Monday, May 27, 2013

Now the Government can Legaly Kill Christians!





1992
Education Day, U.S.A. , 1989 and 1990
By the President of the United States of America
A Proclamation
Ethical values are the foundation for civilized society. A society that fails to recognize or adhere to them cannot endure.
The principles of moral and ethical conduct that have formed the basis for all civilizations come to us, in part, from the centuries-old Seven Noahide Laws. The Noahide Laws are actually seven commandments given to man by God {{untrue}}, as recorded in the Old Testament {{untrue, they derive from the Talmud}}. These commandments include prohibitions against murder, robbery, adultery, blasphemy, and greed, as well as the positive order to establish courts of justice.
Through the leadership of Rabbi Menachem Schneerson and the worldwide Lubavitch movement, the Noahide Law -- and standards of conduct duly derived from them -- have been promulgated around the globe.
It is fitting that we honor Rabbi Schneerson and acknowledge his important contributions to society. Our great Nation takes just pride in its dedication to the principles of justice, equality, and truth. Americans also understand that we have a responsibility to inspire the same dedication in future generations. We owe a tremendous debt to Rabbi Schneerson and to all those who promote education that embraces moral and ethical values and emphasizes their importance.
In recognition of Rabbi Schneerson's vital efforts, and in celebration of his 87th birthday, the Congress, by House Joint Resolution 173, has designated April 16, 1989, and April 6, 1990, as "Education Day, U.S.A." and has authorized and requested the President to issue an appropriate proclamation in observance of these days.
Now, Therefore, I, George Bush, President of the United States of America , do hereby proclaim April 16, 1989, and April 6, 1990, as Education Day, U.S.A. I invite Governors from every State and Territory, community leaders, teachers, and all Americans to observe these days through appropriate events and activities.
In Witness Whereof, I have hereunto set my hand this fourteenth day of April, in the year of our Lord nineteen hundred and eighty-nine, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and thirteenth.
GEORGE BUSH
 
 
"Shocking Report by Former Congressman Bill Dan nemeyer-
Read what this Congressman has to say!"
 
NOW THE GOVERNMENT CAN LEGALLY KILL CHRISTIANS

Bill Dan nemeyer
U.S. Congressman, 1979-1992
Your U.S. government can now legally kill Christians for the “crime” of worshipping Jesus Christ! A diabolic deception has been perpetrated on the American people by their OWN leaders, Senators and Congressmen, who have sold their soul to the devil. On March 5, 1991, in the House of Representatives, and March 7, 1991, in the U.S. Senate, without any knowledge of, or input by, the people of the United States, U.S. Senators and Congressmen passed a law that is so outrageous – and frankly unconstitutional – that it forces the American people to be bound by a set of monstrous rules, called the Noahide Laws, rules that make the belief in Jesus Christ a crime punishable by decapitation by guillotine! On March 20, 1991, President George H.W. Bush, a supposed Christian, signed the bill into law.

Before you respond, “NO, that cannot be – not in our free country!” let me explain.

The passage of this law, HJ Res. 104, is especially troublesome to me because I was a member of the U.S. House of Representatives at the time it was passed. Even worse, I was in the House Chamber the very day that is was passed, voting on other legislation. Yet I, as a U.S. Congressman, had NO KNOWLEDGE that it had been passed or even that it was to be brought up for a vote.

How could this be? How could the deception be so pervasive that those of us who had sworn to uphold our country’s Constitution, particularly those of us (few, indeed) who really took our position seriously as the protectors of the people, could be totally in the dark regarding the content of this bill and its passage by the leaders of this country – by treachery and deceit?

Here’s how it happened!

On January 31, 1991, an innocuous-sounding Resolution was introduced, designating March 26, 1991 as “Education Day, USA .” It was purposely given this name to deceive the American people. It was, in fact, a Double Deception because not only did the Resolution have nothing to do with “Education,” it was also deceptively billed as a vehicle for recognizing the eighty-ninth birthday of Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson. But in truth, the Resolution was nothing less than a secret, under-handed plot to control the American people by the Noahide Laws – a subterfuge for the elimination of Christianity, the elimination of all Christians, and the enslavement of all remaining “Gentiles.”

 Rabbi Menachem Schneerson

The Resolution, first introduced by Minority Leader, Rep. Robert H. Michel of Illinois , was then referred to the House Post Office and Civil Service Committee.

Early in March 1991, 225 members of the House had signed on as co-sponsors of this Resolution, but it is highly doubtful they were given the full text of the document. They were probably told only that it was a Resolution in honor of Rabbi Schneerson’s birthday. Most likely they had no knowledge that the treacherous Noahide Laws were a silent attachment. I was not one of the co-sponsors.

The committee referred this Resolution to the House for a vote on March 5, 1991. But here is where the real treachery begins! The record states that the House of Representatives passed this Resolution by “Unanimous Consent.” But what the average American does not know is that “Unanimous Consent” is a euphemism for getting a bill passed “under the radar” with almost NO ONE present to vote AND with NO RECORD of who voted or HOW they voted.

A Congressman’s ears prick up when he hears the words “Unanimous Consent” because he is aware that this may be a signal for skullduggery. And in this case, it most certainly was!

On the day this Resolution was “passed,” the entire membership of the House of Representatives had already been dismissed after having been told that the day’s work, including all the voting, was over. We could all go home.

It was THEN, after virtually ALL members had left, that the traitorous authors of this Resolution brought it up for a vote on the House floor – with only four hand-picked members present. It was then deceitfully “passed” by “Unanimous Consent” on March 5, 1991, by voice vote with almost NO ONE there and NO RECORD made of their names or how they voted.

Two days later, on March 7 1991, the U.S. Senate passed the Resolution by voice vote, also with no recorded vote. On March 20, 1991, it was signed by President George H. W. Bush and became Public Law 102-14.

As you read on, you will discover the identity of the evil forces that have so much control over the U.S. Government that they can accomplish these dastardly deeds under cover of darkness.


