Robb has won his Seat As Judge!
This is the statement made by DJ/News Reporter Kent Hire of KSJQ radio station on the "Brad King Morning Show", the day after the primary elections here in St. Joseph, Mo. on August 8th of 2006.
When I heard this statement, I thought, who does this person think he is, making this very "Partisan" observance? Since when has a person won an election prior to an election date? Oh, maybe I am errant in my judgement. There is no opponent running against Mr. Robb for the District Judge seat for NW Missouri.
Hhhhmmmmmm! That doesn't sound right!
Isn't there an open line in the same section of the ballot in the District Judge position, that is available for a write in vote? Doesn't that say to you that "Judge" Patrick Robb could have an opponent to this seat he is seeking?
I know it is late to provide some information for everyone to consider before the election, but, .................... maybe this information will be kept indelibly in the minds of everyone when they go to the polls to cast their ballots.
Mr. Robb is the Chief Justice of all the judges of our courthouse. In other words, he governs those Judges actions, their decisions, and their courtside manners when addressing the sovereignty of the Citizens and when dealing with their properties and their "Rights".
Mr. Robb has allowed "Eminent Domain" to enter into our city through the use of the courts and the court support of illegal spying upon Citizens and their Properties by City Public Servants (Code Commissioners, Animal Enforcement, etc.)
Mr. Robb has also supported the errant beliefs of Judges such as John Boeh, Keith Marquardt, in the issues of Guaranteed Rights of Citizens and direct dismissal of anything that has to do with the U.S. Constitution.
John Boeh has literally dismissed U.S. Constitutional Law as not being applicable in his Courtroom (Municipal Court)(one of my cases and several other referred cases I witnessed). Keith Marquardt has stated that "Guaranteed Rights" are only allowed in his courtroom "IF" they are in the first 10 Amendments of the U.S. Constitution.
What do you see wrong with this scenario? These Judges only recognize the corporate mannerisms and ideals to be allowed into their courtrooms, and they are prejudiced in their views in the "Protections of the Rights and Properties of U.S. Citizens"
Who are U.S. Citizens? U. S. Citizens are those people who have sworn allegiance to this country and have permanent (<------keyword here) "Rights" and "Protections" as provided under Constitutional (or Fundamental) Law. Each and every Citizen, born or naturalized, is a U. S. (federal) Citizen first and forever. Constitutional law concerning "Rights" and Protection of Property" never change for those citizens and take precendence every single time in confrontation. State's Law is secondary every time.
Citizen's Rights and protections of property are specifically stated in the U.S. Constitution under Amendments 4, 5, 7, 10, & 14.
All wording in the Constitution is considered plain language with nothing read into it at any cost. Legalese (which is a complex language adopted by the ABA in 1939 along with the unionization of Lawyers) is a foreign language that is not understood by many, if any, of the common folk. The Constitution was designed for the common man at the onset, and Lawyers and Judges have collaberated together to twist the wording in the Constitution for their own uses and their embellishment of their professions (these are public servants dedicated to the servitude to the sovereignty of the people). The sovereignty has been snowed by the coverups of the Judicial and the ABA systems of Law. (People believe mainly in what they are told, instead of what they research for themselves)
Amendment 4 states the following: ....... It is the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures which shall not be violated. No warrants shall be issued, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the person and things to be seized. ................. <-----What this states, is that there has to be probable cause with an oath or affirmation to be accompanied along with a specific mention of items or persons, before anything or person can be searched or seized, otherwise they are protected through the realm of the sovereignty. (I am no lawyer, but this is so plain to read and understand)
Amendment 5: (This is the no self incrimination clause along with other items of interest) No person shall be held to answer for a capital or otherwise infamous crime, unless of presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the, land or naval forces or in the militia (this is the State organized protection as presented by a governor), when in actual service in time of War or public danger. No person shall be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb, nor shall he be compelled to witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process (by Jury? because of value of controversy exceeding $20?), nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation. ( what this means to me is unless a person is investigated by Grand Jury, can they be held for a capital crime (felony) or infamous crime (a Bonnie and Clyde ordeal) Also in time of War except if serving in any of the military)( plus a person can not legally be forced to testify against himself nor be relieved of any one of his "Guaranteed Unalienable (God-given) Rights" of Life, Liberty, or property nor can property be confiscated for public use without just payment for worth of property {I would agree with owner's valuation of property})
Amendment 7: In suits of Common Law, where the value of controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right to trial by Jury (FIJA?) shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury shall be otherwise be re-examined in any Court in the United States (<-----notice it is not refered to as United States of America?), than according to the rules of Common Law. (in other words, if any value in controversy, including court costs, exceeds $20 then the right of the citizen to trial by jury is preserved, especially when asked for in a court of Law, and no verdict of any Jury may be re-tried or re-examined in any court within the confines of the legal and recognized borders of this country, except under rules of Common Law or the rule of the Sovereignty.)(FIJA = Fully Informed Jury Association: this unit examines each case by the law, the crime committed, and whether law violates the perpetrator's "Guaranteed Rights" and their verdict is final!) (a judge may offer his opinion in the matter of the court verdict but abides by the verdict given by the Jury)
Amendment 10: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited to it by the states, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. (this I look at in such a way as: of powers that the United States itself does not have complete access to, it is set aside to the respective states {each individual state that has specific jurisdiction to that power}, or it is left to the people to decide, as they hold the final right to sovereignty when states violate unalienable rights with such assigned power!)
