5 Comments
Sep 15Liked by Shield Maidens of MO

I have started calling the MO Supreme Court this week in regard to this court case. Our AG needs to sue over the fact that this petition violates the right to life which is guaranteed in MO and the US constitution. People need to start realizing that these public servants who helped put this through (Ashcroft, et. al.) violated their oath and are committing maladministration, perjury, and have been and will be depriving people of rights under the “color of law”.

If you look at our bill of rights. We cannot bring forward amendments that would be repugnant to the US Constitution (Missouri Constitution Article 1, Section 3)

US Constitution requires all states to defend the right to life and due process under the 5th Amendment and the 14th amendment.

The Government has a duty to defend the right to life, liberty, and property, and cannot deprive a person of that without due process of law (Missouri Constitution Article 1, Section 2 & Article 1, Section 10)

Charles A Wiesmen’s A Selection of Maxims of Law: 58c. “He who is in the womb is considered as born, whenever his benefit is concerned”. Bouv. 151; Black’s, 979.

Missouri Constitution, Article VII, Section 1 declares that

“All elective executive officials of the state, and judges of the Supreme Court, courts of appeals, and circuit courts LIABLE TO impeachment for crimes, misconduct, habitual drunkenness, WILLFUL NEGLECT OF DUTY, corruption in office, incompetence, or ANY offense involving MORAL TURPITUDE or oppression in office” [capitalization added for emphasis]

Blacks law dictionary 4th edition. TURPITUDE: “... in a legal sense, everything done contrary to justice, honesty, modesty, or good morals...”

Legislatures and Senators have a similar duty under Article III, section 15. Go read it for yourself.

Government has an obligation to defend the right to life and the right to due process. I already gave the Supreme Court, legislatures, governor, the Secretary of State, and our AG notice back in May of these violations by these petitions, and their duty to remove the petition from the ballot and to investigate the corporations and entities involved with this attack on our rights in violation of their charters of incorporation... I have the receipts for their office receiving it. I will continue to try to get them to correct their wrongs before moving forward, but if they remain stiffen-necked then this info needs to be brought before a grand jury and begin prosecuting and indicting the officials who are failing to remove this amendment for its violation of our rights.

Expand full comment
Sep 19Liked by Shield Maidens of MO

Thank you for your podcast.

When you say, "Supreme Court", could use please state which one your talking about; the U.S. Supreme Court or the Missouri State Supreme Court?

My mind thought you were talking about the U.S. Supreme Court.

I thought Lisa had flown out to Washington D.C.

Thank you!

Expand full comment
author

Hi Phillip,

We are referencing the MISSOURI SUPREME COURT...Lisa was in the Missouri Supreme Court listening to arguments on A3.

Expand full comment
Sep 15Liked by Shield Maidens of MO

I SO very much appreciate all that you ladies do. I live in a rural area, and if it weren't for you, I would be in the dark as to what our puppets are doing to damage our beautiful state. Thank you for keeping me informed!

Expand full comment
Sep 15Liked by Shield Maidens of MO

A sad, sorry, evil affair in the Show Me State. Citizen petitions to amend the state Constitution or state laws should require a signature threshold of 5% of registered voter for each county or state House district. Petitions omitting legally required voter information should be automatically null and void.

Ashcroft failed to invalidate the petition. Ashcroft v Judge Beetem, who rewrote the ballot summaries; Ashcroft had an opportunity at this time to appeal to the Supreme Court and make the case the Thomas More Society did. This would have provided the needed time to make it clear what this amendment does.

It would not repeal laws but supersede and overlap existing statutes – say what? The result does not change with the rewording and the Court know this. The Supreme Court still has not released its decision divulging which of the robes gave a nod to this evil.

Where can I get a No on Amendment 3 sign for my yard. Better yet, a large sign that say exactly what laws will be “superseded.”

Expand full comment