This is the language of HJ Res. 104:
102nd CONGRESS
1st Session
H. J. RES. 104
JOINT RESOLUTION
To designate March 26, 1991, as `Education Day, U.S.A. '.
HJ 104 EH
102nd CONGRESS
1st Session
H. J. RES. 104

JOINT RESOLUTION
To designate March 26, 1991, as `Education Day, U.S.A. '.

Whereas Congress recognizes the historical tradition of ethical values and principles which are the basis of civilized society and upon which our great Nation was founded;

Whereas these ethical values and principles have been the bedrock of society from the dawn of civilization, when they were known as the Seven Noahide Laws;

Whereas without these ethical values and principles the edifice of civilization stands in serious peril of returning to chaos;

Whereas society is profoundly concerned with the recent weakening of these principles that has resulted in crises that beleaguer and threaten the fabric of civilized society;

Whereas the justified preoccupation with these crises must not let the citizens of this Nation lose sight of their responsibility to transmit these historical ethical values from our distinguished past to the generations of the future;

Whereas the Lubavitch movement has fostered and promoted these ethical values and principles throughout the world;

Whereas Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson, leader of the Lubavitch movement, is universally respected and revered and his eighty-ninth birthday falls on March 26, 1991;

Whereas in tribute to this great spiritual leader, `the rebbe,' this, his ninetieth year will be seen as one of `education and giving,' the year in which we turn to education and charity to return the world to the moral and ethical values contained in the Seven Noahide Laws; and

Whereas this will be reflected in an international scroll of honor signed by the President of the United States and other heads of state: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That March 26, 1991, the start of the ninetieth year of Rabbi Menachem Schneerson, leader of the worldwide Lubavitch movement, is designated as `Education Day, U.S.A.'. The President is requested to issue a proclamation calling upon the people of the United States to observe such day with appropriate ceremonies and activities.

Passed the House of Representatives March 5, 1991.
Attest:
Clerk.
END


The Lubavitch movement mentioned in HJ Res. 104, began in the late 18th century and is the largest branch of orthodox Hasidic Judaism. One of its prime goals is the enforcement of the Noahide Laws on all humanity.

The words “Seven Noahide Laws” are mentioned twice in this Resolution. But completely missing from this Resolution are the following:

1. WHAT IS THE SPECIFIC LANGUAGE OF THESE SEVEN NOAHIDE LAWS?

2. WHO DRAFTED THESE SEVEN NOAHIDE LAWS AND WHERE DID THEY COME FROM?

3. WHEN WERE THE SEVEN NOAHIDE LAWS DRAFTED?

4. WHO DEFINES WHAT THE SEVEN NOAHIDE LAWS MEAN? WHAT IS THE PENALTY FOR VIOLATING THEM? WHO WILL ADMINISTER THEM?

5. “MAN’S” SEVEN NOAHIDE LAWS VS. GOD’S TEN COMMANDMENTS.

6. TO WHOM DO THESE SEVEN NOAHIDE LAWS APPLY AND WHO MAKES THAT DECISION?

7. IS HJ RES. 104, CONTAINING THE SEVEN NOAHIDE LAWS CONSTITUTIONAL?



(1) WHAT IS THE SPECIFIC LANGUAGE OF THESE SEVEN NOAHIDE LAWS?

The Encyclopedia of Judaism describes The Noachide Laws (the words Noahide and Noachide are used interchangeably) as follows:

The Noachide Laws – The Encyclopedia of Judaism
Civil justice [the duty to establish a legal system];
Prohibition of blasphemy [which includes the bearing of false witness];
The abandonment of idolatry;
The prohibition of incest [including adultery and other sexual offenses];
The prohibition of murder;
Also that of theft;
The law against eating flesh [a limb] cut from a living animal [ie., cruelty in any shape or form] (Babylonian Talmud. Sanh. 56A)

Before providing answers to the other six questions, I would like to describe my analysis of the process by which this Resolution was adopted by Congress.

When you initially read HJ Res. 104, it seems to be a vehicle for recognizing the eighty-ninth birthday and the beginning of the 90th year of Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson which fell on March 26, 1991. I have no recollection of anyone asking me to co-sponsor this Resolution so I am not familiar with what reasons were given to House of Representative members to sign on as co-sponsors.

The language of the Resolution speaks for itself. But the consequences of their adoption is that the Seven Noahide Laws have been recognized by the Congress of the United States and the President of America as “the bedrock of society from the dawn of civilization” and the claim will be made that they are now the law of our land, the United States. Most Americans would be shocked to learn that the Babylonian Talmud, NOT the Old Testament, is the “Holiest” book of Judaism, and is the source of these Seven Noahide Laws, which provide a specific penalty for violating any of these Seven Noahide Laws, namely death by decapitation [Sanhedrin 57A]

Make no mistake about it, what appeared to be nothing more than a recognition of the eighty-ninth birthday of Rabbi Schneerson and the establishment of Education Day in the United States will be claimed by the proponents of this Resolution as the establishment of a law by which a Christian who worships Jesus Christ will be charged with idolatry and decapitated.

Based on my fourteen years of service in the House of Representatives, the process by which HJ Res. 104 was adopted was a complete disregard and purposeful circumvention of a very important basis on which representative government is founded. Namely, accountability to the people of America of how we conduct the people’s business. Specifically, roll call votes are the means whereby members of Congress identify what laws have been passed and by whom. When laws and resolutions pass by unanimous consent, watch out! In this case someone or some group wanted to hide the real purpose behind a seemingly innocuous birthday recognition of Rabbi Schneerson.

I was not part of the discussion that led to the drafting and presentation of HJ Res. 104, to members of Congress. But based on my knowledge of how Congress works, this describes what most probably took place.
dannemeyer Congressman Bill Dan nemeyer

Jews, who by their financial contributions to members of Congress, claim they control what Congress will or will not do. A look at the recent history of U.S. politics confirms this. “He who has the gold – rules!”

