Entry Submitted by Vee at 5:58 PM EDT on September 27, 2020
"Contribution" by Lorelie Blue - 9.26.20
"IT'S BEEN SAID HERE THAT ONLY 10 % THE REDEEMER'S WILL GO FOR THE HIGHER RATES! THAT IS A SHAME..."LB.. Have you been surveyed of what your going to do ? ..I haven't.. So where did this " statistic " come from? And you..probably believe 90% of what MSM spews out...(10% not real)
My biggest issue with this redemption process...those that will be scrutinizing us (And I was just thinking about and been mulling it over in my mind for months on end) is who are "They"..those at the redemtion centers to be qualified to say what "rate" I'm worthy of. Who are they ? What do they know ..or done?
They don't know anything about me..what my life has been like....what I've been up against for years..in trying to live my life as my God given unalienable - imprescriptible rights..in pursuit of my happiness...to that of the necessities of life.
To me..they are and were the problem.. complacent..to everything.. bowing and scraping..capitulating never asking questions ..why? Because of presumption?..no again complacency.
Did they or any of you ever ask yourself..why do I need a Drivers licence? Does this guarantee that I or no one would ever have an accent? Obviously the question is no..then what's the purpose of it? For ID? .. Hell ..this state won't even give me a non-drivers license for ID...why...because I won't render to them a SSN. WHY should I give over to them a Number that says it's not ment for identification purposes...and here is the stupid thing about it..how does one obtain a SSN? They go to the SSA..and show them proof of identity...a birth certificate...where does this originate from..the State..So I got to go and get a # from the Fed.. based on something that originated from the state in order to get something from the state. Where's the logic of that ? So..being as ambidextrous dyslexic as I am..I made my own..ID.
But that is only one of the issues...yet one of the most necessary of one..your 9th Amendment Right..your right to provide for the necessities of life, proof of your head close in your back food on the table.. freedom and liberty to move about in order to go about for those necessities.
These f***s are going to scrutinize over me and what I plan to do? They-society owe me big time.
Again you think they can walk in my shoes and tell me what ? .. They as with all of society have caused me harm..by its capitulation..my parents and grand parents included.. You think any of them ever stood up for their rights.. pursuant to this. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled:
The RIGHT to travel is a part of the liberty of which the Citizen cannot be deprived without due process of the law under the 5th Amendment. (Emphasis added). See: Kent v. Dulles, 357 U.S. 116, 125.
The Supreme Court of Wisconsin stated in 1909:
The term "public highway," in its broad popular sense, includes toll roads--any road which the public have a RIGHT to use even conditionally, though in a strict legal sense it is restricted to roads which are wholly public. (Emphasis added). See: Weirich v. State, 140 Wis. 98.
The Supreme Court of the State of Illinois ruled:
Even the legislature has no power to deny to a Citizen the RIGHT to travel upon the highway and transport his property in the ordinary course of his business or pleasure, though this RIGHT might be regulated in accordance with the public interest and convenience. (Emphasis added). See: Chicago Motor Coach v. Chicago, 169 N.E. 22.
"Regulated" here can only mean traffic safety enforcement, stop lights, sign, etc. NOT a privilege that requires permission, i.e.; licensing, mandatory insurance, vehicle registration, ect. PRIVILEGE OR RIGHT? The use of the highway for the purpose of travel and transportation is NOT a mere PRIVILEGE, but a COMMON AND FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT of which the public and individuals cannot rightfully be deprived. (Emphasis added). See: Chicago Motor Coach v. Chicago, supra; Ligare v. Chicago, 28 N.E. 934; Boone v. Clark, 214 S.W. 607; American Jurisprudence 1st Ed., Highways § 163. Citizen's RIGHT to travel upon public highways includes RIGHT to use usual conveyances of time, including horse-drawn carriage, or automobile, for ordinary purposes of life and business. (Emphasis added). See: Thompson v. Smith (Chief of Police), 154 S.E. 579, 580. The RIGHT of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit or permit at will, but a COMMON RIGHT which he has under the RIGHT to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. (Emphasis added). See: Thompson v. Smith, supra. .... [T]he streets and highways belong to the public, for the use of the public in the ordinary and customary manner. See: Hadfield v. Lundin, 98 Wn. 657; 168 P. 516.
