The Law




Amy Goodman Interviews Naomi Wolf about Fascist America

Created by Socusoft Web Video Player

Order full version now to remove watermark logo

The Constitution of the United States is "the supreme Law of the land."  That means that any so-called "law" that contradicts it is "null and void."  Courts have ruled that juries can legally find parties not guilty of breaking a "law" that is unconstitutional even though they actually did commit an act.

So, if a State does violate the U.S. Constitution by giving up their sovereignty, so that would be under federal dictatorship, no-one is obligated to follow that.  No police, and no person holding public office are.

When police officers, or Chief, or Sheriff, say they are not permitted to interpret the U.S. Constitution, and that they must follow federal orders that violate provisions of the Constitution that are clear and require no special expertise to understand, if that violation involves treason against the people of the United States of America, then those police becomes criminals.

I know that the common nonsense pushed upon police is that the matter will be settled in court if they make a wrong arrest.  No, you as a police officer swore an oath to the constitution.  You didn't say, "if my chief tell me to do it, then he's responsible, so I swear an oath to he the chief."  You didn't say, "if my chief tells me to do it, and the judge says it was wrong, well that's all up to them."  You said you would protect and defend THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AGAINST ALL ENEMIES FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC.   Each and every police officer, and military person, of the very lowest rank.  You must study, and obey, the constitution.  Print it out, carry it with you, and study it at every opportunity.

As a Police officer, your oath to protect and defend the Constitution.  You didn't say you would obey the President of the United States, Homeland Security, or anyone in the Federal Government.  The oath is not to obey your police Chief, nor to your County Sheriff.  It is to that Constitution, against all enemies, foreign and domestic.  That doesn't mean you don't obey your Sheriff or Chief.  You do obey them.  But in matters of an order that would be a violation of the constitution, or an order to commit treason against the people of the United States of America, then you disobey any UNLAWFUL ORDER.

Those holding political office swear allegiance to the constitution.

If two people sign an illegal contract, one to pay for a murder to be committed, and the other to commit that murder, and there is a grievance over a lack of completed payment, to whom does the complaint go?  Suppose the cheated party goes to the Sheriff and says, "Sheriff, I paid this person 10 thousand dollars.  I'd have given him the other 10 thousand, but he didn't do it.  Sheriff, here's the paperwork and notarized signatures."

Does the Sheriff arrest one for breach of contract?  Will the courts hear such a law suit?  No, the Sheriff arrests both for conspiracy to commit murder and the illegal contract carries no force of law for payments.

See, an illegal contract, or an illegal law, is NULL AND VOID!  An illegal contract, an illegal so-called "law" or an illegal order, is not a legal contract, and not a law, and the illegal order does not carry with it any force whatever.  I learned that in the Armed forces.  There was a reason the UCMJ declared that I was required to follow a lawful order.  It didn't say "order," rather it was "lawful order."

It was recently no longer necessary for the State to voluntarily succumb to federal dictatorship by themselves, since it's recemtly supposedly "law" or "rule" now that they must whether the State wants to or not.  Unless the circumstances are extremely unusual, what the federal government says a county must succumb to, or a city, it's null and void.  Even though a precident was recently set by too many local law enforcement jurisdictions, because too many let the federal authorities rule in police cases over the local police, that was wrong too.  The Federal Government seldom has lawful juristiction in local police matters.  The Patriot Act is unconstitutional, so it is null and void.  The John Warner defense authorization act is unlawful.  PD (Presidential Directive) 51 is illegal, so it should be ignored.

Fact is, the local government, local police, local Sheriffs, and other locally elected officials, have sovereignty.  States and counties have proven this in these United States recently by laws and declarations which THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAD TO BACK OFF BECAUSE OF.   Those local governments know what the federal government, and congress, has declared, but since it's unlawful, they rightfully ignore it.   Look up the data.  That's what links are for.  Links are the "underlined" parts explained above.

                            PINON CANYON   ---   COLORADO
Now, in matters that concern the PINON CANYON OPPOSITION COALITION.  I've heard, and read, some of the controversy, and have communicated about it somewhat.  The people who wanted to protect their property had every right, but turning to the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT was a mistake.  The FEDERAL GOVERNMENT never had jurisdiction over the matter, but FEDS seem to think they do now because too many of the property owners GAVE THAT JURISDICTION TO THEM BY THEIR COMMUNICATION AND ACTIONS.   Has the State of Colorado given up their sovereignty over this, and other, matters.  Well, I heard they did, but that's just rumor.  The STATE HAD NO RIGHT TO GIVE ANYTHING UP.  In any event, whether they did or not, the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAS RECENTLY DECLARED THEY HAVE RIGHTS OVER ALL STATES, CITIES, AND COUNTIES, so the former matter is of no consequence.  THE FEDERAL DECLARATION IS NULL AND VOID, AND CARRIES WITH IT NO FORCE OF LAW.

As of this writing, 21 States, including Colorado, are in the process of  formally declaring sovereignty.

Some people seem to think one needs some sort of "credentials" to write this. Look, it's not rocket science. If officials swear an oath to a document, and have for hundreds of years, and it's the founding document of this nation, and it says that it is "the supreme law of the land," and someone else comes along and says, "no this is the truth," which contradicts it, does one need anything but a fully functioning brain to figure this out?

                                                                              THIS PAGE IS UNDER CONSTRUCTION