Illinois Legislature Votes to Eliminate Right of Religious Freedom from COVID Rejection Measures

But leave it to Congress to start meddling in stuff they shouldn’t, like creating different classes of citizens

People v. Horton 14 Cal. App. 3rd 667 (1971) “A “US Citizen” upon leaving the District of Columbia becomes involved in “interstate commerce”, as a “resident” does not have the common-law right to travel, of a Citizen of one of the several states.”

U.S. v. Anthony 24 Fed. 829 (1873) "The term resident and citizen of the United States is distinguished from a Citizen of one of the several states, in that the former is a special class of citizen created by Congress."

But they think they own you because they created “you”

Therefore, all U.S. citizens [i.e. citizens of the District of Columbia] residing in one of the states of the Union, are classified as property and franchisees of the federal government, and as an “individual entity.” See Wheeling Steel Corp. v. Fox 298 U.S. 193, 80 L.Ed. 1143, 56 S.Ct. 773. Under the “Buck Act,” 4 U.S.C Secs. 105-113, the federal government has created a “Federal area” within the boundaries of the several states.

OP used to be a Qtard so dont hold your breath but thank you for posting this because I was not aware of the case law way back from 1873

I am aware of how this Republic was sold and bought out in 1871 by the Queen of England but was not aware of the legal precedent that was set just 2 years later to cement that treasonous treachery in stone

Can you please provide a link to this or perhaps make another thread highlighting this case law so we can arm ourselves with this legal ammo

It should be treason that public schools dont teach this, but then again this proves that Lincoln didnt abolish slavery, he just made it legal for corporations to own all races, to become their slaves

LAWFUL ammo

Lawful: That which is created by the People under Common Law, to uphold “right and wrong” and “justice”, and containing the precepts of Common Law: To live honourably, to hurt nobody, to render to everyone his/her due. Case Law. Trial by Jury. De jure. The Law of the Land.

Legal: That which is created by government Legislation for the purpose of governing Legal Persons of every artificial kind. The rules and regulations of Statutory Acts, forming contracts by consent. Having the “colour of law”. Commercial. De facto. The Law of the Sea.

This is the best piece I’ve found on the subject that literally explain everything with lol the supporting case law to go with it. Mind you it very long and you maybe have to reread some of it, but the knowledge gained is well worth it

[link to johnhenryhill.wordpress.com (secure)]

Good ol 14th amendment

1868 – The 14th Amendment defined a two new legal entities: a “citizen of the United States” and a ‘person’, both subject to the federal government jurisdiction as “agents/officers” and/or “employees” of government. It then stated that no state could infringe or deprive any “U.S. citizen” or “person” of their “privileges and immunities” as U.S. citizens. Of great importance was the use of the terms “”privileges” and “immunities”, as opposed to “rights”. As “persons” or “citizens” (that is, agents or employees) of the private, foreign United States corporation, they had NO rights within that corporation. They possessed only privileges granted to them by that private, foreign corporation called the United States.

Section 1: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, AND subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States, and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws..”

It defined a new legal entity: a “citizen of the United States” as 1.) a person naturalized or born within the United States AND 2.) “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”, that is, “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States”. Note that BOTH conditions must be fulfilled to be considered a “U.S. citizen”. Consequently, any man claiming the status of a “U.S. citizen” is affirming that he was born or naturalized in the United States AND that he is subject to the jurisdiction of the private corporation called the United States and its statutes and courts, thereby exercising his unlimited right to contract and voluntarily waiving his rights under the Common Law and guaranteed by the Constitution.

Gee, when the Republicans try to do something like this it's all "Separation of church and state" bullshit.

Essentially the colonies were corporatized and then bought back by the Royal Family which is why the Federal Reserve and medical establishments like the CDC are private amalgamations as a de facto legal firewall so the government can infringe on our rights through their subsidiaries making industrialized unconstitutionality perfectly legal

It seems now America has been sold to China in a hostile corporate takeover of our economy knowing damn well our politicians will never be able to pay back 20 trillion dollars

Thread: Trump: If I lose the election, you're going to have to learn to speak Chinese (Page 2)

No legislature can vote to eliminate a right they have no power to impose.
Those rights do not come from law…or from man

So essentially the colonies were corporatized and then bought back by the Royal Family which is why the Federal Reserve and medical establishments like the CDC are private amalgamations as a de facto legal firewall so the government can infringe on our rights through their subsidiaries making industrialized unconstitutionality perfectly legal

It seems now America has been sold to China in a hostile corporate takeover of our economy knowing damn well our politicians will never be able to pay back 20 trillion dollars

Thread: Trump: If I lose the election, you're going to have to learn to speak Chinese (Page 2)

To quote the Supreme Court, "No fiction can make a natural born subject." Milvaine v. Coxe's Lessee, 8 U.S. 598 (1808). That is to say, no fiction, be it a government, a corporation, a legislated statute or act, or an administrative regulation, can mutate a natural born Sovereign into someone who is subject to his own creations.

Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis, testimony before the Committee on Interstate Commerce, 1911. (102) “Behind the visible government there is an invisible government upon the throne that owes the people no loyalty and recognizes no responsibility. To destroy this invisible government, to undo the ungodly union between corrupt business and corrupt politics is the task of a statesman

You tell that to the officer that has qualified immunity to obey whatever unlawful order they're told as we have seen in Texas just last year where another citizen was arrested for not wearing a mask just like the decorated disabled combat veteran that was beaten by a police officer who was also a fellow veteran (marine) for not wearing a mask during a mask protest at the Riverwalk Mall

Why do you care ? I am certain that you didn’t have any sincerely held religious objections anyway.

U.S. v. Throckmorton, 98 US 61 WHEREAS, officials and even judges have no immunity (See, Owen vs. City of Independence, 100 S Ct. 1398; Maine vs. Thiboutot, 100 S. Ct. 2502; and Hafer vs. Melo, 502 U.S. 21; officials and judges are deemed to know the law and sworn to uphold the law; officials and judges cannot claim to act in good faith in willful deprivation of law, they certainly cannot plead ignorance of the law, even the Citizen cannot plead ignorance of the law, the courts have ruled there is no such thing as ignorance of the law, it is ludicrous for learned officials and judges to plead ignorance of the law therefore there is no immunity, judicial or otherwise, in matters of rights secured by the Constitution for the United States of America. See: Title 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983. "When lawsuits are brought against federal officials, they must be brought against them in their "individual" capacity not their official capacity. When federal officials perpetrate constitutional torts, they do so ultra vires (beyond the
powers) and lose the shield of immunity."

Title 18 -241. Conspiracy against rights

If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same; or

IF TWO OR MORE PERSONS GO IN DISGUISE ON THE HIGHWAY,

or on the premises of another, with intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege so secured- They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death. (JjjjJune 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 696 ; Pub. L. 90–284, title I, §103(a), Apr. 11, 1968, 82 Stat. 75 ; Pub. L. 100–690, title VII, §7018(a), (b)(1), Nov. 18, 1988, 102 Stat. 4396 ; Pub. L. 103–322, title VI, §60006(a), title XXXII, §§320103(a), 320201(a), title XXXIII, §330016(1)(L), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 1970 , 2109, 2113, 2147; Pub. L. 104–294, title VI, §§604(b)(14)(A), 607(a), Oct. 11, 1996, 110 Stat. 3507 , 3511.)

[link to www.law.cornell.edu (secure)]

Title 18- 242. Deprivation of rights UNDER COLOR OF LAW

Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death. (June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 696 ; Pub. L. 90–284, title I, §103(b), Apr. 11, 1968, 82 Stat. 75 ; Pub. L. 100–690, title VII, §7019, Nov. 18, 1988, 102 Stat. 4396 ; Pub. L. 103–322, title VI, §60006(b), title XXXII, §§320103(b), 320201(b), title XXXIII, §330016(1)(H), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 1970 , 2109, 2113, 2147; Pub. L. 104–294, title VI, §§604(b)(14)(B), 607(a), Oct. 11, 1996, 110 Stat. 3507 , 3511.)

The color of law is defined as any authority using his or her power to willfully deprive a person of his or her rights and privileges protected by the U.S. Constitution. It is designed to protect individuals of their rights. Authority figures including police officers, judges, security guards, mayors, city council members, members of Congress must abide by the color of law. Those who break it are charged with a federal crime.

[link to www.law.cornell.edu (secure)]

28 U.S. Code § 454. Practice of law by justices and judges

Any justice or judge appointed under the authority of the United States who engages in the practice of law is guilty of a high misdemeanor.

(June 25, 1948, ch. 646, 62 Stat. 908.)

