Molested: My Unlawful Encounter With TSA


3253293070_MolestedByTSA_xlarge.

As I entered the line for the security and “screening” area of the Salt Lake City Airport on April 27th, 2013, I decided that it was time to stand up for my natural rights as a lawful man. I decided not to offer my willing consent that any TSA officer might presume as to my willingness or legal duty to be either irradiated in a full-body scanner or be patted down by any agent of government or its security guards (police) without first being shown probable cause or reasonable suspicion that I have committed a regulated commercial or criminal act, and to show any law that gave that officer or security guard authority to do so despite my lack of voluntary consent.

I arrived at the Salt Lake City airport almost two hours early, surprised to find the “security checkpoint” line almost empty of citizens eagerly waiting for their chance to be scanned and touched inappropriately by these TSA “agents” – employees of a government corporation. Whereas in my previous flying experiences I would refuse the full-body scanner but give my unwilling but seemingly necessary consent to a full body pat down just so that I could catch my flight on time, on this day I felt that it was time to make a stand for my own rights and that of others traveling this supposedly free land with the right to the uninhibited freedom of “travel.” Ironically, the very people in that line that I was trying to help see the truth of our collective tyrannical disposition turned out to be among my staunchest detractors! And I wondered what it must have felt like to be Rosa Parks on the back of that bus, refusing to give up her seat and sitting for her own rights and for that of all people, not just her own color. How difficult must it have been for her to listen to the jeering and insults around her?

I was soon to find out…

As I approached the first TSA agent after stepping through the line of ropes, a pleasant gentleman in a Transportation Security Agency (TSA) uniform was sitting at a podium and checking “driver’s licenses” as identification to match names on tickets. I felt comfortable and assured that the presentment of a license to drive a vehicle in commerce had nothing to do with consenting to the TSA and its disgusting objectives or illegal searches, and so I did not object to this pointless act as I felt it was not unreasonable to identify myself. After all, I wasn’t driving a commercial vehicle or utilizing any part of the “Motor Vehicle Code” in this traveling adventure in the sky, so what harm could it cause to show this unrelated “license” to commercially “drive” even though I was not doing so?

Without harm or delay, I was handed back my “Driver’s License” and boarding pass with verification of TSA identification for screening purposes, and pointed to the next section.

As I waited in the quite short line of people, I felt confident in my self and that I possess the natural right not to be detained, irradiated, or felt up regardless of what some central government corporation creates within its rules, codes, and regulations. For a natural right is just that – the right to not have unlawful acts committed against you, which creates a natural duty in other men and women to honor that right as they would wish it to be honored back at them. Government/political rights are of course the exact opposite of natural rights, in that your political rights include having such abuses, extortion, punishments, pains, taxes, imprisonment, and in this case irradiation or molestation forced upon you. This is the price of a ticket to be a “citizen” acting in “commerce“.

I always refer people to TITLE 42, SECTION 1981 for a deep understanding of what a government granted political “right” actually is, for which most people have no clue. It states:

“Statement of equal rights”

“All persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall have the same right in every State and Territory to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, give evidence, and to the full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of persons and property as is enjoyed by white citizens, and shall be subject to like punishment, pains, penalties, taxes, licenses, and exactions of every kind, and to no other.”

This of course describes perfectly a “political right” – your right is to be harmed, punished, pained, taxed, and extorted from (exaction). These are the “equal rights” of all citizens! But I do not accept this as a true statement, and will always rebut the assumption that I consent to having political rights forced upon me which violate my natural rights. Put simply, natural rights are free, political rights are enslavement, and equal rights are political not natural.

Today at SLC International Airport in front of the TSA and Airport Police, I stood up for my natural rights – which cannot lawfully be superseded by any government-granted political rights without my consent.

Since I had no objection to the age-old practice of scanning the baggage of airline passengers, what is in my opinion a reasonable security precaution for the safety of the people (or at least for their perception of safety), I went ahead and placed my stuff on the conveyer belt to be checked. This was the last time my baggage was “allowed” to be in my position until this whole ordeal was over, though no law was ever presented or enumerated to allow such confiscation and detainment of my baggage despite my many demands to have that law presented.

The same metal detector that was used for decades now stood in front of me. Behind that apparatus and to the right was the “full-body scanner” that I was certainly opposed to and for which I felt was unreasonable and dangerous to my personal health and those around it. And so I proceeded towards the open (not roped off) and working (electronically charged and ready) metal detector (another thing I am not opposed to if reasonable and consensual). Before I could step through that typical metal detector I was so used to for so many decades of flying, I was told by a second TSA agent that I should walk into the full-body scanner instead. I calmly stated no thank you, I did not consent to that request and that I would gladly be “screened” by walking through the traditional metal detector. At this point, a third female in TSA uniform and badge told me to go ahead and walk to the scanner. Again I stated no, that I do not wish or consent to that action. Her response was to tell me (not ask) that oh, I was wanting to “opt out” of this action. I stated clearly that no, this was a legal term that I do not accept as a legal offer, and that I instead refuse to give my consent to being scanned by that machine but will gladly consent to walking through the metal detector for screening purposes.

With a confused look, she made a waving motion that I thought meant to walk through the metal detector. I proceeded to do so, but a forth male TSA agent was now blocking my path on the other side of that machine. I hesitated for a moment, allowing the agent to move out of my way, but instead he directed me to wait and hold where I was for a moment. He then yelled out that a “male pat-down” was required for yet another male TSA officer.

Next, the TSA agent blocking my way told me I must go through a full body pat-down in order to bypass the full-body scanner. I stated clearly that no, I do not consent to being patted down by anyone in any capacity – officially or otherwise – and that I was not acting in commerce but would be glad to go through the metal detector and be on my way. As I began to walk into the metal detector, this new agents’ hand went up and pressed against my chest, and he told me to stop where I was. Acting lawfully, I stopped and asked why I was being stopped. The answer was the same – that I must be screened properly – which meant that I must be patted down inappropriately.

Upon this order, I again stated that I did not consent to or accept this offer by the TSA. And I followed up on his demand by asking the lawful question, “Am I being detained”?

The answer from the male TSA agent was: “No, we are not detaining you sir”.

I looked at the female TSA agent to my right side, and she verified that I was not being detained.

I then asked the question: “Am I free to go?”

The male and female TSA agents both stated after a short pause that “Yes, I was free to go“.

I then proceeded to step through the traditional metal detector and passed through it without any detection of hidden objects, with no alarms sounding.

But for reasons unknown to me, the male TSA agent again tried to block me from walking through to get my luggage at the end of the conveyer belt located after the metal detector as was generally the normal screening procedure. His hand went up and touched my shoulder this time, and he instructed me that I must wait there for the proper agent to pat me down.

Confused, I asked again: “So wait. Am I being detained? Are you detaining me?”

The answer again came from the TSA agent: “No sir, I cannot detain you”.

And again I asked: “Then am I free to go to my plane?”

“Yes sir”, the male agent answered with uncertainty and nervousness, though his words inspired no confidence and did not match his body language or his actions. He stood back as I passed through the metal detector just enough for me to pass through, but still hindered my way slightly causing our right shoulders and arms to touch. He was short in stature, attempting to be authoritative but failing without cause.

Slow and methodical, I again attempted to proceed to where my bags were sitting post-screening (after already being duly x-rayed) and put my hand upon the handle of my largest piece of luggage. At this point the second agent stopped me, telling me loudly and with concern not to touch my bags and property because I had not been “properly screened”.

I stated that I just went through the metal detector and no alarm went off. You have scanned my bags and have no legal issues or reason to believe I am dangerous, so why are you stopping me from freely traveling?

It turned out that this agent was a supervisor, and he looked at me with a defeated yet confident look that I recognized from past encounters with men who think that they have the right to harm others rights and persons simply because they have a shiny badge and the misunderstood “authority“ to force their power‘s on others. He did not answer me right away, and I stood my ground with my hand on my baggage until he responded.

He stared at me with not quite a smile and with obvious annoyance, not knowing how to respond to or cleverly avoid my questions. His stance was firm and in a disposition as to be too close for comfort to my own face and his body was in my direct line of travel into the airport proper…

Again I asked: “What are you doing? Are you detaining me?”

And again the answer was “no“.

“Am I free to go?”

“No, not until you’ve been screened.”

I stated clearly then that I did not understand what was happening, and that I did not understand how, if I wasn’t being detained and had not broken any law, how can I not be free to go? This was very illogical and unreasonable, especially since no legal or lawful reason or code had yet to be given to me.

The same answer was given, that I had not gone through the proper screening process.

I stated again that I was certainly just as properly screened as I had been since I can remember whenever I had ever traveled as a kid – when I walked through the metal detector and had my bags scanned. I offered to repeat my previous action of walking through the metal detector if the TSA wished me to repeat this without any hesitation.

At some point during this process this TSA officer had depressed a button on some radio apparatus and requested a police officer and also a TSA manager who was in a suit and tie, not a standard uniform. I questioned his need for calling the airport police as I was not refusing any lawful order or causing any harm to any person or property. He apparently felt that he needed an authoritarian person in a more authoritarian uniform with a stun-gun and revolver to help him justify not answer my questions.

He told me that no, I must stay right there until a manager and the police arrive.

Of course I asked again: “Why? Are you detaining me for some reason?”

He stated that no, he cannot detain me (which I knew) while still blocking my way to travel, and that because I was refusing to go through the proper screening process I therefore could not enter the “sterile and secure environment of the airport”.

To this I reinforced the fact that I was not refusing to do anything or follow any lawful order, and that I would gladly subject myself to this so-called “proper screening process” if the TSA agent could simply show me the law that stated I must do so against my consent. I told him again that I was not acting as a person in commerce or any other activity that can be federally regulated, and that his own U.S. CODE specifically states that the travel of people cannot be restricted under the color of law. I then let him know that on this day I was lawfully traveling and again asked if I was free to go?

It was about this time when a female airport police officer showed up. She was younger with blonde hair. Quite pretty actually, but immediately unjustified in her confrontational language and posture…

The two TSA men, supported by the police officer, then told me that because I had come in contact with my bags before being properly screened (by touching my own property), the bags must be re-x-rayed before I can proceed into the airport. And yet apparently I could not be re-metal-detected myself. His next comment implied that I was refusing to be either irradiated or patted down, to which I answered:

“I am not refusing to do anything, I only ask that you show me the law that grants you authority to force me to go through a radiation emitting full-body scanner or to be patted down without my consent? Please show me the law that grants you any authority to force me to do so and I will gladly comply?”

He insisted that he was acting under Federal law, and that he was not about to go and retrieve the code of federal regulations for TSA to show me where that authority was derived. I was to take his word on this. And so I again re-stated that I am not refusing any order, and was simply waiting for any law or lawful code to be revealed and verified to me before I did something against my good conscious and informed consent against my natural rights.

He guffawed, and that’s when the people in line behind me started to yell obscenities. Their disgusted words were not directed at these unlawful acts of the TSA, but rather surprisingly at me for holding up the line. I was told by the people waiting to be screened that I should cooperate, shut up, and hurry up through the radiation emitting full-body scanner. They were willing subjects, therefore so should I be. Then one referred to me with the moniker of “asshole” in front of the traveling passengers and most notably their small children. I did not acknowledge this, but instead imagined how others in history no doubt had the same experience – not that I would compare my small battle with the likes of Gandhi or MLK. But then for me there is no right too small that is not worth fighting for… or in this case, being abused for by unlawful agents of government.

