Hartford Van Dyke describe the 7 step process, using statutes, to hold Public Officials accountable for their deliberate mismanagement in Public Office.
How to Stop CPS (CFS) at the door
- 18:36 - As CPS, "Do You Have Title to the Child" (They cannot say yes because to say yes would be to admit their registering the people as slaves and we have been told by vital stats that is emphatically not the case.
- 19:05 - If CPS can not produce a Title to the Child or a Peace Bond call the Sheriff. When the Sheriff arrives ask the Sheriff if he has a Peace Bond or Are you a registered officer. If the Sheriff says yes... Inform the Sheriff: If CPS can not produce a Peace Bond or a Title to Child I want you to arrest them. (CPS are Corporate Officials - IMPORTANT...Continue Listening at 19:25)
- 20:07 - Title 18 Section 641 - Unauthorized Use of Government Information for Purpose of NOT of Their Intended Use
25:18 Brokering
28:48 - Never Use Case Law (This gives the judge permission to say he is the law and the court is the law and he doesn't have to obey the Constitution anymore.)
29:44 Stay with Commerical Law a/k/a The Merchant Law
30:13 - Georgetown Law Journal volume 71, Pages 1171-1179
29:44 Stay with Commerical Law a/k/a The Merchant Law
30:13 - Georgetown Law Journal volume 71, Pages 1171-1179
Hartford Van Dyke - Holding Public Officials To Task - https://youtu.be/VI6VE_PKTy8
WHAT ALL FREE MEN WANT - http://users.navi.net/~rsc/vandyke3.htm
SANS Institute InfoSec Reading Room
http://www.sans.org/reading-room/whitepapers/authentication/biometric-scanning-technologies-finger-facial-retinal-scanning-1177
Scanned Retina – A Resource for the People! - http://scannedretina.com/
The Skeleton in Uncle Sam's Closet
http://www.amazon.com/Skeleton-Uncle-Sams-Closet/dp/B00W2NDWCG/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1431179533&sr=8-2&keywords=Hartford+Van+Dyke
HOW TO CREATE CURRENCIES FOR LOCAL COMMUNITIES By Hartford Van Dyke Published ~ July 4, 2002
https://scannedretina.files.wordpress.com/2014/04/create-legal-local-community-currency11.pdf
Hartford Van Dyke - The Truth About Pearl Harbor - The Skeleton In Uncle Sam's Closet - http://www.rense.com/general69/advance.htm
Silent Weapons For Quiet Wars Document - Full Read - https://youtu.be/s_38tsQ4p0I
Silent Weapons for Quiet Wars (Excerpt and Introduction)
http://www.paranoiamagazine.com/2013/01/silent-weapons-for-quiet-wars-excerpt-and-introduction/
Hartford Van DYKE - http://www.rexresearch.com/dyke/slntwpn.htm
WHAT ALL FREE MEN WANT - http://users.navi.net/~rsc/vandyke3.htm
SANS Institute InfoSec Reading Room
http://www.sans.org/reading-room/whitepapers/authentication/biometric-scanning-technologies-finger-facial-retinal-scanning-1177
Scanned Retina – A Resource for the People! - http://scannedretina.com/
The Skeleton in Uncle Sam's Closet
http://www.amazon.com/Skeleton-Uncle-Sams-Closet/dp/B00W2NDWCG/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1431179533&sr=8-2&keywords=Hartford+Van+Dyke
HOW TO CREATE CURRENCIES FOR LOCAL COMMUNITIES By Hartford Van Dyke Published ~ July 4, 2002
https://scannedretina.files.wordpress.com/2014/04/create-legal-local-community-currency11.pdf
Hartford Van Dyke - The Truth About Pearl Harbor - The Skeleton In Uncle Sam's Closet - http://www.rense.com/general69/advance.htm
Silent Weapons For Quiet Wars Document - Full Read - https://youtu.be/s_38tsQ4p0I
Silent Weapons for Quiet Wars (Excerpt and Introduction)
http://www.paranoiamagazine.com/2013/01/silent-weapons-for-quiet-wars-excerpt-and-introduction/
Hartford Van DYKE - http://www.rexresearch.com/dyke/slntwpn.htm
Ronnie Davis - Remedy for Crimes of child kidnaps by State by lou lotus https://youtu.be/oz4E6I1LuOo
Crimes of child kidnaps by state can be reversed with the return of children to loving parents - once it is highlighted
from https://www.podcat.com/podcasts/9zxyfn-a-just-cause-bringing-the-message-of-justice-around-the-world Lamont Banks, Cliff Stewart, and Lisa Stewart of the Colorado exoneration firm A Just Cause, discuss what happens when the wheels of justice trample unbridled over the rights of innocent Americans. Although the American system of justice is the most-respected worldwide, it is still a system designed, and operated, by humans, which means it's not perfect. Tonight, Lamont, Cliff and Lisa will highlight ongoing struggles against "the Child Protective Services (CPS) system" and what happens when injustice miscarries against our American citizens and their families. A Just Cause is currently campaigning for "FreeTheIRP6," who's been wrongly imprisoned in Florence, CO for a crime they didn't commit. Read full story: www.freetheirp6.org. For more information, about A Just Cause and to Donate to the IRP6 legal defense fund, visit www.a-justcause.com. Follow us on Twitter: @AJCRadio, @A_JustCause, @FreeTheeIRP6, @FreeeTheIRP6 and Like our Facebook Pages: https://www.facebook.com/AJustCauseCo..., andhttps://www.facebook.com/AJustCauseCO, https://www.facebook.com/FreetheIRP6 Website: http://www.a-justcause.com/ Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/AJustCauseCO/ Ronnie Davis https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100000175418390 Twitter: https://twitter.com/A_JustCause Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCbeCjJLJeUOD4mlqNkkKJ-g/videos |
