Posted by 4closureFraud on December 2, 2009 

[This case should have put an end to mortgage fraud, but instead the banksters got Glass-Stegal overturned and moved into massive securitization schemes.]

_____________________________________________________

A Minnesota Trial Court’s decision holding the Federal Reserve Act unconstitutional and VOID; holding the National Banking Act unconstitutional and VOID; declaring a mortgage acquired by the First National Bank of Montgomery, Minnesota in the regular course of its business, along with the foreclosure and the sheriff’s sale, to be VOID.

A WORD FROM AN ASSOCIATE JUSTICE WHO KNEW AND WORKED WITH JUSTICE MARTIN V. MAHONEY, STATE OF MINNESOTA, ABOUT THE CASE.

The “Credit River Decision” handed down by a jury of 12 on a cold day in December, in the Credit River Township Hall, was an experience that I’ll never forget.

The Chief Justice of the Minnesota Supreme Court had phoned me a week before the trial and asked me if I would be an associate justice in assisting Justice Martin V. Mahoney since he had never handled a jury trial before. I accepted, and it took me two hours to get my car running in the 22 below zero weather.

I got to the court room about 30 minutes before trial, and helped get the wood stove going, since the trial was being held in an unheated store room of a general store. This was the first time I met Justice Mahoney, and I was impressed with his no nonsense manner of handling matters before him. My OB was to help pick the jury, and to keep Jerome Daly and the attorney representing the Bank of Montgomery from engaging in a fist fight. The court room was highly charged, and the Jury was all business.

The banker testified about the mortgage loan given to Jerome Daly, but then Daly cross examined the banker about the creating of money “out of thin air,” and the banker admitted that this was standard banking practice. When Justice Mahoney heard the banker testify that he could “create money out of thin air,” Mahoney said, “It sounds like fraud to me.” I looked at the faces of the jurors, and they were all agreeing with Mahoney by shaking their heads and by the looks on their faces.

I must admit that up until that point, I really didn’t believe Jerome’s theory, and thought he was making this up. After I heard the testimony of the banker, my mouth had dropped open in shock, and I was in complete disbelief. There was no doubt in my mind that the Jury would find for Daly.

Jerome Daly had taken on the banks, the Federal Reserve Banking System, and the money lenders, and had won.

It is now twenty eight years since this “Landmark Decision,” and Justice Mahoney is quoted more often than any Supreme Court justice ever was. The money boys that run the “private Federal Reserve Bank” soon got back at Mahoney by poisoning him in what appeared to have been a fishing boat accident (but with his body pumped full of poison) in June of 1969, less than 6 months later.

Both Jerome Daly and Justice Martin V. Mahoney are truly the greatest men that I have ever had the pleasure to meet. The Credit River Decision was and still is the most important legal decision ever decided by a Jury.

Bill Drexler

___________________________________________________

THE MAHONEY CREDIT RIVER DECISION

RE: First National Bank of Montgomery vs. Jerome Daly

IN THE JUSTICE COURT

STATE OF MINNESOTA

COUNTY OF SCOTT

TOWNSHIP OF CREDIT RIVER

JUSTICE MARTIN V. MAHONEY

First National Bank of Montgomery,
Plaintiff
vs
Jerome Daly,
Defendant

JUDGMENT AND DECREE

The above entitled action came on before the Court and a Jury of 12 on December 7, 1968 at 10:00 am. Plaintiff appeared by its President Lawrence V. Morgan and was represented by its Counsel, R. Mellby. Defendant appeared on his own behalf.

A Jury of Talesmen were called, impaneled and sworn to try the issues in the Case. Lawrence V. Morgan was the only witness called for Plaintiff and Defendant testified as the only witness in his own behalf.

Plaintiff brought this as a Common Law action for the recovery of the possession of Lot 19 Fairview Beach, Scott County, Minn. Plaintiff claimed title to the Real Property in question by foreclosure of a Note and Mortgage Deed dated May 8, 1964 which Plaintiff claimed was in default at the time foreclosure proceedings were started.

Defendant appeared and answered that the Plaintiff created the money and credit upon its own books by bookkeeping entry as the consideration for the Note and Mortgage of May 8, 1964 and alleged failure of the consideration for the Mortgage Deed and alleged that the Sheriff’s sale passed no title to plaintiff.

