Pueblo Coordinated Election

Coming ballot issues up for vote on November 5, 2019:

What voter in their right mind would EVER vote for something like this?

 “....a voter-approved revenue change that may be collected, retained, and spent by the county consistent with this ballot issue but without statutory or constitutional limitation or condition, including article X, section 20 of the Colorado Constitution, section 29-1-301, Colorado revised statutes, or ANY other law?”

EVERY 'ballot issue' has this paragraph attached! When you ask voters to knowingly, willingly, and ILLEGALLY violate the document that was meant to RESTRAIN government, not allow it to arbitrarily grant itself MORE power, you know you are committing treason!

Ballot Issue No. 1A Vote: NO

By your own admission you are wanting to violate the Colorado Constitution yet AGAIN! This time you want NO restrictions on where and how you 'spend' those funds. As a constituent and registered voter I say absolutely NOT! This sounds like a ponzi scheme, with tax payer funds, to pocket the money and NOT be accountable for it! Section 20 already states, in part “ Revenue collected, kept, or spent illegally since four full fiscal years before a suit is filed shall be refunded with 10% annual simple interest from the initial conduct. “ admitting the state/county/local government(s) already knows they are, have been, and/or will in the future 'illegally' spend tax payer funds!

Ballot Issue No. 1B: Vote: NO

Increase taxes on marijuana (cannabis)? Really?? We, the residents of Pueblo, have already been asked/refunded the EXCESS tax you collected on 'marijuana' sales because you can't keep your accounting straight. Within this ballot the authors admit they are NOT going to fund more scholarships and put the increased funds toward the over crowding problem at the jail. NO, more taxes until YOU can spend the already collected funds on projects YOU said needed to be funded with the previous tax increases! Having the LOWEST 'marijuana' tax rates in the state is a GOOD thing! As for the over crowding in the Pueblo county jail or the Pueblo city jail, maybe the law makers should STOP making laws that violate the citizens rights, while aiding and abetting the criminal illegals in this city/state, and stop arresting citizens for disobeying those unConstitutional restrictions you want to call laws! Article X, Section 20, of the Colorado Constitution, already states, in part “Revenue collected, kept, or spent illegally since four full fiscal years before a suit is filed shall be refunded with 10% annual simple interest from the initial conduct.” admitting the state/county/local government(s) already knows they are, have been, and/or will in the future 'illegally' spend tax payer funds! Now you want remove the ability for the citizens to hold the city accountable for violating ANY law!

Ballot Issue No. 4A Vote: NO

WHY do the schools have such HUGE debts? Issues at the schools should have been addressed BEFORE they became 'critical' issues! The fact that the schools are in debt, needing 'critical' repairs, and requesting MORE tax payer funds tells me that previous funding was NOT used appropriately!Creating a Citizen's Bond Advisory Committee, aka wasting more tax payer funds, to 'ensure transparency of spending associated with the bond issue' is an admission the city has, in the past, and will in the future misappropriate funds if they are not carefully watched.

Ballot Issue No. 4B Vote NO

For the same reasons as Ballot Issue No. 4A!

Ballot Issue No. 5A Vote: NO

Once bonds for schools are issued there is NO end to the 'payments' or the requested increase in taxes. Schools, politicians, city council members, and state representatives see a money pit. When they run out of money, because the requested amount is NEVER enough, they turn to the residents and request more and more and more... with no end in sight.

Ballot Issue No. 6A Vote: NO

Pueblo West, wants to be their own city/town, and now want the entire state to raise taxes to fund a fire department for them?! The entire state of Colorado should not be investing in ONE small development! Another 'exception' to the Colorado Constitution, imagine that! You want the residents of the city of Pueblo to vote on 'issues' that will affect the ENTIRE state – what kind of garbage are you trying to sell? 

Ballot Issue No. 6B Vote: NO

All taxes are just one of the many ways governments punish the residents of a city, county, state, and/or nation for being a citizen! You are being VERY serious about NOT being restrained by ANY law while punishing the citizens for MINOR infractions of the unConstitutional restrictions YOU want to call laws!

Ballot Issue 6C Vote: NO

Again you want to knowingly, willingly, and illegally violate the Colorado Constitution. Since you can't/won't/don't operate within the parameters of the restriction set forth in the Constitution maybe it is time for ALL residents of Colorado to rethink the elected officials we have 'running' the various governments!

Since the citizens/residents of Pueblo voted NO on a previous ballot issue to allow “a voter-approved revenue change that may be collected, retained, and spent by the county consistent with this ballot issue but without statutory or constitutional limitation or condition, including article X, section 20 of the Colorado Constitution, section 29-1-301, Colorado revised statutes, or ANY other law.” you think it is appropriate to put it on ALL ballot issues?

NO means NO!

The Deterioration of Nancy Pelosi

Oct 2010 - Pelosi Admits the dems have and are working their plans to take over the government! Nancy Pelosi Makes a Fool of Herself on Charlie Rose's Show!















March 2017 Nancy Pelosi utters gibberish, slurs statements, repeats words! it isn't what she is saying as much as it is how she is saying it! Stumbling over words, repeating thoughts, strange facial spasms!














June 2017 Nancy Pelosi confused about time of day, forgets latest Russia accusations -- 6 minutes later! She makes a claim Trump is attacking medicaid - which is dangerous to children and other living things!

She claims Russia hacked the American election in 2016 and 21 states were compromised - then can't remember what she said!

She claims America has to 'pussyfoot' around when it comes to sanctions on Russia!

Oct 2017 Nancy Pelosi face spasms mar speech; utters gibberish! Symptoms from dementia -While symptoms of dementia can vary greatly, at least two of the following core mental functions must be significantly impaired to be considered dementia:

Memory
Communication and language
Ability to focus and pay attention
Reasoning and judgment
Visual perception

January 2019, Pelosi botches words, suffers face spasms, confuses Dems and GOP

Scary Sh!t

How long have the global elite been trying to over throw America? I remember in the mid to late 70's and early 80's hearing 'rumors' about a New World Order, a Globalist government, and 'concentration' camps for those that can not be converted.

