Traffic infractions are not a crime. People v. Battle Reasonable suspicion or probable cause to believe a crime involving a victim or injured party must accompany every seizure, investigation, or questioning When officers detained appellant for the purpose of requiring him to identify himself, they performed a seizure of his person subject to the requirements of the Fourth Amendment... The Fourth Amendment, of course, applies to all seizures of the person, including seizures that involve only a brief detention short of traditional arrest... Whenever a police officer accosts an individual and restrains his freedom to walk away, he has seized that person, and the Fourth Amendment requires that the seizure be reasonable. * But even assuming that purpose (prevention of crime) is served to some degree by stopping and demanding identification from an individual without any specific basis for believing he is involved in criminal activity, the guarantees of the Fourth Amendment do not allow it. Police officers cannot place the cart before the horse, and conduct an investigation to discover a possible civil infraction, as distinguished from a criminal infraction, but must have a criminal basis for seizure and questioning * The application of...(a code)...to detain appellant and require him to identify himself violated the Fourth Amendment because the officers lacked any reasonable suspicion to believe appellant was engaged, or had engaged, in criminal conduct. Accordingly, appellant may not be punished for refusing to identify himself, and the conviction is reversed. (Probable cause) Brown v. Texas, 443 U.S. 47, (1979) * With regard particularly to the U.S. Constitution, it is elementary that a Right secured or protected by that document cannot be overthrown or impaired by any state police authority. Donnolly vs. Union Sewer Pipe Co., 184 US 540; Lafarier vs. Grand Trunk R.R. Co., 24 A. 848; ONeil vs. Providence Amusement Co., 108 A. 887. An officer who acts in violation of the Constitution ceases to represent the government. Brookfield Const. Co. v. Stewart, 284 F.Supp. 94. The police power of the state must be exercised in subordination to the provisions of the U.S. Constitution. Bacahanan vs. Wanley, 245 US 60; Panhandle Eastern Pipeline Co. vs. State Highway Commission, 294 US 613. Nothing is gained in the argument by calling it ‘police power.’” Henderson v. City of New York, 92 U.S. 259, 2771 (1875); Nebbia v. New York, 291 U.S. 501 (1934). Actions by state officers and employees, even if unauthorized or in excess of authority, can be actions under color of law. Stringer v. Dilger, 1963, Ca. 10 Colo., 313 F.2d 536. (Civil law 42 U.S.C 1983 - Criminal Law 18 U.S.C 241 & 242) That an officer or employee of a state or one of its subdivisions is deemed to be acting under color of law as to those deprivations of right committed in the fulfillment of the tasks and obligations assigned to him. Monroe v. Page, 1961, 365 U.S. 167. (Civil law) Failure to obey the command of a police officer constitutes a traditional form of breach of the peace. Obviously, however, one cannot be punished for failing to obey the command of an officer if that command is itself violative of the constitution. Wright v. Georgia, 373 U.S. 284, 291-2.Designated Public Domain Document AN INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAWTHE LAW AND LEGISLATIVE POWERBecause of what appear to be Lawful commands on the surface, many citizens, because of their respect for what appears to be law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their rights, due to ignorance. (United States v. Minker, 350 U.S. 179, 187, 76 S.Ct. 281, 100 L.Ed. 185 (1956); Due to sloth, inattention or desire to seize tactical advantage, lawyers [judges, Justices and Executive Administrators] have long engaged in dilatory practices... the glacial pace of much litigation breeds frustration with the Federal Courts and ultimately, disrespect for the law. (Roadway Express v. Pipe, 447 U.S. 752 at 757 (1982)).The power to legislate generally upon life, liberty, and property, as opposed to the power to provide modes of redress against offensive state action, is repugnant to the Constitution.( United States v Reese, 92 U.S. 214, 218 Id., at 15 (1876); United States v, Harpris, 106 U.S. 629,639 (1883); James v. Bowman, 190 U.S. 127, 139 (1903)). Powers denied are not to be implied; they are to be obtained, if at all, from and in the same manner provided by, those who originally granted the enumerated powers, but who at the same time denied powers. (Fairbanks v. U.S. 181 US 283 ( ))…[E]very man is independent of all laws, except those prescribed by nature. He is not bound by any institutions [ Legislative Democracies, Closed Government Unions or Licensing Boards, Code of conduct or commercial Statutory obligations ] formed [or legislated] by his fellowman without his consent. (Cruden v. Neale, 2 N.C. 338, 2 S.E. (1796): The Natural Liberty of man is to be free from any superior power on earth, and not to be under the will or legislative authority of man, but only to have the law of nature for his rule. - Samuel Adams You [the people] have the rights antecedent to all earthly governments; rights that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws; right derived from the Great Legislator of the Universe. - John Adams, 2nd President of the united States of America. This law of nature, being co-eval with mankind and dictated by God himself, is of course superior in obligation to any other. It is binding over all the globe, in all countries, and at all times: no human laws are of any validity if contrary to this; ... upon these two foundations, the law of nature and the law of revelation, depend all human laws; that is to say, no human laws should be suffered to contradict these... Any law contrary to the Law of God, is no law at all. (William Blackstone, The Commentaries of the Law of England, Volume I, Of the Rights of Persons, at 2 and 41 (1765); All acts of legislature apparently contrary to natural right and justice are, in our laws and must be in the nature of things, considered as void. The laws of nature are the laws of God; whose authority can be superseded by no power on earth. A legislature must not obstruct our obedience to him from whose punishments they cannot protect us. All human constitutions which contradict his laws, we are in conscience bound to disobey. Such have been the adjudications of our courts of justice. (Robin v. Hardaway, 1 Jefferson 109, 114 (1772); God alone is the lawgiver of eternity - Judge Henry Clay, Crimes of the Civil War, 1868, pages 428-432. The law is from everlasting. Bouviers Law Dictionary, 1914, Maxim, page 2143. (Psalm 90:2; 93:2; 145:13).The individual may stand upon his Constitutional Rights as a Citizen. He is entitled to carry on his private business in his own way... His power to contract is unlimited... He owes no duty to the State or to his neighbors to divulge his business, or to open his doors to an investigation, so far as it may tend to incriminate him. He owes no duty to the State, since he receives nothing there from, beyond the protection of his life and property. His rights are such as existed by the Law of the Land (Common Law) long antecedent to the organization of the State, and can only be taken from him by due process of law, and in accordance with the Constitution... He owes nothing to the public so long as he does not trespass upon their rights. (Hale v. Henkel 201 U.S. 43 at 89 (1906)) - published by the Federal and State Appellate Court systems in over 1,600 cases.GOVERNMENT LEGISLATES FOR DIVERSE CLASSES OF PERSONS“[T]he tenderness of the law for the rights of individuals entitles each person, regardless of economic or social status, to an unequivocal warning from the legislature as to whether he is within the class of persons subject to vicarious liability. Congress cannot be deemed to have intended to punish anyone who is not plainly and unmistakably within the confines of the statute... Statutory policy and purpose are not constitutional substitutes for the requirement that the legislature specify with reasonable certainty those individuals it desires to place under the interdict of the Act. (United States V Dotterweich 320 US 277; United States v. Lacher, 134 U.S. 624, 628, 10; S.Ct. 625, 626, 33 L.Ed. 1080; United States v. Gradwell, 243 U.S. 476,485, 37 S.Ct. 407, 61 L.Ed. 857. FN1 United States v. Wiltberger, 5 Wheat. 76, 95, 5 L.Ed. 37)).The question then becomes, what differentiates ones public and private capacity, and what duties and obligations, restraint and regulations can be imposed on what classes of persons acting in what capacity as officers, enlisted, employed, appointed or elected to public office, and what requirements can be legislated for who under what circumstances?Government possesses sovereign immunity, qualified immunity, and judicial immunity, but in relation only to those it creates. (Clearfield Trust Co. v. United States, 318 U.S. 363, 371 (1943)) “The sovereignty of a state extends to everything which exists by its own authority, or is introduced by its permission.” McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. 