Reader Post | By Vee
Foreclosure Filings are up 132% from a Year Prior
“Re: Thinking out Loud” by Vee – 5.1.22
I my post above I (rant) about my frustrations
“What can we do ? What actions. Continue to sit on our hands and let Trump lead us through ? Trump the savior?
I have no qualms against Trump, but I want to be more proactive….Is voting the only way …answer to resolving the issues? Is that all we got?”
I was going to say that maybe we – (Sons/Daughters of Liberty) should seek out a local militia to be a part of.
What is the true meaning of militia?
Definition of militia
1a : a part of the organized armed forces of a country liable to call only in emergency The militia was called to quell the riot. b : a body of citizens organized for military service. 2 : the whole body of able-bodied male citizens declared by law as being subject to call to military service.
Does US have a militia?
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32 , under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are …
But private Militias have issues of dictatorships and radicals.
So I also thought of a POSSE COMITATUS.
POSSE. This word is used substantively to signify a possibility. For example, such a thing is in posse, that is, such a thing may possibly be; when the thing is in being, the phrase to express it is, in esse. (q. v.)
What does the term esse mean?
Definition of esse
1 in scholastic philosophy : actual being : existence. 2 : essential nature : essence.
What is a cause in esse?
A cause in fieri is the cause of the thing’s becoming what it is: a cause in esse is one whose action sustains the thing in being. If a smith forges a horse-shoe, he is only a causein fieri of the shape given to the iron. That shape persists after his action has ceased.
COMITATUS. A county.
POSSE COMITATUS. These Latin words signify the power of the county.
2. The sheriff has authority by the common law, while acting under the authority of the writ of the United States, commonwealth or people, as the case may be, and for the purpose of preserving the public peace, to call to his aid the posse comitatus.
3. But with respect to writs which issue, in the first instance, to arrest in civil suits, the sheriff is not bound to take the posse comitatus to assist him in the execution of them: though he may, if he pleases, on forcible resistance to the execution of the process. 2 Inst. 193; 3 Inst. 161.
4. Having the authority to call in the assistance of all, it seems to follow, that he may equally require that of any individual; but to this general rule there are some exceptions; persons of infirm health, or who want understanding, minors under the age of fifteen years, women, and perhaps some others, it seems, cannot be required to assist the sheriff, and are therefore not considered as a part of the power of the county. Vin. Ab. Sheriff, B.
5. A refusal on the part of an individual lawfully called upon to assist the officer in putting down a riot is indictable. 1 Carr. & Marsh. 314. In this case will be found the form of an indictment for this offence.
6. Although the sheriff is acting without authority, yet it would seem that any person who obeys his command, unless aware of that fact, will be protected.
7. Whether an individual not enjoined by the sheriff to lend his aid, would be protected in his interference, seems questionable. In a case where the defendant assisted sheriff’s officers in executing a writ of replevin without their solicitation, the court held him justified in so doing. 2 Mod. 244. Vide Bac. Ab. Sheriff, N; Hamm. N. P. 63; 5 Whart. R. 437, 440.
To those that don’t know it .. foreclosures on residents are illegal..that the “Sheriff “ is an accomplice to this illegal act. They capitulate the banks-bankers… and Judges.
I once heard Karl Lentz ( those that know of him) say that the Sheriff – deputies must have respect for him and asked him if in some way he could help out with elderly people that are being foreclosed on.
They didn’t like having to evict them
Here’s the thing, if the Sheriff does not do his job- refused to do his job, that the People can form its own Posse and do what needs to be done.
Sheriffs are in breach of their oaths pursuant to Article 1 Section 10 of the Constitution.
· Clause 1
· No State shall …. make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts;
Jerome Daly v First National Bank of Montgomery
Plaintiff appeared by its President Lawrence V. Morgan (President of the First National Bank of Montgomery) Lawrence V. Morgan was the only witness called for Plaintiff and Defendant testified as the only witness in his own behalf.
Plaintiff brought this as a Common Law action for the recovery of the possession of Lot 19 Fairview Beach, Scott County, Minn. Plaintiff claimed title to the Real Property in question by foreclosure of a Note and Mortgage Deed dated May 8, 1964 which Plaintiff claimed was in default at the time foreclosure proceedings were started.
Defendant … alleged failure of the consideration for the Mortgage Deed and alleged that the Sheriff’s sale passed no title to plaintiff.
Mr. Morgan admitted that all of the money or credit which was used as a consideration was created upon their books, that this was standard banking practice exercised by their bank in combination with the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, another private Bank, further that he knew of no United States Statute or Law that gave the Plaintiff the authority to do this.
The issues tried to the Jury were whether there was a lawful consideration and whether Defendant had waived his rights to complain about the consideration having paid on the Note for almost 3 years.
At 12:15 on December 7, 1968 the Jury returned a unanimous verdict for the Defendant.
Why aren’t the Sheriffs adhering to their Oaths and the law of the land ?
In my opinion every Sheriff should be arrested for Treason and even sidition.
Would there be a difference between a Militia and a county Posse? Does it matter ? Maybe a militia is for more or a protection forces where a POSSE COMITATUS is an enforcement force ?
