Emergency Powers

27 Jan

James Turk interviews Lawrence Parks on the subject of “emergency powers”.

Note that, in my opinion, the President’s “emergency powers” only apply within the districts and territories “of the United States”.  They do not apply within the borders of the States of the Union (“The United States of America”).  If my opinion is roughly correct, it implies that your exposure to the President’s “emergency powers” may depend on whether you consent to assent to government’s presumption that you are “in” a territorial state (“this state”) of the singular “United States“.

In theory, if you can establish that 1) you’re a man made in God’s image (Genesis 1:26-28); 2) you’re “endowed by your Creator with certain unalienable Rights” (“Declaration of Independence”); 3) are one of the people of a State of the Union (like “The State of Texas”); who 4) is living and working within a State of the Union (a State of “The United States of America“); which 5) is not a “state of emergency”; and who is 6) entitled to “separation of powers”; and 7) therefore does not consent to be subject to administrative law or administrative process; then, 8) you might not be subject to President Obama’s “emergency powers”.

video       00:06:40



Tags: , , , , ,

33 responses to “Emergency Powers

  1. Fritz

    January 27, 2015 at 9:25 PM

    Mr. Chief Justice HUGHES : “Emergency does not create power. Emergency does not increase granted power or remove or diminish the restrictions imposed upon power granted or reserved. The constitution was adopted in a period of grave emergency. Its grants of power to the federal government and its limitations of the power of the states were determined in the light of emergency, and they are not altered by emergency. What power was thus granted and what limitations were thus imposed are questions which have always been and always will be, the subject of close examination under our constitutional system. HOME BUILDING & LOAN ASS?N VS BLAISDELL (1934);
    “Although an emergency may not call into life a power which has never lived, never the less, emergency may afford a reason for the exertion of a living power already enjoyed.” Wilson vs New, 243 U. S. 332, 348.
    But even the war power does not remove constitutional Limitations safeguarding essential liberties. SEE EX PARTE Milligan, 4 Wall. 2, 120-127; U.S. v Russel l, 13 Wall. 623,627; Hamilton v Kentucky Distilleries & Warehouse Co., 251 U.S. 146, 155; U.S. v L Cohen Grocery Co., 255 U.S. 81, 88.

    The constitution was adopted in a period of grave emergency, GRAVE EMERGENCY Therefore it’s rather odd that ANY emergency can make the Constitution void.Just my opinion

    • Adask

      January 27, 2015 at 10:04 PM

      Good information. Good opinion. Thanks.

      • Fritz

        January 28, 2015 at 3:26 AM

        Y thank you Sir. No Title of Nobility intended. I was raised to say that. Can’t seem to break the habit.

    • Doug

      January 30, 2015 at 8:24 AM

      Fritz, (and all concerned) … the Con-sti-stupid went by the way of the 86 file when the monetary system usurped it. Whether or not Americans want to admit the truth, they have waived the Constitution in order to utilize the privately owned (formerly internal) bank notes belonging to the FEDERAL RESERVE.

      The Constitution is an all or nothing document with NO PROVISION for fiat (dishonest money) currency or the myriad of commercial paper substitutes and credit so convenient to the lazy and apathetic folks addicted to the sick FEDERAL SYSTEM.

      The FEDERAL system is commercial in nature and exists completely independent of the Constitutional system and common law. Until Americans agree to use honest (Constitutional) money and actually disassociate themselves from all frauds and legal fictions they are deserving of their UN-constitutional condition and should either put up or shut up about it.

      • Fritz

        January 31, 2015 at 2:22 AM

        Stealthy encroachments happening at a snails pace are not easily detected if at all. It has been a long slow insidious process. I still say, IF the “right question” was asked to the “right Court” things would at least be brought to light. Then again, The Executive “branch” leader could say, like Andy Jackson, The Supreme Court has made their decision, now, let them enforce it. I believe the Good LORD is letting us try anything & everything to prove it ain’t gonna work unless we do it his way & I don’t see enough people wanting to do that. Anyway, I know the end result & I’m really looking forward to the last page of the last chapter being over. Thanks for responding.

  2. Fritz

    January 27, 2015 at 9:42 PM

    A law is considered void on its face if its meaning is so vague that persons of ordinary intelligence must guess at its meaning and may differ as to the statute’s application (Connally v. General Construction Co., 269 U.S. 385, 46 S. Ct. 126, 70 L. Ed. 2d 322 [1926]). due process requires that citizens receive fair notice of what sort of conduct to avoid. For example, a Cincinnati, Ohio, city ordinance made it a criminal offense for three or more persons to assemble on a sidewalk and conduct themselves in a manner that was annoying to passersby. A conviction carried the possibility of a $50 fine and between one and thirty days imprisonment. The U.S. Supreme Court reversed the convictions of several persons found guilty of violating the ordinance after a demonstration and picketing (Coates v. Cincinnati, 402 U.S. 611, 91 S. Ct. 1686, 29 L. Ed. 2d 214 [1971]). The Court ruled that the ordinance was unconstitutionally vague because it subjected citizens to an unascertainable standard. Stating that “conduct that annoys some people does not annoy others,” the Court said that the ordinance left citizens to guess at the proper conduct required. The Court noted that the city could lawfully prohibit persons from blocking the sidewalks, littering, obstructing traffic, committing assaults, or engaging in other types of undesirable behavior through “ordinances directed with reasonable specificity toward the conduct to be prohibited.”

    I may be wrong, but I think I have “ordinary intelligence” SOoooo, A law is considered void on its face if its meaning is so vague that persons of ordinary intelligence must guess at its meaning and may differ as to the statute’s application (Connally v. General Construction Co., 269 U.S. 385, 46 S. Ct. 126, 70 L. Ed. 2d 322 [1926]).

    • Doug

      February 2, 2015 at 10:09 AM

      Even though a law may be considered “null and void” in one jurisdiction, it may be and in this case is LEGAL in another – separate and distinct jurisdiction.

      FEDERAL RESERVE NOTES are counterfeit currency in a Constitutional jurisdiction.

      [No State shall make any Thing payable for debt other than gold or silver coin … under the constitution]. Since no charge of counterfeiting has ever been brought the only other option is that these two methods of payment operate in different jurisdictions.

  3. pop de adam

    January 28, 2015 at 12:22 AM

    “Most county governments were abolished in the 1990s, although a handful remain.”

    Do you suppose this is true?

    Have Districts surmounted Counties? The sheriffs and jails are still walking their walk.

    In a Republic others will screw you over, In a democracy they all do. As to government, do you need to be controlled? What would change if you rejected both? You haven’t killed anyone yet, but would you?

    • pop de adam

      January 28, 2015 at 12:51 AM

      They can’t keep their own laws from conflicting. Why do States (of the union?) themselves use zipcodes if they are states and not a district or agency of this supposed nation? If I am mischaracterized as a agent or citizen, why am I not immune to prosecution? They suck and are fxxks and you should push them and their kin downstairs.

    • Fritz

      January 28, 2015 at 12:55 AM

      pop de adam
      @ > You haven’t killed anyone yet, but would you?

      If this a Federal Court, I exercise my 5th Amendment right to remain silent in regards to that question. Same principle applies to a so called “State Court” that has the SAME State Constitutional Right. HOWEVER, I want it clearly understood that I believe in the right of self preservation, AND if necessary, I WILL exercise that right, TOO. I do hope that this is clearly understood. ok Judge pop?

    • Fritz

      February 1, 2015 at 1:45 AM

      pop de adam,
      @ Have Districts surmounted Counties?
      It appears we have districts within REGIONS. But, what difference does it make? IF we knew the truth & had the true facts about everything, & why we are where we are, this does not change anything. It will still be the same. Correct me if you think I’m wrong.BUT, I cannt grasp that if we know why the Titanic is sinking, our knowing why will not stop it from continuing to sink.IF I am missing something(s), tell me, anybody. Thanks

  4. Fritz

    January 28, 2015 at 3:55 AM

    The following is a short article, but it has good info in my opinion.

    The Constitution A Living Instrument????
    “The Constitution is a written instrument. As such, its meaning does not alter. That
    which it meant when it was adopted, it means now.” South Carolina v. United States

  5. russ

    January 28, 2015 at 12:57 PM

    Al, I agree with your opinion as stated above, however you never listed money/currency. Do you also think money/currency and choice of law go together? That the money you use affects the law of the place you are in? By contracts people have made, DL, SS, FIT, home loan, voter registration, ZIP, they may not be in the place they think they are in.

  6. Adask

    January 28, 2015 at 1:05 PM

    As I see it, if you’re using fiat currency you are condemned to courts of equity and/or administrative tribunals. If you’re using real money, you have access to courts of LAW.

    That opinion is based on a fairly long argument that I’m not going to try to reproduce here. However, that’s my story and I’m stickin’ to it.

  7. russ

    January 28, 2015 at 5:38 PM

    I agree with that. I haven’t used the FRN’s in over a year and don’t plan to use them in the future for that reason. I prefer to use the inelastic kind.

    However, Karl Lentz still uses FRN’s and he still uses all the contracts everybody else uses. And he brings common law jurisdiction in to the court building by establishing his own claim in his court of record to counter a plaintiff. He demands the plaintiff must appear. This blog has a good write up of establishing a court of record and describes Karl Lentz approach in how he fought off the CPS:

  8. Toland

    January 28, 2015 at 5:40 PM

    How does one “establish” as fact in court that one is made in God’s image? That is, beyond merely making the assertion as an article of religious belief.

    The 1st Amendment of course requires the judge to allow you to believe whatever you choose, including things like: “the law does not apply to me”, “I’m a visiting Martian with superpowers”, etc. But by the same token the judge is free to disagree and rule accordingly.

    So how does your belief, which the court will obviously not contest, graduate to being a fact which the court must accept and act upon?

  9. Adask

    January 28, 2015 at 6:07 PM

    The question is not “how do I prove that I am a man made in God’s image?”. The question is, once I’ve made that claim, Who will take the witness stand to swear that I am NOT a “man made in God’s image”?

    It is impossible to disprove my claim. More, my claim is backed by my faith and protected by the 1st Amendment in federal courts and Article 1.6 of the Constitution of The State of Texas in State courts.

    So far, the courts and government have imposed the MOOA laws upon us based on unstated presumptions. Once I challenge or refute those presumptions, who will argue for the government and on the record that the people of the States of the Union are nothing but “animals”?

  10. russ

    January 28, 2015 at 6:08 PM

    Toland, study a court of record versus a court of no record. A court building is just a building, like a tennis court is just a tennis court, until the players arrive at the court and bring the rules of the game. The gov will not bring a court of record (common law) to you, they will bring code as a complaint. You must bring that court of record with you as a man by bringing your own claim. The odds are stacked against you as a defendent.

    Your comment regarding allowing one to believe “the law does not apply to me”, is better contemplated as “which law is applicable to me?” “Applicable” is the key word. I am not a for hire truck driver using the common ways for commerce, so why would you think that law is applicable to me? What evidence are you relying on to make a legal conclusion I am bound by that law? I am not a government employee “within the United States” who has income “effectively connected with a trade or business”, so why would those laws be applicable to me? What evidence are you relying on to make that legal conclusion? In a court of record, the plaintiff must appear and testify under oath and penalty of perjury to make those assertions. They don’t want that.

  11. Toland

    January 28, 2015 at 7:53 PM

    Yes, it is impossible to disprove your claim of being made in God’s image, and under the 1st Amendment no one will dispute your right to believe or state it. But that doesn’t mean anyone else in the courtroom has to share your belief or act as if it’s factual.

    Obviously, because otherwise all any defendant would have to do is make 100 unproven claims which, if any one of them is true, should result in the immediate dismissal of the case. The judge or prosecution would then be obliged to disprove all 100 claims before the trial could proceed. But this isn’t what happens.

  12. Adask

    January 28, 2015 at 8:14 PM

    Not so. Most unproven claims will not stand. The “man made in God’s image” must stand because it’s a fundamental principle of the Jewish and Christian faiths. If you’re not a man or woman made in God’s image, you can’t be a Jew or Christian and there’s no inherent reason why you can’t be shot and killed like a deer or a duck.

  13. Toland

    January 28, 2015 at 8:46 PM

    I’m trying to think of where we’ve seen confirmation of this “must stand because it’s a fundamental principle of the Jewish and Christian faiths” rule of jurisprudence.

    Could you cite your favorite example of a case where the court accepted as fact a defendant’s claim simply because it was a fundamental principle of the Jewish or Christian faith?

    • Adask

      January 28, 2015 at 10:28 PM

      If government denies that I’m a “man made in God’s image” as per Genesis 1:26-28, they have to deny that all people are not “men/women made in God’s image”. If there are any Christians on the jury, they won’t take kindly to that denial since, if they (and I) aren’t men/women made in God’s image, we can’t be Christians and therefore can’t be saved. I (and the jurors) am/are entitled to our faith. Genesis 1:26-28 is not some obscure, debatable passage from the Bible. If government or anyone else is too unwilling to admit that truth, odds are the jury won’t be so blind.

      • Anthony Clifton

        February 3, 2015 at 11:14 AM

        Knowing the Truth is the issue, [Zephaniah 3:9] the word Government for Americans is defined by the Constitution, not the Talmud and it’s adherents.

        Where specifically in the Old Testament do the Children of Israel
        [Genesis 49 & Deuteronomy 32]
        “turn into” so-called ‘Jews’…from Khazaria, Samaria, or New York City ?

        Bad Faith oozes from the Talmud.

        No man can serve two masters.

  14. Fritz

    January 28, 2015 at 9:45 PM

    The case below, should be a real eye opener in regards to Judeo/Christian doctrine & S.S.N. re: a driver license & IF you check out the cases mentioned in the Leahy case, e.g., Wisconsin v. Yoder, & especially, Stevens v. Berger. The Leahy case talks about the Mark of the Beast, in Revelation. Leahy WON, but the only thing I will not do is use Leahy’s Title 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1982) complaint. Nevertheless, I cannot recommend strongly enough for anyone to read the Leahy v. District of Columbia case, AND, the other cases mentioned in the Leahy case. Ruth Bader Ginsburg rendered the Court’s opinion. It’s one of the BEST cases I have come across YET. AND, it has never been overturned. CHEERS !!!


    833 F.2d 1046 (1987)

    John C. LEAHY, Jr., Appellant v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.

    United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.

  15. Roger

    January 28, 2015 at 10:06 PM

    Toland > “Could you cite your favorite example of a case where the court accepted as fact a defendant’s claim simply because it was a fundamental principle of the Jewish or Christian faith?”

    No, because there is no such case. American courts do not practice law “respecting an establishment of religion”. It would conflict with the First Amendment.

    Anyway, for whatever reason, there is no example in the case record of any court applying a “fundamental principles” religious test to a claim of fact by the defense.

    • Adask

      January 28, 2015 at 10:33 PM

      There may not yet be such a case on record. But there’s also no case on record where the courts admit (or deny) that the MOOA laws are unconstitutional. There was such a case. The MOOA defense was was advanced. The government simply stopped prosecuting. Therefore, there is no such record.

      The lack of record does not disprove the validity of a particular theory of defense.

  16. palani

    January 30, 2015 at 8:18 AM

    Why worry about the limits of the presidents’ power to declare a state of emergency? He is nothing but a servant in his official capacity. What about your own capacity to declare a state of emergency and the laws that result from your own declaration? The principle of necessity then becomes the main justification for any action.

  17. Fritz

    February 2, 2015 at 5:07 AM

    Constitutional provisions for the security of person and property are to be liberally construed, and ‘it is the duty of courts to be watchful for the constitutional rights of the citizen, and against any stealthy encroachments thereon.’ Boyd v. United States, 116 U. S. 616, 635, 6 S. Ct. 524, 535 (29 L. Ed. 746); Gouled v. United States, 255 U. S. page 304, 41 S. Ct. 261, BYARS v. UNITED STATES, 273 U.S. 28 (47 S.Ct. 248, 71 L.Ed. 520)

    In an ongoing public relations campaign, Nike said it did not use exploitative labor practices, and it actually protected workers’ rights abroad. Based on proof that contradicted the PR blitz, a California man sued the company in 1998 for false advertising . The company challenged the issue, saying that as an artificial person, it was allowed to lie. Lying, after all, is protected by the freedom of speech granted in the First Amendment.

  18. dog-move

    February 6, 2015 at 9:54 AM

    I missed you Anthony Clifton, good to see a post from you.

    • Anthony Clifton

      February 8, 2015 at 5:39 PM

      it might interest you to know that I dined rather informally at a TACO CASA
      this passed week with a Baptist Preacher and a concerned member of the
      Congregation where the aforementioned Baptist Preacher preaches about the
      Chutzpah peddlers who claim, in direct violation of the 9th commandment,
      that because they adhere to the Talmud and hate Jesus that that , in fact
      makes Abraham a coreligionist who also Hated Jesus and had a copy of the Talmud,
      how else might one explain his friendship with the One and Only “God”…?


      I have just listened to several hours of the Davidian/FBI “negotiation” tapes from
      march/April 1993…

      how some people live with themselves is way beyond me…

      • Adask

        February 8, 2015 at 11:25 PM

        It might also interest you, or others, to note that–from the Jews’ perspective–Abraham had to be a “goy”.

        Given that there were no “Jews” until after Jacob/Israel, and given that Jews regard non-Jews as “goy” (animals), then it follows that since Abraham and his son Isaac were both not descended from Jacob/Israel, they were not “Jews”. Thus, it appears that(from the Jewish perspective) Abraham–the patriarch of the Jewish, Christian and Muslim faiths–and his son Isaac must’ve been “goy”.

        More, it would seem to follow that the “Jews” are descended from “goy”.

      • Fritz

        February 11, 2015 at 10:30 PM

        Do not know if TACO CASA is aka Taco Bell, but some people should be pleasedto hear that Taco Bell is now proudly serving Genetically modified foods.

  19. Anthony Clifton

    February 12, 2015 at 1:16 PM

    the word “Jew” didn’t enter the lexicon until post 1700AD.

    the Talmud was not available in PRINT until 500AD.

    Abraham did not HATE Jesus or have a copy of the Talmud.

    In Fact the Money Changers & Pharisees didn’t have a copy of the Talmud….

    Maybe Christopher Bollyn has some research information as to when the first
    so-called “Jew” entered the “scene”…

    Jesus declared that KNOWING the TRUTH….will set us free…

    knowing who hates the truth & Justice….as a religion,
    should be of the utmost importance
    for MEN in America…


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s