It’s a natural, folks want to know what sort of criminal the mayor is, and which is the best drycleaner in town. If you were the local newspaper, it wouldn’t cost you anything to advertise your local business every day of the week, all over the county.
If you are a first amendment auditor, an OurCountyRepublic.net websitewould be a perfect way to advertise your channel, and all the services of your website, in your local county. The overall web presence of the combined network will spread your news, and the news of your services, very widely and very quickly. https://jon-luman-co.square.site/product/join-ourcountyrepublic-network-get-publications-free-/41
Because it is a website network, anybody with a smart phone can access your website in the network 24/7. Anybody doing that can also purchase all publications directly from your website 24/7 also. Access is free, unlike the local slanted and biased propaganda rag.
Since virtually everybody that works for a Municipal corporation is part and parcel to the criminal activity of “pretend” government fraud, and theft, you have an endless supply of the news of daily crime that interests average folks. Plus, you will be able to offer many valuable services that are just not available anymore, because of all the stealing and robbing, cheating and lying going on at city hall, these days.
Not only could you offer lunch at your hot dog cart, you could offer public notice, and a public record for reasonable cost, instead of the usual robbery for a classified ad, or Legal Notice.
Posted inPublication|TaggedLaw|Comments Off on Advertising the criminality of your local Municipal corporations is a great way for advertising your local business!
Why stand by to allow the “powers that pretend” to dominate the local news sources that are biased toward every tin horn dictator/ruler that jumps up with the claim of being the “ruler” of others, because he/she was voted for by a batch of residents.
While some are actually voted for, the criminal organization pretending to be Lawful government has corrupted all elections by limiting them to only residents (not the People), allowed to vote. Same with the qualifications for who is “allowed” to run for any public office. A pretend government dictates that, not the People.
In some cases, the military enforcer is appointed and hired by some other “pretend” official, like a governor, or mayor. While the actual truth of America is that no one has a greater Lawful authority with regard to anyone else. No one, no group. The People of America, govern themselves, and no one else. No matter the military rank they may pretend.
Even the governor likes to get in on the act, as phony so-called religious leaderswill gather around to help publicize the fraud that you are ruled over by your equals.
Make your Declaration of Independence, and Lawful notice to fraudulent corporate government of who you are. The People are not subjects of corporate government. Make sure they know that.
The Liberty Letter is the most powerful affidavit of status that you can use to assert & establish your Lawful Immunity. That is what America is founded on.
Then they also know that arresting you for exercising your Lawfully established God-given rights is a crime. For which you may prosecute. Full instructions included.
Does the mighty 5 star police chief have any Lawful authority/jurisdiction with regard to YOU?
Appearing in full military regalia, 5 stars, and all. Most of the assembled “residents” (here temporarily, to do business) went into ovation mode as the bigtime military boss-woman took to the podium.
The mighty chief talks about reform while proudly wearing her military insignia and the shoulder patch showing that the city has been “under the gun”, since the civil war.
Chattanooga, where the People of Tennessee are under the gun.
Hell, if she wanted to reform something, she could just reach up and remove that threatening shoulder patch.
Posted inUncategorized|Comments Off on Chattanooga’s head of military police “force” talks reform Bullshit to “residents” (here temporarily, to do business) at town hall.
Because the criminal actors can get the idea that you might know and be certain of your status, as a “Living Soul”. They, and their kangaroo court, have no Lawful standing with People, and usually won’t risk providing you with
More Galleries|Comments Off on Go into the Kangaroo court, wearing the right attitude, and you will be dismissed before you can say, “Sovereign Immunity”
The reason they have to do fraudin the hallway, is that FRAUD is the best they can do.
Just let them know that you are a Living Soul (the corporate court hasn’t got standing with People), and squarely challenge the jurisdiction/authority of the court, as you are standing in the den of vipers, and they are completely stymied for what to do, besides commit more Treason against you. Right there in open court, in public, in front of you and your witnesses.
They are supposed to be smart, but, they get lost really quick when they discover that you are not trained to just lie down for them. And, comprehend that the burden of proof is on them
You will be surprised at how fast they will throw you out of their pretend court room, when you have properly challenged and discovered that they have absolutely no jurisdiction/authority with regard to you. That fact actually caused the matter to be VOID at the start, as soon as the dumb cop arrested you, without any Lawful Probable cause.
That fact will pay you handsomely, and they will give you all of the evidence you need to convict for the assault.
Corporate Government’s lack of Lawful jurisdiction is a Fatal flaw to all of the corporate revenue schemes.
Arrest without warrant is unlawful and a big reason this country was founded. The way the scam/racket of traffic arrests (that’s right) works, is that the arrest starts when the so-called officer turns on the emergency lights (doing so without an emergency is a felony violation) come on. Then the so-called officer has seized you, and your automobile (private property), which is false arrest, and false imprisonment if he does not have evidence that you committed some sort of crime. This is why the cop appears at your window demanding a license, registration, and proof of insurance.
The cop desperately needs evidence that you are a “driver”, operating a commercial vehicle (registration), and have acted like a “resident/slave”, having bought insurance, as commanded by the foreign jurisdiction operating your Republic state in your stead. To justify the “arrest”. Without any evidence, the cop has committed an assault upon a citizen. A false imprisonment for all of the time you are harassed on the side of the road.
So the determination has already been made to arrest you. Now the cop needs to decide if he/she is taking you to jail, or do so if his boss orders him to. They can get more revenue by taking you to jail.
Some info on Municipal police making arrests etc::
The one arresting must immediately take the arrested party before a magistrate when demanded, and hold the party for no other purpose (no photographs, no fingerprinting);
A peace officer or private person may not subject a person arrested to greater restraint than is necessary and proper for the arrest and detention of the person. Alaska Statutes Title 12. Code of Criminal Procedure § 12.25.070. Limitation on restraint in arrest.
“An arrest causes injury whether or not it is prosecuted.” Buckley v. Fitzsimmons (91-7849), 509 U.S. 259 (1993).
“Compulsory fingerprinting before conviction is an unlawful encroachment…[and] involves prohibited compulsory self-incrimination.” People v. Helvern, 215 N.Y. Supp. 417 (1926).
“The power to arrest does not confer upon the arresting officer the power to detain a prisoner for other purposes.” Geldon v. Finnegan, 252 N.W. 372 (1934).
“The taking of the plaintiff’s picture before conviction was an illegal act.” Hawkins v. Kuhne, 137 NY Supp 1090, 153 App Div 216 (1912).
“To detain the person arrested in custody for any purpose other than that of taking him before a magistrate is illegal.” Kominsky v. Durand, 12 Atl.2d. 654 (1940).
***********************************************
A constable cannot justify handcuffing a prisoner unless he has attempted to escape, or unless it be necessary in order to prevent his doing so.” 51 L.R.A. 216;
“But a constable cannot justify handcuffing a prisoner unless he has attempted to escape, or unless it be necessary in order to prevent his doing so.” 51 L.R.A. 216.
“Denying officer’s motion for summary judgment where arrestee was treated by hand surgeon for over one year as a result of handcuffing” ESMONT v. CITY OF NEW YORK, 371 F. Supp.2d 202 (E.D.N.Y. 2005).
“Finding an officer was entitled to qualified immunity on excessive force claim “`after resolving all factual disputes in favor of the plaintiff, the officer’s use of force was objectively reasonable under the circumstances.'”” VILLARI v. TOWNSHIP OF WALL, Civil Action No. 06-0004 (FLW). (D.N.J. Sep. 15, 2009); MIDDLEBROOKS v. ALBA, Civil Action No. 08-6291 (WJM). (D.N.J. Aug. 18, 2011).
“Finding excessive force when handcuffs placed behind the back caused permanent nerve damage to plaintiff’s wrist” Young v. Brock, Civil Action No. 10-cv-01513-WJM-CBS (D. Colo. Jun. 4, 2014).
“Finding no qualified immunity where officer ignored plaintiff’s requests to loosen his handcuffs due to extreme pain when he was arrested for disorderly conduct” HAMMOCK v. BOROUGH OF UPPER DARBY, CIVIL ACTION NO. 06-CV-1006. (E.D. Pa. Oct. 31, 2007).
“Finding petitioner’s allegations and facts, if credited, would establish excessive force on a tight handcuffing claim, and holding that the right of an arrestee to be free from the use of excessive force “in the course of his handcuffing” was clearly established” FISHER v. CITY OF LAS CRUCES, 584 F.3d 888 (10th Cir. 2009).
“Finding summary judgment and qualified immunity unwarranted where plaintiff asserted that officer placed handcuffs on him that were excessively tight and failed for ten minutes to loosen them despite repeated requests” CASTRO v. COUNTY OF NASSAU, 739 F. Supp.2d 153 (E.D.N.Y. 2010).
“Finding that a claim for excessive force must involve a “seizure” that was unreasonable” BROWN v. CUSCINO, Civil Action No. 08-1224. (W.D. Pa. Mar. 21, 2011).
“Finding that claim of excessive force presented jury question when officer accused of ignoring complaints that handcuffs were too tight “faced rather benign circumstances that hardly justified his failure to respond more promptly” to those complaints made by man accused of trespassing” RAMSEY v. CONNER, Case number 4:09cv1754 TCM. (E.D. Mo. Jan. 3, 2011).
“Finding that excessively tight handcuffs violated clearly established Fourth Amendment law despite lower court’s finding of no excessive force” SCHMIDT v. CREEDON, 639 F.3d 587 (3d Cir. 2011).
“Finding that placing needlessly tight handcuffs on arrestee, failing to respond to pleas to loosen them, which resulted in permanent never damage, stated claim of excessive force” JAMES v. YORK COUNTY POLICE DEPARTMENT, Civil Action No. 1:01-CV-1015. (M.D. Pa. May. 6, 2005).
“Finding that plaintiff’s alleged facts that an officer kept tight handcuffs on him and failed to respond to his pleas to loosen them, if proven, would establish excessive force” Geba v. Norris, ACTION NO. 2:14cv612 (E.D. Va. Apr. 4, 2016).
“Holding that police officers could be liable for a Fourth Amendment violation after employing excessive force in the course of handcuffing an arrestee, despite the fact that there had been no prior Supreme Court or Third Circuit ruling to that precise effect” Hinterberger v. Iroquois Sch. Dist., 898 F.Supp.2d 772 (W.D. Pa. 2012).
“Holding right to be free from excessive force in the course of handcuffing suspect was clearly established” Barnes v. Edwards, Civil Action No. 13-4239 (JBS-KMW) (D.N.J. Jun. 24, 2016).
“Holding that even though neither the Supreme Court nor the Third Circuit had addressed the issue, the right to be free from excessive force in the course of handcuffing was clearly established based on the case law of other circuits” KELLY v. BOROUGH OF CARLISLE, 622 F.3d 248 (3d Cir. 2010).
“Holding that first step of qualified immunity analysis satisfied, as plaintiff put forth facts sufficient, if proven, to establish Fourth Amendment excessive force violation” LYMAN v. LONG, CIVIL ACTION NO. 08-5303 (MLC). (D.N.J. Apr. 20, 2011).
“Holding that first step of qualified immunity analysis is satisfied by plaintiff asserting facts that if proven would establish an excessive force violation” HARMON v. CITY OF CAMDEN, CIVIL ACTION NO. 08-5074 (JEI/AMD). (D.N.J. Nov. 4, 2010).
“Holding that officer used excessive force by placing excessively tight handcuffs on the plaintiff and refusing to loosen *them for ten minutes” KENYON v. EDWARDS, 462 F.3d 802 (8th Cir. 2006).
“Holding that summary judgment is appropriate on excessive force claim where, after resolving all factual disputes in favor of plaintiff, district court concludes that use of force was objectively reasonable under circumstances” MORALES v. CITY OF JERSEY CITY, Civil Action No. 05-5423 (SRC). (D.N.J. Jul. 7, 2009).
“Holding that “the right of an arrestee to be free from the use of excessive force in the course of his handcuffing clearly was established” for purposes of a qualified immunity inquiry” GLASS v. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA, 455 F. Supp.2d 302 (E.D. Pa. 2006).
“Reversing grant of summary judgment for arresting officer, and holding that use of force was excessive in violation of the Fourth Amendment, where plaintiff alleged that officer excessively tightened handcuffs and ignored his repeated requests to loosen them for ten minutes and that he suffered permanent nerve damage” Mehr v. Atl. City, Civil No. 12-4499 (RBK/AMD) (D.N.J. Sep. 2, 2014).
“Reversing grant of summary judgment for arresting officer where plaintiff alleged that officer excessively tightened handcuffs and ignored his repeated requests to loosen them for ten minutes and that he suffered permanent nerve damage, and where court found that given lack of danger, delay in loosening handcuffs was not justified” CINCERELLA v. EGG HARBOR TOWNSHIP POLICE DEPARTMENT, (Docket Entry Nos. 38, 39, 47, 51), Civil No. 06-1183 (RBK). (D.N.J. Mar. 23, 2009).
“Reversing summary judgment for defendant on excessive force claim because officer “faced rather benign circumstances” and “was not. . .in the midst of a dangerous situation involving a serious crime or armed criminals.“” Bannan v. City of Philadelphia, CIVIL ACTION NO. 11-cv-04680 (E.D. Pa. Feb. 9, 2012).
“Reversing summary judgment for defendant where handcuffs caused plaintiff extreme pain and permanent nerve damages” Dormu v. Dist. of D.C., 795 F.Supp.2d 7 (D.D.C. 2011).
“Reversing summary judgment on excessive force claim where the plaintiff’s extreme pain from handcuffing would have been obvious to arresting officers, as he made repeated complaints about pain, fell to the ground and began to faint, and suffered permanent nerve damage in one wrist as a result of the handcuffing, for which he sought medical treatment” Pruchnic v. Wright, CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:13-CV-235 (W.D. Pa. Mar. 30, 2016).
“The handcuffing was utterly unlawful.” Osborn v Veitch 1 Foster & Fin Eng Rep 317.
[mp_product_meta product_id="55" label="Buy your Local News site, NOW!"]
Posted inUncategorized|Comments Off on Prosecute false arrest/imprisonment under your authority, as one of the People of the Republic state.