Whatever, the first enforcement action should be on the Sheriff, to arrest them all for treason and have a MP there at the arrest to turn them over for a Tribunal to-for indictment and trial.
What does the tribunal do?
Tribunals generally have many of the features of courts, such as independence from the executive government, public hearings, a duty to decide disputes according to law and to give reasons for decisions
How about this also, why would the Jerome Daly jury verdict be any different than these rulings ?
“Personal liberty, or the Right to enjoyment of life and liberty, is one of the fundamental or natural Rights, which has been protected by its inclusion as a guarantee in the various constitutions, which is not derived from, or dependent on, the U.S. Constitution, which may not be submitted to a vote and may not depend on the outcome of an election. It is one of the most sacred and valuable Rights, as sacred as the Right to private property … and is regarded as inalienable.” 16 C.J.S., Constitutional Law, Sect.202, p.987
Personal liberty — consists of the power of locomotion, of changing situations, of removing one’s person to whatever place one’s inclination may direct, without imprisonment or restraint unless by due process of law.”
Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, 1914 ed., Black’s Law Dictionary, 5th ed.;
Blackstone’s Commentary 134; Hare, Constitution__Pg. 777
“Personal liberty largely consists of the Right of locomotion — to go where and when one pleases — only so far restrained as the Rights of others may make it necessary for the welfare of all other citizens. The Right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, by horsedrawn carriage, wagon, or automobile, is not a mere privilege which may be permitted or prohibited at will, but the 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 interfering with nor disturbing another’s Rights, he will be protected, not only in his person, but in his safe conduct.” II Am.Jur. (1st) Constitutional Law, Sect.329, p.1135.”
Freedom of movement is basic in our scheme of values. See Crandall v. Nevada, 6 Wall. 35, 44; Williams v. Fears, 179 U. S. 270, 274; Edwards v. California, 314 U. S. 160. “Our nation,” wrote Chafee, “has thrived on the principle that, outside areas of plainly harmful conduct, every American is left to shape his own life as he thinks best, do what he pleases, go where he pleases.”
In U.S. v Guest, 383 U.S. 745 (1966), the Supreme Court noted, “It is a right that has been firmly established and repeatedly recognized.” In fact, in Shapiro v Thompson, 394 U.S. 618 (1969), Justice Stewart noted in a concurring opinion that “it is a right broadly assertable against private interference as well as governmental action. Like the right of association … it is a virtually unconditional personal right, guaranteed by the Constitution to us all.”
“The right to travel on the public highways is a constitutional right.”Teche Lines v. Danforth, Miss. 12 So 2d 784, 787
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.
“We know of no inherent right in one to use the highways for commercial purposes. The highways are primarily for the use of the public, and in the interest of the public, the state may prohibit or regulate … the use of the highways for gain.” Robertson vs. Dept. of Public Works
[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.
When the Judiciary (mostly Supreme courts) makes such a ruling it is known as Stare decisis. Stare decisis is a legal doctrine that obligates courts to follow historical cases when making a ruling on a similar case. Stare decisis ensures that cases with similar scenarios and facts are approached in the same way. Simply put, it binds courts to follow legal precedents set by previous decisions. It is a Latin term meaning “to stand by that which is decided.” A prior ruling or judgment on any case is known as a precedent. Stare decisis dictates that courts look to precedents when overseeing an ongoing case with similar circumstances, and is detrimental to rule against such precedent. Although courts seldom overrule precedent, the U.S. Supreme Court in Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida explained that stare decisis is not an “inexorable command.” When prior decisions are “unworkable or are badly reasoned,” then the Supreme Court may not follow precedent, and this is “particularly true in constitutional cases.”
I don’t know.. have I made my point ? Are Sheriffs concerned about the rights and liberties to the people of their counties .. or revenuing ? They all need to be taken out and this is the closest thing to home to start.
I believe there is enough evidence against all of them for a valid claim-cause to storm the Office with a Posse for breach of trust and their sworn oath. Ignorance of the law is no excuse. I’m ready to start.
If you wish to write and/or publish an article on Operation Disclosure all you need to do is send your entry to UniversalOm432Hz@gmail.com applying these following rules.
The subject of your email entry should be: “Entry Post | (Title of your post) | Operation Disclosure”
– Must be in text format
– Proper Grammar
– No foul language
– Your signature/name/username at the top
If you wish to receive the daily Operation Disclosure Newsletter, you can subscribe via the PayPal “Subscribe” button located on the site.
Our mission at Operation Disclosure is to bring you important news events and raw intel from various sources focused on exposing the Deep State/Cabal and their downfall. We are also focused on disclosing our lost ancient origins and extraterrestrial contact.
Disclaimer: All articles, videos, and images posted on Operation Disclosure were submitted by readers and/or handpicked by the site itself for informational and/or entertainment purposes. All statements, claims, views and opinions that appear on this site are always presented as unverified and should be discerned by the reader. We do not endorse any opinions expressed on this website and we do not support, represent or guarantee the completeness, truthfulness, accuracy, or reliability of any content posted on this website.
Copyright © 2021 Operation Disclosure