Stephen Sizer, author of the book, Christian Zionism, first published in 2004, states:

“The Unity Coalition for Israel (UCFI) is probably the most recent network of Christian Zionists to be formed in the US yet it is already the largest and most powerful. The UCFI was founded by Esther Levens, a Jew, in Kansas in 1994 and now comprises a broad coalition of 200 different and autonomous Jewish and Christian organizations representing 40 million members who are ‘dedicated to a secure Israel ’. Their principal strategy is to lobby the US media and political establishment, to challenge what they term ‘disinformation and propaganda’ and to express ‘the truth about Israel ’. The UCFI includes three of the largest Christian Zionist organizations: Bridges for Peace, the International Christian Embassy Jerusalem, and Christians for Israel .

This coalition has a major influence on both the Republican and Democratic parties by providing the bulk of campaign funding to both sides. Aluf Ben, a spokesman for Shimon Peres, was quoted in Ha’aretz, a leading newspaper in Israel, as claiming that sixty percent of all financial help to Democrats came from Jewish sources.’ According to the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, ‘most pro-Israel fund-raisers estimate that at least 60 to 90 percent of Democratic campaign funding comes from Jewish sources, which also supply perhaps 40 percent of Republican funding’. Christian Zionists have also been influential in forging a closer relationship with Israel by facilitating solidarity pilgrimages and educational tours to the Holy Land .” (page 215)

Jewish lobbyists were successful in enlisting Minority Leader, Congressman Bob Michael, to be the chief sponsor of this resolution purportedly to honor and recognize Rabbi Schneerson, the leader of the Lubaviteh movement, on his eighty-ninth birthday.

These lobbyists wanted to eliminate, for obvious reasons, any chance for discussion of the seven questions written above in this report. Specifically, the Bible, with particular reference in this instance to the Ten Commandments written by God, is the source of the ethical values and principles which are the basis of civilized society, not the Seven Noahide Laws, written by man.

To avoid this debate and the recorded vote that would have followed, a strategy was devised to get Resolution 104 adopted by “unanimous consent” with no documentation that 99% of all House members were absent, and none of the four members that were present would be held accountable by a recorded vote.

The Journal of the House of Representatives (JHR) for March 5, 1991, on page 151, describes item 30.12 H Res. 95- Unfinished Business. This Resolution commended the President and United States and allied military forces in the success of Operation Desert Storm. A recorded vote was taken and Item 30.13 describes the count: Yeas 410, Nays 8. My yes vote was among the 410. This page contains the name of each member present and how he or she voted.

Item 30.14, on the next page (page 152) of the JHR, recorded the announcement that when the House adjourns, it will meet on Wednesday, March 6, at 12 noon. This told all the members that there would be no more roll call votes on Tuesday, March 5, that the day’s business was over, and within minutes after this announcement, virtually all the members were off the House floor, on their way home, and totally unaware of anything thereafter that was brought up.

Here is the subsequent record of what took place AFTER the members were gone. Item 30.15 of the JHR was a routine announcement concerning recesses and a joint session with the President of the United States :

But then after almost everyone was gone for the day, Item 30.16 on the agenda, HJ Res. 104, the Resolution in question, was surreptiously brought up on the House floor with only four members present, who spoke on behalf of the Resolution. This is how it occurred:

Congressman Thomas Sawyer (D-OH), the Chairman of the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service asked for “unanimous consent” to take up HJ Res. 104. Congressman Thomas Ridge (R-PA) reserved the right to object, but did not object. If he had objected, it would have stopped the process of unanimous consent. Instead, he acknowledged the work of Minority Leader Michel who was the chief sponsor of this legislation and he then yielded to (Jewish) Congressman Benjamin Gilman (R-NY). Congressman Gilman spoke briefly as did Minority Leader Michel. It appears likely that these four Congressmen were the only ones present.

After assisting with the underhanded passage of HJ Res. 104, Congressman Thomas Ridge also subsequently assisted in the cover up of the truth of 9/11, claiming that flight #93 crashed in Pennsylvania , even though NO parts of an airplane or passengers or baggage were ever found. From then on Thomas Ridge ’s career blossomed! At the time of 9/11, Ridge was Governor of Pennsylvania (1995-2001). But in 2003, Ridge was named the First Secretary of the new Department of Homeland Security (2003-2005). After the tragic multiple shootings at Virginia Tech on April 16, 2007, Ridge became part of the committee to cover up what actually happened in that event.

Continuing with the debacle of the “Noahide Laws” passage, the Speaker pro tempore asked if there was any objection to the request from Congressman Sawyer. There was no objection.

30.16 EDUCATION DAY, U.S.A.
On motion of Mr. Sawyer, by unanimous consent, the Committee on Post Office and Civil service was discharged from further consideration of the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 104) to designate March 26, 1991, as “Education Day, U.S. A.”
When said joint resolution was considered, read twice, ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, was read a third time by title, and passed.
A motion to reconsider the vote whereby said joint resolution was passed was, by unanimous consent, laid on the table.
Ordered, That the Clerk request the concurrence of the Senate in said joint resolution.

Their total remarks consumed no more than four or five minutes and there was not even a mention of the Seven Noahide Laws. For the balance of the early evening these routine non-controversial items were considered by the “House” with only these four members present.

Item 30.17 National Employ the Older Worker Week
Item 30.18 Baltic Foreeda day
Item 30.19 Leave of Absence
Item 30.20 Adjournment

The Jews claim that with their financial contributions they have bought control of the U.S. Congress, and so they have. As proof of this statement no one needs to search further than the blunt words of Israeli Prime Minister, Ariel Sharon, uttered on October 3, 2001 to his colleague, Shimon Peres:

“Every time we do something, you tell me America will do this and will do that…I want to tell you something very clear: Don’t worry about American pressure on Israel . We, the Jewish people, control America , and the Americans know it.”

Indeed, the Jews had “bought” control of the House and Senate which resulted in ignoring the whole concept of accountability that the presence of debate and a roll call vote accomplishes. Bringing up HJ Res. 104 for passage at a time when the process selected assured that no more than four members of the House of Representatives were present, each of whom was committed to the passage of HJ Res. 104, guaranteed that when the request for unanimous consent was expressed on the floor of the House, no one was around to object. And because no one objected, passage was obtained with no member having his or her vote recorded in favor of or against the Resolution. By design there was no roll call vote and thus no member was held accountable for what Congress did. This is a prime example of the fraud perpetrated on the American people by their so-called “Representatives.” The oft quoted cliché is operating here, “With friends like these, who needs enemies?”


(2) WHO DRAFTED THESE SEVEN NOAHIDE LAWS AND WHERE DID THEY COME FROM?

Dr. Eliezer Segal, a Jewish Associate Professor of Theology at the University of Calgary , admits that history proves that the Talmud, Mishnah (a part of the Talmud) and the seven Noahide Laws are derived from Babylonian traditions, that Jesus vehemently denounced because they nullified the teaching of Scripture.

The Encyclopedia of Judaism identifies the Babylonian Talmud (T.B.) as the source of the Noahide Laws.

According to “Secret Societies and Subversive Movements,” by Nesta Webster, the Talmud, and the Kabbalah, were derived from Jewish oral Traditions which the Jews claim to have the same authority as the Laws of Moses found in Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy.

The “Holiest” books of Judaism are the Talmud, a compendium of over 100 “books” written by Pharisees and Jewish Rabbis, that is the utter perversion of God’s Word. The Kabbalah, another Jewish “holy book,” is a book of witchcraft and licentious debauchery.

Provisions of the Talmud, Genesis Rabbah 16: 6. Sanhedrin 56 states that the seven Noahide Laws were commanded to Adam. Yet there is nothing in the Bible to support this claim.

The book, Judaism’s Strange Gods, by Michael A. Hoffman (2000), describes how the Talmud specifically defines all non-Jews as non-human animals. It also distinguishes between actions by Jews against non-Jews, from actions of non-Jews against Jews. Jews are clearly spoken of as Superior to non-Jews.
[...]
READ THE REMAINDER OF DANNEMEYER'S REPORT HERE
 
 
 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_E._Dannemeyer

                                                                              






                                                                             




                                                                               
         
   






                                                                              

Monday, May 13, 2013

Notice:




Folks, I would like to say I need donations in any amount to help with my study and research.
It costs for fuel to get to and from the Law Library, and time to research and cost to get the copies of the Law, Codes and Statutes and Blacks Law Dictionary to place on this Blog. Please help?
Thank you.

                                                                            





                                                                             




                                                                             
     

Sunday, May 12, 2013

Supreme Court of the United States




– Supreme Court of the United States 1795 "Inasmuch as every government is an artificial person, an abstraction, and a creature of the mind only, a government can interface only with other artificial persons. The imaginary, having neither actuality nor substance, is foreclosed from creating and attaining parity with the tangible. The legal manifestation of this is that no government, as well as any law, agency, aspect, court, etc. can concern itself with anything other than corporate, artificial persons and the contracts between them." S.C.R. 1795, Penhallow v. Doane's Administraters (3 U.S. 54; 1 L.Ed. 57; 3 Dall. 54)

Marbury v. Madison, 5 US 137,(1803) "The Constitution of these United States is the supreme law of the land. Any law that is repugnant to the Constitution is null and void of law."

Murdock v. Penn., 319 US 105, (1943) "No state shall convert a liberty into a privilege, license it, and attach a fee to it."



Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham, 373 US 262, (1969) "If the state converts a liberty into a privilege, the citizen can engage in the right with impunity."



                                                                                 


Friday, May 10, 2013

What the Hell? A Missile Strike in West, Texas?




I have been watching the news concerning the West, Texas Fertilizer Plant explosion for the last few weeks. With the increasing oppression going on and seeing the False Flag operations all over the Country has me very concerned. I would like to know who would do such a thing on the Sovereign Soil of the Republic of Texas. It is way past time for the County Commissioners Courts to form Sheriff Militias in each County in Texas. It is also time for each Citizen of ever race creed and color to secede Texas Out of the Corrupt Corporation Aka the UNITED STATES, or U.S., or U.S.A.Inc.
See Two Constitutions and Fraud in an earlier post and read the post The Prophecy of Texas.
It is my feeling that the Legislature of the STATE OF TEXAS is either to afraid, or unwilling to secede. Therefore: We have an Interim Government set up and as Counsel General of the Interim Government of the Republic of Texas I duly here by call for at least 2 people from each County in the current Borders of Texas to E-Mail me, due to the fact we are in need of a Delegates Convention to approve the revised 1836 Declaration of Independence and the revised 1836 Constitution and further set up a Constitutional Government From an Interim Government and let the Legislature of the STATE OF TEXAS know that We The People will no longer stand for oppression on the Soil of Texas.
Here are news releases that I have found and been keeping up with.
_________________________________________________________________________________

I Think A Missile Strike Appears To Have Destroyed West Texas Fertilizer Plant


Missile Strike Appears To Have Destroyed West Texas Fertilizer Plant
With everyone’s attention on the Boston Marathon bombings there have been a few events that occurred last week that have flown under the radar. On Wednesday April 17th 2013 there was an explosion at a fertilizer plant in West Texas that killed several people and injured hundreds. Raw video footage showing the plant on fire and the subsequent explosion shows what looks like a missile blowing up the complex. A very distinct sound can be heard right before the blast indicating that some sort of object traveling at a very high rate of speed was fired into the area. The corporate media has claimed that something inside the plant set off the larger explosion but if you carefully watch the footage it is obvious that this was not the case. The explosion was reported to have been felt up to 50 miles away and even registered 2.1 on the Richter scale creating an enormous mushroom cloud. This is similar to the Oklahoma City bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah federal building which resulted in a 3.0 reading on the Richter scale. The blast left a crater 30 yards across and 15 yards deep. Barry Murry a local resident who lives a mile away from the plant compared the blast to a bomb going off when speaking with CNN and this is just one of several eyewitness accounts comparing it as such. Common sense would dictate that this type of seismic activity and the crater size could have only occurred with the use of a powerful missile or bomb and the video evidence certainly supports it.
http://www.blacklistednews.com/Missile_Strike_Appears_To_Hav...

