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 2500 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 unwarranted personal attacks. Use the golden rule; "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

Saturday, February 6, 2016

Nepotism and corruption in the Hammond case? Can Anybody refute this?

Subject: Fw: this is how it works...
Date: Tue, 2 Feb 2016 03:26:59 +0000
These articles both appeared on the Shasta Lantern website.

 This is the way government operates. They can't make it on merit of a case or law, so they have to rig the deal. Just like the ambush. Have Obama state that he is sending in his best crisis negotiator and then he laughs as they carry out the ambush and commit murder. That is how he negotiates. Now all they have to do is alter all the evidence, that they control, to fit the script that they released to the media.

 Power Corrupts Absolutely: Ties that Bind Run Deep with Aiken Family in Hammond Case

 by Red Smith · January 26, 2016


 Ann Aiken, Chief Judge of the United States District Court of Oregon 9th Circuit, is no stranger to accusations of inappropriate relationships regarding her Courtroom. She is not a stranger to willfully failing to disclose those relationships and has even allegedly illegally ruled in her own favor to attempt to hide those relationships. In one recent complaint filing, a visiting out-of-circuit judge was requested by motion because the Defendants, including Ninth Circuit judges who are a member of the Oregon State Bar, had several political, business and social ties to Judge Aiken who was to be the presiding judge in the case. These ties constituted a very real potential conflict of interest against the Plaintiff’s interests. There are specific guidelines to be followed when requesting inter-circuit visiting judges and Judge Aiken refused to follow those requirements. Only the Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court may decide such matters and Judge Aiken refused to follow those guidelines and the federal statute by ruling on these matters herself. Judge Aiken ruled on the motion against her in her own favor. Already brought to light is Judge Aiken’s potential inappropriate working relationship with Hammond terrorism re-sentencing lead prosecutor Amanda Marshall. Prior to being appointed U.S. District Attorney Amanda Marshall worked for the Oregon Department of Justice in Child Advocacy Services, a State Agency overseen by the Child Advocacy Services Board, a Board Judge Aiken has been President of since 1998. Judge Aiken was the Chief Justice that oversaw Amanda Marshall’s Oath of Office and swearing in and in conclusion to that ceremony instructed Marshall to “now hit the ground running”.
Judge Aiken was also the presiding Judge in a 2006 case

FBI and Oregon Police Killed a Political Dissident - by Tim Baldwin

Tim Baldwin is a son of Chuck Baldwin, and I know him personally. We don't always agree, but this time I think he got it right BIG TIME.

As an introduction to my thoughts on Lavoy Finnicum's killing in Burns, Oregon, consider my article published in the Flathead Beacon's Two For Thought weekly Opinion section:

The FBI and Oregon police killed a rancher, Lavoy Finicum, last week. Lavoy joined Ammon Bundy, among others, for three weeks in occupying a refuge on public lands in Burns. Like many Americans, the occupiers believed BLM had been long abusing power. Police released one video of the incident (but not other pertinent surveillance). Was this killing lawful? 

Under the Fourth Amendment, police who use deadly force have a burden to prove their actions were objectively reasonable in light of the facts and circumstances confronting them based on the totality of the circumstances.

Regardless of  one’s view of the occupation, the video raises issues regarding police’ actions: (1) Why block the highway in nowhere-ville? (2) Why use snipers and a dozen-plus officers? (3) Why not use spike strips to stop him? (4) When exactly was Lavoy likely to harm police?—when shot, Lavoy was facing no police, could barely walk in deep snow and held no gun. (5) Lavoy had not just committed a dangerous felony and fleeing therefrom. (6) Police had prior opportunities to serve an arrest warrant in a safe manner. (7) Why immediately rush Lavoy and spark conflict rather than contain the area and determine his actions?

The occupiers did not convince the greater part of society to aid them, given their seeming “state of war” approach. Still, if our laws can condemn Lavoy, they can also condemn police.

In fairness, there are some who are not normally forgiving to government abuse but believe police were justified in killing Lavoy: one such notable viewpoint on this incident is my dad, Chuck BaldwinI, on the other hand, believe the video suggests that police were not justified in killing Lavoy when they did--even assuming he had a pistol inside his jacket and was reaching for it.

Read the rest on Tim's website here:

Are You Aware - This is crucial for Ammon Bundy

This letter was sent late this afternoon to Ammon Bundy's attorney.  I believe Mike Arnold is a well-intentioned man, but like most American Lawyers, he probably hasn't ever been taught these facts.  So I told him and left the door open for him to ask more and to do the right thing in securing the release of all those who were attacked by the FBI  in Oregon for lack of jurisdiction.



To Mike at the Arnold Lawfirm

From Judge Anna Maria Riezinger,

Most lawyers trained in American law schools in the past fifty years have NOT been trained about land jurisdiction, nor have they been properly trained about the jurisdiction of the air, either.  

But prior to that time, those who are now late 70's, 80's, and 90's knew the Federal System and knew it well. 

Ammon Bundy is being mischaracterized as a "Domestic Terrorist"--- "Domestic" that is, with respect to the Federal United States, but he is not now and never was a Federal United States Citizen.  He is a native of the Continental United States. The false presumption otherwise was created by fraud against him and his parents when he was just a baby to enrich the British Crown Corporation and pump up the war effort during WWII. After WWII they just continued press-ganging Americans into the foreign international jurisdiction of the sea.  That fraud is about to come down on top of the perpetrators 

You would do well to avoid any implication in their misdeeds.

Ammon Bundy has never knowingly or willingly operated as a "person" in his life.  He has never operated a merchant marine vessel in any capacity whatsoever. He never knowingly volunteered to be a franchisee or sought any benefit of incorporation. Any action taken against him on the basis of these absurd and self-interested presumptions is an act of personage and those bringing these charges against him are actively involved----whether they know it or not--- in barratry.

He is a plain old American Rancher and his Constitutional guarantees are being violated.  Now that you know these facts it is up to you to bring it to the attention of your brethren in the court and to stop this travesty in its tracks.

As you will see if you look at Amendment VII of the Constitution of the United States (which says verbatim the same as the actual Constitution through Amendment 12) you will see that living people are owed Common Law and Ammon Bundy is owed Common Law and a trial by jury of his peers--- meaning men and women like him who are aware of their guarantees and their position as "free sovereign and independent people of the United States" ---- not British Subject "inhabitants" here to provide essential governmental services.  

Ammon and his co-defendants are not subject to the jurisdiction of the sea nor to any "Special Admiralty" court venue.  They are non-Domestic, non-resident aliens with respect to you and your entire Court System and you have been duly advised. We require actual justice, not just an appearance thereof.

You've agreed to be his attorney, but you can't be his attorney because you are a Bar Member. At best you can be a faithful Counselor, but I doubt that the Court will pay your share of the performance bonds if you do.  

I know you don't want to hear this, but it is true. Your United States Grand Jury is welcome to bring an indictment against the Bundy family and our Federal Grand Jury is welcome to bring an indictment against all the foreign agents masquerading as "FBI" and "BLM" and also against those members of the "US District" Court System who are pretending to be operating within their charter. 

I will leave it to you to figure out whether the tail really wags the dog or not.  We are here to answer any questions you might have.

Judge Anna Maria Riezinger


---------------------------------------

See this article and over 100 others on Anna's website here:www.annavonreitz.com