Civil Action against Politicians

[DirtyDeeds]

Hi Folks,

Re: 42 U.S. Code § 1983 - Civil action for deprivation of rights.

Since we've had a great deal of recent clarification on what our Constitutional Rights actually entail - has anyone tried to hold the politicians personally responsible?

Regards,
Scott

 

[libertysnake]

Hi Folks,

Re: 42 U.S. Code § 1983 - Civil action for deprivation of rights.

Since we've had a great deal of recent clarification on what our Constitutional Rights actually entail - has anyone tried to hold the politicians personally responsible?

Regards,
Scott

The problem is they'll never give into the result, even if charges are brought. They don't work on laws.

But they do respond to money. Economic means are the only answer. Make the wallets of their backers hurt, and then you make them hurt.

 

[Sunshine Patriot]

“The Lesser Magistrate Doctrine teaches that when the superior or higher ranking civil authority makes unjust/immoral law, policy, or court opinion – the lower or lesser ranking civil authority has both the God-given right and duty to refuse obedience to that superior authority; and if necessary, actively resist the superior authority.

When someone in authority makes laws or decrees contrary to God’s law, they are in rebellion to God’s rule. Those under their authority are NOT to obey them when they do this. They may even have to actively resist them.”

What is the Lesser Magistrate Doctrine?

<strong>The Lesser Magistrate Doctrine</strong> teaches that when the superior or higher ranking civil authority makes immoral/unjust laws or policies, the lower or lesser ranking civil authority has both a right and duty to refuse obedience to that superior authority.

defytyrants.com

 

[Saltwater60]

It’s not against politicians as they are all exempt and all you’ll do at best is get some tax payer money.

 

[Grimscale]

Exemption does not apply to the willful, deliberate, and malicious deprivation of Rights.

If it did, then maybe "it's time"?

 

[TEOTWAWKI inc.]

Civil action?

There should be absolutely NOTHING civil about it at this point.

 

[whatwasithinking]

Tax Revolt ... it's the only effective way to punish a politician or bureaucrat. Hit them where it really hurts. If you can't vote them out (because they steal the vote), then starve them out.

 

[Defilade]

“The state citizen is immune from any and all government attacks and procedure, absent contract.” see, Dred Scott vs. Sanford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393 or as the Supreme Court has stated clearly, “…every man is independent of all laws, except those prescribed by nature. He is not bound by any institutions formed by his fellowmen without his consent.”

CRUDEN vs. NEALE, 2 N.C. 338 2 S.E. 70 "in common usage, the term "person" does not include the Sovereign, statutes employing the person are ordinarily construed to exclude the Sovereign." Wilson v. Omaha Tribe, 442 U.S. 653, 667 (1979) (quoting United States v. Cooper Corp., 312 U.S. 600, 604 (1941)). See also United States v. Mine Workers, 330 U.S. 258, 275 (1947).

The idea that the word "person" ordinarily excludes the Sovereign can also be traced to the "familiar principle that the King is not bound by any act of Parliament unless he be named therein by special and particular words." Dollar Savings Bank v. United States, 19 Wall. 227, 239 (1874). As this passage suggests, however, this interpretive principle applies only to "the enacting Sovereign." United States v. California, 297 U.S. 175, 186 (1936). See also Jefferson County Pharmaceutical Assn., Inc. v. Abbott Laboratories, 460 U.S. 150, 161, n. 21 (1983). Furthermore, as explained in United States v. Herron, 20 Wall. 251, 255 (1874), even the principle as applied to the enacting Sovereign is not without limitations: "Where an act of Parliament is made for the public good, as for the advancement of religion and justice or to prevent injury and wrong, the king is bound by such act, though not particularly named therein; but where a statute is general, and thereby any prerogative, Right, title, or interest is divested or taken from the king, in such case the king is not bound, unless the statute is made to extend to him by express words." U.S. Supreme Court Justice Holmes explained:

"A Sovereign is exempt from suit, not because of any formal conception or obsolete theory, but on the logical and practical ground that there can be no legal Right as against the authority that makes the law on which the Right depends." Kawananakoa v. Polyblank, 205 U.S. 349, 353, 27 S. Ct. 526, 527, 51 L. Ed. 834 (1907). McNally v. U.S., 483 U.S. 350, 371-372 (1987), Quoting U.S. v. Holzer, 816 F.2d. 304, 307: “Fraud in its elementary common law sense of deceit – and this is one of the meanings that fraud bears in the statute, see United States v. Dial, 757 F.2d 163, 168 (7th Cir. 1985) – includes the deliberate concealment of material information in a setting of fiduciary obligation. A public official is a fiduciary toward the public, including, in the case of a judge, the litigants who appear before him, and if he deliberately conceals material information from them he is guilty of fraud.

