Are you looking for Solutions for America in Distress

You are in the right place to find out about what is really going on behind the scenes in the patriot movement in America, including solutions from Oathkeepers, Anna Von Reitz, Constitutional Sheriffs, Richard Mack, and many more people who are leading the charge to restore America to freedom and peace. Please search on the right for over 8400 articles.
You will find some conflicting views from some of these authors. You will also find that all the authors are deeply concerned about the future of America. What they write is their own opinion, just as what I write is my own. If you have an opinion on a particular article, please comment by clicking the title of the article and scrolling to the box at the bottom on that page. Please keep the discussion about the issues, and keep it civil. The administrator reserves the right to remove any comment for any reason by anyone. Use the golden rule; "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." Additionally we do not allow comments with advertising links in them for your products. When you post a comment, it is in the public domain. You have no copyright that can be enforced against any other individual who comments here! Do not attempt to copyright your comments. If that is not to your liking please do not comment. Any attempt to copyright a comment will be deleted. Copyright is a legal term that means the creator of original content. This does not include ideas. You are not an author of articles on this blog. Your comments are deemed donated to the public domain. They will be considered "fair use" on this blog. People donate to this blog because of what Anna writes and what Paul writes, not what the people commenting write. We are not using your comments. You are putting them in the public domain when you comment. What you write in the comments is your opinion only. This comment section is not a court of law. Do not attempt to publish any kind of "affidavit" in the comments. Any such attempt will also be summarily deleted. Comments containing foul language will be deleted no matter what is said in the comment.

Tuesday, May 10, 2016

Las Vegas, Nevada, May 10, 2016 – Attorney Larry Klayman: Cliven Bundy Sues —

Voila_Capture 2016-05-09_10-27-58_PM.jpg

On May 9, 2016, at 9:08 PM, Attorney Larry Klayman wrote:

Press conference to follow detention hearing at 10:00 a.m. in Las Vegas federal court (held on court house steps)
Cliven Bundy Sues Federal Judge Gloria Navarro, Senator Harry Reid, Rory Reid And President Obama For Violating His Constitutional Rights
Asks For Dismissal Of Indictment And Release From Solitary Confinement
(Las Vegas, Nevada, May 10, 2016). Today, Cliven Bundy filed a complaint against U.S. District Court Judge Gloria Navarro, U.S. Senator Harry Reid, the son of Harry Reid, Rory Reid and President Barack Obama for allegedly violating his Sixth Amendment Right to Counsel and For Speedy Trial, Eighth Amendment Right Against Cruel and Unusual Punishment (Mr. Bundy is currently being held in solitary confinement), Second Amendment Right to Bear Arms in Self-Defense, and First Amendment Right to Assemble in Self-Defense. The complaint can be found at
The complaint asks the Court to dismiss the indictment against Cliven Bundy and release him from prison and solitary confinement.
Cliven Bundy’s attorneys will discuss the complaint following the hearing at 10:00 a.m. on the courthouse steps.
For more information, contact or (424) 274 2579.
View complaint:


  1. I'll pray for Mr. Bundy, but except for divine intervention, highly doubt this he will prevail. Firt...he hired an attorney, and as well meaning as the attorney may be, Mr. Bundy is now deemed to be incompetent and a ward of the State, so the "judge" can do whatever she pleases. Second, unless Mr. Bundy has separated himself from all presumptions he is a U.S. citizen, then he is one in their system, and those citizens have no constitutionally secured rights. Third...unless Mr. Bundy has filed an affidavit of non-corporate status, the presumption is that he is a corporation or stands as surety for one. Possibly the man re-presenting Mr. Bundy is a lawyer and not an attorney with a BAR card, and if so, then there is a chance.

    1. James 5:12 instructs above all things take no oath, or fall under condemnation. Our parent's marriage licenses, our birth certificates are just the beginning of the myriad oaths taken for and by us. We have been under condemnation since the instant the oaths were made. The legal system is a fuzzy iteration of mosaic law, which is a fuzzy iteration of the knowledge of good and evil, which was brought to us by the king of this world. The dust and water of which the flesh is made belong to him. We will shed the flesh and return the dust and water to him. Are any of us clever enough to untangle the oaths taken in our names? Also, do we even need names to interact with our most high father, or is the name just an accounting instrument for the beast's utility?

  2. Difference Between an Attorney and a Lawyer:

    An attorney or attorney at law is also a lawyer. Attorneys by definition have passed a 'bar' examination and have been admitted to practice law in the particular jurisdiction. They may go beyond the realm of lawyer and provide legal representation to an individual.

    I pray Cliven Bundy is wisely guided to victory since the oath, pledge, and terms of allegiance by all Bar Association licensed Attorneys is made to the Jesuit’s Crown Temple not to we the people.

  3. WOW the out of this world comments in here
    first we are citizens regardless of your definitions however we are sovereign individuals under each separate state constitutions.
    mr bundy needed to file under Title 18 USC 214, an 242, and CIVIL RICO in order to achieve protection under these statutes because it is the jury of those civil cases whom decides what punishment is meted out to the guilty defendants as his complaint is written he will not get no relief

  4. Princess
    Paul would you post this comment please.

    According to judge anna, there are two jurisdictions at work in the constitution. Land and Sea
    Living people are on the land. Legal fictions are created as substitutes for living people this is a crime called personage. Legal fictions are corporations like trusts, public utilities and I forget the third. These legal fictions are on the sea jurisdiction. elizabeth arden, a living woman, is created as ELIZABETH ARDEN (INC) a form of corporation .

    False claims and charges are created by bar card attorneys, due to personage, against ELIZABETH ARDEN not elizabeth arden so that the statutes of the foreign jurisdiction (sea) can be used against living woman elizabeth arden (land) . This is the crime of barratry.

    cliven bundy, the living man, is suing from the land jurisdiction but using an attorney from the sea jurisdiction. This means that living man, cliven bundy, plaintiff, cannot sue. But CLIVEN BUNDY, the legal fiction created for cliven bundy, the living man, can. How can this work? How can cliven of the land jurisdiction go into the sea jurisdiction as CLIVEN and expect to win? ANY statutes used in the charges against him are foreign statutes not applicable to cliven but very applicable to CLIVEN. I don't see how CLIVEN can win with the foxes guarding the hen house. Do you?

    What is the proper way to get the sea jurisdiction off the land jurisdiction and gone? Bye Bye. I do not know.

    Judge Anna says that miliken exparte is the case that shows that the sea jurisdiction military commissions (military courts) cannot legally exist as long as there are common law courts in operation. Milliken indeed does say that.
    She also says that the sea jurisdiction (DC) does not have to provide those land courts (common law) for the living people. The constitution does not command the sea jurisdiction to do that. That the living people have to create this court system for themselves. I have been waiting for the government (DC) to stop hiding them from us. That is how much I know. Nada.

    It makes sense since what is not authorized by the constitution, the federal government (DC) cannot do.

    That said, this government created by the constitution must stay within the ten miles square article 1 section 8 clause 17 of the original constitution, except for needful buildings fortes, magazines. So how does this sea jurisdiction (DC) get the nerve to operate courts on the land jurisdiction? Is it because the people do not know? Do not know that DC is not authorized to set up land courts (common law) for the people and they will wait forever for these courts to be handed to them by the sea jurisdiction.
    Now that we know the laws of the sea and the laws of the land are different.
    Now that we know that the sea has no authority to tell the land
    what to do unless mandated in the constitution, it makes sense that there is a crime at work here, and now we know that it is the crime of personage and the crime of barratry that has fooled the clivens into thinking that CLIVENs are the same and that all the clivens are subject to CLIVEN's statutes. Big mistake. Who knew?

    All that said, it doesn't explain why the common law court that was operating on the land jurisdiction in Colorado (I think) was shut down by the sea jurisdiction years back.

  5. Robert Gavett May 10th 2016

    I don't fully understand how the common law works, but I have reasoned about how we might get redress in common law courts. The thought occurs to me that cliven might perhaps need to sue the man, all lower case, charging said man with acting under color of law by his act of playing the role of the office of Judge and causing cliven an injury by so acting. Let's face it, we all live our lives as actors, but we do not all play roles that cause injury to our fellow beings.

    I believe the currently accepted rules of court cover the common law actions as well as the corporate actions, wherein said rules spell out the procedure for the suit, any suit. I believe the procedure for the suit might be to mail the claim to the accused directly, requiring him directly to you, giving him the time to answer as required by the rules, in rebuttal to your stated facts; whereas, it is your court, [see definition of 'court' in Blacks, "… person and suit of the sovereign …"], and then claiming the default when he is unable to deny he did injure you by performing as that Actor. The suit should not be more than one page if only your Rules and the facts are stated; and, no adjectives should be used in the claim to define the injuries, such as saying 'did unlawfully do such and such', because to do so is to have already decided the case and left nothing for the jury to consider but the lawfulness of his actions, not whether or not you were inured; and, considering the ignorance of todays people about Law, you would probably be shooting yourself in the foot if you did so. Neither should any statutes be mentioned, as they relate to the corporate courts.

    As regards getting a number for the suit, I believe one should be able to get the sheriff to assign a number, whereas he is the highest common law judicial officer on the county. If the accused should attempt to deny or rebut your claim, then I believe it would be the duty for the sheriff to form a jury of your peers to decide the case. The earlier western movies used the methods like I have described above; and, like in “The Matrix” and The Wizard of Oz”, many truths are exposed for those who have eyes to see.

    What are your thoughts? Contact me if either you can further enlighten me about the common law or you have determined I am off point. I need some people to analyze these points with.


Place your comment. The moderator will review it after it is published. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason.