Skip to content

Longtime Harney County Man says U.N. Paramilitary are in Burns Oregon Refuge


Good Afternoon Everyone!
I learn something new everyday… here is a report directly from the area up in Oregon and video of Lavoy Finicum’s ambush and murder site. See and hear longtime Burns, Oregon resident Larry Jay confirm that he has seen French/UN mercenaries on the ground up in Burns.
Edward freeman whoRU

Co-Creating Our Future on Planet Earth


Published on Feb 9, 2016

From what I can see most the U.N. Paramilitary are now hiding out at the Malheur Refuge blockade point, not far from the center. Longtime Burns, Oregon resident Larry Jay has told me all about the U.N. and Foreign Mercenary on the ground in Harney County. The American Mercenaries are arriving daily by the dozens and I think maybe some of the French Mercs are hightailing it out of here after watching my videos. We are making a difference !

View original post

JUDGE REPORTS LAVOY SHOT 9 TIMES PLEADS FOR MILITARY – MUST LISTEN!!!


Hello!
If you have not read this Declaration and Notice of the Harney County Committee of Safety and we the people of We the People…
edward freeman

Co-Creating Our Future on Planet Earth

Although I believe I have the entire post here, if there is any question or problem, please go directly to this post! PLEASE PASS THIS INFORMATION ON~J

http://regenesisradio.com/judge-reports-lavoy-shot-9-times-pleads-for-military/

AVNETNEWS 2016-

Link to audio player:

Judge Reports Lavoy Shot 9 Times Pleads for Military,   Major General on bringing in U.S Military, reports “French Banking” cartel has employed operatives acting falsely as FBI agents.  The Major General reports he has escalated the matter.

Judge Reports Lavoy Shot 9 Times Pleads for Military
Judge Reports Lavoy Shot 9 Times Pleads for Military, Life & Property emergency to Prevent WACO style massacre.

The Judge reports Lavoy Finnicum was shot 9 times according to the autopsy, was unarmed while he was shot and trying to surrender.  The Judges states the people are at high risk for “lives and property” and that U.S Military is necessary for protection to prevent a WACO replay massacre.

Also reported are black SUV…

View original post 25 more words

URGENT: We need you NOW!!! – via email from Carol Bundy


Good Evening Everyone!
The call has been made… I hear the call… I answer the call…
edward freeman whoRU

 

Co-Creating Our Future on Planet Earth

WAKE UP AMERICA!

WAKE UP WE THE PEOPLE!

WAKE UP PATRIOTS!

WAKE UP MILITA!

IT’S TIME!!!!!

CLIVEN BUNDY IS HEADING TO THE HARNEY COUNTY RESOURCE CENTER (Refuge)
IN BURNS, OREGON.

Your presence is requested NOW.

 We must be Louder than they are, we must act right now.

f3e14618-2a04-4b4f-a1cd-4e69897c41bb


View original post

This is What the Daughters of an Ambushed and Murdered Man Sound Like…


Good Afternoon Everyone!

This video of Robert LaVoy Finicum’s (Murdered by Oregon State Police/FBI on Jan 26, 2016) daughter’s communicates volumes…  Robert LaVoy Finicum was laid to rest Feb 5, 2016 in Utah.  It is unacceptable to ambush and murder anyone anywhere…  I stand with Robert Lavoy Finicum first, last and Always…

by-  edward freeman whoru reidhead

What is the Concept of… The Blood Sacrifice

LaVoyFinicum-Daughter

Good Afternoon Everyone!

I created this video and present it to Everyone out here…

Notice the analogy of blood being spilled and life being snuffed out here…  What is the fascination with the concept-  human blood sacrifice…

The rituals of sacrificing a human being for the purpose of their blood, including rituals associated with self injury in order to cause blood loss has been the primary domain of worship of the Mother Goddess for nearly ten thousand years. There are three primary drivers in ancient rituals of human sacrifice for blood: The ceremony of blood as the food of the gods, Blood as the seat of the soul/wisdom and duty/atonement.

Source:  http://one-evil.org/content/ritual_human_sacrifice_goddess.html

On The Use of Blood in Ritual-
Since the beginning of time blood has been looked upon as the Life Force. The Aztecs considered it a privilege and great honor to be sacrificed to their Sun God who had a great appetite for human hearts. In many primitive cultures, the child sacrifice was important in assuring that the seasons would be conductive to a good harvest. Much documentation survives pertaining to the tribal use of child sacrifice as a means of guaranteeing a victorious outcome in the battlefield. The ancient Jews offered up cattle to YHVH, and there is recent archeological indication that some of the tribes of Israel may have actually practiced child sacrifice until the Law of Moses prohibited the act of ritualistic murder. (See the story of Abraham.)
New Aeon magicians bring this practice into their rituals by spilling their OWN blood, as they are aware that the only sacrifice worthy of the gods
is SELF SACRIFICE. Crowley’s Mass of The Phoenix comes to mind. Blood has been used in sacrifices in order to appease the gods, as a sacrament to ones Higher Self, and as ink in talismans, sigils and other ritualistic communicators where one wishes to align one’s
self to a particular principle by signing a promise or contract with it. In simple terms, the spilling of ones own blood is a gesture of devotion. It is NOT the method of
wizards and sorcerers to sell their souls, or anything else to the devil. This myth is implied in the 15th century work of Christopher Marlowe’s Doctor Faustus. The act of spilling blood communicates to the subconscious a seriousness regarding the operation
or object of worship. It indicates a willingness to sacrifice ones time and energy in order to accomplish the task at hand. The crucifixion of Jesus and the mysteries of the Mass allude to this phenomenon. Bleeding is extremely unpleasant for most people as the act releases painful memories of situations associated with pain; the thought of causing ones self to bleed borders on the irrational, and the willingness to go through with it indicates the intensity of ones devotion. Since blood is connected to life, the act of willingly spilling it is a gesture that one is willing to sacrifice in order to succeed. When done as an act of devotion to a deity it is regarded as surrender like no other.

Source:  http://hermetic.com/casa_del_campo/blood_ritual.pdf

Let me be clear…  at this point in time, I feel that this concept of “ritual blood sacrifice” is used to gain control of the otherwise unwilling.  Any type of participation in the physical manifestation of these concepts is visiting trauma on the participants and can be used to exert mind-control on participants.

by-  edward freeman who RU

 

 

 

 

 

REPOST – view it quickly!

Finicum at Refuge

Good Monday Morning to Everyone!
Here is an analysis of the edited video by the FBI and US Federal government elements… What does this say to you…

https://www.youtube.com/embed/2jnC5t9hbKc?version=3&rel=1&fs=1&autohide=2&showsearch=0&showinfo=1&iv_load_policy=1&wmode=transparent

It is unacceptable to gun this man down in cold blood and then manipulate the evidence to justify murder…  Who will stand with me to this type of Tyranny…
Edward freeman whoRU reidhead

Co-Creating Our Future on Planet Earth

Did FBI Fake LaVoy Finicum Shooting Video ???

View original post

Burns, Oregon and the Ambush and Blood Sacrifice of Robert LaVoy Finicum

Occupier  LaVoi Finicum speaks to the media at the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge Headquarters in Burns, Oregon on January 15, 2016. They are part of an armed group that began a protest two weeks ago by occupying the buildings on the federal wildlife preservation. 

 / AFP / Rob Kerr        (Photo credit should read ROB KERR/AFP/Getty Images)

Hello to Each and Everyone!

I am now reporting that the event in Burns, Oregon… yes, that would be the ritual ambush and murder of Robert La Voy Finicum, as reported  on Tuesday, January 26, 2016 is now over and will never be over.  The ritualistic blood sacrifice of Robert La Voy Finicum by the FBI and Oregon State Police is now history.  According to a www.freecapitalist.com writer on the ground in Burns, Oregon, Robert LaVoy Finicum was ambushed and murdered by FBI agents.  www.nydailynews.com video post of the event is rather telling, the video is surreal and traumatizing.  This is what the FBI has to offer Americans.  This type of serial ritualistic sacrifice of any human being is Not acceptable. I am standing with Ammon Bundy, and anyone that will stand for their own Liberty, Freedom and personal Sovereignty and that of their children.  It all begins now…  How have we as people become so numbed d, conditioned and programmed to accept the FBI’s deliberate killing of Robert LaVoy Finicum….

According to a January 26, 2016 report of Jon Rappoport, what do the Clintons, Putin, Uranium and Uranium One have in common with Ammon Bundy and Burns, Oregon…  Jon’s January 27, 2016 blog post talks more about the Clinton’s Foundation work with Vladimir Putin and Uranium One Company.

My Brother from another Mother Dahboo77, has posted on Burns, Oregon and a no-fly zone being established in Oregon.

and then I found this amazing clip of LaVoy himself…  talking about the aggressive FBI stance taking place…

I am appalled at the ambush and murder of Robert LaVoy Finicum, hear his own words days before his killing…  and this fellow Glenn Palmer, Constitutional County Sheriff from Grant

Listen to the source article;  and here is the source text file http://www.freecapitalist.com/2016/01/27/the-ambush-and-murder-of-robert-lavoy-finicum/  and here is my tribute (along with Dahboo77 and Victoria Sharp, eyewitness to Robert LaVoy Finicum’s murder).

…and from this article is the Victoria Sharp testimony audio file posted at www.freecapitalist.com.

Grant County Sheriff Glenn Palmer tells Burns Oregon to Free the Hammonds

Grant County Sheriff Glenn Palmer interviewed by Joyce Riley of The Power Hour

OREGON FREEDOM REVOLUTION! AMMON CONFRONTS SHERIFF!

Here is the latest feed from the freemen and freewomen of the land up in Burns, Oregon…  and are these my brothers and sisters under siege…  are they surrounded by Federal agents now…

 

by-  Edward Freeman WhoRU Reidhead

 

Posted on Jan 27, 2016 in Daily News, Features

LaVoy Finicum speaks to the media on January 15, 2016.

BURNS, OREGON – on January 26, 2015 the FBI (with the help of other law enforcement) ambushed and murdered Robert “LaVoy” Finicum.  Based upon two personal eye-witness accounts, it is clear that the stories being widely circulated are false (due to laziness, misguided motives, or wickedness) and the truth should interest the friends of liberty, and those who want to know the actual fate of LaVoy and how our government agents acted yesterday.

I had just been to visit LaVoy, Ammon Bundy, Ryan Bundy, Shawna Cox, and Ryan Payne the day before, and had only left the refuge yesterday morning in the very early hours.  In fact, I left just after our last Free Capitalist interview.  Shawna Cox was the last person I hugged.

I’ve already gone on record regarding my thoughts on the protest, on Ammon, and last night I did a Periscope broadcast related to the tragic death of LaVoy, along with the arrest of Ammon and Ryan Bundy, Shawna Cox, and others.  But, as the news has filtered out today, in both the mainstream and the alternative media I have been alarmed at the false accounts, hearsay accounts, and speculation regarding the events of that night.

Since I was not a witness to the arrest and shooting yesterday, I too have spent time scouring the Internet for the latest word and updates.  But, by this morning a disturbing and intolerable pattern had started to emerge and I cannot sit silently.   Here’s why – during my visit to meet and interview these men, I not only made contact and got to know them, I was also able to observe the workings and activities at the Refuge.   While I was there I observed, what now appears to be a portion of the sabotage that lead directly to the ambush, arrest, shooting and ultimately  the murder of LaVoy.