The issues tried to the Jury were whether there was a lawful consideration and whether Defendant had waived his rights to complain about the consideration having paid on the Note for almost 3 years.

Mr. Morgan admitted that all of the money or credit which was used as a consideration was created upon their books, that this was standard banking practice exercised by their bank in combination with the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, another private Bank, further that he knew of no United States Statute or Law that gave the Plaintiff the authority to do this. Plaintiff further claimed that Defendant by using the ledger book created credit and by paying on the Note and Mortgage waived any right to complain about the Consideration and that the Defendant was estopped from doing so.

At 12:15 on December 7, 1968 the Jury returned a unanimous verdict for the Defendant.

Now therefore, by virtue of the authority vested in me pursuant to the Declaration of Independence, the Northwest Ordinance of 1787, the Constitution of United States and the Constitution and the laws of the State of Minnesota not inconsistent therewith ;

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED:

1.That the Plaintiff is not entitled to recover the possession of Lot 19, Fairview Beach, Scott County, Minnesota according to the Plat thereof on file in the Register of Deeds office.

2.That because of failure of a lawful consideration the Note and Mortgage dated May 8, 1964 are null and void.

3.That the Sheriff’s sale of the above described premises held on June 26, 1967 is null and void, of no effect.

4.That the Plaintiff has no right title or interest in said premises or lien thereon as is above described.

5.That any provision in the Minnesota Constitution and any Minnesota Statute binding the jurisdiction of this Court is repugnant to the Constitution of the United States and to the Bill of Rights of the Minnesota Constitution and is null and void and that this Court has jurisdiction to render complete Justice in this Cause.

The following memorandum and any supplementary memorandum made and filed by this Court in support of this Judgment is hereby made a part hereof by reference.

BY THE COURT

Dated December 9, 1968

Justice MARTIN V. MAHONEY

Credit River Township

Scott County, Minnesota

MEMORANDUM

The issues in this case were simple. There was no material dispute of the facts for the Jury to resolve.

Plaintiff admitted that it, in combination with the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, which are for all practical purposes, because of their interlocking activity and practices, and both being Banking Institutions Incorporated under the Laws of the United States, are in the Law to be treated as one and the same Bank, did create the entire $14,000.00 in money or credit upon its own books by bookkeeping entry. That this was the Consideration used to support the Note dated May 8, 1964 and the Mortgage of the same date. The money and credit first came into existence when they created it. Mr. Morgan admitted that no United States Law Statute existed which gave him the right to do this. A lawful consideration must exist and be tendered to support the Note. See Ansheuser-Busch Brewing Company v. Emma Mason, 44 Minn. 318, 46 N.W. 558. The Jury found that there was no consideration and I agree. Only God can create something of value out of nothing.

Even if Defendant could be charged with waiver or estoppel as a matter of Law this is no defense to the Plaintiff. The Law leaves wrongdoers where it finds them. See sections 50, 51 and 52 of Am Jur 2nd “Actions” on page 584 – “no action will lie to recover on a claim based upon, or in any manner depending upon, a fraudulent, illegal, or immoral transaction or contract to which Plaintiff was a party.”

Plaintiff’s act of creating credit is not authorized by the Constitution and Laws of the United States, is unconstitutional and void, and is not a lawful consideration in the eyes of the Law to support any thing or upon which any lawful right can be built.

Nothing in the Constitution of the United States limits the jurisdiction of this Court, which is one of original Jurisdiction with right of trial by Jury guaranteed. This is a Common Law action. Minnesota cannot limit or impair the power of this Court to render Complete Justice between the parties. Any provisions in the Constitution and laws of Minnesota which attempt to do so is repugnant to the Constitution of the United States and void. No question as to the Jurisdiction of this Court was raised by either party at the trial. Both parties were given complete liberty to submit any and all facts to the Jury, at least in so far as they saw fit.

No complaint was made by Plaintiff that Plaintiff did not receive a fair trial. From the admissions made by Mr. Morgan the path of duty was direct and clear for the Jury. Their Verdict could not reasonably been otherwise. Justice was rendered completely and without denial, promptly and without delay, freely and without purchase, conformable to the laws in this Court of December 7, 1968.

BY THE COURT

December 9, 1968

Justice Martin V. Mahoney

Credit River Township

Scott County, Minnesota.

