Hello there Mr. Corr
Don't forget about coulorable law because of coulorable money
.
Today, we have two competing monetary systems: The Federal Reserve System with its private credit and currency, and the public money system consisting of legal tender United States Notes and coins. One could use the public money system, paying all bills with coins and United States notes (if the notes can be obtained), or one could voluntarily use the private credit system and thereby incur the obligation to make a return of income.
United States v. Berg, 636 F.2d 203 (1980).
"It is a well established principle of law that all federal legislation applies only within territorial jurisdiction of the United States unless a contrary intent appears." Foley Brothers. Inc. V. Filardo, 336 U.S. 281 (1948)
"The laws of Congress in respect to those matters [outside of Constitutionally delegated powers] do not extend into the territorial limits of the states, but have force ONLY in the District of Columbia, and other places that are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the national government." Caha V. US, 152 U.S. 211.
"Criminal jurisdiction of the federal courts is restricted to federal reservations over which the Federal Government has exclusive jurisdiction, as well as to forts, magazines, arsenal, dockyards or other needful buildings." United States Code, Title 18 45 1, Par. 3d.
** Title 18 USC at 7 specifies that the "territorial jurisdiction" of the United States extends only OUTSIDE the boundaries of lands belonging to any of the 50 states. **
Although it goes beyond the scope of this memorandum, there is a distinction between the “United States District Court” designated by 26 U.S.C. § 7323 and the “district court of the United States” designated by 26 U.S.C. § 7402. The former is a territorial or insular possession court where the latter is an Article III court of the United States. Insular possessions ceded following the Spanish-American War (1898) were under the civil law system when they were Spanish provinces. Congress elected to leave the civil law system in place in the newly acquired possessions as the cession treaty did not incorporate them in the constitutional scheme – they were not destined to become States of the Union.
The civil law system is in many respects repugnant to the common law system of English-American heritage. See definition of “United States District Court” in Balzac v. Porto Rico, 258 U.S. 298 (1922), and definition of “District Court of the United States” in Mookini v. United States, 303 U.S. 201 (1938).
=============
[Federal jurisdiction] " ...must be considered in the light of our dual system of government and may not be extended. . .in view of our complex society, would effectually obliterate the distinction between what is national and what is local and create a completely centralized government." United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549, 115 S.Ct.1624(1995).
FEDERAL JURISDICTION
It is further relevant to this Affidavit that any violation of my Rights, Freedom, or Property by the U.S. federal government, or any agent thereof, would be an illegal and unlawful excess, clearly outside the limited boundaries of federal jurisdiction. My understanding is that the jurisdiction of the U.S. federal government is defined by Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 of the U.S. Constitution, quoted as follows:
"The Congress shall have the power . . . To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such district (NOT EXCEEDING TEN MILES SQUARE) as may, by cession of particular states and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the Government of the United States, [District of Columbia] and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock yards and other needful Buildings; And - To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers..." [emphasis added]
and Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2:
"The Congress shall have the Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State."
The definition of the "United States" being used here, then, is limited to its territories:
- The District of Columbia
- Commonwealth of Puerto Rico
- U.S. Virgin Islands
- Guam
- American Samoa
- Northern Mariana Islands
- Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands
- Military bases within the several states
- Federal agencies within the several states
It does not include the several states themselves, as is confirmed by the following cites:
"We have in our political system a Government of the United States and a government of each of the several States. Each one of these governments is distinct from the others, and each has citizens of its own who owe it allegiance, and whose rights, within its jurisdiction, it must protect. The same person may be at the same time a citizen of the United States and a Citizen of a State, but his rights of citizenship under one of these governments will be different from those he has under the other." Slaughter House Cases United States vs. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875).
This is further confirmed by the following quote from the Internal Revenue Service:
Federal jurisdiction "includes the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, and American Samoa." - Internal Revenue Code Section 312(e).
than in Walton v. Hicks, (8) where the Court ruled:
This statute is emphatic and unequivocal. It does not seem possible that it can be misunderstood. In case a person appointed to office neglects to file his official oath within 15 [now 30] days after notice of appointment or within 15 [now 30] days after the commencement of the term of office, the office becomes vacant ipso facto. That is all there is to it. No judicial procedure is necessary; no notice is necessary; nothing is necessary. The office is vacant, as much so as though the appointee were dead; there is no incumbent, and the vacancy may be filled by the proper appointive power .
........................
The obligation imposed by the Public Officers Law statute is personal to plaintiff, it is an act he is required to do and the office became vacant by the mere failure to file the oath, whether or not the defendants knew or were chargeable with notice that plaintiff had failed to file his oath, and they are not required to make any declaration or give any notice. On his default in' filing his official oath "the appointment was vitiated and the office * * * became vacant"
[citing Ginsberg v. City of Long Beach, 286 N.Y. 400, 36 N.E.2d 637; and also People ex reI. Walton v. Hicks, infra].
Amendment XIII (Passed by Congress May 1, 1810 - Ratified 1812)
"If any citizen of the United States shall accept, claim, receive, or retain any title of nobility or honour, or shall without the consent of Congress, accept and retain any present, pension, office, or emolument of any kind whatever, from any emperor, king, prince, or foreign power, such person shall cease to be a citizen of the united States, and shall be incapable of holding any office of trust or profit under them, or either of them."
By prohibiting "honors" the Amendment prohibits any advantage or privilege that would grant some citizens an unequal opportunity to achieve or exercise political power. The second meaning (intent) of the 13 Amendment is to ensure political equality among all American citizens, by prohibiting anyone, even government officials, from claiming or exercising special privilege or power (an "honor") over other citizens.
For example, anyone who had a specific "immunity" from lawsuits which were not afforded to all citizens, would be enjoying a separate privilege, and "honor" and would therefore forfeit his right to vote or hold public office. Just think of the "immunities" from lawsuits that your judges, lawyers, politicians, and bureaucrats currently enjoy. Or "special interest" legislation your government passes. "Special interests" are simply euphemisms for "special privileges" or Honors.
Without their current personal immunities (honors), your judges and IRS agents would be unable to abuse common citizens without fear of legal liability. Your entire government would have to conduct itself according to the same standards of decency, respect, law, and liability as the rest of the nation. Your government's ability to systematically coerce and abuse the public would be all but eliminated under the 13th Amendment.
Now you know why the bankers and lawyers secretly replaced the 13th amendment. Had they not, you would have the government our founding fathers intended when they passed the 13th Amendment, a government of the people, by the people, and for the people, a government whose members were truly accountable to the people; a government that could not systematically exploit its own people.
The 13th Amendment was ratified as follows:
Maryland, Dec. 25, 1810
Tennessee, Nov. 21, 1811
Kentucky, Jan 31, 1811
Georgia, Dec. 13, 1811
Ohio, Jan 31, 1811
North Carolina, Dec.23, 1811
Delaware, Feb 2, 1811
Massachusetts, Feb. 27, 1812
Pennsylvania, Feb. 6, 1811
New Hampshire, Dec. 10, 1812
New Jersey, Feb. 13, 1811 Virginia, March 10, 1819
"It is a well established principle of law that all federal legislation applies only within territorial jurisdiction of the United States unless a contrary intent appears." Foley Brothers. Inc. V. Filardo, 336 U.S. 281 (1948)
.............
"The laws of Congress in respect to those matters [outside of Constitutionally delegated powers] do not extend into the territorial limits of the states, but have force ONLY in the District of Columbia, and other places that are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the national government." Caha V. US, 152 U.S. 211.
..........
"Criminal jurisdiction of the federal courts is restricted to federal reservations over which the Federal Government has exclusive jurisdiction, as well as to forts, magazines, arsenal, dockyards or other needful buildings." United States Code, Title 18 45 1, Par. 3d.
...........
Title 18 USC at 7 specifies that the "territorial jurisdiction" of the United States extends only OUTSIDE the boundaries of lands belonging to any of the 50 states.
The highest form of complaint-even higher than a grand jury indictment-is a sworn affidavit placed into the public record by one of the sovereign People. Actions commence in the county court (common law) by affidavit of the sovereign. There is no need for a grand jury to be convened and no cause for the police to go out and investigate-all that's required is for a sovereign to write an affidavit and declare "This crime occurred to me" and put it into the county recorder's office.
