Meet the self claimed  Constitutional advocate Dwane Eugene Kirkland

Thinker. Researcher. Teacher.

Kirkland's notes, any questions call 405-3690482/406-363-5284
officerkirkland@icloud.com
****************************************************
I want to thank you for inviting me into your home tonight, to talk to you about an extremely important issue to you. I‟m basically here to talk about the United States Constitution and our government, and some of the principles there of.
1. You need to understand most thoroughly so that you can have an effective opportunity to exercise your constitutional rights. The whole purpose of this is that you understand that these
rights come from God. They are endowed you with these rights, offers a legitimate program to those rights and the blessings on our children for all times.
God inspired. God is the one who and the constitution merely protect those rights or to secure of those rights for ourselves and
2. It‟s important that you understand that the constitution God inspired, it‟s important that you understand that a lot of the principles that are in the constitution actually come out of the Holy Bible, and it‟s very important that you understand that this constitution allows you each to be a king or queen in your own right, as long as you recognize one principle that you don‟t ever create a situation where you take away the rights of another..
3. So the 5 whole point of having the constitution is so that all of us can have these rights equally. As long as we respect our neighbor and allow them also to have the rights equally, the protections are going to last forever and the reality is that we are going to get thoroughly into your constitution, and we want you to find a constitution wherever you can, and we are basically going to take you step-by-step through some of the most important parts of this constitution so that you can better exercise your rights in a timely fashion.
4. Now the facts are simple: if you don‟t know your rights, you don‟t have any rights. We have come a long way with this program to help you.
5. The most important thing I can teach you about this constitution is the importance of reading it you must read the constitution and understand what physically is involved. You must know your rights and timely assert them; that is your burden. If you do not, then a legal term called “latches” incurs in full force. “Latches” is a species of action wherein a party of reasonable intelligence and integrity, having a right to take an action as prescribed by law, and having failed to timely do so loses all right to proceed.
6. Basically there‟s an argument: “If I violate your rights you may or may not know about it. If you do know about it, you may or
may not be able to do something about it. And if you do have the ability to do something about it, you may or may not have the financial wherewithal to go to a finished program. If you do have the financial wherewithal you may not have the intestinal fortitude to go to the finished program. So most of the time your governments and your abusive personalities in government or you corporations pretty much have Carte Blanche to injure you... Because in 99% of the cases most people will not proceed. But every now and then you run into that one hard nut, and he or she doesn‟t quit until the cows come home.
7. What happens is that person will prevail, and those are the people who are actually generating better protections and better constitutional rights for you. Those are the ones who are going to the supreme courts and courts of appeals that are pushing, that are spending their life funds to allow you to have the benefit. But if you aren‟t there to catch the benefit then the benefit is lost. The Constitution It‟s important that you understand that the constitution is in writing, It‟s important that you understand that it‟s a legal document, that it was ratified by all of the members in congress together, and that document has all the signatures on the document, and it‟s important that you understand that there was an offer:
8. the government offered to govern. There was a consideration; the citizens considered how they were to be governed, and government promised that they would govern by constitution. And there was an agreement. The 6 citizens agreed that if government promised that there would be government by constitution they would allow the constitution into force. Now there‟s a unique situation in force here: It‟s very rare when you find the party of the first part, which is the congressmen, officers of the government, who are also parties of the second part as representatives of we the people of the republic.
9. When they signed the document, they signed as officers of the government agreeing to the constitution, and simultaneously as officers and representatives of the people in the Republican form of government. When they signed that document that constituted an iron-clad contract in writing enforceable in a court of law, pursuant to the statute of frauds.
10. Now, all we ask is that they enforce the contract. If we read something in the constitution, and we have a good reason to believe it is the way it is, then they should honor that. And they should honor it in favor of you, the clearly intended and expressly designated beneficiary. The first thing you need to understand is Article 6 paragraph 2 of the constitution. This is known as the supremacy clause of the constitution.

Knowledge for Every Level

ACTUAL LAW THE PROVISIONS..

In the interest of justice

1. We can teach you the bill of rights.

2. just ask.......

3. free interviews and talk,

4. meetings,

5. writings,

6. discoveries,

7. phone conversations,

8. advocates fighting for you and the nation.

9.  We have available investigators for interviews on any violations brought upon you or a loved one.   

10. If you don't know ,then its what they say it is, and trust me,it will only benefit them,

11. we will show you how to become the beneficiary of the Constituion, at all levels.   

In the interest of justice

Dear district attorney's and protector's of our nation, or who it may concern. I am pleased that we have candid people who are bound to the provisions of the bill of rights and the Constitution's of the sister state's in harmony.

I wanted to let know. I am thankful for all you do- and the positions you hold- can and will preserve our God given rights.

I want you to know that by your actions of preserving the actual laws versus codes , regulations, statues , you are making a difference to help society in our great state of Montana.

As I move forward on my studies and investigations to also make the difference in the name of God- I pray and hope that if you have any questions at all- I am willing to share my discoveries and I push forward to help those who request my assistance behind the scenes.

Due to the facts of many years oppressed, infringed, encroached, homeless. I have given my whole life to study law for the past years to help others. As a self claimed Constitutional advocate and x soldier- I will protect our oath and will forever be bound -I promised to God in many states- and the United States Army to protect all.

Our father in heaven preserved my life during my army contract training. Now I know why he preserved my life and did not send me off to be killed. Because its my calling at home that he saved me for -to fight at home protecting our nation's principles and foundation. Thank you all -INGODWETRUST 11brv-Over-Watch 1-10.

Signature________________________________________________________

Dwane Eugene Kirkland U.C.C 1-207 1-308 w/o prejudice

1115 S 3rd street Hamilton Mt 59840 406-363-5284/369-0482 12/13/17/05:36:57 PM

Wisdom to share...

https://www.proprofs.com/quiz-school/story.php?title=bill-of-rights-practice-test_1

First Amendment

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petitition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Second Amendment

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Third Amendment

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner; nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Fourth Amendment

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Fifth Amendment

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself; nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.

Sixth Amendment

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed; which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor; and to have the assistance of counsel for his defence.

Seventh Amendment

In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury shall be otherwise reexamined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of common law.

Eighth Amendment

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Ninth Amendment

The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Tenth Amendment

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

​

A self claimed Constitutional officer helping those violated..

A Life of Learning

From a young age, Dwane Eugene Kirkland U.C.C. 1-207 1-308 w/o prejudice  was already on the path to being a professional academic Constitutional advocate. His  ceaseless curiosity, dedication to hard work and desire to share knowledge to the public and  paved the way for an impressive educational discoveries by actually going to court to win, his discoveries  background and notable self claimed  career in investigative skills.. Dwane Eugene Kirkland U.C.C. 1-207 1-308 w/o prejudice  is well-known for their challenging yet inspiring help to the public eye  and his captivating  work.

WHY GOOD AMERICANS SHOULD BE ARMED..

For many, the professors they encounter in college and post-grad become significantly influential figures for the rest of their lives. Dwane Eugene Kirkland U.C.C. 1-207 1-308 0FFICE had this experience with many mentors throughout their educational background, which ultimately solidified their decision to pursue a career in teaching and academia.

Published Work

Winning for the public , no more bill of pain..

Exploring the Unknown exposing judges and lawyers who don't follow the law.

01/15/2018

Judicial Standards Commission

State of Montana

COMPLAINT

The undersigned being first duly sworn, upon oath, states the following facts showing misconduct on the part of the following named judge, to-wit:

NAME OF JUDGE: ____________________________________

ADDRESS: ____________________________________

____________________________________

Based on the attached Code of Judicial Conduct, please cite which Canon(s) you feel the judge has violated and why. If you cannot clearly identify which canon the judge has violated, then your complaint is not within the purview of this Commission to review.

The facts of the above Judge's misconduct or unethical conduct are as follows: (Please state in your own words the misconduct or unethical conduct of the judge. Provide information as to when and where the misconduct occurred, and the names of any other people involved.)

(If more space is needed, you may attach additional sheets to this complaint and mark them a, b, c, etc.)

The names and addresses of other persons who are witnesses to or have information as to the misconduct of the above judge are:

NAME: NAME: ________________________

ADDRESS: ADDRESS: ________________________

________________________

PHONE NO: PHONE NO: ________________________

(Names of additional witnesses may be listed on a separate sheet and attached.)

I (have_____/ have not_____) contacted the judge in regard to my complaint.

I will furnish additional information to your Commission if requested. If the complaint is investigated, I will cooperate with your Commission and furnish the evidence I may have and I will testify at any hearing on this complaint.

My full name, address and telephone number is:

NAME: ________________________________

ADDRESS: ________________________________

________________________________

PHONE #: ________________________________

DATED this ________day of ________________________, 20___.

___________________________________

SIGNATURE

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me this _____ day of _______, 20___.

___________________________________

Notary Public for the State of ___________

(SEAL) Residing at _________________________

My Commission expires_______________

RETURN TO:

SHELLY SMITH, EXECUTIVE SECRETARY

JUDICIAL STANDARDS COMMISSION

PO BOX 203005

301 S. PARK, SUITE 328

HELENA, MT 59620-3005

08/25/2015

writ of asist....

March 20, 2026

Dwane Eugene Kirkland

UCC 1-207 1-308 w/o prejudice

Constitutional Advocate

12/20/17 12:02:13 AMte

*****

Case in review by Kirkland

391 Mich. 612 (1974)

218 N.W.2d 2

PEOPLE

v.

HENDERSON

No. 11 December Term 1973, Docket No. 54,777.

Supreme Court of Michigan.

*********************************************************************

1. Criminal law. Kirkland's review and studies, Discovery
   most wont read it or understand it, but i hope those who really check this out , they will benefit from the discovery and provisions listed in the notes and studies.

Decided May 21, 1974.

Rehearing denied June 25, 1974.

*614 Frank J. Kelley, Attorney General, Robert A. Derengoski, Solicitor General, William L. Cahalan, Prosecuting Attorney, Dominick R. Carnovale, Chief, Appellate Department, and Michael R. Mueller, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for the people.

Carl Ziemba, for defendant on appeal.

T.G. KAVANAGH, J.

Defendant was convicted on August 3, 1971 of carrying a pistol in a motor vehicle contrary to the provisions of MCLA 750.227; MSA 28.424 which reads:

"Sec. 227. Carrying concealed weapons — Any person who shall carry a dagger, dirk, stiletto or other dangerous weapon except hunting knives adapted and carried as such, concealed on or about his person, or whether concealed or otherwise in any vehicle operated or occupied by him, except in his dwelling house or place of business or on other land possessed by him; and any person who shall carry a pistol concealed on or about his person, or, whether concealed or otherwise, in any vehicle operated or occupied by him, except in his dwelling house or place of business or on other land possessed by him, without a license to so carry said pistol as provided by law, shall be guilty of a felony, punishable by imprisonment in the state prison for not more than five years, or by fine of not more than two thousand five hundred dollars." *615 The Court of Appeals affirmed his conviction, and on appeal here he makes three assertions of error:

1) There was no proof that the defendant had no license to carry the weapon.

2) There was neither evidence that established possession of the weapon in the defendant, nor proof of his intent to carry it in the car.

3) The judge impinged upon the jury's prerogative by virtually directing a verdict of guilty by saying in his charge:

"Now this is a very simple issue in this case. Did the Defendant have the gun as stated by the People's witness, in the car? If you find that he had this gun in the car, as testified to by the People, and you believe that beyond any reasonable doubt, it makes no difference whether the gun was loaded or unloaded, whether he was the owner or the driver of the car, if you believe the People's testimony beyond a reasonable doubt, it is your duty, ladies and gentlemen, to convict the Defendant of the charge contained in this Information."

Defendant argues that the statute defined a crime having two elements: 1) the carrying of the pistol and 2) the lack of license so to carry. He maintains that since this record contains no proof touching on the lack of license, the conviction cannot stand.

The plaintiff agrees that the statute establishes two elements of the crime, but asserts that the state is absolved from proving the lack of a license by virtue of MCLA 776.20; MSA 28.1274 (1) which reads:

"In any prosecution for the violation of any acts of the state relative to use, licensing and possession of pistols or firearms, the burden of establishing any exception, excuse, proviso or exemption contained in any such act shall be upon the defendant but this does not shift the burden of proof for the violation."

*616 It is true that we have heretofore regarded MCLA 750.227; MSA 28.424, supra, as defining a crime having two elements. People v Gould, 384 Mich. 71; 179 NW2d 617 (1970); People v Schrader, 10 Mich. App. 211, 159 NW2d 147 (1968).

On reconsideration however, we are persuaded that the crime defined by MCLA 750.227; MSA 28.424 as it concerns this case, has but one element. We are satisfied that the operative words of the statute as they pertain to this defendant are:

" * * * any person who shall carry a pistol * * * in any vehicle operated or occupied by him * * * shall be guilty of a felony."

The language in the statute "without a license so to carry said pistol as provided by law" does not add an element to the crime, but simply acknowledges that a person may be authorized so to carry a pistol. This is of the essence of a license.

A license is the permission by competent authority to do an act which, without such permission, would be illegal.

Accordingly we hold that upon a showing that a defendant has carried a pistol in a vehicle operated or occupied by him, prima facie case of violation of the statute has been made out. Upon the establishment of such a prima facie case, the defendant has the burden of injecting the issue of license by offering some proof — not necessarily by official record — that he has been so licensed. The people thereupon are obliged to establish the contrary beyond a reasonable doubt.

We read MCLA 776.20; MSA 28.1274(1), supra not as absolving the state from proving one element of a crime, for to do so would vitiate the presumption of innocence. Rather, we read this statute as an appropriate legislative expression *617 that lack of a license is not an element of the offense and we are thereby prompted to reconsider our construction of the prohibiting language of MCLA 750.227; MSA 28.424, supra.

The other errors asserted have no merit.

One police officer testified that the defendant, after being advised of his right to remain silent, acknowledged ownership of the weapon found in the car. If the jury believed that testimony, the admission of ownership, under the circumstances of this case, would support the inference of carrying a concealed weapon contrary to the provisions of the statute.

We find no reversible error in the quoted instruction on the facts of this case. We do not regard it as tantamount to a directed verdict.

The decision of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.

T.M. KAVANAGH, C.J., and SWAINSON, WILLIAMS, LEVIN, and M.S. COLEMAN, JJ., concurred with T.G. KAVANAGH, J.

J.W. FITZGERALD, J., did not sit in this case.

My disposition / thoughts by Constitutional laws/

Opening statement

- failed protection of provisions.

Case law my notes and opinion as a Constitutional Advocate. Dwane Eugene Kirkland UCC 1-207 1-308 w/o prejudice:

This is a perfect case that is repugnant to the actual law under the supremacy clause and case laws of a unconstitutional acts..

I will break it down at the conflicts i see in the readings - but this case is defiantly a unconstitutional act, on its face value and unlawful act disposition and final decision by the judges and lawyers.

The judges and lawyers who supported this case has committed a crime there self by enforcing the statues upon the people of this state by constructive fraud by breaking down our laws at a state and federal levels

-by failing and protecting its own states provisions and the Constitutions of all states in harmony. The State by committing a crime of title 18 US sedition by treason 241,242,1628. .. and further the state creating a crime against the defendant, Miller versus United states case law,says no state can turn a God given basic fundamental right into a privilege or convert it into a crime.

Facts

I Dwane kirkland will tell you why its void and illegal and repugnant and it is encroachment and infringement to the provisions at a state and federal level. Who says so, a case in regards to a unconstitutional acts, Marbarry versus madison 1803 USC. The case in it disposition and opinion states from the famous judge jury ,

John marshal, any state or federal law in conflict with the Constitutions and its provisions is void and null. Flat on its face.Cushing and Moore took no part in the consideration ordecision of the case. Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803), is a landmark case by the United States Supreme Court which forms the basis for the exercise of judicial review in the United States under Article III of the Constitution.

Marbury v. Madison - Wikipedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marbury_v._Madison

Any part in conflict at all , then all is repugnant and a fiction of law. MCLA 750.227; MSA 28.424 The state of Michigan supreme court case is void and a declared unconstitutional act against its state and sister states in harmony. And harmony of the bill of rights in all sister states at a state level.

Facts

1. The first thing that comes to mind is the statutes and codes in the beginning of the sentences.

2. Defendant was convicted on August 3, 1971 of carrying a pistol in a motor vehicle contrary to the provisions of MCLA 750.227; MSA 28.424 which reads: in so many words of detail of explaining you cant carry a gun hidden or even in the open carry method. Paraphrased of course.

3. 
   

4. This is what it says-"Sec. 227. Carrying concealed weapons — Any person who shall carry a dagger, dirk, stiletto or other dangerous weapon except hunting knives adapted and carried as such, concealed on or about his person, or whether concealed or otherwise in any vehicle operated or occupied by him, except in his dwelling house or place of business or on other land possessed by him; and any person who shall carry a pistol concealed on or about his person,

5. 
   

6. or, whether concealed or otherwise, in any vehicle operated or occupied by him, except in his dwelling house or place of business or on other land possessed by him, without a license to so carry said pistol as provided by law, shall be guilty of a felony, punishable by imprisonment in the state prison for not more than five years, or by fine of not more than two thousand five hundred dollars." *615 The Court of Appeals affirmed his conviction, and on appeal here he makes three assertions of error:

7. 
   

   This code MCLA 750.227; MSA 28.424 is not really law because its in conflict with the enumerated powers , lames term listed powers of the locked laws in the provisions that is protected by all the officers involved from the beginning, they have failed to protect and secure the listed provisions that the defendant is entitled to. As the beneficiary and warranty of the Constitutional provisions, by a legal and lawful contract in a court of law.

8. Facts

9. The judges and attorneys know this but its all about constructive fraud, and the monies that was involved to be made across the bench for all lawyers and supporting elements. The defendant attorney are all in collusion by breaking down the laws. Not to mention the code of ethics and cannon that the they all violated under there own lawyers and judges code of ethics,

10. The threshold questions is how did they break down the laws ? First by violating the 2nd Amendment -the actual law by contract, and locked and not for bid for sale or change or vote from another branch of government institutions without delegated power or the state or people.

11. 
    

12. The Amendment states in the Constitution provision that a well regulated militia necessary to the security of a free state the right of the people to keep and bearArms shall not be infringed. Its clear there is no sub paragraph A B C or D. its clear. Can have a gun. As long as you don't harm anyone unless its for protecting life and limb and the Constitutional provisions. Click link of the actual provisions under contract. https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/bill-of-rights-transcript

1. Facts
   
   

2. This code Mcla 750.227: MSA 28.424 is in conflict with the bill of rights and the supreme law of the land that is protected by the 2nd amendment and the due process clauses 5th 6th 7th and the 9th and 10th amendments. I bet your wondering how could this be ? In this case there is so many violation that is being infringed encroached and hidden behind the color of la.

3. According to law no licenses is required ,

4. 
   

5. it would be in violations to all amendments, clearly its clear that the people in this case cold have a weapon and there is no law that is forceable in a court of law unless you consent to the regulations and encroachment and the infringement. Clearly there is no victim or property damage or a violation on the provisions from the Alleged defendant. Click link of the actual provisions under contract. https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/bill-of-rights-transcript

6. 
   

7. Once a person gets in a car with a weapon his contract and warranty is not void, it stands the same as if he is not in the car. A private person under the claimed warranty by the enumerated powers can have a gun in a car or any dwelling at all for his protections and his fellow people of the state, thats a fact, pertaining to the provisions.

8. 
   

9. What is enumerated powers locked in- https://youtu.be/oT9G4hSswD8

10. 
    

11. Facts

12. All evidence collected in this matter is void under the process of the exclusionary rule of illegally collected by the first encounter of the officers and no probable cause because of a conflict of law. All collected evidence should be excluded in a evidence hearing, even though this should have never got this far.

13. 
    

14. The judge violated ethics of by not being impartial during the trial by telling the juries how to make the deciding of the case ruling on the verdict. By the judge explaining the law in under the color of law.

15. The fact of the matter in there is no victims involved with the matter, then there is no crime, a man was convicted by the collusion of a all involved over the case and the elements of the provisions that was ignored.

16. 
    

17. The final orders at all levels should have been void all the way to the top. Due to the fact of the listed violations of the parties involved there should have never been no conviction without a victim or property damage or without any violations of the provisions in the conflict of laws.

1. Criminal law. Kirkland's review and studies, Discovery
   most wont read it or understand it, but i hope those who really check this out , they will benefit from the discovery and provisions listed in the notes and studies.

keys to the notes , *
If one receives a bill of pain and attainder , traffic ticked coupon asking for money for a basic necessities of life , and turning your basic necessities into a crime or a bill of attainder is actually against the law. **

Just one case that comes to mind, miller versus United states US *** says in its merits and disposition of the judges opinion that is actual law by supreme law of the land,

can not convert a basis right- basic necessities of your life into a crime and put one in jail by using scar tactics , ****

under the 1st amendment *****of life liberty to pursue your happiness, being forced or scared into a bill of pain or bill of attainder is a writ of assist, and a bill of pain. according to law. it also violated the contract and 5th amendment in traffic infarctions. ******

blacks law dictionary 
Easily ascertainable members of a group in such a way
as to inflict punishment on them without a judicial
trial.

United States v. Brown, 381 U.S. 437, 448-49, 85
S.Ct. 1707, 1715, 14 L.Ed. 484, 492; *******

United States v.
Lovett, 328 U.S. 303, 315, 66 S.Ct. 1073, 1079, 90 L.Ed.
1252.

An act is a "bill of attainder" when the punishment
is death and a "bill of pains and penalties" ********

The punishment is less severe; both kinds of punishment
fall within the scope of the constitutional prohibition.

My thoughts,,*********

who says so besides the cases listed , in the provisions of the enumerated powers delegated to the legislative or the state **********. federal or the state, and is in harmony with all beneficiaries of the sister states of there own provisions.

U.S.Const. Art. I, Sec. 9, Cl. 3 (as to Congress);
Art. I, Sec. 10 (as to state legislatures). wow. ***********

So how can they get away with it ? ************

well from my studies and research, they trick you and force you or make you by powers of the police polices versus the police powers dismissive difference,

and if you don't know then you pay or go to jail waiving your rights and you sign your papers entering into a hidden illegal contract of consent.

not only that when you wave your rights by your signature of waiving rights - you have allowed them to actually break a provision that they promised to protect and life and limb and all Constituional provisions,, wow. *

1. Thank you INGODWETRUST