Note: It has never been doubted that a Note given on a Consideration which is prohibited by law is void. It has been determined, independent of Acts of Congress, that sailing under the license of an enemy is illegal. The emission of Bills of Credit upon the books of these private Corporations for the purpose of private gain is not warranted by the Constitution of the United States and is unlawful. See Craig v. Mo. 4 Peters Reports 912. This Court can tread only that path which is marked out by duty. M.V.M.

JEROME DALY had his own information to reveal about this case, which establishes that between his own revealed information and the fact that Justice Martin V. Mahoney was murdered 6 months after he entered the Credit River Decision on the books of the Court, why the case was never legally overturned, nor can it be.

JEROME DALY’S OWN ENTRY

REGARDING JUSTICE MAHONEY’S MEMORANDUM

FORWARD: The above Judgment was entered by the Court on December 9, 1968. The issue there was simple – Nothing in the law gave the Banks the right to create money on their books. The Bank filed a Notice of Appeal within 10 days. The Appeals statutes must be strictly followed, otherwise the District Court does not acquire Jurisdiction upon Appeal. To effect the Appeal the Bank had to deposit $2.00 with the Clerk within 10 days for payment to the Justice when he made his return to the District Court. The Bank deposited two $1.00 Federal Reserve Notes. The Justice refused the Notes and refused to allow the Appeal upon the grounds that the Notes were unlawful and void for any purpose. The Decision is addressed to the legality of these Notes and the Federal Reserve System. The Cases of Edwards v. Kearnzey and Craig vs Missouri set out in the decision should be studied very carefully as they bear on the inviolability of Contracts. This is the Crux of the whole issue.

Jerome Daly

From the Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund

“I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial by strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country.”  — Thomas Jefferson, 1816

“In 1819 in Dartmouth College v. Woodward, the U.S. Supreme Court introduced a distinction between the rights of a public corporation and a private one. The U.S. Constitution’s contract clause did not protect the political powers granted in the charter of a public corporation such as a municipality. State legislatures could, therefore, unilaterally amend or revoke municipal charters and strip a city of authority without the municipality’s consent. But the charter of a private corporation, such as a business enterprise or a privately endowed college, was an inviolate grant of property rights guaranteed by the nation’s Constitution.” — Jon C. Teaford, Municipal Charters

The structure of federal and state law – both statutory and constitutional – empowers corporations to override local democratic decision making.

Since the early 1800s, corporations have gained rights and protections under the United States Constitution.  While we never find the word “corporation” in the Constitution, corporations are able to invoke constitutional “rights” and protections under the Commerce Clause and Contracts Clause, as well as under the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments.

Corporations use these “rights” to challenge state and local laws, and to chill efforts at the local level to fight corporate siting plans.  Thanks to the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in the Dartmouth case in 1819, “private” business corporations first gained constitutional protection from government interference in internal governance, ostensibly under the Contract Clause of the Constitution. Curiously, the court found no reason to similarly protect municipal corporations, such as towns, boroughs, cities and counties from state interference with self-government.

As an example: the Waste Management Corporation was able to successfully sue the State of Virginia under the Commerce Clause to overturn a state law which prohibited the importation of out-of-state waste, arguing that the law interfered with the flow of commerce.  With the First Amendment, we see corporations participating in the writing of our laws and the election of candidates at all levels of government.  Citing the Fifth Amendment “Takings Clause,” the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon (1922), that coal corporations must be compensated for property value lost due to laws protecting homes from mining subsidence.  Under the Fourteenth Amendment, corporations are able to claim equal protection and due process rights.

Charters of incorporation seem to grant special privileges for private wealth, including limited liability protections from legal responsibility by individuals benefiting by dint of this corporate shield, along with the “rights” of pershonhood bestowed by the courts. Any yet charters do not actually grant rights, but rather they deny rights held by all by identifying corporations as a specially protected class under the law.

While corporate charters once privileged all corporations to the degree that the sovereign specified in each individual charter, another outcome of the Dartmouth case was that the federalist judges, lead by John Marshall, created the unprecedented distinction between “private” business corporations and “public” corporations like municipalities. The rights recognized judicially for publicly chartered business corporations were withheld from municipal corporations. This bias toward the “rights of property” (corporations) and against the right to assert self-governance through incorporated municipalities explains how it is that business corporations today dictate governance in our communities. The people are denied authority to “violate the rights” of corporations, and the right to assert self-governance in the communities where they live, using that government closes to them, is denied and usurped.