I was young and didn't think much about it. Now, after surviving the horrible regime of the false potus, I have started attempting to debunk some of the 'conspiracy' theories, as they were called back then.

Where to start? Which came first? As I research I may have to rearrange my data into chronological order!

Founded in 1921, the Council on Foreign Relations is an independent, national membership organization and a nonpartisan center for scholars dedicated to producing and disseminating ideas so that individual and corporate members, as well as policymakers, journalists, students, and interested citizens in the United States and other countries, can better understand the world and the foreign policy choices facing the United States and other governments. The Council does this by convening meetings; conducting a wide-ranging Studies program; publishing Foreign Affairs, the preeminent journal covering international affairs and U.S. foreign policy; maintaining a diverse membership; sponsoring Independent Task Forces; and providing up to-date information about the world and U.S. foreign policy on the Council’s website, www.cfr.org.

Josef Mengle - Angel of Death 1935

One of the first methodical studies on trauma-based mind control was conducted by Josef Mengele, a physician working in Nazi concentration camps. He initially gained notoriety for being one of the SS physicians who supervised the selection of arriving prisoners, determining who was to be killed and who was to become a forced laborer. However, he is mostly known for performing grisly human experiments on camp inmates, including children, for which Mengele was called the “Angel of Death”.
Mengele is infamous for his sordid human experiments on concentration camps prisoners, especially on twins. A part of his work that is rarely mentioned however, is his research on mind control. Much of his research in this field was confiscated by the Allies and is still classified to this day.

MK-ULTRA was brought to light by various commissions in the 1970s, including the Rockefeller Commission of 1975. Although it is claimed that the CIA stopped such experiments after these commissions, some whistle-blowers have come forth stating that the project simply went “underground” and Monarch Programming has become the classified successor of MK-ULTRA.
BETA is referred to as “sexual” programming (slaves). This programming eliminates all learned moral convictions and stimulates the primitive instinct, devoid of inhibitions. “Cat” alters may come out at this level. Known as Kitten programming, it is the most visible kind of programming as some female celebrities, models, actresses, and singers have been subjected to this kind of programming. In popular culture, clothing with feline prints often denotes Kitten programming. - Now it makes sense that the hollyweird elite are unhinged nut jobs! Do more research on this - there is a LOT of information on the internet, thanks to the FOIA!

"We shall have World Government, whether or not we like it. The only question is whether World Government will be achieved by conquest or consent." - Paul Warburg, speaking to the United States Senate, February 17, 1950

Adjusting Emergency Preparedness Assignments to Organizational and Functional Changes in Federal Departments and Agencies
June 11, 1976 - EXECUTIVE ORDER 11921

All hail the New World Order

President George Herbert Walker Bush - September 11, 1990
A Speech by George H. W. Bush, President of the U.S.A. Given to a joint session of the United States Congress, Washington D.C. on 11 September 1990.
"Mr. President, Mr. Speaker, members of the Congress, distinguished guests, fellow Americans, thank very much for that warm welcome. We gather tonight, witness to events in the Persian Gulf as significant as they are tragic. In the early morning hours of August 2, following negotiations and promises by Iraq's dictator Saddam Hussein not to use force, a powerful Iraqi Army invaded its trusting and much weaker neighbor, Kuwait. Within three days, 120,000 Iraqi troops with 850 tanks had poured into Kuwait and moved south to threaten Saudi Arabia. It was then that I decided to act, to check that aggression. A new partnership of nations has begun, and we stand today at a unique and extraordinary moment. The crisis in the Persian Gulf, as grave as it is, also offers a rare opportunity to move toward an historic period of cooperation. Out of these troubled times, our fifth objective--a new world order--can emerge: A new era--freer from the threat of terror, stronger in the pursuit of justice and more secure in the quest for peace. An era in which the nations of the world, east and west, north and south, can prosper and live in harmony."

In 1992, Dr John Coleman published Conspirators' Hierarchy: The Story of the Committee of 300 - "A One World Government and one-unit monetary system, under permanent non-elected hereditary oligarchs who self-select from among their numbers in the form of a feudal system as it was in the Middle Ages. In this One World entity, population will be limited by restrictions on the number of children per family, diseases, wars, famines, until 1 billion people who are useful to the ruling class, in areas which will be strictly and clearly defined, remain as the total world population.

There will be no middle class, only rulers and the servants. All laws will be uniform under a legal system of world courts practicing the same unified code of laws, backed up by a One World Government police force and a One World unified military to enforce laws in all former countries where no national boundaries shall exist. The system will be on the basis of a welfare state; those who are obedient and subservient to the One World Government will be rewarded with the means to live; those who are rebellious will simple be starved to death or be declared outlaws, thus a target for anyone who wishes to kill them. Privately owned firearms or weapons of any kind will be prohibited."

According to Cisco Wheeler, a former Illuminati mind control programmer, there are 10 million people who have been programmed as mind controlled slaves using trauma-based MC programs with names like Monarch and MK Ultra. The newer, non-trauma, electronic means of MC programming that grew out of the Montauk Project, may include millions more. Al Bielek, who played a principle role in the development of the Montauk Project, said that there likely 10 million victims of Montauk style mind control programming worldwide, the majority located in the USA. He also said that there are covert Montauk Programming 'Centers' in every major city in the U.S.

The NWO global conspirators manifest their agenda through the skillful manipulation of human emotions, especially fear. For decades, they have repeatedly utilized a contrivance that NWO researcher and author David Icke has characterized in his latest book, The Biggest Secret, as Problem, Reaction, and Solution.

