SENTINEL INTELLIGENCE SERVICES, LLC.
                                                          ______________
 
Saturday –
June the 19th, 2010
1540Hrs; m.s.t. (Arizona)                                                              Email Briefing Bulletin:
__________
 
Dr. Orly Taitz, Esq.
   
            IN RE:  New Hampshire and State Sovereignty
 
 
Dear Orly,
 
It is nice to hear from you, and I pray you are very well and have had some rest, given the hectic pace you kept this past
year.  Please take care of yourself, as well  as you are trying to take care of our country.
 
The New Hampshire Legislature actively considered and debated a Resolution regarding establishing State Sovereignty under
the Tenth Amendment of the original Constitution for the united States of America.  My Great State of Arizona has begun a
series of acts to establish State Sovereignty, and approximately 14-other states are moving in a similar direction.  For Arizona
the Immigration Bill (SB-1070) is but one of several acts taken to establish said sovereignty:  The ability for Arizona citizens to
carry a concealed weapon without permit enforces the 2nd Amendment more strongly; any firearms manufacturer within the
State of Arizona can sell weapons without charging State taxes; Legislation passed where it is no longer the burden on the
citizen to prove his life was in jeopardy if an intruder breaks into the citizen’s home and is shot dead by the citizen – the burden
shifts to the State.  This November, the actual Resolution to establish State Sovereignty will be placed on the ballot for all citizens to vote on and determine.  These are to name a couple of changes.  But back to New Hampshire.
 
Below is listed information that will help you look at the process taken in New Hampshire.  The Resolution was actively debated
but DID NOT pass.  While many solid points were made, and it was exciting to see another state begin the process of finding
their voice in re-establishing State Sovereignty, which sovereignty has been surrendered to the Federal Government, in the
final analysis New Hampshire got bogged down in the area of enforcement, and fear of Federal instrusion.  Let’s hope and pray
New Hampshire Legislators will bring this topic back in their next session.
 
Continued best wishes.  May our Lord continue to protect and guide you, and grant you great discernment and wisdom.  Thanks
every so much for continuing to fight the good fight.
 
With personal regards.
Lyle J. Rapacki, Ph.D.
Protective Intelligence and Assessment Specialist
Consultant at Behavioral Analysis and Threat Assessment
Independent Intelligence Analyst
Member-ASIS International
FBI InfraGard-Arizona
Association for Intelligence Officers
__________

  Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2010 09:11:44 -0700
 From: REDACTED
 To: Lyle@SentinelIntelligenceServices.com
 Subject: Re: FW: new Hampshire passes resolutuion Must read
 
His point is valid about the Militias being re-enacted or re-activated and establishing states rights over the Fed, but the example he uses for New Hampshire was proposed (and failed) last year… here is the link to the NH HCR6.. 
 
https://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/bill_status/bill_docket.aspx?lsr=274&sy=2009&sortoption=&txtsessionyear=2009&txtbillnumber=hcr6&q=1
 
MF = Motion Failed per the last line dated 03/04/2010
 
New Query
 FAQs 
New Hampshire General Court – Bill Status System Previous Bill Result List Next Bill
 Bill Status
 Bill Text
 
Docket of HCR6 Docket Abbreviations
 Bill Title: affirming States’ rights based on Jeffersonian principles.
 
Official Docket of HCR6:
 Date Body Description
 01/08/2009 H Introduced and Referred to State-Federal Relations and Veterans Affairs; HJ 12, PG.222 
01/14/2009 H Public Hearing: 2/5/2009 1:00 PM LOB 203 
01/27/2009 H Executive Session: 2/12/2009 2:00 PM LOB 203 
02/19/2009 H Majority Committee Report: Inexpedient to Legislate for Mar 4 RC (vote 11-7); HC 16, PG.383-384 
02/19/2009 H Minority Committee Report: Ought to Pass; HC 16, PG.383-384 
03/04/2009 H Special Order to Beginning of Calendar (Rep Itse): MA VV; HJ 21, PG.600 
03/04/2009 H Inexpedient to Legislate: MA RC 216-150; HJ 21, PG.600-603 
03/04/2009 H Reconsideration (Rep Eaton); HJ 21, PG.638 
03/04/2009 H Lay Reconsideration On Table (Rep W.O’Brien): MF RC 108-207; HJ 21, PG.638-639 
03/04/2009 H Reconsideration: MF RC 104-212; HJ 21, PG.640-641 
 
Previous Bill Result List Next Bill
 
 
NH House NH Senate Contact Us 
New Hampshire General Court Information Systems 
107 North Main Street – State House Room 31, Concord NH 03301

 
 
 
 
 
 
6/6/2010 Posted By Pat Dollard.
 
The New Hampshire state legislature took an unbelievably bold step Monday by introducing a resolution to declare certain actions by the federal government to completely totally void and warning that certain future acts will be viewed as a “breach of peace” with the states themselves that risks nullifying the Constitution.” 
 
This act by New Hampshire is a clear warning to the federal government that they could face being stripped of their power by the States (presumably through civil war!).
 
The remarkable document outlines with perfect clarity, some basics long forgotten. For instance, it reminds Congress “That the Constitution of the United States, having delegated to Congress a power to punish treason, counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States, piracies, and felonies committed on the high seas, and offences against the law of nations, slavery, and no other crimes whatsoever;. . . . . therefore all acts of Congress which assume to create, define, or punish crimes, other than those so enumerated in the Constitution are altogether void, and of no force;” 
 
Federal gun crime laws? Void. 
Federal drug crime laws? Void. 
The other federal criminal laws that deal with anything other than the specific enumerated crimes? ALL VOID.
 
One would think that if any lawyer anywhere in the entire country was worth his salt, all federal criminal trials would have ended years ago. This seems to prove that most lawyers are dullards.
 
New Hampshire deals a complete death blow to the pending federal hate crimes legislation by pointing out “That, therefore, all acts of Congress of the United States which do abridge the freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, are not law, but are altogether void, and of no force; . . . . .”
 
Later in the Resolution, New Hampshire makes clear what the feds are now risking if they proceed further: The removal of all powers from the federal government by the States!
 
Quoting directly from the Resolution: 
 
 
“That any Act by the Congress of the United States, Executive Order of the President of the United States of America or Judicial Order by the Judicatories of the United States of America which assumes a power not delegated to the government of United States of America by the Constitution for the United States of America and which serves to diminish the liberty of the any of the several States or their citizens shall constitute a nullification of the Constitution for the United States of America by the government of the United States of America. Acts which would cause such a nullification include, but are not limited to:
 
 
I. Establishing martial law or a state of emergency within one of the States comprising the United States of America without the consent of the legislature of that State.
 
II. Requiring involuntary servitude, or governmental service other than a draft during a declared war, or pursuant to, or as an alternative to, incarceration after due process of law.
 
III. Requiring involuntary servitude or governmental service of persons under the age of 18 other than pursuant to, or as an alternative to, incarceration after due process of law.
 
IV. Surrendering any power delegated or not delegated to any corporation or foreign government.
 
V. Any act regarding religion; further limitations on freedom of political speech; or further limitations on freedom of the press.
 
VI. Further infringements on the right to keep and bear arms including prohibitions of type or quantity of arms or ammunition; and That should any such act of Congress become law or Executive Order or Judicial Order be put into force, all powers previously delegated to the United States of America by the Constitution for the United States shall revert to the several States individually. Any future government of the United States of America shall require ratification of three quarters of the States seeking to form a government of the United States of America and shall not be binding upon any State not seeking to form such a government; and That copies of this resolution be transmitted by the house clerk to the President of the United States, each member of the United States Congress, and the presiding officers of each State’s legislature.
 
https://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2009/HCR0006.html
 

 The enforcement proposal follows: 
 
The only place in the Federal Constitution that any law enforcement powers are granted is in Article 1, Section 8, Paragraph 15, where the law enforcement powers are granted to the Militia. Congress is given the power to call forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections, and repel Invasions. There are no other law enforcement powers granted anywhere else in the Constitution. The words Police, Marshall, Agent, Sheriff, Prosecutor, or any form of them, do not appear anywhere in the Constitution.
 
The Militias belong to the States and the next paragraph states that the Federal Government is to see that the militias are armed, but the States are responsible for the training, and the appointment of officers.
 
Most State Constitutions says the same thing as the Federal Constitution: The Militia is to be called up to execute the Laws of the State, to suppress Insurrections, and repel Invasions.
 
One more point, the National Guard is not the Militia. The Militia is defined as all able bodied men between the ages of 18 and up. The top age varies according to the various State Constitutions. Neither the National Guard, nor any organized police power in the Federal Government or any of the several State Governments can lawfully claim to be the Militia.
  
The State Constitutions say words to the following effect: The Governor shall be Commander-in-Chief of the military forces of the State, except when they shall be called into the service of the United States. He shall have power to call out the militia to execute the laws, to suppress insurrection, or to repel invasion.
 
If Arizona had used the powers in the Federal Constitution and the Arizona Constitution and simply called out the Militia, there would be no room for any argument. — Except some may contend that the influx of Illegal aliens is not an Invasion. The Federal Constitution, in Article 1, Section 8, Paragraph 16, requires the Federal Government to Provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.
 
 
Clearly the Militia belongs to the States. The States have the power to appoint the officers and train the men. 
Once the Governor has restored the Militia, then the State needs to turn to the Federal Government and DEMAND the arms required to be distributed to all able bodied men and women in the State be immediately provided. That should end all discussions about gun laws, and give the State an army to defend itself from any invasion of its sovereign territory.

2 Responses to “from Lyle Rapacki, member of FBI infraguard association of intelligence officers”

1. RoBoTech
   June 20th, 2010 @ 3:39 pm

   I guess I am a dunce and have wishful thinking.
   Dollard posted on June 6th, 2010 that this bill passed. The report even said it passed on “Monday”.
   The bill that Lyle says failed, had a last entry of 03/04/2009! Lyle says the last entry was 03/04/10, it wasn’t!
   “MF = Motion Failed per the last line dated 03/04/2010”
   So what’s the real deal on this Bill?

2. dr_taitz@yahoo.com
   June 20th, 2010 @ 4:46 pm

   which bill?

Leave a Reply

Name (required)

Email Address(required)

Website

Comments

Δ