A look at Kentucky Cannabis Activists circa 2009

U.S. Marijuana Party Kentucky

There are a lot of Cannabis Activists fighting the good fight here in the State of Kentucky.  They have been fighting for years – to no avail.  But we never give up!  We will keep fighting until we win!

It started with Gatewood Galbraith, Craig Lee   and many more, some of whom are in this video.  It has continued on through the years with so many people I could not name them all here.  There is a list of Kentucky Activists on both of the Kentucky Marijuana Party’s websites both here and also at http://kyusmjparty.weebly.com. It is only a partial listing of all the people who have helped fight this war in Kentucky, but it is dedicated to all of them!

In the YouTube Video below, filmed in 2009 Craig Lee is seen explaining the benefits of Hemp along with many other Activists, some of whom have since…

View original post 411 more words

Updates Following Descheduling Press Conference Held On Capitol Hill


So in an attempt to find out what actually took place on the Hill, As I was not actually able to attend or see the actual Press Conference, this is all I was even able to locate in the News or On-line about it. ~

Congressman focuses bright D.C. cannabis spotlight on popular legalization bill

May 18, 2017 by David Hodes 0 Comments

Yesterday, May 17, Virginia Fifth District Congressman Tom Garrett announced more details of his bill, H.R. 1227, “Ending Federal Marijuana Prohibition Act of 2017” which he introduced in Congress in February. He updated the crowd of advocates and reporters with more on the hoped-for success of the bill that is going forward now with a host of new co-sponsors.

The bill, which the congressman says is similar to a bill by Senator Bernie Sanders that floated around briefly in Congress in 2015 (some say there is no real difference between Garrett’s bill and Sander’s bill), seeks to specifically remove marijuana and tetrahydrocannabinoids from the federal schedule of controlled substances and leave regulation up to the individual states. “Senator Sanders had an identical bill,” Garrett says. “I know that because my legislative staff poached the bill. All we really changed was the spelling of marijuana. His bill spelled it ‘marihuana,’” Garrett says.

Garrett’s bill enjoys wider bipartisan support today than when introduced, now co-sponsored by seven Democrats and four Republicans, including the original two sponsors: Democrat representative from Hawaii, Tulsi Gabbard; and Republican representative from Virginia, Scott Taylor. Four new co-sponsors have joined just since the beginning of April.

Garrett chose this day because two marijuana events garnering national attention were occurring simultaneously in D.C.: lobby days by the National Cannabis Industry Association, and the Marijuana Business conference at National Harbor. This is a big week for cannabis in D.C., and Garrett wanted to make sure that his bill got some of the spotlight. “This is a very, very important initiative,” Garrett says. “This is the federal deregulation of marijuana. This is not decriminalization.”

Garrett was a criminal prosecutor in Virginia, and said his views were shaped by that experience. “I enforced the laws of the Commonwealth,” he says. “But I cannot tolerate, either as a citizen and a prosecutor, the unequal application of justice.”

He said that he believes that when a person is sent to Washington to represent constituents, and identify a problem, steps should be taken to solve the problem. “That is why we stand here today,” he says. “What we see here early on is a sort of personal liberty coalition that defies party identification, which I think is nice for a change.”

He says that what drove him to champion this bill is the issue of law enforcement. “We now have a situation where federal laws are enforced in some states and not enforced in other states,” Garrett says. “It’s unconscionable. I fear that my colleagues in Congress have been so afraid to point out the 800 pound gorilla in the room that we have all engaged in a conversation about how lovely the emperor’s clothes are. But the reality is we live in the unequal application of the law.”

He says that he is working with the committee of jurisdiction for his bill, which is the judiciary committee. Their subcommittee will be the first test of the bill. “If we hit critical mass in that subcommittee, and ask for a vote in the subcommittee, then do the same thing in the full committee and get a critical mass there, then get the bill out to the floor, I think it will pass. And it will pass with a bipartisan majority,” he says. “Right now it’s strategic as to when we try to push it. And we want to know we have the votes before we do it.”

Appearing with Garrett were mothers of two children who suffer from epilepsy, and have to break federal law to get CBD oil to treat their children. “This is the issue I got into politics for,” Garrett says, pointing to the two mothers. “You can write a bill, you can lobby a bill, but you can’t hug a bill. Doing the right thing is why I do this. And if it costs me politically, than I will go out knowing that I have been true to myself. It’s a pretty good gig.”