March 12, 2012
Donna Fike, Butler County Sheriff Brigade

The word sheriff comes from the Anglo-Saxon term, shire reeve. The following definitions are found in the 1913 Webster Dictionary.

Shire n.1.A portion of Great Britain originally under the supervision of an earl; a territorial division, usually identical with a county
Reeve  n.1.an officer, steward, bailiff, or governor; used chiefly in compounds; as, shirereeve, now written sheriff; portreeve, etc.

Sheriff n.1.The chief officer of a shire or county, to whom is intrusted the execution of the laws, the serving of judicial writs and
processes, and the preservation of the peace.

In 1856, John Bouvier published his work A Law Dictionary, Adapted to the Constitution and laws of the United States  He provides us with the following definition of Sheriff:

SHERIFF. The name of the chief officer of the county. In Latin he is called vice comes, because in England he represented the comes or earl. His name is said to be derived from the Saxon seyre, shire or county, and reve, keeper, bailiff, or guardian.

The general duties of the sheriff are, 1st. To keep the peace within the county; he may apprehend, and commit to prison all persons who break the peace or attempt to break it, and bind any one in a recognizance to keep the peace. He is required ex officio, to pursue and take all traitors, murderers, felons and rioters. He has the keeping of the county gaol and he is bound to defend it against all attacks. He may command the posse comitatus. (q. v.)

The office of Sheriff is the oldest law enforcement position in the United States. “When the first counties were established in Virginia in 1634, the Office of Sheriff in America began. Maryland soon followed this pattern, and in both states the Sheriff was delegated the same powers as the Sheriff held in England. As in England, respect for the Sheriff was strictly enforced by the law. A special seat was often reserved for the Sheriff in churches. Contempt against the Sheriff was an offense punishable by whipping. At this time, Sheriffs were responsible for both enforcing and punishing offenders. By the time of the American Revolution, all of the colonies had Sheriffs.” The Sheriffs Office In History

The Sheriffs Power

A sheriff is elected by the people, he works for the people. He is the ONLY elected Law officer of the county, as such he is the Supreme Law officer of the county. He is accountable to “We the People”. Within the boundary of his county the sheriff has more power than the President of the United States. The following example illustrates the power of a sheriff.

The Saga of the Toilet Takers

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Toilet Takers (AT&TT) come to your county and declare it is now illegal to own a toilet. “They” will be removing all toilets from the county this week! The people say; “We don’t want you to take our toilets, we like our toilets.” The AT&TT say; “Too bad we are here to take them!” After some debate about the fact that the Constitution does not prohibit the owning and use of toilets, but instead protects the private ownership of property; thus we are free to have them; the sheriff is called. The people explain to the sheriff the situation and remind him that it is not against the Constitution to own a toilet, and he needs to step in and make “them” go away. It is the responsibility of the Sheriff to protect the people. He has sworn an oath to do just that! He works for the people! He, as the Sheriff, has the power and authority given to him by “The People”, to tell the ‘Toilet Takers’ that ”The People have spoken, they will be keeping their toilets! Now they, the AT&TT, have a choice. They can peacefully leave the county without any toilets or they may sit in the county jail. It is their choice.

“We the people” need to keep in mind that we have a duty to support the Sheriff in the execution of his duty. We need to ‘have his back’. He needs to know that he does not stand alone; that we are standing with him to protect our God given rights as outlined in the Constitution and Bill of Rights. It does not matter what entity comes to violate the rights of the people of the county; whether they be private individuals committing the crime or representatives of some Federal, State, International, or Local government agency. A crime is a crime regardless of what form or color of law the perpetrator may bear. It remains the Sheriff’s duty to work for the people! To “Protect and defend” the Constitution! They swear an Oath to do just that! We need sheriffs in every county that understand their duty and have the intestinal fortitude to follow through and uphold their Oath to the Constitution.
Written by, Donna Fike                    published on butlersheriff.ning.com

_____________________________________________________

The Power of the Sheriff

Jody Fike, Chairman of the Research Committee of the Butler County Sheriff Brigade

The National Sheriff Association booklet: The Role of the Sheriff, Past-Present-Future made the following observation: “(The sheriffs are) vested with the powers and duties possessed by their predecessors under common law.” Neither a legislature nor a court of law possesses any legal authority to strip a sheriff of these common law powers. They may assign him additional duties, provided they do not infringe or violate any of his Constitutional duties which he has sworn to defend and protect.