[link to www.law.cornell.edu (secure)]

I cant imagine what I signed when I enlisted in the Army

If I was permitted to make another account, I would buy you a year's membership here brother

I don't even want to know what you know about UCMJ or JAG

Throughout history there have always been legions of men who will obey the orders of other men. That is how evil flourishes and that is why the Founders of our nation described human rights as inherent…and “ inalienable” not granted by law or by man, but to be recognized and protected. Apparently the Illinois Legislature has no great orators and moralists such as produced the American nation 250 years ago.

Last Edited by Dodger007 on 10/31/2021 03:52 PM

I signed the same THICK stack, and I blaséd right through it.

Not necessary but thanks, just spread the word.

Will it change the way they treat us? Absolutely not but if enough of “the people” are empowered by TRUE LAW there may be more of a chance to turn this all around, still I don’t hold my breath

One of my favorites from the UCMJ

The Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) 809.ART.90 (20), makes it clear that military personnel need to obey the “lawful command of his superior officer,” 891.ART.91 (2), the “lawful order of a warrant officer”, 892.ART.92 (1) the “lawful general order”, 892.ART.92 (2) “lawful order”. In each case, military personnel have an obligation and a duty to only obey Lawful orders and indeed have an OBLIGATION TO DISOBEY UNLAWFUL ORDERS EVEN BY THE PRESIDENT THAT DO NOT COMPLY WITH THE UCMJ. The moral and legal obligation is to the U.S. Constitution and not to those who would issue unlawful orders, especially if those orders are in direct violation of the Constitution and the UCMJ.

Last Edited by dRocballer on 10/31/2021 03:59 PM

Myself as well

I admire your optimism

20 trillion dollars is just the tip of the iceberg then considering that I was already well aware that we weren't in Kansas anymore but this is next level

China knows we cant pay

Our children will

I know we’re fucked, I don’t pretend to think otherwise.

The spending is gonna get crazier and crazier, we haven’t seen anything yet.

Our children will, if they’re still around

Our children's children will pay with their lives through the international human trafficking and organ harvesting operation that the elite has already had in place for decades involving the thousands of sanctuary cities that are flourishing in blue and red states

Yup, basically what I was getting at

Gonna have to tear it all down to rebuild, but not that “bbb” crap.

Tar and feathering, draw and quartering…..you get my drift

They way legalese is worded proves theyre trying to con us into participating in this scam

I am still digging in those links you provided, you're exactly right that it is a lot to unpack that our entire reality has been scripted a lot longer than I knew

I will definitely have to read this twice if not three times and even then I am not so sure

Thread: Donald Trump's Granddaughter Arabella Kushner Sings Chinese Song Jasmine in Mar-a-Lago Resort Florida, at US-China Summit with Chinese President

Uhh they cannot that'll violate the federal Constitution.

Roger that brother

As a GLPer here so eloquently stated back when Trump surrendered the White House to commies on January 20th:

"We aint voting our way out of this"

Full On Communism Now!

Communist are fundamentally atheistic. Religious Waivers mean nothing to these people.

“The United States government is a foreign corporation with respect to a state.” In re Merriam, 36 N.E. 505, 141 N.Y. 479, affirmed 16 S.Ct. 1073, 163 U.S. 625, 41 L.Ed. 287; 20 C.J.S., Section 1785. Title 28, United States Code, Section 297 defines the several States of the union as being “freely associated compact states” in subsection (a), and then refers to these freely associated compact states as being “countries” in subsection(b).

In 1818, the Supreme Court stated that “In the United States of America, there are two (2) separated and distinct jurisdictions, such being the jurisdiction of the states within their own state boundaries, and the other being federal jurisdiction (United States), which is limited to the District of Columbia, the U.S. Territories, and federal enclaves within the states, under Article I, Section 8, Clause 17.” U.S. v. Bevans, 16 U.S. (3 WHEAT) 336 (1818), reaff. 19 U.S.C.A., section 1401(h).

“The idea prevails with some — indeed, it found expression in arguments at the bar — that we have in this country substantially or practically two national governments; one, to be maintained under the Constitution, with all its restrictions; the other to be maintained by Congress outside and independently of that instrument, by exercising such powers as other nations of the earth are accustomed to exercise.” Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244, supra.

There’s two “constitutions”

For the

And

of the

Last Edited by dRocballer on 10/31/2021 04:50 PM