These corporate employees are impersonating a government official - Google
NEW YORK CITY -http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_City
they tell you they were incorporation as a corporation in “Incorporated 1898”.
They are a private corporation therefore their employees who profess to be
government officials are lying - they are corporate
employees/agents/CEO/officials - that is a violation of Title 18 Section
912 - Whoever falsely assumes or pretends to be an officer or employee
acting under the authority of the United States or any department, agency
or officer thereof, and acts as such, or in such pretended character
demands or obtains any money, paper, document, or thing of value, shall be
fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
@VickensMoscova Micha-El Bey
Founder of @VM_Enterprises
Social Media Influencer|Writer/Blogger|On Camera Media Host|DJ|Marketing
Correspondent for: @OmnipresenceMed
Brand Ambassador for: @MattieuEthan
[image: Follow teststamp on Twitter]
IMPORTANT: The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential.
They are intended for the named recipient(s) only. If you have received
this email by mistake, please notify the sender immediately and do not
disclose the contents to anyone or make copies thereof.
Below is a very disturbing video clip of an innocent young man who was
murdered by the corporate security of NEW YORK CITY Corporation.
Everyone needs to write a cause of action regarding this.
This is stalking, profiling, murder, etc.
Looks like a dozen employees of the NEW YORK CITY corporation allege that
this man was resisting arrest…Is this what is called resisting arrest
these days? And unfortunately most people do not know that the People have
a right to resist arrest especially if it is unwarranted and in violation
of the American Constitution 1791.
Know this, the police are not Constitutionally Sanctioned, they are not
officers, officers are elected. Police are hired by the Mayor who in truth
is the CEO of NEW YORK CITY corporation!!!
This is murder…Everyone must document and writ a cause of action. Do not
let this young brothers take a big hit for the family for nothing!!! Do not
let his death be in vain…Everyone writ a cause of action, download this,
send it everywhere. If you didn’t know what genocide is, if you didn’t know
what stalking is, if you didn’t know what murder is…Watch this video and
you will know.
And Family - stop calling these mercenaries!!! This is how they keep their
jobs to continue killing our family. Police are not here to protect the
People, they are here to protect the corporation and their interest.
It is *NOT* the duty of the *police* to protect you. Their job is to
protect THE CORPORATION and arrest *code breakers.* *(SAPP vs.*
*Tallahassee**, 348 So. 2nd. 363, Reiff vs. City of* *Phila.* *477 F. 1262,
Lynch vs. NC Dept. of Justice 376 S.E. 2nd. 247)*
*They allege that he was resisting arrest, well he has a Constitutionally
Secured right to resist!!! Especially from a pack of wild wolfs that jumped
on this brother and murdered him.*
” Supreme Court has held that the officer has no right (to arrest a
Citizen) unless certain procedures (constitutional protections) are adhered
to…Where the officer is killed in the course of the disorder which
naturally accompanies an attempted arrest that is resisted, the law looks
with very different eyes upon the transaction, when the officer had the
right to make the arrest, from what it does if the officer had no right.
What may be murder in the first case might be nothing more than
manslaughter in the other, or the facts might show that no offense had been
committed.” *John Bad Elk v. U.S., 177 U.S. 529.*
*John Bad Elk v. U.S., 177 U.S. 529.*
"Common as the event may be, it is a serious thing to arrest a citizen, and
it is a more serious thing to search his person; and he who accomplishes
it, must do so in conformity to the law of the land. There are two reasons
for this; one to avoid bloodshed, and the other to preserve the liberty of
the citizen. Obedience to the law is the bond of society, and the officers
set to enforce the law are not exempt from its mandates.”*) see also: Allen
v. State, 197 N.W. 808, 810-11 (Wis 1924) *
"An illegal arrest is an assault & battery. The person so attempted to be
restrained of his liberty has the same right to use force in defending
himself as he would in repelling any other assault & battery.” *State v.
Robinson, 145 ME. 77, 72 ATL. 260.*
*Runyan v. State, 57 Ind. 80;*
"When a person, being without fault, is in a place where he has a right to
be, is violently assaulted, he may, without retreating, repel by force,
and, if in the reasonable exercise of his right of self defense, his
assailant is killed, he is justified.”. *see also: Miller v. State, 74
*Housh v. People, 75 111. 491*
"An arrest made with a defective warrant, or one issued without affidavit,
or one that fails to allege a crime is within jurisdiction, and one who is
being arrested, may resist arrest and break away. lf the arresting officer
is killed by one who is so resisting, the killing will be no more than an
involuntary manslaughter.”* ; reaffirmed & quoted in State v. Leach, 7
Conn. 452; State v. Gleason, 32 Kan. 245; Ballard v. State, 43 Ohio
349; State v Rousseau, 241 P. 2d 447; State v. Spaulding, 34 Minn. 3621.*
*Adams v. State, 121 Ga. 16, 48 S.E. 910*
"One may come to the aid of another being unlawfully arrested, just as he
may where one is being assaulted, molested, raped or kidnapped. *Thus it is
not an offense to liberate one from the unlawful custody of an officer,
even though he may have submitted to such custody, without resistance*.”
*Jones v. State, 26 Tex. App. I*
These principles apply as well to an officer attempting to make an arrest,
who abuses his authority & transcends the bounds thereof by the use of
unnecessary force and violence, as they do to a private individual who
unlawfully uses such force & violence.*” ; see also** Beaverts v. State, 4
Tex. App. 1 75; Skidmore v. State, 43 Tex. 93, 903.*
*State v. Mobley, 240 N.C. 476, 83 S.E. 2d 100.*
*Each person has the right to resist an unlawful arrest. In such a case,
the person attempting the arrest stands in the position of a wrongdoer and
may be resisted by the use of force, as in self-defense.”*
* Plummer v. State, 136 Ind. 306.*
“Citizens may resist unlawful arrest to the point of taking an arresting
officer’s life if necessary.” This premise was upheld by the Supreme
Court of the United States in this case:
* “Story affirmed the right of self-defense by persons held illegally. In
his own writings, he had admitted that a situation could arise in which the
checks-&-balances principle ceased to work & the various branches of
government concurred in a gross usurpation.’ There would be no usual remedy
by changing the law or passing an amendment to the Constitution, should the
oppressed party be a minority. Story concluded, If there be any remedy at
all … it is a remedy never provided for by human institutions.’ That was
the ultimate right of all human beings in extreme cases to resist
oppression, and to apply force against ruinous injustice.’” (From “Mutiny
on the Amistad” by Howard Jones, Oxford Univ. Press, 1987, an account of
the reading of the decision in the case by Justice Joseph Story of the
"The carrying of arms in a quiet, peaceable, & orderly manner, concealed on
or about the person, is not a breach of the peace. Nor does such an act of
itself, lead to a breach of the peace.” *Judy v. Lashley, 5 W. Va. 628, 41
"It is the law that a person illegally arrested by an officer may resist
that arrest, even to the extent of the *taking of life, *if his own life or
any great bodily harm is *threatened*. *State v. Rousseau, 40 Wash. 2nd,
92, 241 P. 2nd. 447, 449 (1952) * *see also:** Porter v. State, 124 Ga.
297, 52 S.E. 283, 287 (1905); see also State v. Mobley, 240 N.C. 476, 83
S.E. 2nd 100, 102 (1954); Wilkinson v. State, 143 Miss. 324, 108 So. 711,
712-13 (1926); American Jurisprudence, 2nd Ed., “Arrest”, Section 94, pp.
778-780; Thomas v. State, 91 Ga. 204, 18 S.E. 305 (1892); Presley v. State,
75 Fla. 434, 78 So. 532, 534 (1918); Burkhard v. State, 83 Tex. Crim. 228,
202 S.W. 513; Mullins v. State, 196 Ga. 569, 27 S.E. 2nd. 91 (1943); Ownes
v. State, 58 Tex. Crim. 261, 125 S.W. 405 (1910); Caperton v. Commonwealth,
189 Ky. 652, 655, 225 S.W. 481, 481 (1920)*
"The United States Supreme Court, and every other court in the past
deciding upon the matter, has recognized that “at common Law”, a person had
the right to “resist the illegal attempt to arrest him.” *John Bad Elk v.
United States, 177 U.S. 529, 534-35 (1899). State v. Robinson, 145 Me 77,
72 Alt. 2d 260, 262 (1950). State v. Gum, 68 W. Va. 105. State v. Rouseau,
40 Wash. 2d. 92, 241, 242 P.2d 447, 449 (1952). State v. Mobley, 240 N.C.
446, 83 S.E., 2d 100, 102 (1954). Wilkinson v. State, 143 Miss. 324, 108
So. 711. Thomas v. State, 91 Ga. 204, 18 SE 305 Presley v. State, 75 Fla.
434, 78 So. 523. Burkhardt v. State, 83 Tex Crim 228, 202 S.W. 513Mullis v.
State, 196 Ga. 569, 27 SE 2d 91 (1943). Owen v. State, 58 Tex Crim 261, 125
S.W. 405 (1910). Franklin,118 Ga. 860, 45 S.E. 698 (1903). Graham v. State,
143 Ga. 440 85 S.E. 328, 331 City of Columbus v. Holmes, 152 N.W. 2d, 301,
306 (Ohio App. 1058). Adams v. State, 121 Ga 163, 48 S.E. 910 (1904).
Robertson v. State, 198 S. W2d 633, 635-36 Tenn. (1947). Roberts v. Dean,
187 So. 571, 575 Fla. 1939. The State of Connecticut against Leach, 7 Conn,
Rep. 452 (1829) Housh v. The People, 75 ILL Rep. 487, 491 (1874). Plummer
v. The State, 135 Ind. 308, 313, 334 N.E. 968 (1893). People v. Hevern,
127 Misc. Rep. 141, 215 NY Supp 412. U.S. v. Cerciello, 86 NJL 309, 90
Atl.1112, (1914). U.S. v. Kelly, 51 Fed 2d 263 (1931) Bednarik v. Bednarik,
16 A 2d, 80, 90, 18 NJ Misc. 633 (1948). State v. Height, 117 Iowa 650, 91
NW 935. People v. Corder, 244 Mich. 274, 221 NW 309. Boyd v. U.S., 116 U.S.
616. State v. Newcomb, 220 Mo 54 119 SW 405. Town of Blacksburg v. Bean,
104 S.C. 146. 88 S.E. 441 (1916) Allen v. State, 197 N.W. 808, 810-11(Wis
1924). Adarns v. State, 121 Ga 163, 48 S.E. 910 (1904) Green v.Kennedy, 48
N.Y. Rep. 653, 654 (1871). Hicks v. Matthews, 266 S.W. 2nd. 846, 849 (Tex.
1954). Porter v. State, 124 Ga. 297, 52 S.E. 283, 287 (1905). Mullins v.
State,196 Ga. 569, 27 S.E. 2nd. 91 (1943). Caperton v. Commonwealth, 189
Ky. 652, 655, 225 S.W. 481, 481 (1920)*
*Notice how heavy handed they were, once they took his pulse and realized
they murdered him, then they touching him with two fingers. And the Foreign
european male with the gun that had on the shirt with the makings “99”,
once he realized he murdered the brother after pressing his face into the
sidewalk with his knee…he is far from the scene after he murders him. *