Another common law power inherent in the sheriffs duty is the ability to call forth the posse comitatus. Historically, this was referred to as “The hue and cry”. This power required all who were within earshot of the sheriffs beckoning call to come forth to his aid.

Blacks Law Dictionary defines the posse comitatus as: “The power or force of the county. The entire population of a county above the age of 15, which a sheriff may summon to his assistance in certain cases as to aid him in keeping the peace, in pursuing and arresting felons, ect.”

After the Brady Bill was passed into law, the BATF (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms) sent letters to the Sheriffs which explained to them, their newly enacted (Unconstitutional) functions. In these letters, the BATF referred to the Sheriffs as the CLEO’s which stands for “CHIEF LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER”. Yes even the Federal Government recognizes the power of the Sheriff! Well perhaps only when it is convenient to them.

Sheriffs in Danger

The sheriffs of this great nation are in danger of losing their power. This comes as a result of the apathy and ignorance of the population at large and the ignorance of many sheriffs regarding the Constitutional Oath they swore and the common law powers they possess.

According to The National Sheriffs Association,“Sheriffs can maneuver through court battles involving a challenge to their authority and come out successfully when they address the legal protections of their office concerning their Constitutional obligations, and no legal system or authority in the United States can challenge it with any legal standing.” The key statement in this quote is “when they address the legal protection of their office concerning their Constitutional obligations.” How many sheriffs understand the Oath to which they swore? This Oath placed them under obligation to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States. How many have studied the Constitution enough to clearly understand their obligation?

The following examples illustrate the nature of the dangers our sheriffs are faced with. Unfortunately, the sheriffs in these examples have already fallen prey to the “powers that think they are” and will answer to them instead of “We the People”. In the following cases, the elected protectorate, the sheriff, has been illegally taken from the local control of the people and placed in a foreign jurisdiction which is incompatible with their original duties.

In Salt Lake County, the new year of 2010 started with the sheriffs department being swallowed up by the new Unified Police Department. The sheriff now sits as the CEO of this new department but he has given up his power and control over all financial and policy decisions to a board of directors. Is it possible that this board of directors could tie the sheriffs hands and prevent him from performing his oath sworn Constitutional duty? This is a prime example of the sheriff and the people to whom he should answer, ignorantly allowing the sheriffs powers to be stripped away. You can read the article about this at Deseret News.com.

In Massachusetts, an even worse tragedy has occurred. On January 1^st of 2010, the seven remaining independent county sheriff departments (what happened to the previous departments?) were placed under the jurisdiction of the State. This came as a result of legislation introduced by the governor which was consequently passed with ease in both houses of the Massachusetts legislature. Of course it was done under the guise of saving tax payers money and it had the support of their county sheriffs departments and the Massachusetts Sheriffs Association. Does the Governor, or the Legislature really have the power to co-opt the autonomous County Sheriffs Department? I answer NO! By doing this, they have usurped the Constitutional, common law power of the people as provided in their original compact of local government. You can read the praise which this decision received in the publication Cape Cod Today.

These previous instances prove that “we the people” need to be awake, alert, educated and active. Likewise, we need to help awaken others, so we can effectively prevent these usurpations from happening and if they have already happened we need to remedy the situations and restore our sheriffs to their proper positions.

Judges That Understand the Power of the Sheriff

Despite the previous examples and numerous court cases which have unlawfully eroded the powers of the sheriff, there is good news to be found. In 1994, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania decided a case which reinforced the original power of the sheriff. You can read the entire decision here. Following are a few of the important quotes.

“History records that, even prior to the Conquest, the sheriff was a powerful officer, with both judicial and executive powers.”

“It is a commonplace that in times going back to the Magna Carta, the sheriff was the chief law enforcement officer of the shire or county.”