___________________________________________________________________________________
Did Missile Hit Fertilizer Plant in West Texas?
 Friday, April 19, 2013 12:42

From youtube:
Keep in mind, this is my opinion as proof. It doesn’t have to be yours. This to me definitely sounded like an approaching and impacting projectile; in my opinion a missile. Doesn’t mean I’m right, but it’s proof enough for me. Consider this very company had a pending class action lawsuit against Monsanto. The plot thickens with that little tidbit of info.

 Watch Video Here!

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Friday, April 19, 2013

http://www.ascensionwithearth.com/2013/04/fertilizer-plant-explosion-another.html

Updated #2: Fertilizer Plant Explosion Another False Flag? Possible Missile Sighting at Fertilizer Plant Explosion Near Waco Texas!

Update #2:  New video with wider angle and multiple repeats in slow motion

People are also comparing the sound of the projectile as a military missile such as a tomahawk or JDAM.  Listen to the sound of the incoming missile, it can be heard on all videos released.

Watch Video 1 Here! 

Watch Video 2 Here!
Update: New video with wider angle showing missile hitting Texas plant
Watch Video 3 Here!
Projectile Captured Hitting Fertilizer Plant in Texas
Watch Video 4 Here!
Watch Video 5 Here!
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Before the Blast, West Fertilizer’s Monsanto Lawsuit

 

 
As details emerge about the Texas fertilizer plant that was the site of Wednesday’s fatal explosion and fire, a few tidbits can be gleaned from a 2007 lawsuit that the plant’s owners filed against agribusiness giant Monsanto Co. MON -1.61%
 
The suit, filed as a potential class action in U.S. District Court for the western district of Texas, claimed that Monsanto had artificially inflated prices for its herbicide Roundup through anti-competitive actions. The suit did not relate to storing fertilizer, believed to be at the root of Wednesday’s blast.
 
The suit was filed by Texas Grain Storage Inc. The company now calls itself West Fertilizer Co.
 
In the suit, the company said that it was started in 1957 as a grain-storage business by the Plasek family in the town of West , Texas . It later built a small fertilizer-blend plant and started selling fertilizer to area farmers.
 
Zak Covar, executive director of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, told a news conference Wednesday that the fertilizer storage and blending facility had been there since 1962.
 
In 1970 it started selling other agricultural products, including some from Monsanto, and by 1997 it had struck a deal with Monsanto to directly purchase Roundup each year.
 
A court filing in 2008 indicated that Texas Grain Storage recently had been sold. Emil Plasek is listed as a former owner.
 
Texas Grain Storage said it monitored the Roundup, stored in a stainless steel tank, through a telephone connected to the tank, the company said.
 
Many documents in the case are sealed, and the public documents don’t reveal the names of the plant’s then-current owners. Texas corporation records list the president of the company as Donald R. Adair, and show a business operating as Adair Grain Inc. at the same address.
 
Texas Grain Storage was represented by roughly 30 lawyers at 12 firms, according to court records. One lawyer who represented Texas Grain said the suit stalled in 2010 after a magistrate judge denied a request to certify the case as a class action. The lawyer said Texas Grain appealed the ruling, and that a district judge has yet to rule on the appeal. The last public filing in the case was in 2010.
 
Monsanto responded to Texas Grain’s complaint by saying the company didn’t have standing to bring the case and was barred by the statute of limitations. Thursday, a Monsanto spokesman said, “The long dormant lawsuit filed by Texas Grain had nothing to do with fertilizer or the operation of the West, Texas plant.”
 
 
 
 
Texas Fertilizer Plant Expl*sion | M*ssile Strike Proof
 
Warning: One cuss word near the end of the video.
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jrlFTlzprKI&feature=youtube_gdata_player  1 min 52 se
                                        
                                                               


                                                  



                                                                   



Thursday, May 9, 2013

Obama Serves 14-State Governors With Warnings of Arrest: And why is this not front page news?



http://beforeitsnews.com/opinion-conservative/2013/05/obama-serves-14-state-governors-with-warnings-of-arrest-and-why-is-this-not-front-page-news-2636456.html


 Tuesday, May 7, 2013 11:57
by Ken Larive
Defense
Barack Hussein Obama had served 14-State Governors in the United States, National Security Letters (NSLs) warning that the Governor’s actions in attempting to form “State Defense Forces” needs to be halted “immediately” or they will face arrest for the crime of treason. The employment of NSLs was authorized by the Patriot Act introduced by George W. Bush. Contained within the section related to these letters, it is forbidden for anyone receiving a NSL warning to even acknowledge the existence of said communication.
Obama is angered by the several State Governors who have reestablished “State Defense Forces.” These forces are described as: “State Defense Forces (also known as State Guards, State Military Reserves, State Militias) in the United States are military units that operate under the sole authority of a state government; they are not regulated by the National Guard Bureau nor are they part of the Army National Guard of the United States. State Defense Forces are authorized by state and federal law and are under the command of the governor of each state. State Defense Forces are distinct from their state’s National Guard in that they cannot become federal entities.”
Mr. Obama is fearful of these State Defense Forces, in that he does not have control of said forces, and with the U.S. Military stretched to near breaking from multiple deployments and theatre actions in Iraq and Afghanistan, these State military forces would be under the direct command and authority of the Governors in which states have said forces. In essence, the Governors would have “de facto control” of the United States.
The two Governors leading this move are: Tim Pawlenty, Governor of Minnesota; and Rick Perry, Governor of Texas. Both of these State Governors stated they have: “…deep fear the President is destroying their Nation.” Governor Pawlenty’s fear of Obama is that since Obama took office he has appeased America’s enemies and has shunned some of America’s strongest allies, especially Israel. Governor Perry has declared that Obama is punishing his State of Texas by dumping tens-of-thousands of illegal Mexican immigrants into the cities and small towns of Texas. Governor Perry further recently stated: “If Barack Obama’s Washington doesn’t stop being so oppressive, Texans might feel compelled to renounce their American citizenry and secede from the union.”
Obama fearing a revolution against him by the states, has moved swiftly by nationalizing nearly all National Guard Forces in multiple states; Georgia, Alabama, Kansas, Minnesota, Tennessee, Virginia, Louisiana, South Carolina – to name a few. The Governors of the Great States of Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia still have under their Command-and-Control the State Defense Forces to go against U.S. Federal forces should the need arise. Also important to note: There are NO U.S. laws prohibiting National Guard troops from also joining their State’s Defense Forces. This dilemma occurred during the Civil War with many “citizen soldiers” choosing to serve their states instead of the Federal Government.


