When the Internet is gone...and there is an end to discussion......so goes any possiblity of avoiding bloody violence....who, in their right mind, would want that????
Yours sincerely,
John Wilson.
----- Original Message -----
From: dav a
To: John Wilson
Sent: Friday, November 16, 2007 1:52 PM
Subject: RE: Ron Paul's tea party. Fw: Liberty is brewing...
At this point in history John, I have to honestly say, the sooner USA goes down, the better.
What may come form that for Australia (i realize the military ramifications very well) so be it, because the way it is right now (Iraq, 911, hoax terrorism, corporate media censorship etc etc) is worse than anything.
By the way, forget Indo attacking us, you must realize, even with a million man army, they have no ships, tanks nor aircraft to do any real damage.
David B
p.s- did you know that Youtube is now censoring any content it deems 'controversial'. So anything referring to the New World Order etc is now removed. We are loosing the internet, bit by bit.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: jhwilson@acay.com.au
To: jhwilson@acay.com.au
Subject: Ron Paul's tea party. Fw: Liberty is brewing...
Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2007 08:27:20 +1100
----- Original Message -----
From: Australian Citizens Community Forums
To: info.accf@gmail.com
Sent: Friday, November 16, 2007 6:50 AM
Subject: Fw: Liberty is brewing...
Liberty is brewing...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kll9-nR4uVs
Watch this and spread the word.
Wake Up America
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2nvbetio4fI&NR=1
------ End of Forwarded Message
__________ NOD32 2661 (20071115) Information __________
This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system.
http://www.eset.com
__________ NOD32 2661 (20071115) Information __________
This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system.
http://www.eset.com
Dear Fellow Australians,
Yesterday, in the Blacktown Local Court, a familiar scenario took place. Magistrate Dr. Brown kept me till almost last. At about 11:45am he called my name. I went to the table and opened my briefcase. He asked how did I plead and I said, "I will not plead anything until there is a Court of Proper Jurisdiction. I demand that there is a Jury. I do not consent to be without a Jury. Without that consent, the Court has no Jurisdiction to proceed summarily." He said there will be no Jury. I said, "I Challenge the Jurisdiction of the Court. Once the Jurisdiction of the Court is Challenged there is a peremptory Stay of Proceedings until a Jury can determine the Jurisdiction of the Court." Dr. Brown kept talking while I was talking. Neither of us would back down. I said, "You are a criminal and a traitor. He ordered that I be arrested and the Police Prosecutor came over and grabbed me by the arm and a Sheriff garbbed me by the other arm. I said , "This is assault." The two chaps could not move me and begged me to go with them. Only when I was ready, did I allow them to manhandle me out of the Courtroom. They were more physically exhausted than I was. Stopping outside the side door and in the passage way, the Police Prosecutor went back into Court and the Sheriff was trying to explain that he had to do what the Magistrate told him to do. After a little while a Police Officer came over and said I had to be taken to the Police Station (which was through a side security door and across a concrete yard). When we got there (nothing physical), the Police (one girl and some four young men) wanted to know what was going on. The escorting Officer said that the Magistrate wanted me charged with "Offensive Language". I laughed and said, "I don't talk that way." The Police Officers were polite and a bit confused. They took me through the proceedure of going into "Custody". I chatted with them and gave them a very short lesson in the Right to Trial by Jury and what is a Kangaroo Court. They asked me to sit down and, after a few more minutes, more young Police Officers turned up. The the girl called me to the desk and said, "The Magistrate wants you charged. If he wants to do that, he's going to have to do it. You can go.". Another Officer said that he would get the audio tape from the Court and have a listen. They gave me back my briefcase and one Officer walked with me back to the street while we talked. We shooked hands and he went back into the Station.
In the Police Station, I had told the girl Police Officer that they can expect a repeat performance on the 10th of December when I'm back there, again.
Yours sincerely,
John Wilson.