The police officer started to get involved, reinforcing the lie that I was required to undertake this illegal search and seizure process. I again asked for any law that proved this female police officer’s claim of authority, and the response was that the law was there but would not be shown to me.

I asked the police officer if I was being detained, and the answer was an uncomfortable no. However, she was more forceful with her retort, and attempted to exude an authoritarian appeal.

Since I was not being detained, I stated that this must reasonably and logically mean that I was free to carry on with my travels and so I reached for my baggage again to get on my way. To this, the police officer became belligerent and began to threaten me. Her loud words soon formed the repeated threatening question:

“Do you want to go to jail”?

Like a bully on the schoolyard in front of his peers, again…

“Do you want to go to jail?”

Surprised at her questions and her unprofessional, unconstitutional, and unlawful demeanor, I almost laughed thinking that anyone would actually answer in the affirmative to that type of question. Her tough-guy act was not very impressive – more like a bad parent scolding their kid for nothing but asking an uncomfortable question. Taken aback by this strange surge of testosterone presented by this female officer, I asked what it was that I had done that was against the law that warranted such a question to be asked of me. And again I requested for the police officer to reveal the law that I had apparently violated or explain what it was that she thought was reasonable suspicion or probable cause for detaining me and threatening to send me to jail without first offering to arrest me and allow a bit of due process and “Miranda rights” beforehand.

Of course I would have refused to accept or under-stand any political rights offered by a security guard of a government corporation if she had read them. But it’s the thought that counts.

After a few similar exchanges asking for the law I had broken and why I was being verbally accosted for standing up politely for my natural rights; without any movement, threat, or provocation from myself, the policewoman suddenly stepped at me and grabbed my right arm at the forearm and wrist, to which I allowed her to do without retort or fighting back. She forcibly twisted my arm so that it was forced behind my back and then pressed it in a slightly painful upward position. Unsure of why this woman was attacking me without warning or notice, I did not resist in any way – though her strength and form was certainly not enough to actually hold me in this restraining position. I stayed still under duress and inquired painfully what exactly I had done to warrant such treatment and under what authority she was acting?

At no time did this policewoman state that I was being detained, that I was being placed under arrest, or read any type of rights to me. She just maintained her hold on my arm as I faced the conveyer belt with the whole airport security and passenger crowd and children, TSA, and her police officer male partner watching on. Continuing to ask what gave her the right to do what she was doing while placing me under pain and restraint, instead of lawfully answering my question and declaring her legal intent or purpose, she then began to apply a bit more pressure upward on my arm while standing behind me – now pushing hard enough to actually cause fairly severe pain throughout my arm and shoulder. I stated that she was now hurting me and asked her in pain to please cease and desist. Instead she pressed even harder with still no directions or communications as to the purpose of her assault or as to what I should be doing besides standing there and taking this abuse.

It is important to note that I could not see what was happening behind me during this surreal encounter.

At this point (after what seemed like a long time but was likely a bit less than a minute of actual time) it was my natural reaction to the increased pressure and pain she was causing my arm and shoulder to twist very easily out of her restraining hold of my wrist, at which point I raised both hands non-threateningly halfway in the air at my sides and stated: “I am not resisting.”

She carelessly blurted out: “Yes you are”, to which I stated in a surprisingly confident, calm, and mature manner: “No, I am not. There is nothing to resist!” My adrenaline was now of course pumping a bit. I put my hands down and again asked as calmly as possible after just being attacked by this woman for the law that I was breaking and to point out exactly what thing or lawful demand that I was resisting. There was no order or request made by the officer that I could actually be accused of resisting, and her violent attack was accompanied by no reason for it.

I could not even be accused of resisting arrest, since no mention of even detaining me let alone arresting me was ever mentioned by any party. The aforementioned question of whether or not I wished to go to jail would probably not stand as a demand or proper question for a lawful officer of government to make.

I was however informed later by my traveling friend that the female police officer all but threatened him, stating that we were both not going to be allowed on our flights and that “your friend will likely go to jail”.

I was told after this ordeal by the close friend I was traveling with that the police officer’s partner, a more professional acting Asian man whom I did not speak to personally, walked over and stated something to the offending female ‘s ear before I ceased to be put in pain and broke the grip of this female officer. He thought he might have warned her that she was acting out of line, but I have no proof of what was said between them and again had no view of the scene. I do know that my traveling friend made it very clear to this male partner police officer that I was not “dangerous” and that I was simply asserting my rights, and that this officer concurred and reassured him that it would likely end well if I cooperate. His uniform might have been that of a bicycle cop, and he did not appear to have the authoritarian disposition as his partner.

At this point, tensions were flared and my arm and shoulder was throbbing in pain. The police officer then began asking me more politely for my driver’s license – as if she had not just accosted me. Still confident in my rights, I asked her why she needed to see my license to drive, since I was not operating a motor vehicle and was not in any form of commercial activity today, least of all with the police. I also asked her for her name and information because she had just acted violently against me outside of any perceived authority to do so.

She stated that the Driver’s License was a form of ID and that the law required me to show it to a police officer when it was requested.

Of course, I asked for the law that required me to show my Driver’s License for the purpose of “identification“, stating that I’d gladly hand over my driver’s license even though I was not driving, but simply required proof of claim to her statement that I was required by law to do so, especially to the person who just physically and unlawfully harmed me.

I include the following in this report (though this was not quoted at the actual scene of this crime) for the readers understanding of my request for a law which would violate my inalienable natural rights regarding being required to show my driver’s license as “identification” since it is a political license for a certain purpose, which is certainly not a forced right called “identification”:

License: In the law of contracts, is a permission, accorded by a competent authority, conferring the right to do some act which without such authorization would be illegal, or would be a trespass or tort.” Blacks Law Dictionary, 2nd Ed. (1910).

“The license means to confer on a person the right to do something which otherwise he would not have the right to do.” City of Louisville v. Sebree, 214 S.W. 2D 248; 308 Ky. 420.

“The object of a license is to confer a right or power which does not exist without it.” Pavne v. Massev, 196 S.W. 2D 493; 145 Tex. 273; Shuman v. City of Ft. Wayne, 127 Indiana 109; 26 NE 560, 561 (1891); 194 So 569 (1940).

“A license is a mere permit to do something that without it would be unlawful.” Littleton v. Buress, 82 P. 864, 866; 14 Wyo.173.

“A license, pure and simple, is a mere personal privilege…” River Development Corp. V. Liberty Corp., 133 A. 2d 373, 385; 45 N.J. Super. 445.

“A license is merely a permit or privilege to do what otherwise would be unlawful, and is not a contract between the authority, federal, state or municipal granting it and the person to whom it is granted…”American States Water Services Co. Of Calif. V. Johnson, 88 P.2d 770, 774; 31 Cal. App.2d 606.

A license when granting a privilege, may not, as the terms to its possession, impose conditions which require the abandonment of constitutional rights.” Frost Trucking Co. V. Railroad Commission, 271 US 583, 589 (1924); Terral v. Burke Construction Company, 257 US 529, 532 (1922).

“The word privilege is defined as a particular benefit, favor, or advantage, a right or immunity not enjoyed by all, or it may be enjoyed only under special conditions.” Knoll Gold Club v. U.S., 179 Fed Supp. 377, 380.

“…those things which are considered as inalienable rights which all citizens possess cannot be licensed since those acts are not held to be a privilege.” City of Chicago v. Collins, 51 N.E. 907, 910

Illegitimate and unconstitutional practices get their first footing in that way, by silent approaches and slight deviations from legal modes of procedure. This can only be obviated by adhering to the rule that constitutional provisions for the security of persons and property should be liberally construed.” Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616, 635 (1884); Exparte Rhodes, 202Ala. 68 71.

The State cannot diminish rights of the people.” Hertado v. California, 110 U.S. 516

Statutes that violate the plain and obvious principles of common right and common reason are null and void.” Bennett v. Boggs, 1 Baldw 60.

“Under our system of government upon the individuality and intelligence of the citizen, the state does not claim to control him/her, except as his/her conduct to others, leaving him/her the sole judge as to all that affects himself/herself.” Mugler v. Kansas 123 U.S. 623, 659-60.

“The assertion of federal rights, when plainly and reasonably made, is not to be defeated under the name of local practice.”- Davis v. Wechsler, 263 U.S. 22, 24.

Where rights secured by the constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them.” – Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 491.

The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime.” – Miller v. U.S., 230 F 2d 486, 489.

For a crime to exist, there must be an injured party. There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of this exercise of Constitutional rights.”- Sherar v. Cullen, 481 F. 945.

Link: http://thecountyguard.org/right-2-drive-handout.html

Please note here that there was only one injured party, and that was myself. I was violently engaged in an unwarranted, forceful, and painful hold. And as you will come to see, I was molested publicly for all to see against my will and in full view of the same police officer that assaulted and hurt my arm.

I would also like to point out here that under no circumstance did I identify myself as “cargo” that is required to be “screened” by TSA.

49 USC § 44901 – Screening passengers and property

(5) Screening defined.— In this subsection the term “screening” means a physical examination or non-intrusive methods of assessing whether cargo poses a threat to transportation security. Methods of screening include x-ray systems, explosives detection systems, explosives trace detection, explosives detection canine teams certified by the Transportation Security Administration, or a physical search together with manifest verification. The Administrator may approve additional methods to ensure that the cargo does not pose a threat to transportation security and to assist in meeting the requirements of this subsection. Such additional cargo screening methods shall not include solely performing a review of information about the contents of cargo or verifying the identity of a shipper of the cargo that is not performed in conjunction with other security methods authorized under this subsection, including whether a known shipper is registered in the known shipper database. Such additional cargo screening methods may include a program to certify the security methods used by shippers pursuant to paragraphs (1) and (2) and alternative screening methods pursuant to exemptions referred to in subsection (b) of section 1602 of the Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007.

TITLE 49 Section 40102 further defines this legal term, which I never lawfully claimed to be or participate in:

(12) “cargo” means property, mail, or both.

As we can read, there is no defining statement that “people” or “persons” shall be “screened”. And though I know all too well that government refers to humans as “animals” and trades its citizens and prisoners as commodities with CUSIP numbers on the collateralized bond markets, I certainly have never agreed that as a presumed “passenger” I agree to be treated as property or any other form of “cargo”. I am nothing if not solely a living, breathing man.

And you wonder why they wouldn’t show me the law?

Continuing with my official accounting of this day:

She again demanded to acquire my driver’s license, and carefully I stated that I am not refusing to obey her offer or any lawful order she may give, and that I was still waiting to see the law that required such an action on my behalf before I proceeded to be identified through such a license to drive a vehicle against the law.

At no time did I ever refuse any lawful order presented by any officer, but instead kept asking over and over to see any law before I complied with any demand to follow any legal demand. I never received any written law or codified number representing any law by any officer. No law or code was ever presented to me in any way, just as one would expect when dealing with any street gang or private security guard acting violently and without cause, reason, or warrant to do so.

She didn’t like my response, but apparently felt there might be a risk to assault me again, as I informed her that she was acting as an individual outside of her authority for lawsuit purposes.. Instead, she gave me a defeated yet determined look that let me know she would not be backing down as she did not detain me, as if I was somehow being unreasonable.

