Kentucky Republican Sen. Rand Paul announced Wednesday that he would filibuster any attempt by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to bring the Protect IP Act (PIPA) to a vote.
The bills would ostensibly crack down on online copyright infringement, but critics contend that the legislation would also challenge free speech and the ability of large websites to function.
Texas Republican Rep. Lamar Smith, the sponsor of SOPA, announcedTuesday that the bill would continue to undergo markup in the House Judiciary Committee, which he chairs, in February.
An unprecedented online protest by companies opposed to the bills occurred Wednesday. Online encyclopedia Wikipedia, social news website Reddit and the classifieds site Craigslist all blocked their U.S. versions in protest and directed visitors to contact their elected officials.
“Both PIPA and SOPA give the federal governmentunprecedented and unconstitutional power to censor the Internet,” Paul said in a statement. “These bills enable the government to shut down websites that it deems guilty of violating copyright laws.”
Paul continued: “While we support copyright protections, we are also concerned about websites being shut down without their day in court, and making innocent third parties bear the costs of solving someone else’s problems.
“I will not sit idly by while PIPA and SOPA eliminate the constitutionally protected rights to due process and free speech. For these reasons, I have pledged to oppose, filibusterand do everything in my power to stop government censorship of the Internet,” Paul said.
Video: A request to the American People – Nationwide Protest against NDAA – ACTION ALERT - Seems the Occupy Protestors are jointing the Tea Party and other conservative groups in this endeavor. SOPA, PIPA and NDAA are believed to have been designed to work hand in hand.
For local newspaper for publishing as public notice:
PROCLAMATION, NOTICE, AND DEMAND
WHEREAS on December 31, 2011, theacting-president of THE UNITED STATES of AMERICA, Inc. (U.S. Inc.) signed into law an abomination titled the “National Defense Authorization Act”, also known as the “NDAA” or “S-1867”; and
WHEREAS, according to the NDAA, the territories of these united states of America have been declared a battleground wherein the American people may now be arrested by the military forces of the U.S. Inc. and detained indefinitely without being charged with a crime, without the right to a phone call, without the right to legal counsel, and without the right to a fair hearing or a speedy trial; and
WHEREAS the NDAA specifies that detainees will be treated as enemy combatants and that the military resources of U.S. Inc., personnel, equipment and contractors, may be used on American soil, against the American people, in every city and neighborhood of this now declared “American battleground”; and
WHEREAS said detainees may be tortured, transported, and/or held in detention facilities anywhere in the world, for any length of time; and
WHEREAS Detainees may only be granted a military tribunal at the sole discretion of the military forces of the U.S. Inc.; and
WHEREAS the NDAA circumvents lawful due process in its entirety, violates the Constitution for these united states of America, violates Posse Comittatus, and repeals the Bill of Rights; and
WHEREAS the NDAA effectively creates Martial Law, and creates a Military Dictatorship under the control of the acting corporate president; and
WHEREAS the lawful jurisdiction of the U.S. Inc. does not extend beyond the 10 square miles known as the District of Columbia; and
WHEREAS the U.S. Inc. has repeatedly exceeded their lawful jurisdiction and encroached upon and into the several foreign sovereign states both by physical presence, legislative decree, and unlawful mandates; and
WHEREAS the U.S. Inc. has repeatedly exceeded the lawful jurisdiction and lawful authority authorized to the federal government by our lawful constitution and then violated the constitutional rights of all the foreign sovereign states and their sovereign Citizens with their acts of surveillance, searches, seizures, and arrests therein; and
WHEREAS the U.S. Inc. having confiscated all the real money of the people of this country with the confiscation of the gold in 1934 and having made the use of counterfeit fiat currency produced by private bankers compulsory; and
WHEREAS the U.S. Inc. has allowed our money to be created by, and subsequently borrowed from, foreign private bankers without restraint and charged the interest promised to these private foreign bankers to the sovereign people of the many sovereign states without authorization by either the constitution or the sovereign people; and
WHEREAS the U.S. Inc. has brought onto our shores International Laws of Commerce, aka the U.C.C. code, and created a “legal” system with which to replace the rule of law, aka our constitutional law and the common law of the land in an effort to overthrow our lawful form of government; and
WHEREAS the U.S. Inc. has replaced all our lawful Article III judicial courts with Article I and II courts of summary judgment; and
WHEREAS the U.S. Inc. has made every effort to supplant the natural God given rights of the sovereign peoples of this nation with government granted “privileges” which are granted or removed at their whim and by their decree;
THEREFORE, WE, the sovereign people of these united states of America, FORMALLY DECLARE that the elected officials who signed this treasonous legislation have, by their deeds, created a state of war between the people of these united states and the corporation of THE UNITED STATES, Inc., which is based in the District of Columbia and is a foreign power in relation to the sovereign states and the sovereign people domiciled therein;
THEREFORE, WE, the sovereign people of these united states of America, FORMALLY DECLARE that those federal elected officials, acting as individuals and as a group, have repeatedly and consistently violated the supreme law of this land, have violated their oath of public office, and have, by their acts and deeds, declared war upon the people of this country.
