FEDERAL ACT 241
“CONGRESSIONAL GLOBE 39TH CONGRESS”
Page 3841 Column 1
Sir, I know that it is perfectly useless to appeal to the Constitution of the United States. It is a dead letter. It has no more weight or consideration in the legislation of Congress, in my judgment, than any other piece of printed matter. Not only are the negroes of the South set free by which the object and the aim of all the abolitionists in the land was accomplished as in the land was accomplished as we supposed, but a bill is passed by Congress conferring upon them all civil rights enjoyed by white citizens of the country, and they are now selected out from among the people of the United States, the public Treasury put at their disposal, and the white people of the country taxed for their support. Lands to which you claim title by virtue of a purchase under a tax sale, lands, therefore (if you have the title) of the United States, you take and give to the negroes in South Carolina. You give these lands to no white person, if it be said that is not an absolute gift, you may make money of it, the answer is that you say you sell them to negroes for $1 50 an acre. If you have the title to these lands, what is the reason that you select out the negro race and fix the price at $1 50 an acres, when, if your title be perfect, you can command perhaps fifty or one hundred dollars an acre for these cotton lands? If it was proper to make the remark in the Senate of the United States, I could say that you could have a purchaser without going out of the Senate at ten dollars an acre, taking the whole of them, every acre of the sixty-odd thousand acres which you propose to sell to these negroes at $1 50 an acre. If you have the title to these lands, that is the way you propose to dispose of them at a nominal price to the negro race.
Mr. President, I shall attempt no review of the operations of the Freedman’s Bureau. I never believed that Congress has any right to establish any such bureau to take under its charge any particular portion of the people of the United States and to provide for them out of the public Treasury or out of the public lands. Such legislation was unknown in the early history of the Government, unknown until these extra ordinary times; but, sir, it seems that we have become so much wiser than our fathers that we have discovered new principles of government, and have found somewhere within our legislative power the authority to become guardians for four million negroes.
Mr. President, there is one aspect of this case, and it will apply to many other cases that come before Congress, that it is time for the American people to begin to consider. If there is anything in private life to which I am opposed; if there is anything that I would oppose as a legislator, it is the repudiation of a private debt, and I do not believe in the repudiation of a public debt. This species of legislation taxes an unwilling people to support negroes in idleness, gives away your lands, if they be your lands, to negroes, that they may live in idleness upon them; deprives citizens of the United States of their title to lands contrary to the principles of the Constitution of the United States, which declares that they shall not be so divested except by due process of law. Pile up your public debt until it becomes so onerous that the people cannot and will not further bear it, and there are men in this country so anxious for political power, so anxious for political promotion that they will start a part in the country to wipe out the debt and get clear of the burden which you wish to impose upon them. I do not wish to see this; I wish to see the national faith and the national honor maintained; but sire, there is a limit to oppression and there is a limit to taxation beyond which the people will not suffer. Already, not in the South, for I have seen no indications from the quarter of any intention to repudiate this debt, but I will tell you, sir, that now, in your own free States, there are men, in my judgment, who would hail the day when your public debt-at least so much of it as has accrued from the appropriation of many to support
Page 3841 Column 2
these negroes in idleness-there are men, I say, who would gladly see that portion of the public debt wiped out.
This may be plain talk. No man can charge me with a design or a wish that such should be the case; but you must know that men are governed by interest. Your public debt is now over $3,000,000,000. You have added to it enormously during the present session. You propose to continue taxes upon the people of the United States to support this Freedmen’s Bureau for two years longer, and what will be the amount of expenditure under this bill no one can tell. The Commissioner may appoint just as many agents as he pleases, at a salary of not less than $300 each. It is impossible, there fore, for you to determine the amount of expenditure that will take place under this bill. It is so much more needlessly added to your public debt.
Why, sir, it seems to me that we have got to conclude that there is no end to the resources of this country or the ability of the people to pay taxes. It used to be that a public debt of $100,000,000 was considered a great burden. An annual expenditure for the purposes of Government of fifty or sixty or seventy-five million dollars was considered such a wasteful expenditure of the public money that when you met in Chicago in 1800 you proclaimed yourselves the friends of retrenchment and reform, and were going to administer this Government upon more economical principles, at a less expenditure than it had been administered theretofore. And yet, sir, in the five or six year you have been in power you have piled up a debt of some five thousand million dollars. You yourselves admitted, the chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means in the House at the commencement of the session admitted that the public debt was $4,000,000,000 and more, and you are levying taxes upon the people of the country to pay the interest upon this enormous debt, and you propose to pay a portion of the principal. Where is the money to come from? There is taxation burdensome, onerous, upon all classes of the community, a stamp upon everything, the necessaries of life two or threefold higher in price than heretofore, and you suppose the people of this country are so absolutely demented that for mere love of the idle, worthless negro race they are going to submit to all this burden of taxation, and that this false philanthropy, the parent of idleness and vagabondism as far as that race is concerned, is going to waft you again into the seats of power and that a tax-ridden and tax-burdened people are going to hail you as the great party to save the country upon the principles of liberty and there to meet you with hosannas wherever you bear your partisan standards and cast their votes to continues you in the high places of power.
Sir, there are periods in the history of the world, of all nations and people, when madness seizes upon the mind, when the judgment flies to brutish beasts. We have for a long time been in that situation, passing through it, in it, however, still; but, thank God, the symptoms of a political and a bright dawning began to appear. The People of this country at least are beginning to wake up to the true character of this legislation. Sirs, you sit not quietly in your seats; you are not entirely calm when you can be so alarmed at the call for a little meeting in Philadelphia. IT shows that you yourselves begin to think that there is something in your past political action that the judgment of the American people may not approve. You cannot pretend now that we are in the midst of a war. You cannot set up that plea of necessity, the last refuge of every man without any legal authority to support his action. You cannot set up such a plea as that, and say that there is any necessity for this Freemen’s Bureau. When the people of this country are called upon for their taxes, which, in part, are to be appropriated to the support of this Freemen’s Bureau, you cannot plead that we are now in a state of war and it is necessary to break down the military power in the South;
Page 3841 Column 3
it is necessary to preserve the integrity of the country; for I presume that in view of your legislation you yourselves will even now blush to say that you ever have preserved the American Union. You can plead none of these things. It is a direct, plain, palpable proposition to the American people to put their hands in their pockets, pull out the earning of their labor, and appropriate them to support the negroes in idleness. It seems to me that you believe sincerely the honestly that they will respond to such a call as that.
But, Mr. President, there is a feature in this bill that undertakes to declare and almost undertakes to say that that shall be so which cannot in the very nature of things be so. This bill says that these agents of the Freemen’s Bureau, these guardian angels of the saintly negroes, these protectors of the idols of your heart, shall be under the military protection and subject to the military jurisdiction of the United States. What are they? Are they persons belonging to the Army or Navy of the United States? And can you by act of Congress say that A B, who in fact is in civil life, shall for certain purposes be considered as belonging to the military service? If you can say that the agents of the Freedmen’s Bureau, who cultivate the cotton lands of the South by negro labor for their own benefit, and who dispense your alms to those freed negroes, shall be under the military jurisdiction and protection of the United States, you may say that every member of this Senate and every private citizen of the United States shall be subject to the military protection and under the military jurisdiction of the United States; that he shall be protected by and have a remedy by and through the military power of the United States. How, sir, do you reconcile that with the Constitution of the United States, which declares that all civilians shall be subject to the civil law, and that only those persons who are engaged in the land and the naval forces shall be subject to the military jurisdiction of the United States?