I didn’t realize then, what I was observing at the time.  In hindsight, it is now clear there were those on the inside working to help set last night’s police action.  This was not only a betrayal of trust for the Bundy’s, LaVoy and others, but something more sinister.  And, this is amplified by the false stories that are now circulating – and despicably so through outlets like OregonLive.com.  Make no mistake, based upon the only credible first hand witnesses – LaVoy Finicum was strategically ambushed and murdered – and the factual accounts must be defended and the false narratives resisted by those who love and cherish liberty.

There are three eye witness statements related to the events so far.  Of these, only two are credible.

First, the wife of Ammon Bundy, Lisa.  She reported that she received a phone call from Ammon, after his arrest and while he was in the back of the police car.  Ammon told her that LaVoy had been murdered, in cold blood with his “hands up” and that he had also been shot multiple times, even after he was on the ground.

Second, the driver of the first vehicle, Mark McConnell, was reportedly released after several hours of questioning, and he responded to the social media frenzy about LaVoy’s murder by debunking the concern, posting two videos arguing that LaVoy had acted aggressively and that LaVoy had charged at the FBI agents, provoking their shots.

Third, an 18-year old female passenger, Victoria Sharp, who was in the second vehicle that was driven by LaVoy, gave a detailed account of her experience and eye witness of LaVoy’s murder.

For the reasons explained below, only Lisa and Victoria’s accounts are credible.  Worse, Mark’s account and the activities and messages a few other “Patriot” group leaders are spreading are more than un-credible, they are suspect.

Lisa Bundy’s Account:  Lisa’s account was the first direct report of events that didn’t come from law enforcement or government sources.  And, both Lisa and Ammon have a sterling track record of focusing on calmly, rationally, and accurately disseminating the facts and circumstances surrounding these events.  Lisa’s account comes directly from Ammon – and given that Ammon is still in federal custody and there are no reports of anyone else having been able to talk with him, her account is highly valuable.  Certainly, once having verified that this report actually came from Lisa and her conversation with Ammon immediately after the tragic events – there is nothing suspect.  If Ammon Bundy says that LaVoy was murdered in cold blood – under these circumstances, and based upon my own assessment of Ammon’s character and the motives and interests at issue – then I give a very high degree of credibility to this account.   For the record, Lisa’s first hand statements are “I talked to Ammon after he was arrested…they shot [LaVoy] in cold blooded murder” and “He called me right after, gave me the details and told me to tell everyone before the news got out the lies. Then got off the phone!!!”

Mark McConnell’s Account:  Mark was the driver of the vehicle  (a Jeep) that was carrying Ammon.  Mark posted two videos that are being circulated among Oath Keeper members and other patriot group members (i.e. Melvin Less).  In Mark’s report he is visually upset about the “rumors” and “asinine comments” regarding how LaVoy was innocent and murdered.  But critically, he admits that he was too far away to witness the actual shooting. Yet, virtually every major media source is reporting his account as credible.  In his videos, he estimates that the shooting took place approximately 1 mile from where he was being detained and that he only saw the second vehicle drive off “from about 200 yards” towards the road block about “a mile” away.  But, the substance of his report is that he claims LaVoy subsequently exited his vehicle and “charged at the law enforcement” which provoked the shooting and his death.  But, what is the basis for this?  Mark says repeatedly, “I did not see the shooting” and that “I didn’t see it” and “I’m not going to speculate on it.”  Yet, he claims that LaVoy was “foolish” and had been in a “heated discussion” with fellow passenger Ryan Payne.   He contradicts himself repeatedly, because for some reason, he really wants people to “calm down.”  Apparently, this desire is even at the expense of the truth, and it may be worse.  Ryan Payne had exited vehicle number two (as described below) and was arrested and did was not present at the shooting.  Thus, there are only two living, non-government witnesses to all of the events – Shawna Cox and Victoria Sharp.  In sum, even Mark admits that his account is based upon second hand reports from Shawna Cox and Ryan Payne (both presumably still in custody) and based upon remarks that Mark said changed multiple times and that he was simply putting together “pieces here” and “pieces there.”

Victoria Sharp’s Account:  Victoria was a passenger in the back of the second vehicle driven by LaVoy.  She witnessed events from the initial stop of vehicle 1 all the way through to the shooting.  She has given a lengthy interview describing events – consistently and calmly.  In her report Victoria states that when LaVoy was first pulled over, he and Ryan Payne (who was the front seat passenger) repeatedly requested to talk to the county Sheriff rather than the FBI.   Her report is that this angered the FBI agents.  In response to FBI demands LaVoy put his hands – both hands – out the window to show he was not a threat.  She also reports that from the moment they were pulled over there were approximately 20 laser spots she could see on her and the other passengers, including from pre-positioned snipers in the trees, positioned on the side of the road up in the forest.   Significantly, she also reports that the first shots were fired by the FBI when Ryan Payne looked out the passenger side window and was shot at, but was not hit.  She reports that no one in the vehicle ever returned fire or pulled any guns or weapons.  According to Victoria, after the FBI refused LaVoy and Ryan’s request to remove the two woman from the vehicle (who had come along to sing at the anticipated meeting), LaVoy explained that he was going to drive down to talk to the Sheriff and started to drive away.  At or about this point, according to her account, Ryan Payne exited the vehicle and was arrested.  The two women in the back seat (Shawna Cox and Victoria) along with Ryan Bundy (also in the back seat) tried to take cover laying on the floor boards because as LaVoy drove away the FBI showered the vehicle with bullets – “at least 120.”   Victoria recounts that she and Shawna were screaming and pleading that the FBI stop shooting.   Victoria then explains that LaVoy drove the truck into some kind of snow embankment and it was stuck, so he got out of the truck with his hands up.  She says he was “just walking with his hands in the air.”  According to her account, she then personally witnessed that the FBI, and multiple shooters shot him multiple times, including after he hit the ground and that as he lay dead on the ground his hands were still up above his head.  She then says, after this, the government continued to riddle the vehicle with dozens, possibly hundreds of bullets, and that the only reason the two women and Ryan Bundy survived was that the shooters had a bad angle.   Ryan Bundy was hit by a bullet or shrapnel caused by this firestorm.

Thus, the most credible accounts, and the only complete first hand account, is that the government pre-planned this encounter, it was no “traffic stop” as the US Attorney is now reporting (“a traffic stop on protesters [that] turned deadly.”) It was deadly from before it started, because it was a pre-planned extraordinary show of force by the government, and shooting began without any shots being fired by LaVoy or the passengers in his vehicle.  The government agents continued to fire on a fleeing vehicle despite having set up a road block and despite no threat of force by LaVoy or the passengers, and after one of the passengers exited the vehicle and was arrested.  They shot LaVoy with his hands in the air, and continued to shoot him after he fell to the ground.  The government then continued to fire upon the vehicle with three passengers huddling down in the back seat on the floor.  This was, by all accounts, a military style ambush, and there is no indication that the government agents were in danger at any time, or that the excessive use of force was provoked or justified.

The credibility of Ammon and Victoria weighs heavily towards their accounts, while the sole contradictory account of Mr. McConnell is by his own admission, based upon him piecing together hearsay.  But, is that all that’s going on here?

As I reviewed these facts, there are a few striking elements and events.  First, the government clearly knew the travel plans of these parties – including the timing and the route.  Second, the government made no advance effort to avoid violence – this was a secretive operation.  The significance of this might be overlooked by modern presumptions and media spin, but fair observers have to remember that Ammon and LaVoy were repeatedly open to discuss matters with the government.  They routinely went to the FBI operations center and the Sheriff’s station to discuss their protest and their grievances.   And, earlier yesterday, approximately five hours before these events, the FBI had been invited by Ammon to come to the Refuge and have a face-to-face discussion.  In all of this, neither Ammon nor LaVoy were given any demands by the FBI and they were repeatedly given free pass at public gatherings and eating at local restaurants, etc.   The point here is that the government clearly used surprise, and massive show of force, against men who on all previous encounters had been civil, rational, and reliably calm and willing to talk.  In addition, no demand had been made to them, except the Sheriff’s initial demand that they leave the Refuge.  This is a critical point because – after the refusal of the Harney County Sheriff’s offer of safe passage – Ammon and LaVoy told the Sheriff directly that they would consider his offer at a later date.  That is the LAST discussion prior to these events regarding any demand made upon the leaders of the protest and occupation.  Thus, it should have been no surprise that LaVoy would have been caught off guard by this massive operation, and the massive show of force, and that LaVoy would specifically ask to go and speak to the Sheriff.  Now, it may have been that LaVoy was wanting to go and speak with the Sheriff of Grant County (where this all occurred).  It is widely known that unlike the Harney County Sheriff, Grant County Sheriff Glenn Palmer had publicly stated that the FBI should leave, and that the federal government should engage in a discussion of the grievances of the protesters.  Quite literally, according to Victoria’s account, the massive ambush and use of force was employed by the FBI in response to LaVoy trying to go to the man in government and law enforcement that was most receptive to his prior request for safety and protection.  That same man, Sheriff Palmer is also the central law enforcement figure in the county where this incident took place.   This may not have occurred to anyone yet, but given that I work in the legal world for a living – an act to prevent LaVoy and others from petitioning for relief from the duly authorized Sheriff is ALSO quite possibly a felony violation of federal law, by the government – in fact, the same federal law under which these parties have now all been charged.  The scheme of the FBI clearly interfered with the Sheriff’s ability to exercise his duty, and these citizens’ right to petition Sheriff Palmer.  While the FBI could defend itself by saying that an arrest would only be a temporary restriction and both Sheriff Palmer and these parties could talk later – by implementing their plan, directly in response to LaVoy invoking this choice – that defense would be more difficult, particularly given that LaVoy is dead.

In any event, the significant consideration here is that law enforcement clearly had inside help.  During my visit to the Refuge I observed purported militia members acting suspiciously and apparently giving reports of the travel plans for Ammon and Ryan Payne to someone outside and this included details of the timing of this very incident, less than 24 hours before it occurred.  In fact, while I didn’t know it at the time, the subject of the conversation was a printed flyer advertising last night’s events – in Grant County where Ammon and Ryan were invited to be the speakers.  Think about this, and the timing.  It was widely reported, including by the New York Times, that Ammon and LaVoy had already reached out to Sheriff Palmer.  Why?  Because Sheriff Palmer is a member of the Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association (CSPOA), had previously been that organizations “lawman of the year” and had openly challenged the jurisdiction of federal agents in his county. In fact, LaVoy knew that Sheriff Palmer had publicly challenged the notion that federal agents had any law enforcement or policing authority in Grant County, outside of the confines of the federal court house.  Now, a community event was scheduled and Ammon and LaVoy and Ryan had been invited.  It seems quite likely, that the federal government intervened, how and when it did, to prevent Ammon, Ryan and LaVoy from securing any further sympathy or assistance from Sheriff Palmer and/or the people of Grant County.  Think this is too conspiratorial?  NBCNEWS.COM is reporting the same thing.  Pete Williams recently published, “The decision to carry out the arrests was set into motion when the defiant leaders left the refuge Tuesday to attend a community meeting in the town of John Day.”  Given the massive show of force and preparation (snipers in the woods, road block etc.) and the short amount of travel time, this “decision to carry out the arrests” was pre-planned and prepared and when Ammon and LaVoy and Ryan decided they were going for sure – the plan was “set into motion.”   I should also note, that everyone at the Refuge knew something was different, and early in the morning there were reports of planes landing nearby in the dark, and of pre-positioned supplies staged by the government around the perimeter.

Finally, all of this makes more troubling, any accounts by purported patriot groups or supposed militia members, that directly contradict Ammon and Victoria, based on nothing more than hearsay.   As we speak, the Refuge is under siege, with the last remaining holdouts still refusing to surrender.  The live video stream has revealed that the remaining armed resistance supporting the occupation are independent supporters with the exception of a few “3 Percenters” and one or two from outside militias.    Where are the Oath Keepers?  Where is the perimeter other groups openly told the FBI that they were establishing to “prevent another Waco?”

Wherever they are, the organized militia groups are not at the Refuge, are not there to defend these last few occupiers who believe wholeheartedly that they are making a stand against tyranny, and who are now emboldened by the ambush and murder of LaVoy Finicum.   On their website Oath Keepers has a news report about events, and has published an official release from “The Pacific Patriots Network” issuing an “immediate “STAND BY” Order to all those who are mobilizing” in response to LaVoy’s murder, stating “[w]e will not pursue any action until all of the facts have been pieced together regarding the traffic stop and the arrest of Ammon Bundy.”  See the parroted language of the government about a purported “traffic stop?”  That is spin. Think I’m going to far?  Again, even NBCNWS has noticed.  Pete Williams also reports that “The FBI earlier described the stop as an “enforcement action” done by federal agents and Oregon State Police in connection with the occupation.” rather than as a routine “traffic stop.”   Finally, Brian Miller and the official “Three Percenter” club is now stating that its members should wait “until we can clear everything up” and is advising those who want “to go and get involved to stay away from the refuge I repeat stay away.”

What happened is clear.  Its the story being told that is getting all muddy, with all the hand wringing, posturing, and butt-covering.  Look, I’m always for cooler headers, rational thinking, and sound strategy.  But, that seems to be missing from Mr. McConnell and those spreading his hearsay, ironically after he has villified reports based upon one of only two actual eye-witnesses to the whole event – including LaVoy’s murder.

In the end, here is the truth.  The government could have, but didn’t prevent this.  The 3 Percenters could have, but didn’t prevent this.  The Oath Keepers, the Pacific Patriots Network and other militia groups, could have prevented this, but didn’t.  Blood has been spilled, as a significant group of Americans – from all walks of life and all over this country attempted to stand in resistance to tyranny.

Justice Scalia recently re-affirmed that “when the able-bodied men of a nation are trained in arms and organized, they are better able to resist tyranny.”  The fact that LaVoy is dead, one day shy of his 56th birthday, is a rebuke to those of us in the liberty movement.  It is a stinging rebuke.  We are not well trained or well organized, and we are certainly not united.

More than 60 years ago, the great scholar and Constitutional advocate J. Reuben Clark warned that “we stand in danger of losing our liberties, and that once lost, only blood will bring them back.” He also warned, “I say to you that the price of liberty is and always has been blood, human blood, and if our liberties are lost, we shall never regain them except at the price of blood.”

I have deep respect for these militia groups I’ve criticized, and I have deep respect for our country and its government.  I have come to love, respect and appreciate the Bundy’s and those who rallied with them, including LaVoy.  Among his last words to me were a proclamation of his faith in Christ and in this Country and in the Cause of Liberty.  He knew the risks involved, and he had a genuine, cheerful smile on his face – that accompanied what he profoundly risked.     But all of this is not enough.  Being “trained in arms and organized” means more than bravado, ammunition, big guns, and camouflage.  It means more than prominence and respectability for big groups and big names.    And it must also means more than Facebook and Twitter warriors, and less than credible alternative media reporters who advocate as much personal nonsense as they do principles of liberty.

If we want to recover from this stinging rebuke, we’ve got to do something that no generation of freedom loving people has yet done, since the time of America’s Founding.  We’ve got to be organized, as Jefferson predicted, from the great national government, down through the states and counties, to the individual households of our people.  We’ve got to be trained in arms and have organized militia’s but this is less than 1/7th of the blueprint.   We will never outgun or out militarize the United States or any of her states.  Thus, while force and militia’s are essential and invaluable, by themselves, they are the unorganized, infighting tragedy we’ve just witnessed.  We’ve got to build a full society of men and women who are committed to the principles of liberty as enshrined in the Declaration and the Constitution.   In addition to militias, we must command educational, financial, and media control – and this is all still only 50% of the blueprint.  I could tell you more, and outline the blueprint here – but that will have to be for a follow-up publication or broadcast.

In sum, every time a tragedy like this happens, the hearts and minds of patriots are pricked, energy and passion flow, and the prevalent question is “what do we do now?”  If the reader is honest, I think this is the question that is before us today – all of us.  What do we do now?  That has been the question I heard first as a boy, and it has resounded even in my own liberty organizations – every time our failure increases its intensity and the cause of liberty is revealed to be failing.  Why?

I’ll tell you the answer.

Its because this is not a simple or quick fix.  It is not something one person, or a small group can do.  Its not a hobby or a club.  It is not for the feint of heart, and it is not for broken homes and broken marriages that bicker over budgets and neglect children for fleeting hobbies. We have to rise above and work though these things.  And, as a side note – a commitment to liberty can do that.  The path forward requires dedicated Americans.  Dedicated, red-blooded Americans from all walks of life, from all of our varied subgroups and subcultures, who are REALLY willing to stand up for freedom no matter the case – and unite under the banner of liberty.  But, even this is still not enough.  It takes a blueprint, so we can build a veritable liberty based society that can quickly and powerfully correct America’s course, and powerfully and uncompromisingly influence the course of her institutions – its churches, its schools, its governments, its medicine, its businesses, its culture and its play.  That, my friends, is  a tall order, so tall – that the vast majority of our patriots either give up, tune out, wimp out – or minimize and marginalize to focus on only a small piece of this puzzle.    But, that won’t due.

When I last talked with LaVoy he was fascinated as I explained to him why I had come to talk with him, to discuss this circumstance of the occupation and to visit with Ammon and Ryan face-to-face.  I told him that I saw the heart, the Spirit of the Lord, and the conviction of these patriots, that I could see it in their eyes, and in their actions and in how they had comported themselves.   I told him that I was undeniably required to show him and Ammon and Ryan and the others my respect and love.  But, I also told him about a broader view, and throughout the day, I  told him that while I didn’t want to be critical or suggest that anything in the liberty movement or in the efforts of these protesters at the Refuge was bad, or wrong, or misguided – I did tell him squarely, that it needed to be pushed forward, advanced, and taken up to the next level.  I told him that I respected what he and Ammon and the others were doing, and that I only wanted to see their goals successful, and that I had some experience and insight and an small, rebuilding group of liberty lovers spread across this nation who could help with the larger, overall cause.  He agreed, and smiled hopefully.  He arranged for us to meet with several of the key people at the Refuge, and we spent the day there.  It was quite a day.  Towards the evening we were able to listen to Ryan’s presentation and then start to share this same perspective of the broader blueprint with Ryan and Ammon and others.  But, that was just the beginning.

Yesterday, those with eyes to see, saw an undeniable reality check, about where we stand with our freedoms and liberty, and how overstretched and oppressive federal and state law enforcement has become.  We cannot deny how quick to anger we as a people have become – especially through our government.  We cannot deny how slow to reason, to act in good faith, and how intolerant are our government agencies and their bureaucrats.  We also saw how futile are our best efforts are- even through groups like I’ve mentioned.  We fight our enemies and ourselves, and liberty suffers – and blood is spilled.  In the end – we saw the deliberate and strategic ambush and subsequent murder of Robert “LaVoy” Finicum.  Whatever others think of him, he was an American.  He was a man committed to a cause – and that cause was liberty!  The world is not better with him dead, our government is weaker with these horrible acts of tyranny and the people who know what is going on – are heart-broken, stunned, and many are angry.  Hopefully.

Today, we have friends in jail.  The US Attorney says they will be arraigned about 5 minutes after I publish this – after that they will prosecuted by a United States Attorney with the full force of our government and the financial and legal resources it commands.   These friends will need defended.  That will take resources, good minds, and passionate support.  I here publicly pledge mine.  Anyone who has direct contact with these men and woman are invited to reach out to me directly – I will help.

LaVoy confessed to the media that he believed freedom was sometimes more important than life.  He has proved his sincerity.  Have we?  His test in this life is over.  Ours is not.  How much more blood must be spilled – before YOU, my friend reading this, will make a choice?

Do you think you’ve already made the choice? Do you already stand for liberty?  Me too.  But it is not enough!  Self-evidently it is not enough.  We have got to advance this cause.  We have got to elevate our power and effectiveness.  Too many Americans are living lives of quiet desperation – in all areas – while the tyranny of unjust men marches forward.   It is simply not enough.  Whatever you’ve said to yourself up until now, Robert “LaVoy” Finicum is a new witness, in a long line of witnesses – inviting us to pick up the torch and carry it further.  But, we HAVE to carry it further.  We have to build a real, veritable liberty society of patriots – or we lose.

We’ve been loosing a lot lately – politically, legally, socially, economically, etc.  But, the cause of liberty will not lose. We can accomplish what no prior group of Americans has accomplished – we can finish the work of our Founder’s revolution and take liberty, prosperity and peace – even further. Let us come together.  Let us awake and arise.  I know that some of you, a few of you, can “hear” me.  Let’s go. I invite you to reach out.  Make contact with each other, with other lover’s of liberty.  We’ve got to help our friends.  What an example they have been.  We’ve got to stand for liberty.  This is not just about ranchers – its about all Americans.

We’ve got to do it based upon principles – and a strategic blueprint that can win!

Its a tall order.  A very tall order.  Nevertheless, it can be done.  If not us, who?  If not now, when?

If you only hope that is true – reach out.  Make contact.   We have a long, but worthy road ahead.

— End

Note: Please consider this your personal invitation to my 10 pm (Mountain) Periscope broadcast.  After downloading the Periscope app, follow me and you’ll get a ping when the broadcast starts.

 

 

What’s Really Going on in Oregon! Taking Back the Narrative ! KrisAnne Hall


Hi Everyone!
Excellent job with this KrisAnne, I appreciate you breaking down the US Federal Constitution with respect to US Government land ownership. You inspire me KrisAnne…  The question you are asking is clear, will the People accept US Federal Government tyranny or…  will the People take responsibility for their own lives…
Edward

Co-Creating Our Future on Planet Earth


Published on Jan 5, 2016
Thanks to I.

Important update.
Let’s talk about what’s going on in Malheur Oregon and take back the narrative.

What does the Constitution say about this?
What are the precedents?
Listen watch, subscribe, like, comment and share now. Make this go viral.

Subscribe to the KrisAnne Hall YouTube Channel
http://youtube.com/subscription_cente…

Visit the Liberty First Gift Shop: http://krisannehall.com/shop/
KrisAnne Hall is an attorney and former prosecutor, fired after teaching the Constitution to TEA Party groups – she would not sacrifice liberty for a paycheck. She is a disabled veteran of the US Army, a Russian linguist, a mother, a pastor’s wife and a patriot. She now travels the country and teaches the Constitution and the history that gave us our founding documents. KrisAnne Hall does not just teach the Constitution, she lays the foundations that show how reliable and relevant our founding documents are today. She…

View original post 27 more words

My Journey to Personal Sovereignty…

slide2

Hello Everyone!

