"Free to disagree with the law...but not disregard it" says Trey Gowdy

But what law does he mean?

There’s something curious about a past US Congressman—who gained national attention with his seemingly hard-hitting questions about DHS watchlists and investigation of the Benghazi attack yet who was part of a House Oversight Committee which has done nothing to stop the yet-unstemmed tide of lawlessness from agencies purporting to be about Justice and Law Enforcement—preaching about the law to Americans.

Even if he may have a point about the inadvisability of protesting in front of Justices’ houses, as groups of Roe v Wade overturning protesters did recently, as reported here:

Gowdy tells protesters: You're free to peacefully protest the law, but you're not free to disregard it

Trey Gowdy, past US Rep. from South Carolina and a federal prosecutor, is now host of a Fox News show titled Sunday Night in America, where he covered these protests on May 15 and drew attention to the right to “peaceably assemble” from the Constitution, adjuring viewers and protesters to keep the law.

I’m all for keeping the law, but I’d like to inquire, what law?

It seems Trey is especially keen that people not protest at people’s houses or heckle them in public. Okay that’s understandable—many of us would agree that public officials acting in their public capacities in deleterious and harmful ways against the public still have a right to their own undisturbed private lives. (Although this is becoming an increasingly contested concept: the stonewalling of public officials to public pleas, appeals, petitions does draw specific attention to them, as evident worldwide today.)

However, this is not what most protests are about or how they are staged—witness the big freedom rallies and earlier anti-war rallies all over the world and in the USA in front of Capitols and State Houses, on Malls and public streets. These protests have always been peaceful and law-abiding (except where disrupted deliberately by staged rioters and plants as in the Jan 6 rallies at the Capitol and other rallies.) But people who gather to dance in the streets as in the freedom-from-lockdown protests recently or carry signs at anti-war protests are not in any way breaking peace-keeping laws by gathering and making their opinions known publicly.

So it’s interesting that it’s these small protests at some SCOTUS’s houses in Virginia that were focused on here in a national TV show targeted at mainstream American TV viewers and Fox News viewers in particular, and are being used as some kind of symbolic trope for protests in general—which is inaccurate.

“Something is going on in this country, and it is not good. Heckling people at restaurants, accosting them as they leave a rally or political event, storming the Capitol, trespassing on other people’s property, to what end? Your protest does not have to be fair or accurate, although it would be much more persuasive if it was. Your protest does not have to be polite…but protests do have to be peaceful. And when they are not, you give license to those on both sides of the spectrum to do the same. Protesters should be peaceful and law-abiding. Whether it is in pursuit of criminal justice reform, the counting of the electoral college, or decisions about what rights lie in the penumbra of other rights.”— Trey Gowdy

Was this just an opportunity to engage in some virtue-signaling on TV by the “Establishment” of senators and justices, law enforcement and news anchors?

I’m especially taken though by what Trey Gowdy said about “not (being) free to disregard the law”:

“The law is about the only thing holding this country together right now. You are free to disagree with the law, argue against it, or seek to change it. You are not free to disregard it, because when you disregard the law, even in your pursuit of some perceived higher ideal, you weaken the law. And once it is weakened, it is weakened forever. And you're most assuredly not welcome to show up at a judge’s house to complain about a decision, no matter how strongly you feel.”

I wonder if this whole focus on these small groups of pro-choice protesters was about needing to broadcast this statement, which is questionable. “You are free to disagree with the law, argue against it, or seek to change it. You are not free to disregard it, because when you disregard the law, even in your pursuit of some perceived higher ideal, you weaken the law.”

If “peaceable assembly” is the law he is alluding to, these protesters weren’t breaking it.

Any Law Left in America at this point?

But what is “the law”?

And does Trey really think “the law is about the only thing holding this country together right now”?

That’s not what it looks like to many of us, especially those of us who are very well aware of what the “Establishment” of Fusion Centers has led to in the USA—a complete breakdown in law-abiding behavior from the very faction which purports to practice and enforce it:

The Hidden Hand: Intelligence Community Crimes, Law Enforcement Crimes, Military Crimes: High Tech Crimes, Well-Hidden

Reporting the Journalism that's been Lost: on Disclosure from Declassified Docs on DEW/Neurotech Ab/use on Americans, Europeans By Their Own Governments

Public Safety and Keeping-the-Law is forever lost when public officials and criminal justice organizations and intelligence agencies and military divisions collude to attack the public, yet using covers and shields of “Surveillance” “Community Monitoring” “Counter-Terrorism” “Crime Prevention” “Deterrence” “Countering Violent Extremism” and the latest being “Disinformation” and “Misinformation” held against anyone speaking against the official Pharma-Government narrative pushing Pandemic-Theory, a very false reality-construct which the WHO, UN, WEF and co. are working hard currently to establish as the New Normal for the 21st Century, a bound-to-fail enterprise which nevertheless is causing all of us a lot of serious alarm.

Law or Statutes? What IS “the law” really? | Private Statutes vs Public Law

And “the law” we find in the Sea Jurisdiction of United States, Inc., which surely Trey Gowdy knows all about, is statutes of a private corporation.

The Clearfield Doctrine tells us the US government, being a private corporation, and using debt-notes (I Owe Yous) for currency, which is what the US Dollar is, a Federal Reserve Note and a private I Owe You, not government-issued money, nor instrinsically valuable gold or silver or anything else, upholding therefore the bogus 1930 bankruptcy of US Inc. by nefarious globalist bankers behind the IMF and World Bank and Federal Reserve, cannot compel performance on any of its 60 million statutes, which are private statutes, not public laws.

“The Law” found in the Land and Soil Jurisdiction of the Constitution for the USA, the Bill of Rights comprises the public law, Anna von Reitz tells us. That original Constitution has long been abandoned by US Inc., of which Trey Gowdy speaks—but is still alive on the land and soil of the USA.

Of Consent, Contracts, and Jurisdiction

Many would be surprised to learn, as M. R. Hamilton notes, that No US Government has Jurisdiction over the People:

“Not only have all of the state governments set up private companies like the federal government, every municipality including counties, parishes, towns and cities have done the same. They form corporations to conduct the business of raising revenue. As such, they have no more legal force of authority over human beings than Home Depot and Walmart or any other private company.

As such, there is no original jurisdiction government in place to uphold even Constitutional law. When any human being is challenged, all the human being would have to do is challenge the jurisdiction of the government at whatever level the challenge arises as not having jurisdiction over human beings, since the government is merely a corporation and human beings have to voluntarily enter into contracts knowingly and voluntarily. That means that the human being has to have knowledge of every aspect of the contract by which he is expected to abide.”

Many would be surprised—and relieved—to learn that no government nor government official can hold authority over anyone except by your consent:

“Prosecutors rely heavily on testimony from police and other government employees in many cases ranging from drug arrests to income tax cases to driving under the influence to under age drinking. Since all of the states agreed to a republican form of government, then every single human who is arrested for one of these crimes must consent to the law for which he is being charged a crime.

That is one of the reasons that we so commonly hear politicians running for office calling our form of government a democracy. The corporation is a democracy and a democratic form of government does not require the consent of the individual. That is, also, why it is so important to know where you live. Not knowing where you live can mean the difference in gong to prison or losing your life and walking free.”

Of course, even if we did have an original jurisdiction government seated, any statute passed by the legislative body therein would still require the consent on each human being affected by the statute….

“Those who know that the government is merely a corporation that has not contracted with the people will know that the facade set up by said corporation will not be able to stand against jurisdictional challenges. All contracts require all parties to the contract to enter said contract knowingly and voluntarily. If, for example, getting a drivers license, because agents of the corporate government claimed through its public schools it is required and so getting one entered the recipient into a contract without his knowingly, then such a contract is void for the fraud perpetrated by the fraudulent claim that the human was required to have it and the lack of informing the human he was entering into any form of contract, So the moral of this story is always challenge jurisdiction.”

Of course, Trey intends here it seems not to educate Americans about the two different jurisdictions in America, that US Inc. is a corporation with a roster of private statutes, that no-one is compelled to keep these statutes except by consent—which can only be given by fraud, the fraud of non-disclosure—but proceeds instead to maintain the fraud, implying those statutes comprise “the law,” and failing to give full disclosure on what they are in fact.

It is interesting that he’s focused on the law of “peaceable assembly” which is in the First Amendment to the Constitution, and a public law which protects the rights of the people to express their grievances in public, yet the generic language he has used regarding “the law” is misleading.

“Any notion of government has no legitimacy without the Material evidence that the governed have given their consent” — Baron David Ward’s Affidavit

To conclude: When someone says, in the USA, “You are free to disagree with the law, argue against it, or seek to change it. You are not free to disregard it, because when you disregard the law, even in your pursuit of some perceived higher ideal, you weaken the law,” one really has to ask What Law? and What Jurisdiction?

This is the same in the UK and worldwide, as Baron David Ward’s affidavit has shown us: There is No Law, only Presumption of Law or Color of Law; Parliament, a private corporation, makes statutes not law, and no-one needs to give consent to any “law,” which is really a contract missing your own wet-ink signature, which really means all “laws” are criminal offences, including the ones demanding taxes, and those “enforcing the law” are engaging in criminal offence against the people.

Are governments legitimate? Are “laws” they make legitimate? Are they “serving and protecting the people” or are they “serving the state, which is nothing but their own private corporation”? (No, it seems to the first 3, and Yes to the 4th.)

And this may be the way the whole world wakes up to what the WHO and all national governments—which are all corporations run by central bankers—are attempting to pull off here, a massive grab of everyone’s God-given rights and freedoms, and denies consent to stop it from happening.

The entire phenomenon of lawlessness currently inhering in the USA, UK and entire world still needs addressing, and shouldn’t Trey Gowdy—like Donald Trump, and all Oversight and Intelligence Committees—have spent his tenure in Congress addressing it? The fact is, Congress is deliberately and criminally ignoring it.

Welcome to the Gulag Created by Crooked Intelligence Agencies, Crooked US Military, and Crooked Fusion Centers

Denying Consent and Reclaiming Your Own Personal Sovereignty may be the only true way forward for all.

These are matters I am certainly learning a lot more about today, which I’m recording at Restoring America at my site and also here at Live Free, please visit those pages for more information, resources, and links.