Conspiracy to commit Theft of your legal arms


3) It is a conspiracy to commit theft under Virginia law and that is the main point of this article.

18.2-22. Conspiracy to commit a felony.

Yet not mentioned is

Title 18, U.S.C., Section 241 - Conspiracy Against Rights


It would be a hoot if 1000’s in the sanctuary counties all filed reports like this, it would take years to get through the court system…I don’t see how they could just dismiss them all, but maybe they could ? still be funny…


It’s exactly what the assholes on the left do! Tie things up in court, cost the opposition $$. Its time the tables are turned on these bastards.


This is a great idea. Charge them with felony conspiracy to commit theft and press charges to get them to court. If enough of we the people so this, like hundreds of thousands worth or more perhaps that would make a strong message and perhaps get at least ONE POLITICIAN arrested+tried+convicted. If that happens then there is your precedent. Maybe it’s time to start thinking unorthodox here.


I absolutely love this idea


Anyone can file a federal suit like Charles Sprinkles did on then Governor Ronald Reagan



18 U.S. Code § 242 - Deprivation of rights und;er color of law

I dont like to use Cornell Law, I prefer SEARCH RESULTS.

It’s much easier to search and updated daily.

And hold them civilly liable under Title 42;


I don’t talk about it but that’s alright

Out there is a fortune waitin’ to be had

That doesn’t seem to offer much does it


Sorry wrong statute, it is 42 USC sec 1985


You posted 1988 again but 1985 is easily found|KHRpdGxlOjQyIHNlY3Rpb246MTk4OCBlZGl0aW9uOnByZWxpbSkgT1IgKGdyYW51bGVpZDpVU0MtcHJlbGltLXRpdGxlNDItc2VjdGlvbjE5ODgp|dHJlZXNvcnQ%3D||0|false|prelim

And it is notable to see

the party so injured or deprived may have an action for the recovery of damages occasioned by such injury or deprivation, against any one or more of the conspirators.

That you can chose not to name one of the parties if you elect not to

Back to 1988

It is also notable here to read

the common law, … shall be extended

as that seems to conflict with court rules

A New Federal Civil Procedure—I. The Background , 44 Yale L.J. 387, 391 (1935). Under §723b after the rules have taken effect all laws in conflict therewith are of no further force or effect. In accordance with §723c the Court has united the general rules prescribed for cases in equity with those in actions at law so as to secure one form of civil action and procedure for both. See Rule 2 (One Form of Action).

this new rule effectively voided common law (void where prohibited by law)

This is something I’ve really fumbled with lately, courts operate under rules, one courts rules are inadmissible in another court, it makes remedy a bit more difficult, requires time reading said rules

so if you are in US District Court as 1988 reads

(a) Applicability of statutory and common law
The jurisdiction in civil and criminal matters conferred on the district courts…

And they are governed under FRCP, i.e. “one form of action” what would an example of 1988’s “deficient in the provisions necessary to furnish suitable remedies” be to activate common law?

what’s puzzling you
Is the nature of my game

nature, its opposed by definition to artificial

common law would be natural, so this new “one form of action” would be artificial

Those who refuse to worship the beast shall be killed

Civil Death

Civil death might well remove your rights to remedy, typically reserved for acts of treason or felonies, but also for those who enter monastical life, which does not necessarily mean as a nun or a monk, it can be much more broad, include a house

but it will not include a house established by a King, to the contrary, a King banishes those who refuse his rule, those become known as

Forbannitus Iforbren;}t;}s/. A pirate; an outlaw; one banished.

I’d take a close look at the protestant religion, formed by the power of a King

If they have called the master of the house Beelzebub, how much more shall they call them of his household? … Matthew 10:25

Meaning, Jesus and his followers so called by those who opposed him, but if an earthly king or system calls the same as pirates or outlaws, those who are civilly dead… would you reject the same?


Interesting. A bit of history:

Our clan was descended from a prince. One of three brothers declared outlaw because they tried to depose a cousin and uncle who had been elevated to the high kingship of Eire instead of one of them.

The clan name was given as a mark, as were others clans who descended from these three princes (called the Collas) accused of treason stripped of their lands. Then they and theirs were banished into Scota to a ‘reservation’ if you will. The history is debated still, but DNA has proved the existence of the King Gene in members of clans claiming their descent from the Collas. This ‘marking’ was in some ways the advent of surnames in Eire. Our Clan’s prince was not a Colla himself but a Grandson, and was born shortly after the DNA mutation that marks us more surely.

Some centuries later the English King would put an attainder on our Clan. The attainder meant we could be killed where ever we were found. The survivors met and as a whole adopted a new name to hide from the English. We in my family have never forgotten who we were. The history passes on…

ETA: The attainders on all the clans was finally lifted in the 1970s.


wow, cool post and history for you, :+1: I don’t diminish marks at all, I don’t think anyone should