At some point here a fifth TSA agent forcibly removed my bags from the conveyer belt against my will. He stated that they would be re-screened, though stated no purpose for this action. I verbally stated that a re-screening was not consented to, but that he could do as he pleases with his personal responsibility for his actions, even though they had already been properly x-rayed (screened) once. Perhaps they were negligent in their first capacity?

I pointed out which bags and personal items were mine because I was asked to.

I was again told that I was not properly screened, to which I again disagreed and stated clearly that I had completed the screening process and was declaring this to be true and clear for all witnesses – that my bags were already scanned twice and that my body had walked through the metal detector successfully and offered to repeat this step. I then declared for the record that I did not consent to any other type of screening or physical abuse or restraint from any other party involved unless probable cause and reasonable suspicion could be proven, and that again I will submit if any law could be shown in support of their requests.

I was also told by the TSA supervisor and the female police officer that I had somehow agreed and consented to their unlawful pat-down because there were apparently some posted signs that stated as much when I entered the TSA screening and secured area – the same “security” area I have been entering the airport for 40 years without such presumed consent. I could tell that this was a ploy that they had used before – a well rehearsed con to keep the masses in line.

I stated honestly that I did not see these alleged signs (which I did not) and that I had signed no contract or unilateral agreement nor ever implied that I had read or acknowledged any posted signage. I then stated that “I rebut your presumption of my consent to these signs” in this regard, and then asked to actually see those signs by having the officer point them out and walking over so I could read them. I was told “no” and that I was not allowed to leave the screening area or move. I again asked “Does that mean you are detaining me?” And again the answer was “no“. But of course, they had my bags, and they knew I would not leave without my personal property. Essentially, they were holding my baggage as a hostage to gain my consent.

I then demanded to be shown the alternative entrance to the airport that bypassed this illegal checkpoint and signage so that I was not forced into a presumption of agreement to forced consent to these so-called posted rules, since I was not aware of any law that required me to consent to any signage or any request that had been made of me so far by any party under their official capacity, let alone some signs outside the area that I did not see or get opportunity to read and grant my own informed consent.

Again, the answer was that I could not leave the area, though no law was quoted proving that claim and no arrest or detainment order was given to me. I was not being officially detained but was being threatened that I should not move or again touch my personal property.

I then informed all parties that from this point forward any further actions taken against me or my property would be outside of any authority or jurisdiction of government without first providing a copy of the laws granting that authority, and that any further actions of any type (including any already taken outside of law or under its color) would be taken personally as from natural men and women without the protections of their government badges or perceived authority, and that I would sue anyone personally and also put a lien on and sue for their insurance bond and any and all personal property as remedy for the actions of those who threatened me or took any other action against me under color of law.

I was told that I had actually volunteered to be “screened” by entering the security checkpoint area, and that this included the consent to the signage that apparently stated I must involuntarily consent to a “pat down”. I again asked to be escorted out of the “security area” and shown the alternative entrance into the airport that did not require this tyrannical treatment and manufactured consent, since the process was just stated to be both “voluntary” and “consensual”.

The response was that no, I could not leave the security area and that there was not alternative entrance to the airport – that I was required to be screened in this area.

I asked why then had the police officer misstated the fact that this was a voluntary process, and again to please show me the law that requires this screening process against my will and informed consent to a voluntary process?

Because the TSA stopping my right to travel was still holding up the line of people waiting to be screened behind me, the frustrated agents and police officer suggested that we move to “a more private location” so that I can be illegally patted down without my consent. I stated clearly that I would not go anywhere that there were no witnesses and would not follow the TSA agent to the empty side of the screening area or out of view of the “public“ unless he could show me a law that required this. I agreed instead to walk bare-footed with a hurt shoulder and arm to the end of the conveyer and to the next machine to the right where the full body pat down procedures generally take place but no further. I still was not allowed to touch my personal property, which was eventually brought over to the area by one of the TSA agents who claimed that it was now properly screened.

I wondered what kind of screening it had underwent before that was not proper – the normal process – but did not ask.

Insisting that I could not proceed into the airport, the agents brought my personal belongings and baggage over to this metal table, and insisted that I could not touch my things until I was patted down. I verified that they were detaining my personal property without probable cause to do so and without showing any law or authority to do so.

Also, the TSA manager in a suit and tie had joined the group before this, and so I again stated that I do not under any circumstances consent to any of these actions or requests for a “full-body pat down”, though I would gladly comply with the law that requires it if that law were to be shown to me. To this I was ignored and received more frustrated sarcastic looks. And so I again informed the TSA supervisor, manager, and police officer that any actions taken by them would be taken on their own personal behalf, outside of any lawful or any governmental agency protections, unless they showed my their authority under the law. I also repeatedly stated that I would sue anyone there personally who violated my natural or any other form of rights under color of law by touching my body in any way without my consent, as well as to sue their departments and any insurance bonds attached to their positions as legal officers of a government. I warned them that this meant their personal property was liable for remedy in court. Their response was not so much verbal as it was confusion and in-credulousness.

The TSA manager and uniformed supervisor then informed me that I was required to obtain a pat down before I would be allowed into the “sterile environment” once again.

I again asked if I was being detained?

Again the answer was no.

Again I asked the TSA and police officers if I wasn’t being detained, why I was not free to go?

And again the answer was that I had not been properly screened, and that I could not take my “baggage” until I was “properly screened”.

After a few minutes of conversational rhetoric, the TSA manager told the supervisor it was OK to pat me down, to which I stated clearly and precisely that I did not consent to this unlawful procedure. The supervisor who would conduct the illegal pat-down was confused and annoyed as I repeatedly looked him in the eyes and stated that I do not consent to his touching any part of my body, and that any such action on his part would be taken on his own accord without the protection of law, and that he would be personally liable for any of his actions in this regard.

Meanwhile, the rubber gloves were snapped on by the TSA supervisor.

After multiple verbal restatements of my non-consent to being “patted down” or to any other “touching” of my person, I stated again clearly in full earshot of the police officer and the TSA manager that I do not consent and that any actions would be taken as an assault under duress and legal action would follow.

When asked to put my arms in the air at my sides, I complied with the action while stating that no, I do not consent to this action or the search. I remained as calm as anyone can while being publicly humiliated and molested in front of mothers, children, and a helpless and concerned friend (who later took three opioid relaxation pills to calm his nerves after witnessing all of this and being threatened that he would not be able to fly on his airline).

Again, I stated for the record that I never agreed to be patted down or touched in anyway. Even as I put my arms in the air, I continuously told all parties that I did not agree or consent to this process.

The TSA Supervisor went through his routinely worded script, stating officially exactly where he would be touching me next. And to each item requested I stated that I did not consent to that and that he was acting in his own capacity while molesting me in public in front of multiple witnesses. Of course, he showed concern at this, but was egged on by his boss – the TSA manager in a suit and tie – who by the way was perfectly cordial and polite with me as he watched me being inappropriately and illegally molested without my consent.

When the TSA supervisor was going to touch me on my penis and scrotum, he went through the motions and asked me first whether or not I had any sensitive areas on my body that he should avoid or be careful around.

I stated that my whole body was in fact very sensitive, and that I did not consent to his touching any part of my very sensitive body. At this point I made eye contact with the female police officer and told her that she would be called as witness to these illegal acts, to which she stated that yes she would act as an official witness. I verified this in triplicate with verbal affirmation from this “police officer”.

He proceeded to grab my ankles and as he slid his hands upward, he stated that he would be touching me from my feet to my “torso”, to which I again stated that no, I do not consent to being touched in any way whatsoever, and that if he proceeded he was acting on his own accord outside of the law and of his position within the Transportation Security Agency.

Even after my statement of non-consent, he continued with his scripted words telling me that he was now going to continue the search up to where my legs met with my “torso”, and that he may touch my private areas with the “back of his hand”.

I stated that absolutely not would I consent to that, and he proceeded to “pat” me up, touching firmly where my leg and scrotum met and brushing my genitalia.

I stated clearly that this was not my “torso”, and that he had just touched a sensitive and very private area without my permission or consent, which is called molestation. I can only imagine the cognitive dissonance this agent must have been going through at this moment.

Next, he positioned himself behind me and felt the bare skin between my pants and underwear as he narrated his molestation actions, his fingers reaching inside my pants and around my “torso“. He again told me that he would be touching my “sensitive area” of the buttocks with the “back of the hand”, which he did against my verbally expressed non-consent to such an action.

Eventually, the gloves came off and were placed on the bomb-sniffing robot or whatever that apparatus is. It occurred to me that at any time he could very easily have planted evidence for that machine to pick up.

This went on until finally the TSA supervisor stated behind my back that: “You are now properly screened. Thank you.”

I stated sarcastically, “No sir, thank you!!! You will be sued!”

During this process I repeatedly demanded to be given identification and personal mailing addresses so that I may direct my legal case to the proper parties involved. I was of course met with resistance here, as I’m sure they took me very seriously based on my verbage. I did receive a business card from both the police officer and the TSA manager, with the name of the supervisor on the back. This was all the ID I could get.

Inversely, the Manager begged and pleaded for me to hand over my driver’s license so that he could file a “incident report”, and would not let me leave until I did. He was not detaining me, but would not let me touch my bags and property until I did so. He asked for my airline boarding pass so that he could “inform Delta Airlines” that there was a passenger who caused an incident by refusing the screening process. After hesitation, and in stating that in no way am I acting in commercial activities, driving in any way, participating in commerce of any type, or that this “license to drive” in any way implies “identification”, I handed over my driver’s license and boarding pass to the manager so that he could correctly fill out his report, and he took them across the security area to copy the information.

When I asked for a copy of that report, he refused stating that it would not be ready for a couple of days and that it was not a public document.

The police officer then asked me to give her my “driver’s license” for her records, to which I refused the request unless she had a law that showed I must comply with that request, since I was not “driving”. I offered to hold the driver’s license in the air so that she could read what she wanted from it, stating again that in no way was I offering “identification” or operating in any regulated commercial action.

Frustrated, she copied down the information she wanted as I held out the driver‘s license. I did show her my boarding pass when she requested it.

When she asked if the address on my card was my current address, I answered no, and refused to offer any more information without a law stating that I must. She demanded my current address again, and I rebutted the legal presumption of her authority to demand that information again. She did not abuse me anymore, though I believe she wanted to.

In the end, as I was finally “free to go” into the airport without one of these people stepping in my way and without actually detaining me, contorting my arm in pain, or using my luggage as a hostage.

The Manager told me then as if we were back-stage that he understood what I was doing in standing up for my rights and that he respected that. I responded by stating that in no way did he show any respect and that he was just witness, accomplice, and agitator in an illegal activity outside of his lawful place. He told me he was just doing his job, to which I replied yeah, I know, you’d beat my head in if it would feed your family. I was already told that by your airport police last time they violated my rights.

My traveling companion was severely stressed at this point, ironically angry at me for standing up for my rights rather than being angry at TSA for physically molesting me in his presence and against my will. He let me know that the police woman told him in a threatening way that we would both be missing our flight and that I would likely be going to jail. I was not stopped or questioned by the airline or TSA on the rest of this flight or on my returning flight.