Resisting unlawful arrest
Individuals who realize that they are the target of false arrest might attempt to resist or flee. In most jurisdictions, it is unlawful to resist arrest, regardless of whether or not one is being falsely arrested. A few jurisdictions (i.e., 14 U.S. states, As of 2012) recognize the target's right of self-defense so as to resist unlawful arrest. Typically, this only applies when: the arresting officer used more force than necessary to effect the arrest, and the resistance is only to such an extent as necessary to protect oneself from great bodily harm or death.[6] In such jurisdictions – and under the narrowly-defined circumstances described above – resisting unlawful arrest may be used as a justification for such resistance where it would otherwise be a crime (i.e. resisting arrest, flight to avoid prosecution, assault, etc). There are rare cases in which a murder charge had been reduced to manslaughter for this reason. Justification for such action is often hard to prove in court, and only justified in certain circumstances. Simple mistake of fact situations would generally not warrant attempting to elude law enforcement. However, there are some that would, such as: the person making the arrest never identifying themselves, causing the defendant to believe they are the target of kidnapping or robbery. the reasonable belief that the person making the arrest is an impersonator with the intent of victimizing the defendant. A “Statute’ is not a Law,” (Flournoy v. First Nat. Bank of Shreveport, 197 La. 1067, 3 So.2d 244, 248),
A “Code’ or Statute’ is not a Law,” (Flournoy v. First Nat. Bank of Shreveport, 197 La. 1067, 3 So.2d 244, 248), A “Code’ is not a Law,” (In Re Self v Rhay Wn 2d 261), in point of fact in Law). A concurrent or ‘joint resolution’of legislature is not “Law,” (Koenig v. Flynn, 258 N.Y. 292, 179 N. E. 705, 707; Ward v State, 176 Okl. 368, 56 P.2d 136, 137; State ex rel. Todd v. Yelle, 7 Wash.2d 443, 110 P.2d 162, 165). All codes, rules, and regulations are for government authorities only, not human/Creators in accord with God’s Laws. “All codes, rules, and regulations are unconstitutional and lacking due process of Law..”(Rodriques v. Ray Donavan, U.S. Department of Labor, 769 F.2d 1344, 1348 (1985)); …lacking due process of law, in that they are ‘void for ambiguity’ in their failure to specify the statutes’ applicability to ‘natural persons,’ otherwise depriving the same of fair notice, as their construction by definition of terms aptly identifies the applicability of such statutes to “artificial or fictional corporate entities or ‘persons’, creatures of statute, or those by contract employed as agents or representatives, departmental subdivisions, offices, officers, and property of the government, but not the ‘Natural Person’ or American citizen Immune from such jurisdiction of legalism. “The Common Law is the real law, the Supreme Law of the land. The codes, rules, regulations, policy and statutes are “not the law.” (Self v. Rhay, 61 Wn 2d 261), They are the law of government for internal regulation, not the law of man, in his separate but equal station and natural state, a sovereign foreign with respect to government generally. 18USC 1962-1968 With the lawful authority of a Private Attorney General created by 18USC1964c
Authorities pursuant to Civil R.I.C.O. 18USC1961-1968, 1964 1. The Civil RICO statute at 18 U.S.C. 1964 expressly authorizes civil remedies, in addition to any criminal remedies that also exist to prosecute organized crime. 2. State courts have original jurisdiction to enforce the Civil RICO statute at 18 U.S.C. 1964. SeeTafflin v. Levitt and Lou v. Belzberg, Rice v. Janovich and Village at Camelback v. Carr. 3. A pattern of racketeering is expressly defined to mean only two (2) RICO “predicate acts” during any given 10-year period. See 18 U.S.C. 1961(5). 4. The federal statute at 18 U.S.C. 1961 itemizes all RICO predicate acts. The most common are mail fraud, extortion, obstruction of justice, obstruction of a criminal investigation, and witness tampering or retaliation. 5. Violations of State and federal laws both qualify as RICO predicate acts. 18 U.S.C. 1961(1)(B) itemizes a long list of federal offenses that qualify as predicate acts. 6. Any act or threat involving murder, kidnapping, gambling, arson, robbery, bribery, obscene matter, controlled substances or extortion is also a RICO predicate act, if it is chargeable under State law and punishable by imprisonment for more than one year. See 18 U.S.C. 1961(1)(A). 7. The Supremacy Clause in the U.S. Constitution elevates all RICO statutes to the status of supreme Law, and resolves any conflicts with State laws in favor of the RICO statutes. Whenever conflicts occur, State laws and State constitutional provisions have no standing (“notwithstanding”). 