We know that government uses subtle and deceptive terms to conceal the distinctions between what appear to be two “forms” of government. For example, “District Courts of the United States” are the Article III, judicial courts where virtually all federal litigants assume their cases are heard. However, virtually all “federal” cases are heard in “United States District Courts” which are administrative (rather than judicial) and operate under the 1st (legislative) or 4th (territorial) Articles of the Constitution – but not under the 3rd (judicial) Article. Note the subtle difference in terms: Not one man in 100 would dream that those two terms identified different courts, with different jurisdictions and different duties to recognize (or ignore) a litigant’s unalienable Rights. A similar distinction exists between the “Supreme Court of the United States” and “United States Supreme Court”. The two terms are not synonymous. Each term identifies an entirely different court.
=================
"The term 'District Courts of the United States' as used in the rules without an addition expressing a wider connotation, has its historic significance. It describes the constitutional courts created under Article 3 of the Constitution. Courts of the Territories are Legislative Courts, properly speaking, and are not district courts of the United States. We have often held that vesting a territorial court with jurisdiction similar to that vested in the district courts of the United States (98 U.S. 145) does not make it a 'District Court of the United States'. "Not only did the promulgating order use the term District Courts of the United States in its historic and proper sense, but the omission of provision for the application of the rules the territorial court and other courts mentioned in the authorizing act clearly shows the limitation that was intended."
Mookini v. U.S., 303 U.S. 201 (1938)
Personswithout proper Oaths do not and cannot have proper Bonds OR satisfy thenecessary requirements to “hold” a bona fide “Office”, by ‘commission’,“election”, or “appointment”. In short, an ‘Officer’ or “Office Holder” cannot but ‘occupy’ the officeunder false and misleading pretense, misrepresentation, and FRAUD, which stripsthe ‘individual’ of ‘law authority’ and ‘immunity’ under well-seasoned law ofthe land and sea. Brutum fulmen!! Bonds that are attached to such juristic ‘persons’ are subjectto claim and lien, after “adequate assurance of due performance” has been found lacking pursuant to U.C.C. 2-619. A proper Oath and Bond are but two of the three primary “poles”of “Office” [Oath, Bond, Commission]. One cannot act upon being ‘dulyappointed’ or ‘duly elected’ or ‘duly commissioned’ simply by INCORPORATION and CORPORATE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS.
------------------------------------------
The obligation imposed by the Public Officers Law statuteis personalto plaintiff, it is an act he is required to do and theoffice becamevacant by the mere failure to file the oath, whether or notthedefendants knew or were chargeable with notice thatplaintiff hadfailed to file his oath, and they are not required to makeanydeclaration or give any notice. On his default in' filinghis official oath"the appointment was vitiated and the office * * *became vacant"
[citing Ginsberg v. City of Long Beach, 286N.Y. 400, 36 N.E.2d 637; and also People ex reI. Walton v. Hicks,infra].
======================================================================
Cooperv. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1, 78 S. Ct. 1401 (1958)
Note: Any judge who does not comply with his oath to the Constitution of the United States wars against that Constitution and engages in acts in violation of the supreme law of the land. The judge is engaged in acts of treason. The U.S. Supreme Court has stated that "no state legislator or executive or judicial officer can war against the Constitution without violating his undertaking to support it". See also In Re Sawyer, 124 U.S. 200 (188); U.S.v. Will, 449 U.S. 200, 216, 101 S. Ct. 471, 66 L. Ed. 2d 392, 406 (1980); Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. (6 Wheat) 264, 404, 5 L. Ed 257 (1821) Cooper v. Aaron, 358U.S. 1, 78 S.Ct. 1401 (1958). "No state legislator or executive or judicial officer can war against the Constitution without violating his undertaking to support it."The constitutional theory is that we the people are the sovereigns, the state and federal officials only our agents.""The individual, unlike the corporation, cannot be taxed for the mere privilege of existing. The corporation is an artificial entity which owes its existence and charter powers to the state; but, theindividual's rights to live and own property are natural rights for the enjoyment of which an excise can not be imposed."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 actin 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."
One has to understand contract law to understand the legality of this....
