As I said in so many words the District of Columbia is a creation of the people
through their representatives that created the document that set aside that 10
square miles for the federal gov to “ inhabit.” The fed jurisdiction comes from
that document. It has plenary power within that area but it cannot supersede
the authority of its creators. “It’s” property is our property.
On Jul 19, 2021, at 4:28 PM, NELSON DICE <nelsondice@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
Ray,
With all due respect, I believe those that stormed the capitol are guilty
because,
The original Constitution authorized a District not exceeding 10 miles square.
One could maybe even state correctly that any part of 63 sq miles of
Maryland today that is “Washington, D.C. overlay zone is legitimate Federal
Property
So, I think those that insurrected hadn’t learned about the jurisdiction of
Washington D.C.
Like Storming Ft. McHerry rtc, a military facility etc established prior to
1860
From: Ray Greninger
Sent: Monday, July 19, 2021 6:16 PM
To: administrating-your-public-servants@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [administrating-your-public-servants] Re: Public Building Library
videotaping freedoms
Hmmm, those buildings are public property. The schmucks just occupy them.
Nancy, the old bag, was beside herself (for the cameras) when the people
“stormed” into their own property on the day of the “ insurrection.” We cant
have the peasants entering their own capitol building, now can we?
The corporation doesn’t own anything when all is said and done. If any entity
can be said to own that stuff (entities can’t really own anything regardless
of what they claim) it would be The United States of America. That is the
original entity that administers the public property, including The United
States, the United States and UNITED STATES etc.
On Jul 19, 2021, at 3:25 PM, Charley Dan <charleydan@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
They own the building so have authority but the Constitution states their
limited to what they own. Fine line
On Mon, Jul 19, 2021 at 12:31 PM NELSON DICE <nelsondice@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
Charley,
if my local library is a subsidiary of the City of Ocean City, and a state
statute says i cannot film people or employees while i am there, and yet,
the city has surveillance cameras, does 1.8.17 preclude them from
successfully charging me with a statute violation if i videotape my
interactions with employees?
i have video of one fabricating evidence against me and now the library is
possibly looking to trespass me.
thnaks
nelson
--
Life in one word--LOVE