“….sheriffs and deputy sheriffs have inherent power and authority to arrest without a warrant for all crimes, however, committed in their presence…”

In another case brought before the Supreme Court of the United States and decided in the year 1997, we find the fact reiterated that the county sheriffs do not work for the Federal Government. This decision also reinforced the fact that the state governments are separate and independent sovereign jurisdictions and thus are “not subject to federal direction.” Justice Scalia writing for the majority stated that “The Federal Government may not compel the states to enact or enforce a federal regulatory program.” I wonder if the Governors of the states know this! Justice Scalia included the following quote from James Madison in this decision.

“In the compound republic of America, the power surrendered by the people is first divided between two distinct governments (federal and state), and then the portion allotted to each subdivided among distinct and separate departments. Hence a double security arises to the rights of the people. The different governments will control each other, at the same time that each will be controlled by itself.” The Federalists #51

The Canada Free Press did an excellent overview of this court decision in their March 22, 2009 edition. Read it here. You can read the entire Supreme Court decision here.

Both litigants, Sheriff Printz of Montana and Sheriff Mack of Arizona need to be applauded for standing up against the usurpations of their power. We need to understand that when their power has been usurped, so has ours!

Sheriffs Taking a Stand!

Besides the previous examples which went to court, Sheriff Mack and other sheriffs have been bravely standing up for that which is right.The following account comes from an article written by Alan Stang in News With Views.Com.

“While Richard Mack was sheriff of Graham County, Arizona, a bridge washed out. Parents had to drive twenty six miles to get their kids to school half a mile across the river. But the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers wouldn’t fix it. First they had to do an “environmental impact study,” to replace a bridge already there. They were in no hurry. The study would take a mere ten years.

The people’s suffering reached the board of supervisors. The board voted to dredge the river and fix the bridge. The feds warned that they would be fined $50,000 per day if they tried. The supervisors hesitated. Sheriff Mack promised them and the workers protection and pledged to call out a posse for the purpose if necessary. They built the bridge and the Corps of Engineers faded. The board never paid a dime.”

The next two examples are taken from Sheriff Macks book County Sheriff, America’s Last Hope.

“The sheriff of Nye County, Nevada, in 1997 informed federal agents who came in to confiscate cattle from a local rancher, Wayne Hague, that if they tried to take the cows that he would arrest them. The cattle stayed right where they were. Then the Sheriffs of Wyoming made a policy that ALL federal agents would have to check with them before they could make arrests, serve papers, or confiscate property within their respective jurisdictions of Wyoming. This should be a law throughout the land and is a tremendous check and balance for all involved. What’s more, it is working and the feds are surviving just fine. Better yet, the citizens of Wyoming are surviving and getting along just fine, also.”

In February of 2010, a brave Colorado sheriff who understood his power and duty, stood up against the recently implemented gun ban at Colorado State University.

“I have told the CSU police chief I will not support this in any way,” Sheriff Alderden told The Gazette. “If anyone with one of my permits gets arrested for concealed carry at CSU, I will refuse to book that person into my jail. Furthermore, I will show up at court and testify on that person’s behalf, and I will do whatever I can to discourage a conviction. I will not be a party to this very poor decision.”

Thank you Sheriff Alderden for taking a stand! The people do have an inherent right to defend themselves against dangerous aggressors! You can read more about this occurrence in the Colorado Springs Gazette.

State Legislatures Supporting the Sheriffs

Legislation was introduced into the Montana State legislature which would in effect give recognition from this body of law that the county sheriff is indeed the chief law enforcement officer in his county. In addition, it states that “A federal employee…..may not make an arrest, search, or seizure in this State without the written permission of the sheriff….” Furthermore, it declares: “Pursuant to the 10th amendment to the United States constitution and this state’s compact with the other states, the legislature declares that any federal law purporting to give federal employees the authority of a county sheriff in this state is not recognized by and is specifically rejected by this state and is declared to be invalid in this state.”
Click here to read Montana House Bill 284

This legislation has since been used as a model and has been introduced in several other state legislatures. Namely, the states of Alabama, Tennessee and Washington. To learn more and keep up to date with the progress of this important effort, please visit the Tenth Amendment Center.