David Hodes

David Hodes is the Acting Managing Editor of CBE Press LLC. based in the Greater Washington DC metropolitan area. He is the former editor of seven different business magazines, and has contributed feature articles to several business/lifestyle and national cannabis magazines. Hodes is also a former field producer for CBS News, NBC, NFL Network, ESPN and other media outlets, and worked as a news promotions producer for two network affiliates. He is member of the National Press Club, and deputy booking agent for the National Press Club Headliners Committee.

My Response ~

Again, I want to take this opportunity to say a BIG THANK YOU!!! To Mr. Garrett, To ALL our OFFICIALS, as well as, To ALL those involved. To ALL who have STEPPED UP!!! On behalf of our Nation and our Globe; with this Very Powerful Initiative set fourth to place an End to this part of the War on Freedom, Health, Nature and at least this part of the Globe.

Dear Mr. Hodes

I Thank You! For “your” being what seems to be, “the only one” individual or any one source of information, news or media. From what I can find, who even tried to update anyone about the actual Information or News of what went on at the actual Press Conference it’s self.

I found this to be very interesting in it’s self. While when I looked at what you had to actually say about it all and was really kinda Not surprised that you reported it in a Misleading or almost Fake News fashion.

I mean I will “quote” you ~ “seeks to specifically remove ” from above, to show you why and where you error or mislead, to make my point here.

Quoting you again, quoting Mr. Garrett,

This is a very, very important initiative,” Garrett says. “This is the federal deregulation of marijuana. This is not decriminalization.

Even though you quote him on all this, you then use the word “Legalization” to describe it all in your title!???

WTF are you NOT understanding about the “distinction” being made here???

Let’s see if I can help you and others…

This is a Bill calling for a “Congressional Act” of Legislation of an actual Act of “Repeal” = “Deregulation” = To “Specifically Remove” Previous Bad or Outdated Congressional Acts of Regulation or Legislation. = NOT “Legalization” at all!

Legalization is a set of Legal Lies = words, terms or rules = Lies, disguised to look and sound like decriminalization, which in actuality really only leads to more legislation and more regulation and thus more criminalization…. = A very vicious fraudulent cycle of abuse of authority! That no one in the understanding or “know” of the Linguistics of Law, will ever buy!!!

Please, understand the Legal definitions of the words, terms, the semantics and the Legal Process Being Taken before attempting to explain it to others. Thank You! Because there are too many Legal Lies = Legalize in this War on People and Plants = NOT “Drugs” at all!

Mary Thomas-Spears

Also Spot Lighted in this Search

Energy & Resources Digest – New investor report:

Six Top Pot Stocks for 2017

Photo Courtesy of Paket.

While One Year ago Today:

By Tom Angell on May 19th, 2016 at 12:24 pm | Updated: May 24th, 2016 at 5:18 pm Health & Medicine, Law & Politics

Congress OKs Medical Marijuana for Military Veterans

The U.S. Senate and House of Representatives both took action to increase military veterans’ access to medical marijuana on Thursday.

By a vote of 89-8, senators approved a bill containing language preventing the Department of Veterans Affairs (V.A.) from spending money to enforce a current policy that prohibits its government doctors from filling out medical marijuana recommendation forms in states where the drug is legal.

The House approved an amendment to accomplish the same goal by a vote of 233-189 earlier in the day.

“We are pleased that both the House and Senate have made it clear that the Veterans Administration should not punish doctors for recommending medical cannabis to their veteran patients,” Mike Liszewski, government affairs director for Americans for Safe Access (ASA), told Marijuana.com. “Combat veterans are disproportionately affected by several conditions that medical cannabis can effectively treat, including chronic pain, PTSD and traumatic brain injury. We anticipate this amendment will reach the president, and once signed, it will give V.A. physicians another tool in their toolbox to treat the healthcare needs of America’s veterans.”

The provisions are now part of a larger bills to fund the V.A. and other government agencies through next year. The medical cannabis language was attached to the Senate legislation last month in bipartisan vote of 20-10 in the Appropriations Committee, and did not require a separate vote on the floor.

Last year the Senate approved the Fiscal Year 2016 version of the V.A. spending bill, with similar medical cannabis protections for veterans attached, but the House narrowly defeated a move to add the amendment to its version of the legislation by a vote of 213-210. As a result, the provision was not included in the final omnibus appropriations package signed into law by President Obama in December.

Since then, momentum on medical cannabis and broader marijuana law reform issues has continued to increase. Last month, for example, Pennsylvania became the 24th state in the U.S with a comprehensive medical marijuana program. This month the Ohio House of Representatives approved medical cannabis and, on Thursday, Louisiana Gov. John Bel Edwards (D) signed a medical marijuana bill into law.

U.S. House and Senate negotiators will meet in a conference committee to iron out the discrepancies in funding levels and other differing provisions between each chamber’s version of the spending legislation. But since both now include medical marijuana protections for veterans, it is likely that they will make it into the final package sent to President Obama for enactment into law.

“I commend my colleagues for showing compassion and supporting our wounded warriors,” Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-OR), who sponsored the amendment on the House floor, said in a press release. “Today’s vote is a win for these men and women who have done so much for us and deserve equal treatment in being able to consult with, and seek a recommendation from, their personal V.A. physician about medical marijuana.”

The V.A. policy disallowing its doctors from recommending medical marijuana in states where it is legal actually expired on January 31 but, under the department’s procedures, the ban technically remains in effect until a new policy is enacted.

Advocates expect a new policy soon, but aren’t sure what it will say. In February 2015, a top V.A. official testified before a House committee that the department is undertaking “active discussions” about how to address the growing number of veterans who are seeking cannabis treatments.

The language of the House and Senate veterans medical marijuana protections differ somewhat.

The Senate bill reads:

None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available to the Department of Veterans Affairs in this Act may be used in a manner that would—

(1) interfere with the ability of a veteran to participate in a medicinal marijuana program approved by a State;

(2) deny any services from the Department to a veteran who is participating in such a program; or

(3) limit or interfere with the ability of a health care provider of the Department to make appropriate recommendations, fill out forms, or take steps to comply with such a program.

Whereas the House bill says:

None of the funds made available by this Act may be used to implement, administer, or enforce Veterans Health Administration directive 2011-004 (or directive of the same substance) with respect to the prohibition on “VA providers from completing forms seeking recommendations or opinions regarding a Veteran’s participation in a State marijuana program”.

While the Senate language seems more all-encompassing, advocates believe that whichever approach is included in the final enacted legislation will be sufficient to give veterans greatly expanded access to medical cannabis.
“The Senate language clearly states that interference is forbidden conduct, while the House language prohibits the V.A. from adopting or enforcing rules to interfere,” Liszewski, of ASA, said in an interview. “Once signed by the president, we look forward to working with the Veterans Administration to make sure that V.A. physicians are aware of their ability to recommend medical cannabis to veterans who could benefit from it.”

A trio of Democratic senators submitted an additional amendment this week intended to spur medical cannabis research by the V.A., but it did not receive a vote on the Senate floor.

Attention now turns to separate Congressional appropriations bills that fund other parts of the government, most importantly legislation that covers the Justice Department. For the past two years, advocates have succeeded in attaching language to the bill preventing the Drug Enforcement Administration and other Justice Department agencies from spending money to interfere with state medical marijuana and industrial hemp laws. A move to broaden the protections to cover all state marijuana laws, including full legalization, narrowly failed on the House floor last year but could now have enough increased support to pass if voted on again.

Advocates will also continue pushing to add protections for banks that work with legal marijuana businesses to legislation covering the Treasury Department. And, there could be votes concerning the District of Columbia’s ability to spend its own money taxing and regulating marijuana sales.

“This is an historic moment and further proof there is real movement and bipartisan support in reforming outdated federal marijuana policies,” said Blumenauer, of the victory for veterans. “There is more to be done, and I will build on today’s momentum and continue my efforts in catching federal policy up to reflect the views held by a majority of Americans.”

Today: Press Conference On Marijuana Descheduling To Be Held On Capitol Hill

I will be calling Capitol Hill again today on this. To lend my support and to Thank! All those on the hill involved in bringing this Legislation forward.

If you haven’t made a call to show your support for this Legislation. Now is the time!

I just Featured this Bill on our new Americans For Cannabis Site (Still under construction) here http://americansforcannabis.blogspot.com/p/blog-page_17.html

Ref. Article https://www.weednews.co/today-press-conference-on-marijuana-descheduling-to-be-held-on-capitol-hill/

Weed News

On Capital Hill, Congress Meets to Discuss the of End Marihuana Canna (image via EDCapitolHill.org)bis Prohibition

Today, a press conference will be held by members of Congress from both parties highlighting the Ending Federal Marijuana Prohibition Act of 2017, HR 1227, introduced by Representatives Thomas Garrett (R-VA) and Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI).