Communist, Socialist, Liberal or Conservative

Communism and socialism are umbrella terms referring to two left-wing
schools of economic thought; both oppose capitalism, but socialism predates the "Communist Manifesto," an 1848 pamphlet by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, by a few decades.

Socialists do not believe in property ownership by an individual. All property is owned by the collective. A populist economic and political system based on the public ownership (also known as collective or common ownership) of the means of production. Those means include the machinery, tools and factories used to produce goods that aim to directly satisfy human needs. Socialists trust the government to supply the products they need for daily living, their job, housing, education, and medical care.

NOTE: Why did Venezuela fail so horribly? The government, the people trusted to take care of them, decided not to purchase goods and services and kept the profits.
 
Liberals
believe in government action to achieve equal opportunity and equality for all. It is the duty of the government to alleviate social ills and to protect civil liberties and individual and human rights. Believe the role of the government should be to guarantee that no one is in need. Liberal policies generally emphasize the need for the government to solve problems.

In general, Liberals believe a doctor should earn/make the same amount of income as someone who cleans bath rooms for a living. Even though the doctor spent 8 to 10 years studying for their position, while the bath room cleaner may or may not have seen the inside of any college, let alone take any class.

In other words, liberals want MORE government control of the people. Liberals, Socialists and Communists believe a central government should take care of the people.

Conservatives believe in personal responsibility, limited government, free markets, individual liberty, each individual is a sovereign person who does not need government permission to exercise their rights, freedoms, privileges, and liberty, and a strong national defense.

Conservatives believe the role of government should be to protect the freedom of the people necessary to pursue their own goals. Conservative policies generally emphasize empowerment of the individual to solve problems. Conservatives understand that humans are not equal, each and every person has skills and abilities, that others may not.

However, with Capitalism comes great responsibility. Each individual is responsible for ensuring that when they exercise their rights, freedoms, or liberties they do not infringe or violate the rights, freedoms, or liberty of others. Sometimes it is up to the individual to protect them self, their property, their family, and those who can not protect them self. That is why the US Constitution was written the way it was.

Anyone who doesn’t understand socialism can get an idea from this.

A young woman was about to finish her first year of college. Like so many others her age, she considered herself to be a very liberal Democrat, and was very much in favor of the redistribution of wealth .She was deeply ashamed that her father was a rather staunch Republican, a feeling she openly expressed. Based on the lectures that she had participated in, and the occasional chat with a professor, she felt that her father had for years harbored an evil, selfish desire to keep what he thought should be his.

One day she was challenging her father on his opposition to higher taxes on the rich and the addition of more government welfare programs. The self-professed objectivity proclaimed by her professors had to be the truth and she indicated so to her father. He responded by asking how she was doing in school.

Taken aback, she answered rather haughtily that she had a 4.0 GPA, and let him know that it was tough to maintain, insisting that she was taking a very difficult course load and was constantly studying, which left her no time to go out and party like other people she knew. She didn’t even have time for a boyfriend, and didn’t really have many college friends because she spent all her time studying.

 Her father listened and then asked, “How is your friend Audrey doing?” She replied, “Audrey is barely getting by. All she takes are easy classes, she never studies, and she barely has a 2.0 GPA. She is so popular on campus; college for her is a blast. She’s always invited to all the parties, and lots of times she doesn’t even show up for classes because she’s too hung over.”

Her wise father asked his daughter, “Why don’t you go to the Dean’s office and ask him to deduct a 1.0 off your GPA and give it to your friend who only has a 2.0. That way you will both have a 3.0 GPA and certainly that would be a fair and equal distribution of GPA.”

The daughter, visibly shocked by her father’s suggestion, angrily fired back, “That wouldn’t be fair! I have worked really hard for my grades! I’ve invested a lot of time, and a lot of hard work! Audrey has done next to nothing toward her degree. She played while I worked my tail off!”

The father slowly smiled, winked and said gently, “Welcome to the Republican party.”

Demonrat Child Trafficking Act

Encourage these Senators to reject the "Dems’ Keep Families Together Act is better called the Child Trafficking Encouragement Act,"

 Cotton said: “Show up at border with a minor & call him your child, then you get released into the US! Children will be abducted & sold to drug cartels & slave-traders as a free ticket into US."
Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT)
Sen. John McCain (R-AZ)
Sen. Pat Roberts (R-KS)
Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME)
Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK)
Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN)
Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-TN)
Sen. John Boozman (R-AR)
Sen. Dean Heller (R-NV)
Sen. Cory Gardner (R-CO)
Sen. James Lankford (R-OK)
Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-LA)
Sen. Rob Portman (R-OH)

President Trump has asked Congress to enact his plan, which would allow border-crossing children to be detained with their guardians and parents for extended periods of time. This plan would speed up the asylum and immigration hearing process, and allow the family unit to be deported together back to their native country. WHY is this at the cost of the American tax payer? THEY managed to get here without our money, they can figure out how they will get back home!

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
June 7, 2018

Mrs. Feinstein (for herself, Mr. Schumer, Ms. Harris, Mr. Leahy, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Wyden, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Reed, Mr. Nelson, Mr. Carper, Mr. Menendez, Mr. Sanders, Mr. Casey, Ms. Klobuchar, Mrs. Shaheen, Mr. Warner, Mr. Merkley, Mr. Bennet, Mr. Blumenthal, Mr. Schatz, Mr. Murphy, Ms. Hirono, Mr. King, Mr. Kaine, Ms. Warren, Mr. Markey, Mr. Booker, Ms. Cortez Masto, Ms. Baldwin, Mr. Heinrich, Mr. Udall, and Mrs. Gillibrand) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL

To limit the separation of families at or near ports of entry. (This doesn't address those illegally crossing the border at places OTHER than ports of entry!) Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1.
SHORT TITLE: This Act may be cited as the "Keep Families Together Act".