An attempt is made by this bill, therefore, to subvert a plain, palpable provision of the Federal Constitution by rendering civilians subject to military jurisdiction and affording them military protection. And what will be the consequence of this? If one of these agents, clothed with a little brief authority, dares to invade the right of any citizen of any State in which he shall be located, and the citizen seeks redress in the courts of law against him, you say by your bill that he shall be subject to the military jurisdiction and have the protection of the military power. You bring him in direct conflict with the civil authority of the States wherever any branch of this Freedmen’s Bureau shall be located. He is to b e protected by the military authority of the United States, and you exempt him in fact from trial for any wrong whatever, murder, breach of the peace, or any crime that can be committed. You exempt the party committing such offenses from responsibility to the civil tribunals. Some little military hero, who perhaps has never smelled gunpowder in battle, but who has been placed in charge of this Freedmen’s Bureau, is to step in and say to the highest courts in the States and to the highest civil authority, “You shall not take cognizance of offenses against the laws, for I am the great man, above the State law and all State authority, that is to determine whether this one of the pet lambs of congressional legislation shall be held amenable for his action or not.”
This provision of this bill is totally subversive of the civil law of the land, and it is subjecting the civil authority in time of peace to the military authority. But, sir, that is not all. There is another provision of this bill. It used to be thought that it required many years of long labor and study to become a judge. It used to be a maxim that twenty years at least were required; but, sir, you are making judges fast. These commissioners and agents are by the provisions of this bill actually constituted judges-men who neither know the definition of an estate for life, for years, or in fee, who
Page 3842 Column 1
know nothing in the world about land except they see the dirt of which it is composed and the vegetation that springs out of the ground. They are made judges, and judges in reference to title to lands, and judges, too, from whose decision there is to be no appeal. This bill expressly declares that these commissioners and agents shall determine the title to lands, and to give no appeals from their very learned and grave decision. Any ignoramus that has never seen a law book, and perhaps if he ever saw one could not read it, and ever fellow who never conceived a principle of law or a principle of justice, is to sit in solemn judgment in reference to the title to estates, and from his decision no aggrieved party can appeal.
Mr. President, I question not the motives of others; I have no right to question them; but I have a right to speak my own honest opinions, and I think that the wit of man could not have framed a bill obnoxious to more serious objections in point of law than this bill to extend the operations of the Freedmen’s Bureau; and certainly if it had been the design to frame a bill impolite in its character, unwise in its provisions, ingenuity could not have possibly devised a bill to accomplish such a purpose more effectually than this. But, Mr. President, it is a foregone conclusion that this bill is to pass. A war, it seems, has been got up between the President of the United States and another portion of his party. The hostile armies on either side are arrayed. I will not be even a private in the ranks of either. I support the President wherever I believe he is right, and I oppose him where ever I believe his is wrong; and while I believe that you by your legislation are greatly promoting his political interests, and peradventure may lead to a renewal of his term of office, yet I claim not to belong to his party nor to yours-neither detachment nor wing of the party. But, sir, it seems this war has been got up, feeling has been engendered; and then when the President of the United Sates sends in a message assigning the strongest possible reasons why your bill should not become a law of the land, the bill must be fought out on this line though it takes all summer-no trace, no cessation of hostilities. All I have got to say is, keep on if you think there is no hereafter. It will not be long before the American people will decide upon the merits of this controversy. Passion is not going to last always; men are not going to be maddened always; the time for clear deliberation and clam thoughtfulness will come at last, and when it does come, I apprehend the reaction will be as powerful as was the invasion of constitutional liberty and constitutional principles by the now dominant party.
The people of this country will not always submit to this species of legislation, but resorting to the peaceful method of the ballot box, tired of the control and mismanagement of a part that keeps one third of this Union practically out of the Union, which shuts the halls of legislation against the representatives of eleven States of the Union, and assumes to legislate not only for the States they represent but for those who are denied a voice in the councils of the nation, the time will come, I humbly hope and believe, when the American people, aroused to a sense of their own dignity and their own character and their own interests will, by filling these Halls with representatives of their will, forever put an end to this species of legislation and again restore the Government to the principles upon which it was administered by the founders of the Republic.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is Shall the bill pass, the objections of the President notwithstanding? This question, under the Constitution, will be taken by yeas and nays.
The question being taken, resulted – yeas 33, nays 12; as follows:
YEAS-Mesars. Anthony, Brown, Chandler, Clark, Conness, Cruxfu, Creswell, Edmunds, Frsuden, Foster, Grimce, Harris, Henderson, Howard, Howe, Kirkwood, Lane of Indiana, Morgan, Morrill, Nye, Polland, Pomeroy, Ramsey, Sherman, Sprague, Stewart,
Page 3842 Column 2
Sumner, Trumbul, Wade, Willey, Williams, Wilson, and Yates-33.
NAYS-Messrs, Buckalew, Davic, Doolittle, Gatherie, Hendricks, Johnson, McDougall, Nesmith, Norton, Riddle, Saulsbery, and VanWinkle-12.
ABSENT-Messrs, Cowan, Dixon, Lane of Kansas, and Wright-4.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Two thirds of this body have passed the bill, and it having been certified to this House that two thirds of the House of Representatives have voted for this bill, the objections of the President notwithstanding, and two thirds of this body having also voted for the bill, after reconsideration, the objections of The President notwithstanding, I now pronounce that this bill has become a law.
The National Guard
Basil Marceaux I
From; Freedom Bureau Commissioner Home office
Soddy Daisy ,Tennessee 37379
Mandamus request from a “Great Man” A Guardian of an express trust for a First jurisdiction over subject matter and protect the moving party as the commissioners using the Means of vindication act ,
Part #1
The moving party comes after 135 years to ask this The National Guard the po-se comitatius of my state to take jurisdiction over subject matter and protect this moving party as the commissioners of the Freedom Bureau using the Means of vindication act ,And be it further enacted, that the district attorney, marshals and deputy marshals of the U.S., the commissioners appointed by the circuit and territorial courts of the U.S., with the powers of arresting, imprisoning, or bailing offenders against the law of the U.S., the officers and agent of the Freedom Bureau . to stop a massive collection of constitutional violation and murders at gun point are somewhat different than the breaking of a normal law, both in terms of seriousness and punishment. Laws can be declared unconstitutional, and under 39th congress 1st session chapter 31 1866 where the congress overruled the president and sign an act of vindication and it is a crime to break the U.S. Constitution and a portion of the land and naval forces who not covered by posse comitatius law which is a U.S. Marine., U.S. Supreme court ruled it.
Marshal to obey all precept under this act. penalty for refusal.
If all technicality of the law is not honored the we have anarchy and this can be found in all traffic stops
Commissioners may appoint person to execute warrants
And to enable the said commissioner to execute their duties faithfully and efficiently, in conformity with the constitution of the U.S., and the requirements of this act, they are hereby authorize and empowered, within their counties respectfully, to appoint, in writing, under their hands, any one or more suited person, be issue from time to time, to execute all warrants and other process as may be issue by them in the lawful performance of their duties; and the person so appointed to execute any warrant or process ass afore-said shall authority to summon and call to their aid the bystander or po-se comitatius of the county
And to enable the said commissioner to execute their duties faith within their counties respectfully, to appoint, in writing, under their hands, any one or more
suited person, be issue from time to time, to execute all warrants and other process as may be issue by them in the lawful performance of their duties; and the person so appointed to execute any warrant or process ass afore-said shall authority to summon and call to their aid the bystander or po-se comitatius of the proper county, or such portion of the naval forces of the U.S. or the militia, as may be necessary to the performance of their duty with which they are charged, and to insure a faithful observance of the clause of the constitution which prohibits slavery, in conformity with the provisions of this act; and said warrants shall run and be executed by said officers anywhere in the state or territory with which they are issued.
county, or such portion of the naval forces of the U.S. or the militia, as may be necessary to the performance of their duty with which they are charged, and to insure a faithful observance of the clause of the constitution which prohibits slavery, in conformity with the provisions of this act; and said warrants shall run and be executed by said officers anywhere in the state or territory with which they are issued.
If the U.S. supreme court ruled in Knowels vs. Iowa that looking for crimes of no knowledgement violate the 4th then when counties court overrules the U.S. Supreme Court daily slavery is in place because citizens are not duly convicted under the 13th,14th.
When the same ruling also says the cop gun intimate the citizens and a ticket giver must be put into place, now the cop shoot me at a routine traffic stop he murdered me! In my county 51 people were killed since knowels vs Iowa and in all cases they were good kill, But how can that be?
1654 lawyers across the state of Tennessee were asked to represent the moving party in a court of law to stop the laughing at higher courts decisions and the stealing of $340 million by fellow lawyers , $290 million by the state and 65 million from bail bondmen from false arrest at a routine traffic stops .
Using this Means of vindication act ,U.S. Marshal and the F.B.I. were asked by the moving party to stop the laughing at higher courts decisions and the stealing of $340 million by fellow lawyers , $290 million by the state, 65 million from bail bondmen, murders from false arrest at a routine traffic stop and arrest them under RICO law and slavery, but they all refused to act.
2/3 of the state senate . were asked by the moving party to stop the laughing at higher courts decisions and the stealing of $340 million by fellow lawyers , $290 million by the state, 65 million from bail bondmen, murders from false arrest at a routine traffic stop and arrest them under RICO law and slavery, but they all refused to act
Department Defense . were asked by the moving party to stop the laughing at higher courts decisions and the stealing of $340 million by fellow lawyers , $290 million by the state, 65 million from bail bondmen, murders from false arrest at a routine traffic stop and arrest them under Means of vindication act ,RICO law and slavery, but they all refused to act
I ask the you to allow a Great Man to arrest the first judge who take an oath one day and break it the next and stop the city of Soddy Daisy from breaking there city charter where it states they will honor the U.S. Constitution
Honor the Means of Vindication Act - known as the Civil Right Act of 1866
Remember that the congress law has been closed for 139 year until the freedom of information act, no-one read it will you?
respectfully submitted
Basil Marceaux
810 Hyatte rd. Soddy Daisy, Tn.
423-362-0088
The National Guard
Freedom Bureau Commissioner Home office
Soddy Daisy ,Tennessee
Mandamus request from a “Great Man” A Guardian of an express trust for a First jurisdiction over subject matter and protect this moving party as A Great Man” Congressional globe 39th congress page 3841 third column-
Part 2
Comes the A Great Man a Force Recon Marine civilian who is also an Army , Navy civilian belonging to the President Army and the Navy who shares with the Crying Eyes of all Marines who Gave there Life for Freedom “The Few” is a Naval authority , being a Marine also make him some sort of a military authority and a life time member of the department Defense when it come to the Constitution, With the Highest oath an U.S. Marine Force Recon civilian who oath is for life # 2747487 to protect the constitution rights of a citizen of all . Bringing the enemy to a public hearing to stop this tool of mass destruction to a citizen’s rights
The U.S. Constitution was a dead letter for 143 years 39ht congress, page 3841 1st column.
Honor the Federal law 241 Congressional globe 39ht congress, page 3841-3rd column- A great man must be protected by the military.
This Freedom Bureau commissioner/ agent ,” The Great Man” as set out in the civil rights act of 1866 which was adopted into the 14th amendment and described in the congressional globe 39th congress page 3841-42 where it said we were invaded by a specimen of government who do not believed in Republic principles as our forefathers lay out
,
This document tell who the Freedom Bureau commissioner/ agent are. As it was ask by the congress who are the guardian angels of the Negro? are they army or navy? The Man who can walk in any state court and remove the judge who does not follow republic principle and go to the highest civil court of the land and do the same when it comes to breaking The U.S. Constitution and taking property from a citizen while doing so and is no appeal when these Great Men” rules and are immured from all crimes that may exist and has a license to kill for life.
‘This Great Man” argues res judicata under Tenn v pucket and tenn v Hick Dui is unconstitutional in state appeal court , the U.S. Supreme ruled all the below violate the 4th. amendment,
1.Knowels v Iowa which ruled no crimes of no knowledge can be look for
at a routine traffic stops and the officers gun intimidate the citizen .
2. .Adams v Mfilliam 407 u.s. 143 June 12 1972::: gun cars, heron
3. Michigan Department of state police v Sita::: sobriety check points
4. Dolmare v Prouse 440 u.s. 648 March 27,1979 marihuana in plain view
5. Illinois v Gates 462u.u. 213 June 8 1983::: informant, acting on a tip selling
,drugs, ear
6. Michigan v long:: u.s. 456 u.s. 798 June I 1982==speeding, marihuana
7U.S. v Ross 456 us 798, junr82=== informant, white powder in car
If it violates the 4th then you can’t do it and if you do it then involuntary servitude
is in place, slavery because the parties were not duly convicted. While few lower court usually make decisions which are consistent with previous decisions of higher courts.
‘This Great Man” argues reversed Collateral estoppel which prevents a party to a lawsuit from raising a fact or issue which was already decided against that governmental parties in another lawsuit violate due process This Great Man suggest that after stating the above some officials want a second, third, fourth chance, by false arrest charges like traffic stops DUI, drugs, who in the back seat, insurance, to change the highest court mind ,but a citizen can not have a second chance
‘This Great Man” argues that insurance traffic stops,i s the county violating the Rico law with the use of insurance act B C stat. 1925 chapter 20 ,,10 car insurance is a gaming contract. section 1 Every contract by way of gaming or wagering is void, section 2 a contract where the insured has no interest in the subject matter of the contract Vandepitte v Preferred acci. ins. co 1929 42 B C 255 1930 2 d.l.r. 526. Section 2of the act providing that it shall not be lawful to any policy of life of any person or other event, without inserting in such policy of the name or name of the persons interest therein or for whose use,, benefit the policy is written. In the insurance act B C stat. 1925 chapter 20 ,,13 provide the following a policies must have the name and address of name of the people who the insurance money is to be payable to .Vandepitte v Preferred acci. ins. co 1929 42 B C supra. ‘This Great Man” at the time of purchase of a policy does not know who going to be in the car or who car is going to hit so the name and address would be absent and making some public officials forcing the plaintiff and other citizens to break the state constitution by gaming and making them racketeers.
This Great Man” argues with many traffic stops which required questions were you drinking. what you doing in this part of town ,can we search your car, do you any guns, violate the 4th and create a pool of not duly convicted slaves for the country to support employee payroll, people for free labor to clean up the county and maintain county prisons and to collect tax dollars from the public.