8. Congress intended the RICO statutes to be liberally construed. See 84 Stat. 947, Sec. 904, Oct. 15, 1970. However, this liberal construction rule was never codified anywhere in Title 18 of the U.S. Code, even though Title 18 has been enacted into positive law by Act of Congress. 9. A specific Congressional objective is encouraging civil litigation to supplement government efforts to deter and penalize the practices prohibited by the RICO statutes. 10. Another objective of Civil RICO is to turn victims into prosecutors, “private attorneys general”, dedicated to eliminating racketeering activity. See Rotella v. Wood. 11. Civil RICO specifically has a further purpose of encouraging potential private plaintiffs to investigate diligently. Rotella v. Wood. 12. Organized crime is a serious national problem for which public prosecutorial resources are deemed inadequate. See Agency Holding Corp. v. Malley-Duff & Associates. 13. Civil RICO authorizes triple damages (3x) to be awarded to successful private plaintiffs. See 18 U.S.C. 1964(c). 14. The provision for triple damages is justified by the expected benefit of suppressing racketeering activity, an object pursued the sooner the better. Rotella v. Wood. 15. The “private attorney general” concept holds that a successful private party plaintiff is also entitled to recovery of his legal expenses, including attorney fees, if he has advanced the policy inherent in public interest legislation on behalf of a significant class of persons. Dasher v. Housing Authority of City of Atlanta. 16. A private attorney general may appear in court without the license to practice law that is required of all State Bar members. 17. A private attorney general may appear in court “ex rel.” on behalf of the “United States” (i.e. the federal government), the State of Washington, the People of Washington or the People of the United States of America. Confer at “Ex relatione” in Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition. 18. Civil RICO statutes are supplemented by 2 Human Rights Treaties –- the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights –- both of which are rendered supreme Law by virtue of the Supremacy Clause (just like the Bill of Rights). 19. The latter Covenant’s Reservations enacted by Congress expressly reserve original jurisdiction to State and local governments, to the end that their competent authorities may take appropriate measures for the fulfillment of the Covenant. Exercise that authority.... Go through your states statutory codes for facts they dont want you to know like this, This is edited to fit but read the last paragraph and learn your fundamental rights, liberty Interests and the power of the supreme power of government, but most importantly arm yourself with the knowledge of how to exercise that power Lawfully in your discretionsRCW 9A.16.040 at the footnote says:
“Legislative recognition: “"The legislature recognizes that RCW 9A.16.040 establishes a dual standard with respect to the use of deadly force by peace officers and private citizens, AND FURTHER RECOGNIZES THAT PRIVATE CITIZENS' PERMISSIBLE USE OF DEADLY FORCE UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF RCW 9.01.200, 9A.16.020, OR 9A.16.050 IS NOT RESTRICTED AND REMAINS BROADER THAN THE LIMITATIONS IMPOSED ON PEACE OFFICERS." [1986 c 209 § 3.] See also 40 Am Jur.2d, Homicide, Sec. 140, p. 420. “At common law, if a party resisted arrest by an officer without warrant, and who had no right to arrest him, and if in the course of that resistence the officer was killed, the offense of the party resisting arrest would be reduced from what would have been murder, if the officer had the right to arrest, to manslaughter. What would be murder, if the officer had the right to arrest, might be reduced to manslaughter by the very fact that he had no such right. So an officer, at common law, was not authorized to make an arrest without a warrant, for a mere misdemeanor not committed in his presence. 1 Arch. Crim. Pr. & P. 7th Am. Ed. 103, note (1); also page 861 and following pages; 2 Hawk. P.C. 129, sec. 8; 3 Russell on Crimes, 6th ed. 83, 84, 97; 1 Chitty’s Crim. L. star page 15; 1 East P.C. c. 5, page 328; Derecourt v. Corbishley, 5 E. & B. 188; Fox v. Gaunt, 3 B. & Ad. 798; Reg. v. Chapman, 12 Cox’s Crim. Cas. 4; Rafferty v. The People, 69 Ill. 111; S.C. on a subsequent writ, 72 Ill. 37.” JOHN BAD ELK v. UNITED STATES, 177 U.S. 529, 44 L.Ed. 874, 20 S.Ct. 729 (April 30, 1900). See also State v. Valentine, 132 Wn.2d 1, 935 P.2d 1294 (May 1, 1997); The Queen v. Tooley, 92 Eng. Rep. 349, 351-352 (K.B. 1710); State v. Burt, 94 Wn.2d 108, 110, 614 P.2d 654 (1980) and WPIC 16.02. “It is the law that a person illegally arrested by an officer may resist that arrest, even to the extent of the taking of his life if his own life or any great bodily harm is threatened. John Bad Elk v. United States, 177 U.S. 529, 44 L.Ed. 874, 20 S.Ct. 729; State v. Gum, 68 W.Va. 105, 69 S.E. 463, 33 L.B.A. (N.S.) 150. . . . There is authority to the effect that, even in the case of an unlawful arrest, the person arrested would be warranted in using force and inflicting personal injury upon the officer only in self defense, the necessity or apparent necessity for which must appear. State v. Spaulding, 34 Minn. 361, 25 N.W. 793. . . . A similar rule was stated in a recent case, State v. Robinson, (1950), 72 A. (2d) (Me.) 260, where it was said: “An illegal arrest is an assault and battery. The person so attempted to be restrained of his liberty has the same right, and only the same right, to use force in defending himself as he would have in repelling any other assault and battery.” Had the appellant merely attempted to escape from the officer by flight, there would be no question but that the second arrest was as illegal as the first. [2] “Every man, however guilty, has a right to shun an illegal arrest by flight. The exercise of this right should not, and would not, subject him to be arrested as a fugitive.” Thomas v. State, 91 Ga. 204, 206, 18 S.E. 305; cited with approval in Porter v. State, 124 Ga. 297, 52 S.E. 283.” . . . [3] The issue of whether unnecessary force has been used in resisting arrest usually arises in prosecutions for assaulting or killing arresting officers, and in such cases that issue is usually a question for the jury under all circumstances. Harris v. State, 21 Ga.App. 792, 95 S.E. 268; 4 Am. Jur. 64, Arrest, Section 92.” State v. Rosseau, 40 Wn.2d 92, 94, 95-96 (February 28, 1952); State v. Baker, 58 Wn.App. 222, 228, 792 P.2d 542 (1990). And; “The existence of probable cause for the arrest is crucial to the State’s case because, as defendant correctly contends, not only does a citizen have the right to resist an unlawful arrest so long as that resistance is reasonable in light of all the circumstances, . . . but if an officer’s actions are unlawful, a defendant cannot be convicted of third degree assault, which requires intent to prevent or resist lawful apprehension or detention, State v. Humphries, 21 Wn.App 405, 408, 586 P.2d 130 (1978).” STATE v. JOHNSON, 29 Wn. App. 307, 309, 628 P.2d 479 (April 22, 1981); “A citizen has the right to resist an unlawful arrest so long as that resistance is reasonable in light of all the circumstances.” KENNEWICK v. KELLER, 11 Wn. App. 777, 787, 525 P.2d 267 (August 7, 1974); “The law in the state of Washington has been that one may resist an unlawful arrest by an amount of force reasonable and in proportion to the injury the arrestee faces. State v. Rosseau, 40 Wn.2d 92, 241 P.2d 447 (1952); State v. Schultze, 51 Wn.2d 878, 322 P.2d 839 (1958); State v. Eckman, 9 Wn.App. 905, 515 P.2d 837 (1973). . . . “In Seattle v. Gordon, 54 Wn.2d 515, 342 P.2d 604 (1959), the court stated at page 520 (quoting 39 Am. Jur. 510): “. . . If an officer does not disclose his authority and the accused does not know he is an officer and is attempting to arrest him for an offense, he has a right to resist the arrest with whatever force is necessary.” See also Morton v. State, 190 Ga. 792, 10 S.E.2D 836, 840 (1940); 5 Am.Jur. 2d Arrest §§ 69-70 (1962); 6A C.J.S. Arrest § 48 (1975). “It is, ordinarily incumbent on an officer, seeking to make an arrest without a warrant, to inform the accused of his authority or official character. An officer must make a reasonable disclosure, adapted to the circumstances, of his character and purpose; but, as a general rule, the notice is sufficient when it is such as to inform a reasonable man of the authority and the purpose of the one making the arrest. 6A C.J.S. Arrest § 45.” State v. Brown, 36 Wn.App. 166, at 169-170 (October 24, 1983). The basic right of everyone to resist an unlawful arrest is recognized by all authorities. In 5 Am. Jur. 2d, p. 778, is stated: “Any unlawful interference with the fundamental right of personal liberty may be resisted. Accordingly, every person has a right to resist an unlawful arrest.” Go through your states statutory codes for lil gems like this, This is edited to fit but read the last paragraph and learn your fundamental rights, liberty Interests and the power of the supreme power of government, but most importantly arm yourself with the knowledge of how to exercise that power Lawfully in your discretionsRCW 9A.16.040 at the footnote says: “Legislative recognition: “"The legislature recognizes that RCW 9A.16.040 establishes a dual standard with respect to the use of deadly force by peace officers and private citizens, AND FURTHER RECOGNIZES THAT PRIVATE CITIZENS' PERMISSIBLE USE OF DEADLY FORCE UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF RCW 9.01.200, 9A.16.020, OR 9A.16.050 IS NOT RESTRICTED AND REMAINS BROADER THAN THE LIMITATIONS IMPOSED ON PEACE OFFICERS." [1986 c 209 § 3.] See also 40 Am Jur.2d, Homicide, Sec. 140, p. 420. “At common law, if a party resisted arrest by an officer without warrant, and who had no right to arrest him, and if in the course of that resistence the officer was killed, the offense of the party resisting arrest would be reduced from what would have been murder, if the officer had the right to arrest, to manslaughter. What would be murder, if the officer had the right to arrest, might be reduced to manslaughter by the very fact that he had no such right. So an officer, at common law, was not authorized to make an arrest without a warrant, for a mere misdemeanor not committed in his presence. 