The second police officer, to the best of my knowledge, acted in accordance with the law and was reassuring to my friend. As far as I know, he stepped in when the police woman inappropriately put me in a painful hold and possibly informed her that she was acting outside of her capacity. This  is only hearsay that was forwarded by my traveling companion, but I wish to commend this man for being an upstanding officer – the only one in this account.

For the purposes of this disclosure, I have chosen to withhold the names of the parties involved, but will certainly be suing those parties to the full extent of the law as well as assembling a grand jury to attempt to force the TSA to post appropriate signage about consent and voluntarism regarding this screening process. While I believe I should be compensated greatly for this pain and suffering I have been put through as in any other molestation or rape case, I am much more interested in forcing this rouge corporation of government to cease and desist such illegal activates so that all others may travel freely without molestation by presumed and forced consent under threat and duress.

If anyone reading this would like to help in a financial or legal capacity and make this case an international thorn in the side of a corrupt government, please contact me.

Though I do not claim to derive any personal or political “rights” from any government document or constitution, I do state that government has a constitution that names and restricts its own rights against people, and many court precedents that show that the natural right of travel supersedes any other political or positive legal concoction placed over that natural right. But the constitution only restricts government when lawfully applied, and most people are afraid to sue government to this end. Here is just one of many precedent-setting court opinions:

“As the Supreme Court notes in Saenz v Roe, 98-97 (1999), the Constitution does not contain the word “travel” in any context, let alone an explicit right to travel (except for members of Congress, who are guaranteed the right to travel to and from Congress). The presumed right to travel, however, is firmly established in U.S. law and precedent. In U.S. v Guest, 383 U.S. 745 (1966), the Court noted, “It is a right that has been firmly established and repeatedly recognized.” In fact, in Shapiro v Thompson, 394 U.S. 618 (1969), Justice Stewart noted in a concurring opinion that “it is a right broadly assertable against private interference as well as governmental action. Like the right of association, … it is a virtually unconditional personal right, guaranteed by the Constitution to us all.”

I thank you for reading my account of crime and molestation that took place on Saturday, April 27th, 2013, and hope that it may further the cause to end what may only be called true tyranny and oppression in this country.

The preceding has been my best and honest recounting of the events of this day, from approximately 1pm to just after 2pm Mountain time zone. I will be demanding the film footage from the airport and TSA as soon as possible, and stepping up to the plate to change this mistaken and implied ability of any government agency to trample on anyone’s natural rights of travel.

Oh, and for reference… I present below my former (filmed) encounter with the “airport police” at Salt Lake City Airport, which includes the violation of my rights as well as me being informed that “free speech is not absolute”, and that I “would need a permit for free speech” in the airport. Please note my peaceful yet confident and firm demeanor with these security guards as representative of my disposition and temperament regarding this new incident as reported above.

And watch the media spin and lies here:

.

Also, for the record, I submit the following information as the reasons that I do not submit to  a full-body imager or “back-scatter” radiation emitting device. This is the information I was handing out at the airport in the above videos:

–=–

Opt Out!

The Facts About The Whole Body Imager Device

–=–

Is It Constitutional?

The 4th amendment to the constitution specifically states:

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, SHALL NOT BE VIOLATED, and Warrants shall not be issued, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

Is It Stopping Terrorism?

Thousands of illegal immigrants come across the southern border of these United States unchallenged, while an honest American cannot go about his own country without being subjugated to an illegal search and seizure at the airport, and get molested by TSA agents for declaring their rights to “Opt-Out”.

Is It Photographing And Storing Your Naked Photos?

“It will show the private parts of people, but what we’ve decided is that we’re not going to blur those out, because it severely limits the detection capabilities… It is possible to see genitals and breasts while they’re going through the machine…” -Cheryl Johnson- Office of Transport Security manager

These “devices are designed and deployed in a way that allows the images to be routinely stored and recorded, which is exactly what the Marshals Service is doing… We think it’s significant.” -EPIC executive director Marc Rotenberg in interview with CNET

“Approximately 35,314 images… have been stored on the Brijot Gen2 machine…” used in the Orlando, Fla. Federal Courthouse. -William Bordley- Associate General Counsel with the Marshals Service

A 70-page document showing the TSA’s procurement specifications, classified as “sensitive security information” says that, in some modes the scanner must “allow exporting of image data in real time” and provide a mechanism for “high-speed transfer of image data” over the network. It also says that image filters will “protect the identity, modesty, and privacy of the passenger.” –Procurement Specification For Whole Body Imager Devices For Checkpoint Operations, report by U.S. Department of Homeland Security, TSA

TSA spokeswoman Sari Koshetz lied to CNET, stating that the agency’s scanners are delivered to airports with the image recording functions turned off. “We’re not recording them… I’m reiterating that to the public. We are not ever activating those capabilities at the airport”

Can These Scanners Cause Cancer?

“Some studies reported significant genetic damage while others, although similar, showed none…” -Boian Alexandrov- Center for Nonlinear Studies at Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico

Although the forces generated from these scanners are tiny, resonant effects allow THz waves to unzip double-stranded DNA, creating bubbles in the double strand that could significantly interfere with processes such as gene expression and DNA replication. Translation: It destroys your DNA! -Boian Alexandrov- Center for Nonlinear Studies at Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico

“…any X-ray photon may be the one which sets in motion the high-speed, high energy electron which causes a carcinogenic or atherogenic (smooth muscle) mutation. Such mutations rarely disappear. The higher their accumulated number in a population, the higher will be the population’s mortality rates from radiation-induced cancer and ischemic heart disease.” -Dr. John Gofman- Professor Emeritus of Molecular and Cell Biology, University of California, Berkeley.

Gofman’s studies indicate that radiation from medical diagnostics and treatment is a causal co-factor in 50 percent of America’s cancers and 60 percent of our ischemic (blood flow blockage) heart disease. He stresses that the frequency with which Americans are medically X-rayed “makes for a significant radiological impact”. -Dr. John Gofman- Professor Emeritus of Molecular and Cell Biology, University of California, Berkeley.

Children and passengers with gene mutations – around one in 20 of the population – are more at risk as they are less able to repair X-ray damage to their DNA. The most likely risk from the airport scanners is a common type of skin cancer called basal cell carcinoma. -Dr. David Brenner- head of Columbia University’s Centre For Radiological Research

“If all 800 million people who use airports every year were screened with X-rays then the very small individual risk multiplied by the large number of screened people might imply a potential public health or societal risk. The population risk has the potential to be significant… If there are increases in cancers as a result of irradiation of children, they would most likely appear some decades in the future. It would be prudent not to scan the head and neck… There really is no other technology around where we’re planning to X-ray such an enormous number of individuals. It’s really unprecedented in the radiation world.” -Dr. David Brenner- head of Columbia University’s Centre For Radiological Research

“They say the risk is minimal, but statistically someone is going to get skin cancer from these X-rays… No exposure to X-ray is considered beneficial. We know X-rays are hazardous but we have a situation at the airports where people are so eager to fly that they will risk their lives in this manner…” -Dr Michael Love-, Department of Biophysics and Biophysical Chemistry at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine

“While the dose would be safe if it were distributed throughout the volume of the entire body, the dose to the skin may be dangerously high,” they wrote. “We still don’t know the beam intensity or other details of their classified system…” -John Sedat- Biochemist, University of California, San Francisco (UCSF)

“Collectively, the radiation doses from the scanners incrementally increase the risk of fatal cancers among the thousands or millions of travelers who will be exposed, some radiation experts believe… We don’t have enough information to make a decision on whether there’s going to be a biological effect or not.” -Douglas Boreham- professor in medical physics and applied radiation sciences at McMaster University in Hamilton, Ontario

“The thing that worries me the most, is not what happens if the machine works as advertised, but what happens if it doesn’t” -Peter Rez- Arizona State University

“[We] cannot exclude the possibility of a fatal cancer attributable to radiation in a very large population of people exposed to very low doses of radiation.” -National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements, from a 2002 report that studied these security devices.

“Based on our results we argue that a specific terahertz radiation exposure may significantly affect the natural dynamics of DNA, and thereby influence intricate molecular processes involved in gene expression and DNA replication.” -Technology Review article from: http://arxiv.org/abs/0910.5294

In other words… millimeter wave scanning devices may damage your DNA!

–=–

Report by Clint Richardson of We Are Change Utah (wearechangeutah.org) with references provided for your own research.

–=–

Thanks for your public support in these trying times!

Yours in solidarity…

And walking the walk so that hopefully others wont have to…

.

–Clint Richardson (realitybloger.wordpress.com)
–Tuesday, May 8th, 2013

Advertisements

Understanding The Contractual Relationship


In my last post, “To Protect And Serve” (link), we discussed the nature of the contractual relationship between the people and government. The importance of this relationship cannot be understated, as the authority and jurisdiction of government CODE, legal requirements, licenses, taxation, imprisonment, and everything else that is forced upon the people is done so through contract. And force is used upon the people when the stipulations of a legal contract are not met and the people decide to not cooperate with the law enforcement officers who protect and serve the people on behalf of government. As we discussed, protecting and serving does not mean protecting and serving your God-given natural rights, but instead it means to enforce the law through the protection of its continuity and uniformity, as well as to serve you with arrest, summons, process, and notices. To protect does not mean to defend you, and to serve does not mean to be hospitable to you or help you.

Again, the understanding of the following U.S. CODE explains this quite well…

42 USC § 1981 – Equal rights under the law

(a) Statement of equal rights

All persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall have the same right in every State and Territory to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, give evidence, and to the full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of persons and property as is enjoyed by white citizens, and shall be subject to like punishment, pains, penalties, taxes, licenses, and exactions of every kind, and to no other.

(b) “Make and enforce contracts” defined

For purposes of this section, the term “make and enforce contracts” includes the making, performance, modification, and termination of contracts, and the enjoyment of all benefits, privileges, terms, and conditions of the contractual relationship.

Protecting your rights to be punished, put in pain, penalized, taxed, forced to obtain licenses, and exacted (extorted) from is the job of a police officer, and the service of these “benefits” and “privileges” of extortion through process, notice, and summons is the requisite of that protection – the protection of the right of government to extort.

But the important aspect for the implementation of this protection and service is all based on what paragraph (b) defines as the contractual relationship. This relationship between you and government must be understood if ever you wish to stand up against this legal extortion via contract.

The interaction of police with you as a contracted or licensed citizen is a prerequisite for this interaction. In other words, the police must “identify” you through license or other form of identification in order to serve you with a process, summons, or notice. Agreeing to this contractual relationship is agreeing to being protected and served… and arrested, put in pain, and punished for non-compliance of contract.

A police officer cannot lawfully interact with you unless you are legally contracted with his corporation (government), giving him jurisdiction and authority (your permission and consent) to do so. As a citizen and licensed driver, you are within this contractual relationship.

The best way to understand this need for police to verify your legal person through legal license or other identification is to revisit an old confrontation I had with the Salt Lake City Airport Police. Keep in mind as you are watching this video that I did not have a contract in the form of a “permit” to be in the airport handing out fliers. I was in a public area, not within a secured area. As you are watching, you will realize what I was realizing as this event unfolded – that these police officers had no authority or jurisdiction over me or my actions because I did not sign a contract called a permit. If I had obtained this permit for free speech, I would have been subject to their will. But without the contract, they knew that they had no real power over me… except that of threat and coercion.