Remember, you can not change to rule/conditions of a contract in the middle unless both parties agree to the changes.
When I was growing up...many moons ago...business's had sign's over/on their door that read 'We reserve the right to reserve service to anyone for any reason'.
This establishes the rules of contract BEFORE you enter into the business, thus you agree to the terms..
You see restaurants with their 'no shoes, no shirt, no service' signs all the time
I think of this everytime I hear of those who are forced to perform a service against their will. If those bakers had this sign on their front door, their case would have been thrown out of court...cause they don't want the public to learn the truth.
Graphene-based “neuromodulation” technology is REAL: Press release from INBRAIN Neuroelectronics describes brain controlling biocircuits using AI-powered graphene
.......
Funding enables company to advance first-in-human studies for its flagship product, a less-invasive neuromodulation device for treating neurological conditions using artificial intelligence and graphene electrodes To be clear, we are not in any way claiming that INBRAIN is involved in covid vaccines. Rather, they state their technology is being used, “for treating epilepsy and Parkinson’s disease.” The point of covering INBRAIN is to reveal that brain-controlling “biocircuits” based on graphene are, in fact, a very real technology.
.
Articleson Hydrogen Peroxide (& Other Oxidative Therapies)
Hydrogen Peroxide by Walter Grotz http://educate-yourself.org/cn/hydrogenperoxidewaltergrotz20nov04.shtml
The Many Benefits ofHydrogen Peroxide by Dr. David G. Williams http://educate-yourself.org/cancer/benefitsofhydrogenperozide17jul03.shtml
Alternatives in CancerTherapy - Hydrogen Peroxide http://educate-yourself.org/cn/hydrogenperoxidecancertherapybookexcerpt.shtml
Hydrogen Peroxide v.Prostate Cancer by Bill Munro (Oct. 14, 2005) http://educate-yourself.org/cn/hydrogenperoxideandprostatecancer14oct05.shtml
Hydrogen Peroxide NasalSprayer & Garden Applications by Bill Munro (Feb. 7, 2005)
http://educate-yourself.org/cn/hydrogenperoxide07feb05.shtml
The TherapeuticalApplications of Hydrozone and Glycozone by Charles Marchand (1904) http://educate-yourself.org/cn/hydrogenperoxidecharlesmarchand1904.shtml
Vinegar and HydrogenPeroxide as Disinfectants http://educate-yourself.org/cn/vinegarandperoxide21oct06.shtm
lLettersfrom ReadersChronic Pneumonia andInhaling Hydrogen Peroxide (Jan. 3, 2011) http://educate-yourself.org/lte/chronicpneumoniaandperoxide03jan11.shtml
Lung Cancer &Hydrogen Peroxide (Nov. 4, 2010) http://educate-yourself.org/lte/lungcancer04nov10.shtml
Collodial Silver andNebulizer (Aug. 18, 2009) http://educate-yourself.org/lte/csandnebulizer18aug09.shtml
Hydrogen Peroxide andCOPD (Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease) July 12, 2009 http://educate-yourself.org/lte/copdandhydrogenperoxide12jul09.shtml
Hydrogen Peroxide andRoom Temperature IQ, A Deadly Mix (Sep. 25, 2008) http://educate-yourself.org/lte/peroxideuse25sep08.shtml
Taking Drops of FoodGrade Hydrogen Peroxide & Water (Sep 20, 2008) http://educate-yourself.org/lte/peroxidedrops19sep08.shtml
Chlorine Dioxide (MMS), APowerful and Inexpensive Germ Killer (June 26, 2008) http://educate-yourself.org/cn/chlorinedioxide26jun08.shtml
Gains Benefits fromTaking Hydrogen Peroxide Drops Daily (Sep. 23, 2007) http://educate-yourself.org/lte/benefitsfromH2O2takendaily23sep07.shtml
Relief from ChronicObstructive Pulmonary Disease & Emphysema Using Hydrogen Peroxide (April19, 2007) http://educate-yourself.org/lte/hydrogenperoxideandpulmonarydisease14apr07.shtml
Hydrogen Peroxide HandlesStomach Bug & Ideas for Germ Fighters (Feb. 12, 2007) http://educate-yourself.org/lte/hydrogenperoxidehelpsJo12feb07.shtmlb07.shtml
What is a tax abatement"> Tax Abatement
What is a tax abatement, you may ask. A tax abatement is when a taxing board grants a taxpayer a stay of paying a tax for a short or long term, for a total or percentage of the tax. They are given for any reason, like for the building of a new building to increase employment. A company having financial problems. Non profit groups, "churches, boy scout camp sites, etc". I have found private homes for questionable reasons.
