legislators, the courts, and those in law enforcement have acted upon for years have been in error. Researchers armed with actual facts state that case law is overwhelming in determining that to restrict the movement of the individual in the free exercise of his right to travel is a serious breach of those freedoms secured by the U.S. Constitution and most state constitutions. That means it is unlawful. The revelation that the American citizen has always had the inalienable right to travel raises profound questions for those who are involved in making and enforcing state laws. The first of such questions may very well be this: If the states have been enforcing laws that are unconstitutional on their face, it would seem that there must be some way that a state can legally put restrictions -- such as licensing requirements, mandatory insurance, vehicle registration, vehicle inspections to name just a few -- on a citizen's constitutionally protected rights. Is that so? For the answer, let us look, once again, to the U.S. courts for a determination of this very issue. In Hertado v. California, 110 US 516, the U.S Supreme Court states very plainly: "The state cannot diminish rights of the people." And in Bennett v. Boggs, 1 Baldw 60, "Statutes that violate the plain and obvious principles of common right and common reason are null and void." Would we not say that these judicial decisions are straight to the point -- that there is no lawful method for government to put restrictions or limitations on rights belonging to the people? Other cases are even more straight forward: "The assertion of federal rights, when plainly and reasonably made, is not to be defeated under the name of local practice." Davis v. Wechsler, 263 US 22, at 24 "Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them." Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US 436, 491. "The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime." Miller v. US, 230 F 486, at 489. There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of this exercise of constitutional rights." Sherer v. Cullen, 481 F 946 We could go on, quoting court decision after court decision; however, the Constitution itself answers our question - Can a government legally put restrictions on the rights of the American people at anytime, for any reason? The answer is found in Article Six of the U.S. Constitution: "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof;...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 not one word withstanding." In the same Article, it says just who within our government that is bound by this Supreme Law: "The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution..." Here's an interesting question. Is ignorance of these laws an excuse for such acts by officials? If we are to follow the letter of the law, (as we are sworn to do), this places officials who involve themselves in such unlawful acts in an unfavorable legal situation. For it is a felony and federal crime to violate or deprive citizens of their constitutionally protected rights. Our system of law dictates that there are only two ways to legally remove a right belonging to the people. These are: 1. by lawfully amending the constitution, or 2. by a person knowingly waiving a particular right. 3. Some of the confusion on our present system has arisen because many millions of people have waived their right to travel unrestricted and volunteered into the jurisdiction of the state. Those who have knowingly given up these rights are now legally regulated by state law and must acquire the proper permits and registrations. There are basically two groups of people in this category: More- http://www.land.netonecom.net/tlp/ref/right2travel.shtml =============================================================== Raymond Karczewski DRIVERS LICENSE VS RIGHT TO TRAVEL Thu Mar 29 14:52:35 2001 DRIVERS LICENSE VS RIGHT TO TRAVEL George Lee McElroy wrote: Raymond Karczewski wrote: rk: I received Mr. McElroy's letter to DA Clay Johnson (see below) and was given permission to repost it. May I suggest readers also repost it widely for whomever has the intelligence to understand the conversion of our Unalienable Rights and Freedoms into the slavery of governmental "Privilege" where an Inalienable Right can be transformed into a Crime. rk: It would seem that some people are waking up to this Insurance Industry/Government Bureaucracy-instigated Driver's Licensing "Construction Fraud" long perpetrated upon the gullible American People by its mind-controlling government. rk: It appears that we are no longer a nation governed by Constitutional Law, but have slowly and incrementlly through mind control techniques (Propaganda) become a nation controlled and dominated by bureaucratic regulation which operates under the shadowy "color" of law. Such could not happen if the public "Traveller" who travels the public roadways in the "usual conveyance of the day," i.e., private automobile, for nonbusiness, private purposes were not coerced into entering a contract without full disclosure of the contract's terms being made at the time. Signing that contract without full knowledge of its terms requires one to waive one's Constitutional Rights and accept the full terms of a regulatory contract with penalties and sanctions designed to police the actions and conduct of those who use the public roadways for business or profit. rk: It is through such nefarious manipulations that confusion regarding the relationship of a people and with its government emerges, wherein the Master -- the people -- become the Servant, and the Servant -- the government -- becomes the Master. Such is the transformation from Freedom to Tyranny when Rights are converted into Privileges. rk: Here in the United States, isn't it time we took back control of our country? Isn't it time we took back control over our lives? rk: How many reading this have been damaged psychologically and financially by such fraud through fines, incarceration, and or coercive participation in mental health program followup, and are up for joining in and launching a Class Action Law Suit against the government in this issue? rk; Yes, folks, the curtain has been lifted and it's about time YOU PAID ATTENTION to the WIZARD BEHIND IT. Ray Karczewski ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Clay Johnson District Attorney Josephine County, Oregon 500 N.W. 6th Street / Courthouse Grants Pass, Oregon 97526 Mr. Johnson, Free people have a right to travel on the roads that are provided by their servants for that purpose, using ordinary transportation of the day. Licensing cannot be required of free people because taking on the restrictions of a license requires the surrender of a right. The drivers license can be required of people who use the highways for trade, commerce or hire; that is, if they earn their living on the road, and they use extraordinary machines on the roads. In other words, if you are not using the highways for profit, you cannot be required to have a drivers license. Personal liberty consists of the power of locomotion, of changing situations, of removing one's person to whatever place one's inclination may direct, without imprisonment or restraint unless by due process of law. Streets and highways are established and maintained for the purpose of travel and transportation by the public. Such travel may be for business or pleasure. The use of the highways for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege, but a common and fundamental right of which the public and the individual cannot be rightfully deprived. Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation that would abrogate them. The claim and exercise of a Constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime. There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of this exercise of Constitutional rights. I believe a great fraud has been perpetrated against the free people of the United States of America. Be advised that fraud vitiates the most solemn contract. I do not make my living on the roads. I have never applied for a grant of driving privileges from the State of Oregon in the form of a license. I was, however, on 10/15/2000, charged with the offense of "No Operators License". I was given a summons to appear in the Grants Pass Circuit Court. I was not required to sign the summons nor did I agree to appear. The state cannot produce any document signed by me granting an attachment of equity jurisdiction between the United States and me. The Josephine County court, without proper jurisdiction, has attached a liability to me in the amount of $218.75 and assigned it to the Oregon Department of Revenue for collection. I am being threatened with the issuance of a distraint warrant. The DMV has issued me a license number for tracking purposes so they can record a suspension of driving privileges. The state has converted my Constitutional right into a crime without due process of law. At this time I respectfully demand that all records involving driving or operating privileges, all court records, all assignments, liabilities, and warrants having my name on them be destroyed. This communication, in addition to you, is also being sent to all the major newsgroups on the internet and other groups in the United States that are actively involved in restoring our sacred liberties that are being taken from us one by one by more or less rapid encroachment. I believe in the rule of law. I stand firmly against the abrogation of NATURAL RIGHTS endowed us by our creator. Sincerely, George Lee McElroy Cc: Oregon Department of Revenue Oregon Department of Motor Vehicles Representative Carl Wilson Representative Jason Atkinson Ray Karczewski Illinois Valley News Grants Pass Daily Courier Josephine County Sheriff, Dave Daniel Oregon Attorney General, Hardy Meyers United States Attorney General, John Ashcroft ============================ Raymond Karczewski Re: Here's your controlling law Raymond --- OR IS IT??? Thu Mar 29 18:29:40 2001 Re: Here's your controlling law Raymond --- OR IS IT??? Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2001 23:54:45 GMT From: Immature and irresponsible (unknown) unk: You're incoherent unk: Why do you think only drivers of commercial vehicles need demonstrate driving competence? Are other drivers any less dangerous? Why? And what are your legal references to support any of your claims? I see nothing in your posts to support your argument in logic or law. rk: Then you are not only an ignoramus but a blind one at that! In the strict Letter of the Word environment which pervades the the legislative/judicial aspects of government, do not Oregon Revised Statutes § 807.080 (1999) fall within the Maxim Res Ipsa Loquitor, i.e., "It Speaks for Itself."? rk: If you would like to read it ONCE MORE and see what I mean, HERE IT IS AGAIN. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~` Oregon Revised Statutes § 807.080 (1999) 807.080. Driver competency testing certificates; waiver of demonstration test for persons certified; rules; fees. (1) The Department of Transportation, by rule, shall provide for the following in a manner consistent with this section: (a) The issuance of driver competency testing certificates. (b) The regulation of persons issued driver competency testing certificates. (2) A person issued a driver competency testing certificate under this section may certify, in a manner established by the department, the competency of drivers to safely exercise driving privileges granted only under one or more of the following: (a) A Class A commercial driver license. (b) A Class B commercial driver license. (c) A Class C commercial driver license. (3) The department may waive an actual demonstration of ability to operate a motor vehicle under ORS 807.070 for an applicant who is certified by the holder of a driver competency testing certificate as competent to exercise the driving privileges in the class of license sought by the applicant. (4) The rules adopted by the department under this section may include any of the following: (a) The rules may establish reasonable fees for the issuance of a certificate or as part of any program of regulating certificate holders that is established by the department. (b) The department may make the certificate renewable upon any basis determined convenient by the department and may include provisions for cancellation, revocation or suspension of certificates or for probation of certificate holders. (c) The department may provide for the issuance of certifications allowing the holder to certify competency in several classes or types of driving privileges or limiting the classes or types of driving privileges for which the holder may certify competency. (d) The department may establish the forms of certificates to be issued. (e) The department may establish and require forms that are to be used by certificate holders in certifying competency. (f) The department may establish any qualifications or requirements for obtaining a certificate that the department determines necessary to protect the interests of persons seeking certification by certificate holders. (g) The department may issue certificates to publicly owned and operated educational facilities to allow programs for certification of competency. (h) The department may issue certificates to employers to allow the employers to establish programs primarily for the certification of employees' competency. The department may provide that programs established under this paragraph may be operated without driver training school certificates under ORS 822.500 and without driver training instructor certificates under ORS 822.525. (i) The department may establish any other provisions or requirements necessary to carry out the purposes of this section. HISTORY: 1985 c.608 § 36; 1989 c.636 § 20 ==================================== Raymond Karczewski Here's your controlling law Raymond --- OR IS IT??? Thu Mar 29 17:34:43 2001 Here's your controlling law Raymond --- OR IS IT??? unk: Here's your controlling law Raymond Re: DRIVERS LICENSE VS RIGHT TO TRAVEL (Raymond Karczewski) Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2001 22:02:55 GMT From: Maybe you'd like to actually read it? (unknown) unk: Here is the legislation duly enacted by representatives of the people. You'll notice, if you take the trouble to actually read the controlling law here, that teh purspoe of the license is to protect public safety, a compelling governmental interest that is upheld by appellate review. rk: You will also notice that such legislation SPECIFICALLY applies ONLY TO "drivers" and commercially "driven" motor Vehicles, (check out legal definition of "driver" and "motor vehicle") AND NOT to Travellers and their private automobiles used in noncommercial activities. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Oregon Revised Statutes § 807.080 (1999) 807.080. Driver competency testing certificates; waiver of demonstration test for persons certified; rules; fees. (1) The Department of Transportation, by rule, shall provide for the following in a manner consistent with this section: (a) The issuance of driver competency testing certificates. (b) The regulation of persons issued driver competency testing certificates. (2) A person issued a driver competency testing certificate under this section may certify, in a manner established by the department, the competency of drivers to safely exercise driving privileges granted only under one or more of the following: (a) A Class A commercial driver license. (b) A Class B commercial driver license. (c) A Class C commercial driver license. (3) The department may waive an actual demonstration of ability to operate a motor vehicle under ORS 807.070 for an applicant who is certified by the holder of a driver competency testing certificate as competent to exercise the driving privileges in the class of license sought by the applicant. (4) The rules adopted by the department under this section may include any of the following: (a) The rules may establish reasonable fees for the issuance of a certificate or as part of any program of regulating certificate holders that is established by the department. (b) The department may make the certificate renewable upon any basis determined convenient by the department and may include provisions for cancellation, revocation or suspension of certificates or for probation of certificate holders. (c) The department may provide for the issuance of certifications allowing the holder to certify competency in several classes or types of driving privileges or limiting the classes or types of driving privileges for which the holder may certify competency. (d) The department may establish the forms of certificates to be issued. (e) The department may establish and require forms that are to be used by certificate holders in certifying competency. (f) The department may establish any qualifications or requirements for obtaining a certificate that the department determines necessary to protect the interests of persons seeking certification by certificate holders. (g) The department may issue certificates to publicly owned and operated educational facilities to allow