In my opinion, this was one of the most important “caught on tape” moments in modern history, and so here it is again. Enjoy!

Part 1:

“Free speech is not absolute.” – David J. Bywater, Airport Police

Illogical, irrational, unreasonable…

Notice that the police officer states as fact that if I violate the stipulations of the permit (which I don’t have), then and only then are my actions a misdemeanor. So why would I then sign a permit limiting my rights and giving this idiot permission to protect and serve me by arresting me and serving me process? He then states that I can get in trouble for not getting a permit – charged for the crime of not obtaining permission for free speech… That’s about as ridiculous as being charged with resisting arrest with no other charges for being arrested in the first place.

So if I don’t cooperate with military rule by obtaining a permit, martial law tactics of violence by police will be enforced. Cooperate with martial law military statutes or become a prisoner of the Civil War with no ending? Do you get it yet, folks?

Now watch as the media spins this and makes us look ineffectual. Notice that I completely explained the situation, and gave the media the opportunity to report on the absolute violation by Airport Police of my rights. Instead, they chose to protect the government; which is really their first priority – just as it is the police’s first priority. I also handed them my flier, chalked full of information about these scanners. Yet not one mention to the public as a service to the people. This is why you should never trust your major media, which is owned through collective government investments by the very governments (private corporations) who are destroying our way of life:

Part 2:

If you understand what happened here, you now understand that the contractual relationship between you and government is everything, and it allows the tyranny that you just saw and live under every day. Perhaps you haven’t experienced it first hand yet, but you will… Perhaps when forced vaccination of your child comes to town, or the banning of your fresh organic backyard garden that you don’t have a permit for. The contractual relationship is what allows peaceful military rule through the cooperation of the citizenry and through a martial law De facto government. The only reason that you don’t see the fact that martial law already does and has been in place since 1863 (General Orders 100) is simply the fact that you are contractually obligated to be cooperative and peaceful like sheep – and you consent to this every day. These police are acting under martial law, though they wont admit it or don’t comprehend it themselves. All police and military are the secret police, you see?

In these situations, the most important responsibility for you is to attempt to educate these men, who are acting under color of law but not true law. Your fate will be in the hands of these men some day.

If only I knew then what I know now…

Original Opt Out Day post with full radiation information on body scanners is here:

https://realitybloger.wordpress.com/2010/11/28/national-opt-out-day-the-most-important-story-you-missed/

Read it. Understand it. Print it. Us it!

.

–Clint Richardson (realitybloger.wordpress.com)
–Wednesday, August 15th, 2012

Consent – Why The IRS, Domestic, And Homeland Security Have No Lawful Power


Is Domestic Security a lawful department of the U.S. Government?

The answer to this question lies within the U.S. CODE that gives the Department of Domestic and Homeland Security its power in the first place…

But what gives this CODE its power?

In this article, I will be referencing the U.S. CODE of the government of the UNITED STATES – a private corporation. All CODES referenced are sourced below each reference.

If you still have any doubt that your government is a corporation, see the indisputable proof here: http://thecorporationnation.com/ or just keep reading… For those skeptics and doubting Thomas types, here is some instant gratification showing the ‘UNITED STATES’ non-representative corporate structure:

TITLE 28—JUDICIARY AND JUDICIAL PROCEDURE

PART VI–PARTICULAR PROCEEDINGS

CHAPTER 176–FEDERAL DEBT COLLECTION PROCEDURE

SUBCHAPTER A–DEFINITIONS AND GENERAL PROVISIONS

§ 3002. Definitions

15) ‘‘United States’’ means—

(A) a Federal corporation;

(Source: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode28/usc_sec_28_00003002—-000-.html )


First, let’s look at the most important word in legal code. This powerful and lawful word is the only reason that the majority of our U.S. CODE has any power over us at all…

CONSENT

CONSENT: (v) (law) To acquiesce, agree, approve, assent, to voluntarily comply or yield, to give permission to some act or purpose. Voluntary Acquiescence to the proposal of another; the act or result of reaching an accord; a concurrence of minds; actual willingness that an act or an infringement of an interest shall occur. Consent is an act of reason and deliberation. A person who possesses and exercises sufficient mental capacity to make an intelligent decision demonstrates consent by performing an act recommended by another. Consent assumes a physical power to act and a reflective, determined, and unencumbered exertion of these powers. It is an act unaffected by Fraud, duress, or sometimes even mistake when these factors are not the reason for the consent. Consent is implied in every agreement. (Source: http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/consent

ACQUIESCENCE: Conduct recognizing the existence of a transaction and intended to permit the transaction to be carried into effect; a tacit agreement; consent inferred from silence. Acquiescence relates to inaction during the performance of an act.

If you understand the definition of consent, you have a legal weapon more powerful than any physical weapon you can ever carry. For consent is the very act that gives much of our legal statutes and codes their power… and in turn, our code enforcers (police) power over us.

Consent, for legal purposes, is a verbal or attitudinal contract. If a police officer (CORPORATE CODE enforcement officer) tells you that you must obey a code that is not statutory law, you must voluntarily give that police officer power (consent) by agreeing (voluntary acquiescence) to obey him; for your compliance with his request is strictly voluntary. You must volunteer to follow and obey non-statutory law (CODE).

But as we read above, consent can be “inferred from silence”, or even from “inaction”. Therefore, silence does not constitute a lack of consent. Your unwillingness to acquiesce must be made known in a verbal statement (non-contractual denial of authority). For instance:

I do not consent to an unlawful search and seizure.

I do not give you consent to unlawfully search my vehicle or my person.

I do not consent to a full body scan or a full body pat-down.

I do not consent to your Prima Facie code requiring a permit for free speech, as it is my statutory and constitutional right to express free speech and travel unencumbered while on public property, which overrides the non-statutory code that you have just quoted me.

What is PUBLIC PROPERTY?

Public Property: (n) property owned by the government or one of its agencies, divisions, or entities. Commonly a reference to parks, playgrounds, streets, sidewalks, schools, libraries and other property regularly used by the general public. (See: common property http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/public+property)

Public Property refers to roadways, highways, sidewalks, airports (the entire airport), and any government held or owned building or business that is paid for by tax-payer money. Technically, all government property should be considered public property. After all, why should government have secrets from the people it represents, let alone property that it owns? It only owns property due to its corporate status. Complete transparency should be an integral part of a just and constitutional republic government…

Since the entirety of the airport was built with tax-payer money, and since the airport is a government building, the entire airport is public property. This means that the passageway to and from the entrance to the ticket counter to the bathroom to the gate all falls under one category: Public Property. Because of this, you have the absolute natural and constitutional right to travel on this public property, without permit, license, or any other form of legality. Law trumps legality every time. The only way you can loose this right is if you consent to the non-statutory CODE, which limits your God-given right to travel, and which requires your voluntary acquiescence to give up this right in lieu of a codified permit, license, or contract.

Statutory Law

-vs-

Prima Facie Law

This is not to say that all code is non-Statutory. In fact, of the 50 “TITLES” in UNITED STATES CODE, only 23 of those TITLES have been enacted into positive law; i.e. legal evidence of law (Congressional Statutory Law). These TITLES are as follows:

1, 3, 4, 5, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 17, 18, 23, 28, 31, 32, 35, 36,37, 38, 39, 40, 44, 46, and 49.

(Source: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/uscode/about.html )

Statutory law: Laws, or statutes, enacted by legislatures, such as the New Jersey State Legislature or the United States Congress. (Source: www.judiciary.state.nj.us/njcourts-09.htm)

Statutory law: Law enacted by the legislative branch of government (congress), as distinguished from case law or common law. A statute (i.e. statutory law) is an act of the legislature declaring, commanding or prohibiting something. (Source: www.mnbar.org/mocktrial/2007-08/GLOSSARY%20OF%20LEGAL%20TERMS.doc)

All other TITLES within the federal U.S. CODE (the topic of this writing) are what is called “Prima Facie” evidence of law. Prima facie is not statutory law (not made into law by congress), which means that it is only enforceable via your voluntary consent.

Prima Facie: (Latin) A legal presumption which means on the face of it or at first sight. (Source: http://www.duhaime.org/LegalDictionary/P/PrimaFacie.aspx)

Prima Facie: At first view; on first appearance absent other information or evidence — (Source: S. L. Lynch)

Prima Facie: Sufficient to establish a fact or case unless disproved < prima facie proof.  (Source: Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary of Law, © 1996 Merriam-Webster, Inc.)

So, now that we have established that more than half of federal U.S. CODE is in fact not statutory law by congressional decree, and is instead a legal presumption which requires voluntary consent, and with an understanding that legal and lawful are two completely different concepts with regards to your consent, lets take a look at the U.S. CODE that covers federal airport security operations: DOMESTIC SECURITY.

The Domestic Security and Homeland Security offices are Federal Executive Agencies (see below), meaning they are Departments created and appointed by the Executive branch of the government (the President). Part of the lawful measures that protect the freedom of the American people against the always evident tyranny of government corruption and absolute power is our system of checks and balances. Because of these checks and balances, any act of the president of the UNITED STATES (Executive Branch) alone or through any Executive office or officer he appoints does not have power over the Free People of America. In other words, the president is not a dictator, and cannot act as one through his appointed officers without congressional authority. This is the greatest of checks and balances…

TITLE 5—GOVERNMENT ORGANIZATION AND EMPLOYEES  (TITLE 5 is Statutory Law)

PART I–THE AGENCIES GENERALLY

§ 103. Government corporation

For the purpose of this title—

(1) ‘‘Government corporation’’ means a corporation owned or controlled by the Government of the United States;

(2) “Government controlled corporation” does not include a corporation owned by the Government of the United States.

(Source: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode05/usc_sec_05_00000103—-000-.html )

§ 105. Executive agency

For the purpose of this title—

‘‘Executive agency’’ means an Executive department, a Government corporation (see above), and an independent establishment.

(Source: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode05/usc_sec_05_00000105—-000-.html )

§ 301. Departmental regulations

The head of an Executive department or military department may prescribe regulations for the government of his department, the conduct of its employees, the distribution and performance of its business, and the custody, use, and preservation of its records, papers, and property. This section does not authorize withholding information from the public or limiting the availability of records to the public.

(Source: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode05/usc_sec_05_00000301—-000-.html )

TITLE 5

First, we must note that TITLE 5 is indeed Statutory Law.

SECTION 103 (above) confirms to us that “Executive Agencies”, regardless of their TITLES, are in fact CORPORATIONS – and in paragraph (2), that the federal government does indeed “control” corporations and also “owns” corporations.

SECTION 105 (above) then confirms that “Executive agencies” are the same as and are defined as “Executive Departments”, which are in fact “Government Corporations”.

SECTION 301 (above) then tells us what these “Executive Departments” (Government Corporations) have authority to do by this Statutory Law (as defined in TITLE 5 of U.S. CODE). And so we can see that these Presidential appointed “Executive Departments” only have the authority by congress to make regulations within the bounds of the Presidents’ own appointed Executive Agency, and not outside of said Executive Department, and definitely not for or over the free American people without their consent. “Executive Departments” and their appointed officials have no authority over the free people granted from within this TITLE (5), and only have been granted power over the “employees” within that Executive Department.

