Creating a court or not going. Some thoughts from experience. One can stop what
the legislative court is doing. It can leave one without a remedy that is
needed. Saying one wants a trial by jury may get one out of a court and take
one to negotiating table. That does not always work and going to court is
required.
Claiming ones article 6, paragraph 1 court is to move that court and analyze
it. Couple of illustrations. Guy in the store sees a gal he has known for some
time went by her and slapped her on the but. Shortly charged with sexual
assault and offered $1,000 fine or five years in jail. Took 1500 for bond. So
article 1, section 8, clause 17 froze the court, but judge rescheduled case for
later. So one goes and your turn to speak and your jurisdicton established.
Your honor we have admitted in private conversation to the sexual assault and
gave an apology. To which we hope some day to be forgiven. Since the gal in the
grocery store got the owner to bar my client from the store by filling a
statement with the sheriff and is the only store to grocery shop within eighty
miles one wonders if a lawsuit is coming for financial redemption. One does not
know of the sheriff informed them but it is the common law thing to do.
Your honor, the prosecutor has blackmailed my client staying. $1000 fine and
then assaulted him with five years in jail. (Yes, when one states a threat and
has the power to enforce it. It's assault). Now we are suing for fifteen
hundred to get ball back and another fifteen hundred for private prosecuting
attorney travel and services. Will reserve the right to sue for more. Sexual
assault is a serious crime but that crime is far less then the prosecuting
attorneys of assault to threaten death. Prison is the same as death for lost of
life, liberty, and property. Since it is very possible the sheriff advised the
store owner option and playing both sides of the fence. Client reserves the
right to be restored fully.
Every case I review always has fraud and often a crime.
Another case. The man owned land and home. Got in trouble and filed for
voluntary bankruptcy. Year and half later a fire unknown staying burnt the
house down. The bank put a court issued hold on the insurance pay off. In court
he tried every angle, that I'll not discuss here, but failed. The court/bank at
that point took an voluntary bankruptcy and created an innocuous bankruptcy.
My approach at that point. Established the common law court. Then a Letter to
chief judge of that court bldg. and filed into the case. To the chief judge
that fraud appeared to exist as there was no proof of involuntary bankruptcy
existed. Client is asking for proof now. Threat is a crime of collusion with
the judge, fraud for the involuntary bankruptcy never existed, , and theft in
the property and insurance held hostage from the owner. The court ended with
negotiations.
Most mortgages I've seen is failure for the plaintiff to prove their claims.
One has to research to find the fraud or other crimes and bring it into the
court to settle the issue.
Nelson Dice I believe he will allow me to say a little here. and we would
appreciate your prayers. A grand jury indictment for stalking several people
is the charge. Nelson was put in jail for failure to appear and article failed.
If I knew a grand jury was involved an article seldom works. Miscommunication
on our part. I've notified the court that I'll be representing Nelson as a
private prosecuting attorney and at the same time made an appeal at the
appellate court on issues. I'll not be saying anymore about the case and
therefore do not Ask. Nelson can talk after the case is over.
Charley
On Dec 19, 2021, 6:12 AM -0700, veritas ghost <guyettedamien8@xxxxxxxxx>, wrote:
theres many ways to skin a cat, just as theres a couple of ways to make it
your court. your able to do administrative procedures just as they are, if
you choose. each one of us singularly and collectively we are "the voice of
God"
On Sat, Dec 18, 2021, 10:41 PM Shining Emperor <nrcwinner@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Veritas:
How?
"you can make it into an art 3/your court,"
On Sat, Dec 18, 2021 at 7:09 AM veritas ghost
<guyettedamien8@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
i have pointed out attack jurisdiction as they have none, dont even
go in to talk to them if you have the choice. you can make it into an
art 3/your court, all things i have said and pointed out over time
On Fri, Dec 17, 2021, 1:27 PM Shining Emperor <nrcwinner@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
, know that such persons are acting by a Color-of-Authority.
Always think SUIT! SUIT! SUIT! Measure Judges, and all court
officers by the limited authority vested in them.