Those elected official trustees, in having signed to pass this unlawful act, have therefore willfully and intentionally acted with malice aforethought in conspiring to overthrow our lawful government and to declare the American people to be enemies of said corporation and they are therefore guilty of Conspiracy, and Breach of Trust as the elected trustees of our nation. They have violated their sworn duty to uphold and defend the Constitution for these united states of America, and are therefore guilty of TREASON AND SEDITION as evidenced by their signatures thereon.
BE IT KNOWN that the rights of the people do not come from any government nor do they come from the Constitution nor from the Bill of Rights. Those documents merely outline and set upon paper a portion of those rights which are the natural or God given rights of all peoples and which are unalienable by any government created by man upon this earth and have been found as such by the courts.
The constitution states very clearly that the only powers authorized to the federal government were those enumerated powers stated therein and ALL others remained with the several sovereign states or to the people themselves. Government derives its few just powers from the people themselves as they are the creator and the source for the creation of government. No creation can supplant its creator. Any attempt by any government to declare they are the “source” of the unalienable rights of the people is an attempt to declare they are God and is an effort to supplant our true creator.
You cannot legalize tyranny by passing an act. Nor do “we the people” recognize such criminal acts as lawful no matter who signs them.
“Now all acts of legislature apparently contrary to natural right and justice are in our laws and must be, in the nature of things, considered as void. The laws of nature are the laws of God; whose authority can be superseded by no power on earth. A legislature must not obstruct our obedience to him from whose punishments they cannot protect us. All human constitutions which contradict his laws, we are conscience bound to disobey. Such have been the adjudications of our courts of justice.” Robin v. Hardaway, 1 Jefferson 109, 114, 1 Va. Reports Ann. 58, 61 (1772) aff’d. Gregory v. Baugh, 29 Va. 681, 29 Va. Rep. Ann. 466, 2 Leigh 665 (1831) And cited 8 Co. 118. a. Bonham’s case. Hob. 87; 7. Co. 14. a. Calvin’s case
Be it further known that:
Article 6 paragraph 2 of the U.S. constitution:
This is known as the supremacy clause of the constitution. Basically what it says is: “This constitution, and the laws for these united states which shall be made pursuant thereof, and the treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the united states shall be the supreme law of the land. The judges in every state shall be bound thereby. Anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary are not with standing in law. (no standing!)
Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803) [ one of the leading cases in the history of the united states]
The opinion of the court was: “Anything that is in conflict with the constitution of the united states is null and void of law; clearly for a secondary law to come into conflict with the supreme was illogical; for certainly the supreme law would prevail over any other law, and certainly our forefathers had intended that the supreme law would be the basis for all laws, and for any law to come into conflict would be null and void of law. It would bear no power to enforce, it would bear no obligation to obey, it would purport to settle as though it had never existed, for unconstitutionality would date from the enactment of such a law, not from the date so branded by a court of law. NO courts are bound to uphold it, and no citizens are bound to obey it. It operates as a mere nullity or a fiction of law, which means it doesn’t exist in law.”
“…at the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people; and they are truly the sovereigns of the country, but they are sovereigns without subjects…with none to govern but themselves….” [Chisholm v. Georgia (US) 2 Dall 419, 454, 1 L Ed 440, 455 DALL (1793) pp471_472.]
Schlesinger v Reservists Committee to Stop the War, 418 US 208, 232-3. “We tend to overlook the basic political and legal reality that the people, not the bureaucracy, are sovereign. … Executives, lawmakers, and members of the Judiciary are inferior in the sense that they are in office only to carry out and execute the constitutional regime.” (as the people we gave them Sovereign powers, but in limited jurisdiction only, never over us. We have absolute sovereignty, they have limited sovereignty.
“‘Sovereignty’ means that the decree of sovereign makes law, and foreign courts cannot condemn influences persuading sovereign to make the decree.” Moscow Fire Ins. Co. of Moscow, Russia v. Bank of New York & Trust Co., 294 N.Y.S. 648, 662, 161 Misc. 903. (any court other than your own is “foreign” to yours.)
“No man [or woman] in this country is so high that he is above the law. No officer of the law may set that law at defiance with impunity. All the officers of the government from the highest to the lowest, are creatures of the law, and are bound to obey it.”
Butz v. Economou, 98 S. Ct. 2894 (1978); United States v. Lee, 106 U.S. at 220, 1 S. Ct. at 261 (1882)
(the “LAW” is not to be confused with Acts, statutes, codes, corporate policy, public policy, but rather the “common law and the supreme law of the land”)
The U.S. Supreme Court has stated that “no state legislator or executive or judicial officer can war against the Constitution without violating his undertaking to support it”. See also In Re Sawyer, 124 U.S. 200 (188); U.S. v. Will, 449 U.S. 200, 216, 101 S. Ct. 471, 66 L. Ed. 2d 392, 406 (1980); Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. (6 Wheat) 264, 404, 5 L. Ed 257 (1821). (They take an oath to defend and uphold the Constitution…not war against it!)
The Constitution is a contract. It is a contract between the people and the government. WE THE PEOPLE decided the terms of that contract before we would allow the federal government to be created. It is WE THE PEOPLE who decide when the terms of that contract have been violated. No court, no justice, no magistrate, no official of that government has a higher nor more legitimate basis for determining the violation of that contract than the people who created it. The people decide and have final say. To accept that the government may decide how, when, or if they can violate OUR contract is to relinquish all power of the people to the state. It does not take a rocket scientist to understand that if the state can decide what is lawful under the contract (conflict of interest) that it will become self serving and devolve into absolute tyranny and despotism. The determination of what is or is not constitutional rests with the people not the state or their courts.
“To presume that a sovereign forever waives the right to exercise one of its powers unless it expressly reserves the right to exercise that power in a commercial agreement turns the concept of sovereignty on its head.” [Merrion et al., DBA Merrion & Bayless, et al. v. Jicarilla Apache Tribe et al. (1982) 455 U.S. 130, 102 S. Ct. 894, 71 L. Ed. 2d 21, 50 U.S.L.W. 4169 pp. 144_148]
The above case is important because all the purported adhesion contracts (commercial agreements) signed with federal and state governments including the social security card, the marriage license, the birth certificate, voters registration, all permits and applications, driver’s license etc etc are all considered to be “unconditional contracts” with a promise to obey, perform, and be liable. What the above case demonstrates is that the state cannot claim that in signing such purported contracts that our constitutional rights can be considered waived, yet the states and federal government do so claim….unlawfully. Any such claim is void and without merit.
WHEREAS The United States Inc. and our elected official trustees, serving as directors of said corporation and pretending to serve the interests of the people in their corporate charade, have repeatedly violated the supreme law of this land, failed to uphold their sworn oath to uphold and defend it, and warred against it; and
WHEREAS they have refused to address numerous petitions of grievances expressed by the people for their blatant violations of our laws and the rights of the people; and
WHEREAS they now openly declare their intent to war against the peoples of these united states openly and forcefully, and
WHEREAS said acts are unconstitutional and thus ab initio (void at inception), we hereby call upon our state and local elected official trustees to act accordingly as follows:
All public servant trustees who have sworn an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution for these united states shall be held responsible for having read it and for understanding it. The excuse of not having read or understood that which you swore an oath to “uphold and defend” will not be accepted, as “ignorance of THE law is no excuse.”
Regarding the personal liability of said official trustees for violations of constitutional rights.