All those who travel upon, and transport their property upon, the public highways, using the ordinary conveyance of today, and doing so in the usual and ordinary course of life and business. See: Hadfield, supra; State v. City of Spokane, 109 Wn. 360; 186 P. 864. The RIGHT of the Citizen to travel upon the highways and to transport his property thereon, in the ordinary course of life and business, differs radically and obviously from that of one who makes the highways his place of business and uses it for private gain . . . . (Emphasis added). See: State v. City of Spokane, supra. . . . [F]or while a Citizen has the RIGHT to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, that RIGHT does not extend to the use of the highways, either in whole or in part, as a place of business for private gain. For the latter purposes no person has a vested right to use the highways of the state, but is a MERE PRIVILEGE or license which the legislature may grant or withhold at its discretion.... (Emphasis added). See: Hadfield, supra; State v. Johnson, 243 P. 1073; Cummins v. Jones, 155 P. 171; Packard v. Banton, 44 S.Ct. 257, 264 U.S. 140 and other cases too numerous to mention. I am not particularly interested about the rights of haulers by contract, or otherwise, but I am deeply interested in the RIGHTS of the public to use the public highways freely for all lawful purposes. (Emphasis added). See: Robertson v. Department of Public Works, 180 Wash. 133 at 139. The Supreme Court of the State of Indiana ruled in 1873: It is not the amount of travel, the extent of the use of a highway by the public that distinguishes it from a private way or road. It is the RIGHT to so use or travel upon it, not its exercise. (Emphasis added). See: Ind 455, 461.
American Jurisprudence 1st, has this to say:
The RIGHT of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, by horse-drawn carriage, wagon, or automobile, is NOT a mere PRIVILEGE which may be permitted or prohibited at will, but a COMMON RIGHT which he has under his right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Under this constitutional guarantee one may, therefore, under normal conditions, travel at his inclination along the public highways or in public places, and while conducting himself in an orderly and decent manner, neither interferring with, not disturbing another's RIGHTS, he will be protected, not only in his person, but in his safe conduct. (Emphasis added). See: 11 American Jurisprudence 1st., Constitutional Law, § 329, page 1123.
Stare decisis [Latin, Let the decision stand.] The policy of courts to abide by or adhere to principles established by decisions in earlier cases. In the United States and England, the Common Law has traditionally adhered to the precedents of earlier cases as sources of law. This principle, known as stare decisis, distinguishes the common law from civil-law systems, which give great weight to codes of laws and the opinions of scholars explaining them. Under stare decisis, once a court has answered a question, the same question in other cases must elicit the same response from the same court or lower courts in that jurisdiction. The principle of stare decisis was not always applied with uniform strictness. In medieval England, common-law courts looked to earlier cases for guidance, but they could reject those they considered bad law. Courts also placed less than complete reliance on prior decisions because there was a lack of reliable written reports of cases. Official reports of cases heard in various courts began to appear in the United States in the early 1800s, but semiofficial reports were not produced in England until 1865. When published reports became available, lawyers and judges finally had direct access to cases and could more accurately interpret prior decisions. For stare decisis to be effective, each jurisdiction must have one highest court to declare what the law is in a precedent-setting case. The U.S. Supreme Court and the state supreme courts serve as precedential bodies, resolving conflicting interpretations of law or dealing with issues of first impression. Whatever these courts decide becomes judicial precedent.
Or this..
[Very] soon, every American will be required to register their biological property in a National system designed to keep track of the people and that will operate under the ancient system of pledging. By such methodology, we can compel people to submit to our agenda, which will affect our security as a chargeback for our fiat paper currency. Every American will be forced to register or suffer not being able to work and earn a living. They will be our chattel, (slaves) and we will hold the security interest over them forever, by operation of the law merchant under the scheme of secured transactions. Americans, by unknowingly or unwittingly delivering the bills of lading to us will be rendered bankrupt and insolvent, forever to remain economic slaves through taxation, secured by their pledges. They will be stripped of their rights and given a commercial value designed to make us a profit and they will be non the wiser, for not one man in a million could ever figure our plans and, if by accident one or two would figure it out, we have in our arsenal plausible deniability. After all, this is the only logical way to fund government, by floating liens and debt to the registrants in the form of benefits and privileges. This will inevitably reap to us huge profits beyond our wildest expectations and leave every American a contributor or to this fraud which we will call “Social Insurance.” Without realizing it, every American will insure us for any loss we may incur and in this manner; every American will unknowingly be our servant, however begrudgingly. The people will become helpless and without any hope for their redemption and, we will employ the high office of the President of our dummy corporation to foment this plot against America.” Edward Mandell House had this to say in a private meeting with Woodrow Wilson (President) [1913-1921] - This is from the minutes of a meeting in the white house that included President Woodrow Wilson and his top adviser Colonel Edward Mandell House
Do you know this? Do you think any of those redemption center people know any of this ? And their going to measure me ..to see if I'm worthy to get the top rate?
Vee
______________________________________________________
If you wish to contact the author of any reader submitted guest post, you can give us an email at UniversalOm432Hz@gmail.com and we'll forward your request to the author.
______________________________________________________
All articles, videos, and images posted on Dinar Chronicles were submitted by readers and/or handpicked by the site itself for informational and/or entertainment purposes.
Dinar Chronicles is not a registered investment adviser, broker dealer, banker or currency dealer and as such, no information on the website should be construed as investment advice. We do not support, represent or guarantee the completeness, truthfulness, accuracy, or reliability of any content or communications posted on this site. Information posted on this site may or may not be fictitious. We do not intend to and are not providing financial, legal, tax, political or any other advice to readers of this website.
Copyright © 2020 Dinar Chronicles
0 Comments: