Published on Apr 15, 2013
On March 16, 2013, my son and I were hiking along country roads among pastures and fields with my 15-year old son to help him earn his hiking merit badge. I always enjoy these father/son hikes because it gives me time alone with my son. As I always do when we go on these hikes and walks, I took my trusty rifle with me as there are coyotes, wild hogs, and cougars in our area. In Texas, it is legal to openly carry a rifle or shotgun as long as you do so in a manner that isn't calculated to cause alarm. In other words, you can't walk around waving your rifle at people. I always carry my rifle slung across my chest dangling, not holding it in my hands. At about the 5 mile mark of our hike, a voice behind us asked us to stop and the officer motioned for us to approach him. He got out of his car and met us a few feet later. He asked us what we were doing and I explained that we were hiking for my son's merit badge. He then asked me what I'm doing with the rifle, to which I responded in a calm manner, "Does it matter, officer? Am I breaking the law?" At that point, the officer grabbed my rifle without warning or indication. He didn't ask for my rifle and he didn't suggest he would take it from me. He simply grabbed it. This startled me and I instantly pulled back - the rifle was attached to me - and I asked what he thought he was doing because he's not taking my rifle. He then pulled his service pistol on me and told me to take my hands off the weapon and move to his car, which I complied with. He then slammed me into the hood of his car and I remembered I had a camera on me (one of the requirements of the hiking merit badge is to document your hikes). This video is the rest of that encounter. Up to this point, I am not told why I am being stopped, why he tried to disarm me, or even that I'm under arrest.We did not set out that Saturday morning to "make a point" or cause problems. Our goal was to complete a 10-mile hike and return home without incident. My son chose a route that away from populated areas but near our home. The arresting officer is Officer Steve Ermis and the supervisor is Sergeant Minnicks of the Temple Police Department.If you agree this was a gross act of exceeded authority, please help me fight these charges: http://www.indiegogo.com/projects/2nd...
Now he needs to arrest the bonds of the above named officers and file a claim in federal court against Ermis for assault with a deadly weapon. Claim damages. You'll never have to work again.
As bad as it looks, that man was NOT "ON DUTY" in the military or other official agency, and therefore being treated like any other Citizen or resident in the State of Texas. Those "cops" did not handle the contact correctly. That first officer made a "SARCASTIC" remark that he was "threatened". AS far as I know, you can carry an "open" weapon in the State of Texas and Arizona, but the police have a right to check that weapon and you. Once that is done, they give it back to you. End of stop & search. I am not sure why this man felt he had to have a "shoulder" weapon(semi or full auto) we do NOT know if it was full auto and he could have been taking his son to go target practice. (I was a Boy Scout too!) I also learned to shoot living in Texas back in the early 60's. They sold 22 ammo at 7-11's back then. If that officer was more professional, this never would have happened. If he honestly felt "threatened" he would have done a "hot stop" procedure. He did NOT. Nor did the Police officer pull his weapon. I have been a law enforcement official for over 25 years and have both State, local and federal experience and training and I was former U.S. Secret Service. If that man had a CCW permit, he should not be charged with anything. Carrying concealed was the only thing they can make up , unless he has a permit by the local sheriff or police chief, or in some states even the Judge or Magistrate. I welcome contact by the man if he needs expert testimony or help. email@example.com
This is completely ridiculous. If every single American doesn't see this coming, they are SHEEP and deserve every thing they get.
This is right out of line.. Make sure this goes viral.
Ignorant dumb red-neck cops!!!
Cops also need to learn who they work for. They work for a corporation known as United States which is a foreign-owned, bankrupt corporation. Cops are not enforcing laws, they are enforcing statutes. Statutes are NOT law. They are corporation policy and to not know the difference between the two is gross negligence on the part of the policy enforcer[cop]. Problem is, they CAN enforce statutes against those who claim to be a member/subject/citizen of United States Inc.[US citizen]
People in the US will eventually tire of this harassment and will start defending themselves and it won't be pretty!!
There appears to be general misunderstanding by people in general as to the difference between a natural person and an artificial person. This document will explain that difference.
John Joseph Smith, is a natural, flesh and blood, person, created by God. JOHN JOSEPH SMITH, is a U.S. corporate artificial person, U.S. citizen, created by the government.
In basic English grammar, a name spelled in upper and lower case, such as John Joseph Smith, is indicative of a flesh and blood man, a natural person.
Person. In general usage, a human being (i.e. natural person), though by statute term may include labor organizations, partnerships, associations, corporations, legal representatives, trustees, trustees in bankruptcy, or receivers. Black's Law Dictionary 6th Ed.
On the other hand, a name spelled in all caps, such as JOHN JOSEPH SMITH, is indicative of an artificial person.
Artificial persons. Persons created and devised by human laws for the purposes of society and government, as distinguished from natural persons. Corporations are examples of artificial persons. Black's 6th Ed.
U.S. v. Anthony 24 Fed. 829 (1873) "The term resident and citizen of the United States is distinguished from a Citizen of one of the several states, in that the former is a special class of citizen created by Congress."
The "United States" is defined in Title 28 USC Sec. 3002(15)(A) as a "Federal corporation".
It is also a municipal corporation.
Municipal. In narrower, more common, sense, it means pertaining to a local governmental unit, commonly, a city or town or other governmental unit. In its broader sense, it means pertaining to the public or governmental affairs of a state or nation or of a people. Black's Law Dictionary 6th Ed.
So the federal corporation United States, that pertains to the public affairs of a people, would be a municipal corporation.The federal government pertains to the affairs of its sovereign people.
Municipal corporation. A body corporate consisting of the inhabitants of a designated area created by the legislature with or without the consent of such inhabitants for governmental purposes . . .
A municipal corporation has a dual character, the one public and the other private, and exercises corresponding twofold functions and duties -- one class consisting of those acts performed by it in the exercise of delegated sovereign powers for benefit of people generally, as arm of the state, enforcing general laws made in pursuance of general policy of the state, and the other consisting of acts done in exercise of power of the municipal corporation for its own benefit, or for the benefit of its citizens alone, or citizens of the municipal corporation and its immediate locality. Black's 6th Ed.
called citizens, and these artificial persons (citizens) were created by the legislature, not by God. A corporation can be a citizen itself, and that corporation can have its own citizens. A corporation also has it's own officers. When a corporation is dissolved, then the officers of that corporation no longer exist. A government has it's own citizens and employees. When that government is dissolved, then those citizens also cease to exist, since both officers and citizens of a corporation are both artificial persons.
Corporate citizen. A municipal corporation is an artificial person, as shown above, and consists of the general inhabitants Corporate status in the state of incorporation . . . Black's 6th Ed.
A municipal corporation in its broader sense, such as the United States, consists of the inhabitants (U.S. citizens) of a designated area (federal United States). And a corporation can through its legislative branch create artificial persons, who are termed citizens of the municipal corporation. Can an artificial person create a flesh and blood natural man? Can the creator create a being superior to itself? Or can an artificial person only create (make) another artificial person?
I claim that when the municipal corporation United States, creates a citizen through legislative act, that citizen is then a corporate U.S. citizen. That corporate citizen's name is spelled in all capital letters, to indicate that it is an artificial person, as distinguished from a natural person whose name is spelled in upper and lower case letters. That corporate citizen is subject to its creator, the U.S. government, and is subject to its exclusive jurisdiction.
Constitution of the United States of America
14th Amendment. Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any States deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
A citizen of the United States is a corporate citizen, with corporate status, created by the corporation called United States, and is acting as their agent for the purpose of collecting revenue. This citizen has only privileges and immunities under the 14th Amendment. A natural person has inalienable rights, secured by the Constitution. A person with corporate status, would have corporate income.
COLLECTIVE ENTITY RULE
Brasswell v. United States 487 U.S. 99 (1988) This doctrine - known as the collective entity rule- has a lengthy and distinguished pedigree.
What is a "collective entity"? A collective entity is simply a corporate entity. Since the status of U.S. citizen can be created by naturalization let's see what naturalization is, and determine if a U.S. citizen is part of a collective entity.
Naturalization. The process by which a person acquires nationality after birth and becomes entitled to the privileges of U.S. citizenship. In the United States collective naturalization occurs when designated groups are made citizens by treaty (as Louisiana Purchase), or by a law of Congress (as in annexation of Texas and Hawaii). Black's 6th Ed.
Person. Scope and delineation of term necessary for determining to whom Fourteenth Amendment of Constitution affords protections since this Amendment expressly applies to "person".
Let's review the definition of artificial person.
The 14th Amendment applies to "persons", and person in legal parlance means an artificial person, in distinction from a natural person. "Collective" "naturalization occurs when designated groups" (inhabitants) "are made (created) citizens by a law of Congress". These artificial persons were "created and devised by human laws (14th Amendment U.S. citizen) for the (revenue) purposes of society and government", and have their names spelled in all capital letters. These designated groups are "made" or created corporate citizens/employees and are distinguished from natural persons.
A natural person, with his named spelled in upper and lower case letters, has inalienable rights, and is NOT a corporate U.S. citizen. An artificial person, and corporate citizen of the United States, has his name spelled in all capital letters. A natural person cannot be an artificial person at the same time.
The theme of the collective entity rule states:
Brasswell v. United States 487 U.S. 99 (1988) quoting, United States v. White 322 U.S. 694 (1944) But individuals, when acting as representatives of a collective group, cannot be said to be exercising their personal rights and duties, nor be entitled to their purely personal privileges. Rather they assume the rights, duties and privileges of the artificial entity or association of which they are agents or officers and they are bound by its obligations.
Under the collective entity rule, if John Joseph Smith contracted to be a representative or agent of the corporate citizen JOHN JOSEPH SMITH, then he would not be able to exercise his inalienable rights, which are his personal rights. John Joseph Smith (American Citizen) is contracting to be the agent of JOHN JOSEPH SMITH (U.S. citizen), thereby waiving his inalienable rights.
After the birth of John Joseph Smith, a new artificial person was created (JOHN JOSEPH SMITH), by the 14th Amendment, under the collective entity rule, and was naturalized as a corporate citizen of the United States. This did not destroy the natural person, but simply created a second separate legal entity, a legal fiction, artificial person. This legal fiction was created as an agent (U.S. citizen) of the corporate U.S. government to engage in commerce and collect revenue for the governments, federal, state, and local. You contracted to represent this artificial perosn, thereby waiving your inalienable rights.
A sovereign flesh and blood person is an American Citizen. A corporate U.S. citizen is an artificial person and is a government agent/employee
Sign Upor Sign In
Or sign in with:
Save BIG on your monthly Mobile Cell phone bill
Mention Joe Rogan --Get a $25 Credit Discount!
Added by Boris Badenov
Added by Deplorable cackybrat4
Added by DTOM
Added by Burbia
Added by Burbia
Added by ĦƟǁÿWʘʘt!
Added by Kenneth McClenton
Please remember this website is supported by your donations...
>>>back up site 12160info.lefora.com
DMCA / Report an Issue
© 2017 Created by truth.
Report an Issue |
Terms of Service
Please check your browser settings or contact your system administrator.