How does if feel…  to be on your own… it feels like there are IRS people who are having challenges understanding the concept of the US Constitution’s Thirteenth Amendment, more specifically “involuntary servitude”…  Will the IRS respect the natural born condition of human beings, specifically sovereignty and freedom being self evident.  So Sovereignty, Freedom and basic fundamental natural principle’s are a hallmark and legacy of a freeman on the land.  If any ficticious and artificial State, Federal or County Court have an issue with the Thirteenth Amendment’s  concept of “Government Is Foreclosed from
Parity with Real People” let them share their position… Is the central question really…  do human beings have a choice…

With all my heart…

Edward

Thanks to:  http://www.projectfreeman.com/hypothesis.htm  for this articles featured media (picture)

Here is my Stand…

 

Edward Reidhead
537 N 6th Street
Montebello, CA 90640
December 11, 2015

IRS, IRS Compliance Services
Withholding Compliance Program
Alicia A. Hagen, Collection Operation Manager
PO Box 9047, Stop 837
Andover, MA 01810-0947
Reference: 0665479986
November 30, 2015, LTR 2810C
Reference SS# 562-53-3157
Dear IRS and Alicia A. Hagen,

It is clear that you have not taken the time to properly read and understand my letter to your office, copy enclosed herein, and incorporated herein, in full, by reference.

Let me make this very clear IRS; under the Thirteenth Amendment to the Federal Constitution, it is thereby established that the IRS is prohibited from imposing involuntary servitude on any man or woman who has not willingly, knowingly and intentionally, having been fully informed of all the negative consequences thereof prior thereto, volunteered their self to be under the Political Jurisdiction of the Government of the United States.

And in case you believe the Fourteenth Amendment declares every person born in the United States becomes a citizen due to such birth, you need to take a course in reading English Grammar, because there is no such citizenship establishment provision in that Constitutional Amendment.

That is, and get this straight IRS, the burden of proof is on the IRS and any reference to any purported law, has no application to me unless and until the IRS presents proof that the Government of the United States has gained some manner of jurisdiction over me without the such Government or its IRS violating the prohibition of involuntary servitude made an integral part of the Federal Constitution in 1866.

None of the laws you cited, nor any others that you might conger up, or any manner of court decision, or Executive Order overcome the Thirteenth Amendment incorporated into the Federal Constitution!

Where is the IRS’s proof that it has gained Political Jurisdiction over me? The burden of proof is on you, IRS, and such proof must be something where I volunteered myself into submission to the IRS, testified to by a living eyewitness, NOT any self serving gibberish such as you presented to me in your instant enclosed letter! Or any manner of document from any government file, but as I wrote above, testified to by a living eyewitness, where I have the opportunity to cross examine such purported witness, under oath, under penalty of perjury.

Please see the forty-five appellate court case citations served herewith and incorporated herein by reference.

These appellate court case citations establish that when any manner of jurisdiction is challenged, proof of such claim of jurisdiction must be presented by the asserting entity, in this case, that would be the IRS, not merely claimed by any court judge.

Pease pay particular attention to case citations thirty-nine through forty-five.

And NO, I most certainly will NOT provide you with any telephone number information or ever talk to you orally, without an officially recognized recording device recording every word. I insist that any and all communication between me and the IRS be in written form, so that you cannot twist what I present to serve your evil purposes.

In closing, rest assured, if the IRS can properly establish that I have any manner of tax obligation to the Government of the United States, I will willing pay such tax.

This letter was sent to the IRS office as indicated on the first page, via the United States Postal Service, return receipt card requested.

Please take notice, that a certified copy of this letter, when presented to my employer with the original Postal Service Return Receipt Card, ten days after the date entered on the Postal Service Return Receipt Card, shall serve as and constitute official IRS notice to my employer, that my employer is to immediately stop any manner of income tax withholding from my pay.

Proceeding at all-time under Threat,-Duress and Coercion,

Edward Redhead
537 N 6th Street
Montebello, CA 90640

Addendum, attached hereto,
Letter to IRS 11-16-2015
Exhibit A- 45 Appellate Court Case Citations

 

 

Edward Reidhead
537 N 6th Street
Montebello, CA 90640-3618
(562) 298-2406
November 16, 2015

IRS
PO Box 149338 St 5501
Austin, TX 78714-9338
Reference: 0866000000; of October 15, 2015 LTR 2801C
Reference SS# 562-53-3157
Edward Reidhead’s
CHALLENGE TO PRESUMED POLITICAL JURISDICTION
OVER HIM OF THE U.S. GOVERNMENT AND ITS IRS

Dear IRS,

1. In regard to the above reference, I am hereby presenting the IRS with my official detailed challenge to the United States Government and its IRS’s presumed political jurisdiction and authority over me.

2. Please be hereby advised, the Challenge I herein serve you with will be and is founded on Mathematically Certain Principles that I have never before presented to the IRS in the manner I present herein below. These arguments have never been ruled as frivolous by any Federal Court, to the contrary, the one time they were presented orally to a Federal District Court, that court put the matter on terminal hold forty-five years ago, to avoid addressing issues neither the U.S. Government or the IRS could refute or prevail against, and dared not lose.

3. Please be hereby advised, I strongly believe everyone should pay all and any tax that they properly owe, however, at the same time, I likewise strongly believe that there is no obligation to pay any tax that was not properly assessed or was assessed through fraud on the part of the government, including (but not limited to) enabling fraud initiated and perpetrated by State governments.

4. Please be assured, if the IRS can produce and present evidence to me, duly attested to by a living eyewitness, that I have a taxpayer obligation to the U.S. Government,
that I will then willingly pay any income tax I am proven to be liable to pay.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

5. First, unless otherwise indicated in this writing, all words used in this writing shall be construed to have the meaning commonly understood by common ordinary people in their ordinary day to day conversations, and no statutory or secret meaning shall be applied by the government in order to twist the meaning and intent of this writing. No Law Dictionary meaning shall be referred to in order to determine the meaning of any word used herein.

6. It is self evident and cannot be reasonably denied that all human beings (“P/persons”), are born free and politically independent, as a condition of Nature.

7. And, that in order for any Naturally Free Born Person to be subject to the political dominion of any government (such being an artificial entity created by mere men), such Free Born Individual must be either physically forced by criminally applied physical power or the threat thereof, or in some manner, intellectually enticed or coerced or surreptitiously or fraudulently indoctrinated to willingly submit himself to such government’s dominion by in some way being manipulated into assuming an artificial persona, such as United States citizenship or a True Legal Name.

8. Please carefully consider that the Thirteenth Amendment to the Federal Constitution embodies the following concepts:

Government Is Foreclosed from
Parity with Real People.
Basic Principles of the Thirteenth Amendment

“Inasmuch as every government is an artificial person, an abstraction, and a creature of the mind only, a government can interface only with other artificial persons.

“The imaginary, having neither actuality nor substance, is foreclosed from creating and attaining parity with the tangible.

“The legal manifestation of this is that no aspect of government, including as any law, agency, court, etc. can concern itself with anything other than corporate, and/or artificial persons and the contracts between them.” Author unknown.

9. As the United States presents itself as a country governed by laws compliant to its creating Constitution, I will reference aspects of that Constitution which, in acknowledgment of my Naturally Free Born Political Independence, establishes and acknowledges that I am free from such government’s dominion unless such government can present proof that I willingly and knowingly subjected myself to its dominion after being fully informed by such government of all the negative aspects and consequences of my purported voluntary subservience to its dominion.

RELEVANT IRREFUTABLE FACTS
GOVERNING ESTABLISHMENT OF POLITICAL AUTHORITY

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND
10. As established in the Thirteenth Amendment and acknowledged in the anonymous quotation in the reference herein above, in paragraph 8, it is irrefutably self evident that Governments are artificial political entities created by men.

11. It is likewise irrefutably self evident that the men creating such artificial political entities have no individual Naturally endowed authority to command the obedience, subservience or conformance of other men; and, no numeric combination of such creators can reasonably enable them to create such authority based merely on their mutual association. Zero + zero = zero, no matter how many zeros are added, the total will always be zero!

12. On July 4, 1776, the British subjects living in the Thirteen British Colonies of North America revolted against their British Monarch, King George III, and deposed him, thereby each of such former British subjects immediately became individually free and politically independent and politically sovereign over their own individual persons, with none of them, or any combination thereof, having any authority to command the obedience, subservience or conformance of any other; and, no combination of such men could reasonably create authority to command others to obey or conform to the command(s) of any such combination, without the voluntary submission of those “others”. See ¶ 8, herein above.

AS AN ASIDE:
13. In regard to voting, unless all those voting individually agree prior to any vote, to individually submit themselves to the outcome, such outcome cannot reasonably require the conformance of any non-voter or voter who did not agree o conform prior thereto; consider this question:

“How many men voting, would it take to properly and democratically vote the panties off an unwilling woman?”
///
14. The foregoing question clearly and irrefutably establishes that voting is a criminal act any time the outcome is purported to require the conformance of the otherwise unwilling! (Except as provided in the 14th Amendment, whereunder a fully informed voluntary intentional claim of United States citizenship would negate any criminality of the application of vote outcome to U.S. citizen non-voters, as will be addressed herein below).

BACK TO THE PRESENTATION OF
HISTORICAL BACKGROUND
15. In writing the Preamble to the Federal Constitution, the Framers thereof established and set forth therein, the purpose of the Constitution, which was/is (as stated therein), to secure the Blessings of Liberty to Themselves and Their Posterity. Surreptitiously therein the Founders created the Sovereign Political Class as being the People of the United States (pay attention to the words!).

16. The Preamble (in relevant part):

“We the People of the United States … in order to Secure the Blessings of Liberty to Ourselves and Our Posterity … do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

17. This wording is self evidently both limiting and exclusionary, pertaining only to the People of the United States and THEIR Posterity, and does NOT mention or include or imply the inclusion of the application of such protection to any individual(s) who might, through naturalization or otherwise, volunteer themselves into the lower political status of citizen of the United States, being a subservient political status, likewise surreptitiously created in the Constitution by the Founders, in Section Two of Article One thereof (pay attention to the words!). But the unlimited degree of subservience inherent in claiming United States citizenship was NOT established or defined until 1868, in the 14th Amendment.

18. Although the word “People” does not usually carry any inherent political implication (as does the word “citizen”), the word “People” can be imbued with a political meaning when used in a context intentionally formulated for that purpose, as is self evidently the intention in this instance in the Constitution’s Preamble. (Pay attention to the words!).

19. It is significant here to again take notice that the Founders specifically reserved the application of the Constitution’s securing of the Blessings of Liberty to Themselves and THEIR Posterity – NOT the posterity of any other heritage linage! This specifically excludes any and all immigrants and their posterity and even excludes the posterity of those born of the People Class who might elect to unknowingly and unintentionally “voluntarily” designate themselves as citizens of the United States. (Pay attention to the words!).