Dear Hank,
It's in our Bill of Rights 1688..."That the Subjects which are Protestants may have Arms for their Defence suitable to their Condidtions and as allowed by law."......... a Constitutional Enactment since 1828 and a Common Law since 1899.
Yours sincerely,
John Wilson.
----- Original Message -----
From: Hank Roelofs
To: John Wilson
Sent: Friday, November 16, 2007 10:33 AM
Subject: Re: Opinions of Judges. Fw: Supreme Court could take guns case.
Where is our 2nd amendment though?
Your money for the bank stickers is in the mail
Cheers
----- Original Message -----
From: John Wilson
To: Jack Bauer
Sent: Friday, November 16, 2007 9:24 AM
Subject: Opinions of Judges. Fw: Supreme Court could take guns case.
Dear Jack,
Thomas Jefferson warned that "the power of the Judiciary" is the "germ of the destruction of our nation".
Judges are agents of "Government" (more correctly, the Bureaucracy) with no Jurisdiction over the People nor their Rights.
Who is asking the US Supreme Court Judges for their opinion?
Yours sincerely,
John Wilson.
----- Original Message -----
From: Jack Bauer
Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2007 7:59 AM
Subject: Supreme Court could take guns case.
Supreme Court could take guns case.
By MARK SHERMAN, Associated Press Writer Sun Nov 11, 12:03 PM ET
WASHINGTON - Supreme Court justices have track records that make predicting their rulings on many topics more than a mere guess. Then there is the issue of the Second Amendment and guns, about which the court has said virtually nothing in nearly 70 years.
That could change in the next few months.
The justices are facing a decision about whether to hear an appeal from city officials in Washington, D.C., wanting to keep the capital's 31-year ban on handguns. A lower court struck down the ban as a violation of the Second Amendment rights of gun ownership.
The prospect that the high court might define gun rights under the Constitution is making people on both sides of the issue nervous.
"I wouldn't be confident on either side," said Mark Tushnet, a Harvard Law School professor and author of a new book on the battle over guns in the United States.
The court could announce as early as Tuesday whether it will hear the case.
The main issue before the justices is whether the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to own guns or instead spells out the collective right of states to maintain militias. The former interpretation would permit fewer restrictions on gun ownership.
The Second Amendment reads: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
The federal appeals court for the District of Columbia was the first federal panel to strike down a gun-control law based on individual rights. The court ruled in favor of Dick Anthony Heller, an armed security guard whose application to keep a handgun at home was denied by the district.
Most other U.S. courts have said the Second Amendment does not contain a right to have a gun for purely private purposes.
Chicago has a similar handgun ban, but few other gun-control laws are as strict as the district's.
Four states — Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland and New York — are urging the Supreme Court to take the case because broad application of the appeals court ruling would threaten "all federal and state laws restricting access to firearms."
The district said its law, passed in 1976, was enacted by local elected officials who believed it was a sensible way to save lives. The law also requires residents to keep shotguns and rifles unloaded and disassembled or fitted with trigger locks.
The city's appeal asks the court to look only at the handgun ban because local law allows possession of other firearms.
Critics say the law has done little to curb violence, mainly because guns obtained legally from the district or through illegal means still are readily available.
Although the city's homicide rate has declined dramatically since peaking in the early 1990s, it ranks among the nation's highest, with 169 killings in 2006.
Heller said Washington remains a dangerous place to live. "People need not stand by and die," he said in court papers.
He said the Second Amendment gives him the right to keep working guns, including handguns, in his home for his own protection.
The last time the court examined the meaning of the Second Amendment was in a 1939 case in which two men claimed the amendment gave them the right to have sawed-off shotguns. A unanimous court ruled against them.
Gun control advocates say the 1939 decision in U.S. v. Miller settled the issue in favor of a collective right. Gun rights proponents say the decision has been misconstrued.
Chief Justice John Roberts has said the question has not been resolved by the Supreme Court. The 1939 decision "sidestepped" the issue of whether the Second Amendment right is individual or collective, Roberts said at his confirmation hearing in 2005.
"That's still very much an open issue," Roberts said.
Both the district government and Heller want the high court to take the case. The split among the appeals courts and the importance of the issue make it likely that the justices will do so, Tushnet said.
The case is District of Columbia v. Heller, 07-290.
Check out my new Business Program. It's a wonderful way for you to save money also. http://www.mypowermall.net/cgi-bin/pd/pd.cgi?showmpmcard=11948902140.3719482421875.card
Learn the truth about the fraudulent income tax. Learn to defend your self against their allegations at: www.FreeEnterpriseSociety.com or (209) 966-7040
Here's more info for your SECURITY needs, go to www.privacywallets.com
Remember these statements:
"When the government fears the people, you have liberty. When the people fear the government [or the IRS, for that matter], you have Tyranny."
(Thomas Jefferson, author of the Declaration of Independence of the United States)
The less people know about what is really going on, the easier it is to wield power and authority.
(Prince of Wales Charles)
Thanks,
Jack Bauer
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.15.30/1125 - Release Date: 11/11/2007 9:50 PM
__________ NOD32 2661 (20071115) Information __________
This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system.
http://www.eset.com
Dear Hal,
Dead right, there.
Len Clampett is the one who has championed that issue....and now the High Court Registry demands that lower Court Judgments, etc, must have the SEAL of that Court before they'll accept them for filing for Appeals.
Yours sincerely,
John Wilson.
----- Original Message -----
From: Hal Reynolds
To: John Wilson
Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2007 9:04 PM
Subject: Re: Court tomorrow for no license
All documents must have the SEAL of the Court or else they are not valid.
On 14/11/2007, at 2:28 PM, John Wilson wrote:
Dear Debra,
This denial of the Right to Travel is pretty important....if anyone has to be punished that way, it's going to have to be done by a Jury.
Yours sincerely,
John Wilson.
----- Original Message -----
From: Debra Bentley
To: John Wilson
Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2007 11:56 AM
Subject: Re: Court tomorrow for no license
I am looking forward to learning the outcome of your matter - it affects all us drivers - good luck, God bless.
Since first talking to you and Pedro, I have learned soooo much - I have a conference with a Barrister tomorrow on my Loss of Identity, Common Law Rights etc... will let you know how I get on there - it's been an exciting journey of discovery about what I can do to rectify this 'Tyrannical' situation to me and my kids and in this country too - who would have thought!!!!
Cheers
Deb
On 11/14/07, John Wilson
Dear Fellow Australians,
I will be in the Blacktown Court House, 1 Kildare Road, Blacktown, NSW 2148 at 9:30am for a Court Attendance Notice re: "Drive while license cancelled", "Use unregistered registrable Class A motor vehicle" and "Use uninsured motor vehicle".
I've read their "FULL FACTS" - which are a long way from relating the full story ..... and part is not true.
I have written to the Police Commissioner on 22 Oct asking for the "POLICE IN-CAR VIDEO" but with no response.
So, we'll see what happens tomorrow.
Of course, I'll be demanding Trial by Jury and Challenging the Jurisdiction of the Court when it is denied.
Yours sincerely,
John Wilson.
PS: The license and registration were cancelled by the State Debt Recovery Office because I refused to pay Court Costs when denied the Right to Trial by Jury for another case.
__________ NOD32 2661 (20071115) Information __________
This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system.
http://www.eset.com
Dear Jack,
Thomas Jefferson warned that "the power of the Judiciary" is the "germ of the destruction of our nation".
Judges are agents of "Government" (more correctly, the Bureaucracy) with no Jurisdiction over the People nor their Rights.
Who is asking the US Supreme Court Judges for their opinion?
Yours sincerely,
John Wilson.
