Home

Barratry and Personage : How the BAR Associations and Professional Predatory Guardians Traffic the Elderly and Disabled.

Leave a comment

Marti Oakley

©copyright 7-01-18

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“It would seem to me that if you are intent on depriving a targeted victim of their identity, this should be done in a civil court, where evidence would have to be provided under oath attesting to the charges being levied. Let a jury decide if your personal identity should be taken from you and gifted to a professional predator that most likely has a long and sordid history of preying on those they perceive to be vulnerable.”

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Declaring the living individual dead to enable the theft of the estate.

Barratry, a term that is now referred to as archaic, rarely, if ever, appears in the legal lexicon. It is the act of knowingly bringing false claims and charges against a targeted individual by members of the BAR Associations. And, it is the result of “the frequent incitement of lawsuits and quarrels that is a punishable offense.”

Every such individual ever forced into one of these pseudo “courts” that are in reality, tribunals, has suffered barratry and been subjected to a foreign jurisdiction and form of “pseudo law”, within which they were specifically disabled and unable to defend themselves. These unconstitutional tribunals were specifically created for this purpose: to leave the individual totally unable to defend themselves against a system devised to render them without any rights or protections. The Constitutional authority for these tribunals has been argued under the 1st, 3rd and 4th Articles of the Constitution, the sheer number of these treatises being a clear indication that they are not Constitutional.

Next, is the use of personage ( a term redefined for obvious reasons). Both barratry and personage are crimes against the individual by members of the BAR. Both of these criminal acts are used to enact foreign statutory law against living people. Foreign to the people, as statutory law circumvents the natural rights and liberties guaranteed in the Constitution and erects a legal fiction contradicting and adverse to the Constitution Bill of Rights, to directly benefit its creators. Which is exactly the only purpose of statutes.

The term “personage” has now been redefined to mean a person of importance or rank. Originally, it meant to assume another individuals’ identity with the intent of accessing their property; an act criminally prosecutable.

Today we recognize personage as identity theft. Of course its only a crime if you do it…if a member of the BAR Association does it in collusion with a for-profit guardian intent on availing themselves of your identity with the intent of fraudulently accessing your assets, it is not a problem; just all in a day’s work. Once the identity theft has been secured, testamentary powers are gifted to the predators who now present themselves as the civilly dead person so that the liquidation of the estate assets can begin in earnest. More

Advertisements

Never, Never Land

8 Comments

Author,
Chuck Frank

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

NSA Operations Center

A national voter referendum has taken place in the Netherlands this week with regard to a vote in the Netherlands that has narrowly rejected online data collection powers for intelligence agencies.  With about 90% of the votes counted, 48.8% have rejected the spying powers, while 47.3% voted in favor.

Why is this so important? For some, it will be business as usual. For others it is a victory over the invasion of privacy and freedom. The Dutch process differs tremendously from the U.S. to where it would take an “act of Congress” to put the brakes on phone taps or e-mail gatherings.

With as much corruption going on within the halls of Congress and other agencies who’s swamp still needs to be drained, isn’t it about time that “we the people” had the same National Referendum opportunity as the Dutch in order that privacy is upheld per the people’s constitutional rights, while at the same time, requests for wire surveillance may only be used when a warrant from a judge is issued on “probable cause.”

Since government and eaves dropping agencies cannot totally be trusted when it comes to a police state, should not the American people, as with the Dutch, have a choice in the matter? And if not, we the people will surely be stuck with an Orwellian police state which has already exceeded 1984 expectations and taken us to never, never land. More

Stop A Court Case With One Question – Right to Subrogation

2 Comments

The Rutherford Institute: Constitutional Q&A: American Community Survey

2 Comments

Resources

PDF VERSION AVAILABLE HERE

Also available, The Rutherford Institute has developed a form letter that you may use in standing up against the government’s attempt to force you to disclose personal information

© 2017 The Rutherford Institute[1]

In an age when the government has significant technological resources at its disposal to not only carry out warrantless surveillance on American citizens but also to harvest and mine that data for its own dubious purposes, whether it be crime-mapping or profiling based on race or religion, the potential for abuse is grave. As such, any attempt by the government to encroach upon the citizenry’s privacy rights or establish a system by which the populace can be targeted, tracked and singled out must be met with extreme caution.

The American Community Survey (ACS) qualifies as a government program whose purpose, while seemingly benign, raises significant constitutional concerns.

Empowered by Congress with greater powers to amass information about citizens, the Census Bureau introduced the ACS in 2005. Unlike the traditional census, which is limited to a simple head count every ten years for the purpose of establishing representation in Congress, the ACS is sent on an ongoing basis to about 3 million homes every year at a reported cost of hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars.[2]

Individuals who receive the ACS must complete it or be subject to monetary penalties. Although no reports have surfaced of individuals actually being penalized for refusing to answer the survey, the potential fines that can be levied for refusing to participate in the ACS are staggering. For every question not answered, there is a $100 fine. And for every intentionally false response to a question, the fine is $500. Therefore, if a person representing a two-person household refused to fill out any questions or simply answered nonsensically, the total fines could range from upwards of $10,000 and $50,000 for noncompliance. More

Been to a Protest? Then you are an economic terrorist!

Leave a comment

Urgent action needed: a proposed new law would allow authorities to charge nonviolent protesters with “economic terrorism.” Click here to sign the petition to stop this!

This is a disaster. A new law proposed by a State Senator in Washington would allow prosecutors to charge protesters with “economic terrorism,” and slap them with serious felony charges that could lead to jail time, just for making their voices heard. [1]

The outrageous proposed bill would make any form of protest that causes an “economic disruption” a class C felony, punishable by up to 5 years in prison. It wouldn’t just apply to people who engage in illegal acts or vandalism, it could be used to prosecute any person or group who organizes a protest that authorities deem as “disruptive.” Broadly interpreted, this law could apply to time honored traditions of nonviolent dissent like boycotts and civil disobedience.

Click here to sign the petition demanding lawmakers drop this dangerous attack on our basic right to free speech and assembly.

Charging protesters with terrorism clearly violates the First Amendment and is an attempt to silence legitimate dissent. Please sign the petition telling lawmakers to reject this dangerous legislation.

We need everyone to speak out right now so we can shut down this terrible proposed legislation before it spreads to other states. This affects all of us. Will you sign the petition to stop it?

Click here: https://actionnetwork.org/petitions/urgent-new-law-would-charge-protesters-with-terrorism/

We need to remain vigilant. No matter who is in power, protecting our right to dissent is imperative for the future of our society.

Thanks for reading,
-Evan at Fight for the Future

[1] The Hill: http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/306580-washington-republican-floats-charging-protesters-with-economic-terrorism

Fight for the Future works to protect your rights in the digital age.

Dear Senator Manchin……What’s killing us is people like you who need to be removed from office

1 Comment

new-logo25Marti Oakley

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

**Note: IF congress allows due process protections to be stripped from those on these massive FBI lists, the premise for that will be quickly adopted by other federal agencies, even those with no interest in guns sales. There is no way this will be limited to the purchasing of guns. The recent event in Orlando was the stage show meant to shock the public into forfeiting their constitutional rights.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

10155281_461153860682070_1662322543_nSenator Joe Manchin (D) appears not to understand the rights contained in the Constitution. Apparently, the right to due process, the constitutional protection against the very things he advocates, is a thorn in Senator Manchin’s hide. As he himself admits, due process is the firewall that prevents agencies such as the FBI, from adding individuals to lists of suspects….no evidence, no crime….they just decided you belonged on one of their lists.

Manchin goes on to say on on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” that the right to due process, guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment of the US Constitution, had made it difficult to pass gun-control legislation denying those on the FBI’s terror watch list the ability to purchase a firearm. I would assume that with the massive non-stop surveillance that is carried on daily this would be virtually impossible to purchase a gun without the FBI, NSA, CIA and assorted other spy agencies knowing about it immediately. All that spying, all that data collection, the mountains of stolen information about everyone in the country……and the FBI couldn’t stop this man from purchasing guns?

Question: How can a man be employed by a security company that protects federal buildings among other things, and still be employed by that company if he is suspected of possible terrorism? More

Warning Against Efforts to Muzzle Citizens & Avoid Transparency, Rutherford Institute Issues 1st Amendment Guidelines for Public Meetings

Leave a comment

For Immediate Release: March 9, 2016

RutherfordHeader_2

CHARLOTTESVILLE, Va. —Warning that representative government works best when the government’s actions are fully disclosed and citizens are allowed to speak honestly and openly to their elected representatives and other citizens without fear of retribution, The Rutherford Institute has issued guidelines for local boards, commissions and councils to consider and follow in order to best assure that the fundamental First Amendment rights of citizens are respected.

In recent years, numerous local boards and commissions have attempted to establish rules and regulations governing speech at public meetings that limit the content and manner of public expression in an attempt to “dial down” the intensity of these meetings and impose a more “civil” discourse. However, these restrictions on expression often run afoul of the First Amendment, making local officials self-appointed censors and arbitrary arbiters of what speech is and is not proper.

The Rutherford Institute’s Public Meetings Guidelines are available at www.rutherford.org.

“Until recently, local government meetings have remained one of the few legitimate forums available to citizens to personally address their government representatives about decisions that have immediate and substantial impact on their day-to-day lives,” said constitutional attorney John W. Whitehead, president of The Rutherford Institute and author of Battlefield America: The War on the American People. “Unfortunately, officials at all levels of government have succeeded in insulating themselves from their constituents through the use of free speech zones, electronic town hall meetings, security barriers, regulations restricting what is said at public meetings, and other tactics that run afoul of the First Amendment’s safeguards for free speech, public assembly and the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances. These guidelines are intended to empower citizens to push back against those who would stifle the ardor of citizens, arbitrarily silence critics and impede efforts to assure transparency in government.”

The Rutherford Institute issued its guidelines after being contacted by residents of Charlottesville, Va., who were concerned about draconian changes to the City’s public comment rules regarding the content, duration and protocol for making public comments at City Council meetings. The City’s revised procedures include restrictions on video recording, a prohibition on “improper” comments, exclusion of individuals for disruptive or disorderly conduct, and limitations on who may be addressed. In denouncing the guidelines as overly vague and ambiguous, Institute attorneys have advised City officials that the changes to their meeting procedures violate the letter and spirit of Constitution by imposing obstacles to transparency and citizen engagement.

In calling on the Charlottesville City Council to revoke the rules it has adopted in order to ensure that Council meetings remain a forum for free speech, the Institute warned that if the City is serious about being a leader in the fight for open government, it must demonstrate a commitment to public participation in the democratic process. In 2015, Rutherford Institute attorneys advised the Greene County Board of Supervisors (also in Virginia) against rules adopted governing the open forum public comment period during Board meetings that could be used to censor unpopular but constitutionally protected speech.

The Rutherford Institute, a national nonprofit civil liberties organization based in Charlottesville, Va., defends individuals whose constitutional rights have been violated and educates the public about threats to their freedoms. The Institute has spent more than 30 years advocating for transparency in government and championing the First Amendment right of the citizenry to speak candidly and openly to their elected representatives and other citizens.

This press release is also available at www.rutherford.org.

Older Entries

%d bloggers like this: