Only Belligerents Have Rights

Bigger text (+)Smaller text (-)

(...as received,)
From: Jack Lancaster
Subject: Only Belligerents Have Rights -- Fight Your Way To Freedom!

BE IT KNOWN, ONLY BELLIGERENTS HAVE RIGHTS

In U.S. vs. JOHNSON, (76 Fed, Supp. 538), Federal District Court Judge James Alger Fee ruled that,

"The privilege against self-incrimination is neither accorded to the passive resistant, not to the person who is ignorant of his rights, nor to one who is indifferent thereto. It is a fighting clause. Its benefits can be retained only by sustained combat. It cannot be claimed by attorney or solicitor. It is valid only when insisted upon by a belligerent claimant in person." McAlister vs. Henkle, 201 U. S. 90, 26 S.Ct. 385, 50 L. Ed. 671; Commonwealth vs. Shaw, 4 Cush. 594, 50 Am. Dec. 813; Orum vs. State, 38 Ohio App. 171, 175 N.E. 876. [Emphasis added.]

Note the verdict's confrontational language: "FIGHTING", "COMBAT", and most surprising, "BELLIGERENT".

Did you ever expect to ever read a Federal court condemn citizens for being "passive" or "ignorant"?

Did you ever expect to see a verdict that encouraged citizens to be "belligerent" in court?

Again, we probably should thank Judge Alger Fee for informing us Americans.

This revealing statement succinctly describes the essence of the American legal system.

The court ruled that the constitutional right against self incrimination (Article V of the Bill of Rights) is not automatically guaranteed to any citizen by any government branch or official.

Moreover, despite the government's usual propaganda, this right is not made available to all persons: It is not available to the "passive", the "ignorant" or the "indifferent".

Nor can this right be claimed by an attorney on behalf of his client.

The right against self-incrimination is available only to the knowledgeable, "belligerent claimant in person", to the individual willing to engage in "sustained combat" to FIGHT for his rights.

Here we see that Government claims it is obligated to recognize your Constitutional right against self incrimination only if you fight for those rights.

The above ruling claims that our courts are free to ignore this right of any citizen who is:
1) ignorant of his right and/or
2) lacks the courage to fight for his right...

You can't be stupid and free at the same time!

This, as you may remember, is a constitutional right, guaranteed in the 5th Amendment.

Judge Fee has clearly pointed out that if we are ignorant of our rights, we have none.

Neither law enforcement nor the courts are obligated to help us secure our rights.

According to Judge Fee, both the courts and law enforcement will engage us in a form of non physical combat or fighting to see if we can be tricked or intimidated into giving up our rights.

We also see that our rights can not be claimed by an attorney.

It is to be assumed that the combat referenced by Judge Fee, would be our unwavering fight we put up to claim our rights, not only in court but in any situation that involves the administration of justice, whether it be the ordinary police, the FBI, the Department of Justice, or any other investigative government agency.

CHAPTER 62, 1871
16 United States Statutes at Large 419
FORTY FIRST CONGRESS SESSION III.
CHAPTER 62, 1871 CHAP. LXII. --

An act to provide a Government for the District of Columbia.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States in Congress assembled, That all that part of the territory of the United States included within the limits of the District of Columbia be, and the same is hereby, created into a government by the name of the District of Columbia, by which name it is hereby constituted a body corporate for municipal purposes, and may contract and be contracted with, sue and be sued, plead and be impleaded, have a seal, and exercise all other powers of a municipal corporation not inconsistent with the Constitution and laws of the United States and the provisions of this act.

The language of this act provides that the government of the District (the Federal Government) is a corporation, municipal in nature but still a corporation. Furthermore, District citizens ( United States citizens - U. S. citizens) will now be subject to corporation law as well as law of the Republic.

Corporate law is private law even thought the corporation is municipal. Generally we are led to believe that these corporate laws are laws of the people because they have came from Congress... they are not, they are private laws and can only be applied by contract. That is by our active consent!

Enfranchisement

Shortly after incorporating, the United States municipal corporation enfranchised its citizens.

"Enfranchisement. The act of making free (as from slavery); giving a franchise or freedom to; investiture with privileges or capacities of freedom, or municipal or political liberty. Conferring the privilege of voting upon classes of persons who have not previously possessed such. See also Franchise." --as found in Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition.

Notice that the Enfranchised citizen is granted municipal liberty. Not liberty as it was known and practiced in the Republic, but liberty as defined by the municipal

Liberty
1. Freedom from an arbitrary or despotic government.
2. Freedom from external or foreign rule.
3. Freedom from captivity, confinement, etc.
- Random House Dictionary (ISBN 0-345-38705-8)

At Section 8, the Constitution states that "The Congress shall have power to... exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such district (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the Government of the United States...", creating the District of Columbia.

What we know as Washington, District of Columbia. How many of us realize this creates a jurisdiction over which Congress has exclusive legislative authority?

We were just told this in the language of the Constitution, but did we understand it?

If not, thank you Department of Education.

And further, do we understand that this jurisdiction is not inclusive, to the Republic of the united States of America, it is EXCLUSIVE.

This means that the jurisdiction that is the District of Columbia is a FOREIGN jurisdiction to that of the Republic of the united States of America 1776.

For Further Study:

Belligerent Claimant

Belligerent Claimant  Belligerent Claimant (different)

Belligerent Claimant Court Speak

Notes on PERSON

Lawful Arrest, Search, Seizure, FAQ

See also, Competent Counsel Questionaire  Competent Counsel Questionaire

ARE LAWYERS AND ATTORNEYS LICENSED TO PRACTICE LAW?

Proof That An Attorneys Retainer Is A Rip Off

Lawyers and Attorneys Are Not Licensed To Practice Law

The Pro Se Litigant movement, the militia, jural society and de jure government

Dealing with Contempt of Court and much more...

HOW TO ARGUE AND WIN EVERY TIME Gerry Spence HOW TO ARGUE AND  WIN EVERY TIME

Gee, someone say, "contempt"?

USING THE FIFTH AMENDMENT  USING THE FIFTH AMENDMENT

Sue A Judge? Judicial Immunity? Visit  caught.net

Get to Know The State of Texas  Get to Know The State of Texas

THE STATE OF TEXAS  THE STATE OF TEXAS

Annexation of Texas?

Social Security "Wards"

Ancillary information:

US CODE: Title 15, 1127 Construction and definitions

F.Y.I.: Believe it or not, everybody's case is pretty much the same.
The "System" (b)leeds you to believe you are some kind of "special case."
The absurd accusations they have brought against you are NOT a "mistake."
It is a SCAM to keep you dizzy with and in fear.
Its NOT about "misunderstanding" you -- THEY ARE DOING IT DELIBERATELY!
Remember: Its their 'system' - not yours.

FOLKLORE? A man who, appeared on a criminal charge. The judge asked him if his name was "John Doe"
He replied; "My mother told me that was my name."
This statement then cannot be used to certify the identity of the defendant, as it is hearsay.
The judge looked at him a little funny, and asked, "How do you plead?"
To which the man replied,
"Judge, I'm ready to plead but first I want to know who is going to certify the charges to the court?"
That is all he said, and after the judge haggled with the clueless prosecutor a while, he cut him loose. Probably because they could not certify his identity, as he declined to testify as to his identity.

Consider being a Belligerent Claimant!


NOTICE: Jack Lancaster is not affiliated with Freedom School.
NOTICE: If anything in this presentation is found to be in error a good faith effort will be made to correct it in timely fashion upon notification.
       Specialty Areas

All the powers in the universe seem to favor the person who has confidence.

More & Other Information - Resource Pages
Admiralty related itemsBelligerent Claimant
BondsAttention Signing the Constitution Away
Citizenship / nationality related itemsEducation
Graphics
Jerry KirkAware
JurisdictionLaw related items
Lewis MohrLuis Ewing
MoneyOath related items
Reading MaterialReading Room
StuffTax matters
Travel related
 Video
NOTICE: The information on this page was brought to you by people who paid this website forward so that someone such as you might also profit by having access to it. If you care to do so also please feel encouraged to KEEP THIS SITE GOING by making a donation today. Thank you. Make donation with PayPal - it's fast, free and secure!


Freedom School is not affiliated with the links on this page - unless otherwise stated.

Freedom School information served for educational purposes only, no liability assumed for use.
The information you obtain at this site is not, nor is it intended to be, legal advice.
Freedom School does not consent to unlawful action.
Freedom School advocates and encourages one and all to adhere to, support and defend all law which is particularly applicable.
Information is intended for those men and women who are not "US CITIZENS" or "TAXPAYERS" - continued use, reference or citing indicates voluntary and informed compliance.

Freedom School is a free speech site and operation as there is no charge for things presented
this site relys on this memorandum and others in support of this philosophy and operation.
The noteworthy failure of the government or any alleged agency thereof to at any time rebut anything appearing on this website constitutes a legal admission of the fidelity and accuracy of the materials presented, which are offered in good faith and prepared as such by Freedom School and third parties affiliated or otherwise. THIS IS AN ELECTRONIC AGREEMENT AND IS A LEGALLY BINDING CONTRACT, EQUIVALENT TO A SIGNED, WRITTEN CONTRACT BETWEEN PARTIES - If the government, or any one else, wants to assert that any of the religious and/or political statements that are not factual appearing on this website are in error, then they as the moving party have the burden of proof, and they must responsively meet that burden of proof under the Administrative Procedures Act 5 U.S.C. §556(d) and under the due process clauses found in the Fifth, Sixth, and Seventh Amendments to the national Constitution BEFORE there will be response to any summons, questions, or unsubstantiated and slanderous accusations. Attempts at calling presented claims "frivolous" without specifically rebutting the particular claim, or claims, deemed "frivolous" will be in deed be "frivolous" and prima facie evidence that shall be used accordingly. Hey guys, if anything on this site is found to be in error a good faith effort will be made to correct it in timely fashion upon notification.


Presentation CopyrightŠ 2007, 2018
All Rights Reserved

Programmed with pride by Hickstoria McFuson

H O M E