Power Independence Home 
Home Search search Menu menu Not logged in - Login | Register

 Moderated by: Joe Kelley
New Topic Reply Printer Friendly
Special Assignment  Rating:  Rating
 Posted: Mon Feb 10th, 2014 11:18 pm
  PM Quote Reply
1st Post
Joe Kelley

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6398
Updating the Marshal Assignment:

Returning into my view as I return to the subject matter of the U.S. Marshal is the concept of "relation back" or Hierarchy of True Authority, and this return to this idea has to do with The Creator and The Created.

The concept of Authority is a concept of The Power of Creation having Authority over that which is Created by the Power of Creation.

An opposing idea is the idea whereby that which is created has Authority over The Power of Creation.

I do not intend to argue which of the opposing ideas has authority over the other idea.

1. Power of Creation has Authority over that which is Created
2. That which is Created by the Power of Authority has Authority over The Power of Creation

That is not an argument so much as it is a demonstrable fact to be demonstrated as fact in time and place. I don't see any need to argue, and I see a need to employ the most likely facts in this case. In this case there was an event whereby a Constitution was Created by The Power to Create a Constitution. People who acknowledged the idea of The Creator (or God) commanding the highest Authority (or the Power to Create and the Power to Destroy or Un-Create) were the people who assumed, or took, or commanded the Power to Create the Constitution, and these people also acknowledge that The People have Power over The Constitution, in that Constitution those People Created.

Exhibits A, B, C, D, and E:

Magna Carta



Magna Carte (Translation into English):

John, by the grace of God, king of England.
There has been challenges of Authority since Magna Carte along the lines of the idea that there is no Divine Right of Kings; so this Exhibit merely serves to establish the acknowledgement of the Highest Authority having been acknowledged in time (June 15, 1215) and place (England).

1. In the first place we have granted to God,
It should be clearly understood that people can choose to be very devious. People can choose to say one thing one minute, and then say the opposite thing the next minute, and people can actually accomplish the goal of deceiving themselves; whereby people can believe one thing one minute and the opposite thing the next minute.

1. God is the highest authority
2. Because I say so (therefore I am the highest authority)

People, in other words, can claim to be God, and those claims can be made by people who know that their claims are false as well as people who make those claims whereby those people actually believe their own lies.

Sound advice from one of the links in Exhibit A:

Abuses by King John caused a revolt by nobles who compelled him to execute this recognition of rights for both noblemen and ordinary Englishmen. It established the principle that no one, including the king or a lawmaker, is above the law.
The idea there is such that it is easy to spot a criminal. Criminals confess their criminal minds. Criminals claim to be Gods, above the law, as if their claims can somehow become true because they say so.

Who says that that they, alone, are above Natural Law?

If I say I can defy gravity, does that become true because I say so?

Magna Carta establishes the fact in time and place whereby no one, not even kings, are above the law, and this is a significant event in History, as if saying: Even Kings can be honest once in the history of people on this planet.

Meanwhile, in England, trial by jury and common law worked as people used that process in their own defense against criminals.

In Exhibit A there is an opinion offered in one of those links:

This is but one of three different translations I found of the Magna Carta; it was originally done in Latin, probably by the Archbishop, Stephen Langton. It was in force for only a few months, when it was violated by the king. Just over a year later, with no resolution to the war, the king died, being succeeded by his 9-year old son, Henry III. The Charter (Carta) was reissued again, with some revisions, in 1216, 1217 and 1225. As near as I can tell, the version presented here is the one that preceeded all of the others; nearly all of it's provisions were soon superceded by other laws, and none of it is effective today.

The two other versions I found each professed to be the original, as well. The basic intent of each is the same.

Gerald Murphy (The Cleveland Free-Net - aa300)

People fled like runaway slaves from England, as people were being willfully injured by criminals in England, whereby the criminals in England were claiming to be the so called government, despite earlier confessions by criminals (Kings) that no one is above the Law, not even Kings.

Exhibit B:
The Declaration of Independence

I know that this effort on my part is wandering off the subject of U.S. Marshal, but there will always be challenges of authority because so many criminals exist and they so often claim to be above the Law, so it is important to be able to expose such false claims on time and place.

The people speak:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
In time (July 4, 1776) and in place (this country we call America) the people express their authority within the limits of authority as well as any people anywhere in the history of people on this planet. Below people are governments. Above people are powers that are above people.

Is that not simple?

So the hierarchy of authority is such that God (or Natural Laws such a gravity) are above people, and then there are people under that power of authority, and then people are above government, and some people know this, and some people claim otherwise.