In other words, the law (CODE) states that the head of an Executive Agency or Executive Department can only make regulations for and within his own agency, not for and within the Free People of America.

And this is where CONSENT comes in to play. For it is simply your consent that gives these codified non-statutory presumed laws and the code-enforcement officers who enforce them authority over you. Without your consent, they are literally powerless. They have no authority without your consent.

Executive DOMESTIC SECURITY Department

DOMESTIC SECURITY and most of its presumed authority and legality, and therefore its power, is in TITLE 6. Title 6 is not one of the 23 TITLES of U.S. CODE enacted into “Positive” or Statutory Law. So, nothing in TITLE 6 is in fact statutory law, and therefore it requires voluntary compliance through your consent. Also, in TITLE 6, you’ll find much of the regulation and power related to “HOMELAND SECURITY”.

TITLE 6—DOMESTIC SECURITY (remember, TITLE 6 is not Statutory Law)

CHAPTER 4–TRANSPORTATION SECURITY

SUBCHAPTER I–TRANSPORTATION SECURITY PLANNING AND INFORMATION SHARING –

Reference to: EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 13416. STRENGTHENING SURFACE TRANSPORTATION SECURITY -George W Bush

      Ex. Ord. No. 13416, Dec. 5, 2006, 71 F.R. 71033

§ 1101(c) ‘‘security guideline’’ means any security-related guidance that the Secretary recommends, for implementation on a voluntary basis, to enhance the security of surface transportation

(Source: http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/06C4.txt )

Note: An Executive Order is an order that is not approved by Congress. It is an act solely of and by the President of the Corporation of the UNITED STATES that is not Staturtory Law nor constitutional. Since we have already established that the President is not a Dictator, these Executive Orders and Presidential Directives only apply to the Executive branch of the corporate Federal government and departments within, and only have authority over the Free People with their (your) consent!

Here in black and white it is written in U.S. CODE that the TSA’s security-related guidance is in fact voluntary, meaning its power derives from your consent to give up your constitutional rights and allow this Executive Department to have the power to violate your God-given and 4rth amendment rights.

TITLE 6—

CHAPTER 1–HOMELAND SECURITY ORGANIZATION (not statutory law)

SUBCHAPTER 1 – DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

§ 111 Executive department; mission

(a) Establishment
There is established a Department of Homeland Security, as an executive department of the United States within the meaning of title 5.

§ 112. Secretary; functions

(a) Secretary

(1) In general; There is a Secretary of Homeland Security, appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate.

(2) Head of Department – The Secretary is the head of the Department and shall have direction, authority, and control over it.

(Source: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode06/usc_sec_06_00000112—-000-.html )

Section 112 states that the Department of Homeland Security is an Executive Department of the United States, as defined in TITLE 5. This means that the Department of Homeland Security is a Government Corporation, appointed by the President, who is not a dictator, and therefore this Executive Department requires consent by the Free People to have power and authority over those people. The Department of Homeland Security is not constitutionally lawful, as it is not consented to and made Statutory by congress.

Since the Secretary of Homeland Security is appointed by the President (with only the Senates’ consent), and indeed not the consent and approval of the Congress, and since this appointment is in TITLE 6 which is not Statutory Law, this tells us that there is no Congressional power behind the Secretary of Homeland Security over the actual Free People of America. In fact, the “Executive Departments” known as Domestic and Homeland Security has no authority over anyone outside of their own agency and employees. Remember… Washington D.C. (the Federal Government) is a 10 mile patch of land in the District of Columbia, and it is not located in and is not a part of the united states of America. It is a separate entity. A corporation. A country within a country.

To put this into perspective… let’s look at another Executive appointed office within the Executive branch of government. The President of the corporation of the UNITED STATES has appointed an executive department for the care of current corporate President Obama’s dog (the “first dog”). This department has the job of taking care of and grooming this dog, and is paid an over $100,000 salary plus $45,000 in benefits. But that is where his and his Executive appointed Departments’ power ends. He does not have the power to take care of your dog, and he certainly doesn’t have the power to force you or your dog to do anything you don’t want to do. But then, he might ask you or even tell you forcibly that he is going to feed, brush, and groom your dog! And if you wanted him to, all you’d have to do is to give Him and his “Executive Department” permission (consent) to do so, be it by verbal permission or lack of declaration of non-consent (inaction). Likewise, the Executive Departments of Domestic Security and of Homeland Security have no power to force you to do anything, especially to grope and hand-rape you and your children or to force you to walk through radiation expelling DNA destroying cancer causing devices… unless you give them permission (consent).

Remember, the President is not a Dictator due to governments checks and balances! And because of this, the President cannot dictate power over the Free People through any appointed office or political appointee. He is only in charge of the federal government as President of the CORPORATION. There are only two persons in the Executive Branch of government who have the peoples authority over the Executive Branch, but not over the people themselves: The President and the Vice President of U.S. INC. Every other officer, office, department, military branch (army, navy, air force, marines, coast guard, national guard etc…), and any other political appointment by the President has no authority over you, a free and natural man or woman – without your consent.

I cannot stress this enough. Your consent is the only thing that gives these bullies any power. This single word is the most powerful weapon in your arsenal against mislaid tyranny. It is a shield against the presumption of law, known as legality, or Prima Facie law.

The DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

TITLE 49—TRANSPORTATION     (TITLE 49 is Statutory Law)

SUBTITLE I–DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

§ 102. Department of Transportation

(a) The Department of Transportation is an executive department of the United States Government at the seat of Government.

(b) The head of the Department is the Secretary of Transportation. The Secretary is appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate.

…….Note: Also very interesting in this section…….

…….An office to mitigate the effects of Climate Change (Chemtrails?)…….

(g) Office of Climate Change and Environment.—

(1) Establishment.— There is established in the Department an Office of Climate Change and Environment to plan, coordinate, and implement—
(A) department-wide research, strategies, and actions under the Department’s statutory authority to reduce transportation-related energy use and mitigate the effects of climate change; and
(B) department-wide research strategies and actions to address the impacts of climate change on transportation systems and infrastructure.
(2) Clearinghouse.— The Office shall establish a clearinghouse of solutions, including cost-effective congestion reduction approaches, to reduce air pollution and transportation-related energy use and mitigate the effects of climate change.
(h) The Department shall have a seal that shall be judicially recognized.

(Source: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode49/usc_sec_49_00000102—-000-.html )

TITLE 49—TRANSPORTATION

SUBTITLE VII–AVIATION PROGRAMS

§ 40103. Sovereignty and use of airspace

(2) A citizen of the United States has a public

right of transit through the navigable airspace.

(Source: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode49/usc_sec_49_00040103—-000-.html )

TITLE 49 is in fact Statutory Law by order of Congress, according to the list of U.S. CODES that are law above.

SECTION 102 states plainly that the DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION is in fact an “Executive Department” – meaning it is a corporation that was appointed by the Executive Branch. And in Paragraph (B) it states that the Secretary of Transportation is an Executive (Presidential) appointed office with only the consent of the Senate, not of the congress. This makes the office of Secretary of Transportation Executive non-Statutory Law, and assigns no power over the Free People to this office or its Secretary.

SECTION 40103 in SUBTITLE 7 states that it is Statutory Law that transit through the “navigational airspace” is in fact a right, and not a privilege. This is important, because it reinforces the natural and constitutional right to travel freely by the American people, without permission, permit or regulation, throughout the land (and airspace). This TITLE is actually beneficial to the Free People, as this CODE recognizes the Free Peoples’ ability to travel as a right, not a privilege, and makes that a law – which severely cripples the “States” authority over you!

What is a RIGHT?

Public Right (as quoted in SECTION 40103): (n.) a right created by the legislature that may be exercised against the government. (Source: http://research.lawyers.com/glossary/public-right.html)

Right: (n.)  – 1) an entitlement to something, whether to concepts like justice and due process, or to ownership of property or some interest in property, real or personal. These rights include various freedoms, protection against interference with enjoyment of life and property, civil rights enjoyed by citizens such as voting and access to the courts, natural rights accepted by civilized societies, human rights to protect people throughout the world from terror, torture, barbaric practices and deprivation of civil rights and profit from their labor, and such American constitutional guarantees as the right to freedoms of speech, press, religion, assembly and petition.

2) (adj.) just, fair, correct.

Right: In an abstract sense, justice, ethical correctness, or harmony with the rules of law or the principles of morals. In a concrete legal sense, a power, privilege, demand, or claim possessed by a particular person by virtue of law… In Constitutional Law, rights are classified as natural, civil, and political. Natural rights are those that are believed to grow out of the nature of the individual human being and depend on her personality, such as the rights to life, liberty, privacy, and the pursuit of happiness. (Source: http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Right)

So in general, a right can never be restricted. If it is restricted by your consent to a contract, legality, etc… then it is no longer a RIGHT, but a PRIVILEGE granted by government (the State). Again, CONSENT must be given to turn a right into a privilege, through verbal contract or a lack of verbal non-consent, or through a written contract (permit, license, etc…) which you sign, giving up your rights for the privilege to do something, like traveling freely in a car as a natural right -vs- driving a car with a license, which is a contractual permission to drive from the state and permission (consent) by you to be punished for not obeying their rules under contractual law.

The “STATE” and the “UNITED STATES”

-vs-

The Republic and the 50 states united

It is important to understand what the corporate U.S. CODE defines as “the State”, and how that relates to the 50 states that form the Republic of the united states of America.

You must remember that U.S. CODE is the code writen for the corporation that is UNITED STATES INC. It is the system of law set up for the federal corporation to follow. This corporate structure was created to build a legal bridge over the lawful constitution for the united states of America, whereas the corporation of the same name, UNITED STATES INC, can operate outside of that constitution. And they created the corporate equivalent of the constitution through such tools as U.S.CODE.

Read the following very carefully…

TITLE 28—JUDICIARY AND JUDICIAL PROCEDURE

PART VI–PARTICULAR PROCEEDINGS

CHAPTER 176–FEDERAL DEBT COLLECTION PROCEDURE

SUBCHAPTER A–DEFINITIONS AND GENERAL PROVISIONS

§ 3002. Definitions

(14) ‘‘State’’ means any of the several States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas, or any territory or possession of the United States.

(15) “United States” means—

(A) a Federal corporation;
(B) an agency, department, commission, board, or other entity of the United States; or

(C) an instrumentality of the United States.

(Source: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode28/usc_sec_28_00003002—-000-.html )

TITLE 4–FLAG AND SEAL, SEAT OF GOVERNMENT, AND THE STATES

CHAPTER 4–THE STATES

Sec. 110. Same; definitions

(a) The term “person” shall have the meaning assigned to it in section 3797 of title 26.

(d) The term “State” includes any Territory or possession of the United States.

(e) The term “Federal area” means any lands or premises held or acquired by or for the use of the United States or any department, establishment, or agency, of the United States; and any Federal area, or any part thereof, which is located within the exterior boundaries of any State, shall be deemed to be a Federal area located within such State.

(Source: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode04/usc_sec_04_00000110—-000-.html )


Once again, the U.S. CODE states irrevocably that the term “United States” is defined as a Corporation – In this case a “Federal Corporation”. This Federal Corporation was created strategically, to build a legal bridge over and bypass the real lawful declaration of independence and the constitution. This is not to say that the original constitution for the united states of America is not still in effect, but it is to say that as consenting citizens of the UNITED STATES as a corporation, we are bound by the corporation of the UNITED STATES and by its corporate rules, codes, legalities, and therefore its punishments, taxes, and fines as long as we consent and continuously enter into voluntary acquiescence of IT’S contracts, licenses, permits, and other contractually binding documents via our social security numbers (which are our livestock informational ownership ID’s)…

The word “State” is being defined here as anything other that the actual geographical land and Free People of the united states of America, and is being defined as all territory and PROPERTY of the corporation of the UNITED STATES. Here the “States” are not any of the 50 states of the constitutional republic. “States” in this CODE refers to something which belongs as property (a corporate term) to the UNITED STATES INC, the corporation. No state of the union is owned by the federal government according to the constitution, and no part of any of the 50 States is owned by the United States, for that would be against the precepts of the Constitution and the very foundation of the republic and the intentions of and enumerated powers of the federal government.

Paragraph (a) states that a “person” is defined elsewhere. After following the breadcrumb trail, I finally arrived here:

TITLE 26–INTERNAL REVENUE CODE

SUBTITLE F–PROCEDURE AND ADMINISTRATION

CHAPTER 79–DEFINITIONS

§ 7701. Definitions

(a) When used in this title, where not otherwise distinctly expressed or manifestly incompatible with the intent thereof—

(1) Person

The term “person” shall be construed to mean and include an individual, a trust, estate, partnership, association, company or corporation.
(14) Taxpayer

The term “taxpayer” means any person subject to any internal revenue tax.

TITLE 26–INTERNAL REVENUE CODE

(Source: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode26/usc_sup_01_26.html )

Wow! This is the big one!!!

TITLE 26, which holds the INTERNAL REVENUE CODE that is used by the Internal Revenue Service as the basis to tax, steal, imprison, subjugate, and ruin the lives of many Americans… IS NOT STATUTORY LAW. IT REQUIRES CONSENT!

This means that the entire basis for the Income Tax levied on the people of America is strictly voluntary! You enter into an agreement with the IRS tax forms you fill out.

If  the word “taxpayer” as defined above in paragraph (14) is any “person” as defined above in paragraph (1) that is “subject to any internal revenue tax”, and if the U.S. CODE requires consent for the so defined “person” to be subject to any authority presented by the IRS and it’s non-Statutory, Prima Facie INTERNAL REVENUE CODE, then no individual Free Man or Woman in America is required to pay and income tax on their wages earned, unless they consent to doing so by signing the corporate IRS and IRC paperwork that binds them to the tax.

This is not the case with individual “persons” who own corporations, for the corporation is an artificial person, which is not a Free Man or Woman, given permission to exist by the U.S.CODE, and must obey these CODES as required in the INTERNAL REVENUE CODE listed above. It is not the individual “person” that owes the tax, but is instead the corporation for which that real “person” owns.

The question is, can that individual “person” be held responsible for paying Income Taxes to the IRS for their Corporation out of their own income from said Corporation. Is this not just a paycheck similar to every other “person’s” income, written by a separate entity called a corporation – an artificial person?

This is an interesting paradox… Can you be held accountable for your corporation’s debt to the IRS if the corporation is not you, a Free Man or Woman, but indeed a separate (artificial) “State”-created person altogether?

TITLE 5–GOVERNMENT ORGANIZATION AND EMPLOYEES

PART I–THE AGENCIES GENERALLY

§ 103. Government corporation – For the purpose of this title—

(1) ‘‘Government corporation’’ means a corporation owned or controlled by the Government of the United States

(Sourced above)

TITLE 31—MONEY AND FINANCE

SUBTITLE I–GENERAL

§ 103. United States – In this title, ‘‘United States’’, when used in a geographic sense, means the States of the United States and the District of Columbia.

(Source: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode31/usc_sec_31_00000103—-000-.html )

TITLE 5, repeated here from above, once again shows that the United States, for which TITLE 28 defines as a Federal Corporation, now helps to define what the word “State” means in this U.S. CODE. TITLE 5 helps to define the word “State” as a Government Corporation.

TITLE 31 is statutory Law. This TITLE declares that the “United States” are the 50 “States” (government corporations) of this “Federal Corporation”.


TITLE 18–CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE     (Statutory Law)

PART I–CRIMES

CHAPTER 109–SEARCHES AND SEIZURES

Sec. 2236. Searches without warrant

Whoever, being an officer, agent, or employee of the United States or any department or agency thereof, engaged in the enforcement of any law of the United States, searches any private dwelling used and occupied as such dwelling without a warrant directing such search, or maliciously and without reasonable cause searches any other building or property without a search warrant, shall be fined under this title for a first offense; and, for a subsequent offense, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.

This section shall not apply to any person–

(a) serving a warrant of arrest; or

(b) arresting or attempting to arrest a person committing or attempting to commit an offense in his presence, or who has committed or is suspected on reasonable grounds of having committed a felony; or

(c) making a search at the request or invitation or with the consent of the occupant of the premises.

(Source: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00002236—-000-.html )

TITLE 18 is Statutory Law. Simply stated, paragraph (c) tells us that we have no recourse against the Agency Agent (TSA, Policeman, etc.) if we give our consent to be searched, meaning they can touch us anywhere and however the want if we consent to a search, and the fact that you do not deny your consent means that you are indeed granting consent to search and seizure, by which consent eliminates this protective CODE – as stated above in paragraph (c): “This section shall not apply to any person–making a search at the request or invitation or with the consent of the occupant of the premises.” This cancels this statute in court for use as in your defense, because your consent relieved any protective aspect of this statutory law. They could rape you because you gave consent, and this Statutory Law (CODE) would stop a courts’ ruling of rape, calling that rape or molestation a “consensual search”. VERY IMPORTANT!!!

By denying consent to be searched and/or to have your property seized by this Government Corporation/Executive Department, IT has no right or authority to interact with you, detain you, or block your way to freely travel without reasonable proof of a commitment of a felony, or in order to serve a warrant for your arrest (and a warrant would take a long time to acquire from a court).

Recap

Nobody has the right to see or check your plane ticket or ID but the airline in which you are doing business with. Only an airline representative can request your ticket. Unless the TSA and police have probable cause to detain you, you are not bound by these corporate code enforcement officers if you do not consent and acquiesce to their presumed authority. Consent and non-consent must be verbally stated, as inaction and silence can be considered as consent. Do not be intimidated by these power-hungry thugs in Federal Corporation U.S. INC  uniforms. Remember, their power is delegated by Statutory Law only to the 10 mile non united states of America piece of land called Washington D.C, and only within their own federal department – not over you as a Free and Sovereign man or woman. Stand your ground. Fear and intimidation are the only power they have. Without it, and without your consent, they are powerless – but only if you so declare.

If these Executive appointed federal government corporate workers threaten or try to intimidate you by standing in your way or telling or asking you to wait for a supervisor, do not comply. Simply state that you are a Sovereign man or woman, that you do not consent, that you do not give that federal employee any authority over you or your children (or property), and that they may not impede your God-given and constitutional right to travel nor violate any of your natural rights. Then politely ask if you are being detained, and am I free to be on my way.

You may also let the federal corporate employee know that you intend to sue them and their department head’s bond at a certain dollar amount ($100 per minute, for example) if they interfere with your free right to travel on public property by contractually and forcibly detaining you (by verbally claiming authority to halt your free travel despite your non-consent to their authority to do so).

Film this process. A video camera is your best defense and offense, and these thugs do not like being filmed. Video footage of this exchange is your record and evidence of your lack of consent in a court of law.

If they still intimidate you, follow up with a taste of their own medicine… State that you are warning them that anything that you say and do to me or my family can and will be used against you in a Court of Law, a Common Law Court, and as evidence for a Grand Jury.

And most important, do not answer any questions posed to you by these Federal Employees. You have the right to remain silent! Remember, they have no authority or rule of law on their side to interact or ask you anything without your consent. Answering their questions could be construed by them and by a corporate judge in a court of law as consent.

And remember, your local police and Airport Police work for the municipal corporation that is acting as a government in your city or county. They are corporations as well, making them corporate police or code enforcers. They need your consent too. They cannot detain you or restrict your movement without violating the warning you just gave them. You are a free traveler. You do not consent to their questions or their unlawful interference with your freedom of travel in a public place. Again, you are not required to answer their questions as you have the right to remain silent. Your answers can be misconstrued as consent to their authority over you, and you must verbally acknowledge that you do not consent (the only reason to break your silence).

Be polite. Never become confrontational, rude, or arrogant. A confident attitude mixed with a polite and straight-forward attitude is a winner every time. Do not get tricked into a “friendly conversation” or banter with a corporate code enforcement thug. It will only lead to frustration, argument, and possible unwitting consent. These guys are trained to trip up people like you – free people claiming their rights above corporate tyranny.

If you do not let the situation escalate, and instead control the conversation by simply not consenting to have a conversation or answer any questions, you are free to go by law and Statutory Law.

Warning: they may not step out of your way. They may stand in front of you and not say anything or that you are free to go to intimidate you further. They will tell you, however, if you are being detained. It is a chess game. If they step aside or if they do not, you should just start walking to your destination. Their consent to your rights is their inaction to detain you.

Remember, the courts are private corporations, often owned outright by the very judges who rule the court, and rent that court to the corporate government municipality unlawfully. These “judges” are corporate attorneys in fancy black robes, who work for the corporate government of the United States, and will always rule in favor of the “city”, “county”, or “state” corporation he works for. An attorney will never represent you in court. An attorney is there to ensure the continuity of court procedure, and by taking an attorney as representation for yourself in court, you have just contractually admitted to the corporate court that you are unfit and too mentally unstable to represent yourself in court. You are then a ward of the court. This is consent of the judicial system, which again is part of the corporation. Every judge works for the United States Corporation, and therefore his first interest is always to protect the corporate interest, to not set precedent that could be beneficial to Sovereignty and freedom, and is never concerned with justice for the people including yourself.

FEMA Camps, Oh My!

Now, some of you may be thinking, after years of fear and conditioning, that Homeland Security might throw you into a FEMA camp for such disregard of corporate legality and authority over your freedom. But guess what? FEMA is in TITLE 6, is an Executive Department, is not Statutory Law, and requires your consent of authority!

TITLE 6–DOMESTIC SECURITY  (TITLE 6 is not Statutory Law)

CHAPTER 1–HOMELAND SECURITY ORGANIZATION

SUBCHAPTER V–NATIONAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT

§ 313. Federal Emergency Management Agency
(a) In general

There is in the Department the Federal Emergency Management Agency, headed by an Administrator.

(Source: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode06/usc_sec_06_00000313—-000-.html )

Constitutional Corporate Statutory Law?

Oxymoron?

Paradox?

One question remains… Even though some of these U.S. CODES exist in the Congressional Statutory realm of Law, can a corporation – a private for-profit non-representative corporation – enact any law over the Free and Sovereign people of the republic of the united states of America without their consent?

Constitutionally speaking… No.

The powers of the Federal Government are specifically enumerated in the constitution.

More importantly, nowhere does it mention that a vile corporation should be given power to take the place of this constitutionally created representative federal government and then enact laws and CODES which break free of these enumerated powers. Therefore, if we examine the source of this U.S. CODE, no office in the Federal Government can have lawful power over the people unless it is consented to by the Free People, simply because the whole of the private Corporation known today as the Federal Government of the UNITED STATES is not a constitutional entity. Thus even the Statutory Laws based on U.S. CODE are not constitutional, and therefore require our consent as Free People. No corporation can be government, nor can a private corporation nor their corporate code-enforcement police force have power over the people without our contractual consent.

Learn the Law!

For more information, and for much of the source of this info (with my gratitude), please visit this website: ( https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=1NKPsi1ofhiMmavI5hi3z_zYOEeWM9b4JSiSfeL64pd0 ) and his new YouTube Channel: (http://www.youtube.com/user/donotconsent83) which will be updated periodically with more of this type of information.

Also, you’ll find that many Federal Executive Departments in fact have no authority except by your consent if you start on your own journey of researching U.S.CODE. Health and Human Services, Child Protective Services, Terrorism Protection, Military, and many more unconstitutional Executive corporate structures that have no Statutory Law to back up their powers.

To access and search the corporate U.S.CODE, go here: ( http://www.gpoaccess.gov/uscode/index.html ) and here: ( http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/ )

Yours in freedom and constitutional Sovereign liberty,

.

Clint Richardson (realitybloger.wordpress.com)

Wednesday, December 8, 2010

 

National Opt Out Day: The most important story you missed


Think you live in a free country?

You’ll think again after seeing this:

.

Part 1:

Now watch as the media spins this and makes us look ineffectual. This is why you should never trust your major media, which is owned through collective government investments by the very governments (private corporations) who are destroying our way of life:

Part 2:

November 24, 2010 was the national opt-out day across America, where individual citizens like myself in groups like We Are Change went to airports on our own time and protested the TSA’s blatant and unconstitutional use of unreasonable searches and seizure… and of cancer causing and DNA destroying full body scanners on innocent travelers.

I learned something very important on this day.

I learned that the Airport Police and other government agencies (private corporations) for which these police work for require you to get a permit to protest not because they are keeping the peace, but because they have no authority over the people who wish to exercise their right of free speech unless we enter into a contract – known as a permit or license – for which we are then required to follow the rules and regulations of that permit, since it is a signed contract between you and the private corporate government.

Without it, because I refused to acquire one, these police could not detain or remove me. For if they did, there would be no law or code broken, no crime committed, and therefore no charges to file against me… BECAUSE I WAS NOT UNDER CONTRACT (PERMIT)!

In the video above, the policeman who admittedly works for the Salt Lake City Corporation, a private for-profit corporation (municipality) acting in lieu of my city government, told me that “free speech is not absolute” and that I would need a permit to practice my free speech anywhere in the city, even on my own street. And yet I have Mormons, Girl Scouts, Students, and all sorts of salesmen and activists coming to my door trying to sell me one thing or another. Do they all need permits as well? The other policeman agreed that he’d beat my head in if he was told to do so because hey, “you gotta feed your family somehow”.

.

This smells like a lawsuit to me! What do you think? Comment below…

.

.

Here is the information sheet (front and back) that I was passing out…

Note: To download the paper, click here:

M.Word document: Opt Out

PDF document: Opt Out

—≈—

Opt Out!

The Facts About The Whole Body Imager Device

Is It Constitutional?

The 4th amendment to the constitution specifically states:

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, SHALL NOT BE VIOLATED, and Warrants shall not be issued, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

 

Is It Stopping Terrorism?

Thousands of illegal immigrants come across the southern border of these United States unchallenged, while an honest American cannot go about his own country without being subjugated to an illegal search and seizure at the airport, and get molested by TSA agents for declaring their rights to “Opt-Out”.

Is It Photographing And Storing Your Naked Photos?

“It will show the private parts of people, but what we’ve decided is that we’re not going to blur those out, because it severely limits the detection capabilities… It is possible to see genitals and breasts while they’re going through the machine…” -Cheryl Johnson- Office of Transport Security manager

These “devices are designed and deployed in a way that allows the images to be routinely stored and recorded, which is exactly what the Marshals Service is doing… We think it’s significant.” -EPIC executive director Marc Rotenberg in interview with CNET

“Approximately 35,314 images… have been stored on the Brijot Gen2 machine…” used in the Orlando, Fla. Federal Courthouse. -William Bordley- Associate General Counsel with the Marshals Service

A 70-page document showing the TSA’s procurement specifications, classified as “sensitive security information” says that, in some modes the scanner must “allow exporting of image data in real time” and provide a mechanism for “high-speed transfer of image data” over the network. It also says that image filters will “protect the identity, modesty, and privacy of the passenger.” –Procurement Specification For Whole Body Imager Devices For Checkpoint Operations, report by U.S. Department of Homeland Security, TSA

TSA spokeswoman Sari Koshetz lied to CNET, stating that the agency’s scanners are delivered to airports with the image recording functions turned off. “We’re not recording them… I’m reiterating that to the public. We are not ever activating those capabilities at the airport”

Can These Scanners Cause Cancer?

“Some studies reported significant genetic damage while others, although similar, showed none…” -Boian Alexandrov- Center for Nonlinear Studies at Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico

Although the forces generated from these scanners are tiny, resonant effects allow THz waves to unzip double-stranded DNA, creating bubbles in the double strand that could significantly interfere with processes such as gene expression and DNA replication. Translation: It destroys your DNA! -Boian Alexandrov- Center for Nonlinear Studies at Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico

“…any X-ray photon may be the one which sets in motion the high-speed, high energy electron which causes a carcinogenic or atherogenic (smooth muscle) mutation. Such mutations rarely disappear. The higher their accumulated number in a population, the higher will be the population’s mortality rates from radiation-induced cancer and ischemic heart disease.” -Dr. John Gofman- Professor Emeritus of Molecular and Cell Biology, University of California, Berkeley.

Gofman’s studies indicate that radiation from medical diagnostics and treatment is a causal co-factor in 50 percent of America’s cancers and 60 percent of our ischemic (blood flow blockage) heart disease. He stresses that the frequency with which Americans are medically X-rayed “makes for a significant radiological impact”. -Dr. John Gofman- Professor Emeritus of Molecular and Cell Biology, University of California, Berkeley.

Children and passengers with gene mutations – around one in 20 of the population – are more at risk as they are less able to repair X-ray damage to their DNA. The most likely risk from the airport scanners is a common type of skin cancer called basal cell carcinoma. -Dr. David Brenner- head of Columbia University’s Centre For Radiological Research

“If all 800 million people who use airports every year were screened with X-rays then the very small individual risk multiplied by the large number of screened people might imply a potential public health or societal risk. The population risk has the potential to be significant… If there are increases in cancers as a result of irradiation of children, they would most likely appear some decades in the future. It would be prudent not to scan the head and neck… There really is no other technology around where we’re planning to X-ray such an enormous number of individuals. It’s really unprecedented in the radiation world.” -Dr. David Brenner- head of Columbia University’s Centre For Radiological Research

“They say the risk is minimal, but statistically someone is going to get skin cancer from these X-rays… No exposure to X-ray is considered beneficial. We know X-rays are hazardous but we have a situation at the airports where people are so eager to fly that they will risk their lives in this manner…” -Dr Michael Love-, Department of Biophysics and Biophysical Chemistry at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine

“While the dose would be safe if it were distributed throughout the volume of the entire body, the dose to the skin may be dangerously high,” they wrote. “We still don’t know the beam intensity or other details of their classified system…” -John Sedat- Biochemist, University of California, San Francisco (UCSF)

“Collectively, the radiation doses from the scanners incrementally increase the risk of fatal cancers among the thousands or millions of travelers who will be exposed, some radiation experts believe… We don’t have enough information to make a decision on whether there’s going to be a biological effect or not.” -Douglas Boreham- professor in medical physics and applied radiation sciences at McMaster University in Hamilton, Ontario

“The thing that worries me the most, is not what happens if the machine works as advertised, but what happens if it doesn’t” -Peter Rez- Arizona State University

“[We] cannot exclude the possibility of a fatal cancer attributable to radiation in a very large population of people exposed to very low doses of radiation.” -National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements, from a 2002 report that studied these security devices.

“Based on our results we argue that a specific terahertz radiation exposure may significantly affect the natural dynamics of DNA, and thereby influence intricate molecular processes involved in gene expression and DNA replication.” -Technology Review article from: http://arxiv.org/abs/0910.5294

In other words… millimeter wave scanning devices may damage your DNA!

Report by Clint Richardson of We Are Change Utah (wearechangeutah.org) with references provided for your own research.

–≈–

Reprint [begin excerpt]

Update: Here’s a bit of code you should look into and ask your self… why is the United States government immune to this???

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00002332—h000-.html

TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 113B > § 2332h
§ 2332h. Radiological dispersal devices

(a) Unlawful Conduct.—

(1) In general.— Except as provided in paragraph (2), it shall be unlawful for
any person to knowingly produce, construct, otherwise acquire, transfer directly
or indirectly, receive, possess, import, export, or use, or possess and threaten
to use —

(A) any weapon that is designed or intended to release radiation or
radioactivity at a level dangerous to human life; or

(B) any device or other object that is capable of and designed or intended to
endanger human life through the release of radiation or radioactivity.

(2) Exception.— This subsection does not apply with respect to—

(A) conduct by or under the authority of the United States or any department or agency thereof; or

(B) conduct pursuant to the terms of a contract with the United States or any department or agency thereof.

(b) Jurisdiction.— Conduct prohibited by subsection (a) is within the jurisdiction of the United States if—

(1) the offense occurs in or affects interstate or foreign commerce;
(2) the offense occurs outside of the United States and is committed by a national of the United States;
(3) the offense is committed against a national of the United States while the national is outside the United States;
(4) the offense is committed against any property that is owned, leased, or used by the United
States or by any department or agency of the United States, whether the property is within or outside the United States; or
(5) an offender aids or abets any person over whom jurisdiction exists under this subsection in committing an offense under this section or conspires with any person over whom jurisdiction exists under this subsection to commit an offense under this section.

(c) Criminal Penalties.—

(1) In general.— Any person who violates, or attempts or conspires to violate,
subsection (a) shall be fined not more than $2,000,000 and shall be sentenced to
a term of imprisonment not less than 25 years or to imprisonment for life.

(2) Other circumstances.— Any person who, in the course of a violation of
subsection (a), uses, attempts or conspires to use, or possesses and threatens
to use, any item or items described in subsection (a), shall be fined not more
than $2,000,000 and imprisoned for not less than 30 years or imprisoned for
life.

(3) Special circumstances.— If the death of another results from a person’s
violation of subsection (a), the person shall be fined not more than $2,000,000
and punished by imprisonment for life.

[end excerpt]

Sent by:
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Private Attorney General, 18 U.S.C. 1964
http://www.supremelaw.org/decs/agency/private.attorney.general.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/reading.list.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/index.htm (Home Page)
http://www.supremelaw.org/support.policy.htm (Support Policy)
http://www.supremelaw.org/guidelines.htm (Client Guidelines)
http://www.supremelaw.org/support.guidelines.htm (Policy + Guidelines)

–≈–

.
.

Clint Richardson (realitybloger.wordpress.com)

Sunday, November 28, 2010