20. The Thirteenth Amendment to the Federal Constitution proclaims Natural Law as being part of the Constitution, being that the government of the United States and the governments of the Several States, have no authority to command, in any manner, the subservience of any individual, political or otherwise. That is, “Involuntary servitude shall not exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction”. Please note that the Thirteenth Amendment does NOT prohibit voluntary servitude; i.e., voluntary citizenship. See ¶ 8, hereof.

21. The Fourteenth Amendment to the Federal Constitution does NOT declare that anyone born in the United States to automatically becomes a citizen of the United States due simply to such birth (again, pay attention to the words!).

22. The Fourteenth Amendment does define United States citizenship (such citizens being those persons who have been naturalized or, if born in the United States, have individually intentionally taken some “voluntary” official action, or un-intentionally and unknowingly done so, causing themselves to thereby become “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”), and such Amendment declares the duties of such citizens, to pay the public debt, without question (in the Fourth Article thereof) (again, pay attention to the words!).

SYNOPSIS
23. The above constitute irrefutable historical evidence that the government of this country was created by ordinary men who had no ability to imbue the government they created with authority in excess of that which they were, individually, Naturally endowed, which would enable them to command the political subservience of other men; therefore, in order for other men to become subservient, such other men would have to be, in some manner, enticed or indoctrinated, to volunteer themselves into or cause themelves to believe they were born naturally into political subservience.

MODERN INDUCEMENT OF SUBSERVIENCE
ADDITIONAL IRREFUTABLE FACTS
EXPOSING FRAUDULENT INDOCTRINATION
24. When born human babies have no knowledge or frame of reference in regard to any issue what-so-ever; that is, such babies have no cognitive ability to take note of when they were born, where they were born or who their own mother was, nor to be aware even, that they had just been born or what their gender is, or that there are gender differences;

25. That is, due to the foregoing, no one, no matter their age , intelligence or education, has any ability to “know” “who they are” or where they originated from!
26. Additionally, neither do such human babies or small children, or even including adolescents and teenagers, have any frame of reference to enable them to determine whether what they are being taught or exposed to in public schools or elsewhere, is good for them or merely good for those “adults” who are in a position to indoctrinate such young humans into a mind-set of political subservience.

27. This condition is irrevocably true and continues no matter the age of the individual or what information the individual becomes aware of later in life. To “believe” is NOT equivalent to knowledge obtained by cognitive observation or actual intelligent participation.

28. No human baby has/had any ability to consider or choose “his” own name.

29. No human baby has/had any ability to participate in the creation of a certificate recording or registering his own birth.

30. No human baby has/had any ability to file a certificate of his birth with a government office.

31. It is widely known and recognized that the parents of human babies are most usually, the persons who determine the name by which their new-born children shall be known.

32. It is widely known and recognized that the creators of intellectual property are the natural owners of such property.

33. Based on the foregoing, it is thereupon self evident that upon the parents creation of a name by which their new-born child shall be known, that the parents are (or would be if they were alerted to this fact by an honest government), the Natural owner of such name (the parents would be the owner of the name, NOT owners of the child – children are NOT property).

34. No human baby or minor child has/had any ability to own any property other than the parts of their own body.

35. Nature provides all human babies with arms, legs, fingers and toes, all attached to and are clearly the property of the baby.

36. No human baby has/had any ability to legally own the name entered on a certificate of his birth by his parents or whomever else may have conjured up such name.

37. Nature does NOT provide or attach a name to any human baby.

38. That is, human babies have no ability to own the name entered on a certificate created in regard to their birth, if any.

39. Birth certificates recorded with the government do not include a claim of ownership of the name entered thereon by the parents; nor do such birth certificates include any contact information enabling the state to contact the parents at a later time in regard to the parents ownership of, or abandoning of the parents ownership of the name entered on such birth certificates.

40. All Fifty of the States of the United States have a statute pertaining to the states disposition of abandoned property. In the state where I live, California, there is such an abandoned property statute.

41. The abandoned property “catch all” section generally states, whereunder the state of California becomes the owner of all abandoned property not specified in any preceding section.

42. This “catch all” section would include all names entered on birth certificates filed in California, after a period of time of years after such birth certificates are filed with the government of California.
HOW STATES ATTAINS “VOLUNTARY”
SUBSERVIENCE OF FREE BORN PEOPLE
THROUGH FRAUDULENT INDOCTRINATION

43. In the government’s indoctrination centers, euphemistically known as public schools, children are fraudulently indoctrinated to believe that they were born into United States citizenship, contrary to the provisions of both the Thirteenth and Fourteenth amendments to the Federal Constitution.

44. And likewise contrary to the Natural politically independent status of every person; imbued into them upon their birth; (please see ¶ 8, herein above), And;

45. During the course of their development and “education”, the government “schools” indoctrinate children to believe such children must present “their” birth certificate in order to be issued a driver license in order to operate the child’s own automobile (or other vehicle).

46. Upon attaining the age of sixteen years, the child, then a young adult, but none the less, still an adult, old enough to be held accountable by society for his conduct, and his voluntary entered into agreements, or contracts, the young adult presents himself to the government’s local driver license issuing office to apply for the issuance to him by the state, of a driver license, or so he has been fraudulently indoctrinated to believe in the government’s indoctrination centers, AKA: “public schools”.
///
///
47. Unknown and intentionally unrevealed to the young adult at that time, is the fact that the state at that time, has no authority to require the young adult to procure a driver license in order for the young adult to operate his own automobile or other vehicle.

48. This is true because at that moment of time Natural Law (as set forth in explanatory writing cited herein above in paragraph 8), and as clearly embodied in the Federal Thirteenth Amendment, deprives the state of any authority to enforce any such requirement on Free Born individuals who have not, as adults, voluntarily agreed to be subservient to the government of the State, or subservient to the government of the United States.

49. The question here is:

“Why does the government require a driver license applicant to present a birth certificate in order to be issued a driver license when there is no information on any birth certificate that can serve to connect such document to any specific individual?”

50. Additionally prompted question: “As there is no information on such document that would be required in order for the state to create a positive identification of the individual, to enable the individual to be later positively identified, so why then the State’s birth certificate presentation requirement?”

51. The forgoing questions are especially relevant when it is considered and acknowledged that the ownership of the most significant information on a birth certificate, being the name entered thereon, is most certainly not the legally owned property of the driver license applicant.

52. Under the rules established under the State’s abandoned property statutes, the ownership of the name by the creator has been abandoned due to lack of maintaining any official ownership claim, which makes it most likely that ownership of the name has been assumed by the state under the state’s disposition of abandoned property statute; again, in California, where I live, the state’s ownership of the name seemingly occurs a specific number of years after the document is recorded with the state.

53. Could it be more clearly self evident that the state’s requirement of the presentation of “his” birth certificate by a driver license applicant, where the state has become the apparent owner of the name entered thereon, that such requirement constitutes the means whereby the state surreptitiously causes the applicant to unknowingly apply to the state to issue him a franchise license to use such seemingly state owned name, whereby such name is deemed to thereby be the applicant’s “True Legal Name”; causing the applicant to have unknowingly volunteered himself to thereafter be acting under an artificial persona and thereby caused himself to become subservient to the state in every activity when acting in the role of that artificial persona.

54. This is a condition commonly known as “citizenship”, but not legally established as such. What this driver license “ceremony” actually does is establish a “voluntary” subservient contractual relationship of the former free born individual to the state, as a licensed franchisee.

55. By using this surreptitious procedure, the State has gained the “voluntary” subservience of the individual without the state’s open and notorious violation of the prohibition of involuntary servitude provision of the Federal Thirteenth Amendment.

56. Additionally, this is clearly an intentional flagrant violation by all Fifty of the Several States, of the self evident principle set forth and explained in paragraph 8, herein above, and as embodied in the 13th Amendment.
HOW THIS APPLIES TO ME
IN REGARD TO THE IRS

57. The Federal Thirteenth Amendment’s prohibition of involuntary servitude acknowledges that everyone born on the land area of North America, claimed by the United States government to be under its political dominion, are born free and clear of any political subservience to any political entity, as does the anonymous explanatory writing in paragraph 8 herein above.

58. In order for me to (at this time), be subservient to the government of the United States and its IRS, the government of the United States must present its proof that I knowingly and willingly, having been fully informed of all of the negative consequences thereof prior thereto, and then intentionally gave up the free and independent status I was born with, to willingly surrender myself to the political whimsy of the government of the United States or the state wherein I live.

59. It is not incumbent upon me to prove I am not subject to the IRS, it is for the IRS to prove I am.

60. No statute enacted by Congress can establish such condition; and neither can any Section of the IRS Code, as none of the foregoing can apply to me until AFTER written proof that I knowingly and willingly, intentionally volunteered myself into such condition is presented to me by the IRS, from its existing files and records.

61. Moreover, any purported proof presented by the IRS must be supported by the sworn testimony of a real live eyewitness, who can and will testify as having personally witnessing my intentional voluntary act of subservience, after such witness observed a government officer explain to me what I was giving up and what all the negative consequences were that are incumbent in United States citizenship.

62. I claim my Political Status to be of the Posterity of the Rebels of July 4, 1776, being among the former subjects of King George III, who rebelled against and denounced said King on that Glorious Day!

63. As a member of such Posterity, I claim as my Common Law right of inheritance, that the Government of the United States must accord me my right to live here free from government interference, on the land secured by my antecedents successful rebellion, and on such other land acquired as a direct result thereof, which shall include all Fifty of the Several States, and all island possessions of the United States, but shall not be limited thereto.

64. As for my proof of such status, I have no proof other than my existence here and my claim thereof. No person can claim their origin, not any staff member of the IRS or any justices of the Supreme Court or even the President of the United States. Our mere claim of out origin and status is all that is required. The presentation of a birth certificate proves nothing as the person presenting it cannot prove such document was created in regard to their birth. Such documents are accepted as proof only because it serves the dishonest purpose of the state to do so.

65. Additionally, as the government of the United States and the government of California have conspired together to fraudulently indoctrinate me, in order to fraudulently deny me my Natural Political independence, I claim, under the Law of Necessity, my right to continue to use any and all documentation and information issued to me by either or any government agency of any and every description, such as a driver license, Social Security Number, Passports and/or any and all other similar item, which may be “required” by any monetary institution or professional association or employer or police or sheriff’s entities, or to enable me to travel to and return from any foreign country.

66. This application of the Law of Necessity is recognized by the Supreme Court of the United States in the case, Holy Trinity Church vs. United States 143 U.S. 457, 12 S.Ct. 511, 36 L.Ed. 226, Feb. 29, 1892, wherein SCOTUS opined that when the strict application of the letter of a statute would result in an absurd outcome, such statute must be construed in a manner to avoid the absurdity.

67. I freely acknowledge that I am subject to be held accountable for any violation of the Common Law crimes of rape, robbery, murder, or trespass, in any Common Law Court created by my Common Law Peers (but NOT in or under any statutory court of any nature what-so-ever, created under any manner of statute by any political government of the United States or by any of its member states).

Proceeding at all times under Threat, Duress and Coercion,
Edward Reidhead
537 N 6th Street
Montebello, CA 90640-3618
(562) 298-2406
November 16, 2015

 

 

Magistrate Court of Los Angeles County
STATE OF CALIFORNIA

STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Executive and Judicial Branches
Plaintiff

VS.
Edward Reidhead, Wrongly Accused,
Belligerent Litigant

EXHIBIT “A”

to

NOTICE
(In Lieu of Motion)
OF CHALLENGE TO STATE OF CALIFORNIA’ S
POLITICAL OR CONTRACTUAL JURISDICTION
OVER THIS WRONGLY ACCUSED
and
DEMAND
THAT STATE OF CALIFORNIA
PRESENT PROOF OF ITS JURISDICTION

STATE OF CALIFORNIA’S INHERENT FAILURE
TO PRESENT SUCH PROOF SHALL CONSTITUTE
ITS AVERMENT THAT ALL CHARGES AGAINST THIS
WRONGLY ACCUSED WERE AND ARE INVALID AB INITIO

Introduction
Let STATE OF CALIFORNIA and this Honorable Court be advised; The presentation herein and references to the forty-five (45) appellate court cases pertaining to and establishing proper protocols in regard to procedures once jurisdiction has been challenged are not offered herein by this Wrongly Accused as any basis for his Challenge to the jurisdiction of STATE of CALIFORNIA over this Wrongly Accused.

The purpose of such presentment is to guide STATE OF CALIFORNIA and this Honorable Court as to the fact that once such jurisdictional Challenge is entered on the record, any and all previous jurisdiction, of any and every imaginable style or basis is suspended by this Basic Fundamental Jurisdictional Challenge

45 Case Citations
re: JURISDICTION
1. “A void judgment is one that has been procured by extrinsic or collateral fraud or entered by a court that did not have jurisdiction over the subject matter or the parties.” Rook v. Rook, 233 Va. 92, 95, 353 S.E.2d 756, 758 (1987)
2. A court may not render a judgment which transcends the limits of its authority, and a judgment is void if it is beyond the powers granted to the court by the law of its organization, even where the court has jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter. Thus, if a court is authorized by statute to entertain jurisdiction in a particular case only, and undertakes to exercise the jurisdiction conferred in a case to which the statute has no application, the judgment rendered is void. The lack of statutory authority to make particular order or a judgment is akin to lack of subject matter jurisdiction and is subject to collateral attack. 46 Am. Jur. 2d, Judgments § 25, pp. 388-89.
3. A void judgment is to be distinguished from an erroneous one, in that the latter is subject only to direct attack. A void judgment is one which, from its inception, was a complete nullity and without legal effect. Lubben v. Selective Service System, 453 F.2d 645, 649 (1st Cir. 1972).
///
4. A judgment rendered by a court without personal jurisdiction over the defendant is void. It is a nullity. [A judgment shown to be void for lack of personal service on the defendant is a nullity.] Sramek v. Sramek, 17 Kan. App. 2d 573, 576-77, 840 P.2d 553 (1992), rev. denied 252 Kan. 1093 (1993).
5. “Where there are no depositions, admissions, or affidavits the court has no facts to rely on for a summary determination.” Trinsey v. Pagliaro, D.C. Pa. 1964, 229 F. Supp. 647.
6. “A court cannot confer jurisdiction where none existed and cannot make a void proceeding valid. It is clear and well established law that a void order can be challenged in any court”, OLD WAYNE MUT. L. ASSOC. v. McDONOUGH, 204 U. S. 8, 27 S. Ct. 236 (1907).
7. “The law is well-settled that a void order or judgment is void even before reversal”, VALLEY v. NORTHERN FIRE & MARINE INS. CO., 254 u.s. 348, 41 S. Ct. 116 ( 1920 )
8. “Courts are constituted by authority and they cannot go beyond that power delegated to them. If they act beyond that authority, and certainly in contravention of it, their judgments and orders are regarded as nullities ; they are not voidable, but simply void, and this even prior to reversal.” WILLIAMSON v. BERRY, 8 HOW. 945, 540 12 L. Ed. 1170, 1189 ( 1850 ).
9. “Once jurisdiction is challenged, the court cannot proceed when it clearly appears that the court lacks jurisdiction, the court has no authority to reach merits, but rather should dismiss the action.” Melo v. U.S. 505 F 2d 1026.
10. “There is no discretion to ignore lack of jurisdiction.” Joyce v. U.S. 474 2D 215.
11. “The burden shifts to the court [or charging entity] to prove jurisdiction. ” Rosemond v. Lambert, 469 F 2d 416.
12. “Court [or charging entity] must prove on the record, all jurisdiction facts related to the jurisdiction asserted.” Latana v. Hopper, 102 F. 2d 188; Chicago v. New York 37 F Supp. 150.
13. “The law provides that once State and Federal Jurisdiction has been challenged, it must be proven [by the charging entity].” 100 S. Ct. 2502 (1980).
14. “Jurisdiction can be challenged at any time.” Basso v. Utah Power & Light Co. 495 F 2d 906, 910.
15. “Defense of lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter may be raised at any time, even on appeal.” Hill Top Developers v. Holiday Pines Service Corp. 478 So. 2d. 368 (Fla 2nd DCA 1985).
16. “Thus, where a judicial tribunal has no jurisdiction of the subject matter on which it assumes to act, its proceedings are absolutely void in the fullest sense of the term.” Dillon v. Dillon, 187 P 27.
17. “Once challenged, jurisdiction cannot be assumed, it must be proved to exist.” Stuck v. Medical Examiners 94 Ca 2d 751. 211 P2d 389.
18. “Jurisdiction, once challenged, cannot be assumed and must be decided.” Maine v Thiboutot 100 S. Ct. 250.
19. “The law requires proof of jurisdiction to appear on the record of the administrative agency and all administrative proceedings.” Hagans v Lavine 415 U. S. 533.
20. A judgment obtained without jurisdiction over the defendant is void. Overby v. Overby , 457 S.W.2d 851 (Tenn. 1970). Volume 20: Corpus Juris Sec. § 1785.
21. Challenge to court’s jurisdiction is raised by motion to dismiss, Criterion Co. v. State, 458 So. 2d. 22 (Fla 1st DCA 1984.
///
22. Since jurisdiction is fundamental, and it is jurisdiction alone that gives a court power to hear, determine, and pronounce judgment on the issues before it, jurisdiction must be continuing in the court throughout the proceedings [meaning at the time charges were lodged], Re. Cavitt, 254 P.599
23. Since jurisdiction is fundamental to any valid judicial proceeding, the first question that must be determined by a trial court in any case is that of jurisdiction [of he charging entity], Dillon v. Dillon, 187 P,27.
24. “A universal principle as old as the law is that a proceedings of a court [or the charging entity] without jurisdiction are a nullity and its judgment therein without effect either on person or property.” Norwood v. Renfield, 34 C 329; Ex parte Giambonini, 49 P. 732.
25. “Jurisdiction is fundamental and a judgment rendered by a court that does not have jurisdiction to hear [due to lack of jurisdiction of charging entity] is void ab initio.” In Re Application of Wyatt, 300 P. 132; Re Cavitt, 118 P2d 846.
26. “A court has no jurisdiction to determine its own jurisdiction, for a basic issue in any case before a tribunal is its power to act, and a court must have the authority to decide that question in the first instance.” Rescue Army v. Municipal Court of Los Angeles, 171 P2d 8; 331 US 549, 91 L. ed. 1666, 67 S.Ct. 1409.
27. “A departure by a court from those recognized and established requirements of law, however close apparent adherence to mere form in method of procedure, which has the effect of depriving one of a constitutional right, is an excess of jurisdiction.” Wuest v. Wuest, 127 P2d 93 4, 937.
28. “Where a court failed to observe safeguards, it amounts to denial of due process of law, court is deprived of juris.” Merritt v. Hunter, C.A. Kansas 170 F2d 739.
29. “The fact that the petitioner was released on a promise to appear before a magistrate for an arraignment, that fact is circumstance to be considered in determining whether in first instance there was a probable cause for the arrest.” Monroe v. Papa, DC, Ill. 1963, 221 F Supp 685.
30. A motion to set aside a judgment as void for lack of jurisdiction is not subject to the time limitations of Rule 60(b). See Garcia v. Garcia, 712 P.2d 288 (Utah 1986).
31. A judgment is void, and therefore subject to relief under Rule 60(b)(4), only if the court that rendered judgment lacked jurisdiction or in circumstances in which the court’s action amounts to a plain usurpation of power constituting a violation of due process. United States v. Boch Oldsmobile, Inc., 909 F.2d 657, 661 (1st Cir. 1990)
32. Where Rule 60(b)(4) is properly invoked on the basis that the underlying judgment is void, “‘relief is not a discretionary matter; it is mandatory.'” Orner v. Shalala, 30 F.3d 1307, 1310 (10th Cir. 1994) (quoting V.T.A., Inc. v. Airco, Inc., 597 F.2d 220, 224 n.8 (10th Cir. 1979)).
33. In order for a judgment to be void, there must be some jurisdictional defect in the court’s authority to enter the judgment, either because the court lacks personal jurisdiction or because it lacks jurisdiction over the subject matter of the suit. Puphal v. Puphal, 105 Idaho 302, 306, 669 P.2d 191, 195 (1983); Dragotoiu, 133 Idaho at 647, 991 P.2d at 379.
34. A void judgment is one that has been procured by extrinsic or collateral fraud or entered by a court that did not have jurisdiction over the subject matter or the parties. Rook v. Rook, 233 Va. 92, 95, 353 S.E.2d 756, 758 (1987)
35. “Though not specifically alleged, defendant’s challenge to subject matter jurisdiction implicitly raised claim that default judgment against him was void and relief should be granted under FRCP Rule 60(b)(4).” Honneus v. Donovan, 93 F.R.D. 433, 436-37 (1982), aff’d, 691 F.2d 1 (1st Cir. 1982).
36. “A judgment is void if the court acted in a manner inconsistent with due process. A void judgment is a nullity and may be vacated at any time.” 261 Kan. at 862.
37. Although Rule 60(b)(4) is ostensibly subject to the “reasonable” time limit of Rule 60(b), at least one court has held that no time limit applies to a motion under the Rule 60(b)(4) because a void judgment can never acquire validity through laches. See Crosby v. Bradstreet Co., 312 F.2d 483 (2nd Cir.) cert. denied, 373 U.S. 911, 83 S.Ct. 1300, 10 L.Ed.2d 412 (1963) where the court vacated a judgment as void 30 years after entry. See also Marquette Corp. v. Priester, 234 F.Supp. 799 (E.D.S.C.1964) where the court expressly held that FRCP Rule 60(b)(4) carries no real time limit.
38. Jurisdiction is power to declare the law, and when it ceases to exist, the only function remaining to the court is that of announcing the fact and dismissing the cause.” Ex parte McCardle, 7 Wall. 506, 514 (1869). “On every writ of error or appeal, the first and fundamental question is that of jurisdiction, first, of this court, and then of the court from which the record comes. This question the court is bound to ask and answer for itself, even when not otherwise suggested, and without respect to the relation of the parties to it.” Great Southern Fire Proof Hotel Co. v. Jones, supra, at 453. The requirement that jurisdiction be established as a threshold matter “spring[s] from the nature and limits of the judicial power of the United States” and is “inflexible and without exception.” Mansfield, C. & L. M. R. Co. v. Swan, 111 U. S. 379, 382 (1884).Cited in Steel Co. v. Citizens for Better Environment, 523 US 83 – Supreme Court 1998.