People, without exception, are above their own governments

Some people, liars, or criminals, or the insane, or those who claim to be Gods, are people who claim to BE GOVERNMENT, and their claims, according to them, place everyone else below them.

How about a simpler conflict of interest using letters instead of numbers?

Honest people agreeing to be nice to each other, while honest people recognize that there are criminals among us, so honest people agree to defense each other, so honest people create government as a power that is useful in defense of the innocent as well as a power that defends criminals when criminals agree to be nice.

Criminals invent and maintain their willful injuries upon anyone targeted by criminals, and a very serious crime is the crime of counterfeiting defensive government because the victims are led to believe that the criminals are honestly working in defense of people.

No, you say, Joe, you say, that is not simpler.

It is not simpler because the criminals are very good at leading the innocent victims into abject belief in falsehood without question.

Exhibit C
The Articles of Confederation


Many people in this country that we call America are led to believe that The Constitution of The United States followed The Declaration of Independence (creating U.S. Marshals) and that is false, or at best that is half true.

In between The Declaration of Independence and The U.S. Constitution are The Articles of Confederation whereby there were no U.S. Marshals created.


U.S. Marshals and The Constitution

I was asked by you to produce a possible replacement for that document.

While I worked on that project I consumed most of the day on that alone and the following is the result of that effort now offered for consideration as I seek to supply something to meet the demand for something.

I know, again, that my goal wandered from the original goal, however my intent remains to be a final product that eventually includes specific information concerning U.S. Marshals.

Before cutting and pasting my own report, the following link on Posse Comitatus

1 More Than You Ever Wanted to Know About Posse Comitatus

That may be more valuable to you than my own verbose offers of too many words which follow now:


Federal or County

Statute Enforcers


Common Law Defenders of The People

The U.S. Marshal is an enforcer of Federal Statute. A Sheriff by contrast is an enforcer of County Statute. In cases of conflict between Federal Statute and County Statute there is potential benefit in understanding how those jurisdictions are defined by those office holders. Well before a trial by jury is demanded in defense of the people: common law grand jury administrators may call upon the U.S. Marshal or a County Sheriff for help in defense of the people. Which of the two officers are called for help in which cases and why is one officer relevant in one case while the other officer is clearly out of the jurisdiction defined by that officer in that office?

An example of this deliberate choosing of which officer to call for help in defense of the people can be illustrated as an administrator in one county located within one constitutionally limited Republic seeking help from an administrator in another county in another constitutionally limited Republic, where both counties share the same boarder.  What happens when the sheriff in one county, in one Constitutional Republic, is perpetrating crimes against the people, and that administrator turns and looks for help across the border into another county in another Constitutional Republic? Presupposing the additional help, or the additional lack of help from administrators and sheriffs in counties within the same Constitutional Republic, is it possible to gain help from a U.S. Marshal who may be already helping an administrator in the Constitutional Republic across the border?

Where does the U.S. Marshal enforce authority? Where does the U.S. Marshal cross the line? Is a sheriff in a county bound up in that county only, never able to defend the innocent in another county that happens to be a county in another Constitutional Republic across the State border? The answer is clearly no: as any useful illustration of possible examples can prove. The sheriff is one of the people, with or without the badge, and the badge, and the license, and the jurisdictional boundaries can be set aside while the sheriff refuses to stand idle, one step away, across the border, to defend an innocent victim if an innocent victim is in dire need of defense. The concept here is to begin to unravel some of the red tape put in our way as we choose to ask for help from specific people with badges, and licenses, and pay checks, and jurisdictions, and alliances, and affiliations, and solemn oaths, and even sacred oaths.

Stepping across the boarder into Mexico to help save an innocent victim is not the same thing as stepping across the boarder from California to Arizona to help defend an innocent victim. Know why may be a good idea.

Jurists deliberating in trial by jury cases involving U.S. Marshals and County Sheriffs may benefit by accurate information defining the jurisdictions of those officers. Errors in deliberation can result in the innocent being punished as well as failures in defending the innocent. Claims of authority where there is no authority must be recognized by administrators and jurists. 

Please understand this clearly, without any room for confusion or reasonable doubt. The effective removal of reasonable doubt involves this potential conflict of jurisdiction between the enforcement of Federal Statute and the enforcement of County Statute.

When does the officer step over the line in any case?

