Jason talks about the Red Flag Bill introduced into Congress and another scandal at Nickelodeon involving the creator of Ren & Stimpy. He also tackles the latest news on the NXIVM cult.
Follow Jason Bermas on Facebook www.facebook.com/JasonBermas
and Twitter www. twitter.com/JasonBermas
Support WeAreChange by Subscribing to our channel HERE http://www.youtube.com/wearechange
Visit our main site for more breaking news http://wearechange.org/
Patreon https://www.patreon.com/WeAreChange
SnapChat: LukeWeAreChange
Facebook: https://facebook.com/LukeWeAreChange
Twitter: https://twitter.com/Lukewearechange
Instagram: http://instagram.com/lukewearechange
Check out WeAreChange Merchandise: http://wearechange.org/store
Donate to WeAreChange: http://wearechange.org/donate
We take BITCOIN too:
12HdLgeeuA87t2JU8m4tbRo247Yj5u2TVP
▶️ DTube
▶️ IPFS
This corporate dictatorship is only posing as a democracy thanks for posting these videos hopefully the sheeple will rise up soon!
Dude, what happened with the info sources/links shown in the videos?
Please, add them in the bottom as before (or wherever you want, but please, add them).
Thanks for the video Luke and Jason. Wanna get your mind really blown? Check this out.
Now Playing on DTube: Welcome To Parkland! (The Whole Hogg) - Extensive Cache of Videos From February 14, 2018 Event
https://steemit.com/video/@clarityofsignal/now-playing-on-dtube-welcome-to-parkland-the-whole-hogg-extensive-cache-of-videos-from-february-14-2018-event
Link to You Tube version:
Link to BitChute version:
https://www.bitchute.com/video/QEh6suLlJ0qh/
The court of chancery has been abused throughout english history, most notably in the star chamber. The more modern problems begin in 1976 when the pennsylvania courts started to issue protective orders against men, as part of the feminist war on the traditional family unit. This was expanded in 1994 under the violence against women's act, despite the fact that the orders increase the odds of women being killed. The pennsylvania based VAWA orders have many constitutional defects, not that the DOJ, the body charged with protecting our rights, care. In fat they are also charged with violating our rights under VAWA. But the equitable remedies under VAWA mirrors the remedies that are already available under the criminal law, and so the court of chancery never had jurisdiction to issue them in the first place. A court of chancery only has jurisdiction when there is not an adequate and complete remedy available at law. However, the Elitist don't seem to care. With even a misdemeanor act of family violence people can be prohibited from owning guns under 18 usc 922. Despite the adequate remedy available in the criminal law, such provisions are also made under the same code for equity.
Basically these due process second laws are an extension of the already illegal policies the feminist have been getting away with for years. The USDOJ specifically calls for granting ex parte orders, despite the fact that so far as the first amendment is concerned they have been determined unconstitutional in Carroll v Princess Anne. A year following the troubling Walker v Birmingham case.
We are gradually heading down a path of civil war, mostly because people are forgetting our own history for any interest they decide to call compelling. Our first congress considered placing an exemption on the now second amendment when it was being proposed. The second amendment is an extension of the assize of arms of 1181 that required everyone to own certain weapons. The second amendment was going to exempt the religiously scrupulous, but our congress became fearful that the government could use religion as a basis to determine who could and who couldn't own a gun or be in the militia. That language was dropped. Our founders never would have wanted to let the government take away our guns. They tried, and so began the battle of lexington and concord. The first thing a tyrant does is disarm his people, so that he can build an army upon their ruins. We have a standing army, the police, when we weren't supposed to. They can murder us with impunity, they rarely even get past a grand jury let alone have a mock trial, and their punishment is often nothing more than a paid vacation on the taxpayers dime. And civilly they are liberally granted qualified immunity no mater how evil their crimes against us.
