That guy is an employee of a company.   His title is PRESIDENT.   He's a corporate officer but he's still an employee.



That guy was an employee of a company, the same company as the other guy.   His title was PRESIDENT.   He was corporate officer but he was still an employee.   From the day he was sworn in he was at war, every single day.   He ordered that aerial drones drop bombs on people.   Those bombs killed women and children.   He ordered that and made war without a Declaration of War from Congress.   He murdered people and other people he didn't murder gave him a Nobel Peace Prize.   He reportedly had sex with men, proposed a homosexual relationship with a professor, snorted cocaine, and smoked marijuana.    Joan Rivers said he was gay and married to a transvestite.    


That guy was an employee of a company, the same company as the other guys.   His title was PRESIDENT.   He was corporate officer but he was still an employee   He was a drunk, cokehead, and AWOL   He was at war for almost the entire time he was President.   He couldn't talk properly and fell off his bicycle often.  

“…the President is the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of this corporation called the United States of America”.
Allen West, Former Tea Party Congressman from Florida
March 9, 2011 
Interviewed by Judge Andrew Napolitano on The Glenn Beck show.

These guys were all servants, every single one of them.   They volunteered to bea servant.   They agreed to be a servant.





All those guys wanted to work for


"We the people..."

            "We the people..."  created the jobs for those employees.   They had to apply.   They had to qualify.   They had to agree to follow rules their employer did not have to follow.   Working for their employer is a privilege.   The privilege is revocable.   This is the office complex of the company those guys worked for:

That complex is where employees of  "We the people..." work.  

        The President's office is here:

            Those buildings were built by "We the people..." so their employees had a place to work.   All the buildings and stuff in the buildings belong to "We the people...".    The stuff is not owned by the employees, it's provided for their use.  

            Those buildings represent a company the "We the people..." created.   The company has a name.   The name of the company is The United States of America.   United States is the Congress assembled, meaning the employees identified by the term Congressman or Congresswoman.   America is where the company named United States is located.

...the United States, in Congress assembled."
The Articles of Confederation, Nov. 15, 1777
(The forgoing is used 28 times in that document.)

            People confuse United States and America and conflate them.   They equate the thing created by "We the people..." with where the thing is located.  

The United States of America and the state of California are two separate sovereignties, each dominant within its own sphere.   While this state gives its full support to the national government in the conduct of a war,  it does not by virtue of that fact automatically adopt the public policy of the nation as its own.”
Redding v. City of Los Angeles (1947) 81 Cal.App.2d        

"The government of the United States is a foreign corporation with respect to a state."
In re Merriam, 36 N. E. 505, 141 N. Y. 479, affirmed 16 S. Ct. 1073, 163 U. S. 625, 41 L.Ed. 287.

SECTION 9301- 9342               

     9307.  (h) The United States is located in the District of Columbia. 

            The court's referring to a company and one of the states of the union.   Note that the green state has a lower case "s" at the beginning.   That means it's a noun.   Note that United and States are capitalized.   That means they're a proper name.   That's the name of the company.   The court is referring to two DISSIMILAR things.

The United States of America is a corporation endowed with the capacity to sue  and be sued, to convey and receive property. 1 Marsh. Dec. 177, 181. But it is proper to observe that no suit can be brought against the United States without authority of law.”
Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, 5th, definition of  “United States”

The United States as drawee of commercial paper stands in no different light than any other drawee.   As stated in United States v. National Exchange Bank, 270 U.S. 527, 534 , 46 S.Ct. 388, 389, 'The United States does business on business terms.'   It is not excepted from the general rules governing the rights and duties of drawees 'by the largeness of its dealings and its having to employ agents to do what if done by a principal in person would leave no room for doubt.' Id., 270 U.S. at page 535, 46 S.Ct. at page 389.

It is, we think, a sound principle that when a government becomes a partner in any trading company, it divests itself, so far as concerns the transactions of that company, of its sovereign character and takes that of a private citizen.   Instead of communicating to the company its privileges and its prerogatives, it descends to a level with those with whom it associates itself and takes the character which belongs to its associates, and to the business which is to be transacted. Thus, many states of this Union who have an interest in banks are not suable even in their own courts; yet they never exempt the corporation from being sued. The State of Georgia, by giving to the bank the capacity to sue and be sued, voluntarily strips itself of its sovereign character so far as respects the transactions of the bank and waives all the privileges of that character.   As a member of a corporation, a government never exercises its sovereignty.   It acts merely as a corporator, and exercises no other power in the management of the affairs of the corporation than are expressly given by the incorporating act.

The government of the Union held shares in the old Bank of the United States, but the privileges of the government were not imparted by that circumstance to the bank.   The United States was not a party to suits brought by or against the bank in the sense of the Constitution.   So with respect to the present bank.   Suits brought by or against it are not understood to be brought by or against the United States.   The government, by becoming a corporator, lays down its sovereignty so far as respects the transactions of the corporation, and exercises no power or privilege which is not derived from the charter.
Bank of United States v. Planters' Bank of Georgia 
(1824) 22 U.S. 9 Wheat. 904

“In clause (4), the words ‘United States’ are substituted for the words ‘Federal Government’.”

10 U.S.C.S.  (United States Code Service), '2231(4), History: Ancillary Laws and Directives, p. 19

UNITED STATES CODE, TITLE 28, PART VI, CHAPTER 176,  Judicial and Judiciary Procedure, SUB CHAPTER A,  Sec. 3002.  Definitions (15), p. 564, ''United States'' means -

    (A) a Federal corporation;

            Add to that, there's this thing:


            If people refuse to acknowledge those facts and act and speak accordingly, they will, it's inevitable that they will make mistakes when speaking about many issues, especially legal issues.   Every single someone on the government payroll is a servant to...


...and they do not get to treat their employer like this:




B.  Adjudicative Responsibilities

(4) A judge shall be patient, dignified, and courteous to litigants, jurors, witnesses, lawyers, and others with whom the judge deals in an official capacity,...

1708.  Every person is bound, without contract, to abstain from injuring the person or property of another, or infringing upon any of his or her rights.


820.   (a) Except as otherwise provided by statute (including Section 820.2), a public employee is liable for injury caused by his act or omission to the same extent as a private person.

Penal Code
CHAPTER 9. Assault and Battery

240.  An assault is an unlawful attempt, coupled with a present ability, to commit a violent injury on the person of another.

241.  (a) An assault is punishable by a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars ($1,000), or by imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding six months, or by both the fine and imprisonment.

242.  A battery is any willful and unlawful use of force or violence upon the person of another.

243.  (a) A battery is punishable by a fine not exceeding two thousand dollars ($2,000), or by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding six months, or by both that fine and imprisonment. 


    19572.  Each of the following constitutes cause for discipline of an employee, or of a person whose name appears on any employment list:
           (a) Fraud in securing appointment.
           (b) Incompetency.
           (c) Inefficiency.                      
           (d) Inexcusable neglect of duty.
           (e) Insubordination.
           (f) Dishonesty.
           (g) Drunkenness on duty.
           (h) Intemperance.
           (i) Addiction to the use of controlled substances.
           (j) Inexcusable absence without leave.
           (k) Conviction of a felony or conviction of a misdemeanor involving moral turpitude. A plea or verdict of guilty, or a conviction following a plea of nolo contendere, to a charge of a felony or any offense involving moral turpitude is deemed to be a conviction within the meaning of this section.
           (l) Immorality.
           (m) Discourteous treatment of the public or other employees.
           (n) Improper political activity.
           (o) Willful disobedience.
           (p) Misuse of state property.
           (q) Violation of this part or of a board rule.
           (r) Violation of the prohibitions set forth in accordance with Section 19990.
           (s) Refusal to take and subscribe any oath or affirmation that is required by law in connection with the employment.
           (t) Other failure of good behavior either during or outside of duty hours, which is of such a nature that it causes discredit to the appointing authority or the person's employment.
           (u) Any negligence, recklessness, or intentional act that results in the death of a patient of a state hospital serving the mentally disabled or the developmentally disabled.
           (v) The use during duty hours, for training or target practice, of any material that is not authorized for that use by the appointing power.
           (w) Unlawful discrimination, including harassment, on any basis listed in subdivision (a) of Section 12940, as those bases are defined in Sections 12926 and 12926.1, except as otherwise provided in Section 12940, against the public or other employees while acting in the capacity of a state employee.
           (x) Unlawful retaliation against any other state officer or employee or member of the public who in good faith reports, discloses, divulges, or otherwise brings to the attention of, the Attorney General or any other appropriate authority, any facts or information relative to actual or suspected violation of any law of this state or the United States occurring on the job or directly related to the job.

Both the police we honor and the criminals we prosecute are subject to the same binding Constitution.
SMITH v. CITY OF HEMET (2005) 394 F.3d 689, 9th Cir. (en banc)

Obviously, administrative agencies, like police officers must obey the Constitution and may not deprive persons of constitutional rights.
Southern Pac. Transportation Co. v. Public Utilities Com . (1976) 18 Cal.3d 308
[S.F. No. 23217. Supreme Court of California. November 23, 1976.]

It is elementary that public officials must themselves obey the law.
Wirin v. Parker (1957) 48 Cal.2d 890
In re Red Light Photo Enforcement Cases (2008) Cal.App.4th

An officer who acts in violation of the Constitution ceases to represent the government.
Brookfield Construction Company v. Stewart, 284 F. Supp. 94 (1964), United States District Court District of Columbia.

            Arguably the officer employee is liable in damages to their employer for the mere threat to deny or otherwise prejudice the secured rights of the people they chose to serve:

The principle that animates these cases is simple: a search is unreasonable — and so violates the Fourth Amendment — if its justification is grounded in officers “engaging or threatening to engage in conduct that violates the Fourth Amendment.” Kentucky v. King, 131 S.Ct. 1849, 1858 (2011).
UNITED STATES of America v. Dawud Ali SAAFIR (June 11, 2014) No. 13–4049, United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.    
(c) The proper test follows from the principle that permits warrantless searches: warrantless searches are allowed when the circumstances make it reasonable, within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment, to dispense with the warrant requirement.   Thus, a warrantless entry based on exigent circumstances is reasonable when the police did not create the exigency by engaging or threatening to engage in conduct violating the Fourth Amendment.
Because the officers in this case did not violate or threaten to violate the Fourth Amendment prior to the exigency, we hold that the exigency justified the warrantless search of the apartment.        
KENTUCKY v. KING (2011) No. 09-1272, U.S. Supreme Court

        When the officer employee activates the red lights, that represents a SHOW OF FORCE.   The FORCE demonstrated by the officer employee is authorized under the circumstances or it's not.   The FORCE demonstrated by the employee officer is COMPULSORY.   The SHOW OF FORCE is to induce COMPLIANCE with the officers directive or command to halt.   The officer employee demands the party to whom the red lights are directed to stop.   That DEMAND is valid or it's not.  The employee officer is prohibited from activating the red lights, or demonstrating a SHOW OF FORCE unless crime is afoot. Both the Penal Code and the Vehicle Code specify this fact:


836. (a)   A peace officer may arrest a person in obedience to a warrant, or, pursuant to the authority granted to him or her by Chapter 4.5 (commencing with Section 830) of Title 3 of Part 2, without a warrant, may arrest a person whenever any of the following circumstances occur:

(1)  The officer has probable cause to believe that the person to be arrested has committed a public offense in the officer's presence.


40300.5.   In addition to the authority to make an arrest without a warrant pursuant to paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) of Section 836 of the Penal Code, a peace officer may, without a warrant, arrest a person when the officer has reasonable cause to believe that the person had been driving while under the influence of an alcoholic beverage or any drug, or under the combined influence of an alcoholic beverage and any drug when any of the following exists:

(a)   The person is involved in a traffic accident.
(b)   The person is observed in or about a vehicle that is obstructing a roadway.
(c)   The person will not be apprehended unless immediately arrested.
(d)   The person may cause injury to himself or herself or damage property unless immediately arrested.
(e)   The person may destroy or conceal evidence of the crime unless immediately arrested.

        The Legislature did not impose a MANDATORY DUTY on any officer employee to arrest anyone without a warrant, even when crime is committed in their presence.   The Legislature did not provide the term "shall" in either of those two sections, hence their duty is DISCRETIONARY and conditioned on the specific elements provide by the Legislature.   If those elements are not present the arrest lacks both constitutionl and legislative foundation.  


Constitution of the State of California

We the people of California, grateful to Almighty; God for our freedom: in order to secure its blessings, do establish this Constitution.

Article I:  Declaration of Rights

Sec. 1.

All men are by nature free and independent, and have certain unalienable rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty: acquiring, possessing and protecting property: and pursuing and obtaining safety and happiness.

Sec. 21.

This enumeration of rights shall not be construed to impair or deny others, retained by the people.


100.      (a) The sovereignty of the state resides in the people thereof,

It is the public policy of this state that public agencies exist to aid in the conduct of the people's business and the proceedings of public agencies be conducted openly so that the public may remain informed.

In enacting this article the Legislature finds and declares that it is the intent of the law that actions of state agencies be taken openly and that their deliberation be conducted openly.

The people of this state do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies which serve them. The people, in delegating authority, do not give their public servants the right to decide what is good for the people to know and what is not good for them to know. The people insist on remaining informed so that they may retain control over the instruments they have created.

This article shall be known and may be cited as the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act.

54950 DECLARATION OF LEGISLATIVE PURPOSE.   “In enacting this chapter, the Legislature finds and declares that the public commissions, boards and councils and the other public agencies in this State exist to aid in the conduct of the people’s business.  It is the intent of the law that their actions be taken openly and that their deliberations be conducted openly.
The people of this State do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies which serve them. The people, in delegating authority, do not give their public servants the right to decide what is good for the people to know and what is not good for them to know.  The people insist on remaining informed so that they may retain control over the instruments they have created”.

[2] The people of the State of California are supreme and have the undoubted right to protect themselves and to preserve the form of government...
Steiner v. Darby (1948) 88 Cal.App.2d 481

Again, that's the LOCATION of the company named United States.
The physical or geographical jurisdiction of the District of Columbia is 10 miles square.
The district is not a state.   A district is not a state.

106 BC – 43 BC

Do not blame Caesar, blame the people of Rome who have so enthusiastically acclaimed and adored
him and rejoiced in their loss of freedom.