The first stated purpose of Ordaining the Constitution was to establish Justice.  Two hundred and some years later, let us document the breach of the terms of  that written contract, and seek redress, in international court if need be, against the United States (Company Corporation) for breach of the contract formed with the people:  A decent respect to the opinions of mankind ... 

Where do I begin?

There has been a big story in Alaska lately.  A 20 year old man accused of  a statutorily legislated weapons "crime" (apparently), whom was "tried" "convicted" and "sentenced", was brought back up before a state "judge" for "re-sentencing", after the man had already served five years in jail.

The story goes that there was some shooting that occurred at a football game... nothing unusual about that where I come from.  There were five individuals involved allegedly.  Now notably absent are any charges of injuries or death.  Probably wasn't even any property damage.

 So what was the crime?

Why was this very young man, whom had already served five years in jail, re-sentenced to 20 years? Is that what we call due process of law?  Show me the affirmative statement establishing the jurisdiction of that state employee to overturn the decision of a jury!

If proof of that jurisdiction does not appear on the face of the proceedings then due process was violated and the jurisdiction of the state over this man's person ceases: And  this man is entitled to be released from custody on habeas corpus... (Except that habeas has been abridged) 

I have not looked at the record in this case, but I was placed on trial under substantially similar charges as this man was "convicted" of.

In my case, I was protecting life and property by discharging a weapon to stop a violent assault, which had devolved to a struggle over a loaded gun when I fired into the floor.

They put me through a criminal trial for five months... They knew the truth about what happened the whole time, and the only thing they were interested in was railroading me into a conviction.  They unlawfully held me in custody for 35 days before they even attempted to arraign me, and Alaska law requires it be done in 24.  A failure to arraign is fatal to a prosecution, but will these "judges" abide by any rule of law whatsoever?  Absolutely not! 

To begin with, none of these "judges" possess the lawful requirements to rise to the level of either dejure nor defacto  judge.  The state "court" has no lawful existence arising under Alaska law.  It is in fact a private forum where employees of the state of Alaska impersonate judges and impose the will of the corporate state using the guise of the authority of state.

The means by which they might or could be held accountable for their unlawful actions is not available to the people.  The equal protections of the law are removed.

Its late , I'm tired, and if anyone tells me they want to hear the rest of the story, I'll finish it.