I just wonder how far this country has to sink before enough people say, "I have had enough and I can't take anymore" and the real war against the police/judiciary begins.
first of all, forget all the sovereign citizens mumbo jumbo-many of them suffer from severe delusions, possibly paranoid schizophrenia. Some of the citations in that article don't even exist. For example, I pulled up a copy of the constitution and word searched for trustee-no where to be found. Secondly American law is mostly derived from English law, where the legislature/parliament represents the people to limit te power of the monarchy/executive branch. Rather than having one great big federal government which the people feared, they had states and they had jurisdiction over their subjects prior to the 14th amendment. States are a sovereign,and your legislators are elected to represent the people. if you disagree with them or their actions, they are still there,for better or worse, to represent their constituants. They are also the ones that define jurisdiction of the statutes to be enforced, which they typically defined, to be the governmental unit where an offense takes place-or has significant business interest within that state per international shoe.
Either the state constitution or the legislature defines how every judge is seated (by a host of various mechanisms: nomination by the governor, elected locally, etc)) even if his courtroom is "incompetent" he is still a judge so long as he was seated in accordance to state law.
The moving party averred that the respondant was residents of Alaskan. Without reading the statutes to see if that is sufficient, it is the duty of the defendant/respondant to object that the court has jurisdiction over them. The failure to object means the decision is up to the judges discretion, the failure to raise objections in the pretrial almost dooms the respondant's chances of prevailing on appeal.
Your capital letters v lower case letters is all a bunch of crap. Maybe uppercase is some type of formality to be used in limited scope under an administrative agency, but not so broadly as sovereign citizens so declares. I seen sovereign citizens pick and choose air plane regulations to try to justify arguments for cars on roadways, despite the fact they are completely unrelated. Since you are attacking legal pleadings and their use of uppercase. What matters is identity.
Although Uppercase tends to be standard in legal pleadings, I see nothing in the federal rules that require it. Some of the more common civil claims are inmate suits and because they are pro-se and often untrained in the law, they also contain a host of errors. The judge in the court room as a duty to construe his pleadings liberally as to do justice. See FRCP rule 8(e). And goodness only knows where these claims of federal trust funds are derived in the Sovereign citizens movement.
I also don't know the nature of the suit, but the use of a notary public for a property smells kind of fishy. Notories will sign just about anything presented before them so long as a person has a license. Notories are not proof that what is written on a piece of paper is fact or law-they are basically proving that the person who signed a document is the person they say they are. Was this a type of fraudulent lien action so commonly pursued by the sovereign citizens? The author makes it sound as if a notorized document confused one court as to grant them property-but that doesn't prohibit post trial relief such as an appeal, setting aside a judgment, a new trial or so forth-or even filing criminal actions for any fraud committed. I find it interesting the author doesn't attack that court as incompetent who recognized their notorized document.
As far as the UN, the US has ratified a lot of treaties. But the treaties the US signs are not autoexecuting, which means they cannot be enforced in the US courts. Secondly, the US also haven't ratified the [optional] treaties that would allow the UN to have jurisdiction for violation of the Treaties. There is really only one place to enforce UN Treaties, and it isn't because the US violated the UN treaties. But Rather when the United states violates the treaties of the Organizations of American states, in matters where the US also ratified the UN Treaties. So the ICCPR for example can be enforced in the InterAmerican courts, even though the United states has not signed the first optional protocol. For some reason the OAS has jurisdiction over the United states just for being a member state. But alas, the attack therein was against the UN, not against the OAS.
The article you linked to was full of references of the sovereign citizen school of thought, and likewise it was appropriate to caution readers of it.
There are many things, but sometimes the difference between political theory and and the sovereign citizen movement is slight.
The one that sticks out most is the upper and lowercase nonsense, as well as the idea of secret accounts in our names by the federal govt. Also what stood out was the denial that a state has [criminal] jurisdiction over a person through their statutes. It reeks of the strawperson fringe of the movement warped by bizarre delusions.
What also stood out sounded like the classic lien fraud committed by sovereign citizens also known as paper terrorism.
As far as not knowing that the legislature represents the people, is something a reasonable disenfranchised person may argue. But it is still a shared belief with the sovereign citizens. The distinction between an ordinary person is that it is more likely to be a simple belief or spur of the moment rhetoric, whereas a sovereign citizen would more likely hold onto the belief at a delusional level.