.
How do you get a property tax abatement? First you file a F.O.I.A. " Freedom of Information act." File it with your taxing board. (Township, city, county or state) The question you ask is; "Requesting to see the records of property that is now or in the past that have received tax abatements." Pick out the ones that have been given the most and the longest time. Get copies of the ones you want. There may be a charge for copying. They, by law have to give you the information.
.
Now that you have the copies in your hand, copy the first five or six pages of each of the U.S. Supreme Court cases in this section or any other ones you may find elsewhere. Read these cases very carefully, you will have to know what they mean. They are cases where the Supreme Court has said, they cannot do for one and not the other. You are the other. Get copies of the Fifth and Fourteenth amendment, they refer to this. If you do not understand them, get someone to help you who does. Now make two copes of all the documents you have. The copies will go to the tax assessor. One for the assessor and the other for their attorney. You now have the material you need to get your tax abatement.
At this point if you are not competent to do this, STOP HERE!!!! If you do not do it right, you will NOT get your tax abatement. If you are not ready to go to court if you fail, STOP NOW. .
Go to the taxing authority and confront them with what you have. Ask for the rebate of your choice. give them copies of the material you have collected. It makes no difference why they gave the abatement to someone else, they still have to give one to you. Let them know if you go to court and win, everyone will be able to get one. Is the chance worth it?
. You are entitled to any privilege they give to any other citizen.
======
Slaughter-House cases. 83 U.S. 36., (1872)
Here is a case that has four cases in one. It talks about prohibiting people from using their land, and giving that right to a corporation. The government cannot take a right from you and give it to another. Part of the case, was New Orleans had set up a large area to slaughter farm animals. This gave the corporation the exclusive right to slaughter all farm animals in the parishes of Orleans, Jefferson, and St. Bernard. And a land owner could not sell animals or produce from his private land. This is a 5th and 14th Amendment and Article 1 section 10 VIOLATION. "No Title of Nobility shall be granted"
GIBBONS v. OGDEN, 22 U.S. 1 (1824)
The acts of the Legislature of the State of New York, granting to Robert R. Livingston and Robert Fulton the exclusive navigation of all the waters within the jurisdiction of that, with boats moved by fire or steam, for a term of years.
Lakewood v. Plain Dealer Publishing Co,. 486 U.S. 750 (1988)
Here we find another pick and choose as to who will get the favors of the government.
Columbia v. Omni Outdoor Advertising 449 U.S. (1991)
The city fathers wanted to have one sign company to put up all of the signs in the City of Columbia, South Carolina. So this is another loss for the great leaders of our local government. They don't seem to realize our U. S. Constitution is for equality, and not a buddy system.
Leathers v. Medlock,. 499 U.S. 439 (1991)
Another case of playing favorites. This one is about taxes. It seems that the state of Arkansas wanted to charge Mr. Medlock taxes on his cable television subscribers and not on newspapers and magazines. They all three entertain, give out news, do advertising so they should pay equal taxes. Newspapers and magazines could do good for elected officials. If your taxing authority is giving a land owner a free ride and charging you. If you are paying property taxes, I think you should put yourself in Mr. Medlock's place and get what is yours. There is no lawful law that allows discrimination.
============
https://web.archive.org/web/20130308074101/http://www.landrights.com/tax_abatement.htm
PING--- u/ashlanddog
It would be good if people start passing this information around to friends & family and other forums so a large portion of the country learns the truth.
Then start emailing this info to your Rep's, Senator's and even the Judge's...
It might start to make them feel a little uncomfortable.
2nd Massacre & Massive Coverup Occurred at Hooters Casino Las Vegas on Oct. 1st
The preceding photo, which was taken in front of Hooters Hotel and Casino in Las Vegas on October 1, 2017, is quite clear and indisputable.