Clearly marked in the minds of the people are boundaries as people consent to those boundaries knowingly, or failing that clarity there is too much room for error resulting in further injury rather than remedy. This is a fundamental principle of law having to do with the concept of avoiding deception in all forms. People who injure innocent people are not guilty of willfully doing so out of ignorance; that is a contradiction of fact. Forget about the catchy phrase where the speaker says that "ignorance of the law is no excuse," and replace that idea with a more reasonable understanding of the difference between willfully perpetrating a crime from the point at which a mind is knowing guilty, which is mens rea in Latin ("guilty mind"), and that is deliberately discriminated from a criminal act made in error by someone who does not know any better (forgive them for they do not know), and if this can be done by more people, then more people will be better armed with a more complete understanding of the meaning of Justice, Honor, and Mercy. Someone may be thankful when someone is shown that they are guilty of injuring innocent people when they did not know that they are guilty of injuring innocent people because they are grateful for that knowledge so as to then be able to avoid future errors in judgment. A guilty mind may not be grateful when their willful intentions are discovered by someone who will defend the innocent from further injury. A guilty mind may invent a false front that looks like gratitude, but that would be a counterfeit gratitude if the guilty mind intends to maintain their willful injuries of the innocent. 

The U.S. Marshal can be utilized in cases where Federal Statute defines the jurisdiction within which the U.S. Marshal in confined. The County Sheriff is bound within the boarders defined by County Statutes. The officers in either office act accordingly within those boundaries or not. There are potential cases whereby the Sheriff will be the effective enforcement officer employed in defense of the people according to County Statutes, and in other cases the U.S. Marshal will be the effective enforcement officer employed in defense of the people according to Federal Statute.

The actual thoughts and actions of sheriffs and U.S. Marshals are accountable to those people entrusted with those offices under oaths that they document knowingly and willfully. Administrators in common law are similarly bound by their documented sacred oaths. Where does authority of one end and the other begin?
Which office, in which cases, commands greater authority in time and place, and what process determines the authority by which jurisdiction is determined as fact in any case, past, present, or future?

An effective common law grand jury administrator may need to know this specific information beyond a reasonable doubt.

An effective jurist deliberating a case during a trial by jury may need to know this specific information beyond a reasonable doubt.

Which Statute applies to which officer holder, and are these office holders required by Statute to take a solemn or sacred oath?

Do these officers themselves demand of themselves a sacred oath on their own sense of honor and offer that oath to anyone who cares to acknowledge such information?

The office of County Sheriff predates the office of U.S. Marshal. The County Sheriff predates Magna Carte. It may then be understood by any member of the people, in any country, that the County Sheriff Office began within the jurisdiction knowable as common law, which is outside of, and which is a higher jurisdiction than Statutes.

Who says so?

This demand for proof of authority must be understood as a vital demand. The demand by anyone to anyone else for proof of authority is the defining of authority in fact. False authorities dictate the need for defense against them. By whose authority are you commanding authority in fact? Is that a reasonable question to ask of anyone who claims to command authority?

In the past there are obvious documented claims of authority.

Two sources for Magna Carte follow as links to .pdf files. A simple search in that .pdf file for the word Sheriff can uncover specific information concerning the recognition of the office of Sheriff being in existence at the time when King John signed Magna Carte.

Url: http://www.archives.gov/press/press-kits/magna-carta/magna-carta-translation.pdf

Url: http://www.constitution.org/eng/magnacar.pdf

By whose authority does the office holder of Sheriff gain authority to act in defense of the people?

By the authority of the people who create that office: that is an obvious established fact.

Before there was ever a sheriff in any record of any kind there were people who then created that office, and clearly that office existed in ancient history. Trial by jury and the sheriff office existed before the Statute known as Magna Carte was created by people. Beyond a reasonable doubt trial by jury and the office of sheriff existed before the Statute Manga Carte existed. Then, by the authority of Statute, the office of sheriff is recognized on that record.

From Magna Carte:

“Henry by the grace of God King of England, lord of Ireland, duke of Normandy and Aquitaine and count of Anjou sends greetings to his archbishops, bishops, abbots, priors, earls, barons, sheriffs, reeves, ministers and all his bailiffs and faithful men inspecting the present charter. Know that we, at the prompting of God and for the health of our soul and the souls of our ancestors and successors, for the glory of holy Church and the improvement of our realm, freely and out of our good will have given and granted to the archbishops, bishops, abbots, priors, earls, barons and all of our realm these liberties written below to hold in our realm of England in perpetuity.”

Additional information establishing the existence of trial by jury and the office of sheriff is found in the following .pdf copy of a study on trial by jury:

Trial by Jury: http://www.nationallibertyalliance.org/sites/default/files/TRIAL%20BY%20JURY.pdf

“But Magna Carta, in various instances, speaks of sheriffs and bailiffs as "our sheriff's and bailiffs;" thus apparently intending to recognize the distinction between officers of the king, bearing those names, and other officers, bearing the same official names, but chosen by the people. Thus it says that "no sheriff or bailiff of ours, or any other (officer), shall take horses or carts of any freeman for carriage, unless with the consent of the freeman himself." --- John's Charter, ch. 36.”

In context of the limited goal of this report those quoted words above offer the clear establishment of the office of sheriff existing before the office of U.S. Marshal. The office existed before English became a language. The office holder defines the meaning of the office. There is no phantom creation of a fictitious being having power over men, women, and children: only men or women capable of defining the meaning of the authority created by the people; the same people who create the office to be used in defense of the people.

Clearly in history there were, even then, challenges of authority concerning the same office created by two separate and distinct claims of authority whereby one is consensual (of the people, by the people, and for the people, or voluntary) and the other is not necessarily consensual (dictatorial or involuntary) depending upon who makes the claim; as in which King is making a claim of authority.  So long as any claims of authority are derived from natural order, or God’s Law, the boundaries of actions will be bound at the limit where defense of the people defines that boundary on one side, and willful, criminal, injury of the people, of innocent people, is clearly on the outside of authority.

When actions are discoverable by someone, anyone, whereby those actions were willful abuses of authority, criminal actions in fact, beyond a reasonable doubt, there was a process in existence at that time, a due process, by which defense of the people against crime was processed. That process was trial by jury.

If a Sheriff, a member of the King’s own creation of authority, perpetrates crimes instead of defending the people, who is to say a crime occurred; by whose authority?

By what authority was anyone able to challenge one of the King’s hired employees?

Which King?

By what authority was anyone able to challenge one of the elected sheriffs elected according to common law, elected by the people?

The reader at this time may be realizing, as I am, that a Marshal is today’s version of the King’s sheriff, an employee of Federal power, as contrasted by a sheriff elected by the people, an employee of the people in a county.

Fast forwarding to local concerns in defense of the people the reader may employ the same authority being employed by the author of this report as the question is asked again: by what authority does the Sheriff derive authority in any county in this country, such as the County of San Bernardino; a County within a constitutionally limited Republic known as California, which is a member State of the Federation known as The United States of America? 

Show me the chain of command, please, before I can ever consent (volunteer) to recognize any one authority, to then be compared to any other authority.

Keep in mind, please, that the people either are the common law because the people define the meaning of common law themselves, outside of any Statute, or the people fail to utilize the authority born into the people naturally, not both. We cannot be our own authority, being Kings ourselves, and at the same time, be subjects under the authority of another King. We must be our own Kings and Queens, within obvious, and accurately measurable, natural boundaries defined by God or the creator of all things (natural law being obvious, and accurately measurable boundaries such as gravity). Either we the people are our own common law, and we consent to only those Statutes that work for us, and therefore we are authorities over Statutes, or we are, by our failures of commanding the authority born into each of us, becoming subject to those who will use Statutes against us.

Which Statute recognizes the office of Sheriff in any county in this country? The author of this report lives in San Bernardino County, and by the authority of the people, the author of this report realizes the need to look first into The California Constitution. I am one of the people, therefore I deputize myself. Before looking into any Counties created by those who use the authority of the California Constitution to create a County Charter within the Republic of California, it follows reason available to me that I must look first into the Constitution of California.

Which Statute is the one creating another Statute? Which is inferior, which is superior?

I am one of the members of the people, so by my authority alone I can certainly ask a Sheriff, paid to be a Sheriff in San Bernardino County, where his or her authority is derived. Take me to your leader, and please remember the Scripture known as Mathew 6:24: No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon. 

God or Natural Law (the same thing in my view offered) is the one authority creating all lesser authorities.

The creator creates that which is created: not the other way around.

Fast forwarding in time to Magna Carte, clearly the record proves the existence of a sheriff, and then moving fast forward to the present time, there is a sheriff locally in San Bernardino County. Here is where obvious confusion may already be creating doubt in any reader reading this report; since California was created indirectly through a Statute known as The United States Constitution.

Did the people create California or did the Federal Government create California?

Can the Federal Government declare California to no longer be a Constitutional Republic?

Clearly the office of sheriff was created, and utilized by the people, before the creation of The Constitution of the United States. Any subsequent challenges of authority concerning The Constitution of The United States creating a sheriff in San Bernardino County California and The Constitution of California creating the office of sheriff in San Bernardino County California must include the established president set in the Record of Magna Carte, as the office of sheriff already existed well before the first Pilgrims fled England to escape persecution; running as runaway slaves to then create these Constitutional Republics that then formed these United States.