Questioning a courts jurisdiction is common for sovereigns to do, but is also a valid legal strategy-especially when a court doesn't have jurisdiction. The distinction here is that the sovereign citizens claim to not know that a state has criminal jurisdiction over people.
Invoking the UN as part of a conspiracy in US law is also not a healthy sign of mental health-it is delusional in nature. But such delusions are not exclusive to the sovereign citizens movement.
You are trying to aver that judicial officers are managers of some property-specifically you say a charitable public trust.
Why do you say that it is a charitable public trust? Our rights which are property do not come from government, but from nature. The constitution is not property; It is a document that outlines the functions and parameters of our government and the judiciary has the power to interpret it the document.
A constitution and a charter are two different things, regardless of someone's opinion piece. The constitution is a constitution, it is not a public or corporate charter. Your premise then that a judge (or other judicial officer) is a trustee of a public civil trust is untenable.
Sadly, I am not up on my Hebrew. The only definition I could find for militia was מיליציה-which didn't include a definition of people. The author is your second article divined that people meant militia, and build her argument up upon a false belief-a delusion.
In your second article your author stresses how beneficial the constitution was to King George and certain Colonist. Our contenentals weren't worth the paper they were printed on following the war, and the English had significantly cut off trade with America and began dumping products making it difficult for Americans to engage in trade. It was for Americans to try to open up more trade with countries like France. England's recovery post 1790 seems to be more from the Industrial revolution, and America's for providing grains when England and France were fighting in the 1790s. You can read more of a summary of details here. your author goes on to stress the importance of a Navy in the constitution. The Navy was created in 1775 for the war, disbanded following the war, and later recreated in 1798. The navy wasn't as important constitutionally as she claims. The letters of Marque authorized by the constitution was for the private sector to handle. Article 3 of the constitution also undermines her argument that the British monarch had jurisdiction over matters of admiralty. Much of the international law was defined by Hugo Grotius almost 200 years prior. Likewise her argument that the government placed life insurance claims against us on behalf of corporations is also silly.
I don't think for a moment that she has read the declaration of independence and understood the nature of each indictment against the king. Or the sacrifices that our founders made.
There is much to be read about the founding of this country, thousands of years worth of ideas and debates. Probably would take a few years to digest the important documents and its evolution, but the basic ideas are so simple a person of ordinary intelligence can understand them. Many of the original works are public domain and translated into English. Tis better to find and read the source material when possible than some sovereign citizen quack on the internet.
.
The red flag bill was just signed by Gov. Rick Scott on March 9, 2018. Therefore, it was after the shooting. Please send a link if I'm wrong on the date and it was in effect before Nicolas Cruz. It looks like the Baker Act on steroids. It makes me question was Nicolas Cruz ever admitted to a psychiatric facility via the Baker Act. That would have been another failure and that was available before the shooting.
Thanks Jason 🤘🏼
Hey Luke, glad to see you doing so well here! I have you on my autovote, but am about to take you off and I want you to know why.
http://steemreports.com/outgoing-votes-info/?account=lukewearechange&days=30
I do not expect you to vote for me, but I expect you to support other people on steemit. THREE votes all month. You have a lot of steem power, you could be feeding a LOT of minnows and plankton, but at the LEAST you could be autovoting people like @joshsigurdson, @larkenrose, @joycamp-benny. To keep my support, you have to support other people on steemit.
If you do not have time to manually upvote, then use steemauto or steemvoter. Or ignore me, my vote isn't worth much anyway. But that is how I vote, good content gets my autovote, but lack of engagement makes me take it back.
What I am trying to understand here is, how is it that in the USA a person can buy so many weapons. What about the Hotel Mandalay Bay in Las Vegas.
Stephen Paddock had 23 firearms plus a thousand rounds of ammunition. He killed a lot of people and many more were injured.
In any case I thank you for uploading this video, and Thumbs UP.
Because the Bill of Rights is not the Bill of Needs.
You are correct