1 Arch. Crim. Pr. & P. 7th Am. Ed. 103, note (1); also page 861 and following pages; 2 Hawk. P.C. 129, sec. 8; 3 Russell on Crimes, 6th ed. 83, 84, 97; 1 Chitty’s Crim. L. star page 15; 1 East P.C. c. 5, page 328; Derecourt v. Corbishley, 5 E. & B. 188; Fox v. Gaunt, 3 B. & Ad. 798; Reg. v. Chapman, 12 Cox’s Crim. Cas. 4; Rafferty v. The People, 69 Ill. 111; S.C. on a subsequent writ, 72 Ill. 37.” JOHN BAD ELK v. UNITED STATES, 177 U.S. 529, 44 L.Ed. 874, 20 S.Ct. 729 (April 30, 1900). See also State v. Valentine, 132 Wn.2d 1, 935 P.2d 1294 (May 1, 1997); The Queen v. Tooley, 92 Eng. Rep. 349, 351-352 (K.B. 1710); State v. Burt, 94 Wn.2d 108, 110, 614 P.2d 654 (1980) and WPIC 16.02. “It is the law that a person illegally arrested by an officer may resist that arrest, even to the extent of the taking of his life if his own life or any great bodily harm is threatened. John Bad Elk v. United States, 177 U.S. 529, 44 L.Ed. 874, 20 S.Ct. 729; State v. Gum, 68 W.Va. 105, 69 S.E. 463, 33 L.B.A. (N.S.) 150. . . . There is authority to the effect that, even in the case of an unlawful arrest, the person arrested would be warranted in using force and inflicting personal injury upon the officer only in self defense, the necessity or apparent necessity for which must appear. State v. Spaulding, 34 Minn. 361, 25 N.W. 793. . . . A similar rule was stated in a recent case, State v. Robinson, (1950), 72 A. (2d) (Me.) 260, where it was said: “An illegal arrest is an assault and battery. The person so attempted to be restrained of his liberty has the same right, and only the same right, to use force in defending himself as he would have in repelling any other assault and battery.” Had the appellant merely attempted to escape from the officer by flight, there would be no question but that the second arrest was as illegal as the first. [2] “Every man, however guilty, has a right to shun an illegal arrest by flight. The exercise of this right should not, and would not, subject him to be arrested as a fugitive.” Thomas v. State, 91 Ga. 204, 206, 18 S.E. 305; cited with approval in Porter v. State, 124 Ga. 297, 52 S.E. 283.” . . . [3] The issue of whether unnecessary force has been used in resisting arrest usually arises in prosecutions for assaulting or killing arresting officers, and in such cases that issue is usually a question for the jury under all circumstances. Harris v. State, 21 Ga.App. 792, 95 S.E. 268; 4 Am. Jur. 64, Arrest, Section 92.” State v. Rosseau, 40 Wn.2d 92, 94, 95-96 (February 28, 1952); State v. Baker, 58 Wn.App. 222, 228, 792 P.2d 542 (1990). And; “The existence of probable cause for the arrest is crucial to the State’s case because, as defendant correctly contends, not only does a citizen have the right to resist an unlawful arrest so long as that resistance is reasonable in light of all the circumstances, . . . but if an officer’s actions are unlawful, a defendant cannot be convicted of third degree assault, which requires intent to prevent or resist lawful apprehension or detention, State v. Humphries, 21 Wn.App 405, 408, 586 P.2d 130 (1978).” STATE v. JOHNSON, 29 Wn. App. 307, 309, 628 P.2d 479 (April 22, 1981); “A citizen has the right to resist an unlawful arrest so long as that resistance is reasonable in light of all the circumstances.” KENNEWICK v. KELLER, 11 Wn. App. 777, 787, 525 P.2d 267 (August 7, 1974); “The law in the state of Washington has been that one may resist an unlawful arrest by an amount of force reasonable and in proportion to the injury the arrestee faces. State v. Rosseau, 40 Wn.2d 92, 241 P.2d 447 (1952); State v. Schultze, 51 Wn.2d 878, 322 P.2d 839 (1958); State v. Eckman, 9 Wn.App. 905, 515 P.2d 837 (1973). . . . “In Seattle v. Gordon, 54 Wn.2d 515, 342 P.2d 604 (1959), the court stated at page 520 (quoting 39 Am. Jur. 510): “. . . If an officer does not disclose his authority and the accused does not know he is an officer and is attempting to arrest him for an offense, he has a right to resist the arrest with whatever force is necessary.” See also Morton v. State, 190 Ga. 792, 10 S.E.2D 836, 840 (1940); 5 Am.Jur. 2d Arrest §§ 69-70 (1962); 6A C.J.S. Arrest § 48 (1975). “It is, ordinarily incumbent on an officer, seeking to make an arrest without a warrant, to inform the accused of his authority or official character. An officer must make a reasonable disclosure, adapted to the circumstances, of his character and purpose; but, as a general rule, the notice is sufficient when it is such as to inform a reasonable man of the authority and the purpose of the one making the arrest. 6A C.J.S. Arrest § 45.” State v. Brown, 36 Wn.App. 166, at 169-170 (October 24, 1983). The basic right of everyone to resist an unlawful arrest is recognized by all authorities. In 5 Am. Jur. 2d, p. 778, is stated: “Any unlawful interference with the fundamental right of personal liberty may be resisted. Accordingly, every person has a right to resist an unlawful arrest.” Go through your states statutory codes for lil gems like this, This is edited to fit but read the last paragraph and learn your fundamental rights, liberty Interests and the power of the supreme power of government, but most importantly arm yourself with the knowledge of how to exercise that power Lawfully in your discretionsRCW 9A.16.040 at the footnote says: “Legislative recognition: “"The legislature recognizes that RCW 9A.16.040 establishes a dual standard with respect to the use of deadly force by peace officers and private citizens, AND FURTHER RECOGNIZES THAT PRIVATE CITIZENS' PERMISSIBLE USE OF DEADLY FORCE UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF RCW 9.01.200, 9A.16.020, OR 9A.16.050 IS NOT RESTRICTED AND REMAINS BROADER THAN THE LIMITATIONS IMPOSED ON PEACE OFFICERS." [1986 c 209 § 3.] See also 40 Am Jur.2d, Homicide, Sec. 140, p. 420. “At common law, if a party resisted arrest by an officer without warrant, and who had no right to arrest him, and if in the course of that resistence the officer was killed, the offense of the party resisting arrest would be reduced from what would have been murder, if the officer had the right to arrest, to manslaughter. What would be murder, if the officer had the right to arrest, might be reduced to manslaughter by the very fact that he had no such right. So an officer, at common law, was not authorized to make an arrest without a warrant, for a mere misdemeanor not committed in his presence. 1 Arch. Crim. Pr. & P. 7th Am. Ed. 103, note (1); also page 861 and following pages; 2 Hawk. P.C. 129, sec. 8; 3 Russell on Crimes, 6th ed. 83, 84, 97; 1 Chitty’s Crim. L. star page 15; 1 East P.C. c. 5, page 328; Derecourt v. Corbishley, 5 E. & B. 188; Fox v. Gaunt, 3 B. & Ad. 798; Reg. v. Chapman, 12 Cox’s Crim. Cas. 4; Rafferty v. The People, 69 Ill. 111; S.C. on a subsequent writ, 72 Ill. 37.” JOHN BAD ELK v. UNITED STATES, 177 U.S. 529, 44 L.Ed. 874, 20 S.Ct. 729 (April 30, 1900). See also State v. Valentine, 132 Wn.2d 1, 935 P.2d 1294 (May 1, 1997); The Queen v. Tooley, 92 Eng. Rep. 349, 351-352 (K.B. 1710); State v. Burt, 94 Wn.2d 108, 110, 614 P.2d 654 (1980) and WPIC 16.02. “It is the law that a person illegally arrested by an officer may resist that arrest, even to the extent of the taking of his life if his own life or any great bodily harm is threatened. John Bad Elk v. United States, 177 U.S. 529, 44 L.Ed. 874, 20 S.Ct. 729; State v. Gum, 68 W.Va. 105, 69 S.E. 463, 33 L.B.A. (N.S.) 150. . . . There is authority to the effect that, even in the case of an unlawful arrest, the person arrested would be warranted in using force and inflicting personal injury upon the officer only in self defense, the necessity or apparent necessity for which must appear. State v. Spaulding, 34 Minn. 361, 25 N.W. 793. . . . A similar rule was stated in a recent case, State v. Robinson, (1950), 72 A. (2d) (Me.) 260, where it was said: “An illegal arrest is an assault and battery. The person so attempted to be restrained of his liberty has the same right, and only the same right, to use force in defending himself as he would have in repelling any other assault and battery.” Had the appellant merely attempted to escape from the officer by flight, there would be no question but that the second arrest was as illegal as the first. [2] “Every man, however guilty, has a right to shun an illegal arrest by flight. The exercise of this right should not, and would not, subject him to be arrested as a fugitive.” Thomas v. State, 91 Ga. 204, 206, 18 S.E. 305; cited with approval in Porter v. State, 124 Ga. 297, 52 S.E. 283.” . . . [3] The issue of whether unnecessary force has been used in resisting arrest usually arises in prosecutions for assaulting or killing arresting officers, and in such cases that issue is usually a question for the jury under all circumstances. Harris v. State, 21 Ga.App. 792, 95 S.E. 268; 4 Am. Jur. 64, Arrest, Section 92.” State v. Rosseau, 40 Wn.2d 92, 94, 95-96 (February 28, 1952); State v. Baker, 58 Wn.App. 222, 228, 792 P.2d 542 (1990). And; “The existence of probable cause for the arrest is crucial to the State’s case because, as defendant correctly contends, not only does a citizen have the right to resist an unlawful arrest so long as that resistance is reasonable in light of all the circumstances, . . . but if an officer’s actions are unlawful, a defendant cannot be convicted of third degree assault, which requires intent to prevent or resist lawful apprehension or detention, State v. Humphries, 21 Wn.App 405, 408, 586 P.2d 130 (1978).” STATE v. JOHNSON, 29 Wn. App. 307, 309, 628 