SEC. 2. LIMITATION ON THE SEPARATION OF FAMILIES. (a) In General.— An agent or officer of a designated agency shall be prohibited from removing a child from his or her parent or legal guardian, at or near the port of entry or within 100 miles of the border of the United States, unless one of the following has occurred:

(1) A State court, authorized under State law, terminates the rights of a parent or legal guardian, determines that it is in the best interests of the child to be removed from his or her parent or legal guardian, in accordance with the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997 (Public Law 105–89), or makes any similar determination that is legally authorized under State law.

The united States has NO jurisdiction SOUTH of the border, let alone 100 miles! IF they are parents or 'legal' guardians of the children they are claiming, WHERE is their documentation? Blows the whole 'undocumented' aliens theory all to bits, doesn't it!?! Considering the criminal illegal invaders are NOT subject to united States law this can NOT be enforced on the criminal illegal invaders!

(2) An official from the State or county child welfare agency with expertise in child trauma and development makes a best interests determination that it is in the best interests of the child to be removed from his or her parent or legal guardian because the child is in danger of abuse or neglect at the hands of the parent or legal guardian, or is a danger to herself or others.

Again, criminal illegal invaders are NOT subject to US laws! This clearly states that children can NOT be removed from parents simply because the parent(s) are incarcerated. WHY are the children NOT being sent to prison WITH the parents? BTW: that is a rhetorical question - the answer is obvious!

(3) The Chief Patrol Agent or the Area Port Director in their official and undelegated capacity, authorizes separation upon the recommendation by an agent or officer, based on a finding that
(A) the child is a victim of trafficking or is at significant risk of becoming a victim of trafficking; (B) there is a strong likelihood that the adult is not the parent or legal guardian of the child; or (C) the child is in danger of abuse or neglect at the hands of the parent or legal guardian, or is a danger to themselves or others.

Official and 'undelegated' capacity? WHAT?!! If it is the area port director's official capacity it can NOT be 'undelegated'! HOW is ANYONE going to make a determination of whether the child is in danger of neglect, abuse, or at risk of becoming a victim of child trafficking? It is not likely anyone will admit they abducted a child for the purpose of entering the US illegally, and their plan to sell that child to child traffickers!
The rest of the 'bill' is just as ridiculous! Read the full text here

Are you on the list?

The ’72 Types of Americans Considered Potential Terrorists’ – Are You on the Watchlist?
1. Those that talk about “individual liberties”
2. Those that advocate for states’ rights
3. Those that want “to make the world a better place”
4. “The colonists who sought to free themselves from British rule”
5. Those that are interested in “defeating the Communists”
6. Those that believe “that the interests of one’s own nation are separate from the interests of other nations or the common interest of all nations”
7. Anyone that holds a “political ideology that considers the state to be unnecessary, harmful,or undesirable”
8. Anyone that possesses an “intolerance toward other religions”
9. Those that “take action to fight against the exploitation of the environment and/or animals”
10. “Anti-Gay”
11. “Anti-Immigrant”
12. “Anti-Muslim”
13. “The Patriot Movement”
14. “Opposition to equal rights for gays and lesbians”
15. Members of the Family Research Council
16. Members of the American Family Association
17. Those that believe that Mexico, Canada and the United States “are secretly planning to merge into a European Union-like entity that will be known as the ‘North American Union’”
18. Members of the American Border Patrol/American Patrol
19. Members of the Federation for American Immigration Reform
20. Members of the Tennessee Freedom Coalition
21. Members of the Christian Action Network
22. Anyone that is “opposed to the New World Order”
23. Anyone that is engaged in “conspiracy theorizing”
24. Anyone that is opposed to Agenda 21
25. Anyone that is concerned about FEMA camps
26. Anyone that “fears impending gun control or weapons confiscations”
27. The militia movement
28. The sovereign citizen movement
29. Those that “don’t think they should have to pay taxes”
30. Anyone that “complains about bias”
31. Anyone that “believes in government conspiracies to the point of paranoia”
32. Anyone that “is frustrated with mainstream ideologies”
33. Anyone that “visits extremist websites/blogs”
34. Anyone that “establishes website/blog to display extremist views”
35. Anyone that “attends rallies for extremist causes”
36. Anyone that “exhibits extreme religious intolerance”
37. Anyone that “is personally connected with a grievance”
38. Anyone that “suddenly acquires weapons”
39. Anyone that “organizes protests inspired by extremist ideology”
40. “Militia or unorganized militia”
41. “General right-wing extremist”
42. Citizens that have “bumper stickers” that are patriotic or anti-U.N.
43. Those that refer to an “Army of God”
44. Those that are “fiercely nationalistic (as opposed to universal and international in orientation)”
45. Those that are “anti-global”
46. Those that are “suspicious of centralized federal authority”
47. Those that are “reverent of individual liberty”
48. Those that “believe in conspiracy theories”
49. Those that have “a belief that one’s personal and/or national ‘way of life’ is under attack”
50. Those that possess “a belief in the need to be prepared for an attack either by participating in paramilitary preparations and training or survivalism”
51. Those that would “impose strict religious tenets or laws on society (fundamentalists)”
52. Those that would “insert religion into the political sphere”
53. Anyone that would “seek to politicize religion”
54. Those that have “supported political movements for autonomy”
55. Anyone that is “anti-abortion”
56. Anyone that is “anti-Catholic”
57. Anyone that is “anti-nuclear”
58. “Rightwing extremists”
59. “Returning veterans”
60. Those concerned about “illegal immigration”
61. Those that “believe in the right to bear arms”
62. Anyone that is engaged in “ammunition stockpiling”
63. Anyone that exhibits “fear of Communist regimes”
64. “Anti-abortion activists”
65. Those that are against illegal immigration
66. Those that talk about “the New World Order” in a “derogatory” manner
67. Those that have a negative view of the United Nations
68. Those that are opposed “to the collection of federal income taxes”
69. Those that supported former presidential candidates Ron Paul, Chuck Baldwin and Bob Barr
70. Those that display the Gadsden Flag (“Don’t Tread On Me”)
71. Those that believe in “end times” prophecies
72. Evangelical Christians

The groups of people in the list above are considered “problems” that need to be dealt with.  In some of the documents referenced above, members of the military are specifically warned not to have anything to do with such groups.

There are over 200,000 Federal laws that apply to the citizens of America. Nobody knows how many laws for each local, county, and state there are. Do YOU think you are not committing at least one felony a day? Think again!

Interesting facts

PEOPLE ARE SUPREME

People are supreme, not the state. Waring vs. the Mayor of Savanah, 60 Georgia at 93.

UNCONSTITUTIONAL LAW NULL & VOID

All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void, Chief Justice Marshall, Marbury vs. Madison, 5, U.S. (1 Cranch) 137, 174, 176, (1803).

Statutes which would deprive a citizen of the rights of person or property without a regular trial, according to the course and usage of common law, would not be the law of the land. Hoke vs. Henderson,15, N.C.15, 25 AM Dec 677(1983)

.

RIGHT TO TRIAL

By the law of the land is more clearly intended the general law, a law which hears before it condemns; which proceeds upon inquiry and renders judgment only after trial. Dartmouth College Case, 4 Wheat, U.S. 518, 4 ED 629.

DUE PROCESS

Law in it's regular course of administration through courts of justice is due process. Leeper vs. Texas, 139, U.S. 462, II SUP CT. 577, 35 L ED 225.

"The phrase as used in the Constitution does not mean a statute passed for the purpose of working the wrong. That construction would render the restriction absolutely nugatory. The people would be made to say to the houses: 'You shall be vested with the legislative power of the state, but no one shall be disenfranchised or deprived of any of the rights or privileges of a citizen, unless you shall not do the wrong unless you choose to do so." per Bronson,J., in Taylor v Porter, 4 Hill (N.Y.) 140, 40AM, DEC 274.

If laws that violates the Constitution are passed

Then someone is convicted of violating that law is that still considered 'due process'?

TAKING OF PROPERTY

The meaning of the above words, is that no man shall be deprived of his property without being heard in his own defense. Kinney V. Beverly, 2 Hen. & M (VA) 381, 336.

SURRENDER OF RIGHTS INTOLERABLE

We find it intolerable that one constitutional right should have to be surrendered in order to assert another. Simmons vs. U.S. 390, U.S. 389 (1968).

DUE COURSE, DUE PROCESS OF LAW

Due course of law, this phrase is synonymous with "due process of law" or "law of the land" and means law in its regular course of administration through courts of justice. Kansas Pac. Ry. Co. v. Dunmeyer 19 KAN 542.

DUE PROCESS

In Brown v. Levese Com'rs, 50 MIS 479, it is said that these constitutional provisions do not mean the general body of the law as it was at the time the Constitution took effect; but they refer to certain fundamental rights which the system of jurisprudence of which ours is derivative has always been recognized; if any of these are disregarded in the proceedings by which the system of jurisprudence of which ours is derivative has always been recognized; if any of these are disregarded in the proceedings by which a person is condemned to the loss of property, etc., then the deprivation has not been by due process of law, and it has been held that the state cannot deprive a person of his property without due process of law through a constitutional convention anymore than it can through an act of legislature.

FIFTH AMENDMENT

Amendment V of the Constitution of the United States provides: "No person shall---be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. A similar provision exists in all the state constitutions; the phrases "due course of law", and the "law of the land" are sometimes used; but all three of these phrases have the same meaning and that applies conformity with the ancient and customary laws of the English people or laws indicated by parliament; Davidson V. New Orleans 96 U.S. 97, 24, L Ed 616.

FIFTH AMENDMENT - GOOD FAITH

This 'willful" qualifications fully protects one whose refusal is made in good faith and upon grounds which entitle him to the judgment of the court before obedience is compelled. Federal Power Commissions v. Metropolitan Edison Co. 304 U.S. 375. and ...."To penalize the failure to give a statement which is self incriminatory is beyond the power of Congress." U.S. v. Lombardo, 228 F 980.

STATES MUST OBEY CONSTITUTION

The United States Supreme Court stated further that all rights and safeguards contained in the first eight amendments to the federal constitution are equally applicable in every State criminal action, "because a denial of them would be a denial of due process of law." William Malloy vs. Patrick J. Jogan, 378 U.S. 1, 84 S. Ct. 1489, argued Mar 5, 1964, decided June 15, 1964.

EXERCISING A RIGHT CANNOT BE CRIME

The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime. Miller v. U.S. 230 F 486 at 489.

EXERCISE OF RIGHTS

There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of his exercise of Constitutional rights. Sherar vs. Cullen 481 F 2D 946, (1973).

KEEP YOUR MOUTH SHUT

You can, and must keep your mouth shut for protection under the 5th Amendment. Belnap vs. U.S. et al., Dist Court, (Utah), No. c. 149-71.

FIFTH AMENDMENT SHIELDS ALL

The Constitutional privilege was intended to shield the guilty and imprudent, as well as the innocent and foresighted. Marchetti vs. United States, 390 U.S. 39 at page 51.