 

[TEOTWAWKI inc.]

 

[Sunshine Patriot]

“The state citizen is immune from any and all government attacks and procedure, absent contract.” see, Dred Scott vs. Sanford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393 or as the Supreme Court has stated clearly, “…every man is independent of all laws, except those prescribed by nature. He is not bound by any institutions formed by his fellowmen without his consent.”

CRUDEN vs. NEALE, 2 N.C. 338 2 S.E. 70 "in common usage, the term "person" does not include the Sovereign, statutes employing the person are ordinarily construed to exclude the Sovereign." Wilson v. Omaha Tribe, 442 U.S. 653, 667 (1979) (quoting United States v. Cooper Corp., 312 U.S. 600, 604 (1941)). See also United States v. Mine Workers, 330 U.S. 258, 275 (1947).

The idea that the word "person" ordinarily excludes the Sovereign can also be traced to the "familiar principle that the King is not bound by any act of Parliament unless he be named therein by special and particular words." Dollar Savings Bank v. United States, 19 Wall. 227, 239 (1874). As this passage suggests, however, this interpretive principle applies only to "the enacting Sovereign." United States v. California, 297 U.S. 175, 186 (1936). See also Jefferson County Pharmaceutical Assn., Inc. v. Abbott Laboratories, 460 U.S. 150, 161, n. 21 (1983). Furthermore, as explained in United States v. Herron, 20 Wall. 251, 255 (1874), even the principle as applied to the enacting Sovereign is not without limitations: "Where an act of Parliament is made for the public good, as for the advancement of religion and justice or to prevent injury and wrong, the king is bound by such act, though not particularly named therein; but where a statute is general, and thereby any prerogative, Right, title, or interest is divested or taken from the king, in such case the king is not bound, unless the statute is made to extend to him by express words." U.S. Supreme Court Justice Holmes explained:

"A Sovereign is exempt from suit, not because of any formal conception or obsolete theory, but on the logical and practical ground that there can be no legal Right as against the authority that makes the law on which the Right depends." Kawananakoa v. Polyblank, 205 U.S. 349, 353, 27 S. Ct. 526, 527, 51 L. Ed. 834 (1907). McNally v. U.S., 483 U.S. 350, 371-372 (1987), Quoting U.S. v. Holzer, 816 F.2d. 304, 307: “Fraud in its elementary common law sense of deceit – and this is one of the meanings that fraud bears in the statute, see United States v. Dial, 757 F.2d 163, 168 (7th Cir. 1985) – includes the deliberate concealment of material information in a setting of fiduciary obligation. A public official is a fiduciary toward the public, including, in the case of a judge, the litigants who appear before him, and if he deliberately conceals material information from them he is guilty of fraud.

And the above follows the 10th Amendment regarding "sovereign.".

 

[Apeman]

Tax Revolt ... it's the only effective way to punish a politician or bureaucrat. Hit them where it really hurts. If you can't vote them out (because they steal the vote), then starve them out.

Good luck with that. If you don't pay voluntarily then they'll take it from you. They'll take it out of your wages. If you quit working they eventually seize your property. I'm not saying they're right in doing those things but they will get their money one way or another

 

[Defilade]

And the above follows the 10th Amendment regarding "sovereign.".

Exactly right!

 

[whatwasithinking]

Good luck with that. If you don't pay voluntarily then they'll take it from you. They'll take it out of your wages. If you quit working they eventually seize your property. I'm not saying they're right in doing those things but they will get their money one way or another

Normally that would be true, but things are alot different now in a post-covid world. Especially when the truth is finally coming out in the open. Governments have over-reached, overreacted, trampled on civil liberties and basic human rights. They broke the very basic social contract between citizens and their government.

They perpetrated fraud on the citizenry, but when the citizens are afraid to act, well then that's tyranny.

 

[Defilade]

Example right here..

http://ruleoflawradio.com/Governor%20Criminal%20Complaint.pdf

 

[Drinkthekoolaid]

For those who have never heard this story, perhaps it will be interesting to learn

Battle of Athens (1946) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Celt]

Hi Folks,

Re: 42 U.S. Code § 1983 - Civil action for deprivation of rights.

Since we've had a great deal of recent clarification on what our Constitutional Rights actually entail - has anyone tried to hold the politicians personally responsible?

Regards,
Scott

I'm glad you posted this, I was actually thinking this exact thing, and considered posting a similar topic myself, after reading how the second circuit put a stay on the tro for the ccia.