P.2d 479 (April 22, 1981); “A citizen has the right to resist an unlawful arrest so long as that resistance is reasonable in light of all the circumstances.” KENNEWICK v. KELLER, 11 Wn. App. 777, 787, 525 P.2d 267 (August 7, 1974); “The law in the state of Washington has been that one may resist an unlawful arrest by an amount of force reasonable and in proportion to the injury the arrestee faces. State v. Rosseau, 40 Wn.2d 92, 241 P.2d 447 (1952); State v. Schultze, 51 Wn.2d 878, 322 P.2d 839 (1958); State v. Eckman, 9 Wn.App. 905, 515 P.2d 837 (1973). . . . “In Seattle v. Gordon, 54 Wn.2d 515, 342 P.2d 604 (1959), the court stated at page 520 (quoting 39 Am. Jur. 510): “. . . If an officer does not disclose his authority and the accused does not know he is an officer and is attempting to arrest him for an offense, he has a right to resist the arrest with whatever force is necessary.” See also Morton v. State, 190 Ga. 792, 10 S.E.2D 836, 840 (1940); 5 Am.Jur. 2d Arrest §§ 69-70 (1962); 6A C.J.S. Arrest § 48 (1975). “It is, ordinarily incumbent on an officer, seeking to make an arrest without a warrant, to inform the accused of his authority or official character. An officer must make a reasonable disclosure, adapted to the circumstances, of his character and purpose; but, as a general rule, the notice is sufficient when it is such as to inform a reasonable man of the authority and the purpose of the one making the arrest. 6A C.J.S. Arrest § 45.” State v. Brown, 36 Wn.App. 166, at 169-170 (October 24, 1983). The basic right of everyone to resist an unlawful arrest is recognized by all authorities. In 5 Am. Jur. 2d, p. 778, is stated: “Any unlawful interference with the fundamental right of personal liberty may be resisted. Accordingly, every person has a right to resist an unlawful arrest.” Title 18 U.S. Code section 2381
When in the presence of two witnesses to the same overt act or in an open court of law if you fail to timely move to protect and defend the constitution of the United States and honor your oath of office you are subject to the charge of capital felony treason, and upon conviction you will be taken by the posse to the nearest busy intersection and at high noon hung by the neck until dead…The body to remain in state till dusk as an example to anyone who takes his oath of office lightly. Title 42 USC § 1985 Conspiracy to interfere with civil rights
(2) Obstructing justice; intimidating party, witness, or juror. If two or more persons in any State or Territory conspire to deter, by force, intimidation, or threat, any party or witness in any court of the United States from attending such court, or from testifying to any matter pending therein, freely, fully, and truthfully, or to injure such party or witness in his person or property on account of his having so attended or testified− Or to influence the verdict, presentment, or indictment of any grand or petit juror in any such court, or to injure such juror in his person or property on account of any verdict, presentment, or indictment lawfully assented to by him, or of his being or having been such juror; or if two or more persons conspire for the purpose of impeding, hindering, obstructing, or defeating, in any manner, the due course of justice in any State or Territory, with intent to deny to any citizen the equal protection of the law, or to injure him or his property for lawfully enforcing, or attempting to enforce, the right of any person, or class of persons, to the equal protection of the laws. Title 42 U.S.C. § 1986
It is a felony for anyone who knows of a violation of another person's civil rights that fails to prevent the violations. This would include federal judges, California judges, Department of Justice employees, members of Congress, and others. Making those violations even more serious, the civil rights violations were involved in obstructing justice. And worse, the obstructing justice tactics enabled to continue the aviation disasters and the harm from other criminal activities that affected the American people and the United States' security. Title 42 U.S.C. § 1986. Action for neglect to prevent conspiracy Every person who, having knowledge that any of the wrongs conspired to be done, and mentioned in the preceding section [42 USCS § 1985], are about to be committed, and having power to prevent or aid in preventing the commission of the same, neglects or refuses to do so, if such wrongful act be committed, shall be liable to the party injured, or his legal representatives, for all damages caused by such wrongful act, which such person by reasonable diligence could have prevented; and such damages may be recovered in an action on the case; And any number of persons guilty of such wrongful neglect or refusal may be joined as defendants in the action, and if the death of any party be caused by any such wrongful act and neglect, the legal representatives of the deceased shall have such action therefore, and may recover not exceeding five thousand dollars damages therein, for the benefit of the widow of the deceased, if there be one, and if there be no widow, then for the benefit of the next of kin of the deceased. But no action under the provisions of this section shall be sustained which is not commenced within one year after the cause of action has accrued. Federal Crime Reporting Statute