Measure and judge all Contracts by Constitutional principles, and
analyze them by the contract qualification laws that govern such
instruments. Always hold the corporate State parties (court
officers) to the high moral standards, as prescribed for them by
the sworn or affirmed Oaths taken by them. And in accordance with
the Constitutional obligations taken by the Oath Bound Officers
of the Courts, consider that when any Administrative officer,
(claiming to be a Judge) imposes himself into jurisdictional
venues or matters wherein he possess no lawful judicial powers,
and thus, lacks Jurisdiction, then Demand a Dismissal of the Case.
There are no lawful pleas to be made before such a non-sanctioned
and unlawful court, nor are there any lawful pleas to be made
before the unlawful officers of that court! Such an act
constitutes a waiver of Jurisdiction, which cannot be lawfully
done or claimed by either party.
On Sat, Dec 11, 2021 at 4:58 AM veritas ghost
<guyettedamien8@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
The doctrines thus delivered we call the revealed or devine
law, and they are to be found only in the holy scriptures.
These precepts, when revealed, are found upon comparison to
be really a part of the original law of nature, as they tend
in all their consequences to man's felicity...this law of
nature, being coeval with man kind and dictated by God
himself, is of course superior in obligation to any other. It
is binding over all the globe and in all countries, and at
all times: no human laws are of any validity, if contrary to
this.." blackstone's commentaries on the laws of england
(1765-1769), section 2, page 41.
The power to create presumptions is not a means of escape
from constitutional restrictions. And the state may not in
this way interfere with matters withdrawn from its authority
by the federal Constitution, or subject an accused to
conviction for conduct which it is powerless to proscribe.
Bailey v. Alabama, 219 U.S. 219
all subjects over which the sovereign power of the state
extends are objects of taxation, but those over which it does
not extend are exempt from taxation. this is proposition may
also be pronounced as self-evident. the sovereignty of the
state of the state extends to everything which exists by it's
authority or permission. McCullough v Maryland, 17 U.S. [4
Wheat] 316 (1819).
failure of any adverse party to deny under oath allegation
that party is a corporation dispenses with necessity of proof
of that fact. Galleria Bank v Southwest Properties, Inc.
(Civ. app. 1973) 498 S.W 2d 5
if Respondent is not a Corporation he cannot appear or plead.
West Union Tel. Co. v Eyser, 2 Colo. 141
merely being native born within the territorial boundaries of
the United States of America does not make such an inhabitant
a Citizen of the United States subject to the jurisdiction
14th amendment. Elk v Wilkins, neb (1884), 5s.ct.41,112 U.S
99, 28 L. Ed 643.
The People of a State are entitled to all rights which
formerly belonged to the King by his prerogative." Lansing v.
Smith.
State citizens are the only ones living under free
government, whose rights are incapable of impairment by
legislation or judicial decision. Twining v New Jersey, 211
U.S 97, 1908.
state citizenship is a vested substantial property right, and
the State has no power to divest or impair these rights.
Favot v Kingsbury, (1929) 98 Cal. app. 284, 276 P. 1083
tax payers are not state citizens. Belmont v Town of
Gulfport, 122 So. 10
there is a clear distinction between national citizenship and
state citizenship. 256 P. 545, affirmed 278 US 123. Tashiro v
Jordan
the privileges and immunities clause of the 14th amendment
protects very few rights because it neither incorporates the
Bill of Rights, nor protects all rights of individual
citizens. instead this provision protects only those rights
peculiar to being a citizen of the federal government; it
does not protect those rights which relate to state
citizenship. Jones v Temmer, 89 F. Supp 1226
Justice CAMPBELL (Supreme Court of the United States)
dissenting: Individuals are not the creatures of the State,
but constitute it. They come into society with rights, which
cannot be invaded without injustice. DODGE v. WOOLSEY, 59
U.S. 331
In 1996, Congress passed a law to overcome this ruling which
stated that judicial immunity doesn't exist; citizens can sue
judges for prospective injunctive relief. "Our own experience
is fully consistent with the common law's rejection of a rule
of judicial immunity. We never have had a rule of absolute
judicial immunity. At least seven circuits have indicated
affirmatively that there is no immunity... to prevent
irreparable injury to a citizen's constitutional rights..."
