Karl Koenigs

User avatar
Dolly
Posts: 10847
Joined: Fri Dec 07, 2012 7:32 pm

Re: Karl Koenigs

#1626

Post by Dolly » Fri Feb 02, 2018 7:30 am

Karl P. Koenigs
1 hr ·

The FBI FEDcoats EXECUTED Constitutional Patriot LaVoy Finicum
For one reason, for The Clinton Foundation & UraniumOne


Avatar by Tal Peleg Art of Makeup https://www.facebook.com/TalPelegMakeUp

User avatar
ZekeB
Posts: 14041
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 10:07 pm
Location: Northwest part of Semi Blue State

Re: Karl Koenigs

#1627

Post by ZekeB » Fri Feb 02, 2018 7:34 am

Say hey, Karl. Aren't you due in Florida sometime in March? You might want to ask the judge about that.


Mnoho lidí se za našeho prezidenta stydí.

Žluté vlasy se k oranžové tváři nehodí.

User avatar
ArthurWankspittle
Posts: 1045
Joined: Sun May 05, 2013 12:38 pm

Re: Karl Koenigs

#1628

Post by ArthurWankspittle » Fri Feb 02, 2018 8:12 am

For one reason - The Clinton Foundation and UraniumOne
and surprise
and speed
and a fanatical devotion to the pope........

Funny how no one else in that truck is dead.

Oh and Karl, don't forget to tell your fellow poots "welfare check" isn't in the constitution either.


Going to Tibet now and deleting Facebook you have my email address.

User avatar
JohnPCapitalist
Posts: 874
Joined: Tue Feb 16, 2016 10:29 pm
Location: Wall Street
Occupation: Investment management in the financial industry. Deep knowledge of stocks, tech and economics.

Re: Karl Koenigs

#1629

Post by JohnPCapitalist » Fri Feb 02, 2018 8:48 am

Dolly wrote:
Fri Feb 02, 2018 7:30 am
Karl P. Koenigs
1 hr ·

The FBI FEDcoats EXECUTED Constitutional Patriot LaVoy Finicum
For one reason, for The Clinton Foundation & UraniumOne
The whole uranium thing still cracks me up, especially when they try to tie it to the Hammonds. Of course, the only uranium deposit anywhere remotely close to the Hammond ranch is in Malheur County, about 75 miles away, and it's sufficiently thin that it's not commercially viable even if the uranium market weren't collapsing.

But I really enjoy the notion that a valuable stash of uranium actually exists under the Hammond ranch, but somehow not one iota of uranium can be found on the thousands of acres of BLM land immediately surrounding their property. Somehow, God saw fit to put uranium on that one spot and none anywhere else in Harney County. And that meant that the government desperately needed the (imaginary) uranium on Hammond land because they couldn't just set up a mine right next to the Hammond's property line and get that portion of the same uranium vein that ran under BLM land.

I'm thinking these are sad times for the poot movement. The lack of new conspiracies to get angry about and the losses in court for many poots (other than the recent Bundy mistrial in LV) means they desperately have to recycle anger from causes from their halcyon days a couple years ago. Darash/Vidurek's attempt to attach himself to the Bundy case recently is another great example -- not that he ever gained any cred as a champion of the rancher, him being a New Yorker who probably doesn't even own a cowboy hat or a gun, and everything.



User avatar
Whip
Posts: 1890
Joined: Mon Nov 09, 2015 12:31 pm

Re: Karl Koenigs

#1630

Post by Whip » Fri Feb 02, 2018 8:59 am

Northland10 wrote:
Thu Feb 01, 2018 11:54 pm
Too bad that the Constitution does not mention executive departments. Oh wait, it does.

I wonder who can create rules for the executive departments in the government. Oh, that would be Congress who makes all laws needed to to create and fund things like, executive departments.

Too bad Karl has never actually read the Constitution.
maybe that's what is in his scoobydo constitution



User avatar
Dolly
Posts: 10847
Joined: Fri Dec 07, 2012 7:32 pm

Re: Karl Koenigs

#1631

Post by Dolly » Fri Feb 02, 2018 9:11 am

JohnPCapitalist wrote:
Fri Feb 02, 2018 8:48 am

The whole uranium thing still cracks me up, especially when they try to tie it to the Hammonds. Of course, the only uranium deposit anywhere remotely close to the Hammond ranch is in Malheur County, about 75 miles away, and it's sufficiently thin that it's not commercially viable even if the uranium market weren't collapsing.
Thanks. I noticed that recently also.
01/31/18 08:11 PM EST
Utah officials prepare for mining claims in reopened wilderness areas: report
Utah's Bureau of Land Management is preparing for a possible rush of mining claims in the area opened up by President Trump's decision to reduce the size of the Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monuments.
............
“Families and communities of Utah know and love this land the best, and you know the best how to take care of your land and how to conserve this land,” Trump said last year. :roll:

Once the decision goes into effect on Feb. 2, the area will be subject to gold, silver, copper, and uranium mining claims. But local miners say that the price of uranium, which is currently at $25 a pound, makes the latter unlikely.