Constitutionally limited Republics existed before the Federation under The Constitution ever became ink on paper. The Marshal is Federal. The county sheriff is in the county; created by the people in that county.

In the effort to clarify: repetition may serve well. God, or Natural Law, creates people, people recognize the power of creation as the authority from which all other authority is derived, that judgment resulting in that decision, or opinion, has been shared by people for as long as people have written down their opinions.  The order of authority is clearly, unmistakably established, starting with God (or Nature), then people, and then written records or Statutes. Clearly there is a confession of a guilty mind made by anyone claiming that a Statute, which supposedly makes slavery legal, is by some magic an example of authority, when such as claim is repugnant to any true measure of authority; as clearly as it would be for me to claim that my dog Sam authorized me to eat babies alive.

So the clear path of authority for a sheriff elected by the people can clearly bypass any dealings made by officers of Constitutionally Limited Republics, such as California, when those officers elect to join their constitutionally limited Republic into a Federation. That is their business, another story for another day, while the hunt is on to challenge the authority of a County Sheriff.

The paper trail, the effort to challenge any claim of authority (take me to your leader, or I want to speak to the manager) must eventually be traced back to Natural Law, or God’s Law, following the reasonable path from God, or Natural Law, to the people, then to the Constitution of California, so as to find the authority utilized by the Sheriff in San Bernardino County.  Dealings with the Marshal, or fights, challenges, conflicts, jurisdictions concerning Federal authority can be addressed after clearly establishing the local, County, sheriff’s authority.

The reader may want to know that the author of this report is, at this time, ignorant as to what can be found in the California Constitution, as to any reference made to the office of Sheriff, and here again the offer offered is the concept of common law existing as the people define common law themselves, outside of Statute, and the people create the office of sheriff anywhere, anytime, when they elect to do so, in their county, their jurisdiction, their locality on this planet earth. Either the Statute, or the people directly, create the office of sheriff; either the people create the office of sheriff, or the Statute does, so the effort here is to look into Statute, as was done with a search of Magna Carte, to look for references recognizing that the office of sheriff exists; the people create it, or the Statute does, in either case the office is proven to exist as an established fact. This can be called discovery.

Web based .pdf California Constitution (current): http://www.californiaspy.com/CaliforniaStateConstitution.pdf

“The Attorney General shall have direct supervision over every district attorney and sheriff and over such other law enforcement officers as may be designated by law, in all matters pertaining to the duties of their respective offices, and may require any of said officers to make reports concerning the investigation, detection, prosecution, and punishment of crime in their respective jurisdictions as to the Attorney General may seem advisable.”

Caution is offered to the reader at this point due to the often repeated mistake of consenting to the efforts by some of the people as those few people work to usurp common law, and those few people work toward enslaving the people instead of working toward defending the people. The Statute created by the people cannot ever become the authority over the people, or in simpler terms the people cannot be turned into slaves by orders written on papers. The office of sheriff is clearly recognized as being in existence in California as that quote from that Statute clearly proves that fact beyond a reasonable doubt.

Is the sheriff a defender of the people, or is the sheriff going to work toward enslaving the people?

If the reader remains doubtful as to the vital nature of the questions (challenging authority), or the accuracy of the answers offered (we the people define our own common law or someone else, or some other group, WILL define it for us), this author of this report (a member of the people) offers further evidence concerning the claims of authority of the sheriff in San Bernardino County, California, during this process of discovering the source of authority of a sheriff in San Bernardino County, California.

Returning to the California State Constitution:

“SEC. 1. (a) The State is divided into counties which are legal subdivisions of the State. The Legislature shall prescribe uniform procedure for county formation, consolidation, and boundary change. Formation or consolidation requires approval by a majority of electors voting on the question in each affected county.”


“(b) The Legislature shall provide for county powers, an elected county sheriff, an elected district attorney, an elected assessor, and an elected governing body in each county.”


“(a) The Director of Corrections or any county Sheriff or other local government official charged with jail operations, may enter into contracts with public entities, nonprofit or for profit organizations, entities, or businesses for the purpose of conducting programs which use inmate labor. Such programs shall be operated and implemented pursuant to statutes enacted by or in accordance with the provisions of the Prison Inmate Labor Initiative of 1990, and by rules and regulations prescribed by the Director of Corrections and, for county jail programs, by local ordinances.”'

No one said this was going to be easy. The idea here is to establish the record of there being a justifiable authority in defense of the people in the form of an office held by an officer knowable as a sheriff, and that office existed before, and outside of, Statute, well before the existence of a U.S. Marshal.

Moving now onto a County Charter which is a County Statute, which is created by a Constitution Statute, which is created by people, which is created by the creator, God or Natural Law: the end of the trail of authority, and the source of all the subsequent claims of authority by anyone anywhere.

County Charter Statute records:

“Staff members of elected County officers other than Supervisor, at the level of assistant department head or its equivalent level, shall serve in the Unclassified service at the pleasure of the appointing elected County officer, in that elected officer's sole discretion. Except for the offices of Sheriff and district Attorney, qualifications for all staff members in the Unclassified service, of elected County officers other than Supervisor, shall be established by the elected County officer and approved by the Board of Supervisors. For the offices of Sheriff and District Attorney, the persons to be appointed as Undersheriff shall be certified by the California Commission on Peace Officers Standards and Training (POST), and persons to be appointed as Assistant District Attorney shall be a member in good standing of the State Bar of California. Elected County officers other than Supervisor, and staff members of elected County officers other than Supervisor at the level of assistant department head or its equivalent level, shall receive the same ethics training as is provided to members of the Board of Supervisors pursuant to Government Code §§ 53234 et seq.”

At this point I see a need to reiterate the need to challenge authority, to find authority where it truly exists, and to know, beyond a reasonable doubt, that due diligence in discovery of the facts moves the potential Administer and the Jurist closer toward the power of authority where effective defense of the innocent is realized, rather than moving further from that defense of Liberty.

Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Wed Feb 12th, 2014 08:53 pm
  PM Quote Reply
2nd Post

CSPOA Jan 2014 Resolution is here:

The above was drafted at a meeting of the Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association (CSPOA) on Jan 24, 2014 in Las Vegas, Nevada and approved by the members present. We encourage all sheriffs, peace officers and those in public office to sign with us. We also welcome the signatures of all other U.S. citizens.


Of the Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association

Pursuant to the powers and duties bestowed upon us by our citizens, the undersigned do hereby resolve that any Federal officer, agent, or employee, regardless of supposed congressional authorization, is required to obey and observe limitations consisting of the enumerated powers as detailed within Article 1 Section 8 of the U S Constitution and the Bill Of Rights.
The people of these united States are, and have a right to be, free and independent, and these rights are derived from the “Law of Nature and nature’s God.” As such, they must be free from infringements on the right to keep and bear arms, unreasonable searches and seizures, capricious detainments and every other natural right whether enumerated or not, pursuant to the 9th amendment.

We further reaffirm that “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.” (10th amendment)

Furthermore, we maintain that no agency established by the U S Congress can develop its own policies or regulations which supersede the Bill of Rights or the Constitution, nor does the executive branch have the power to make law, overturn law or set aside law.

Therefore, in order to protect the American people, BE IT RESOLVED THAT,

The following abuses will not be allowed or tolerated:

1) Registration of personal firearms under any circumstances.

2) Confiscation of firearms without probable cause, due process, and constitutionally compliant warrants issued by a local or state jurisdiction.

3) Audits or searches of a citizen’s personal affairs or finances without probable cause, and due process, and constitutionally compliant warrants issued by a local or state jurisdiction.

4) Inspections of person or property without probable cause and constitutionally compliant warrants as required by the 4th Amendment and issued by a local or state jurisdiction.

5) The detainment or search of citizens without probable cause and proper due process compliance, or the informed consent of the citizen.

6) Arrests with continued incarcerations without charges and complete due process, including, but not limited to public and speedy jury trials, in a court of state or local jurisdiction.

7) Domestic utilization of our nation’s military or federal agencies operating under power granted under the laws of war against American citizens.

8) Arrest of citizens or seizure of persons or property without first notifying and obtaining the express consent of the local sheriff.

that the undersigned Sheriffs, Peace Officers, and other Public Servants, do hereby denounce any acts or agencies which promote the aforementioned practices. All actions by the Federal Government and its agents will conform strictly and implicitly with the principles expressed within the United States Constitution, Declaration of Independence, and the Bill of Rights.

There is no greater obligation or responsibility of any government officer than to protect the rights of the people. Thus, any conduct contrary to the United States Constitution, Declaration of Independence, or the Bill of Rights will be dealt with as criminal activity.
To add your name, download a printable version here:

Print it, sign it, scan it and submit it here:


My OPINION/SUGGESTION concerning above:

Why not form a strategic alliance between NLA and CSPOA?

Publish a joint "Declaration of Intent" that each NLA County Organizer could attach to a personal introductory letter to their local county sheriff BEFORE the Grand Jury Election takes place in each county as a Courtesy Notice to assist the sheriffs when they are confronted with smear attacks against the NLA. John's recent "Memorandum" can also be attached to this letter, for educational purposes.

Joe, do you already have such a Sheriff letter composed?

I am planning on writing one ASAP. My county election is March 8, so I need this letter right now to reference it in the election announcement in the papers.

Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: Wed Feb 12th, 2014 10:26 pm
  PM Quote Reply
3rd Post
Joe Kelley

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6398

That is certainly on the list of things to be done.

I have this assignment to write a replacement for a very wrongly worded report on the U.S. Marshal. When on assignments I am often wandering off the mark.

Before a California Unified Common Law Grand Jury can align with CSPOA there has to be a few more than none of the counties constituted.

While you have offered your viewpoint here can I direct you to the following?

Courts Afraid of Us Now & Lawful Bank - Roger Hayes British Constitution Group

Money business

Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Sun Feb 23rd, 2014 01:25 pm
  PM Quote Reply
4th Post
Joe Kelley

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6398
I am reporting trouble with my special assignment.

The good news is that the wrongful report on U.S. Marshals was removed (or I just can't find it).

I do not yet have a competitive replacement written.

My diversions from the goal of writing a replacement report on U.S. Marshals includes the reading of Breaking News that includes troublesome words.

Why is all this connected?

U.S. Marshals versus Sheriffs is very similar to:

Liberty versus Legal Crime

Competition (free market) versus Monopoly (ONE DICTATORIAL POWER)

Common Law (existing well before English was a language) versus Statutes (The Divine Right of ONE King)

There are few ways that I can arrange the words so as to convey a perception that is not demanded.

If someone does not want to know, willfully does not want to know, then someone not wanting to know can find ways to not know what they do not want to know.

A foundation built upon sand will not stand the test of time.

While searching for evidence

The barriers of slavery hardened in the second half of the 17th century, and imported Africans’ prospects grew increasingly dim. In 1656 Elizabeth Key won a suit for freedom based on her father’s status as a free Englishman, and his having baptized her as Christian in the Church of England. In 1662 the Virginia House of Burgesses passed a law with the doctrine of partus, stating that any child born in the colony would follow the status of its mother, bond or free. This was an overturn of a longheld principle of English Common Law, whereby a child’s status followed that of the father. It enabled slaveholders and other white men to hide the mixed-race children born of their rape of slave women and removed their responsibility to acknowledge, support, or emancipate the children.

Note: Those words offer a way to view Slavery in History in America. Those words fail to recognize the free market government defense of the innocent process that is due to every victim or NONE.

Common law is not Statute.

Common law becomes Statute if people allowed themselves to be ruled by Statute.

If people decide not to be ruled by Statute, then people invent, produce, maintain, and pass on (to posterity) competitive, effective, free market, adaptive, higher quality, and lower cost government such as common law.

If there is a better wheel than a round wheel someone can invent one some day; meanwhile trial by jury, when it is due everyone without exception, is the wheel that works as free market, adaptive, competitive, effective, free market, higher quality, and lower cost government working for defense of the innocent, which is defense of Liberty.

So why does anyone, ever, point to The Constitution as being anything other than a recipe for slavery made legal?

I was looking at Breaking News:

Breaking News

I then looked here and here

I went on a hunt for more information concerning Letters of Marque because, and again, The Constitution is a document that creates Legal Slavery.

What causes a good person to join the march to make Slavery Legal?

Ignorance or dreams of being a Slave Master?

Which is it in any case in time and place?

12 Jurors minimum to convict, any single individual can set someone free in Trial by Jury.

I am not on a witch hunt to nail anyone to a cross, but ignorance concerning The Constitution is a serious problem infecting many people and many offers of words from many people as if POISON has been used on those people who are ignorant.

What are Letters of Marque?

Now, back to Ron Paul (who to this day, cannot understand the history of slavery or why this Texas institution offended so many people 150 years ago): his solution to the problem, ‘How do you get revenge while being forced to use diplomacy and other modern state tools?’  Well, he got a nifty ‘legal’ solution!  Just use the ancient Constitutional powers of PIRACY!  HAHAHA.  Legal piracy.  Fits perfectly.

That is from this.