The federal offense of failure to disclose a felony, if coupled with some act concealing the felony, such as suppression of evidence, harboring or protecting the person performing the felony, intimidation or harming a witness, or any other act designed to conceal from authorities the fact that a crime has been committed. Title 18 U.S.C. § 4. Misprision of felony. Whoever, having knowledge of the actual commission of a felony cognizable by a court of the United States, conceals and does not as soon as possible make known the same to some judge or other person in civil or military authority under the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both. A federal judge, or any other government official, is required as part of the judge's mandatory administrative duties, to receive any offer of information of a federal crime. If that judge blocks such report, that block is a felony under related obstruction of justice statutes, and constitutes a serious offense. Upon receiving such information, the judge is then required to make it known to a government law enforcement body that is not themselves involved in the federal crime. The Supreme Court has warned, "Because of what appear to be Lawful commands [Statutory Rules, Regulations and -codes--ordinances- and Restrictions] on the surface, many citizens, because of their respect for what appears to be law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their rights, due to ignorance... [deceptive practices, constructive fraud, barratry, legal plunder, conversion, and malicious prosecution in inferior administrative State courts]." (United States v. Minker, 350 U.S. 179, 187, 76 S.Ct. 281, 100 L.Ed. 185 (1956);.....
u.c.c 1-308--formerly 1-207 title 18 us.c 241 and 242 THE SUPREME COURT RULED THAT THERE IS A PRESUMPTION
THAT A PARENT ACTS IN THEIR CHILDREN’S BEST INTERESTS NOT CHILD PROTECTION (CPS) OR YOUR STATE The United States Supreme Court has stated: “There is a presumption that parents act in their children’s best interests, Parham v. J. R., 442 U. S. 584, 602; there is normally no reason or compelling interest for the State to inject itself into the private realm of the family to further question a parents’ ability to make the best decisions regarding their children. Reno v. Flores, 507 U. S. 292, 304. The state may not interfere in child rearing decisions when a parent is available. Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000). 18 U.S.C. § 2331 defines "international terrorism" and "domestic terrorism" for purposes of Chapter 113B of the Code, entitled "Terrorism”:
"International terrorism" means activities with the following three characteristics: Involve violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that violate federal or state law; Appear to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and Occur primarily outside the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S., or transcend national boundaries in terms of the means by which they are accomplished, the persons they appear intended to intimidate or coerce, or the locale in which their perpetrators operate or seek asylum.* "Domestic terrorism" means activities with the following three characteristics: Involve acts dangerous to human life that violate federal or state law; Appear intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination. or kidnapping; and Occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S. VOTING IS FOR CITIZENS,NOT AMERICANS........IF YOUR NOT IN THE UNITED STATES MILITARY --AND ---YOUR NOT WORKING FOR THE GOVERNMENT -----YOUR NOT A CITIZEN, YOUR AN AMERICAN......TITLE 28 U.S.C 3002 PEOPLE....CRACK A LAW BOOK AND STOP LOOKING STUPID OR WORKING FOR ENGLANDS NASTY ASS........HOW MANY DEAD ANIMALS AND DEAD PEOPLE HAVE TO KEEP VOTING BEFORE YOU REALIZE THE SHIT IS RIGGED..........
Title 42 US Code Sec. 1983, Sec. 1985, & Sec. 1986:
"Clearly established the right to sue anyone who violates your constitutional rights. The Constitution guarantees: he who would unlawfully jeopardize your property loses property to you, and that's what justice is all about." The Supreme Court has warned, "Because of what appear to be Lawful commands [Statutory Rules, Regulations and -codes--ordinances- and Restrictions] on the surface, many citizens, because of their respect for what appears to be law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their rights, due to ignorance... [deceptive practices, constructive fraud, barratry, legal plunder, conversion, and malicious prosecution in inferior administrative State courts]." (United States v. Minker, 350 U.S. 179, 187, 76 S.Ct. 281, 100 L.Ed. 185 (1956);.....
u.c.c 1-308--formerly 1-207 title 18 us.c 241 and 242 |