"Subsequent interpretations of the Civil Rights Act by this
Court acknowledge Congress' intent to reach unconstitutional
actions by all state and federal actors, including judges...
The Fourteenth Amendment prohibits a state from denying any
person within its jurisdiction the equal protection under the
laws. Since a State acts only by its legislative, executive
or judicial authorities, the constitutional provisions must
be addressed to those authorities, including state and
federal judges..." "We conclude that judicial immunity is not
a bar to relief against a judicial officer acting in her
judicial capacity." Pulliam v. Allen, 466 U.S. 522 (1984);
104 S. Ct. 1781, 1980, 1981, 1985
Justice O’Connor, raised without deciding the possibility
that the Guarantee Clause is justiciable and is a constraint
upon Congress’s power to regulate the activities of the
states. New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144, 183–85
(1992); Gregory v. Ashcroft, 501 U.S. 452, 463 (1991) . The
opinions draw support from a powerful argument for using the
Guarantee Clause as a judicially enforceable limit on federal
power. Merritt, The Guarantee Clause and State Autonomy:
Federalism for a Third Century, 88 Colum. L. Rev. 1 (1988).
All rights and safeguards contained in the first eight
amendments to the federal Constitution are equally
applicable." Mallowy v. Hogan, 378 U.S. 1
On Fri, Dec 10, 2021, 8:15 AM Charley Dan
<charleydan@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
National? Call them what one wish but article 6 is clear
that if one does not claim their status as a living man,
they are in the government's fiction for sure.
Once in the fiction it is a battle to be resuscitated to
life. Where the simplest fiction matter can turn to a
nightmare. A fight for life.
On Dec 10, 2021, 5:55 AM -0700, veritas ghost
<guyettedamien8@xxxxxxxxx>, wrote:
ill slightly pull back here as some of my frustration
in what i said was from having to repeat myself to
multiple people before responding. im not sure where it
points out we the people are nationals, but your
definitely not free of the constitution which binds
government not the people, by being born on the union
you were crowned by the constitution no way around it.
what you rely on comes from the original constitution
and articles of confederation. a birth certificate is
evidence of the creation of a fiction, it has nothing
to do with the living man except that your title holder
of it. we are all created equal, theres no if and that
is not left undefined or mystery, our laws are governed
by the bible and if their not in conformity with it its
not law at all.
i agree keeping an open mind helps one expand, and i
havent called you any names so slightly confused by
that comment, but i will say i havent posted any
opinions i have posted publically verifiable facts. not
only that i have posted the history of the sovereignty
devolving from the king onto the people that are now
state citizens since the revolutionary war up until
2019 where we are still called "the ultimate sovereign,
the fountain of all legitimate authority". i have also
talked about blue ribbon and grand juries, i have
talked about making multiple different claims and
complaints against them, so im not really sure who that
question/comment is for.
On Thu, Dec 9, 2021, 9:12 AM Charley Dan
<charleydan@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I do not use court cases but find it intresting
read to guide one to truth. I see it more as milk
then meat to eat. That requires debate on what is
lawful.
The goverment definition by codes makes it clear
that I'm a national. Definition of national is one
with allegience to the state. It also states a
birth certificate is proof of that. The truth is
the organic law documents are my defense and it
calls me a free citizen who may be a fugitive from
codes, or an inhabitant, so journer. Probably a
rebel or an even an enemy of the United States.
Depending how one defines it.
What I do know is I'm not in there jurisdicton by
constitution contract. I know my agreement with the
people that we are all free citizens, inhabitants
and most likely fugitives if we dealt with
governments. I've got a creator, and a creators
conscience.
I know we are all created equal and that is meat to
chew to grasp the whole truth of what is equal?
Seldom does a scale balance.
I do not care if Glenn, Veritas, a supreme court
judge or charley: they all are just opinions that
need absorbed into one's life to use beneficially.