FIFTH IS NOT JUST VERBAL

The privilege is not limited to testimony, as ordinarily understood, but extends to every means by which one may be compelled to produce information which may incriminate. Boyd vs. United States, Supra" Brown vs. Walerk, 161, U.S. 591; Distinguishing Hale vs. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43; Wilson vs. U.S. 221, U.S. 612; United Station vs. Sischo.262 U.S. 165; McCarthy vs Arndstein, 266 U.S. 34; United States vs. Lombardo, 228 Fed. 980; United States vs. Dalton, 286 Fed 756; United States vs. Mulligan, 268 Fed 893; United States vs. Cohen Grocery Co., 225 U.S. 81; United States vs. Sherry, 294 Fed, 684

FIFTH MUST BE CLAIMED

The privilege must be specifically claimed on a particular question and the matter submitted to the court for its determination as to the validity of the claim. Heligman vs. United States 407 F. 2D 448.

SELF INCRIMINATION ILLEGAL

The adoption of the XIV amendment completed the circle of protection against violations of the provision of Magna Carta, which guaranteed to the citizen his, life, liberty, and property against interference except by the "law of the land", which phrase was coupled in the petition of right with due process of law. The latter phrase was then used for the first time, but the two are currently treated as meaning the same. This security is provided as against the United States by the XIV and Vth amendments and against the states by the XIV amendment. Davidson vs. Orleans 96, U.S. 97, 24 L ED 161.

FIFTH IS RESTRAINT ON GOVT.

"It is not a little remarkable that while this provision has been in the Constitution of the United States, (Fifth Amendment)....as a restraint upon authority of the federal government....see Lent vs. Tillson 140, U.S. 316,10 SUP. Ct. 324, 33 L. ED 722.

PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES

The privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States, protected by the IV Amendment, are those arising out of the nature and essential character of the federal government, and granted or secured by the Constitution; and due process of law and the equal protection of the laws are secured if the laws operate on all alike, and do not subject the individual to an arbitrary exercise of the powers of government. Duncan vs. Missouri, 152, U.S. 382,14 SUP. CT. 570, 38 L. ED. 485.

TAKING OF PROPERTY

It implies conformity with the natural inherent principles of justice and forbids the taking of one's property without compensation, and requires that no one shall be condemned in person or property without opportunity to be heard. Holden vs. Hardy, 169, U.S. 366, 18 SUP. CT. 383, 42 L ED. 780.

NOTICE & OPPORTUNITY TO DEFEND

The essential elements of due process of law are notice and opportunity to defend; Simon v. Craft, 182, U.S. 427, 436, 21 SUP. CT. 836, 45 L. ED 1165; "In determining whether such rights were denied, we are governed by the substance of things and not by mere form; ID.; Louisville & N.R. CO. v. Schnidt,177 U.S. 230, 20 SUP. CT. 620 44 L ED 747.

INSPECTORS MUST HAVE WARRANT

See v. City of Seattle 387 U.S. 541 (1967) Citizen was arrested for not allowing a fire inspector inside without a warrant. Ruling was in favor of Mr. See. The inspector has to have a search warrant, describing the particular type, thing and date.

OBJECTION TO STATEMENTS ON RETURN

If the form of the return provided, called for answers that the defendant was privileged from making, he could have raised the objection in the return,but could not on that account, refuse to make any return at all. U.S. vs Sullivan, 274 U.S. 259 at 263.

ADMISSIONS THAT TEND TO INCRIMINATE

Whether such admissions by themselves would support a conviction under a criminal statue is immaterial and that the privilege also extends to admission that may only tend to incriminate. Empak vs. U.S. 349 U.S. 190.

COURT CANNOT DECIDE INCRIMINATION

He must be the sole judge of what his answer would be. The court cannot participate with him in this judgment because they cannot decide on the effect of his answer without knowing what it would be; and a disclosure of that fact to the judges, would strip him of the privilege which the law allows, and which he claims. Issaacs v. U.S. 256 F 2D 654 (1958).

PRIVACY

Right of privacy-----Boyd vs. U.S. 116, U.S. 616, 630, 29 LED 746, CT 524, 1886.

MIRANDA - PRIVACY

Privilege against self-incrimination is in part individual's substantive right to private conclave where he may lead a private life. Constitutional foundation underlying privilege against self-incrimination is the respect of the government, state or federal, must accord to dignity and integrity of its citizens. Fifth Amendment provision that individual cannot be compelled to be witness against himself cannot be abridged. Miranda vs. State of Arizona, 380 US 436 (1966) See all keys, also see par 26, this brief.

MIRANDA

The Miranda Decision: Ernesto A. Miranda v. State of Arizona, United States Supreme Court, decided June 13, 1966.

Key 12: Government seeking to punish individual must produce evidence against him by its own independent labors, rather than by the cruel, simple expedient of compelling it from his mouth.

Key 15: Privilege against self-incrimination is fulfilled only when person is guaranteed right to remain silent unless he chooses to speak in unfettered exercise of his own will.

Key 18: Defendant's constitutional rights have been violated if his conviction is based, in whole or in part, on involuntary confession, regardless of its truth or falsity, even if there is ample evidence aside from confession to support conviction.

Key 23: Fifth Amendment privilege is available outside of criminal court proceedings and services to protect persons in all settings in which their freedom of action is curtailed, from being compelled to incriminate themselves.

Key 28: Prosecution may not use at trial fact that defendant stood mute or claimed his privilege in face of accusations.

Key 43: Once warnings have been given, if individual indicates in any manner,at any time prior to or during questioning, that he wishes to remain silent, interrogation must cease.

Key 45: Any statement taken after person invokes Fifth Amendment privilege cannot be other than product of compulsion.

Key 56: Any evidence that accused was threatened, tricked or cajoled into waiver will show that he did not voluntarily waive privilege to remain silent.

Key 73: Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule-making or legislation which would abrogate them.

TRIAL BY JURY

A trial by jury is granted by the 7th Amendment and Georgia vs. Brailsford, 3 Dall 1, 1974.

Right to trial by jury; Dairy Queen vs Wood 369 U.S. 469, 2S CT,. 894, 8 L ED 2 44 1962. Also 369 U.S. at 470, 82 S CT AT 896.

Jury trial is a right! Hill vs Philpott, 445 F 2 D 144; Juliard vs. Greenmen, 110 U.S. 421; Kansan vs. Colorado, 206 U.S. 46, (1907); Reisman vs. Caplan, 375, U.S. 440, (1964); U.S. vs. Murdock, 290 U.S. 389 (1993); U.S. vs Tarlowski, 305 F. SUPP 112 (1969).

TAKING OF PROPERTY

No man shall be deprived of his property without being heard in his own defense. Kinney vs. Beverly 2 HEN. & M(VA) 318, 336.

CIVIL RIGHTS - DISTRICT COURT

Civil Rights..."Civil action for deprivation of rights, 28 U.S.C 1343, gives U.S. District court original jurisdiction.

SECURITY OF LIFE LIMB & PROPERTY

Security of life, limb, and property. Davidson vs. New Orleans, 96 U.S. 97, 24 L. ED. 616....Lent vs. Tillson, 140 U.S. 316, II SUP CT. 825, 35 L ED 419; Palmer vs. McFarland, 1330, U.S. 660, 10 SUP CT., 324, 33 L. ED. 722.

FIFTH AMENDMENT ON RETURN

If the form of return provided called for answers that the defendant was privileged from making he could have raised the objection in the return, but could not on that account refused to make any return at all. U.S. vs. Sullivan 274 US 259 Page 263.

LEGAL TO DECREASE TAXES

The legal right of a tax payer decrease the amount of what otherwise would be his taxes, or altogether avoid them, by means within the law permits, cannot be doubted, Gregory vs. Helvering, 293, US 465.

DECISIONS AGAINST W4, W4E AND 1040

The requirement of an offense committed willfully is not met, therefore,if a taxpayer has relied in good faith upon a prior decision of this court. U.S. vs Bishop, 412, U.S. 346 (1973) at 2017.

Like the 14th Amendment, the 16th Amendment was NEVER properly ratified by two thirds (2/3) of the states, by popular vote.

TIPS ARE GIFTS - NOT TAXABLE

Tips are gifts and therefore are not taxable. Olk vs. U.S., February 18,1975, Las Vegas, Nevada. (Wendell Olk) Judge Thomas W. Clary.

TWO YEAR LIMIT ON IRS COLLECTIONS

Due process of law.....Simon vs. Craft 182, U.S. 427, 436, 21 SUP CT. 836,45 L ED 1165; Louisville & N.R> CO., Vs Schmidt 177 U.S. L 30 20 SUP CT 620,44 L ED 747.

Waiver, through oversight, Internal Revenue Service did not send notice, thus notice of amount due exceeded 2 year limitations. Miller vs. U.S., July 11, 1974, 43 LW 2042 CA 2.

COOPERATION WITH IRS

Who would believe the ironic truth that cooperative taxpayer fares much worse than the individual who relies upon his Constitutional rights. U.S. vs. Dickerson 413 F 2D 1111.

IRS CANNOT GET RECORDS

The chief error in defendant's position is his blanket refusal to answer any questions on the returns relating to his income or expenses for the years in question. United States vs. Daly, 481 F 2D 28, (1973).

FIFTH OVERRIDES STATUTES

We are clearly of the opinion that no statute which leaves the party or witness subject to prosecution, after he answers the incriminating question put to him, can have the effect of supplanting the privilege conferred by the Constitution of the United States...In view of the constitutional provision, a statutory enactment, to be valid, must afford absolute immunity against future prosecutions for the offense to which the question relates. Counselman vs. Hitchcock, 142 U.S. 547.

FIFTH - RARE TAX PAYER KNOWS IT

Only the rare taxpayer would be likely to know that he could refuse to produce his records to Internal Revenue Service agents. United Station vs. Dickerseon, 413 F 2D 1111.

FIFTH - CORP HAS NO RIGHT - INDIVIDUAL DOES

...we are of the opinion that there is a clear distinction in this particular between an individual and a corporation, and that the latter has no right to refuse to submit its books and papers for an examination at the suit of the state. The individual may stand upon his constitutional rights as a citizen. He is entitled to carry on his private business in his own way. He has no duty to the state or to his neighbors to divulge his business, or to open his doors to an investigation, so far as it may tend to incriminate him. He owes no such duty to the state, since he receives nothing therefrom, beyond the protection of this life and property. His rights are such as existed by the law of the land long antecedent to the organization of the state, and in accordance with the Constitution. Among his rights are a refusal to incriminate himself, and the immunity of himself and his property from arrest or seizure except under a warrant of the law. He owes nothing to the public so long as he does not trespass upon their rights...an individual may lawfully refuse to answer incriminating questions unless protected by an immunity statute... Hale vs. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43 at page 74.

FIFTH & IRS

Mr. Long of Missouri. "Mr. President, I invite the Senate's attention to certain correspondence I have had with Internal Revenue Service Commissioner Sheldon S. Cohen with respect to the legal obligations of citizens to keep records, produce records, and answer questions relating to tax liability.

Criminal cases have been veiled in civil clothing to obtain information illegally. Taxpayers have been bullied and threatened, especially small taxpayers and those without legal assistance.

What should taxpayers do when faced with such a situation? Do all lawyers even know what the obligations of taxpayers are as to record keeping, record producing, and question answering?

The answer seems to be "no." For this reason, I wrote to Commissioner Cohen on April 17, 1967, and received his reply on July 7, 1967. As his reply is most instructive and will help Congress, as well as taxpayers, their lawyers and accountants, I ask unanimous consent that the correspondence be printed in the record." The following are excerpts from the Commissioner Cohen's reply, which was prepared by Chief Counsel Lester R. Vretz, and demoniated U. S. Government memorandum CC:CL0003487:

"Good faith challenges in the form of Constitutional and other federally recognized privileges are of course recognized by the service. For example, the privilege against self-incrimination under the Fifth Amendment may be a basis by an individual taxpayer for refusing to answer specific questions or to furnish his records."........before recommending prosecution under Section 7201 or 7203, the service must usually develop enough information to show a substantial tax liability that was not met in addition to criminal intent. The constitutional rights and other legal rights of all persons will be fully respected and observed.

FIFTH DOES NOT ELIMINATE NEED TO FILE RETURN

....The quick solution to the plaintiff's claimed desire to file a federal income tax return is to either file an honest return or if the form of return provided called for answers that the defendant was privileged from making, he could have raised the objection in the return, but he could not on that account refuse to make any return at all, we are not called on to decide what, if anything, he might have withheld..it would be an extreme if not an extravagant application of the Fifth Amendment to say that it authorized a man to refuse to state the amount of his income because it had been made in a crime. But if the defendant desired to test that or any other point he should have tested it in the return so that it could be passed upon. He could not draw a conjurer's circle around the whole matter by his own declaration that to write any word upon the governments blank would bring him into danger of the law. United States vs. Sullivan, 274 U.S. 259, 263-264 (1927) Holmes J.

GOVT. CANNOT DECLARE INFO PUBLIC

....the government's anxiety to obtain information known to a private individual does not without more render that information public; if it did, no room would remain for the application of the constitutional privilege. Nor does it stamp information with a public character that the government has formalized its demands in the attire of a statue; if this alone were sufficient, the constitution's privilege could be [sic] entirely be abrogated by any act of Congress. Page 57, 390 U.S. 39.

RELYING ON SUPREME COURT IS NOT A CRIME

Degrees of negligence give rise in the tax system to civil penalties. The requirement of an offense committed "willfully" is not met therefore, if a taxpayer has relied in good faith on a prior decision of this court. United States vs. Sullivan, 274 U.S. 259, 263-263-264 (1927) Holmes J.

FIFTH ALSO APPLIES TO CIVIL TRIALS

The government insists broadly that the Constitutional privilege against self incrimination does not apply in any civil proceeding. The contrary must be accepted as settled. The privilege is not ordinarily dependent upon the notice of the proceeding in which the testimony is sought or is to be used. It applies alike to civil and criminal proceedings, whenever the answer might tend to subject to criminal responsibility he who gives it. The privilege protects a mere witness as fully as it does one who is also a party defendant.

It protects, likewise, the owner of goods which may be forfeited in a penal proceeding. McCarthy vs Arndsten (CF Counselman vs. Hitchock, 142 U.S. 547, 563, 564, 352 ED 110, 114 e inters, COM., REP, 816, 12 SUP. CT. REP 195)

FIFTH COVERS LINKING FACTS

The Supreme Court declared that "the privilege afforded not only extends to answers that would in themselves support a conviction under a federal criminal statute but likewise embraces those which would furnish a link in the chain of evidence needed to prosecute the claimant for a federal crime...the claimant is not required to prove the precise danger since by so doing he would be forced to disclose those very facts which under the privilege protects. Hoffman vs. United States (CF 341U.S. 479, 486, 71 CT. 814, 818, 95 L ED 1118.)

FIFTH OK IN ROUTINE MATTERS

The Supreme Court argued that the IRS could not use material gained by IRS agents under a routine questioning for what purported to be a routine audit. "The difference between a routine and a criminal investigation was too minor to justify departure from the Miranda Doctrine." Justice White drew a mandatory conclusion, "Indeed, he added," the Black opinion suggested that the Miranda warnings are required through the immensely broad area of investigations which frequently lead to criminal inquiries." The Mathis Decision, (No. 726, May 6, 1968, 3 910 S.) (Winterhaven, Florida).

"Freedom to travel throughout the United States has long been recognized as a basic right under the Constitution."

1. United States v. Guest, 383 U. S. 745, 758 (1966).
2. See Passenger Cases, 7 How. 283, 492 (1849) (Taney, C. J.);
3. Crandall v. Nevada, 6 Wall. 35, 43-44 (1868);
4. Paul v. Virginia, 8 Wall. 168, 180 (1869);
5. Edwards v. California, 314 U. S. 160 (1941);
6. Kent v. Dulles, 357 U. S. 116, 126 (1958);
7. Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U. S. 618, 629-631, 634 (1969);
8. Oregon v. Mitchell, 400 U. S., at 237 (separate opinion of BRENNAN, WHITE, and MARSHALL, JJ.), 285-286 (STEWART, J., concurring and dissenting, with whom BURGER, C. J., and BLACKMUN, J., joined).

And it is clear that the freedom to travel includes the "freedom to enter and abide in any State in the Union," id., at 285. Obviously, durational residence laws single out the class of bona fide state and county residents who have recently exercised this constitutionally protected right, and penalize such travelers directly. We considered such a durational residence requirement in Shapiro v. Thompson, supra, where the pertinent statutes imposed a one-year waiting period for interstate migrants as a condition to receiving welfare benefits_{(which is a privilege, NOT a right)}. Although in Shapiro we specifically did not decide whether durational residence requirements could be used to determine voting eligibility, 339*339 id., at 638 n. 21, we concluded that since the right to travel was a constitutionally protected right, "any classification which serves to penalize the exercise of that right, unless shown to be necessary to promote a compelling governmental interest, is unconstitutional." Id., at 634. This compelling-state-interest test was also adopted in the separate concurrence of MR. JUSTICE STEWART. Preceded by a long line of cases recognizing the constitutional right to travel, and repeatedly reaffirmed in the face of attempts to disregard it,

1. see Wyman v. Bowens, 397 U. S. 49 (1970),
2. Wyman v. Lopez, 404 U. S. 1055 (1972),

Shapiro and the compelling-state-interest test it articulates control this case.