Wrapping It Up

Please become involved in this effort to restore the supremacy of the Constitution of the United States within the borders of your county and state. It is important that your God given rights, which have been recognized and declared in the Bill of Rights, receive the full protection of law, which your duly elected sheriff is oath bound to obey. Get to know your sheriff. If needs be educate him by sharing with him articles, stories or books about the proper role of the sheriff. Share with him this overview of his powers and duties. Don’t overwhelm him with too much at once. Talk to your legislatures about introducing or supporting legislation like the Montana House Bill 284 which reinforces the sheriffs proper powers within his jurisdiction. Give them copies of Sheriff Macks book County Sheriff, America’s Last Hope . Start a web site and or a local group of concerned citizens to assist with this effort. The same person chewing on your sheriffs ear will not be nearly as effective as a large group of concerned citizens. Finally, If or when your sheriff needs to draw that proverbial line in the sand, he will not want to be alone holding that line. He will act much more confidently and courageously when he knows that we are willing to stand with him. Lets do our part to preserve Liberty for ourselves and future generations!

Compiled and written by Jody Fike
Chairman of the Research Committee of the Butler County Sheriff Brigade

______________________________________________________

TheButler County Sheriff Brigade is a local group of men and women who are offering their support and assistance to the sheriff. The group is active in getting to know the sheriff and his deputies. They help the sheriff learn about Constitutional principles and his power and duty under the common law. They are also active in attending County Commissioner meetings and writing letters to the Editor of local papers. Their purpose is to promote Constitutional government in the county and to give popular support to the sheriff. Ultimately, we as a group are working towards becoming better prepared to come to the aid of our sheriff when he makes the call.
http://bcsbrigade.com/ThePoweroftheSheriff.aspx

The WTO is the local food movement’s mortal enemy!!

Here is yet one more example that globalization – and food centralization – is harmful to both the people and the animals that call this planet home. This time the WTO wishes to over-ride Congress and enforce trade ‘agreements’ that the people are not a party to.

The World Trade Organization is an unelected body that represents multi-national corporations like Monsanto and their GMO Frankenfood.

What is The World Trade Organization?

The World Trade Organization was created in 1994 as the successor organization to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) and represents 146 countries in an effort to globalize commerce. All the major countries are included, China only recently and with the United States as the dominating factor. This is the world court of trade where mega-buck arguments on everything from restrictions on imports and e-commerce issues are debated and settled and rules are made. They are coming together in order to implement treaties among member nations that would liberalize and eventually eliminate tariffs and other restrictions on trade in various sectors of the world economy. It is modeled after the North American Free Trade Agreement. Those in favor of this economic one world order see it as a way to boost the world’s economy by liberalizing trade barriers. Those against the WTO sees it as an exploitative, oppressive system of world domination that takes away worker’s rights, weakening consumer and public health, despoiling the environment, enslaving workers around the world and usurping the rights of each country to make its own trade laws. It has been likened to public interest laws simply being flushed down the toilet. The beast is roaring. Each location where meetings are being held are called “rounds.” Since 1948, there have been nine rounds of global-trade talks.

Once a nation surrenders its food sovereignty, the people can easily be starved into accepting the Global Domination Agenda.

Related

Scientists under attack – GMO exposed!

___________________________________________________

Dr. Henry Kissinger (Rockefeller toady, globalist and Club of Rome member):

“Who controls the food supply controls the people;
who controls the energy can control whole continents;
who controls money can control the world.”

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

Part 4

Part 5

Part 6

Related

Will the Real Economic Hitmen Please Stand Up?

Sherman Skolnick; The Bush Family, Florida, and the American CIA

Excerpt:
Jointly with his father and the American CIA, Jeb Bush used these enterprises as a reputed massive money laundry for illicit funds, including funds for bloody dirty tricks of the spy agency, such as overthrowing foreign governments deemed unworthy or unfriendly to the spy shop and, on occasion, assassinating foreign leaders. Reportedly participating in these schemes has been Porter J. Goss, more recently a Congressman (R., Florida), and previously a covert operations officer of the American CIA. Also interwoven with these fraudulent enterprises has been Henry Hyde, Congressman from Chicago suburbs. In violation of the U.S. Constitution’s mandate of Separation of Powers, Hyde is also head of the CIA’s “black budget” using the dope trafficking proceeds to finance dirty tricks. Hyde was supervising authority of the Mena, Arkansas airport dope trafficking for CIA, jointly with George Herbert Walker Bush, Ollie North, and William Rockefeller Clinton.

Clinton Body Count