Amendment 14: Section 1: All persons born or naturalized in the United States (again no "America" is added which means this is the sovereignty {when "America" is added to United States then the government becomes a corporate entity and under Admiralty Law}) and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. (residents are what they are called in the State, ..... people) No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge (or block access to ) the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States: nor shall any state derpive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law (again with the value of property over $20, a Jury is or should be called up); nor deny any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the Laws. (ok, people, this states that every citizen is a direct sovereignty and the total sovereignty of the nation protects that specific individual sovereignty rights of the people. Plus, each State can not make and enforce laws that usurp the rights, privileges, and immunities of the citizenry and then is required to protect those rights under the purpose of the Laws of the Land.)
Article 6 in the U.S. Constitution also states: This Constitution and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States (the Sovereignty), 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. (What this means people is: The U.S. Constitution and other Federal laws drawn up, Treaties and future Treaties shall be the Supreme Law of the Land; all other State and federal laws a null and void once this is called into effect. Every Judge is required to abide by these Laws accordingly. Also no Law can be made and enforced at the State level that contradicts Federal, U.S. Constitutional Law, (or Fundamental Law) no matter what!)
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the State Legislatures, and all executive and Judicial Officers, both of the United States and the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this U. S. Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a qualification to ANY office or Public Trust (Servant position?) under the United States. (What this above statement says is that every elected official MUST take an Oath or Affirmation and protect the U.S. Constitution and all the Sovereignty Citizen's Rights as is provided under Color of Fundamental Law)
Judge Patrick Robb has been lax for the last 4-6 years, in protecting the "Citizen's Rights" or the "Sovereignty". He has allowed the basic steps of "Eminent Domain" to creep into this city and usurp the property rights of the Sovereignty. It is time for change and this city has already seen one step of change come about, and that is with the election of nearly all of the "New" City Council Members and a "New" Mayor (who some deem as controversial or rebelious ( I think it was needed}). Now the People of St. Joseph need to step up to the plate to make further changess and start turning this city and the NW part of the State around to giving the power back to the people.
How can this be accomplished?
Well, as mentioned in the opening of this article, there is a "Write-in" line on the ballot to vote into the District Judge position (opposite Patrick Robb) the person of your choice, who WILL decidedly provide a change that is beneficial for the people.
My name is: ........... David Imlay ................. and you may write my name onto that ballot, in that space, if you would like. As I have shown above, I am not a Lawyer, but I can read and understand the law as it is written. Some have asked me what my qualifications and platform are for the position of District Judge and I have stated that:
1. A Judge should not be a lawyer as that prejudices the law against those that do not know or understand the law.
2. A Jury (a Fully Informed Jury) has more power than a Judge does and their verdict as shown in Constitutional Law is uncontestable by any court or any Judge in this land and nearly all of those jurists are NOT lawyers!
3. I ran for Legislative Representative in 2002 and am well familiar with how laws are made and configured (shouldn't they be in plain language so it is understood better?), so I should be able to understand the Laws on the books and give opinions and reviews with common sense. I will also allow the Juries to operate with the authority that Fundamental Law gives them and offer my opinion, as I see the case open up, as an option to view.
4. I am an Independent (New Technology) Party candidate and propose to have changes brought about so that the people can take back the power that is theirs.
5. I am a member of "One Voice United"
6. I am a member and supporter of "The Free State Project" (a project that supports total Constitutionality of the Law for the Sovereignty!)
7. I am a Permanent U.S. (Sovereign) Citizen ............... First, ....... and a Missouri resident second. (every person born in the U.S. or has been naturalized, is a permanent Sovereign Citizen ...... First!)
8. I do not create problems from thin air as others have done.
9. I stand for the protection of ALL Unalienable Rights of the Citizens.
10. I will give my Affirmation to Protecting every Sovereign Citizens Rights and Properties, which is what this country and our U.S. Constitution was created for.
We need to put our troops all around the inside of this country, within our borders, and build the strength of our Great Nation back up before venturing out to stick our noses into issues that do not and will not concern us.
Our main concern is to protect ourselves fully and let nothing interfere in our livelihoods (our jobs and Businesses {Something else Marquardt has little knowledge of, concerning Unalienable rights and Robb has laxed out of doing anything about! (Pursuit of Happiness) })
Don't think I can handle the job?
Then Call My Bluff ! ! !
I will go out of my way to clean up the corruption infiltrating this city we all live in! Take a seat and/or Hide in the Bushes and Watch !
