Email This Message to a Friend!
Message URL: http://www.curezone.org/blogs/fm.asp?i=1904425
Got "Liberty Of Speech" In California?
(Son of Truth of Self)
The Constitution of the State of California says: "Every person may freely speak, write and publish his or her sentiments on all subjects ...". Right? Then what could possibly be the Lawful basis for the State to accuse someone like Brian Davis who wrote a letter asserting an unconventional view of "this State"?
Date: 1/28/2012 3:28:33 AM ( 12 y ago)
"My Student, Brian Davis, is being deprived of rights to which he is entitled as a free inhabitant, pursuant to Article IV of the Articles of Confederation of November 15, 1777 and the State of California Constitution.
Brian Davis stands accused of writing a letter to the Physical Therapy Board of California manifesting symptoms of a mental illness. The Accusation filed against Davis by Rebecca Marco alleges no other evidence of mental illness. The sole use my Student’s writing to claim he has a diseased mind is a despicable act and a violation of Article 1, Section 2 of the Constitution of this State.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 1 DECLARATION OF RIGHTS
SEC. 2. (a) “Every person may freely speak, write and publish his or her sentiments on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of this right. A law may not restrain or abridge liberty of speech or press.”
Student Brian is a serious student of the law which makes his letter to the Physical Therapy Board of California particularly interesting. Anyone interested in reading Brian’s letter to the Board and the Executive Director’s Accusation may request them by e-mail. Information about my Basic Course in Law and Government is also available by contacting me at edrivera@edrivera.com
Dr. Eduardo M. Rivera"
January 28, 2012 - A Fellow Student responds:
"The Declaration of Independence of July 4, 1776 and the Articles of Confederation of November 15, 1777 are the basis for the tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States;
'The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.'
Brian's letter did no more than put his religious sentiments of Conscience, as to his political beliefs, as a matter of public record for all to view.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 1 DECLARATION OF RIGHTS
SEC. 2. (a) 'Every person may freely speak, write and publish his or her sentiments on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of this right. A law may not restrain or abridge liberty of speech or press.'
And, pursuant to the first Amendment to the Constitution of the United States:
'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.'
Brian was not confronted face to face, or through correspondence of other communications, with his accuser Rebecca Marco, or her attorneys, to rebut his letter.
CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 1 DECLARATION OF RIGHTS
SEC. 31. (a) The State shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting.
(e) Nothing in this section shall be interpreted as prohibiting action which must be taken to establish or maintain eligibility for any federal program, where ineligibility would result in a loss of federal funds to the State.
No client, or other person, of Brain was brought forward to show he was incompetent in any way in the performance of his profession which could cause loss of federal funding to the State.
Dr. Nair is not an attorney and was practicing his profession of medicine and Psychiatry under permission of the State as a citizen of the territory, the 'State,' under the jurisdiction United States being administered under legislation of the Congress of the United States pursuant to Article I Section 8 Clause 14 of the Constitution of the United States for the executive director of her department pursuant to Clause 18 of this Constitution.
CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 1 DECLARATION OF RIGHTS
SEC. 31. (f) For the purposes of this section, 'State' shall include, but not necessarily be limited to, the State itself, any city, county, city and county, public university system, including the University of California, community college district, school district, special district, or any other political subdivision or governmental instrumentality of or within the State.
As this confronts the life, liberty and pursuit of happiness of all of us as American men and woman it is time for to take this issue to the District for a determination of whether the Senate and the Head of State and government can take away human rights as to the product of our own industry without our written consent."
-
***
April 2, 2019 - State vs "States of States" -
"...California has actual physically defined borders, trees, hills, mines, towns..... this is where you live as a Californian.
The State of California has incorporated cities and counties and State of State business enterprises.... all legal fiction entities.
The STATE OF CALIFORNIA has incorporated municipalities and service districts and federally chartered business enterprises....all legal fiction entities.
Now, all these "States of States" are supposed to be subservient to the actual people living in the actual State.
But..... by legal chicanery, certain entities have arranged to have all of us misidentified as 'US Citizens' ---- either Territorial United States Citizens, or Municipal United States Citizens called 'Citizens of the United States' ---- instead of being identified as living, breathing Californians, Wisconsinites, Texans, and so on."[1]
---
"How To Tell Bears From Buckwheat" - By: Anna Von Reitz -
All sovereign entities, all actual States, are unincorporated.
Anything incorporated is not sovereign and not an actual State, regardless of what they call themselves. Period.
This is how you can cut through all the confusion and make sure you are not wasting your time or being co-opted by some commercial corporation's Dirty Tricks Department.
All American States are operated exclusively by American State Citizens and American State Nationals.
If any 'US Citizen' tells you they are operating a 'State' you may be sure that they are referring euphemistically to an incorporated 'State of State' and that it is a foreign interloper."[2]
--
Comment: The clear distinctions that Anna has presented (in the above two quotations as well as numerous other articles) sheds light on the first two postings re: "tak(ing) away human rights." Dr. Eduardo M. Rivera (who has been my teacher in the Organic Laws) makes reference to "rights ... as a free inhabitant, pursuant to Article IV of the Articles of Confederation of November 15, 1777."
Article IV. "The better to secure and perpetuate mutual friendship and intercourse among the people of the different states in this union, the free inhabitants of each of these states, paupers, vagabonds and fugitives from justice excepted, shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of free citizens in the several states; and the people of each state shall have free ingress and regress to and from any other state, and shall enjoy therein all the privileges of trade and commerce, subject to the same duties, impositions and restrictions as the inhabitants thereof respectively, provided that such restriction shall not extend so far as to prevent the removal of property imported into any state, to any other state, of which the Owner is an inhabitant; provided also that no imposition, duties or restriction shall be laid by any state, on the property of the united states, or either of them."[3]
I see the term "state" mentioned eight times (not counting "the united states") in Article IV immediately above here. In each instance the state referred to is the unincorporated land and soil-based state vs. an incorporated "State of" legal fiction. If we bare this distinction in mind in considering the accusations (referred to at the top half of this blog) then it becomes possible be see that the "STATE OF CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION" refers to an incorporated legal fiction that by its legal fiction nature can only interact with other corporate fictions and therefor has absolutely no capacity, power, authority, etc. over a living man! Consequently no man can look to a corporate fiction for respect to his rights of the nature referred to in the above. Superior wisdom in this instance is to not identify oneself as subject in any way shape or form under the corporate legal fiction and if one chooses to obtain a legal license the application must include a written reservation of one's unalienable Rights so that this reservation becomes part of the agreement otherwise the legal fiction runs the show as it pleases.
-
*********^*********
Notes:
[1] http://www.paulstramer.net/2019/04/confederate-states-v-federation-states.html
[2] http://www.paulstramer.net/2019/04/how-to-tell-bears-from-buckwheat.html
[3] http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a4_2_1s5.html
-
Popularity: message viewed 2235 times
URL: http://www.curezone.org/blogs/fm.asp?i=1904425