316 (1819));The natural body or such as is formed by the laws of God, [is] as distinguished from an artificial body or (creature of statute or public office) such as is devised by human laws. (1 Bl. Com. 467). Thus, in law, a body is considered a natural person formed by the laws of God... as distinguished from an artificial body, or corporate person, specifying that an artificial body is devised, and regulated by human laws. And, as such, An artificial body can do only what is authorized by its charter or by law... a natural person or body, whatever is not forbidden by law. (Paul v. Virginia, 8 Wall. 177 (1868.)) This fundamental principle flows from the very nature of our free Republican governments, that no man should be compelled to do what the laws do not require; nor to refrain from acts which the laws permit ...( Calder v. Bull, 3 Dallas 386 (1798)); [S]tatutes apply only to state created creatures known as corporations no matter whether state, local, or federal. (Colonial Pipeline Co. v. Traigle, 421 US 100. ( ) ); All codes, rules, and regulations are for government authorities only, not human/Creators in accordance with Gods laws. All codes, rules, and regulations are unconstitutional and lacking due process… (Rodriques v. Ray Donavan, U.S. Department of Labor, 769 F. 2d 1344, 1348 (1985)); “All legislation is prima facie territorial.” USSC 213 US 347 (1909)This word ‘person’ and its scope and bearing in the law, involving, as it does, legal fictions and also apparently natural beings, it is difficult to understand; but it is absolutely necessary to grasp, at whatever cost, a true and proper understanding to the word in all the phases of its proper use . . . A person is here not a physical or individual person, but the status or condition with which he is invested . . . not an individual or physical person, but the status, condition or character borne by physical persons . . . The law of persons is the law of status or condition. -- American Law and Procedure, Vol. 13, page 137, 1910.;THAT Supreme Court, in numerous instances, has reluctantly overturned the rulings of inferior State supreme courts, maintaining that the word person in legal terminology is perceived as a general word which normally includes in its scope a variety of entities other than human beings. ( Church of Scientology v. U.S. Dept. of Justice 612 F. 2d 417, 425 (1979)). Government admits that often the word person is used in such a sense as not to include the [citizen or] sovereign but urges that... the term should be held to embrace government [and creatures of statute, representatives, employees, agents, officers, and offices, created by government and not by God]. (United States v. Cooper Corp. 318 US 600 (1941); United States v. Fox 94 US 315; United States v. Mine Workers 330 US 258 (1947); unless the context indicates otherwise - 1 U.S.C. Sec. 1, 2; Particularly is true where the statute imposes a burden or limitation, as distinguished from conferring a benefit or advantage. (United States v. Knight 14 pet. 301, 315 (1840); Chisolm v Georgia 2 Dall 419; Penhallen v Doane v Administration 3 Dall 54; McCullogh v Maryland 4 Wheat 316; Hauenstein v Lynharm 100 US 483 (1879); Yick Wo v Hopkins and Woo Loo v Hopkins 188 US 356 (1886)). The word ‘person’ as used and employed in most statutory language [and civil law] is ordinarily construed to exclude the [citizen or] sovereign, and that for one as such to be bound by statute, they must be specifically named. ( Wilson v. Omaha Indian Tribe 442 US 653 (1979); Will v. Michigan state Police 491 U.S. 58, 105 L.Ed.2nd 45 (1989); U.S. v. General Motors Corporation, D.C. Ill, 2 F.R.D. 528, 530)The people, or sovereign are not bound by general words in statutes, restrictive of prerogative right, title or interest, unless expressly named. Acts of limitation do not bind the King or the people. The people have been ceded all the rights of the King, the former sovereign ... It is a maxim of the common law, that when an act is made for the common good and to prevent injury, the King shall be bound, though not named, but when a statute is general and prerogative right would be divested or taken from the King [or the people] he shall not be bound. (The People v. Herkimer, 4 Cowen (NY) 345, 348 (1825);There can be no limitation on the power of the people of the United States. By their authority the State Constitutions were made, and by their authority the Constitution of the United States was established (Hauenstein vs Lynham 100 US 483 (1879));The people in their capacity of Sovereigns made and adopted the Constitution; and it binds the state governments without the states permission. (4 Wheat, 402); ... The governments are but trustees acting under derived authority and have no power to delegate what is not delegated to them. But the people, as the original fountain might take away what they have delegated and intrust to whom they please. They have the whole title and as absolute proprietors have the right of using or abusing. (Luther v. Borden 48 US 1
Posted on: Sun, 25 Jan 2015 02:53:34 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015