39. “Statements of counsel in brief or in argument are not sufficient for motion to dismiss or for summary judgment,” Trinsey v. Pagliaro, D. C. Pa. 1964, 229 F. Supp. 647.

40. “An attorney for the plaintiff cannot admit evidence into the court. He is either an attorney or a witness”. (Trinsey v. Pagliaro D.C.Pa. 1964, 229 F. Supp. 647).

41. “Factual statements or documents appearing only in briefs shall not be deemed to be a part of the record in the case, unless specifically permitted by the Court” -Oklahoma Court Rules and Procedure, Federal local rule 7.1(h).

42, “Manifestly, [such statements] cannot be properly considered by us in the disposition of [a] case.” United States v. Lovasco (06/09/77) 431 U.S. 783, 97 S. Ct. 2044, 52 L. Ed. 2d 752,

43. “Under no possible view, however, of the findings we are considering can they be held to constitute a compliance with the statute, since they merely embody conflicting statements of counsel concerning the facts as they suppose them to be and their appreciation of the law which they deem applicable, there being, therefore, no attempt whatever to state the ultimate facts by a consideration of which we would be able to conclude whether or not the judgment was warranted.” Gonzales v. Buist. (04/01/12) 224 U.S. 126, 56 L. Ed. 693, 32 S. Ct.

44, “No instruction was asked, but, as we have said, the judge told the jury that they were to regard only the evidence admitted by him, not statements of counsel”, Holt v. United States, (10/31/10) 218 U.S. 245, 54 L. Ed. 1021, 31 S. Ct. 2, “The prosecutor is not a witness; and he should not be permitted to add to the record either by subtle or gross improprieties. Those who have experienced the full thrust of the power of government when leveled against them know that the only protection the citizen has is in the requirement for a fair trial.” Donnelly v. Dechristoforo, 1974.SCT.41709 ¶ 56; 416 U.S. 637 (1974) Mr. Justice Douglas, dissenting.

45. “Care has been taken, however, in summoning witnesses to testify, to call no man whose character or whose word could be successfully impeached by any methods known to the law. And it is remarkable, we submit, that in a case of this magnitude, with every means and resource at their command, the complainants, after years of effort and search in near and in the most remote paths, and in every collateral by-way, now rest the charges of conspiracy and of gullibility against these witnesses, only upon the bare statements of counsel. The lives of all the witnesses are clean, their characters for truth and veracity un-assailed, and the evidence of any attempt to influence the memory or the impressions of any man called, cannot be successfully pointed out in this record.” Telephone Cases. Dolbear v. American Bell Telephone Company, Molecular Telephone Company v. American Bell Telephone Company. American Bell Telephone Company v.. Molecular Telephone Company, Clay Commercial Telephone Company v. American Bell Telephone Company, People’s Telephone Company v. American Bell Telephone Company, Overland Telephone Company v. American Bell Telephone Company,. (PART TWO OF THREE) (03/19/88) 126 U.S. 1, 31 L. Ed. 863, 8 S. Ct. 778.
Proceeding at all times under Threat, Duress and Coercion,
Edward Reidhead
537 N 6th Street
Montebello, CALIFORNIA 90640
December 14, 2015

 

 

I Am Free! My Personal Sovereignty- Edward Reidhead


Hello Everyone :),

I am so happy to make this contribution to humanity this November 16, 2015!  I declare myself a Freeman!  I am born free…  I have always been free…  I am a Freeman on the Land!  Am I being clear…  I declare myself sovereign and independent…  free!  I feel this issue of my personal sovereignty is fundamental and of primacy.  Of prime concern to me in my life is my personal sovereignty…  I assert!  I am a freeman…  I am capable, I am of free will, I am of sound mind and I declare my Personal Sovereignty herewith.  I reflect on nature and I reflect on me…  I reflect on Natural Law and my Brother from another Mother, Mark Passio comes to mind.  After listening to Mark Passio talking about this and talking about that…  I chose to take action, I chose to publish this day my Declaration…  I do of free will share this with you few and with you All…  What is it like to vibrate in honor…  I create integrity and wholeness everywhere I am, everywhere I go…  Join me in my quest…  a quest to personal freedom and sovereignty…  here is my document the IRS forced me to serve to them and serve to the Executive branch of the United States of America, US Government herewith.  This gets to be the official post on my Declaration of Personal Sovereignty…  I Am Free!

Edward Reidhead

 

Edward Reidhead
537 N 6th Street
Montebello, CA 90640-3618
(562) 298-2406
November 16, 2015
IRS
PO Box 149338 St 5501
Austin, TX 78714-9338
Reference: 0866000000; of October 15, 2015 LTR 2801C
Reference SS# 562-53-3157

Edward Reidhead’s
CHALLENGE TO PRESUMED POLITICAL JURISDICTION
OVER HIM OF THE U.S. GOVERNMENT AND ITS IRS

Dear IRS,
1. In regard to the above reference, I am hereby presenting the IRS with my official detailed challenge to the United States Government and its IRS’s presumed political jurisdiction and authority over me.

2. Please be hereby advised, the Challenge I herein serve you with will be and is founded on Mathematically Certain Principles that I have never before presented to the IRS in the manner I present herein below. These arguments have never been ruled as frivolous by any Federal Court, to the contrary, the one time they were presented orally to a Federal District Court, that court put the matter on terminal hold forty-five years ago, to avoid addressing issues neither the U.S. Government or the IRS could refute or prevail against , and dared not lose.

3. Please be hereby advised, I strongly believe everyone should pay all and any tax that they properly owe, however, at the same time, I likewise strongly believe that there is no obligation to pay any tax that was not properly assessed or was assessed through fraud on the part of the government, including (but not limited to) enabling fraud initiated and perpetrated by State governments.

4. Please be assured, if the IRS can produce and present evidence to me, duly attested to by a living eyewitness, that I have a taxpayer obligation to the U.S. Government,
that I will then willingly pay any income tax I am proven to be liable to pay.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
5. First, unless otherwise indicated in this writing, all words used in this writing shall be construed to have the meaning commonly understood by common ordinary people in their ordinary day to day conversations, and no statutory or secret meaning shall be applied by the government in order to twist the meaning and intent of this writing. No Law Dictionary meaning shall be referred to in order to determine the meaning of any word used herein.

6. It is self evident and cannot be reasonably denied that all human beings (“P/persons”), are born free and politically independent, as a condition of Nature.

7. And, that in order for any Naturally Free Born Person to be subject to the political dominion of any government (such being an artificial entity created by mere men), such Free Born Individual must be either physically forced by criminally applied physical power or the threat thereof, or in some manner, intellectually enticed or coerced or surreptitiously or fraudulently indoctrinated to willingly submit himself to such government’s dominion by in some way being manipulated into assuming an artificial persona, such as United States citizenship or a True Legal Name.

8. Please carefully consider that the Thirteenth Amendment to the Federal Constitution embodies the following concepts:

Government Is Foreclosed from
Parity with Real People.
Basic Principles of the Thirteenth Amendment
“Inasmuch as every government is an artificial person, an abstraction, and a creature of the mind only, a government can interface only with other artificial persons.

“The imaginary, having neither actuality nor substance, is foreclosed from creating and attaining parity with the tangible.

“The legal manifestation of this is that no aspect of government, including as any law, agency, court, etc. can concern itself with anything other than corporate, and/or artificial persons and the contracts between them.” Author unknown.

9. As the United States presents itself as a country governed by laws compliant to its creating Constitution, I will reference aspects of that Constitution which, in acknowledgment of my Naturally Free Born Political Independence, establishes and acknowledges that I am free from such government’s dominion unless such government can present proof that I willingly and knowingly subjected myself to its dominion after being fully informed by such government of all the negative aspects and consequences of my purported voluntary subservience to its dominion.

RELEVANT IRREFUTABLE FACTS
GOVERNING ESTABLISHMENT OF POLITICAL AUTHORITY

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND
10. As established in the Thirteenth Amendment and acknowledged in the anonymous quotation in the reference herein above, in paragraph 8, it is irrefutably self evident that Governments are artificial political entities created by men.

11. It is likewise irrefutably self evident that the men creating such artificial political entities have no individual Naturally endowed authority to command the obedience, subservience or conformance of other men; and, no numeric combination of such creators can reasonably enable them to create such authority based merely on their mutual association. Zero + zero = zero, no matter how many zeros are added, the total will always be zero!

12. On July 4, 1776, the British subjects living in the Thirteen British Colonies of North America revolted against their British Monarch, King George III, and deposed him, thereby each of such former British subjects immediately became individually free and politically independent and politically sovereign over their own individual persons, with none of them, or any combination thereof, having any authority to command the obedience, subservience or conformance of any other; and, no combination of such men could reasonably create authority to command others to obey or conform to the command(s) of any such combination, without the voluntary submission of those “others”. See ¶ 8, herein above.

AS AN ASIDE:
13. In regard to voting, unless all those voting individually agree prior to any vote, to individually submit themselves to the outcome, such outcome cannot reasonably require the conformance of any non-voter or voter who did not agree o conform prior thereto; consider this question:

“How many men voting, would it take to properly and democratically vote the panties off an unwilling woman?”
///
14. The foregoing question clearly and irrefutably establishes that voting is a criminal act any time the outcome is purported to require the conformance of the otherwise unwilling! (Except as provided in the 14th Amendment, whereunder a fully informed voluntary intentional claim of United States citizenship would negate any criminality of the application of vote outcome to U.S. citizen non-voters, as will be addressed herein below).

BACK TO THE PRESENTATION OF
HISTORICAL BACKGROUND
15. In writing the Preamble to the Federal Constitution, the Framers thereof established and set forth therein, the purpose of the Constitution, which was/is (as stated therein), to secure the Blessings of Liberty to Themselves and Their Posterity. Surreptitiously therein the Founders created the Sovereign Political Class as being the People of the United States (pay attention to the words!).

16. The Preamble (in relevant part):

“We the People of the United States … in order to Secure the Blessings of Liberty to Ourselves and Our Posterity … do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

17. This wording is self evidently both limiting and exclusionary, pertaining only to the People of the United States and THEIR Posterity, and does NOT mention or include or imply the inclusion of the application of such protection to any individual(s) who might, through naturalization or otherwise, volunteer themselves into the lower political status of citizen of the United States, being a subservient political status, likewise surreptitiously created in the Constitution by the Founders, in Section Two of Article One thereof (pay attention to the words!). But the unlimited degree of subservience inherent in claiming United States citizenship was NOT established or defined until 1868, in the 14th Amendment.

18. Although the word “People” does not usually carry any inherent political implication (as does the word “citizen”), the word “People” can be imbued with a political meaning when used in a context intentionally formulated for that purpose, as is self evidently the intention in this instance in the Constitution’s Preamble. (Pay attention to the words!).

19. It is significant here to again take notice that the Founders specifically reserved the application of the Constitution’s securing of the Blessings of Liberty to Themselves and THEIR Posterity – NOT the posterity of any other heritage linage! This specifically excludes any and all immigrants and their posterity and even excludes the posterity of those born of the People Class who might elect to unknowingly and unintentionally “voluntarily” designate themselves as citizens of the United States. (Pay attention to the words!).