From that too is this

To authorize the President to issue letters of marque and reprisal with respect to certain acts of air piracy upon the United States on September 11, 2001, and other similar acts of war planned for the future.
Look, please, the principle behind the so called Constitution was not to create a competitive form of government called a Republic. The ideas in the minds of Hamilton and Washington (just two of the so called Federalists) were Enslavement of The People, so they had to get rid of Trial by Jury. They had to make their crimes legal.

That had to happen, and they knew it.

Directly against The Declaration of Independence is The Constitution, and directly refuting The Constitution are the Bill of Rights. So why does anyone claim that The Constitution was, is, or will be used to SAVE THE REPUBLIC?

It is Poison. It is word magic. The so called "Federalists" were not preserving a Republic, nor were they preserving a Federation, nor were they preserving Liberty, and they most certainly were not preserving common law and Trial by Jury.

The Constitution USURPED a working Federation (or Con-federation) then existing between 1776 and 1787 which started with The Declaration of Independence.

A Federation is the free market, competitive, common law, trial and error, adaptive, creative, method of improving Constitutional Republics.

If a Constitutional Republic becomes a MONOPOLY of crime made legal, what do the criminals do?

They make their crimes legal.

Which crimes?

Slavery and Piracy to name two for starters.

How wrong headed can a process be when it employs the same POISON that destroys Liberty?

Why is the word "Republic" confused with the word "Federation"?

Why are the words "progressives" and "socialists" used by the same people who claim to be non-partisan; not affiliated with any "political party"?

Why would George Washington be names as someone who was not a member of a political party?

Why would anyone, anywhere, claim that a tax is in any way involuntary?

The Federation as designed to be a Federation was such that tax was no longer involuntary; or there in that design was the means by which government returned to the people who use government to defend the innocent, or in fewer words: Defend Liberty.

The Constitution was used to destroy a working Federation.

How can that not be clearly understood when so much evidence proving the fact beyond a reasonable doubt exists if anyone cares to look?

Returning to the case of Elizabeth Key Grinstead


A Report of a Comittee from an Assembly Concerning the freedome of Elizabeth Key. It appeareth to us that shee is the daughter of Thomas Key by severall Evidences and by a fine imposed upon the said Thomas for getting her mother with Child of the said Thomas. That she hath bin by verdict of a Jury impannelled 20th January 1655 in the County of Northumberland found to be free by severall oathes which the Jury desired might be Recorded. That by the Comon Law the Child of a Woman slave begott by a freeman ought to bee free. That shee hath bin long since Christened. Col. Higginson being her Godfather and that by report shee is able togive a very good account of her fayth. That Thomas Key sould her onely for nine yeares to Col. Higginson with severall conditions to use her more Respectfully then a Comon servant or slave. That in case Col. Higginson had gone for England within nine yeares hee was bound to carry her with him and pay her passage and not to dispose of her to any other. For theise Reasons wee conceive the said Elizabeth ought to bee free and that her last Master should give her Corne and Cloathes and give her satisfaction for the time shee hath served longer then Shee ought to have done. But forasmuch as noe man appeared against the said Elizabeth's petition, wee thinke not fitt a determinative judgement should passe but that the County or Quarter Court where it shall be next tried to take notice of this to be the sence of the Burgesses of this present Assembly and shall appear to be executed and reasons [original torn] opposite part Judgement by the said Court be given Charles Norwood Clerk Assembly. James Gaylord hath deposed that this is a true coppy. James Gaylord. 21 July 1656. Jurat in Curia

20th of March 1655 Ordered that the whole business of Elizabeth Key be returned to the County Court where the said Elizabeth Key liveth. This is a true copy from the book of Records of the Order granted the last Assembly Ateste Robert Booth 21th July 1656 This Order of Assembly was Recorded Upon the petition of George Colclough one of the overseers of Col. Mottrom his Estate that the cause concerning a Negro wench named Black Besse should be heard before the Governor and Councell. Whereof in regard of the Order of the late Assembly referring the said caise to theGovernor and Councell at least upon Appeale made to them. These are therefore in his Highness the Lord Protector his name to will andrequire the Commissioners of theCounty of Northumberland to Surcease from any further proceedings on the said Causeand to give notice to the parties interested therein to appear before the Governor at the next Quarter Court on the fourth day for a determination thereof.
"That by the Comon Law the Child of a Woman slave begott by a freeman ought to bee free."

How was the "Jury impannelled 20th January 1655 in the County of Northumberland," and specifically finding the process by which a victim gains access to this type of common law?

Back To Top PM Quote Reply

Current time is 01:34 pm  
Power Independence > National Liberty Alliance > NLA General Discussion > Special Assignment Top

UltraBB 1.17 Copyright © 2007-2008 Data 1 Systems