DO NOT CLAIM: “Well, we acted in good faith….or We had good faith reliance that you broke the law…”reasonable cause”, and of course that means you can’t sue us.” THAT IS A LIE. See two cases; Owen v. City of Independence, 445 U.S. 622 (1980) and Maine v. Thiboutot, 448 U.S. 1 (1980)
Basically what these two cases say: “Where plain language of a statute supported by consistent judicial interpretation is strong, it is not necessary to look beyond the words of the statute.”
Both cases were civil rights cases. “The right of action created by statute relating to deprivation under color of state law of a right secured by the constitution and the laws of the united states encompasses claims which are solely based on statutory violations of federal law, and applied to the claim that claimants had been deprived of their rights in some capacity, to which they were entitled.
The supreme court said; “You are deemed to be officers of the law; you are to advise us of the law; you can hardly claim that you were in good faith for willful deprivation of the law, and you certainly can’t claim ignorance of the law, because a citizen out there on the street can’t claim ignorance of the law. It makes the law look stupid if an officer of the court or some officer of government doesn’t know the law and then they go ahead and abuse somebody’s constitutional rights.“
So, in matters of constitutional rights both these cases uphold one point: If you violate constitutional rights you do so at your own peril. Title 18 Sec 241, 242. says that; upon conviction you are subject to a $10,000.00 fine, 10 years in jail, or both, and if death results, life in prison. They are telling you “Don’t violate somebody’s constitutional rights.” (that is per EACH right violated….)
Title 42 USC sec. 1983, 1985, &1986clearly establishes the right to sue anybody that does that. There is NO judicial immunity for violating someone’s constitutional rights.
Judges beware, you are deemed to know the law and swear to uphold it. You can hardly claim that you acted in good faith in willful deprivation of the law and you certainly can’t claim ignorance of the law for it would make the law look stupid for a knowledgeable judge to claim ignorance of the law when a citizen on the street can make no such claim.
City and county law enforcement officers must refuse to obey unconstitutional mandates, acts, laws, or corporate policy operating under “color of law” and nullify the criminal violations of the supreme law of this land and refuse to allow federal corporate troops on the streets of our cities and counties. Willing county residents should be deputized by the constitutional county sheriff to serve as necessary to prevent foreign and hostile federal corporate troops entry therein at any time or for any reason.
State elected official trustees including the legislature, the governor, and the attorney general shall immediately act to refuse compliance, nullify, and prevent unconstitutional mandates by federal usurpers upon the state, the people of the state, or the presence of federal troops within its boundaries and create a state militia of willing state Citizens as outlined in the second amendment to assist in the prevention of federal corporate troops entering upon state territory outside the current military bases therein. No federal corporate military members or contractors operating under federal command shall appear upon the streets of the state in uniform or carrying firearms or weapons of any kind which might be used against the people; nor shall they appear in public in the capacity of federal troops as this shall be viewed as an act of open hostility against the people.
Any public servant trustee serving the people of this state who shall call for, or give approval for, the use of federal troops against the people within the borders of this state whether active duty, reserves, national guard, or mercenary contractors representing federal interests shall be deemed to have committed treason upon the people of this state and shall be held responsible by the people of this state and prosecuted to the fullest extent of THE law.
Be it noticed and declared that henceforth any actions taken to enforce unconstitutional mandates or decrees upon the sovereign peoples of these united states by any officer, official, or public servant trustee shall be deemed hostile, an act of warring upon the people, a breach of trust, a violation of oath, and will not be tolerated. Such actions will be responded to in kind by the people.
THIS IS NOTICE TO CEASE AND DESIST.
THIS IS NOTICE TO NULLIFY UNDER THE TENTH AMENDMENT AND SECURE THE RIGHTS OF THE PEOPLE AND THEIR RESPECTIVE STATES.
All public official trustees are called upon to honor their sworn oaths to uphold and defend the Constitution for these united states or be recognized as an enemy of the people for having violated the trust and your sworn duty to the people and our constitution. Acts of warring upon the people will not be tolerated and the excuse of “following orders” shall not be accepted as an excuse for violating THE law of this land and your sworn oath to uphold it. The Nuremberg trials determined that following orders is not a valid excuse for violating the rights of the people and will not be seen as such in this country by the people herein.
state attorney general
speaker of the house
“He who trades liberty for security rarely gets (or deserves) either!” …Benjamin Franklin