----- Original Message -----
From: Jack Bauer
Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2007 7:59 AM
Subject: Supreme Court could take guns case.
Supreme Court could take guns case.
By MARK SHERMAN, Associated Press Writer Sun Nov 11, 12:03 PM ET
WASHINGTON - Supreme Court justices have track records that make predicting their rulings on many topics more than a mere guess. Then there is the issue of the Second Amendment and guns, about which the court has said virtually nothing in nearly 70 years.
That could change in the next few months.
The justices are facing a decision about whether to hear an appeal from city officials in Washington, D.C., wanting to keep the capital's 31-year ban on handguns. A lower court struck down the ban as a violation of the Second Amendment rights of gun ownership.
The prospect that the high court might define gun rights under the Constitution is making people on both sides of the issue nervous.
"I wouldn't be confident on either side," said Mark Tushnet, a Harvard Law School professor and author of a new book on the battle over guns in the United States.
The court could announce as early as Tuesday whether it will hear the case.
The main issue before the justices is whether the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to own guns or instead spells out the collective right of states to maintain militias. The former interpretation would permit fewer restrictions on gun ownership.
The Second Amendment reads: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
The federal appeals court for the District of Columbia was the first federal panel to strike down a gun-control law based on individual rights. The court ruled in favor of Dick Anthony Heller, an armed security guard whose application to keep a handgun at home was denied by the district.
Most other U.S. courts have said the Second Amendment does not contain a right to have a gun for purely private purposes.
Chicago has a similar handgun ban, but few other gun-control laws are as strict as the district's.
Four states — Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland and New York — are urging the Supreme Court to take the case because broad application of the appeals court ruling would threaten "all federal and state laws restricting access to firearms."
The district said its law, passed in 1976, was enacted by local elected officials who believed it was a sensible way to save lives. The law also requires residents to keep shotguns and rifles unloaded and disassembled or fitted with trigger locks.
The city's appeal asks the court to look only at the handgun ban because local law allows possession of other firearms.
Critics say the law has done little to curb violence, mainly because guns obtained legally from the district or through illegal means still are readily available.
Although the city's homicide rate has declined dramatically since peaking in the early 1990s, it ranks among the nation's highest, with 169 killings in 2006.
Heller said Washington remains a dangerous place to live. "People need not stand by and die," he said in court papers.
He said the Second Amendment gives him the right to keep working guns, including handguns, in his home for his own protection.
The last time the court examined the meaning of the Second Amendment was in a 1939 case in which two men claimed the amendment gave them the right to have sawed-off shotguns. A unanimous court ruled against them.
Gun control advocates say the 1939 decision in U.S. v. Miller settled the issue in favor of a collective right. Gun rights proponents say the decision has been misconstrued.
Chief Justice John Roberts has said the question has not been resolved by the Supreme Court. The 1939 decision "sidestepped" the issue of whether the Second Amendment right is individual or collective, Roberts said at his confirmation hearing in 2005.
"That's still very much an open issue," Roberts said.
Both the district government and Heller want the high court to take the case. The split among the appeals courts and the importance of the issue make it likely that the justices will do so, Tushnet said.
The case is District of Columbia v. Heller, 07-290.
Check out my new Business Program. It's a wonderful way for you to save money also. http://www.mypowermall.net/cgi-bin/pd/pd.cgi?showmpmcard=11948902140.3719482421875.card
Learn the truth about the fraudulent income tax. Learn to defend your self against their allegations at: www.FreeEnterpriseSociety.com or (209) 966-7040
Here's more info for your SECURITY needs, go to www.privacywallets.com
Remember these statements:
"When the government fears the people, you have liberty. When the people fear the government [or the IRS, for that matter], you have Tyranny."
(Thomas Jefferson, author of the Declaration of Independence of the United States)
The less people know about what is really going on, the easier it is to wield power and authority.
(Prince of Wales Charles)
Thanks,
Jack Bauer
No comments:
Post a Comment