“Something’s Happening” With Reproductive Health While the CDC Dismisses It as “Female Hysteria”

“Something’s Happening” With Reproductive Health While the CDC Dismisses It as “Female Hysteria”

The lipids [from the shot] seem to go to the ovaries… They’re getting concentrated there. Something’s happening, and no one’s interested in investigating it.”

“Something’s Happening” With Reproductive Health While the CDC Dismisses It as “Female Hysteria” [VIDEO]

@redvoicemedia

UK Government refuses to publish further COVID-19 Data because it suggests the Triple Vaccinated are developing AIDS

UK Government refuses to publish further COVID-19 Data because it suggests the Triple Vaccinated are developing AIDS

The UK Health Security Agency is refusing to publish any further data on Covid-19 cases, hospitalisations and deaths by vaccination status because previous figures show that the triple vaccinated population are on the verge of developing Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome, and the double vaccinated are suffering Antibody-Dependent Enhancement.

Source – Page 37

Back in October 2021, The Expose exclusively revealed how the UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA) data was showing that the Covid-19 injections has a real-world effectiveness against infection of minus-109%.

Source

Not long after this, the UKHSA added a note to their reports stating ‘case rates among vaccinated and unvaccinated populations should not be used to estimate vaccine effectiveness against COVID-19 infection

Click to enlarge

This was clearly done in response to our report, and also because they could no longer use their own data to show that the Covid-19 injections are effective. But it was perfectly okay when Pfizer used this exact method to falsely claim their mRNA Covid-19 injection was 95% effective of course.

Now, as we quitely predicted, the UKHSA have gone one step further, and have announced that they will no longer publish the number of Covid-19 cases, hospitalisations, and deaths by vaccine status.

The reason?

The UKHSA claims this is because the UK Government has ended free universal Covid-19 testing and this therefore affects their “ability to robustly monitor Covid-19 cases by vaccination status”.

However, this doesn’t explain why they’re no longer able to publish the data on Covid hospitalisations and deaths. If someone is hospitalised with Covid-19 then we’re pretty sure the doctors and nurses are going to know about it, and if someone dies of Covid-19 we’re pretty sure a doctor is going to know about it.

There’s a good reason though as to why their excuse falls short, and it’s because they are lying. The UK Health Security Agency has been looking for an excuse for months to stop publishing the data because it clearly shows that the triple vaccinated population are on the cusp of developing Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome (AIDS), and the double vaccinated population are suffering Vaccine-Associated Enhanced Disease (VAED) and Antibody-Dependent Enhancement (ADE).

The Evidence

The UKHSA claims that vaccine effectiveness wanes substantially over time and this is why it’s important to get a booster dose.

Source

But this is a lie. Vaccine effectiveness doesn’t wane. Immune system performance does.

Vaccine effectiveness isn’t really a measure of a vaccine, it is a measure of a vaccine recipients immune system performance compared to the immune system performance of an unvaccinated person.

Vaccines allegedly help develop immunity by imitating an infection. Once the imitation infection induced by the vaccine goes away, the body is left with a supply of “memory” t-cells and antibodies that will remember how to fight that disease in the future.

So, when the authorities state that the effectiveness of the vaccines weaken over time, what they really mean is that the performance of your immune system weakens over time.

A vaccine effectiveness of -50% would mean that immune system of the vaccinated is now performing at a worse rate than the natural immune system of the unvaccinated. It would mean the Covid-19 vaccines have damaged the immune system.

With that being said it should come as no surprise to anyone as to why the UKHSA no longer wish to publish the Covid-19 data by vaccination status, because it clearly shows in all areas that the Covid-19 injections are proving to have a negative vaccine effectiveness that is declining by the week, and therefore a negative immune system performance, which implies the fully vaccinated are developing Covid-19 vaccine induced Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome.

The following table showing the number of cases by vaccination status between week 9 and week 12 of 2022, is taken from the UKHSA Week 13 – 2022 – Vaccine Surveillance Report, the very last report to contain figures on Covid-19 by vaccination status –

Source – Page 40

As you can see from the above, the triple vaccinated population accounted for the majority of Covid-19 cases in each age group by an extremely concerning amount, except for the under 18’s.

The highest number of cases in those four weeks was recorded among triple jabbed 50-59-year olds, with 210,265 confirmed cases. This compares to just 7,669 cases among unvaccinated 50-59-year-olds.

The UKHSA also used to conveniently provide the case-rates per 100,000 individuals by vaccination status in their vaccine surveillance reports, and the following table has been stitched together from the case-rate tables found in the Week 3Week 7 and Week 13 Vaccine Surveillance Reports –

Source

As you can see from the above the case-rates per 100k have been highest among the triple vaccinated population over these 3 months, except for the 18-29-year-olds in the week 3 report only, and the under 18’s in all 3 months.

However, it is worth noting the rapid decline in rates among unvaccinated children compared to the small decline in rates among vaccinated children. This suggests that in just a few weeks the case rate will be highest among triple jabbed kids. But now we’ll never know because the UKHSA is hiding it.

Now that we know the case-rates we can use Pfizer’s simple vaccine effectiveness formula to calculate the real-world Covid-19 vaccine effectiveness among the triple vaccinated.

Unvaccinated Case Rate – Vaccinated Case Rate / Unvaccinated Case Rate x 100

The following chart shows the Covid-19 vaccine effectiveness among the triple vaccinated population in England in the Week 3Week 7 and Week 13 reports of 2022 –

Click to enlarge

This is nowhere near the claimed 95% effectiveness by Pfizer is it?

As you can clearly see the vaccine effectiveness has been falling month on month, with the lowest effectiveness recorded among 60-69-year-olds at a shocking minus-391%. This age group has experienced the sharpest decline, falling from minus-104.69% in week 3.

But one of the more concerning declines in vaccine effectiveness has been recorded among 18-29-year-olds, falling to minus-231% by Week 12 of 2022 from +10.19% in Week 3.

However, vaccine effectiveness isn’t really a measure of a vaccine, it is a measure of a vaccine recipients immune system performance compared to the immune system performance of an unvaccinated person.

Using the case rates provided by UKHSA, we can also calculate the immune system performance. All we need to do is alter the vaccine effectiveness formula slightly for a negative immune system performance, and use the same formula for a positive immune system performance –

Positive Immune System Performance = Unvaccinated Case Rate – Vaccinated Case Rate / Unvaccinated Case Rate x 100
Negative Immune System Performance = Unvaccinated Case Rate – Vaccinated Case Rate / Vaccinated Case Rate x 100

The following chart shows the immune system performance of the triple vaccinated population in England by age group in four week periods, compared to the natural immune system of the unvaccinated population –

Click to enlarge

The lowest immune system performance is currently among 60-69-year-olds at a shocking minus-80%, but all triple vaccinated people aged 30 to 59 are not far behind, with an immune system performance ranging from minus-75% to minus-76%.

Even the 18 to 29-year-olds are within this region at minus-70%, falling from an immune system performance of +11.35% between week 51 and week 2, meaning they have suffered the fastest decline in immune system performance.

AIDS (acquired immune deficiency syndrome) is the name used to describe a number of potentially life-threatening infections and illnesses that happen when your immune system has been severely damaged.

People with acquired immune deficiency syndrome are at an increased risk for developing certain cancers and for infections that usually occur only in individuals with a weak immune system.

If that immune system performance was to hit around the -95% mark then this would strongly suggest the triple vaccinated population have developed some new form of Covid-19 vaccine induced acquired immunodeficiency syndrome, and unfortunately based on the current trend seen over the past 3 months, the youngest age groups do not have long to wait.

But we won’t be able to officially confirm it because the UK Health Security Agency have decided to sweep it under the carpet and hide the official data.

That isn’t the only terrible outcome that the UKHSA are attempting to conceal though. Because UKHSA data also suggests the double vaccinated are suffering Antibody-Dependent Enhancement.

Antibody-Dependent Enhancement

The UKHSA have been trying to hide this revalation since the turn of the year, when they decided to stop publishing the rates per 100,000 for the double jabbed and instead only publish the rates for the triple jabbed.

The rates are calculated by dividing the total population size of each vaccination status group by 100,000; and then dividing the total number of cases, hospitalisations or deaths among each vaccinated group by the calculated figure.

e.g. – 3 million Double Vaccinated / 100k = 30
500,000 cases among double vaccinated / 30 = 16,666.66 cases per 100,000 population.

Questions were raised at the time as to why the UKHSA decided to stop publishing the rates for the double vaccinated, mainly because in the weeks prior they were beginning to look terrible for the double vaccinated population. But, as is usually the case, the UKHSA never provided a reason.

However, the UKHSA produces a separate report containing the overall population size by age group and vaccination status, meaning we can take these figures and actually calculate the case, hospitalisation and death rates per 100,000 among the double vaccinated ourselves.

Here’s the table taken from the Week 12 Influenza and Covid-19 Surveillance Report –

The following chart shows the actual double vaccinated population size by age group on the 20th March 2022, based on the figures provided by UKHSA above –

Source – Page 85

Now that we know the population size all we have to do is divide each population by 100,000; and then divide the number of cases, hospitalisations and deaths by the answer to that equation, to calculate the case, hospitalisation and death rates.

The following chart shows the Covid-19 hospitalisation rate per 100,000 individuals by vaccination status between 28th Feb and 27th March 22. The unvaccinated case rate has been taken from page 45 of the UKHSA Vaccine Surveillance Report – Week 13 – 2022, and the double vaccinated case rate has been calculated with the number of hospitalisations provided on page 41 of the same report –

the rates per 100,000 are highest among the double vaccinated in every age group except for the 18-29-year-olds. This data shows that all double vaccinated people aged 30 and over are more likely to be hospitalised with Covid-19 than unvaccinated people.

The following chart shows the Covid-19 death rate per 100,000 individuals by vaccination status between 28th Feb and 27th March 22. The unvaccinated case rate has been taken from page 45 of the UKHSA Vaccine Surveillance Report – Week 13 – 2022, and the double vaccinated case rate has been calculated with the number of deaths provided on page 44 of the same report –

The death-rate per 100,000 is highest among the double vaccinated in all age groups excluding the 30-39 year olds where the death rate is the same as the unvaccinated, and the 18-29-year-olds where the death rate is lower. This data shows that all double vaccinated people aged 40 and over are more likely to die of Covid-19 than unvaccinated people.

If the rates per 100,000 are higher among the vaccinated, which they are, then this means the Covid-19 injections are proving to have a negative effectiveness in the real-world. And by using Pfizer’s vaccine effectiveness formula we can accurately decipher what the real world effectiveness among each age group actually is.

Pfizer’s vaccine formula: Unvaccinated Rate per 100k – Vaccinated Rate per 100k / Unvaccinated Rate per 100k x 100 = Vaccine Effectiveness

The following chart shows the real world Covid-19 vaccine effectiveness against hospitalisation among the double vaccinated population in England, based on the hospitalisation rates provided above –

This data shows that all double vaccinated people over age 30 are between 0.2 and 2 times more likely to be hospitalised, with a minus-1% vaccine effectiveness among 30 to 39 year olds, and a minus-76% vaccine effectiveness among the over 80’s.

The following chart shows the real world Covid-19 vaccine effectiveness against death among the double vaccinated population in England, based on the death rates provided above –

This data shows that all double vaccinated people over age 40 are between 2 and 3 times more likely to die of Covid-19, with a minus-90% vaccine effectiveness among 30 to 39 year olds, and a minus-156% vaccine effectiveness among the over 80’s.

But why are most double vaccinated people more likely to be hospitalised, and more likely to die of Covid-19 than unvaccinated people?

Vaccine-Associated Enhanced Disease

Intensive research conducted by health experts throughout the years has brought to light increasing concerns about “Antibody-Dependent Enhancement” (ADE), a phenomenon where vaccines make the disease far worse by priming the immune system for a potentially deadly overreaction.

ADE can arise in several different ways but the best-known is dubbed the ‘Trojan Horse Pathway’. This occurs when non-neutralizing antibodies generated by past infection or vaccination fail to shut down the pathogen upon re-exposure.

Instead, they act as a gateway by allowing the virus to gain entry and replicate in cells that are usually off limits (typically immune cells, like macrophages). That, in turn, can lead to wider dissemination of illness, and over-reactive immune responses that cause more severe illness.

Of the information collated by Pfizer so far from the ongoing study they have conducted, it is plain to see that they are fully aware antibody-dependent enhancement is a possible consequence of their Covid-19 injection, and it looks like they may even know the consequence has killed people.

Pfizer, the company hit with the largest healthcare fraud settlement and criminal fine to date in 2009; which also happens to be the same company behind the first every mRNA gene therapy injection administered to the general public under emergency use authorisation in the name of Covid-19, has admitted in confidential documents, that it desperately tried to keep from going public, that its Covid-19 mRNA gene therapy may cause Vaccine-Associated Enhanced Disease.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) attempted to delay the release of Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine safety data for 75 years despite approving the injection after only 108 days of safety review on December 11th, 2020.

But in early January 2022, Federal Judge Mark Pittman ordered them to release 55,000 pages per month. They released 12,000 pages by the end of January.

Since then, PHMPT has posted all of the documents to their website. The latest drop happened on 1st April 22.

One of the documents contained in the latest data dump is ‘reissue_5.3.6 postmarketing experience.pdf’. Table 5, found on page 11 of the document shows an ‘Important Potential Risk’, and that risk is listed as ‘Vaccine-Associated Enhanced Disease (VAED), including Vaccine-Associated Enhanced Reporatory Disease (VAERD)’.

Vaccine-associated enhanced diseases (VAED) are modified presentations of clinical infections affecting individuals exposed to a wild-type pathogen after having received a prior vaccination for the same pathogen.

Enhanced responses are triggered by failed attempts to control the infecting virus, and VAED typically presents with symptoms related to the target organ of the infection pathogen. According to scientists VAED occurs as two different immunopathologies, antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE) and vaccine-associated hypersensitivity (VAH).

Pfizer claim in their confidential document that up to 28th Feb 2021, they had received 138 cases reporting 317 potentially relevant events indicative of Vaccine-Associated Enhanced Disease. Of these 71 were medically signifiant resulting in 8 disabilities, 13 were life-threatening events, and 38 of the 138 people died.

Of the 317 relevant events reported by 138 people, 135 were labelled as ‘drug ineffective’, 53 were labelled as dysponoea (struggling to breathe), 23 were labelled as Covid-19 pneumonia, 8 were labelled as respiratory failure, and 7 were labelled as seizure.

Pfizer also admitted that 75 of the 101 subjects with confirmed Covid-19 following vaccination, had severe disease resulting in hospitalisation, disability, life-threatening consequences of death.

But Pfizer still definitively concluded, for the purposes of their submitted safety data to the Food and Drug Administration, the very data that was needed to gain emergency use authorisation and make them billions and billions of dollars, that ‘None of the 75 cases could be definitively considered as VAED’.

But Pfizer then went on to confirm that based on the current evidence, VAED remains a theoretical risk.

This confidential data proves that the Covid-19 injections should never have been granted emergency use authorisation, and should have been pulled from distribution by the FDA as soon as they sighted the figures.

But the FDA failed to act, and that is precisely why the UK Health Security Agency has been looking for, and found an inadequate excuse not to publish any further data on Covid-19 cases, hospitalisations and deaths by vaccination status.

“We declare Doctors should not be blocked from providing life-saving medical treatment.”

“We declare Doctors should not be blocked from providing life-saving medical treatment.”

DR. URSO: “… the NIH said early that there was no early treatment and that was a lie.”

DR. RISCH: “They can lie about the science. They couldn’t agree with the science, that doesn’t change the science.”

DR. TYSON: “… we should have been able to save 90 to 99% of those who have COVID-19, our data is pretty clear. We’re over 10,000 patients for does nobody died if they started treatment before day seven.”

https://rumble.com/v14dda6-we-declare-doctors-should-not-be-blocked-from-providing-life-saving-medical.html

Right to Travel

Right to Travel

DESPITE ACTIONS OF POLICE AND LOCAL COURTS, HIGHER COURTS HAVE RULED THAT AMERICAN CITIZENS HAVE A RIGHT TO TRAVEL WITHOUT STATE PERMITS

By Jack McLamb
(from Aid & Abet Newsletter)

For years professionals within the criminal justice system have acted on the belief that traveling by motor vehicle was a privilege that was given to a citizen only after approval by their state government in the form of a permit or license to drive. In other words, the individual must be granted the privilege before his use of the state highways was considered legal.

Legislators, police officers, and court officials are becoming aware that there are court decisions that disprove the belief that driving is a privilege and therefore requires government approval in the form of a license. Presented here are some of these cases:

“The right of a citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon in the ordinary course of life and business is a common right which he has under his right to enjoy life and liberty, to acquire and possess property, and to pursue happiness and safety. It includes the right in so doing to use the ordinary and usual conveyances of the day; and under the existing modes of travel includes the right to drive a horse-drawn carriage or wagon thereon, or to operate an automobile thereon, for the usual and ordinary purposes of life and business. It is not a mere privilege, like the privilege of moving a house in the street, operating a business stand in the street, or transporting persons or property for hire along the street, which a city may permit or prohibit at will.”
[Thompson v. Smith, 155 Va. 367,154 SE 579 (1930)]

It could not be stated more directly or conclusively that citizens of the states have a common law right to travel, without approval or restriction (license), and that this right is protected under the U.S Constitution.

“The right to travel is a part of the liberty of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment.”
[Kent v. Dulles, 357 U.S. 116, 125 (1958)]

“The right to travel, to go from place to place as the means of transportation permit, is a natural right subject to the rights of others and to reasonable regulation under law. A restraint imposed by the Government of the United States upon this liberty, therefore, must conform with the provision of the Fifth Amendment that ‘No person shall be * * * deprived of * * * liberty * * * without due process of law’.”
[Schactman v. Dulles, 96 App DC 287, 225 F.2d 938, at 941]

As hard as it is for those of us in law enforcement to believe, there is no room for speculation in these court decisions. American citizens do indeed have the inalienable right to use the roadways unrestricted in any manner as long as they are not damaging or violating property or rights of others.

Government — in requiring the people to obtain drivers licenses, and accepting vehicle inspections and DUI/DWI roadblocks without question — is restricting, and therefore violating, the people’s common law right to travel.

Is this a new legal interpretation on this subject? Apparently not. This means that the beliefs and opinions our state legislators, the courts, and those in law enforcement have acted upon for years have been in error. Researchers armed with actual facts state that case law is overwhelming in determining that to restrict the movement of the individual in the free exercise of his right to travel is a serious breach of those freedoms secured by the U.S. Constitution and most state constitutions.

That means it is unlawful.

The revelation that the American citizen has always had the inalienable right to travel raises profound questions for those who are involved in making and enforcing state laws.

The first of such questions may very well be this: If the states have been enforcing laws that are unconstitutional on their face, it would seem that there must be some way that a state can legally put restrictions — such as licensing requirements, mandatory insurance, vehicle registration, vehicle inspections to name just a few — on a citizen’s constitutionally protected rights. Is that so?

For the answer, let us look, once again, to the U.S. courts for a determination of this very issue.

In Hertado v. California, 110 US 516, the U.S Supreme Court states very plainly: “The state cannot diminish rights of the people.”

And in Bennett v. Boggs, 1 Baldw 60, “Statutes that violate the plain and obvious principles of common right and common reason are null and void.”

Would we not say that these judicial decisions are straight to the point– that there is no lawful method for government to put restrictions or limitations on rights belonging to the people?

Other cases are even more straight forward:

“. . the assertion of federal rights, when plainly and reasonably made, is not to be defeated under the name of local practice.” [Davis v. Wechsler, 263 US 22, at 24 (1923)]

“Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them.”
[Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US 436, 491 (1966)]

“The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot thus be converted into a crime.”
[Miller v. U.S., 230 F.2d 486, at 489 (1956)]

“. . .there can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of his exercise of constitutional rights.”
[Sherar v. Cullen, 481 F.2d 946 (1973)]

We could go on, quoting court decision after court decision; however, the Constitution itself answers our question – Can a government legally put restrictions on the rights of the American people at anytime, for any reason?

The answer is found in Article Six of the U.S. Constitution:

“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof;…shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”

In the same Article, it says just who within our government that is bound by this Supreme Law:

“The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution…”

Here’s an interesting question. Is ignorance of these laws an excuse for such acts by officials?

If we are to follow the letter of the law, (as we are sworn to do), this places officials who involve themselves in such unlawful acts in an unfavorable legal situation. For it is a felony and federal crime to violate or deprive citizens of their constitutionally protected rights. Our system of law dictates that there are only two ways to legally remove a right belonging to the people.

These are (1) by lawfully amending the constitution, or (2) by a person knowingly waiving a particular right.

Some of the confusion on our present system has arisen because many millions of people have waived their right to travel unrestricted and volunteered into the jurisdiction of the state. Those who have knowingly given up these rights are now legally regulated by state law and must acquire the proper permits and registrations.

There are basically two groups of people in this category:

1) Citizens who involve themselves in commerce upon the highways of the state.

Here is what the courts have said about this:

“…For 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…as a place for private gain. For the latter purpose, no person has a vested right to use the highways of this state, but it is a privilege…which the (state) may grant or withhold at its discretion…”
[State v. Johnson, 75 Mont. 240, 243 P. 1073 (1926)]

There are many court cases that confirm and point out the difference between the right of the citizen to travel and a government privilege and there are numerous other court decisions that spell out the jurisdiction issue in these two distinctly different activities. However, because of space restrictions, we will leave it to officers to research it further for themselves.

(2) The second group of citizens that is legally under the jurisdiction of the state are those citizens who have voluntarily and knowingly waived their right to travel unregulated and unrestricted by requesting placement under such jurisdiction through the acquisition of a state driver’s license, vehicle registration, mandatory insurance, etc. (In other words, by contract.)

We should remember what makes this legal and not a violation of the common law right to travel is that they knowingly volunteer by contract to waive their rights. If they were forced, coerced or unknowingly placed under the state’s powers, the courts have said it is a clear violation of their rights.

This in itself raises a very interesting question. What percentage of the people in each state have applied for and received licenses, registrations and obtained insurance after erroneously being advised by their government that it was mandatory?

Many of our courts, attorneys and police officials are just becoming informed about this important issue and the difference between privileges and rights.

We can assume that the majority of those Americans carrying state licenses and vehicle registrations have no knowledge of the rights they waived in obeying laws such as these that the U.S. Constitution clearly states are unlawful, i.e. laws of no effect -laws that are not laws at all.

An area of serious consideration for every police officer is to understand that the most important law in our land which he has taken an oath to protect, defend, and enforce, is not state laws and city or county ordinances, but the law that supersedes all other laws — the U.S. Constitution. If laws in a particular state or local community conflict with the supreme law of our nation, there is no question that the officer’s duty is to uphold the U.S. Constitution.

Every police officer should keep the following U.S. court ruling –discussed earlier — in mind before issuing citations concerning licensing, registration, and insurance:

“The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot thus be converted into a crime.”
[Miller v. U.S., 230 F.2d 486, at 489 (1956)]

And as we have seen, traveling freely, going about one’s daily activities, is the exercise of a most basic right.

Bond vs. UNITED STATES

Bond vs. UNITED STATES

First published as “THE SOVEREIGN CITIZEN”

by Judge Dale, retired Thursday, 11 April 2013

Our federal government has instructed our federal, state and local police agencies that everyone who purports to be a SOVEREIGN should be TREATED as a TERRORIST! They have also brainwashed the American public into believing that being a SOVEREIGN is anti-American and unpatriotic! Perhaps this is “The POT calling the KETTLE black”?

WHAT IS SOVEREIGNTY? It is the inherent right and prerogative of a civilized people to rule itself, and to dictate all of the forms and conditions of the institutions it sets up to carry out this rule. Ironically, the U.S. SUPREME COURT agrees with those people who claim to be SOVEREIGN citizens of the American Republic!

• Bond vs. UNITED STATES, 529 US 334 – 2000, The Supreme Court held that the American People are in fact Sovereign and not the States or the Government. The court went on to define that local, state and federal law enforcement officers were committing unlawful actions against the Sovereign
People by the enforcement of the laws and are personally liable for their actions.
• Bond v. United States, 529 US 334 – 2000 – Supreme Court – Cited by 761 litigants in other cases.
• Bond v. US, 131 S. Ct. 2355 – 2011 – Supreme Court – Cited by 306 “ “
• Bond v. US, 1 F. 3d 631 – 1993 – Court of Appeals, 7th – Cited by 66 “ “

What are the implications of this 2000, U. S. Supreme Court ruling?

1] The delegates to the first Federal Convention prohibited the use of corporations by all governments representing the American Republic. Therefore, all of these corporate governments and their corporate laws
are a usurpation of the organic Constitution of the United States of America. All State Governments are now sub-corporations of the Federal Government, making all Courts and all law enforcement personnel, corporate federal agencies or employees. [See: James Madison Journal of the Federal Convention, Vol. 2, P. 722] and [Pull up your State Code on your PC and search the Code for the words “District of Columbia” and “Federal Government.” You will receive about 1000 references linking your state to the federal government.]

2] The state and federal government is a corporation and therefore the Congress, State Legislatures, City Councils, Municipalities and all State and Federal Courts are corporate entities posing as Constitutional branches of government.

3] Corporations are privately owned businesses, meaning that the Corporate United States belongs to one or more private individuals, which is always governed by a Board of Directors. The Corporate United States is privately owned by a group of European Royal and Elite individuals tied to the Federal Reserve System and the letters of incorporation are recorded in the Vatican. The President of the United States is actually the CEO of the United States and the Congress and all others are corporate employees. Everything they do is innthe interest of the corporate owners! I can’t access those documents because of National Security.

4] In order to promulgate and enforce Criminal Laws to govern the SOVEREIGN public, government must be SOVEREIGN too, which is an accepted RULE of LAW derived from the, Ancient Law of Kings. Corporations are not and can never be SOVEREIGN. They are not real; they are a fiction and only exist on paper.

5] Therefore, all laws created by these government corporations are private corporate regulations called public law, statutes, codes and ordinances to conceal their true nature. Do the Judge and your lawyer know about this? You bet they do!

6] Since these government bodies are not SOVEREIGN, they cannot promulgate or enforce CRIMINAL LAWS; they can only create and enforce CIVIL LAWS, which are duty bound to comply with the LAW of CONTRACTS. The Law of Contracts requires signed written agreements and complete transparency! Did you ever agree to be arrested and tried under any of their corporate statutes? For that matter, did you ever agree to contract with them by agreeing to be sued for violating their corporate regulations? Citations and Complaints are contracts but they lack transparency because you were never told what might happen to you if you agree to contract, and that you had a right to refuse the accommodation!

7] Do any of Americas Courts have Jurisdiction over a SOVEREIGN? Yes … but only by your consent to be judged by the Court. Can they compel (Summon or Subpoena) you to appear or participate in their process? No … they can’t compel you and Yes … they can ask but you can reject the accommodation in writing and nothing can be done about it because you have refused to give the court jurisdiction over you!

8] Enforcement of these corporate statutes by local, state and federal law enforcement officers are unlawful actions being committed against the SOVEREIGN public and these officers can be held personally liable for their actions. [Bond v. U.S., 529 US 334-2000]

9] There being no Constitutional Criminal Laws or Transparency in the American Justice System, everyone arrested, convicted and sentenced to prison under these CIVIL LAWS are in prison by CONSENT and therein, all American Jails are actually DEBTORS PRISONS!

10] Most of the County and State Prisons and all of the Federal Prisons are privately owned corporate businesses for profit, which kick back to the sentencing Judges. The Bureau of Prisons Privatization Management Branch provides general oversight, for these institutions. So if you are convicted in these Courts, you can expect to serve some jail time! Now you know why America has such high prison populations!

11] Can the State Government and Courts take Custody of your children? Only with your consent, otherwise their agents and officers can be held personally liable for their actions! Orphans are a different matter and can become wards of the Court until emancipated.

Corporate governments are a usurpation of the organic American Constitution and this corporatist onslaught in America has since its creation, been an ANTI-SOVEREIGN and TERRORIST REGIME and are in fact the real TERRORIST and TRAITORS to the American Republic.

Blessings,

Judge Dale, retired

This document is free online at AntiCorruption Society.com; SOURCE DOCUMENTS; Bond vs. UNITED STATES by Judge Dale, retired.

Finally Got My Hands on an English Translated Version of the Full Brief from Russian Military, Shout Out to Yeeun Min.

Finally Got My Hands on an English Translated Version of the Full Brief from Russian Military, Shout Out to Yeeun Min.

Now this is a translation of the dialogue from Igor Kirillov, and I don’t speak Russian myself so I can’t confirm it, but you can find it attached at to this post.

You need to read the ENTIRE thing, it’s not that long, but the big points are:

-Biological Threat Reduction Program were creating and trafficking biological weapons

-Special Russian Military Operation revealed biological weapons via pathogens, and they confiscated drones equipped with 30 Litre aerosol containers for spraying pathogens. Not only is that creating the pathogen, but they created a vessel to use as a weapon.

-The Biological weapons as well as Pharmaceutical activities were all held in Ukraine, and the ideologues behind the scheme are the ruling families of the DNC.

-Not only are AMERICANS conducting this kind of research, but so are Germany and Poland.

-Dissemination of pathogens on Ukraine was done so on their civilians, in the form of disseminating biological material by handing out counterfeit money contaminated with pathogens.

-Russia finds evidence of Pentagon inhumane experimentation on psychiatric patients in Ukraine.

-Veterinary laboratories like in Mariupol were being used as stash houses for pathogens to circumvent oversight.

-US shipped mass amounts of biological protective gear to Ukraine, proving their knowledge of bio activity.

-The US DNC was facilitating an OFFENSIVE biological weapons program.

-Russia claims they put an end to all criminal experimentation on civilians (think Nuremberg).

You guys, there is so much here. Please read it.

https://telegra.ph/Briefing-on-the-results-of-the-analysis-of-documents-related-to-the-military-biological-activities-of-the-United-States-on-the-t-05-11

President Trump has 2 rules:

President Trump has 2 rules:

  • Be the smartest person in the room.
  • ALWAYS pretend you aren’t.

It’s much easier to observe / gage your enemies that way, while simultaneously staying of their radar, giving the appearance you aren’t a threat.
They get loose with the lips when they’re a little too comfy & their guard down.
He’s likely done this for DECADES!

“We’re sick & tired of people telling us that every vote matters, when in fact, we know votes are being supressed.
No longer at the ballot box, but at the post office.”

President Trump was right.
He’s known how the system’s been rigged for a loooong time.

“Undiscovered ballots found from the 2020 Election.”

How could that happen, SO MANY TIMES?!