top of page

Trump's SCOTUS Picks Are Paying Off.



The Supreme Court IS dismantling the administrative state.


The "administrative state" are the un-fireable lifetime civil servants who think their rules, codes, and statutes are law and that they have the power over you...the people.


But the "Summer Of The Supreme Court" as I'm calling it, is not only proving otherwise, but rolling us back to the true law.


It's Time To Learn The Meaning Of "Administrative" as it pertains to the "law".


As an activist for the restoration of the government respecting the rights of the people, my Freedom Coalition teaches how to enforce your rights using the "Common Law", which means the law under the Constitution, Bill of Rights, and Declaration of Independence as opposed to the rules, codes, and statutes created by legislators.


For instance, most people think that driving without a driver's license is "against the law". It's not. The actual language of the citation is "driving without privileges".


The SCOTUS has ruled that we have a right to travel and that the rulers can't turn a right into a privilege by charging us for it. I drive without a driver's license and when/if an officer issues me a citatation for that, I'll use it for toilet paper.


All that is, is a statute created by the Department of Transportation ADMINISTRATORS. It's not the law. I have a common law right to travel. They have a right to regulate COMMERCE. I never drive in commerce so I never need to participate in the administrative agency of the DMV & DOT.


When I share this on social media, a handful of loons bark at me that it doesn't exist.


When I attended the WarRoom with Steve Bannon "Force Multiplier" training in Las Vegas a few months ago, we posed this question to My Pillow Guy Mike Lindell's panel of EXPERT and EXPENSIVE attorneys who were taking his case to the Supreme Court.


My partner Scott asked, "Why didn't you originally file in an Article III common law court? "


This is the ONLY place you can get a common law jury, as opposed to the Article I ADMINISTRATIVE court they had been trying to play ball in where no living man has rights.


The four seasoned lawyers all looked back and forth at each other, presumable wondering who was going to take that question.


The one who appeared to be the most senior, stood up to answer and he said, "There are no common law courts in this country today. Maybe when Trump returns."


Oh really? Donald Trump is in charge of the Bill Of Rights? I have to laugh!


This is the CON! These BAR card holders are trained liars.


There absolutely IS a difference between the Supreme Law of the land and "administrative" law.


Because we demand common law jury trials/courts on a daily basis in our fight against loan fraud, which is our specialty, but we also bring forth Common Law claims & demands against the civil servants when our rights are violated, which happens on a daily basis especially when you exercise your rights. They're simply just not used to it and try to trick us using statutory trap doors, that bring us back into statutory.


Haha! We're educated you fools!


On June 27, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its long-awaited decision in SEC v. Jarkesy. (read the details at the link)


In its holding, the Court found that when the Securities Exchange Commission seeks civil penalties against a defendant for securities fraud, the Seventh Amendment entitles the defendant to a jury trial and thus the SEC must bring the action in federal court.


Essentially, the judge metaphorically changes his hat from Article I to Article III and the courtroom into a common law procedure. We use the room and the man or woman but the jury judges the facts and the law.


The implications of this decision, including its effect on SEC (and other agencies) use of administrative tribunals, are considerable.


The Supreme Court affirmed the Fifth Circuit’s ruling as to Jarkesy’s Seventh Amendment right.


Sure looks like the Supreme Court disagrees with Mike Lindell's attorneys!


Specifically, the court noted that the Seventh Amendment’s guarantee of a right to a jury trial applies to “[s]uits at common law,” which includes statutory claims that are “legal in nature.”


The 7th Amendment states:

"In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law."


NOT BY STATUTORY ADMINISTRATIVE LAW OR BY ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES.


The Court went on to say that the type of remedy the SEC sought against Jarkesy, i.e., civil monetary penalties, is the “prototypical common law remedy,” making clear that the SEC’s action was legal in nature (as opposed to an action in equity, to which no constitutional jury right is attached).


How did this one go under the radar unlike the Chevron Doctrine making the waves that it did in the media?


Thus, some have voiced concern that because of Jarkesy, the powers of certain enforcement agencies may be substantially curtailed.


You'd better believe they are!

This is an extraordinary game changer that I can't wait to put on my suits.


When you understand the difference between "administrative" Article I courts vs Constitutional Common Law Article III courts, it all makes sense.


The scam is in grave danger.


As Justice Sotomayor noted in her dissent, “the Constitutionality of hundreds of statutes may now be in peril, and dozens of agencies could be stripped of their power to enforce laws enacted by Congress.”


The big secret ruling us for nearly 100 years IS coming out.


Agencies have been unlawfully imposing rules, codes, and statutes upon us for nearly 100 years.


All of government are private for profit AGENCIES and the rules, codes, and statues only pertain to corporations.


If there is not a living man or woman willing to sign an affidavit under penalty of perjury that you injured them or harmed their private property, there is no victim of a CRIME as per the Clearfield Doctrine.


The statutes only apply to corporations and not living men and women and they are stripped of their power when ONE knows who they are and what their status is.


I am a living woman, not a statutory legal entity known as the "person of", which is the text used in every statute.


I love quoting me some SCOTUS!


Hale v. Henkel (201 U.S. 43, 1906).

In this decision, the Court stated:


“We are of the opinion that there’s a clear distinction between an individual and a corporation… The individual may stand upon his constitutional rights as a citizen. He is entitled to carry on his private business in his own way. His power to contract is unlimited. He owes no duty to the State… His rights are such as existed by the law of the land long antecedent to the organization of the State, and can only be taken from him by due process of law, and in accordance with the Constitution.”


And...


Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425 (1886)

“An unconstitutional act is not a law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; it affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation as inoperative as though it had never been passed.”


Consequently, Jarkesy may be only the beginning.


To learn how to exercise your God given rights, join my Inalienable.University.

1 Comment


Guest
3 days ago

Would like to meet up to learn about living in private

Like
bottom of page