20. The Thirteenth Amendment to the Federal Constitution proclaims Natural Law as being part of the Constitution, being that the government of the United States and the governments of the Several States, have no authority to command, in any manner, the subservience of any individual, political or otherwise. That is, “Involuntary servitude shall not exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction”. Please note that the Thirteenth Amendment does NOT prohibit voluntary servitude; i.e., voluntary citizenship. See ¶ 8, hereof.

21. The Fourteenth Amendment to the Federal Constitution does NOT declare that anyone born in the United States to automatically becomes a citizen of the United States due simply to such birth (again, pay attention to the words!).

22. The Fourteenth Amendment does define United States citizenship (such citizens being those persons who have been naturalized or, if born in the United States, have individually intentionally taken some “voluntary” official action, or un-intentionally and unknowingly done so, causing themselves to thereby become “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”), and such Amendment declares the duties of such citizens, to pay the public debt, without question (in the Fourth Article thereof) (again, pay attention to the words!).

SYNOPSIS
23. The above constitute irrefutable historical evidence that the government of this country was created by ordinary men who had no ability to imbue the government they created with authority in excess of that which they were, individually, Naturally endowed, which would enable them to command the political subservience of other men; therefore, in order for other men to become subservient, such other men would have to be, in some manner, enticed or indoctrinated, to volunteer themselves into or cause themelves to believe they were born naturally into political subservience.

MODERN INDUCEMENT OF SUBSERVIENCE
ADDITIONAL IRREFUTABLE FACTS
EXPOSING FRAUDULENT INDOCTRINATION
24. When born human babies have no knowledge or frame of reference in regard to any issue what-so-ever; that is, such babies have no cognitive ability to take note of when they were born, where they were born or who their own mother was, nor to be aware even, that they had just been born or what their gender is, or that there are gender differences;

25. That is, due to the foregoing, no one, no matter their age , intelligence or education, has any ability to “know” “who they are” or where they originated from!
26. Additionally, neither do such human babies or small children, or even including adolescents and teenagers, have any frame of reference to enable them to determine whether what they are being taught or exposed to in public schools or elsewhere, is good for them or merely good for those “adults” who are in a position to indoctrinate such young humans into a mind-set of political subservience.

27. This condition is irrevocably true and continues no matter the age of the individual or what information the individual becomes aware of later in life. To “believe” is NOT equivalent to knowledge obtained by cognitive observation or actual intelligent participation.

28. No human baby has/had any ability to consider or choose “his” own name.

29. No human baby has/had any ability to participate in the creation of a certificate recording or registering his own birth.

30. No human baby has/had any ability to file a certificate of his birth with a government office.

31. It is widely known and recognized that the parents of human babies are most usually, the persons who determine the name by which their new-born children shall be known.

32. It is widely known and recognized that the creators of intellectual property are the natural owners of such property.

33. Based on the foregoing, it is thereupon self evident that upon the parents creation of a name by which their new-born child shall be known, that the parents are (or would be if they were alerted to this fact by an honest government), the Natural owner of such name (the parents would be the owner of the name, NOT owners of the child – children are NOT property).

34. No human baby or minor child has/had any ability to own any property other than the parts of their own body.

35. Nature provides all human babies with arms, legs, fingers and toes, all attached to and are clearly the property of the baby.

36. No human baby has/had any ability to legally own the name entered on a certificate of his birth by his parents or whomever else may have conjured up such name.

37. Nature does NOT provide or attach a name to any human baby.

38. That is, human babies have no ability to own the name entered on a certificate created in regard to their birth, if any.

39. Birth certificates recorded with the government do not include a claim of ownership of the name entered thereon by the parents; nor do such birth certificates include any contact information enabling the state to contact the parents at a later time in regard to the parents ownership of, or abandoning of the parents ownership of the name entered on such birth certificates.

40. All Fifty of the States of the United States have a statute pertaining to the states disposition of abandoned property. In the state where I live, Arkansas, that statute is under Title 18, Chapter 28, Section 202.

41. Section 202 is a general “catch all” section, whereunder the state of Arkansas becomes the owner of all abandoned property not specified in any preceding section.

42. This “catch all” section would include all names entered on birth certificates filed in Arkansas, five years after such birth certificates are filed with the government of Arkansas.

HOW STATES ATTAINS “VOLUNTARY”
SUBSERVIENCE OF FREE BORN PEOPLE
THROUGH FRAUDULENT INDOCTRINATION
43. In the government’s indoctrination centers, euphemistically known as public schools, children are fraudulently indoctrinated to believe that they were born into United States citizenship, contrary to the provisions of both the Thirteenth and Fourteenth amendments to the Federal Constitution.

44. And likewise contrary to the Natural politically independent status of every person; imbued into them upon their birth; (please see ¶ 8, herein above), And;

45. During the course of their development and “education”, the government “schools” indoctrinate children to believe such children must present “their” birth certificate in order to be issued a driver license in order to operate the child’s own automobile (or other vehicle).

46. Upon attaining the age of sixteen years, the child, then a young adult, but none the less, still an adult, old enough to be held accountable by society for his conduct, and his voluntary entered into agreements, or contracts, the young adult presents himself to the government’s local driver license issuing office to apply for the issuance to him by the state, of a driver license, or so he has been fraudulently indoctrinated to believe in the government’s indoctrination centers, AKA: “public schools”.
///
///
47. Unknown and intentionally unrevealed to the young adult at that time, is the fact that the state at that time, has no authority to require the young adult to procure a driver license in order for the young adult to operate his own automobile or other vehicle.

48. This is true because at that moment of time Natural Law (as set forth in explanatory writing cited herein above in paragraph 8), and as clearly embodied in the Federal Thirteenth Amendment, deprives the state of any authority to enforce any such requirement on Free Born individuals who have not, as adults, voluntarily agreed to be subservient to the government of the State, or subservient to the government of the United States.

49. The question here is:

“Why does the government require a driver license applicant to present a birth certificate in order to be issued a driver license when there is no information on any birth certificate that can serve to connect such document to any specific individual?”

50. Additionally prompted question: “As there is no information on such document that would be required in order for the state to create a positive identification of the individual, to enable the individual to be later positively identified, so why then the State’s birth certificate presentation requirement?”

51. The forgoing questions are especially relevant when it is considered and acknowledged that the ownership of the most significant information on a birth certificate, being the name entered thereon, is most certainly not the legally owned property of the driver license applicant.

52. Under the rules established under the State’s abandoned property statutes, the ownership of the name by the creator has been abandoned due to lack of maintaining any official ownership claim, which makes it most likely that ownership of the name has been assumed by the state under the state’s disposition of abandoned property statute; again, in Arkansas, where I live, the state’s ownership of the name seemingly occurs under Title 18, Chapter 28, Section 202, five years after the document is recorded with the state.

53. Could it be more clearly self evident that the state’s requirement of the presentation of “his” birth certificate by a driver license applicant, where the state has become the apparent owner of the name entered thereon, that such requirement constitutes the means whereby the state surreptitiously causes the applicant to unknowingly apply to the state to issue him a franchise license to use such seemingly state owned name, whereby such name is deemed to thereby be the applicant’s “True Legal Name”; causing the applicant to have unknowingly volunteered himself to thereafter be acting under an artificial persona and thereby caused himself to become subservient to the state in every activity when acting in the role of that artificial persona.

54. This is a condition commonly known as “citizenship”, but not legally established as such. What this driver license “ceremony” actually does is establish a “voluntary” subservient contractual relationship of the former free born individual to the state, as a licensed franchisee.

55. By using this surreptitious procedure, the State has gained the “voluntary” subservience of the individual without the state’s open and notorious violation of the prohibition of involuntary servitude provision of the Federal Thirteenth Amendment.

56. Additionally, this is clearly an intentional flagrant violation by all Fifty of the Several States, of the self evident principle set forth and explained in paragraph 8, herein above, and as embodied in the 13th Amendment.

HOW THIS APPLIES TO ME
IN REGARD TO THE IRS
57. The Federal Thirteenth Amendment’s prohibition of involuntary servitude acknowledges that everyone born on the land area of North America, claimed by the United States government to be under its political dominion, are born free and clear of any political subservience to any political entity, as does the anonymous explanatory writing in paragraph 8 herein above.

58. In order for me to (at this time), be subservient to the government of the United States and its IRS, the government of the United States must present its proof that I knowingly and willingly, having been fully informed of all of the negative consequences thereof prior thereto, and then intentionally gave up the free and independent status I was born with, to willingly surrender myself to the political whimsy of the government of the United States or the state wherein I live.

59. It is not incumbent upon me to prove I am not subject to the IRS, it is for the IRS to prove I am.

60. No statute enacted by Congress can establish such condition; and neither can any Section of the IRS Code, as none of the foregoing can apply to me until AFTER written proof that I knowingly and willingly, intentionally volunteered myself into such condition is presented to me by the IRS, from its existing files and records.

61. Moreover, any purported proof presented by the IRS must be supported by the sworn testimony of a real live eyewitness, who can and will testify as having personally witnessing my intentional voluntary act of subservience, after such witness observed a government officer explain to me what I was giving up and what all the negative consequences were that are incumbent in United States citizenship.

62. I claim my Political Status to be of the Posterity of the Rebels of July 4, 1776, being among the former subjects of King George III, who rebelled against and denounced said King on that Glorious Day!

63. As a member of such Posterity, I claim as my Common Law right of inheritance, that the Government of the United States must accord me my right to live here free from government interference, on the land secured by my antecedents successful rebellion, and on such other land acquired as a direct result thereof, which shall include all Fifty of the Several States, and all island possessions of the United States, but shall not be limited thereto.

64. As for my proof of such status, I have no proof other than my existence here and my claim thereof. No person can claim their origin, not any staff member of the IRS or any justices of the Supreme Court or even the President of the United States. Our mere claim of out origin and status is all that is required. The presentation of a birth certificate proves nothing as the person presenting it cannot prove such document was created in regard to their birth. Such documents are accepted as proof only because it serves the dishonest purpose of the state to do so.

65. Additionally, as the government of the United States and the government of Arkansas have conspired together to fraudulently indoctrinate me, in order to fraudulently deny me my Natural Political independence, I claim, under the Law of Necessity, my right to continue to use any and all documentation and information issued to me by either or any government agency of any and every description, such as a driver license, Social Security Number, Passports and/or any and all other similar item, which may be “required” by any monetary institution or professional association or employer or police or sheriff’s entities, or to enable me to travel to and return from any foreign country.

66. This application of the Law of Necessity is recognized by the Supreme Court of the United States in the case, Holy Trinity Church vs. United States 143 U.S. 457, 12 S.Ct. 511, 36 L.Ed. 226, Feb. 29, 1892, wherein SCOTUS opined that when the strict application of the letter of a statute would result in an absurd outcome, such statute must be construed in a manner to avoid the absurdity.

67. I freely acknowledge that I am subject to be held accountable for any violation of the Common Law crimes of rape, robbery, murder, or trespass, in any Common Law Court created by my Common Law Peers (but NOT in or under any statutory court of any nature what-so-ever, created under any manner of statute by any political government of the United States or by any of its member states).

Proceeding at all times under Threat, Duress and Coercion,
Edward Reidhead
537 N 6th Street
Montebello, CA 90640-3618
(562) 298-2406
November 16, 2015

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,037 other followers

%d bloggers like this: