Would this federal statute apply to State Administrative proceedings?  The State has been obsrtucting justice on these matter, and will not proceed, unless I provide all finanical disclosures. The only problem with this  scenario, is that once the state hase the information, they will use that information to exploit the father, and allege that I waived all my constitutional rights! This is the GEORGIA STATUTE they use: OCGA 19-11-9.3 I personally believe that its a 5th AMENDMENT violation, that exploits the ,protection against SELF INCRIMINATION.

Check the Georgia Constitution. Typically there is a provision in a section titled "Bill of Rights" or "Declaration of Rights" stating that right and justice shall be adminstereed without sale or similar wording.

A Bill of Attainder is a legislative Act that finds a Person guilty and imposes a punishment without a trial or a conviction. It typically is used for the crime of Treason. The Cousin to the Bill of Attainder  is called a Bill of Pains and Penalties. It refers to lesser Crimes.  Both are unconstitutional per Article I Section IX Clause III and Article I Section X CLause I of the U.S. Constituion.

Do you have this docudment or can you point me in the right direction to find it.

If you have not had time to follow the Bundy saga out West, this document should get you up to speed pretty much on a number of outstanding issues that until now have NOT been addressed by the court regarding this very issue...as to who had possession of the Refuge at the time of the Occupation.  THIS  is a good read, as well as a keeper for your own files in matters related. Servants acting in bad behavior must be admonished when they over-step our Constitutional limits upon their lawful authority to do so. 

http://freedomoutpost.com/emergency-motion-filed-to-dismiss-oregon-bundy-case/

It may be very fruitful to start a NLA Chat Room in Telegram.  Not only would we be able to chat using a public platform, we'd also be able to invite others much easier as information gets shared.  
One thought:     you could have them come here to register as a member then they could participate in the chat. 

It may be very fruitful to start a NLA Chat Room in Telegram.  Not only would we be able to chat using a public platform, we'd also be able to invite others much easier as information gets shared.  
One thought:     you could have them come here to register as a member then they could participate in the chat. 

I agree. Really need out own soc media space - We should have video feed to be showing slides etc during the conf calls -- and we should have FOR SURE a running chat text in order to share the links being referenced often / names / contacts ....

I hate to complain and the clunkiness is being worked on , but the site is hard to find stuff and links change incomprehensibly. I still can't find any other audio archives besides the Monday ones. Where are the last month's COS /Sheriff (Thur) calls?

Watch this youtube video. We have remedy we must use it and stop sitting on our hands. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4oT-zp4WlQw    We can organize a legal fighting fund. Everyone has standing and because a crime is a crime because it affects everyone. 
 

Hi David Im in missouri and we do have the right here to do citizens arrest lawfully ..>.Even Though we have it here and 1 person can do it alone.I would want at least 2 or more for witnesses and to detain for safety purposes >militia members would be even better to make the arrest but not necessary> I hope this helps > it is a valid option for sure.The sheriffs are worthless at this point but we will continue to chisel away at their egos and break down their misconceptions about the Law of the land> I believe the citizens arrest is indeed the ticket and it willl show the true power of we the people.Lets get a brainstorm and explore this option together. Here is pennsylvania citizens arrest format and you do have the right as well in penn. as most states do

§ 508. Use of force in law enforcement.

(a) Peace officer's use of force in making arrest.--

(1) A peace officer, or any person whom he has summoned or directed to assist him, need not retreat or desist from efforts to make a lawful arrest because of resistance or threatened resistance to the arrest. He is justified in the use of any force which he believes to be necessary to effect the arrest and of any force which he believes to be necessary to defend himself or another from bodily harm while making the arrest. However, he is justified in using deadly force only when he believes that such force is necessary to prevent death or serious bodily injury to himself or such other person, or when he believes both that:

(i) such force is necessary to prevent the arrest from being defeated by resistance or escape; and

(ii) the person to be arrested has committed or attempted a forcible felony or is attempting to escape and possesses a deadly weapon, or otherwise indicates that he will endanger human life or inflict serious bodily injury unless arrested without delay.

(2) A peace officer making an arrest pursuant to an invalid warrant is justified in the use of any force which he would be justified in using if the warrant were valid, unless he knows that the warrant is invalid.

(b) Private person's use of force in making arrest.--

(1) A private person who makes, or assists another private person in making a lawful arrest is justified in the use of any force which he would be justified in using if he were summoned or directed by a peace officer to make such arrest, except that he is justified in the use of deadly force only when he believes that such force is necessary to prevent death or serious bodily injury to himself or another.

(2) A private person who is summoned or directed by a peace officer to assist in making an arrest which is unlawful, is justified in the use of any force which he would be justified in using if the arrest were lawful, unless he knows that the arrest is unlawful.

(3) A private person who assists another private person in effecting an unlawful arrest, or who, not being summoned, assists a peace officer in effecting an unlawful arrest, is justified in using any force which he would be justified in using if the arrest were lawful, if:

(i) he believes the arrest is lawful; and

(ii) the arrest would be lawful if the facts were as he believes them to be.

(c) Use of force regarding escape.--

(1) A peace officer, corrections officer or other person who has an arrested or convicted person in his custody is justified in the use of such force to prevent the escape of the person from custody as the officer or other person would be justified in using under subsection (a) if the officer or other person were arresting the person.

(2) A peace officer or corrections officer is justified in the use of such force, including deadly force, which the officer believes to be necessary to prevent the escape from a correctional institution of a person whom the officer believes to be lawfully detained in such institution under sentence for an offense or awaiting trial or commitment for an offense.

(3) A corrections officer is justified in the use of such force, which the officer believes to be necessary to defend himself or another from bodily harm during the pursuit of the escaped person. However, the officer is justified in using deadly force only when the officer believes that such force is necessary to prevent death or serious bodily injury to himself or another or when the officer believes that:

(i) such force is necessary to prevent the apprehension from being defeated by resistance; and

(ii) the escaped person has been convicted of committing or attempting to commit a forcible felony, possesses a deadly weapon or otherwise indicates that he will endanger human life or inflict serious bodily injury unless apprehended without delay.

(d) Use of force to prevent suicide or the commission of crime.--

(1) The use of force upon or toward the person of another is justifiable when the actor believes that such force is immediately necessary to prevent such other person from committing suicide, inflicting serious bodily injury upon himself, committing or consummating the commission of a crime involving or threatening bodily injury, damage to or loss of property or a breach of the peace, except that:

(i) Any limitations imposed by the other provisions of this chapter on the justifiable use of force in self-protection, for the protection of others, the protection of property, the effectuation of an arrest or the prevention of an escape from custody shall apply notwithstanding the criminality of the conduct against which such force is used.

(ii) The use of deadly force is not in any event justifiable under this subsection unless:

(A) the actor believes that there is a substantial risk that the person whom he seeks to prevent from committing a crime will cause death or serious bodily injury to another unless the commission or the consummation of the crime is prevented and that the use of such force presents no substantial risk of injury to innocent persons; or

(B) the actor believes that the use of such force is necessary to suppress a riot or mutiny after the rioters or mutineers have been ordered to disperse and warned, in any particular manner that the law may require, that such force will be used if they do not obey.

(2) The justification afforded by this subsection extends to the use of confinement as preventive force only if the actor takes all reasonable measures to terminate the confinement as soon as he knows that he safely can, unless the person confined has been arrested on a charge of crime.

(July 17, 2007, P.L.139, No.41, eff. 60 days)

2007 Amendment. Act 41 amended subsec. (c).

Cross References. Section 508 is referred to in section 8340.2 of Title 42 (Judiciary and Judicial Procedure).

As a newbie member, I'm finding that "constitutionalist" means far more than I thought it did a year ago... so the path now is for me to keep learning, and for practical purposes not "holding feet to the fire" but more and more REI: reach out, inspire and educate!

Wow. I questioned him on a site for not calling out his Posse Comitatus in view of all the rioting in Milwaukee. He's only in the news because he is against O and Hillary.
But, you are right. He is not Constitutional or he would act in accordance with the Constitution and know of the PC, which he obviously doesn't. Thanks for whistle blowing..