That is to make the concept into a workable
solution. One may say, knowledge to wisdom. Without
it, one struggles.
Call me anything you want. Just make sure that when
I file my paper with the clerk that they knows I'm
supreme in my common law court. That jurisdicton
allows me to make the rules. If you do not like
them. File a claim of injury or get a jury to
disagree with me. If you do not know how? You may
get treated badly.
Thomas Jefferson: to expect liberty and be
ignorant; is something that never was or will be.
(Paraphrased)
On Dec 9, 2021, 6:55 AM -0700, veritas ghost
<guyettedamien8@xxxxxxxxx>, wrote:
speaking of quo warranto..
https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Relator_(law)
Frankenhauser v. Rizzo, 59 F.R.D. 339 (E.D. Pa.
1973): Judge Reynolds permitted the discovery. He
found that the argument for confidentiality was
outweighed by two policies favoring disclosure.
First was ‘ the broad federal mandate for
discovery in all civil actions,’ that is, the
federal policy of liberal pretrial discovery as a
basis principle of the modern federal procedural
scheme. The second reason inheres in the civil
rights laws themselves:
[I]t is the manner of enforcement which
gives § 1983 its unique importance, for
enforcement is placed in the hands of the people.
Each citizen ‘ acts as a private attorney general
who ‘ takes on the mantel of the sovereign,’ '
guarding for all of us the individual liberties
enunciated in the Constitution. Section 1983
represents a balancing feature in our
governmental structure whereby individual
citizens are encouraged to police those who are
charged with policing us all. Thus, it is of
special import that suits brought under this
statute be resolved by a determination of the
truth rather than by a determination that the
truth shall remain hidden.
On Thu, Dec 9, 2021, 7:52 AM veritas ghost
<guyettedamien8@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
theres a difference between a free state
citizen and us citizen. if you dont believe
so i find it curious that youre here
considering its the main thing glenn teaches,
and i have proven.
Justice CAMPBELL (Supreme Court of the United
States) dissenting: Individuals are not the
creatures of the State, but constitute it.
They come into society with rights, which
cannot be invaded without injustice. DODGE v.
WOOLSEY, 59 U.S. 331
gamble v u.s (2019) breif overview of
objections, thomas, ginsburg: When the
original States declared their independence,
they claimed the powers inherent in
sovereignty .... The Constitution limited but
did not abolish the sovereign powers of the
States, which retained `a residuary and
inviolable sovereignty.' The Federalist No.
39, p. 245 (C. Rossiter ed. 1961). Thus, both
the Federal Government and the States wield
sovereign powers, and that is why our system
of government is said to be one of `dual
sovereignty.' Gregory v. Ashcroft, 501 U.S.
452, 457 [111 S.Ct. 2395, 115 L.Ed.2d 410]
(1991)." Murphy v. National Collegiate
Athletic Assn., 584 U.S. ___, ___, 138 S.Ct.
1461, 1475, 200 L.Ed.2d 854 (2018). ...But
there is a difference between the whole and a
single part, and that difference underlies
decisions as foundational to our legal system
as McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316, 4
L.Ed. 579 (1819). There, in terms so directly
relevant as to seem presciently tailored to
answer this very objection, Chief Justice
Marshall distinguished precisely between "the
people of a State" and "[t]he people of all
the States," id., at 428, 435; between the
"sovereignty which the people of a single
state possess"...Stare decisis has its
pedigree in the unwritten common law of
England. As Blackstone explained, the common
law included "[e]stablished customs" and
"[e]stablished rules and maxims" that were
discerned and articulated by judges. 1 W.
Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of
England 68-69 (1765) (Blackstone). In the
common-law system, stare decisis played
1983*1983 an important role because "judicial
decisions [were] the principal and most
authoritative evidence, that [could] be
given, of the existence of such a custom as
shall form a part of the common law." Id., at
69. Accordingly, "precedents and rules must
be followed, unless flatly absurd or unjust,"
because a judge must issue judgments
"according to the known laws and customs of
the land" and not "according to hisprivate
sentiments" or "own private judgment." Id.,
at 69-70. In other words, judges were
expected to adhere to precedents because they
embodied the very law the judges were bound
to apply...Importantly, however, the common
law did not view precedent as unyielding when
it was "most evidently contrary to reason" or
"divine law." Blackstone 69-70. The founding
generation recognized that a "judge may
mistake the law." Id., at 71; see also 1 Kent
444 ("Even a series of decisions are not
always conclusive evidence of what is law").
And according to Blackstone, judges should
disregard precedent that articulates a rule
incorrectly when necessary "to vindicate the
old [rule] from misrepresentation."
Blackstone 70; see also 1 Kent 443 ("If ...
any solemnly adjudged case can be shown to be
founded in error, it is no doubt the right
and the duty of the judges who have a similar
case before them, to correct the error"). He
went further: When a "former decision is
manifestly absurd or unjust" or fails to
conform to reason, it is not simply "bad
law," but "not law" at all. Blackstone 70
(emphasis). This view—that demonstrably
erroneous "blunders" of prior courts should
be corrected—was accepted by state courts
throughout the 19th century. See, e.g.,
McDowell v. Oyer, 21 Pa. 417, 423 (1853);
Guild v. Eager, 17 Mass. 615, 622 (1822).
Justice GINSBURG, dissenting: In the system
established by the Federal Constitution,
however, "ultimate sovereignty" resides in
the governed. Arizona State Legislature v.
Arizona Independent Redistricting Comm'n, 576
U.S. ___, ___, 135 S.Ct. 2652, 2675, 192
L.Ed.2d 704 (2015); Martin v. Hunter's
Lessee, 1 Wheat. 304, 324-325, 4 L.Ed. 97
(1816); Braun, supra, at 26-30. Insofar as a
crime offends the "peace and dignity" of a
sovereign, Lanza, 260 U.S. at 382, 43 S.Ct.
141, that "sovereign" is the people, the
"original fountain of all legitimate
authority," The Federalist No. 22, at 152 (A.
Hamilton); see Note, Double Prosecution by
State and Federal Governments: Another *1991
Exercise in Federalism, 80 Harv. L. Rev.
1538, 1542 (1967).
On Wed, Dec 8, 2021, 10:45 AM Charley Dan
<charleydan@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
From veritas reading
BROWN, Circuit Judge: In our
constitutional republic, Justice Brandeis
observed, the title of citizen is
superior to the title of President. Thus,
the questions "[w]ho is the citizen[?]"
and "what is the meaning of the term?"
Aristotle, Politics bk. 3, reprinted in
part in READINGS IN POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY
55, 61 (Francis W. Coker ed., 1938), are
no less than the questions of "who
constitutes the sovereign state?" and
"what is the meaning of statehood as an
association?"
Who is the citizen? I view myself in the
Republic more a free citizen then a
state citizen associated to a society and
worst called goverment who has its own
desires and often contrary to mind.
I'm in society as a contributor of goods
others want and I profit and so do they.
I'm not much for public schools, or
creating a public funded gym but rather
let one citizen create as ones passion
and vision a need for others. Not a few
leaders of a community wanting my money
to create it. I believe in home school,
and not public school. Because my
children needed far more freedom then a
public school could offer. They needed
more time to explore their ambitions and
curiosity. Travel with me today.
I do not like state citizenship on the
local level at all. I support citizenship
to protect the country. I'll fight for it.
So yes, to protect myself I require a
trial by jury and live my life As
friendly member of society. Not knowing
when a trial by jury may judge me. Not an
attorney or a judge representing a
corporation. I try to use arbitration to
settle affairs and encourage my business
associates to allow the panel make the
final verdict then a court. Many avoid
this thinking an attorney will grant them
something magical.
In the Republic our forefathers gave us
the choice to be more free but it is
riskier then living by regulations
created by society government that are
written on tablet. I chose to be a free
citizen and not a state citizen. I chose
a trial by jury and not jury trial.
Arbitration over a court when possible.
It's an enlienable right to do this. Most
people prefer to be a state citizen.
Quo habeas corpus comes often as I
require the court of a free citizen. Quo
warranto follows with the question, by
what authority? Your not taking my
inelienable rights away or my friends
rights. Every state district court honors
it when one is in jail. Other states the
appellate or state supreme court. The
jailer is required to answer; by what
authority do you hold me. The jailer is
required to submit it to the court. The
courts charging one has to answer to the
same and one could or can use it on a
simple traffic ticket if they want to.
Simple traffic ticket. I prefer as all
know to send the prosecutors court that
he does not have jurisdiction in a simple
statement. That is telling the prosecutor
your reply to arraignment and one is not
required to go as yippy answered. The
Prosecutor either drops the case or
schedules an trial For you to appear. He
should notify you that he has stilled the
trial and date. Some do not. When one
misses he again has a choice. To motion
for your arrest or dismiss the case. Your
choice when you will call for prosecutor
and his Corp to appear. I prefer they
arrest me but others may say I'll do it
right after given a ticket by officer.
Whenever one will eventually open and
start their common law court. Your
paperOr document that I'll not discuss
will establish your court. So when filed
with the court clerk you get an extra
copy and a court date thirty days or.
Send to the prosecutor and he most likely
will not respond or show. Go to court on
date allot and deflate default judgement.
Or pick your jury and convict. Your
choice.
I'll be a free citizen.
On Dec 8, 2021, 6:29 AM -0700, veritas
ghost <guyettedamien8@xxxxxxxxx>, wrote:
COURT HALTS VACCINE REQUIREMENT FOR FED
CONTRACTORS (peggy, if you havent seen
my last fires of freedom special
edition, i think youll enjoy 18 usc
245, and just in case us For A
constitution art 4 sec 4 and 2.
BROWN, Circuit Judge: In our
constitutional republic, Justice
Brandeis observed, the title of citizen
is superior to the title of President.
Thus, the questions "[w]ho is the
citizen[?]" and "what is the meaning of
the term?" Aristotle, Politics bk. 3,
reprinted in part in READINGS IN
POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY 55, 61 (Francis W.
Coker ed., 1938), are no less than the
questions of "who constitutes the
sovereign state?" and "what is the
meaning of statehood as an
association?" tuaua v us (2015)
Justice CAMPBELL (Supreme Court of the
United States) dissenting: Individuals
are not the creatures of the State, but
constitute it. They come into society
with rights, which cannot be invaded
without injustice. DODGE v. WOOLSEY, 59
U.S. 331
Vattel Law of Nations, Book 2 Article
132: "God has created heaven for
himself and his saints, and has given
the earth to mankind, intending it for
the advantage of the poor as well as of
the rich. The roads are for their use,
and God has not subjected them to any
taxes." 39:13)
https://youtube.com/watch?v=u7FdLQ5H0e0
Radioactive Water From Pilgrim Nuclear
Plant To Be Released Into Cape Cod Bay
(slosh more pigs. if youre reading this
its to late. 2:09)
https://youtube.com/watch?v=jbsWAJhq36I
No Jab, No Food: Canadian Province
Imposes New Regulations to Ban
Unvaccinated from Grocery Stores
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2021/12/no-jab-no-food-canadian-province-imposes-new-regulations-ban-unvaccinated-grocery-stores/
House Democrats + RINO Kinzinger Pass
Bill That Would Allow Debt Ceiling Hike
with Simple Majority in the Senate
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2021/12/developing-house-democrats-rino-kinzinger-pass-bill-allow-debt-ceiling-hike-simple-majority-senate/
Pacific Eclipse – A tabletop exercise
on smallpox pandemic response (4:51)
https://odysee.com/@ChadChaddington:d/Pacific-Eclipse-A-Smallpox-Pandemic-Tabletop-Exercise-(Share-This!):d
Son Vaccinated in Exchange for Pizza
without Parental Consent (2:55)
https://odysee.com/@Adverse:c/vaccinemandate:4
At Least 3 Children Die and 120
Hospitalized in Vietnam After Receiving
Pfizer COVID-19 Vaccine – 4 Adults Die
from Vero Cell Covid Vaccine
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2021/12/least-3-children-die-120-hospitalized-vietnam-receiving-pfizer-covid-19-vaccine-4-adults-die-vero-cell-covid-vaccine/
Rockwood School District Admits to
Calling the FBI on Parents …UPDATED:
With Response from Rockwood School
District
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2021/12/rockwood-school-district-admits-calling-fbi-parents/
Darpa [has for a long time been]
Creating Super Humans [you people
thought captain america was just a game
and fictional character?]: Former Gov't
Employee Predicts Cataclysmic
Extinction Level Event (8:39)
https://rumble.com/vqdjzo-darpa-creating-super-humans-former-govt-employee-predicts-cataclysmic-extin.html
It’s not up to us (41 sec)
https://odysee.com/@CarlVernon:7/it%E2%80%99s-not-up-to-us:c
CHECKPOINTS if you want to leave (58
sec)
https://odysee.com/@CarlVernon:7/checkpoints-if-you-want-to-leave:e
Dr Shillary Jones & Lorraine
Shamelessly Lie About Unjabbed
Hospitalisation Figures (5:24)
https://odysee.com/@WEGOTAPROBLEM:f/dr-shillary-jones-lorraine-shamelessly:c
VAERS show HOT LOTS Within Lots (29:33)
https://odysee.com/@Welcometheeagle88:4/VAERS-show-HOT-LOTS-Within-Lots!:1
JAIL for sneezing (47 sec)
https://odysee.com/@CarlVernon:7/jail-for-sneezing:b
THE USA FOR THE FINAL CARD? OR JUST A
REALLY DARK WINTER. (5:49)
https://www.bitchute.com/video/khYlbY5bXEqY/
WHY DID THEY CHANGE THE TORONTO
CHRISTMAS MARKET TO THE DISTILLERY
WINTER VILLAGE? (12:37)
https://www.bitchute.com/video/3wCLKch7h1k/
Leaked Video Shows Boris Johnson’s Spox
Laughing About Christmas Party That
Took Place Amid Covid Lockdown
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2021/12/watch-leaked-video-shows-boris-johnsons-spox-laughing-christmas-party-took-place-amid-covid-lockdown/
Office clean (24 sec)
https://odysee.com/@CarlVernon:7/office-clean-%F0%9F%87%A8%F0%9F%87%B3:9
Elon Musk Warns That ‘Civilization Is
Going to Crumble (2:33)
https://youtube.com/watch?v=wN-IgeCx-AY
Elon Musk – Calls for Congress to Throw
Out Biden’s ‘Build Back Better Bill’
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2021/12/richest-man-world-elon-musk-calls-congress-throw-bidens-build-back-better-bill-dont-pass/
SATANIC CULT MEMBERS WHO ARE PLANNING
THE SACRIFICE OF CHILDREN (2:48)
https://www.bitchute.com/video/Nqg5N6tUr2Xg/
BLOOD SACRIFICE AGENDA. BE THE
RESISTANCE (6:52)
https://www.bitchute.com/video/Bagz1AsUNEvf/
Comrade Down: Saule Omarova Withdraws
Nomination for Comptroller of the
Currency
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2021/12/breaking-comrade-saule-omarova-withdraws-nomination-comptroller-currency/
Sam White won Appeal Case in UK High
Court - video-statement (1:31)
https://odysee.com/@OzFlor:7/S67:2
RABBI IS NOT AFRAID ON THE EVIL
PSYCHOPATHS IN GOVERNMENT HE IS AFRAID
OF STUPID PEOPLE (im not afraid of
either but i feel his sentiment. 59 sec)
https://www.bitchute.com/video/WXEsDyxmkUwB/
You Can’t Say That On Tv (3:44)
https://youtube.com/watch?v=nY2KiNQtCTM
CDC - Why Critical Thinking Is
Dangerous (8:13)
https://youtube.com/watch?v=TNaT5A-1gHc