Abraham Lincoln said we the people ARE THE RIGHTFUL MASTERS OF the court and not to OVERTHROW THE government just the MEN WHO PERVERT THE CONSTITUTION . Look this citizen is calling the kettle black
This Great Man” argues that the county legal system makes most of the oath takers to break their oath and to refused to listen to U.S, Supreme Court order to balance the budget though False arrest , linking the county to Slavers, Kidnapper extortionists. racketeers, jury fixers, and all felony crimes
‘This Great Man” argues that !3th says ,No slavery should exist in U.S. except for duly convicted criminals
Supreme court say no county court says yes--- you not duly convicted
‘This Great Man” argues that the state’s citizens are begging for help with massive violations of the 4th, 6th , !3th and no-one obeying the U.S. Supreme court rulings
and all the city, county criminals judges, could be indicted for not following the court orders of the U.S. Supreme Court which are generic through out the legal system
‘This Great Man” argues to this court to Enforce president Lincoln restraining order of the EMANCIPATION PROCLAMATION
Whereas on the 22nd day of September, A.D. 1862, a proclamation. was issued by the President of the United States, containing, among other things, the follow & to be whit the naval authority thereof, will recognize and maintain the freedom of such persons and win do no act or acts to repress such persons, or any of them,, in any efforts they may make for flier actual freedom
Great Man” argues Whereas on the 22nd day of September, A.D. 1862, a proclamation. was issued by the President of the United States, containing, among other things, the follow & to writ that U.S. government, military and a naval authority thereof, will recognize and maintain freedom of such persons and will do no act or acts to repress such persons, or any of them,, in any efforts they may make for their actual freedom.
or any of them to keep people free.
henceforward, and forever free
This Great Man” argues that President Lincoln ordered it forever don’t need the President to order This Great Man” to free the slave of the future. Just because he dead he still known as President Lincoln and his order is for life, just as it would be if President Bush gave a order to change something of equal important
This Great Man” argues: President Reagan stated if a citizen’s rights are broken the federal government must reinstate that citizen rights at gun point if necessity. In Knowels V Iowa say police guns intimidate the citizen and a ticket giver should be standing there at a routine traffic stop, wiyh stop no guns , where is the gun to reinstate that citizen rights.
This Great Man” argues: if State law that conflict with federal law is without effect pursuit to supremacy clause U.S.C.A. cons. art 6s 12
. This Great Man” argues: That the public will be outrage to learns of these improper demeanor and shameful acts which lead to disgrace that harms a reputation . By not telling the cites and the people of court rulings regarding acceptable behavior of a police officers, district attorney, public defendants, judges during the process in a routine traffic stops and violate the 4th, 6th, 13th while filling all the defendants pocket with money violated -there code of ethic not to be bias they select the slave masters over the citizens and allowed citizens to becomes a slave to the cities of County and county, all being unconstitutional looking for crimes of no knowledge
point, allowing public officials who prevent government to balance their budgets by fixing the outcome of a criminal or traffic trial,
.
This Great Man” argues: the Sixth Amendment right to a fair trial under all circumstances, the protection against prior restraint should have particular force as applied to reporting of criminal proceeding-
From Basil Marceaux I
Freedom Bureau Commissioner Home Office
Specially Attention to the Federal Election Board
Under federal law 241 which is enclosed in my record file, requires that I notify you, even though it is important that the public see how funds are received and spent. I will enclose my information . If we look at the last filling post was checked . The report that was required before the post if I remember, it was filed in Chattanooga because without any funds available for me to pull 40 cents should be hard to find.
I know the board read my written answer for the January meeting, and now I ask you to rule against me again. I in no way want to intruded in your meeting not even one more time. But after I read the federal law 241 that is enclosed. Then at the same time listening to the history channel suggesting that history is not what we learned in school.
I regret that I was unable to come to your last meeting to get your first hand thoughts when you read the same. But after what you read can you as a board who over sees campaign funds allow candidates who win think they can use these funds to promote a massive amount of Oaths breaking without any ramose and only thinking of the special interest groups?
Starting with our state senator who passes laws the are notwithstanding to the U.S> Constitution , U.S. Supreme court and Tn. appeal court rulings. When I ran for Tn. governor in the State code under tencare creation which I read to answer any questions concerning the same I found in the foot note of the law said car insurance is gambling under federal guidelines. In the year 2003 the car insurance law passed requiring all citizens to gamble. 72 ALR 1304 - 1386 each official who voted on this law is violating the RICO Law and collecting illegal funds, at the rate of $30.000 a week per county .
When we have judges and lawyers who think they are immuned from the law, like Judge Moore in Alabama when he says you can not tell me what to do, because I’m a State Supreme Court. They are wrong, everyone is accountable. Until now there was no one to be accountable to. In tenn vs Pucket a tn appeal court ruling says D.U.I. is unconstitutional and cops have no legal jurisdiction to look for DUI type crimes, but they do look for them 6,067 times last year. MADD is giving gifts to the cop who does the most DUIs.
In Knowels vs Iowa a U.S> supreme court ruling in 1998 said No crimes, of no knowledgement can be looked for at a traffic stop and the gun the police is wearing intimidates the citizen and a meter maid must be in place with no gun. Instead of listening to them they intrude into 876,789 citizens lives while stealing an estimated $167,876 and counties get just a little more, but the lawyer group gets an estimated $976. million all from false arrest. Would the board care?
One last thing, could the board extend there authority to stop all the above from flying the U.S. flag wrong across the state and stop flying the martial law flag, that is the one with the gold trim? It is not an official flag of the U.S.. If the board does not believe this Force Recon Marine civilian who holds the highest federal Protect and defend oath in the land. Go to your local U.S> Senate office and ask them for there book on official flags of the U.S. and the martial law flag is not there.
Flying the martial law flag creates a new state in our county, and violates the U.S. Constitution where no one can create a new state inside our country. Doing so creates an enclave of a new state where no laws, no rights, and no foreign government recognizes this type of flag . Why does our public officials hate our real 50 star flag?
Back to my filing, I must ask the board to stay the fine and rule there will be no more letters sent to this candidate in the future until it is proven that the invaders have left. Like the 39th congress said in the 4th column. When we are a republic again there may not be a need for this legislation ,with Bush telling everybody in the U.S. we are a democracy, right after he said the pledge of elegant to the flag to a republic then an oath to a republic constitution. Help me help our citizens and clean up our state and rule me immune and above state law and your authority being the candidate is a highest federal judge where there is no appeal from his rulings.
If media does not report this type of crime, they are fixing the ballot box to keep the racketeers in office and keep the public in the dark, and can not vote for a clean candidate. At the same time the court protects them under the 1st amendment freedom of the press making them rich and the citizen a slave and not duly convicted. The Highest court can not say no and county court say yes = slavery as stated in the 13th amendment and the right to a fair trial is a must!
After reading my new law is there any doubt that I can remove a judge?
Respectfully submitted;
The Great Man
Basil Marceaux
SENT SUPPORT TO 810 HYATTE RD. SODDY DAISY TO STOP OATHER BREAKERS, JURY FIXXER, SLAVERY
READ THE 13TH AMENDMENT NO SLAVERY WHAT SOEVER IN ANY MATTER
WHAT TO DO WHEN OUR ELECTED OFFICALS ARE SLAVE MASTERS AND IN CHARGE --JUDGES
ELECT BASIL MARCEAUX
the SCOTUS.
Basil Marceaux: with a “Protect and defend oath for life once a Marine always a Marine, the founder of the tools of mass destruction”
vs.
All inferior courts charter of Tennessee and Constitution, U. S. Supreme Court Rulings, Emancipation Proclamation, 39th Congress 1st Session ch 31 1866, Chapter 33 of the U. S. Flag code, 4th, 6th, 13th, and the Rico law violators under the color of the law and the freedom of the press.
Notice of an Appeal of a Kitchen Sink Complaint
Comes the appellant to this court using the doctrine of Estoppel of Laches Mandatum order request though a Royal Prerogative or a normal Prerogative “writ?
Comes the moving party a Force Recon Marine civilian who shares with the crying eyes of all Marines who gave their life for freedom “The Few” to the Court de cassation (“court of last resort”) after the Tennessee Supreme court denied all civil petitions and all courts refused to take jurisdiction over subject matter to argue a constitutional violation is thus somewhat different than the breaking of a normal law, both in terms of seriousness and punishment. Laws can be declared unconstitutional, and under 9th congress 1st session Chapter 31 1866 where the congress and the president sign an act of *vindication. It is a felony to break the U.S. Constitution and a portion of the land and naval forces who not covered by posse comitatus law which is a U.S. Marine, Once a Marine always a Marine, a Seal once a Seal always a Seal, a Green Brigade once a Green Brigade always a Green Brigade , civilian all with a protect and defend oath for life must arrest a constitutional violator for a felony and hand him over to the U.S. Marshal and they can not refuse to take into custody or be taxed $1000 a day. The Marshal’s office in Chattanooga now owes $347 million in tax as of Oct 1, 2004.
The appellant whose name is Basil, in any other territory means king or royalty, argues Royal Prerogative in Ex Parte Bollman, 8 U.S. 75 (“1807 where a body of customary authority, privilege, and immunity), recognized in common law jurisdictions possessing a monarchy as to belonging , the Few the Marine. It is the means by which some of the executive powers of government are possessed by and vested in a monarch with regard to the process of governance of their state the Few the Marine a oath for life, are carried out. It is not subject scrutiny, being the highest oath citizen . *were those granted only if the king (at first) or the judge (since then, and still today in the U.S. and the Courts of England and Wales) decided to issue them as a favor in an unusual situation, because they interfere in some way with the usual judicial procedures. and the person showed good cause, thus “asking” “before” having one granted.
An ombudsman is a government official charged with representing the interests of the public by investigating and addressing complaints reported by individual citizens.
The word ombudsman and its specific meaning has since been adopted in to “English language to safeguard the rights of citizens by establishing a supervisory agency independent of the executive branch”. That the U.S. Marine civilian*
An ombudsman doesn't necessarily have to be appointed by government, but an ombudsman of an non-governmental organization, whether working only for their own members or for the general public,*
Bollman and Swartwout were civilians who became implicated in the clumsily-arranged (perhaps only alleged?) Burr-Wilkinson Plot. This plot supposedly consisted of actual, direct, and concrete involvement in an attempt to forcefully overthrow the government to recruit others.
Aaron Burr, Jr. (February 6, 1756–September 14, 1836) was an American politician and adventurer. He was a major formative member of the Democratic - Republican Party in New York and a strong supporter of Governor George Clinton. He is remembered not so much for his tenure as the third Vice President under Thomas Jefferson, but for his duel with Alexander Hamilton and his trial and acquittal on charges of treason.
James Wilkinson (1757 - December 28, 1825) was a U.S. soldier and statesman, who was associated with several scandals and controversies.*of the plot, where they did actual, direct, and concrete involvement in an attempt to forcefully overthrow the government to recruit others ending whatever may have actually been planned. with his associates Bollman and Swartwout attempted to recruit others into the plot.
In a plot, this appellee actually planned. *for his city , like James Wilkinson did actual, direct, and concrete involvement in an attempt to forcefully overthrow a Republic form of government to recruit others with pay and immunity into the plot, to create an empire (city) in the United States, ruled by Norton where the U.S. Constitution ,U.S. Supreme court and state court rulings are over turned every day by a city that fixes trials not consistent with the 6th, that everyone is guilty and putting free citizens in to slavery not consistent with the 13th because they were all not duly convicted, at the same time they are in jail, work along the road, and working at Wal-Mart to pay court fines and court cost.
This appellee, like James Wilkinson did actual, direct, and concrete involvement in an attempt to forcefully overthrow a Republic form of government to recruit others with pay and immunity into the plot, to create an empire (city) in the United States, ruled by Norton . *Where collecting illegal funds (Rico) habitually from false arrests under color of the law is generic though the state.
*like James Wilkinson did actual, direct, and concrete involvement in an attempt to forcefully overthrow a Republic form of government recruit others with pay and immunity into the plot all higher courts that say no this appellee says yes but the appellant informed everyone from county to the state are laughing at but no one cared to promptly arrested him because all inferior courts in Tennessee is doing the same thing
Chief Justice John Marshall (September 24, 1755 - July 6, 1835), Chief Justice of the United States and principal founder of American constitutional law and the Supreme Court of the United States' power of judicial review, ruled a new interpretation. It was a matter-of-fact observation making three main points that were established in these early and formative civil liberties cases.
The Supreme Court has the power to issue writs that are orders to enforce a judicial law or principle.
The Constitutional definition of treason is limited to actual, direct, and concrete involvement in an attempt to forcefully overthrow the government.
This principle was much more hotly debated in the later number of cases that were tried before the Supreme Court of the United States during the period of the American Civil War. These cases focused on wartime civil liberties, and the ability of the various branches of the government to alter them.
1807 Ex Parte Bollman: An early case that made many important arguments about the power of the Supreme Court, as well as the constitutional definition of treason. which centered around wartime civil liberties and the ability of the various branches of government to control them.
The appellant agues that this appellee judicial decisions that were based on a tradition or a custom that is memorized and passed down from generation to generation,
The appellant agues Precedent is the principle in law of using the past in order to assist in current interpretation and decision-making. Precedent can be of two types.
Example I
Binding or mandatory precedent is a precedent under the doctrine of stare decisis that a court must consider when deciding a case.
Example II
Advisory precedent are cases which a court may use but is not required to use to decide its cases. In general, binding precedent involves decisions made by a higher court in a common law jurisdiction.
The appellant is using the form of reasoning used in common law that is known as paradigms / casuistry (argument by cases) is an attempt to determine the Scotus correct response to a moral problem, a moral dilemma,
With casuistry being a branch of applied ethics. and a standard form of reasoning applied in common law in pure cases in common everyday connotation to complex reasoning to justify moral laxity or to forward unspoken agendas.
Law requires that attendant circumstances have to occur, in order for a crime to have occurred. Also, in order for a crime to be prosecuted, corpus delicti (or “proof of a crime”) must be established.
The appellant ague that a crime is an act which violates a law of a government, nation-state, or jurisdiction, for which there is no successful defense. According to Western jurisprudence, there must be a simultaneous concurrence of both actus reus (“guilty action”) and means really (“guilty mind”) for a crime to have been committed; except in crimes of strict liability.
The appellant agues Damages, in law has two different meanings. It is used to refer both to the harm suffered by a plaintiff in a civil action, and to any monies paid or awarded to him to compensate for said harm.
The appellant agues that tort is for someone for wrongful acts. In the common law, a tort is a civil wrong for which the law provides a remedy. The term comes from French Law and means, literally, ‘a wrong’.
The appellant agues that The “law of torts” is a body of civil law or private law that covers the various legal (money damages) and equitable remedies which the law provides for civil wrongs arising from extra-contractual liability. The appellant agues that this is in addition to other than those wrongs which arise from a breach of contractual obligations, an oath to the bar and the bench.
The appellant agues that Criminal negligence, in the realm of criminal common law, criminal negligence is a legal term of art for a state of mind which is careless, inattentive, neglectful, willfully blind, or reckless; it is the mens rea part of a crime which, if occurring simultaneously with the actus reus?
The appellant agues that a contract is any promise or set of promises made by one party to another for the breach of which the law provides a remedy. The promise or promises may be expressed (either written or oral) or may be implied from circumstances.
The appellant agues that typically, the remedy for breach of contract or promise is an award of money damages intended to restore the injured party to the economic position that he enjoyed , but this appellee violated Rico and Rico comes in two parts, civil and criminal.
The appellant agues that in this plot, this appellee actually planned for his city , like James Wilkinson did actually, direct, and have concrete involvement in an attempt to forcefully overthrow a Republic form of government to recruit others with pay and immunity into the plot, to create an empire (city) in the United States, ruled by Norton where this appellee communicate in a code were he converted pieces of information in to audio ,a letter, word, or phrase into another form or representation, like two way radio , computers not necessarily of the same sort. to build a false arrest case against this appellant and all other citizens.
The appellant agues that in a plot, this appellee actually planned for his city, like James Wilkinson did actually, direct, and have concrete involvement in an attempt to forcefully overthrow a Republic form of government to recruit others with pay and immunity into the plot, to create an empire (city) in the United States, ruled by Norton where In communications and information that he and his recruit process, or encoding the process by which a source performs this conversion of information into data, which is then sent to a receiver (observer) the police , such as a data processing system.
The appellant agues that in a plot, this appellee actually planned for his city, like James Wilkinson did actually, direct, and have concrete involvement in an attempt to forcefully overthrow a Republic form of government to recruit others with pay and immunity into the plot, to create an empire (city) in the United States, ruled by Norton where decoding of the conversion of information into data, which is then sent to a receiver in the reverse process of converting data, which has been sent by a source, into information understandable by a receiver.
The appellant agues Power of a court of law jurisdiction is the power of a court to hear and decide a case before it. Jurisdiction is conceptually divided between jurisdiction over the subject matter of a case and jurisdiction over the person *of is the appellee*.
The appellant agues jurisdiction under *Rem* that sometimes a court may exercise jurisdiction over property located within the perimeter of its powers without regard to personal jurisdiction over the litigants to assure a fair trial.
The appellant agues that the appellee procedures are a series of activities, tasks, steps, decisions, calculations and other processes, that when undertaken in the sequence laid down produces the described result, product or outcome, an false arrest that produces kidnapping, racketeering, jury fixing, slavery 24 hours a day seven days a weeks.
The appellant agues a court consists of an official, public forum which a public power establishes by lawful authority the U.S. Constitution and the U.S. Supreme Court to adjudicate disputes, and to dispense civil, labor, administrative and criminal justice under the law.
The appellant agues Works on the common law historical treatise on the common law is. The U.S. Supreme Court judge “Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.” who published a short volume called “The Common Law” which remains a classic in the field. In the United States, the “Corpus Juris Secundum” is a compendium of the common law.
The appellant agues that case aw (precedential law) in politics and jurisprudence, which are a set of rules of conduct which mandate, proscribe (or both) specified relationships among people and organizations; as well as punishments for those who do not follow the established rules of conduct as laid out in the state cannon. This appellant like judge Moore in Alabama thinks this state law is superior to the U.S. Supreme Court.
The appellant agues case law governs the impact court decisions have on future cases. Unlike most civil law systems, common law systems follow the doctrine of State decisions used in common law to express the notion that prior court decisions must be recognized as precedents, according to case law and recognize the concept of jurisprudence constant, which the appellant now argue that even though judges are independent, they should rule in a predictable and non-chaotic manner.
The appellant agues that a lower court usually makes decisions which are consistent with previous decisions of higher courts. However, if a lower court judge acts against precedent and the case is not taken to appeal it will still stand. Generally speaking there is no direct oversight that appeal courts have over a court of record because most cases that go there are dismissed lacking a compete transcript that has no audio or video recording and the only winners are lawyers who steal $945 millions and allow the state to steal $186 million a year to balance their budgets or make a profit on the false arrest citizens.
The appellant agues that this may occur more frequently than has been documented as an appeal is usually quite expensive to prepare. Some judges are also known to rule against precedent on principle. A judge (or even an interim appeal court) may rule against a precedent that is outdated; she may feel the decision needs to be overturned due to more sophisticated legal reasoning. Such a judge may wish to help the law evolve by ruling against precedent and forcing the case to appeal. Then, the appeal court will have an opportunity to review the lower court’s decision and may adopt the lower court’s reasoning thereby overturning previous cases. This may also happen several times as the case works its way through intermediate appellate jurisdictions. The highest court of the land says “no” many times, but with this tactic the appellee is still saying “yes” and stealing the victims’ money, land, property and liberty as he fixes the trial and violating 6th ?Amendment?.
The appellant agues collateral estoppel which prevents a party to a lawsuit from raising a fact or issue which was already decided against that governmental parties in another lawsuit violates due process. The appellant suggests that after stating the above he wants a second, third, and fourth chance to change the highest courts’ mind. Why can’t a citizen have a second chance because of ?justic? is bias?
The appellant agues Dred Scott vs. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1856), properly Dred Scott.The Plaintiff in Error vs. John F. A. Sandford, more often known as the Dred Scott Case, was a lawsuit decided by the Supreme Court of the United States in 1857 and considered by many to be a key cause of the American Civil War and the later ratification of the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments leading to the abolition of slavery and establishment of civil rights for freed slaves. The decision for the court was written by Chief Justice Roger Taney.
The appellant agues Amendment XIII (the Thirteenth Amendment) of the United States Constitution states:
Section 1
Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
The appellant agues the Amendment XIV (the Fourteenth Amendment) of the United States Constitution is one of the post-Civil War amendments and includes the due process and equal protection clauses (Section 1). It was adopted on July 28, 1868. The appellant suggests there is no protection.
The appellant agues Definition of citizen the first section defines who is a citizen of the United States and establishes that no state can enact laws that abridge certain rights of its citizens or persons within the jurisdiction of the United States. This section contains the due process and equal protection clauses and has had a notable impact on federal, state and local law in the United States; including the selective prosecution defense.
The appellant ague the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which is part of the Bill of Rights, guarantees several protections related to legal procedure.
The appellant agues “Mappvs Ohio” The 1961 Supreme Court of the United States ruling that Fourth Amendment protection against “unreasonable searches and seizures” must be extended to states as well as the federal government.
The appellant agues 367 U.S. 643 (1961) Evidence obtained by searches and seizures are in violation of the Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the United States of America and is the oldest written national constitution still in force.
The appellant agues “Gideon vs. v Wainwright.” Gideon vs. Wainwright, 372 US 335 (1963), is a landmark case in United States Supreme Court history. In the latter half of the twentieth century, Gideon vs. Wainwright represents an important step in constitutional law made by the Supreme Court in applying the Sixth Amendment (right to counsel and the right to a fair trial and the Fourteenth Amendment (no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law) to all citizens.
The appellant agues Marbury vs. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803) is the seminal case in American law which established the power of the Supreme Court, on constitutional grounds, to declare a statute void that it considered in contravention to the Constitution of the United States. The case is found in Cranch (the court reporter of decisions) volume one at page 137 (1803). Cranch is the first volume of cases devoted only to Supreme Court cases.
The appellant agues Abington School Dist. vs. Schempp (and Murray vs. Curlett), 374 U.S. 203 (1963) The First Amendment to the United States Constitution is a part of the Bill of Rights. It was conceived to prevent Congress and the federal government from infringing on several rights. One guarantee is that the government would not limit the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
The appellant agues 485 U.S. 46 (1988) a public figure shown in a parody must show actual malice to claim he is libel.
The appellant ague 14 U.S 304 (1816) federal courts may review State court decisions when they rest on federal law or the federal constitution. This decision provides for the uniform interpretation of federal law throughout the various states.
M’Cullock vs. Maryland, 17 U.S. 316 (1819). The court stated the doctrine of implied powers, from the necessary and proper clause at Article I, section 8. To fulfill its goal, the federal government may use any means the constitution does not forbid (as opposed to only what the constitution explicitly allow, or only what is provably necessary).
The appellant ague State government may in no way hinder the legitimate action of the federal government the Court has varied in time on the extents of the implied powers, with a markedly narrower reading approximately from the 1840’s to the 1930’s.
The appellant agues 418 U.S. 683 (1974) The President of the United States is not above the law either is the appellee as a city judge who break the number one law of the land.
“Once a Marine Always Marine,” What Does it mean? I’m not a Veteran. Could I be a oath cop?
A protect and defend oath to U.S. Constitution for life.
*What is the Marine does not says protect in this oath, instead says support is he “Once a Marine always Marine” No.*
[STOP]
For what?
The moving party is a Naval authority , being a Marine also make him some sort of a military authority and a life time member of the department Defense when it come to the Constitution, With the Highest oath an U.S. Marine Force Recon civilian who oath is for life # 2747487 to protect the constitution rights of a citizen of all . Bringing the enemy to a public hearing to stop this tool of mass destruction to a citizen’s rights,
The moving party who has at least 150 citizens to nominated him for public office to stop this wrongdoing with the Declaration of Independence we the people can change or alter government with 56 signatures. All of the original signatures were a protect oath citizens who was the first in any battle They were marines so to speak -- or the few .
Protect verse support, protect oaths dominate support oaths. .
Abraham Lincoln said we the people ARE THE RIGHTFUL MASTERS OF the court and not to OVERTHROW THE government just the MEN WHO PERVERT THE CONSTITUTION . Look this citizen is calling the kettle black
Comes the moving party though the Rule D inapplicable to move under Article 2 Sec8” Military justice is not mentioned specifically in the Constitution, but can be found in “(power to define penalties for piracy and felonies on the high seas and for violations of the law of nations, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution;
inform that the legal system makes most of the oath takers in to break their oath and to refused to listen to U.S, Supreme Court order to balance the budget though False arrest , linking the States to Slavers, Kidnapper extortionists. racketeers, jury fixers, and all felony crimes
!3th No slavery should exist in U.S. except for duly convicted criminals
Supreme court say no county court says yes--- you not duly convicted
Comes the moving party under a Federal oath for life # 2747487 to protect A Guardian of an express trust-
All the states citizens are begging for help with massive violations of the 4th, 6th , !3th and no-one obeying the U.S. Supreme court rulings
and all other cities, counties judges, Senators and House members could be indicted for not following the court orders of the U.S. Supreme Court which are generic through out the legal system
Enforce president Lincoln restraining order
Comes the moving party though the Rule D inapplicable to move under a presidential order of the EMANCIPATION PROCLAMATION
Whereas on the 22nd day of September, A.D. 1862, a proclamation. was issued by the President of the United States, containing, among other things, the follow & to be whit the naval authority thereof, will recognize and maintain the freedom of such persons and win do no act or acts to repress such persons, or any of them,, in any efforts they may make for flier actual freedom
So-under the moving party Naval authority suspension the rules
in an effort they may make for their actual freedom
.henceforward, and forever free
President Lincoln ordered it forever don’t need the President to order the moving party to free the slave of the future
The Commander and chief can’t order anyone to arrest state government he has to follow the E comocotti ? law which was in effect even in 1863, military can’t arrest government’ the moving party isn’t military he a Marine civilian as mention in a Marine Core value oath sign by the Department of Defense, Marine Corp, Dept of the Navy.
Just because he dead he still known as President Lincoln and his order is for life, just as it would be if President Bush gave a order to change something of equal important
The U.S. Supreme Court and Tennessee Supreme Court and Appeal Court ruled all the below violate the 4th. amendment,
1.Knowels v Iowa which ruled no crimes of no knowledge can be look for
at a routine traffic stops and the officers gun intimidate the citizen .
2. .Adams v Mfilliam 407 u.s. 143 June 12 1972::: gun cars, heron
3. Michigan Department of state police v Sita::: sobriety check points
4. Dolmare v Prouse 440 u.s. 648 March 27,1979 marihuana in plain view
5. Illinois v Gates 462u.u. 213 June 8 1983::: informant, acting on a tip selling
,drugs, ear
6. Michigan v long:: u.s. 456 u.s. 798 June I 1982==speeding, marihuana U.S. v Ross 456 us 798, junr82=== informant, white powder in car
If it violates the 4th then you can’t do it and if you do it then involuntary servitude
is in place, slavery because the parties were not duly convicted.
President Reagan stated if a citizen’s rights are broken the federal government must reinstate that citizen rights at gun point if necessity. In Knowel V Iowa say police guns intimidate the citizen and a ticket giver should be standing there at a routine traffic stop
Freedom of the Press
Comes the plaintiff in the second part of writ through self, rule 17 and 24 to this court of last resort to ague that the news isn't protected under Freedom of the press or The First, the guarantee of freedom press or expression is not an absolute under all circumstance .
State law which conflict with federal law is without effect pursuit to supremacy clause U.S.C.A. cons. art 6s 12
The moving party suggest that all media in Tennessee are now named the Chattanooga Free Press Channel, l2News, Channel9News, Channel l3News, Channel 61 News, Comcast
refuses to except that a promise was made over twenty times or more .
They allowed the promises to report the new fairly with out bias that their reporters and photographers take to belong to their national club that requires them to report the new fairly with out bias to separate them from a rag magazine and being # 10 newspaper in the nation to break their promise and allowed magnitude of scandalous feeling to people morals.
The public will be outrage to learns of these improper demeanor and shameful acts which lead to disgrace that harms a reputation . By not telling the cites and the people of court rulings regarding acceptable behavior of a police officers, district attorney, public defendants, judges during the process in a routine traffic stops and violate the 4th, 6th, 13th while filling all the defendants pocket with money violated -there code of ethic not to be bias they select the slave masters over the citizens allow the plaintiff with rule 24,17 and 200 Citizens to becomes a slave to the cities of County and county, all being unconstitutional looking for crimes of no knowledge
The plaintiff suggest that the trial court and The Chattanooga Free Press Channel, l2News, Channel9News, Channel l3News, Channel 61 News, Comcast refuses to except the idea of there reporters and photographers and these defendants can not be dismiss on a no claim motion that there is a fundamental principle, long established, that the1st freedom of speech and of the press which is secured by the Constitution does not confer an absolute right to speak or publish, without responsibility, whatever one may choose, or an unrestricted and unbridled license that gives immunity for every possible use of language and prevents the punishment of those who abuse this freedom. 2 Story on the Constitution, 5th ed., § 1580, p. 634; Robertson vs. Baldwin, 165 U.S. 275, 281; Patterson vs. Colorado, 205 U.S. 454, 462; Fox vs. Washington, 236 [p*667] U.S. 273, 276; Schenck vs. United States and only a trial would tell if punishment of those who abuse this freedom are the defendants?
The appellant question why all the parties did not recognize or even reply to above five U.S. Court rulings there are four of them in appellant complaint and re-ply brief .Instead the appellees use two rulings of there own in trial court and again in there reply brief but if this appellant court actually read this reply brief there can only be one ruling because the two rulings use is not relevant due to one is for advertising and the other is use for political advertising both are something the appellees sell in the space ,after the news and sport is printed.
The appellant and anyone who buys for $.50 to $1.50 or looks at through there pad cable connection, the product these appellees sell ( A Newspaper or TV news) to lure citizens to invest there money on expensive ads to promote there business or political views while these defendants only publish only half the news bialy. leaving out the other half of the news that the public pays $.50 for.
In a sense they are collecting illegal funds ( racketeering) for that part at the same time, putting a knife in their customers back by closing their eyes and space that belong too the customer who prepays or pay cash for their product, by promoting violation of U.S. and states Constitution rights of a citizens at gun point, allowing public officials who prevent government to balance their budgets by fixing the outcome of a criminal or traffic trial, U.S. Supreme says no with county courts saying yes.
Then if that bad enough what about the third party the bond-person who is allowed to make a living and giving $ 12.00 to the state by collecting illegal funds from their customers back with a knife in it violating 4th,6th,13th. These appellants needs to be punishment for those who abuse this freedom and stated above. Excuse the appellant , he almost forgot while the appellees abuse their freedom the half part of the new space they do use they conspire with the highway men and publicly slandering their customers names and reputations by reporting their arrest and sentencing in the court and police commentaries, but refuse to have a false arrest commentaries section.
History has not treated their citizen very well , because someone gave these appellees power that does not belong to them, Freedom of press that mention in the first approved U.S. Constitution only said they can write about anything without being arrested and a gag order from a court was always legal and when it comes to the constitutional rights of a citizens the appellant can un-gag the news with a Marine protect and defend oath for life and the navy authority that has a direct connection to the land and naval forces, fall under the authority of the congress of the united States and the U.S. Constitution 1-8 which says support oath, but the appellant protect and defend oath for life is higher
Department of defense directive 5525.5 in the amendment to the Poss Comitatus Act prevent a service member to help police or arrest citizen, with nothing said about public officials, but amazingly it does not included a Marine so if once a marine always a marine mean anything , a trial court did said the appellant was a marine for life. With the primary purpose of the appellant use of Poss Comitatus is to further the function of the U.S. Marine who is on duty for life to change nation law when there is no recognize jurisdiction or no one want to take jurisdiction because President Andrew Johnson order that a protect and defend oath can arrest anyone who break the constitution rights a high felony crime to a citizen with a mandatory seven year conviction and hand him over to the U.S. Marshal especially a public official . It was recognize that the government would break the rights of a citizen in the future. The real question would the U.S. Marshal recognize President Johnson order or a protect and defend oath today. ?
With the appellant use of Posterv Andrews, 182 tonn 671,189 sw680 (1943).
breach of promise( promissory estoppel) cause Of action against these defendants support the SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES ruling in Cohen v CovAes Media Company 88 and 457 nw 2d 199 stated in answer to the First Amendment does not bar a breach of promise( promissory estoppel) cause Of action against defendants?
. Such a cause of action, although private, involves state action within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment, and therefore triggers the First Amendments’ protections, since promissory estoppel is a state law doctrine creating legal obligations never explicitly assumed by the parties that are enforceable through the Minnesota courts' official power. Cf., e.g-, New York Times Co. vs. Sullivan, [p*664] 3 76 U.S. 254, 265. However,, the doctrine is a law of general applicability that does not target or single out the press, but rather is applicable to all Minnesota citizens' daily transactions.
Thus, the First Amendment does not require that its enforcement against the press be subject to stricter scrutiny dm would be applied to enforcement against others, cf. Associated Press vs. NLRB, 301 U.S. 103,1132-133, even if' the payment is characterized as compensatory damages. Nor does that Amendment grant the press protection from any law which in any fashion or to any degree limits or restricts its right to report truthful information. The Florida Star vs. B.JF., 491 U.S. 524 ,
In Nebraska Press assn. v Stuart 427U.S. 539 1976 while the guarantee of freedom or expression is not an absolute under all circumstance the barriers to, prior restraint remain high against its use continues intact.
Although it is unnecessary to establish a priority between the first and 6th Amendment rights
Sixth Amendment right to a fair trial under all circumstances, the protection against prior restraint should have particular force as applied to reporting of criminal proceeding@-”
The plaintiff suggest that the Tennessean, and U.S. Today refuses to except that the two cites listed in their answers Miami herald publishing v Tornillo 418u.s. 241 (1974 and Newspaper printing v Galbreath 580 s.w. 2d 777 (Tennessee 1979 is not relevant here because advertisements and editorial is not news or sports. When it comes to a fair trial under the 6th courts in all jurisdictions has enforce a gag order to order media not to report things that is going on in a certain case that would violate the right to a fair trial. The only different in this case is the media would have to upset government and that would violate the meaning of the good old boys motto while the plaintiff and this citizens are being put in slavery.
Whereas on the 22nd day of September, A.D. 1862, a proclamation. was issued by the President of the United States, containing, among other things, the follow & to writ the naval authority thereof, will recognize and maintain freedom of such persons and win do no act or acts to repress such persons, or any of them,, in any efforts they may make for flier actual freedom.
The plaintiff suggest that will recognize and maintain freedom of such persons and will do no act or acts to repress such persons, or any of them supersede freedom of the press.
The plaintiff suggest that the trial court and Tennessean, and U.S. Today refuses
to except the idea that the 2nd and 39th congress of The U.S. sign in to law that a person with a protect and defend oath supersede a support oath and is the only person who can arrest a someone who break a citizen constitutional rights for a felony.
The plaintiff suggest the news isn’t protect by 1st Amendment , freedom of the press or the. right to express. because the news is created by someone else ,the criminal, the , the airplane, the sport person design the news , the news department only write it to fix a column. it not there expression and no-on pay any money to place the news or sport
The plaintiff suggest that Companies like Tennessean, and U.S. Today refuses
to except the idea that violated there code of ethic not to be bias they selected the slave masters over the citizens and allowed
the plaintiff with rule24 and 20 citizens to becomes a slave to the cities
of Hamilton County and Hamilton county all being unconstitutional looking for crimes of no knowledge.
The plaintiff suggest that Companies like The U.S Today that has outlets in Tennessee that this defendant not only refused to print anything about 34,250,000 infusions violations to the public and condoning it , while promoting_ breaches promise with criminal side effect.
This defendant in 1999 publish an article for U.S. Today, written by Richard Wiling quoted a decision of the U.S. Supreme Court, Knowels V Iowa , a motorist cited for speeding and then arrest for drug procession v,/as unconstitutional and a victory for privacy rights. Stating a comment from Steve Wsotsky a professor at Nova Southeastern Law school This is a pleasant surprise because government always win. After publicly knowing about these intrusions fail to answer the cry of the citizen and plaintiff, this defendant still promoting_ breaches promise with criminal side effects.
The plaintiff suggest that this is the reason damage are higher than the rest
The plaintiff request that this court to rule that a recording devise is a must to assure due process on appeal, without it ,it is a one side story.
The plaintiff request that this court to rule that if our way of life believe in god and all oaths are affirmed to god and the citizens of this great country then the highest federal protect and defend oath , to the constitution of the land ,, for life supersede a support oath. just as the 2nd congress of The U.S. sign in to law. Which makes the federal protect and defend oath of the land, for life supremacy when it comes to protecting the a citizens constitutional rights and can order or commandeer the press to publish because no one else can in a world where the press are a monopoly of holding in an area allowing one man beliefs to rule over more than one state area, which stay a citizen right to expression. through the newspaper .or any type of media.
State law which conflict with federal law is without effect pursuit to supremacy clause U.S.C.A. cons. art 6s 12
The plaintiff request that this court to rule that if our way of life believe in god and country the U.S. Flag should always be flown correctly as described in the federal flag code of 1959
The plaintiff request that this a court to rule that if our way of life believe in god and country the Flag with the gold trim , which is not in the book of official flag of the united states, can only be flown by the executive branch of the government. The U.S. Congress remove it from the official book and gave it to the president to glorified the Vietnam war in 1968, it is now a war flag. and order that this flag be removed from all state buildings and courts and allow the 50 star flag to show superior presence.