It shows many ambulances (as many as 17 at one time) that were lining up right after the mass shooting at the HARVEST Country Music Festival.
However, there’s one HUGE problem with this crime scene. It could not have happened as described by the mainstream media and law enforcement.
It especially could not have occurred as explained by the LVMPD and the FBI. Those numerous armchair investigators who say no one died at the HARVEST are also categorically debunked.
Hundreds of injured — many of them seriously and/or mortally wounded could not have made the long trek from the HARVEST music venue after being shot. The distance is simply too far.
As irrefutable evidence, the following video presents footage of concert-goers leaving the east gate of the venue who are not limping or shot or bloody or injured in any way. They’re all just scrambling to get away from the Mandalay Bay as quickly as possible.
VIDEO: How Did D-Y-I-N-G Folks Make It This Far In Vegas?!?!
Therefore, how did the Hooters crime scene fill up with so many bodies and wounded so fast?
Ambulances lined up at Hooters The following video taken from the MGM Grand by 2 hotel guests on October 1st clearly shows the many ambulances lining up and leaving with the dead and wounded. The problem with this picture is that they could NOT have been HARVEST concert-goers. So who were they?
VIDEO: HOOTERS MYSTERY—Mandalay Bay/Las Vegas Shooting Aftermath Perspective from MGM Grand
The following excerpt from a recent Alt Media article reveals that the official narrative not only makes no sense, it smacks of a “massive coverup” by the LVMPD and FBI. Such a complex and audacious coverup can only be implemented with the approval of FBI senior leadership and its DOJ overseers.
Where is AG Jeff Sessions where it concerns the worst mass shooting in U.S. history? AWOL! He needs to decisively address the obvious and alarming discrepancies that are disclosed (and implicit) by the following testimony.
15-minutes later, from the leisure of his hotel room, Franks managed to capture bombshell video footage which shows a total of 17 ambulances removing human bodies from Hooters, contradicting the official story told by Clark County Sheriff Joseph Lombardo.
“They are just pulling so many bodies out of that Hooters,” a man’s voice can be heard saying at the 24-second mark. “I don’t know if people are dead — I don’t know if people are just injured — they just keep pullin’ them out though […] something definitely happened at Hooters though.”
“It must have happened at Hooters dude because they are all showing up there,” he said. “It looks like most of them are at Hooters.” (Source: VEGAS BOMBSHELL: VIDEO SHOWS 17 AMBULANCES PULLING BODIES OUT OF HOOTERS) Massive Coverup by LVMPB and FBI The evidence of a second mass shooting on that Sunday evening is now undeniable. The Google map posted below indicates that the distance from the HARVEST to the Hooters Casino would have been, at the very least, a mile. Given the grave condition of many of the wounded, as told by an eyewitness casino dealer at Hooters (see transcript below), it’s self-evident that those wounded pouring into the hotel were not arriving from the HARVEST.
NPR Interview: Hooters Casino Dealer Describes Scene Near Las Vegas Shooting What in the world is really happened in Vegas? The entire official story coming from the joint LVMPD-FBI task force has fallen apart since day one. Actually, it began to unravel within minutes of the massacre. And the naked deception by law enforcement continues to be exposed by the day.
Which begs the question: What really happened? Who, really, were the victims at Hooters of this premeditated mass murder? Who ordered the massacre and why? And why did they specifically choose the HARVEST event?
LRAD theory As if things could not get any stranger with the worst mass shooting in American history, there is now the distinct possibility that LRAD was also utilized. If this particular piece of the psyop can be proven, then there is no question that the FEDs organized this false flag operation for multiple reasons, the most sinister of which can only be conjectured.
LRAD: Were the helicopters and drones in Vegas a part of a ‘Long Range Acoustic Device’ live test
State of the Nation October 23, 2017
Recommended Reading
Las Vegas Mass Shooting Staged And Then Hijacked By NWO Globalist Cabal
Reference
MANDALAY MASSACRE: A Special Report On The Las Vegas Terror Attack & Mass Casualty Incident
“It is clear that Congress, as a legislative body, exercise two species of legislative power: the one, limited as to its objects, but extending all over the Union: the other, an absolute, exclusive legislative power over the District of Columbia. The preliminary inquiry in the case now before the Court, is, by virtue of which of these authorities was the law in question passed?”
[Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. 264, 6 Wheat. 265; 5 L.Ed. 257 (1821)]
===============
"It is a well established principle of law that all federal legislation applies only within territorial jurisdiction of the United States unless a contrary intent appears."
Foley Brothers. Inc. V. Filardo, 336 U.S. 281 (1948)
.
"The laws of Congress in respect to those matters [outside of Constitutionally delegated powers] do not extend into the territorial limits of the states, but have force ONLY in the District of Columbia, and other places that are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the national government."
Caha V. US, 152 U.S. 211.
Has anyone found an update to this yet??
.
edit:
2020 Election Fraud and National Security Breach Case No. 22-380 now on the the U.S. Supreme Court docket
https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/22-380.html
U.S. Supreme Court Marsh v. Alabama, 326 U.S. 501 (1946) Marsh v. Alabama
No. 114
Argued December 6, 1945
Decided January 7, 1946
326 U.S. 501
Read More Opinions Opinions & Dissents U.S. Supreme Court Marsh v. Alabama, 326 U.S. 501 (1946) Marsh v. Alabama No. 114 Argued December 6, 1945 Decided January 7, 1946 326 U.S. 501 APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS OF ALABAMA
Syllabus
A state can not, consistently with the freedom of religion and the press guaranteed by the First and Fourteenth Amendments, impose criminal punishment on a person for distributing religious literature on the sidewalk of a company-owned town contrary to regulations of the town's management, where the town and its shopping district are freely accessible to and freely used by the public in general, even though the punishment is attempted under a state statute making it a crime for anyone to enter or remain on the premises of another after having been warned not to do so. Pp. 326 U. S. 502, 326 U. S. 505. Page 326 U. S. 502
Whether a corporation or a municipality owns or possesses a town, the public in either case has an identical interest in the functioning of the community in such manner that the channels of communication remain free. P. 326 U. S. 507.
People living in company-owned towns are free citizens of their State and country, just as residents of municipalities, and there is no more reason for depriving them of the liberties guaranteed by the First and Fourteenth Amendments than there is for curtailing these freedoms with respect to any other citizen. P. 326 U. S. 508.
21 So. 2d 558, reversed.
APPEAL from the affirmance of a conviction for violation of a state statute challenged as invalid under the Federal Constitution. The State Supreme Court denied certiorari, 246 Ala. 539, 21 So. 2d 564.
MR. JUSTICE BLACK delivered the opinion of the Court.
In this case, we are asked to decide whether a State, consistently with the First and Fourteenth Amendments, can impose criminal punishment on a person who undertakes to distribute religious literature on the premises of a company-owned town contrary to the wishes of the town's management. The town, a suburb of Mobile, Alabama, known as Chickasaw, is owned by the Gulf Shipbuilding Corporation. Except for that, it has all the characteristics of any other American town. The property consists of residential buildings, streets, a system of sewers, a sewage disposal plant, and a "business block" on which business places are situated. A deputy of the Mobile County Sheriff, paid by the company, serves as the town's policeman. Merchants and service establishments have rented the stores and business places on the business block, and
Page 326 U. S. 503
the United States uses one of the places as a post office, from which six carriers deliver mail to the people of Chickasaw and the adjacent area. The town and the surrounding neighborhood, which cannot be distinguished from the Gulf property by anyone not familiar with the property lines, are thickly settled, and, according to all indications, the residents use the business block as their regular shopping center. To do so, they now, as they have for many years, make use of a company-owned paved street and sidewalk located alongside the store fronts in order to enter and leave the stores and the post office. Intersecting company-owned roads at each end of the business block lead into a four-lane public highway which runs parallel to the business block at a distance of thirty feet. There is nothing to stop highway traffic from coming onto the business block, and, upon arrival, a traveler may make free use of the facilities available there. In short, the town and its shopping district are accessible to and freely used by the public in general, and there is nothing to distinguish them from any other town and shopping center except the fact that the title to the property belongs to a private corporation.
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/326/501/