 

[Celt]

For those who have never heard this story, perhaps it will be interesting to learn

Battle of Athens (1946) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

There's a great short movie on this you can find on YouTube. I watch it every so often as a good reminder.

 

[Drinkthekoolaid]

There's a great short movie on this you can find on YouTube. I watch it every so often as a good reminder.

Link it if you find, I would be interested to watch it

 

[Defilade]

Link it if you find, I would be interested to watch it

 

[Acer-m14]

short version ..

 

[Acer-m14]

"A Federal District Court in West Virginia threw out a criminal charge under 18 USC 922k because the law violated the Second Amendment. The US Government failed to demonstrate an appropriate historical analogue reflecting that the modern gun control law banning the possession of firearms with an obliterated serial number. Thus, criminal charge was dismissed but court did allow criminal charge for being a felon in possession to move forward. "

So the USC codes are only to be used on us peasants and they may get tossed out ..

but we can't use the USC codes on the elite in charge .. Like

18 U.S. Code § 241 - Conspiracy against rights

www.law.cornell.edu

18 U.S. Code § 242 - Deprivation of rights under color of law

 

[spat]

Tax Revolt ... it's the only effective way to punish a politician or bureaucrat. Hit them where it really hurts. If you can't vote them out (because they steal the vote), then starve them out.

They don't need your taxes.

The feds can print money.

It's a myth that the federal government is funded by taxes, it is not.

The state and local governments are largely funded by "grants" from the feds with endless strings attached.

If there was a 100% tax revolt, the feds would continue to print money to fund all the institutions they use to control people. They would send money to the states to make up what they were missing as well.

The legitimate purpose of taxes is to remove money from the economy to counter the inflationary pressure all that money printing causes.

That the government gets to use the tax policy to control people is an abomination against the principles the country was founded on.

 

[DirtyDeeds]

Hi Folks,

Thanks for the responses.

I'm not a lawyer - just a thought from our oppositions' playbook. As we've seen lately - when one unconstitutional gun law gets stopped - they just create a new one to start the process all over again.

Thinking outside the box - would it be possible to make a "boiler plate" lawsuit to challenge these politician's personally with Civil Litigation? Just a standard "form" lawsuit (PDF) where individuals could plug in our own data and file it against the politician's trampling our rights? If we could get some basic guidance on how to file without a lawyer (to avoid the expense) - then - even if denied - the politicians would need to respond to each and every one? Even if only a few thousand people do it - it would sure make life a little less pleasant for the official in question and would be sure to generate some news.

Regards,
Scott

 

[whatwasithinking]

I'm going to take a step further away from the proverbial box and simply state this is all just "lawfare". I get the sinking feeling that we are just spinning our wheels against a political class that is using the judicial system against us.

Stepping further away from the box, it's my opinion and belief that our politicians were installed through fraudulent elections.



This calls into question every piece of legislation that Albany and every county legislature has passed. The real question is how far back does it go.

 

[TEOTWAWKI inc.]

The real question is how far back does it go.

ALL the way back, I fear.

 

[meketrefe]

why a politician cannot be held accountable for negligence and errors that result in extreme hardship, injury or worse but any other citizen does not have that privilege?

 

[Acer-m14]

Hi Folks,

Thanks for the responses.

I'm not a lawyer - just a thought from our oppositions' playbook. As we've seen lately - when one unconstitutional gun law gets stopped - they just create a new one to start the process all over again.

Thinking outside the box - would it be possible to make a "boiler plate" lawsuit to challenge these politician's personally with Civil Litigation? Just a standard "form" lawsuit (PDF) where individuals could plug in our own data and file it against the politician's trampling our rights? If we could get some basic guidance on how to file without a lawyer (to avoid the expense) - then - even if denied - the politicians would need to respond to each and every one? Even if only a few thousand people do it - it would sure make life a little less pleasant for the official in question and would be sure to generate some news.

Regards,
Scott

this could be a starting point .. and for the defendant do not use there title .. like Governor .. use there personal name only

Letter of Intent to Sue (with Settlement Demand) | Sample

A letter of intent to sue notifies a defendant that a lawsuit may be filed against them in court if demands are not met. The letter will summarize the alleged...

eforms.com

 

[Defilade]

View attachment common law.MP4

 

[whatwasithinking]

View attachment 176483

Ssooo ... this opens up a huge can of worms. For starters I can see that this basically nullifies just about everything the state and county legislature have passed to regulate private citizens.

 

[Jsmegs77]

ALL the way back, I fear.

I’d be willing to say that, from my political standpoint, the decline really started to be evident in the decade or so prior to the civil war. The ball has been rolling down hill and gaining speed tremendously since then, certainly.