programs for certification of competency. (h) The department may issue certificates to employers to allow the employers to establish programs primarily for the certification of employees' competency. The department may provide that programs established under this paragraph may be operated without driver training school certificates under ORS 822.500 and without driver training instructor certificates under ORS 822.525. (i) The department may establish any other provisions or requirements necessary to carry out the purposes of this section. HISTORY: 1985 c.608 § 36; 1989 c.636 § 20 ================================= Rev. Dr. J.D. Hooker reply Thu Mar 29 15:44:33 2001 This is just my own opinion, & anyone's free to disagree!!! The Amish folks don't get drivers licenses, & they use the roadways!! BUT--they don't operate lethally dangerous iron motor vehicles either! In most states you can also drive a farm tractor on public roadways without any sort of license! They also don't have the EXPENSE of fuel, oil, tires, tune-ups & so forth! IF you're going to operate a car or truck, I'd recommend taking the trouble to get a license. If you don't want to, then why not trade in your car for a horse& buggy, or for a John Deere? =============================== Right to Travel Vs. Drivers License http://www.land.netonecom.net/tlp/ref/right2travel.shtml Armey Exposes Traffic-Light Spying http://www.apfn.org/apfn/traffic-light.htm Driver Licensing vs. the Right to Travel http://user.icx.net/~drherb/licensing.html Wood County Texas Courts' Violation of Soverign Citizen's, Constitutional Right's http://user.icx.net/~drherb/licensing.html COMMON LAW VEHICULAR JUDICIAL NOTICE CONSTITUTIONAL DRIVERS LICENSE http://justiceprose.8m.com/carl/carl41.html STATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS C2-96-1116 http://www.lawlibrary.state.mn.us/archive/ctappub/9702/c2961116.htm The Sword of Commerce http://www.proliberty.com/observer/20010213.htm Driver's License is a Contract between you and the Motor Vehicle Department http://www.svpvril.com/drilic.html THE AMERICAN HALLUCINATION http://www.apfn.org/apfn/halluc.htm The Right to Travel vs. Driver's License Scam http://www.apfn.org/apfn/drivers-license-scam.htm Subscribe to apfn-1 choosersm.gif (706373 bytes) Powered by groups.yahoo.com American Patriot Friends Network "...a network of net workers..." APFN IS NOT A BUSINESS APFN IS SUPPORTED BY "FREE WILL" GIFT/DONATIONS Without Justice, there is JUST_US! http://www.apfn.org APFN Sitemap APFN Message Board APFN Contents Page APFN Home Page E-Mail: APFN@apfn.org Hit Counter Last updated 12/04/2010 REMEMBER SMOKY BEAR COMMUNICATIONS THAT THE ELECTED AND PUBLIC EMPLOYEE'S STATED HOW THEY WERE PROTECTING OUR FOREST FOR USE TO CAMPING,HUNTING,FISHING, USING OUR AMERICAN LEGAL PUBLIC LANDS.. NOW THEY WONT TO CHARGE US THE PRIVILEGE///?????? Amsoil Dealer -- Saving Trails Buy from us and help save a trail Del Albright - Land Use and Access, Rubicon Trail, & Volunteer Training Del is on Facebook Del Albright, Recreation Advocate; Outdoor Photojournalist Contact Del ...to Inspire, Motivate & Facilitate... SEARCH I About I Home I Training I Rubicon I New I Access I Articles I BLOG RS 2477 RS2477 update from Brian Hawthorne, BlueRibbon Coalition, as of 1/1/06: R.S. 2477: THE LEGAL BATTLE CONTINUES Although most of the American public doesn't realize it, an R.S. 2477 Right of Way is their only guaranteed access across public lands. All other access rights are at the discretion of politically appointed bureaucrats, who often live far away from the lands at issue. If you understand this, you understand the importance of continued vigilance in the defense of these road rights. "R.S. 2477" refers to a now-repealed portion of the 1866 Mining Act, which state's "the right of way for the construction of highways over public lands, not reserved for public uses, is hereby granted." While the grant was repealed in 1976, rights of way previously created under the statute can effectively remain "grandfathered" in and available to the public today. R.S. 2477 claims have engendered great passion and confusion throughout the west, where state and local governments, federal land managers, public access proponents, wilderness advocates and private property owners have regularly taken irreconcilable positions on the issue. On September 8, 2005 , a three-judge panel of the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals issued a decision that could bolster the efforts of local governments and public access proponents to protect R.S. 2477 rights of way. The decision represents a huge victory for millions of Americans who value access to public lands. The ruling came in an appeal from a US District of Utah decision in SUWA V. BLM (DC NO. 2:96-CV-836-TC). The litigation began in 1996 when road crews employed by Utah 's San Juan , Kane and Garfield Counties graded sixteen roads located in southern Utah . The Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance (SUWA) and other anti-access groups filed suit against the three counties and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), alleging that the counties had engaged in unlawful road construction activities and that the BLM had violated the law by not taking more aggressive action against road maintenance. The BLM subsequently filed cross-claims against the counties, alleging their activities constituted trespass and degradation of federal property. The counties claim the road maintenance activities were lawful because the activities took place within valid R.S. 2477 rights of way. The legislation wound its way through the US District Court in Utah for years until 2001, when Judge Tina Campbell issued a ruling that basically adopted SUWA's line of legal reasoning. Judge Campbell thus granted SUWA and BLM's request, ruling the counties did not have R.S. 2477 rights of way on fifteen of the sixteen roads at issue, and the counties maintenance work violated the law and constituted trespass under federal regulations. The three-judge panel of the 10th Circuit reversed that ruling, finding that state law, not federal regulation, properly guides interpretation of the existence and scope of any R.S. 2477 roads. The case was remanded to the district court for new proceedings to address the validity of the counties' right of way claims, the scope of any such rights of way, and whether their actions constitute "trespass" on federal lands. It will take some time to evaluate the impact of this important decision, but it appears the Circuit Court has reversed the District Court's deviation from the previously-established precedent and reminded the parties to focus on state law concepts in evaluating the counties' actions. R.S. 2477 claims have always presented complex legal, factual and political challenges. While this ruling will help clarify the rules of the game, it also leaves many thorny challenges for future debate. To multiple-use advocates, this ruling was not unexpected. From the minute the ruling was made in the Utah District Court, it was assumed that much, if not all of the ruling would be overturned on appeal. But the ruling was made in 2001, and we've since had to endure the anti-access crowd waiving it in our face and working hard to represent Campbell 's ruling as settled precedent. It has been a test of resolve, and not just for motorized access activists. County commissioners, state legislators, Governors and multiple use advocates across the west have had their determination and patience tested. Indeed, using Campbell 's ruling, many county commissioners have been courted by the federal agencies to take actions that would diminish public rights of way. County commissioners were threatened with the prospect of Campbell 's ruling becoming settled law, which was used as a reason to quit fighting for R.S. 2477 rights. To the anti-access groups, this fight is a key step toward eliminating public access to public lands. Wealthy foundations are funding this effort, and their lobbyist's have convinced the highest levels of the federal government to support it. The fight has put pro-access groups in the situation of defending principles that should be settled law, and fighting the federal agencies whose job it is to support and defend that law. BRC wants to express our sincere thanks to our partners in Utah who kept the pressure on local and state governments to vigorously defend these access rights. Each time you mention 2477 in your comments, each time you mention 2477 in your talks with politicians, and each time you join and contribute to organizations that support public access to public lands, you are doing your part to protect these road rights. The lawsuit would not have been supported if politicians didn't realize their constituents want them to defend our road rights. Sometimes it's necessary to remind them, and now may be a great opportunity to do so by placing a phone call to your county commissioner and telling them, "Thanks for supporting the 2477 legal battle!" ### --For questions or comments on this article or related issues, contact: The BlueRibbon Coalition (BRC), 4555 Burley Drive , Suite A, Pocatello , ID 83202 1921. Phone: 208-237-1008, Fax: 208-237-9424. Email: <brmag@sharetrails.org>. Back to Top of Page ######################### RS2477 update from Brian Hawthorne, BlueRibbon Coalition, as of 6/30/05: R.S. 2477 Update: It's reasonable to assume a ruling will come out of the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in the ongoing battle for title to America 's backcountry roads sometime this year. For those of you new to public lands access issue, this is about roads that existed prior to the passage of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) See: <www.sharetrails.org /uploads/PDFs/FLPMA.pdf> The case at issue is commonly known as the 'Utah Trespass Case' and began many years ago. The litigious anti-access crowd, along with the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), is attempting to usurp jurisdiction of these roads via a lawsuit. It began in the Clinton/Gore administration when the BLM, under then Secretary Bruce Babbitt, cited several Utah counties with trespass after performing maintenance on certain roads. For many years the case had been proceeding at more or less a parallel track to that of the famous Burr Trail case. However, in an unusual turn of events, the 'trespass' case switched in Utah 's federal district court from Judge David Sam to Judge Tina Campbell. In a highly unusual ruling, Campbell reversed all previous rulings and agreed with virtually all of the arguments brought by the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance. If allowed to stand, Campbell 's ruling would invalidate most R.S. 2477 rights of ways. That case was appealed by the State of Utah and several Utah counties and last year, the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals heard arguments both for and against Campbell 's ruling. BRC and our Utah partner, the Utah Shared Access Alliance (<www.usa-all.com>) filed 'friend of the court' briefs. We expect a ruling sometime in 2005. The decision here will be critically important to anyone who wishes to visit the vast western American backcountry. Learn more about this important issue on the web: <www.rs2477roads.com> *************************** OLD NEWS FROM HERE ON..... RS 2477, Published Apr. 17, 2003, by the Garfield County News (Utah)

   Flag

Page: « ‹ 1, ... 24, 25, 26, 27