                                                                                     

Tuesday, May 7, 2013

NOTICE: original copies of the Traffic Ticket Books




NOTICE: To anyone that wants the original copies of the Traffic Ticket Books, Please E-mail
texasgodscountry@gmail.com or ktownsend@gmail.com or



San Jacinto Constitutional Study Group

                                                                             Eastern Div.                               Western Div.                               Southern Div.                               Northern Div.

Civil Rights Investigators             P.O.Box 1697                  6763 Hwy  6 South                  P.O.Box 982                          1504 Memorial Ln.                   Court Watchers

                                                                        Channelview, Texas                       1100-120                                        Alvin, Texas                         Conroe, Texas

                                                                         TPZ [77530]                                 Houston, Texas                              TPZ [77511]                            TPZ [77304]

                                                                                                                                  TPZ [77083]

Thank you.

Dare To Make A Difference




Dare To Make A Difference


Make The Courts Earn Their Money


Stand Up And Ask Why Am I Not Free To Assemble, Go To Church, Go To The Grocery Store, Go To The Movies, Go To The Doctor, Go To Work or To My Family’s Home Without Permission From The Government.


Ask Yourself Why, Then Ask The Courts Why.


Are We A People Who Loves Freedom or a People Who Accepts Slavery And Ask For Permission To Breath & Move Around?

Something Is Wrong When Public Servants Arrest Us When No Harm To Others or Property Has Occurred.

"If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen."
- Samuel Adams, speech at the Philadelphia
  State House, August 1, 1776.


Freedom Is The Only Answer To The Question Of Slavery



“My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge …”
Hosea 4:6

Traffic Ticket Due Process







San Jacinto Constitutional Study Group
                                                                             Eastern Div.                               Western Div.                               Southern Div.                               Northern Div.
Civil Rights Investigators             P.O.Box 1697                  6763 Hwy  6 South                  P.O.Box 982                          1504 Memorial Ln.                   Court Watchers
                                                                        Channelview, Texas                       1100-120                                        Alvin, Texas                         Conroe, Texas
                                                                         TPZ [77530]                                 Houston, Texas                              TPZ [77511]                            TPZ [77304]
                                                                                                                                  TPZ [77083]



Traffic Ticket Due Process

When we think of due process, most people think of their day in court, but lets look at a definition of :
Due process – ‘A term of US law which refers to fundamental procedural legal safeguards of which every citizen has an absolute right when a state or court purports to take a decision that could affect any right of that citizen. The most basic right protected under the due process doctrine is the right to be given notice, and an opportunity to be heard. The term is now also in use in other countries, again to refer to basic fundamental legal rights such as the right to be heard.’ (see DUHAIME'S LAW DICTIONARY)
Fundamental procedural legal safeguards is what due process is all about. It is our public servant’s procedure that must be followed, which guarantee your right to due process.
Many fundamental procedural legal safeguards can be found under Article I of the Texas Constitution and in the Bill of Rights found in the Constitution for the United States of America.

When you are stopped for a traffic violation, your fundamental procedural legal safeguards of due process should begin.

First things first; is the officer, that pulls you over, a defacto or dejure officer? A ‘dejure officer’ has fulfilled the requirements of office, where he has filed his Statement of Officer as required in Article 16, Section 1 of the Texas Constitution and he has accomplished all training required by law to safeguard the rights of the people. The ‘defacto officer’ is someone that hires in a police department or is deputized by some dejure officer, that has fulfilled his requirements to hold office. This defacto officer has been given the authority to deal with the public or third parties in certain situations. (See Walberg v. State, 73 Wis.2d 448, 463-64, 243 N.W.2d 190, 198 (1976)). A defacto officer could do things like crowd control or guard a building. But, when you are in your car, you are now separated from the public and you could not be a third party, when you are charged with doing the act itself. (See… Lincoln St., Inc. v. Town of Springfield, 615 A.2d 1028, 1031 (Vt. 1992) and See… Uhrig v. Regan, 623 F.Supp. 968, 971 (D. Md. 1985)).

Now, if the officer is a defacto officer, then there is a question of his authority to write the ticket and this should to be addressed. Authority to act is defiantly a due process issue. When you look in the Transportation Code, under Sec. 541.002(4), it states: ‘"Police officer" means an officer authorized to direct traffic or arrest persons who violate traffic regulations.’

Did you notice the word authorized? This shows that not just anybody can do what a police officer can do. You must be authorized.

OK, now you have an authorized dejure police office that just pulled you over for a traffic violation. So far so good. He comes up to your window and asks for your Driver License, proof of Financial Responsibility and he notices that your Safety Sticker and Registration is expired. You tell the nice officer that you don’t have a Driver License or proof of Financial Responsibility.

The nice officer now has 3 options. He could let you go and tell you to have a nice day; get his ticket book out and write you up, hand you the ticket and tell you to have a nice day; or put you under arrest and take you immediately to a magistrate. Lets take the option of being arrested and taken immediately to a magistrate.

First, in the Transportation Code, Section 543.002(a)(2), it states that the officer will take you to the magistrate only if you refuse to sign the ticket. So if you do not refuse to sign the ticket, the code does not authorize the police officer to take you away from the scene, except for being arrested for a hit and run. If he does take you to jail or to see a magistrate, when you did not refuse to sign the ticket, your procedural due process rights were possibly violated.

Lets say that you did refuse to sign the ticket and away you go. If the officer does not take you immediately to the magistrate then your procedural due process rights were possibly violated and possibly your civil rights. Being imprisoned for a debt, is not allowed under Article 1, Section 18 of the Texas Constitution. What I have found out, by using the Texas Public Information Request, the Houston Police Dept. has a policy for their officers to just fill out a form on anyone who refuses to sign the ticket. This is so the officers do not waste valuable ticket writing time and take you to the magistrate (my opinion).

The magistrate then has a hearing of probable cause for the Accused and allows the Accused to sign a promise to appear, so that the Accused may go on his way. If you do not sign the promise to appear, the gray area begins. If the magistrate threatens to put you in jail, for not signing the promise to appear and then he acts upon his threat, your procedural due process may have been violated under Article 15.17(b) of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure (TCCrP).

Article 15.17(b) (TCCrP) states: ‘After an accused charged with a misdemeanor punishable by fine only is taken before a magistrate under Subsection (a) of this article and the magistrate has identified the accused with certainty, the magistrate may release the accused without bond and order the accused to appear at a later date for arraignment in the county court or statutory county court.’

Giving your name and birth date is usually considered as being identified. When you look for someone in jail, you need their name and birth date, to get anywhere. Remember, you cannot be charged with failure to identify, until you have been charged with a crime. (see KOLENDER v. LAWSON, 461 U.S. 352 (1983))

Don’t let the word ‘may’ fool you in Article 15.17(b). What other option would the magistrate have and not violation the Texas Constitution? This code states that your arraignment has to be at the county court or statutory county court (county criminal court or the county court at law), not at the Municipal or JP court. If they do have your arraignment at the Municipal or JP court, is this another violation of procedural due process?

Since the maximum penalty for a Class C misdemeanor is a fine only, the law does not authorize confinement, even if someone would not pay a bond or not sign a promise to appear. You would not believe how many people are put in jail over traffic tickets. The matter could be resolved easily by summons or subpoena, at the judge's bench, let the people go, then pick them up if they don’t appear, for contempt of court. But, that is just my opinion. But of course, I have not been able to find where a Municipal Court or Justice of the Peace Court has the authority to hold someone in contempt, since that is a jailable offense and each court has no jurisdiction concerning these issues. Maybe some JP or city judge could e-mail me the code, rule or regulation that allows them to put someone in jail for contempt. Being jailed for contempt, by a Municipal Judge or JP, may be possibly another violation of procedural due process and/or civil rights.

OK, now you signed the promise to appear and the judge lets you go without paying any funds. You notice that the ticket or promise to appear document informs you to appear on a certain day to a Municipal court or JP court (we discussed this problem).

The day finally arrives; you take off work and you show up early at the court room. You notice the room packed with people; with more coming in as the minutes tick by. Everyone you talk to is there for a traffic violation. The judge comes in and starts his speech informing the people how they can handle their case. The judge states that anyone that has just one ticket and elect to take a Driver’s Training class, to get rid of the ticket, will only have to pay a small court cost of $60 bucks or so. The next instruction from the judge is that you can plead guilty, not guilty or nolo contendere (latin for ‘I will not defend it.’), when your name is called. The people that plead guilty or nolo contendere usually get their fine reduced from 10 – 50%, because you fess up of being a criminal. The next instructions from the judge is, that anyone that plead ‘not guilty’, can ask for a jury trial or a bench trial (trial with judge only). Of course, the constitution guarantees a Trial By Jury and not a Jury Trial, but that is another story.

There you are trying to make up your mind what to do, but let's look at what the rules say.

Article 45.023 (TCCrP) states: ‘After the jury is impaneled, or after the defendant has waived trial by jury, the defendant may: (1) plead guilty or not guilty; (2) enter a plea of nolo contendere; or (3) enter the special plea of double jeopardy as described by Article 27.05’.

If the Judge makes you plea before the jury is impaneled or before you waive the jury, is this action a violation of your procedural due process? Article 45.024 (TCCrP) states that a judge can plead ‘not guilty’ for you, if you refuse to plea. The reason why you should not have to plea, until the jury is impaneled, is because you have nothing but a copy of the ticket to plea to. How could you plea to a charge when you have not seen the indictment, information or a copy of the complaint against you? Looks like you need some documentation, before you plea.

Article 45.018(b) (TCCrP) states: ‘A defendant is entitled to notice of a complaint against the defendant not later than the day before the date of any proceeding in the prosecution of the defendant under the complaint. The defendant may waive the right to notice granted by this subsection’.

Article 2.04 (TCCrP) states: ‘Upon complaint being made before a district or county attorney that an offense has been committed in his district or county, he shall reduce the complaint to writing and cause the same to be signed and sworn to by the complainant, and it shall be duly attested by said attorney’.

What if the complaint is not signed by the district or county attorney, is this a violation of your procedural due process?

If you do not receive a copy of the complaint before any proceeding, is that a violation of your procedural due process? What if the complaint charges you with something completely different than what the ticket stated? Couldn’t you point this out to the judge, to get it changed, before you plead to a charge completely different than the ticket indicated?

Article 1.14(b) (TCCrP) states: ‘If the defendant does not object to a defect, error, or irregularity of form or substance in an indictment or information before the date on which the trial on the merits commences, he waives and forfeits the right to object to the defect, error, or irregularity and he may not raise the objection on appeal or in any other postconviction proceeding’.

Information is found in Article 2.05 (TCCrP) which states: ‘If the offense be a misdemeanor, the attorney shall forthwith prepare an information based upon such complaint and file the same in the court having jurisdiction;…’.

Article 25.04 (TCCrP) states: ‘In misdemeanors, it shall not be necessary before trial to furnish the accused with a copy of the indictment or information; but he or his counsel may demand a copy, which shall be given as early as possible.’

Why wouldn’t you ask for a copy of the information? There may be something wrong with the paperwork.

Article 12.02 (TCCrP) shows that there is a statute of limitation of when the information can be filed in court: ‘An indictment or information for any misdemeanor may be presented within two years from the date of the commission of the offense, and not afterward’.

If you were to ask for a copy of the information and you do not get a copy before any hearing or at least before the Article 28.01 (TCCrP) Pre-Trial, would this be a violation of your procedural due process?

OK, you’ve got a copy of the complaint and a copy of the information, everything is in order, and you put in a Motion for a Pre-Trial for hearing of motions, as per Article 28.01 of the TCCrP. Here you question the attorney representing the State of Texas. In the Municipal Courts they use a city attorney. In the JP Courts they usually use an appointed assistant district attorney, where the same attorney does not show up for weeks or months and sometime never. The accused rarely sees the same attorney again from hearing to hearing.

Article 2.02 (TCCrP) states: ‘The county attorney shall attend the terms of court in his county below the grade of district court, and shall represent the State in all criminal cases under examination or prosecution in said county; and in the absence of the district attorney he shall represent the State alone and, when requested, shall aid the district attorney in the prosecution of any case in behalf of the State in the district court.  He shall represent the State in cases he has prosecuted which are appealed’.

Article V, Section 21 of the Texas Constitution states:  ‘…  The County Attorneys shall represent the State in all cases in the District and inferior courts in their respective counties; but if any county shall be included in a district in which there shall be a District Attorney, the respective duties of District Attorneys and County Attorneys shall in such counties be regulated by the Legislature. …’.

If the county attorney does not represent the State of Texas, in your trial, is this another violation of your procedural due process?

If the judge does not allow you to have a Pre-Trial, would that be a violation of your procedural due process?

After the Pre-Trial and the judge denies all your motions, discovery and anything else you can dream up, the Judge sets you for Jury Trial, unless you waive the right to a jury.

If you do not waive the jury, they bring in people for you to question to set on the jury. The rules say that you may dismiss three jurist and the prosecutor can dismiss three. We usually ask the jury to raise their hand, if they think you are not guilty. Most jurist will not raise their hands, which show they are prejudice against you. You are suppose to be innocent until proven guilty, right? The judge hates that and usually denies you the right to strike the whole jury. Is this a violation of your procedural due process?

OK, the jury is paneled and you try to inform the jury that they can judge the law as well as the fact of the case, but the judge screams to the jury that he, the judge, will tell the jury what the law is and that the jury will only judge the facts of the case. As recently as 1972, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia said that the jury has an " unreviewable and irreversible power... to acquit in disregard of the instructions on the law given by the trial judge.... (US vs Dougherty, 473 F 2d 1113, 1139 (1972)). The judge will not allow you to tell the jury this information. Is this a violation of your procedural due process?

Just think, if you were charged with ‘Eating Bananas on Tuesday’. Let's say that you were eating a banana on a Tuesday. The judge will only allow the jury to judge the facts presented to them, whether you did or did not eat a banana and whether you did this act on a Tuesday. Whether this law has anything to do with you, the judge will not allow the jury to decide this issue. Is this a violation of your procedural due process?

The police officer says you did it, you say you didn’t. Who are the jury going to believe? What happen to reasonable doubt? Oh, I know, a police officer would never lie.

OK, the jury finds you guilty of ‘Eating Bananas on Tuesday’, while in your car (you know, a traffic violation).

Now comes the judgment of the court for you to pay some fine, since the maximum allowed penalty is a fine only, for a Class C misdemeanor.

Article 42.15 (TCCrP) states that the judge can make you pay the fine and court cost.

Article 43.01 (TCCrP) states how you can determined when your fine has been fully paid.

The most interesting is Article 43.03 (TCCrP) which states: ‘A term of confinement for default in payment of fine or costs or both may not exceed the maximum term of confinement authorized for the offense for which the defendant was sentenced to pay the fine or costs or both.’

If you cannot pay the fine, the judge usually puts you in jail for so many days and gives you credit for time served. I think it is $50 a day, until the fine is paid. Article 43.03 indicates that you cannot be left in jail no longer that the maximum amount of days allowed for that type of violation. Now, if your violation does not include any jail time, what is the maximum amount of time, can the judge put you in jail for a $200 fine? Looks like none to me. If he does put you in jail for a Class C misdemeanor, has he violated your procedural due process and/or civil rights?

Now you put in a Motion for a new trial to the Judge. He denies that. Now you put in a Notice of Appeal and the clerk tells you that you need to put up double the fine, before you can appeal.

Problem is, we have not been able to fine where in the code, allows an appeal bond for a Class C misdemeanor. We have seen the bail bonds to keep you out of jail, but nothing was found where any jail time was not associated with the violation.

If they make you put up a cash or a surety bond, before you are allowed to appeal, is this a violation of your procedural due process?

Appeal Court violations of due process will have to be done at a later date. You have enough to study before we get to that.

Final thought to ponder. There cannot be any Rule, Policy, Custom, Ordinance, Law, Statute, Act, Resolution, Regulation or Treaty that can be passed to violate the fundamental procedural legal safeguards of which every Citizen has an absolute right, as specified in the Texas Constitution and the Constitution for the United States of America. We would have to do that ourselves, by passing an Amendment to the Constitution, removing these fundamental rights. Congress cannot allow the United Nations to take the rights of the people of Texas. Don’t let the media tell you different. Make them show their authority. It is not there.

Many people associated with the San Jacinto Constitutional Study Group are credited with discovering the information that is found here.

Article by: Bobie Kenneth Townsend

Member of the San Jacinto Constitutional Study Group (2013)
Conroe, Texas -  Chapter
ktownsend@gmail.com

All information found in this article will not be considered as legal advice. All Information should be verified by the reader. Permission to copy is granted. The truth should always spread.

Remember

The Unknowing Are Slaves To Liars

(Charles Barnham)