H.R. 1227 seeks specifically to remove marijuana and tetrahydrocannabinols from the federal schedule of controlled substances, thereby leaving regulation up to the states.

Details for the press conference are as follows:

What: Press Conference on H.R. 1227 to highlight the necessity for federal deregulation of marijuana
When: May 17, 2017 from 2:00-2:45 PM
Where: House Triangle, just outside the U.S. Capitol (back-up rain location Cannon HOB 340)
Speakers: U.S. Congressman Tom Garrett; tentative confirmation from U.S. Congressman Scott Taylor and several other bipartisan members of Congress that have cosponsored this legislation; also in attendance will be representatives from NORML and other advocacy organizations from across the country.

Justin Strekal, Political Director for NORML, released the following statement:

“Never in modern history has there existed greater public support for ending the nation’s nearly century-long experiment with marijuana prohibition and replacing it with regulation. The historic votes on Election Day — when a majority of voters in California, Massachusetts, Maine, and Nevada decided at the ballot box to regulate the adult use of marijuana, and several other states passed medical marijuana legalization laws — underscore this political reality.”

“The ongoing enforcement of marijuana prohibition financially burdens taxpayers, encroaches upon civil liberties, engenders disrespect for the law, impedes legitimate scientific research into the plant’s medicinal properties, and disproportionately impacts communities of color.”

“According to recently released nationwide survey data from Quinnipiac University, the majority of Americans support the repeal of federal marijuana prohibition. Fifty-nine percent of voters say that the adult use of marijuana should be legal while a whopping 93 percent support the medical use of marijuana. Perhaps most importantly, 71 percent of voters — including strong majorities of Democrats, Republicans, and Independents — say that they “oppose the government enforcing federal laws against marijuana in states that have already legalized medical or recreational marijuana.”

In a February 27 press release introducing the bill, Congressman Thomas Garrett (R-VA) stated:

“I have long believed justice that isn’t blind, isn’t justice. Statistics indicate that minor narcotics crimes disproportionately hurt areas of lower socio-economic status and what I find most troubling is that we continue to keep laws on the books that we do not enforce. Virginia is more than capable of handling its own marijuana policy, as are states such as Colorado or California.”

In a March 21 statement on the floor of the House Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI) stated:

“Our outdated policies on marijuana are having devastating ripple effects on individuals and communities across the country. They have turned everyday Americans into criminals, torn apart families, and wasted huge amounts of taxpayer dollars to arrest, prosecute, and incarcerate people for non-violent marijuana charges. Differences in state and federal law have also created confusion and uncertainty for our local businesses, who face contradictory regulations that affect their bottom line and ability to operate. I urge our colleagues to support our bipartisan legislation which would decriminalize marijuana, bringing about long overdue and common sense reform.”


NORML’s mission is to move public opinion sufficiently to legalize the responsible use of marijuana by adults, and to serve as an advocate for consumers to assure they have access to high quality marijuana that is safe, convenient and affordable.

Source: NORML press release

H.R.1227 – Ending Federal Marijuana Prohibition Act of 2017









Find your legislator HERE!


To write or call the White House, click here



The White House 



President Trump




February 27, 2017

Mr. Garrett (for himself, Ms. Gabbard, and Mr. Taylor) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on the Judiciary, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned


To limit the application of Federal laws to the distribution and consumption of marihuana, and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. Short title.

This Act may be cited as the “Ending Federal Marijuana Prohibition Act of 2017”.

SEC. 2. Application of the Controlled Substances Act to marihuana.

(a) In general.—Part A of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 801 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following:

“SEC. 103. Application of this Act to marihuana.

“(a) Prohibition on certain shipping or transportation.—This Act shall not apply to marihuana, except that it shall be unlawful only to ship or transport, in any manner or by any means whatsoever, marihuana, from one State, territory, or district of the United States, or place noncontiguous to but subject to the jurisdiction thereof, into any other State, territory, or district of the United States, or place noncontiguous to but subject to the jurisdiction thereof, or from any foreign country into any State, territory, or district of the United States, or place noncontiguous to but subject to the jurisdiction thereof, when such marihuana is intended, by any person interested therein, to be received, possessed, sold, or in any manner used, either in the original package or otherwise, in violation of any law of such State, territory, or district of the United States, or place noncontiguous to but subject to the jurisdiction thereof.

“(b) Penalty.—Whoever knowingly violates subsection (a) shall be fined under title 18, United States Code, imprisoned not more than 1 year, or both.”.

(b) Table of contents.—The table of contents for the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970 (Public Law 91–513; 84 Stat. 1236) is amended by striking the item relating to section 103 and inserting the following:

“Sec. 103. Application of this Act to marihuana.”.

SEC. 3. Deregulation of marihuana.

(a) Removed from schedule of controlled substances.—Subsection (c) of Schedule I of section 202(c) of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 812(c)) is amended—

(1) by striking “marihuana”; and

(2) by striking “tetrahydrocannabinols”.

(b) Removal of prohibition on import and export.—Section 1010(b) of the Controlled Substances Import and Export Act (21 U.S.C. 960) is amended—

(1) in paragraph (1)—

(A) in subparagraph (F), by inserting “or” after the semicolon;

(B) by striking subparagraph (G); and

(C) by redesignating subparagraph (H) as subparagraph (G);

(2) in paragraph (2)—

(A) in subparagraph (F), by inserting “or” after the semicolon;

(B) by striking subparagraph (G); and

(C) by redesignating subparagraph (H) as subparagraph (G);

(3) in paragraph (3), by striking “paragraphs (1), (2), and (4)” and inserting “paragraphs (1) and (2)”;

(4) by striking paragraph (4); and

(5) by redesignating paragraphs (5), (6), and (7) as paragraphs (4), (5), and (6), respectively.

SEC. 4. Conforming amendments to Controlled Substances Act.

The Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 801 et seq.) is amended—

(1) in section 102(44) (21 U.S.C. 802(44)), by striking “marihuana,”;

(2) in section 401(b) (21 U.S.C. 841(b))—

(A) in paragraph (1)—

(i) in subparagraph (A)—

(I) in clause (vi), by inserting “or” after the semicolon;

(II) by striking (vii); and

(III) by redesignating clause (viii) as clause (vii);

(ii) in subparagraph (B)—

(I) by striking clause (vii); and

(II) by redesignating clause (viii) as clause (vii);

(iii) in subparagraph (C), by striking “subparagraphs (A), (B), and (D)” and inserting “subparagraphs (A) and (B)”;

(iv) by striking subparagraph (D);

(v) by redesignating subparagraph (E) as subparagraph (D); and

(vi) in subparagraph (D)(i), as redesignated, by striking “subparagraphs (C) and (D)” and inserting “subparagraph (C)”;

(B) by striking paragraph (4); and

(C) by redesignating paragraphs (5), (6), and (7) as paragraphs (4), (5), and (6), respectively;

(3) in section 402(c)(2)(B) (21 U.S.C. 842(c)(2)(B)), by striking “, marihuana,”;

(4) in section 403(d)(1) (21 U.S.C. 843(d)(1)), by striking “, marihuana,”;

(5) in section 418(a) (21 U.S.C. 859(a)), by striking the last sentence;

(6) in section 419(a) (21 U.S.C. 860(a)), by striking the last sentence;

(7) in section 422(d) (21 U.S.C. 863(d))—

(A) in the matter preceding paragraph (1), by striking “marijuana,”; and

(B) in paragraph (5), by striking “, such as a marihuana cigarette,”; and

(8) in section 516(d) (21 U.S.C. 886(d)), by striking “section 401(b)(6)” each place the term appears and inserting “section 401(b)(5)”.

All Actions H.R.1227 — 115th Congress (2017-2018)


Referred to the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations.
Action By: House Judiciary

Referred to the Subcommittee on Health.
Action By: House Energy and Commerce

Referred to House Judiciary
Action By: House of Representatives

Referred to House Energy and Commerce
Action By: House of Representatives

Referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on the Judiciary, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Action By: House of Representatives

Introduced in House
Action By: House of Representatives






Additional LINKS of Information:



Received Another Good Question? What is your solution to end prohibition on mj?

Mary Thomas-Spears shared a post to Omnipotence Sui Juris’s Timeline.
Another Good Question?
April 30 at 2:50pm · (LINKS HAVE BEEN ADDED & some slight corrects have been made as far as some capitalization and puncuation errors.)

Just thought I’d get your opinion, Am I wrong here??? Because I do not think so ~
Mary Thomas-Spears aka Rev. Mary
April 30 at 2:01pm

Message sent @
Sat 4:03pm

what is your solution to end prohibition on mj?… I’ve been following thorne’s adventure, and he does make valid points… I think we all have same goals… just wanted to understand your position

Response Sent @1:46pm
From Mary Thomas-Spears aka Rev. Mary ~ Another Good Question?

A Constitutional Amendment is the only end that I can see to End Prohibition of Personal Use and to Restore our rights and freedoms where our personal use is concerned because what Mr. Thorne Peters is overlooking is ~ We Have No Real Rights or Freedoms Currently due to our Contracting them away through the IRS and S.S. via the Market Place – in Incorporation = making ourselves their Property = “Dead” = “Stock” = Why? the Judge wears Black! = Bench is Latin for Bank = with The Corporate World Bank = in with an extension of the Corporate World Government = which is an extension or the Corps(e) or dead body of the Corporate World Church = the all seeing eye on the top of the pyramid only separated through their Tax Exempt Status


Due to so many reasons, like the Verona Treaty and the Lieber Code to name just a couple of them.


Lieber Code

Not to mention, His = Thorne Peters CASE would have to be on the U.S. Supreme Court to make any real difference = he lost or it was rejected on the lower state levels.

Yes! I have already proved #NoMensRea in Court but I had to Plead Guilty to Introduce the evidence that I had no guilt in a “Lessor of Evils” defense which it took me 8 yrs at the State level in a Commonwealth to do and that didn’t keep it or me off their paper or out of their system or help me go on to a Higher Court…

Not to Mention, each case is different according to the Charges they have brought against you, as they Do have All Authority over the Market Place, Currency and Foreign War including Synthetic ones they’ve created = their property = Prohibition or the Drug War – that they have divided with their Prohibition to create new Venues and drive prices while Controlling the ALL the numbers! With-in the Market Place.

As I have already said, because of these reasons and many others, he is misleading the masses in my opinion.

Although I have said there is another Solution in the About Section of the Page everyone joins but no-one reads or takes Seriously ~ https://www.facebook.com/We-are-Marijuana-Nation-544778148…/
1st Comment

From Omnipotence Sui Juris (who in fact Documents for you what I just explained to you above)

As far as I can find written in English Law, once you apart of the group your at the groups mercy, a fee-simple citizen has to deal with the land trust companies charter and constitutions, the most specific is usually written like in Canada Sec 1 of the Charter, 1. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society. this reasonable limits is the catch 22, since the group can make anything legal for the group yet anyone not apart of that group it does not apply to and the charter does not apply as a remedy for those not in the subject matter jurisdiction, being a municipal corporation with a use under statute King William the 1st , called de donis, the only area of law that deals with the removal of the subject matter jurisdiction is estates in reversion for the donor to get “Life Estate” back that was granted at birth by the parents, everything else is corp law for the protectors of the lands as stated in Magna Charta chapter 4 , the countries are land trust companies as stated in Law of Property 1925, the ancient statutes deal with the reversion process that is not apart of the land trust company, these are the statutes written by the Donee the individual each fee-simple subject grants the estate to, the monarchy created a system that the individuals with a use can control the equitable waste and nothing else, being equity is fiction and only applies to those that agree to the value of that object of exchange for all in its group,
pic Magna Charta chapter 4


King William the 3rd wrote the remedy, from blackstone commentaries vol 2 pg 112

king_william-the 3rd-wrote-theRemedy-From-blackstone commentaries,vol2 pg112

English Law has its own language, and is different than any other.

King William the 3rd wrote the remedy, from blackstone commentaries vol 2 pg 112
10&11W3rd ,kingWilliamThe3rdDeDonisConditionalis.

From Mary Thomas-Spears ~ TY! to “Omnipotence Sui Juris”, For your time here! Abundant Blessings! ❤

So let me see if I am understanding you correctly? YOU DO CONCUR! & It is like
I said above and in this post below here to my Diverse Sanctuary's Canadian Lodge page. Unless You Redeem Yourself via The Remedy. ~

Another GOOD QUESTION???? Here in the States ~ Oh, By the Way – If you haven’t been Paying Attention ~ Canada’s Government is also an incorporation of Corporate Government of the Established World Corporate Church’s Corps(e) or “Body” or of “the people” ~ https://www.facebook.com/diversesanctuaryscanadianlodge/posts/1527437817280695

From Omnipotence Sui Juris ~ Everything since 1066 and the start of the current English Law and Jurisdiction is based on “livery by seisin“, and is apart of the livery companies and the lord spiritual and temporal, this translates into every law, faith, belief and morals of every individual is no longer there own, since this group started in 1066 and was forced for many hundreds of years unless you understood law of reversion. Everything everyone believes that is law, is Law of Equity it is not natural law, or the law of your god, an english subject that has a faith and proclaims it will be bound threw equity to that faith; unless you choose nature, true freedom and reversion and take back your Life Estate in the recognized and written manner as it states in the ancient statutes etc. Then after you are free you can choose what ever you want for laws for your group, since you would need acceptance from anyone not in your group. This deals with the main foundation on what majority believe law and jurisdiction to be , Common Law is Equity Law and Fee-simple, and was apart of common law before King William the 1st enacted into legislation by statute de donis. English Law likes to write things to allow the reader to assume things, unless they are diligent enough to learn the law as a whole and how it works and to whom it applies to and why. I have not found 1 individual that can prove to me what law and subject matter really is , as in written by a recognized law scholar, yet I have this information in many books written by top scholars and it is not only being ignored, seems everyone is fighting subject matter jurisdiction yet don’t know what it is, how it is achieved and what the remedy is, if you do not have these 3 all together English Law will not recognize it.

To sum it up, most have no clue because they choose to read others material that is not recognized, and have never read any Real Law Books, I don’t want anyone to keep asking me questions over and over, the answers everyone seeks are in the documents that I share, I can not discuss an area of law if no one will read it and no one knows it exists and contradicts all the law everyone else thinks is law. When its the law for the group and not the way out.
Unlike · Reply · 2 · Yesterday at 1:45am

From Mary Thomas-Spears ~ Well That Summed That Up! Hell!!! I couldn’t have said it any better myself! The Web Site I had it all Documented on went missing a few years ago and we won’t discuss the issues with PC’s…

Yet, I believe that we do concur! and I thank You! for sharing this info here again. Because YES!!!! They all seem to want to argue about it while passing a bucket of denial around for them to piss and moan in…

Like · Reply · 2 · Yesterday at 3:20pm

From Omnipotence Sui Juris ~ Thank you for taking the time to read it!
lots more on its way
Unlike · Reply · 1 · 1 hr

From Mary Thomas-Spears ~ You are so welcome! Again, praying you are Abundantly Blessed!



Wishing You a Happy Hempy Birthday and many more to come!!! Ms. Sheree Krider

Rev. Mary T. Spears, Diverse Sanctuary ...

This blog is being written in HONOR of Ms. Sheree Krider’s BIRTHDAY today!!!

I got you some Cakes here baked with Cannabis so Don’t Eat them all at once and get BAKED and then go throw your back out cleaning up after the PARTY! So you wind up calling me to fix ya…(I would have put the videos here but you know me and this WordPress) So just pretend I did! 😀

One more that reminded me of you today

If everything they had to say about OLD AGE, YOU POT HEADS and MARIJUANA was true, I’ll bet we would have both forgotten what today is 😀

Just to keep Your aging Mind sharp! How Long…

View original post 294 more words

Omnipotence Sui Juris ~ The Principles of Real Property

From a FB Re-Post or Share
Omnipotence Sui Juris
Yesterday at 1:44am ·

No Jurisdiction (Territory) can take your absolute rights, so they created hereditaments and attached EVERYTHING including your rights to the lands. When one grants a Life Estate the life estate gets split into 2 pieces, REAL and Personal.

The individual(donor) that grants a life Estate only has a use and is called fee-simple, this is attached to the lands(hereditaments).

The real is the land and all the natural resources attached including hereditaments.

Personal is Equity, the individual in fee-simple only has the equitable use of things, you do not own it you can only prosper equity threw its use.

This NEW capacity bars the individual from the REAL Property and only has access the the equitable waste the individual can create and nothing more.

The civil individual can remove the life estate followed by the statutes that created the life estate.


OF REAL PROPERTY; and first, of CORPOREAL [ 16 ]

The objects of dominion or property are things, as contradistinguished from persons : and things are by the law of. England distributed into two kinds; things real, and personal. things personal. Things real are such as are permanent, fixed, and immoveable, which cannot be carried out of their place ; as lands and tenements : things personal are goods, money, and all other moveables; which may attend the owner’s person wherever he thinks proper to go.

In treating of things real, the subject of the present work, let us consider, first, their several sorts or kinds ; secondly, the tenures by which they may be holden ; thirdly, the estates which may be had in them ; and, fourthly, the title to them, and the manner of acquiring and losing it.

First, with regard to their several sorts or kinds, things Things real real are usually said to consist in lands, tenements, or hereditaments. Land comprehends all things of a permanent, substantial nature ; being a word of a very extensive signification, as will presently appear more at large. Tenement is a word of still greater extent, and though in its vulgar acceptation is only applied to houses and other buildings, yet in its original, proper, and legal sense, it [ 17 ] signifies every thing that may be holden, provided it be of a permanent nature ; whether it be of a substantial and sensible^ or of an unsubstantial ideal kind. Thus liberum tenementum, franktenement, or freehold, is applicable not only to lands and other solid objects, but also to offices, rents, commons, and the like;^ and, as lands and houses are tenements, so is an advowson a tenement ; and a franchise, an office, a right of common, a peerage, or other property of the like unsubstantial kind, are, all of them, legally speaking, tenements. But an hereditament, says Sir Edward Coke, is by much the largest and most comprehensive expression : for it includes not only lands and tenements, but whatsoever may be inherited, be it corporeal, or incorporeal, real, personal, or mixed. Thus an heir-loom, or implement of furniture which by custom descends to the heir together with an house, is neither land, nor tenement, but a mere moveable : yet, being in- heritable, is comprised under the general word hereditament: and so a condition, the benefit of which may descend to a man from his ancestor, is also an hereditament.

Hereditaments then, to use the largest expression, are of two kinds, corporeal and incorporeal. Corporeal consist of such as affect the senses ; such as may be seen and handled by the body : incorporeal are not the object of sensation, can neither be seen nor handled, are creatures of the mind, and exist only in contemplation.

Corporeal hereditaments consist wholly of substantial permanent objects ; all which may be comprehended consist. under the general denomination of land only. For landy says Sir Edward Coke, comprehendeth in its legal signification any ground, soil, or earth whatsoever ; as arable, meadows, pastures, woods, moors, waters, marshes, furzes, and heath. It legally includeth also all castles, houses, and other buildings : for they consist, saith he, of two things ; Land ; its land, which is the foundation, and structure thereupon : SO that, if I convey the land or ground, the structure or building passeth therewith. It is observable that water is here mentioned as a species of land,

An incorporeal hereditament is a Right issuing: out of a thing Corporate (whether real or personal) or concerning, or annexed to, or exercisible within, the same.^ It is not the thing corporate itself, which may consist in lands, houses, jewels, or the like ; but something collateral thereto, as a rent issuing out of those lands or houses, or an office relating to those jewels.

Incorporeal hereditaments are principally of ten sorts ; Of ten sorts, advowsons, tithes, commons, ways, offices, dignities, franchises, corodies or pensions, annuities, and rents


The foregoing books having been principally employed in defining the nature of things real, in describing the tenures by which they may be holden, and in distinguishing the several kinds oi estate or interest that may be had therein; I come now to consider, lastly, the title to things real, with the manner of acquiring and losing it.

A title is thus defined by Sir Edward Coke,* titulus est Dettnition of jmta causa possidendi id quod nostrum est; or, it is the * means whereby the owner of lands hath the just possession of his property.

There are several stages or degrees requisite to form a
complete title to lands and tenements. We will consider
them in a progressive order.

The lowest and most imperfect degree of title consists in the mere naked possession, or actual occupation of the estate; without any apparent right, or any shadow or pretence of right, to hold and continue such possession. This may happen, when one man invades the possession of another, and by force or surprise turns him out of the occupation of his lands; which is termed a disseisin, being a deprivation of the actual seisin.

The next step to a good and perfect title is the right of possession, which may reside in one man, while the actual possession is not in himself but in another. For if a man be disseised, or otherwise kept out of possession, by any of the means before-mentioned, though the actual possession be lost, yet he has still remaining in him the right of possession ; and may exert it whenever he think proper, by entering upon the disseisor, and turning him out of that occupancy which he has so illegally gained. But this right of possession is of two sorts : an apparent right of possession, which may be defeated by proving a better; and an actual right of possession, which will stand the test against all opponents.


Principles Of Property



Subject to be Continued ~

Everything You Need to Know About Fee-Simple with a Life Estate

Related ~

The Most Important Lesson in Understanding How You are Screwed by the Words https://marythomasspearsblog.wordpress.com/2017/04/15/the-most-important-lesson-in-understanding-how-you-are-screwed-by-the-words-used/