“The current price of uranium is not likely to warrant any new claiming,” Utah uranium mining claim owner Kyle Kimmerle told Reuters. “It would take $60-$70 for me.” <SNIP>
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-enviro ... wilderness

Even Bill Goode the Admin of the "Rural Land Rights Advocates (RLRA)" facebook page (formerly Cliven Bundy's Army!) has tried to debunk the Hammonds/Uranium story. This is just one link that I found in my notes. There are more but don't wanna look.

EXCLUSIVE: Massive Cover-up – BLM leases Hammond ranch land to Russia through Clinton Foundation donors for uranium
NEWSTARGET.COM


Bill Goode This article is 1-1/2 years old, dated 11 February 2016. In my personal conversations with Susie Hammond since that date, she has stated she has seen no evidence of mining activity on Hammond Ranch land. I have looked for evidence myself and have found no evidence to support this story that Hammond Ranch land has been sold to anyone.

The BLM canceled the Hammond leases on BLM land (26,421 acres) in February 2014. The Hammonds still hold their own private land (12,370 acres) and still ranch that land to this day.

This story does not state specifically what land it claims has been sold, but it's not the Hammond's private land. The BLM may well have sold the former Hammond grazing allotments, which would be land theft from the American people. I have looked for evidence of uranium on both Hammond private land as well as their former BLM grazing allotments. I have found no evidence of uranium deposits on that land.
50 Replies

ETA: Karl P. Koenigs is still a member of that group.


Avatar by Tal Peleg Art of Makeup https://www.facebook.com/TalPelegMakeUp

scirreeve
Posts: 557
Joined: Mon Aug 21, 2017 12:51 am

Re: Karl Koenigs

#1632

Post by scirreeve » Fri Feb 02, 2018 2:22 pm

Entry in Karl's divorce case dated Jan. 4, 2018. Has to do with the money he owes ex wife number 2. It was in collections before.
*** THIS CASE NO LONGER AT COLLECTIONS - UNCOLLECTABLE - FOR KARL KOENIGS ***



User avatar
Azastan
Posts: 2664
Joined: Sat Feb 20, 2016 9:42 am

Re: Karl Koenigs

#1633

Post by Azastan » Fri Feb 02, 2018 3:28 pm

scirreeve wrote:
Fri Feb 02, 2018 2:22 pm
Entry in Karl's divorce case dated Jan. 4, 2018. Has to do with the money he owes ex wife number 2. It was in collections before.
*** THIS CASE NO LONGER AT COLLECTIONS - UNCOLLECTABLE - FOR KARL KOENIGS ***
What does that mean? That it will go to another collection agency? If this is a court judgement, the debt never goes away, correct?



scirreeve
Posts: 557
Joined: Mon Aug 21, 2017 12:51 am

Re: Karl Koenigs

#1634

Post by scirreeve » Fri Feb 02, 2018 3:48 pm

Azastan wrote:
Fri Feb 02, 2018 3:28 pm
scirreeve wrote:
Fri Feb 02, 2018 2:22 pm
Entry in Karl's divorce case dated Jan. 4, 2018. Has to do with the money he owes ex wife number 2. It was in collections before.
*** THIS CASE NO LONGER AT COLLECTIONS - UNCOLLECTABLE - FOR KARL KOENIGS ***
What does that mean? That it will go to another collection agency? If this is a court judgement, the debt never goes away, correct?
I don't know either - that is all that is entered in the court record.



User avatar
TheNewSaint
Posts: 576
Joined: Sun Jul 30, 2017 9:05 am

Re: Karl Koenigs

#1635

Post by TheNewSaint » Fri Feb 02, 2018 4:03 pm

He has a $100,000 custom truck. Seems to me there's something they could collect.



User avatar
Azastan
Posts: 2664
Joined: Sat Feb 20, 2016 9:42 am

Re: Karl Koenigs

#1636

Post by Azastan » Fri Feb 02, 2018 4:04 pm

TheNewSaint wrote:
Fri Feb 02, 2018 4:03 pm
He has a $100,000 custom truck. Seems to me there's something they could collect.
The motorcycle could also be seized and held for ransom.



User avatar
ZekeB
Posts: 14041
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 10:07 pm
Location: Northwest part of Semi Blue State

Re: Karl Koenigs

#1637

Post by ZekeB » Fri Feb 02, 2018 4:07 pm

TheNewSaint wrote:
Fri Feb 02, 2018 4:03 pm
He has a $100,000 custom truck. Seems to me there's something they could collect.
I bet that POC truck wouldn't bring $30,000 right now. I suspect WI would want the sales tax that Karl didn't pay, also.


Mnoho lidí se za našeho prezidenta stydí.

Žluté vlasy se k oranžové tváři nehodí.

User avatar
Orlylicious
Posts: 6870
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2012 4:02 pm

Re: Karl Koenigs

#1638

Post by Orlylicious » Fri Feb 02, 2018 5:38 pm

:lol:


Karl Posting.JPG
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.



User avatar
Northland10
Posts: 6045
Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2010 9:19 am
Location: Chicago area - North burbs

Re: Karl Koenigs

#1639

Post by Northland10 » Fri Feb 02, 2018 6:22 pm

After checking around for reasons why FB might give a short-term ban like they did to a Karl, I suspect he went on a posting/sharing/joining binge after getting out of jail. This triggered the system to flag it as a possible spam account and causing the short term ban.

If the account was a spammer or fake account, the short term ban may cause the spammer to drop the account and move to another.

Karl and Co still have not figured out the FB is a private company so can limit the speech all they want.


North-land: of the family 10
UCC 1-106 Plural is Singular, Singular is Plural.

User avatar
TheNewSaint
Posts: 576
Joined: Sun Jul 30, 2017 9:05 am

Re: Karl Koenigs

#1640

Post by TheNewSaint » Fri Feb 02, 2018 8:13 pm

You have to do a lot of volume to get auto-flagged for spamming. My guess is that he triggered complaints from the groups he joined. Even poots don't want to be inundated with Kaptain Karl's Krap.



User avatar
Orlylicious
Posts: 6870
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2012 4:02 pm

Re: Karl Koenigs

#1641

Post by Orlylicious » Sun Feb 04, 2018 3:28 pm

Karl knows he's not allowed to spam yet he keeps trying, wonder if Facebook will extend his ban? They should.


Karl FB.JPG
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.



User avatar
phaseolus
Posts: 558
Joined: Thu Mar 03, 2016 3:17 pm
Location: Bay View, WI
Occupation: PLC Programmer

Re: Karl Koenigs

#1642

Post by phaseolus » Mon Feb 05, 2018 12:37 pm

Speakin' of Nathan, his jury trial's later this week.



User avatar
pipistrelle
Posts: 3203
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2016 11:26 am

Re: Karl Koenigs

#1643

Post by pipistrelle » Mon Feb 05, 2018 1:31 pm

TheNewSaint wrote:
Fri Feb 02, 2018 8:13 pm
You have to do a lot of volume to get auto-flagged for spamming. My guess is that he triggered complaints from the groups he joined. Even poots don't want to be inundated with Kaptain Karl's Krap.
Are we sure he wasn’t posting about the mythical militia forces to non-relevant pages or groups, like Save Our Neighborhood Theatre or Help Little Jessica Get Eye Surgery? I can see him doing that.



User avatar
TheNewSaint
Posts: 576
Joined: Sun Jul 30, 2017 9:05 am

Re: Karl Koenigs

#1644

Post by TheNewSaint » Mon Feb 05, 2018 2:15 pm

pipistrelle wrote:
Mon Feb 05, 2018 1:31 pm
TheNewSaint wrote:
Fri Feb 02, 2018 8:13 pm
You have to do a lot of volume to get auto-flagged for spamming. My guess is that he triggered complaints from the groups he joined. Even poots don't want to be inundated with Kaptain Karl's Krap.
Are we sure he wasn’t posting about the mythical militia forces to non-relevant pages or groups, like Save Our Neighborhood Theatre or Help Little Jessica Get Eye Surgery? I can see him doing that.
I've seen no evidence that he does that. The man is so self-centered and fixated, I wonder if it ever occurred to him to try.

Also, Facebook bans can be random and arbitrary. I've gotten one for "spamming" and I barely use the site at all. If I had to guess what happened, that would be it.



User avatar
Orlylicious
Posts: 6870
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2012 4:02 pm

Re: Karl Koenigs

#1645

Post by Orlylicious » Mon Feb 05, 2018 5:14 pm

:dance:
LEGAL BRIEF FOR COLLIER COUNTY CASE 11-2017-CT-002149-AXXX-XX
Defendant’s Motion To Dismiss

Driver Licensing vs. Right to Travel
42 Pages! https://onedrive.live.com/view.aspx?res ... oPdO3Gc2Y4
Karl P. Koenigs 5 hrs ·
INTERESTED IN KNOWING if you need a Driver's License and/or Vehicle Registration ACCORDING TO The Constitution, INDIVIDUAL unalienable Rights protected by The Constitution, According to The Supreme and Federal Courts? If so, read on:

The Court and Constitutional Interpretation

"The republic endures and this is the symbol of its faith."
- CHIEF JUSTICE CHARLES EVANS HUGHES
Cornerstone Address - Supreme Court Building

"EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"-These words, written above the main entrance to the Supreme Court Building, express the ultimate responsibility of the Supreme Court of the United States. The Court is the highest tribunal in the Nation for all cases and controversies arising under the Constitution or the laws of the United States. As the final arbiter of the law, the Court is charged with ensuring the American people the promise of equal justice under law and, thereby, also functions as guardian and interpreter of the Constitution.

The Supreme Court is "distinctly American in concept and function," as Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes observed. Few other courts in the world have the same authority of constitutional interpretation and none have exercised it for as long or with as much influence. A century and a half ago, the French political observer Alexis de Tocqueville noted the unique position of the Supreme Court in the history of nations and of jurisprudence. "The representative system of government has been adopted in several states of Europe," he remarked, "but I am unaware that any nation of the globe has hitherto organized a judicial power in the same manner as the Americans. . . . A more imposing judicial power was never constituted by any people."

The unique position of the Supreme Court stems, in large part, from the deep commitment of the American people to the Rule of Law and to constitutional government. The United States has demonstrated an unprecedented determination to preserve and protect its written Constitution, thereby providing the American "experiment in democracy" with the oldest written Constitution still in force.

The Constitution of the United States is a carefully balanced document. It is designed to provide for a national government sufficiently strong and flexible to meet the needs of the republic, yet sufficiently limited and just to protect the guaranteed rights of citizens; it permits a balance between society’s need for order and the individual’s right to freedom. To assure these ends, the Framers of the Constitution created three independent and coequal branches of government. That this Constitution has provided continuous democratic government through the periodic stresses of more than two centuries illustrates the genius of the American system of government.

The complex role of the Supreme Court in this system derives from its authority to invalidate legislation or executive actions which, in the Court’s considered judgment, conflict with the Constitution. This power of "judicial review" has given the Court a crucial responsibility in assuring individual rights, as well as in maintaining a "living Constitution" whose broad provisions are continually applied to complicated new situations.

While the function of judicial review is not explicitly provided in the Constitution, it had been anticipated before the adoption of that document. Prior to 1789, state courts had already overturned legislative acts which conflicted with state constitutions. Moreover, many of the Founding Fathers expected the Supreme Court to assume this role in regard to the Constitution; Alexander Hamilton and James Madison, for example, had underlined the importance of judicial review in the Federalist Papers, which urged adoption of the Constitution.

Hamilton had written that through the practice of judicial review the Court ensured that the will of the whole people, as expressed in their Constitution, would be supreme over the will of a legislature, whose statutes might express only the temporary will of part of the people. And Madison had written that constitutional interpretation must be left to the reasoned judgment of independent judges, rather than to the tumult and conflict of the political process. If every constitutional question were to be decided by public political bargaining, Madison argued, the Constitution would be reduced to a battleground of competing factions, political passion and partisan spirit.

Despite this background the Court’s power of judicial review was not confirmed until 1803, when it was invoked by Chief Justice John Marshall in Marbury v. Madison. In this decision, the Chief Justice asserted that the Supreme Court's responsibility to overturn unconstitutional legislation was a necessary consequence of its sworn duty to uphold the Constitution. That oath could not be fulfilled any other way. "It is emphatically the province of the judicial department to say what the law is," he declared.

In retrospect, it is evident that constitutional interpretation and application were made necessary by the very nature of the Constitution. The Founding Fathers had wisely worded that document in rather general terms leaving it open to future elaboration to meet changing conditions. As Chief Justice Marshall noted in McCulloch v. Maryland, a constitution that attempted to detail every aspect of its own application "would partake of the prolixity of a legal code, and could scarcely be embraced by the human mind. . . . Its nature, therefore, requires that only its great outlines should be marked, its important objects designated, and the minor ingredients which compose those objects be deduced from the nature of the objects themselves."

The Constitution limits the Court to dealing with "Cases" and "Controversies." John Jay, the first Chief Justice, clarified this restraint early in the Court’s history by declining to advise President George Washington on the constitutional implications of a proposed foreign policy decision. The Court does not give advisory opinions; rather, its function is limited only to deciding specific cases.

The Justices must exercise considerable discretion in deciding which cases to hear, since approximately 7,000-8,000 civil and criminal cases are filed in the Supreme Court each year from the various state and federal courts. The Supreme Court also has "original jurisdiction" in a very small number of cases arising out of disputes between States or between a State and the Federal Government.

When the Supreme Court rules on a constitutional issue, that judgment is virtually final; its decisions can be altered only by the rarely used procedure of constitutional amendment or by a new ruling of the Court. However, when the Court interprets a statute, new legislative action can be taken.

Chief Justice Marshall expressed the challenge which the Supreme Court faces in maintaining free government by noting: "We must never forget that it is a constitution we are expounding . . . intended to endure for ages to come, and consequently, to be adapted to the various crises of human affairs."
==========================================
REGARDING THE RIGHT To Travel, as protected by the SCOTUS and Federal Courts, see attached Legal Brief:



scirreeve
Posts: 557
Joined: Mon Aug 21, 2017 12:51 am

Re: Karl Koenigs

#1646

Post by scirreeve » Mon Feb 05, 2018 5:32 pm

What Karl does not mention is that he filed that motion to dismiss in Collier County on Dec. 19 and it was denied on Dec. 20.



User avatar
TheNewSaint
Posts: 576
Joined: Sun Jul 30, 2017 9:05 am

Re: Karl Koenigs

#1647

Post by TheNewSaint » Mon Feb 05, 2018 5:32 pm

God, it's like a bad middle school term paper: plagiarized, obvious, wordy, and betrays the writer as out of his depth.



User avatar
Orlylicious
Posts: 6870
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2012 4:02 pm

Re: Karl Koenigs

#1648

Post by Orlylicious » Mon Feb 05, 2018 6:18 pm

scirreeve wrote:
Mon Feb 05, 2018 5:32 pm
What Karl does not mention is that he filed that motion to dismiss in Collier County on Dec. 19 and it was denied on Dec. 20.
Oops, did we discuss it here? Totally spaced if we did, sorry about that :oops:

Good it was denied though in record time :P



User avatar
TheNewSaint
Posts: 576
Joined: Sun Jul 30, 2017 9:05 am

Re: Karl Koenigs

#1649

Post by TheNewSaint » Mon Feb 05, 2018 9:16 pm

I ran Karl's stupid legal brief through a diff checker, and it's 99% identical to https://www.lawfulpath.com/ref/DLbrief.shtml, which has been on the Internet for at least 13 years. All he did was whine at the beginning and end about his experiences in Collier County. Oh, and he inserted even more rambling paragraphs about McCullough v Maryland and Marbury v Madison into the middle of the "legal brief."

I'm flabbergasted at Karl's laziness.



User avatar
JohnPCapitalist
Posts: 874
Joined: Tue Feb 16, 2016 10:29 pm
Location: Wall Street
Occupation: Investment management in the financial industry. Deep knowledge of stocks, tech and economics.

Re: Karl Koenigs

#1650

Post by JohnPCapitalist » Mon Feb 05, 2018 9:38 pm

TheNewSaint wrote:
Mon Feb 05, 2018 9:16 pm
I ran Karl's stupid legal brief through a diff checker, and it's 99% identical to https://www.lawfulpath.com/ref/DLbrief.shtml, which has been on the Internet for at least 13 years. All he did was whine at the beginning and end about his experiences in Collier County. Oh, and he inserted even more rambling paragraphs about McCullough v Maryland and Marbury v Madison into the middle of the "legal brief."

I'm flabbergasted at Karl's laziness.
Perhaps it might be stated with a bit more nuance. I don't think you're really flabbergasted that Karl is a lazy SOB. It's already pretty clear that he has demonstrated a commitment to take the easy way out in just about everything he's done in his whole worthless life. I think what's astounding is the sheer brazenness in stealing the work of someone else and thinking nobody would notice that he doesn't have an original idea anywhere in that ethanol-pickled cranium of his. Not one.

At least pretend judge Anna shows some degrees of creativity in her delusional screeds. Other poots are entertaining in the degree that they're willing to spend serious jail time for clinging to their nonsense (the Colorado pretend judge crowd, HATJ and the hapless Randy Beane, ...). But Karl just cuts and pastes 40 agonizing pages and tries to claim genius. Then he wonders why people don't flock to his brilliance and follow him. Poots may not be able to sniff out bullshit but they do seem to have an eye for originality in the bullshit they fall for.



Post Reply

Return to “Sovereign Citizens, Private Militias, and Citizen Grand Juries”