But a Constitution of Government once changed from Freedom, can never be restored. Liberty, once lost, is lost forever. John Adams, letter to Abigail Adams, July 17, 1775 But what do we mean by the American Revolution? Do we mean the American war? The Revolution was effected before the war commenced. The Revolution was in the minds and hearts of the people; a change in their religious sentiments, of their duties and obligations...This radical change in the principles, opinions, sentiments, and affections of the people was the real American Revolution. John Adams, letter to H. Niles, February 13, 1818 Each individual of the society has a right to be protected by it in the enjoyment of his life, liberty, and property, according to standing laws. He is obliged, consequently, to contribute his share to the expense of this protection; and to give his personal service, or an equivalent, when necessary. But no part of the property of any individual can, with justice, be taken from him, or applied to public uses, without his own consent, or that of the representative body of the people. In fine, the people of this commonwealth are not controllable by any other laws than those to which their constitutional representative body have given their consent. John Adams, Thoughts on Government, 1776 United States of America Congressional Record Monday, August 19.1940 Excerpt – pages 4-5 “I want you to note particularly that this was in 1913, and that 1913 was the very year we changed our Government from a republic to a semidemocracy; the year in which we destroyed constitutional government, international security, and paved the road for us to become a colony of the British Empire. It was also the same year in which we, by adopting the Federal Reserve Act, placed our Treasury under the control and domination of the Bank of England and the international banking groups that are now financing the British-Israel movement in the United States.” Two Different and Distinct Nations The idea prevails with some, indeed it has expression in arguments at the bar, that we have in this country substantially two national governments; one to be maintained under the Constitution, with all its restrictions; the other to be maintained by Congress outside and independently of that instrument, by exercising such powers as other nations of the earth are accustomed to... I take leave to say that, if the principles thus announced should ever receive the sanction of a majority of this court, a radical and mischievous change in our system will result. We will, in that event, pass from the era of constitutional liberty guarded and protected by a written constitution into an era of legislative absolutism... It will be an evil day for American Liberty if the theory of a government outside the Supreme Law of the Land finds lodgment in our Constitutional Jurisprudence. No higher duty rests upon this court than to exert its full authority to prevent all violation of the principles of the Constitution. --Honorable Supreme Court Justice John Harlan in the 1901 case of Downes v. Bidwell. “Men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights,-life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; and to secure, not grant or create, these rights, governments are instituted. That property [or income] which a man has honestly acquired he retains full control of. . .” [Budd v. People of State of New York, 143 U.S. 517 (1892)] Von Hoffman v. City of Quincy, 71 U.S. 4 Wall. 535 535 (1866)Page 71 U. S. 551 Nothing can be more material to the obligation than the means of enforcement. Without the remedy, the contract may, indeed, in the sense of the law, be said not to exist, and its obligation to fall within the class of those moral and social duties which depend for their fulfillment wholly upon the will of the individual. The ideas of validity and remedy are inseparable, and both are parts of the obligation, which is guaranteed by the Constitution against invasion. The obligation of a contract is the law which binds the parties to perform their agreement. “Because of what appears to be a lawful command 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.” US v Minker, 350 US 179 at 187(1956) “The entire taxing and monetary system are hereby, placed under the UCC.” [The Federal Tax Lien Act of 1966] “A state may provide for the collection of taxes in gold and silver only.” [State treasurer v. Wright, 28 Ill. 5091: [Whitaker v. Haley. 2 Ore. 128] “Taxes, lawfully assessed are collectible by agents in money and notes cannot be accepted in payment.” Town of Frankfort v. Waldo, 128 ME. 1] HAGAR v. RECLAMATION DIST. NO. 108, 111 U.S. 701 1884). Acts of Congress making the notes (paper) of the United States a legal tender do not apply to EXACTIONs (taxes) made under state law” “At common law there was no tax lien.” [Cassidy v. Aroostock, 134 ME. 34] U.S. Supreme Court, Memphis Bank & Trust Co. v. Garner, 459 U.S. 392 (1983) “The Tennessee bank tax violates the immunity of obligations (federal reserve notes 31USC3124 & 18USC8) of the United States from state and local taxation.” “Federal Reserve Notes are not dollars.” Russell L. Munk, Assistant General Counsel, Department of the Treasury, February 18, 1977. “The term dollars likewise is incorrect, which, according to constitutional definition, are monetary units, used in exchange, backed by gold and silver. Our present day fiat issues are supported by more printed paper of the same; therefore, they are correctly termed Federal Reserve Notes (FRN), not dollars. Robert P. Vichas, Handbook of Financial Mathematics, Formulas, and Tables (1979), p. 420. “Federal Reserve Bank notes, and other notes constituting a part of common currency of country, are recognized as good tender for money, unless specially objected to.” MacLeod v. Hoover (1925), 159 La. 244, 105 S. 305. Gibbons v Ogden 1824 supreme court “Persons are not the subjects of commerce…” “There is a distinction between a debt discharged and one paid. When discharged, the debt still exists, though divested of its character as a legal obligation during the operation of the discharge.” Stanek v. White (1927), 172 Minn. 390, 215 N.W. 781. “What is a dollar? Its just something artificial we throw out there. What youre doing is youre fooling people into thinking they have purchasing power, when in fact they do not.” Denis Karnofsky, Chief Economic Advisor, St. Louis, St. Louis Federal Reserve Bank (June 10, 1978). Ballentines Law Dictionary, 3rd Edition: Dollar. The legal currency of the United States; State v Downs, 148 Ind 324, 327; the unit of money consisting of one hundred cents. The aggregate of specific coins which add up to one dollar. 36 Am J1st Money § 8. In the absence of qualifying words, it cannot mean promissory notes, bonds, or other evidences of debt. 36 AM J 1st Money § 8. Simon v. Craft, 182, U.S. 427, 436, 21 SUP. CT. 836, 45 L. ED 1165; In determining whether such rights were denied, we are governed by the substance of things and not by mere form; ID.; Louisville & N.R. CO. v. Schnidt,177 U.S. 230, 20 SUP. CT. 620 44 L ED 747. – Supreme Court of the United States 1795 Inasmuch as every government is an artificial person, an abstraction, and a creature of the mind only, a government can interface only with other artificial persons. The imaginary, having neither actuality nor substance, is foreclosed from creating and attaining parity with the tangible. The legal manifestation of this is that no government, as well as any law, agency, aspect, court, etc. can concern itself with anything other than corporate, artificial persons and the contracts between them. S.C.R. 1795, Penhallow v. Doanes Administraters (3 U.S. 54; 1 L.Ed. 57; 3 Dall. 54), An attorney for the plaintiff cannot admit evidence into the court. He is either an attorney or a witness. (Trinsey v. Pagliaro D.C.Pa. 1964, 229 F. Supp. 647) Statements of counsel in brief or in argument are not sufficient for motion to dismiss or for summary judgment, Trinsey v. Pagliaro, D. C. Pa. 1964, 229 F. Supp. 647. Where there are no depositions, admissions, or affidavits the court has no facts to rely on for a summary determination. Trinsey v. Pagliaro, D.C. Pa. 1964, 229 F. Supp. 647. The prosecutor is not a witness; and he should not be permitted to add to the record either by subtle or gross improprieties. Those who have experienced the full thrust of the power of government when leveled against them know that the only protection the citizen has is in the requirement for a fair trial. Donnelly v. Dechristoforo, 1974.SCT.41709 ¶ 56; 416 U.S. 637 (1974) Involuntary Servitude UNITED STATES V. KOZMINSKI, 487 U. S. 931 (1988) “For purposes of criminal prosecution under § 241 or § 1584, the term involuntary servitude necessarily means a condition of servitude in which the victim is forced to work for the defendant by the use or threat of physical restraint or physical injury or by the use or threat of coercion through law or the legal process. This definition encompasses cases in which the defendant holds the victim in servitude by placing him or her in fear of such physical restraint or injury or legal coercion.” Morrison v. Coddington, 662 P. 2d. 155, 135 Ariz. 480(1983). Fraud and deceit may arise from silence where there is a duty to speak the truth, as well as from speaking an untruth. “A bill of attainder is defined to be ‘a legislative Act which inflects punishment without judicial trial’” “...where the legislative body exercises the office of judge, and assumes judicial magistracy, and pronounces on the guilt of a party without any of the forms or safeguards of a trial, and fixes the punishment.” In re De Giacomo, (1874) 12 Blatchf. (U.S.) 391, 7 Fed. Cas No. 3,747, citing Cummings v. Missouri, (1866) 4 Wall, (U.S.) 323. [Federal jurisdiction] ...must be considered in the light of our dual system of government and may not be extended. . .in view of our complex society, would effectually obliterate the distinction between what is national and what is local and create a completely centralized government. United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549, 115 S.Ct.1624(1995). In view of 40 USCS 255, no jurisdiction exists in United States to enforce federal criminal laws, unless and until consent to accept jurisdiction over lands acquired by United States has been filed in behalf of United States as provided in said section, and fact that state has authorized government to take jurisdiction is immaterial. Adams v. United States (1943) 319 US 312, 87 L Ed. 1421, 63 S. Ct. 1122 In regard to courts of inferior jurisdiction, “if the record does not show upon its face the facts necessary to give jurisdiction, they will be presumed not to have existed.” Norman v. Zieber, 3 Or at 202-03 . “A court cannot confer jurisdiction where none existed and cannot make a void proceeding valid. It is clear and well established law that a void order can be challenged in any court.” Old wayne Mut, L. assoc b. McDonough, 205 U.S. 8, 27 S Ct 236(1907) “There is no discretion to ignore lack of jurisdiction.” Joyce v. U.S. 474 2D 215 “Court must prove on the record, all jurisdiction facts related to the jurisdiction asserted.” Lantana v. Hopper, 102 F. 2d 188; Chicago v. New York 37 FSupp. 150 “The law provides that once State and Federal jurisdiction has been challenged, it musts be proven.” Main v Thiboutot, 100 S Ct. 2502(1980) “Jurisdiction can be challenged at any time,” and “Jurisdiction, once challenged, cannot be assumed and must be decided.” Basso v. Utah Power & Light Co. 395 F 2d 906, 910 “Defense of lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter may be raised at any time, even on appeal.” Hill Top Developers v. Holiday Pines Service Corp. 478 So. 2d, 368 (Fla 2nd DCA 1985) “Once challenged, jurisdiction cannot be assumed, it must be proved to exist.” Stock v. Medical Examiners 94 Ca 2d 751. 211 P2d 289 “There is no discretion to ignore that lack of jurisdiction.” Joyce v. US, 474 F2d 215 “the burden shifts to the court to prove jurisdiction.” Rosemond v. Lambert, 469 F2d 416 “a universal principle as old as the law is that a proceedings of a court without jurisdiction are a nullity and its judgment therein without effect either on person or property,” Norwood v. Renfield, 34 C 329; Ex parte Giambonini, 49 P. 732 “jurisdiction is fundamental and a judgment rendered by a court that does not have jurisdiction to hear is void ab initio.” In re Application of Wyatt, 300 P. 132;p Re Cavitt, 118 P2d 846 “Thus, where a judicial tribunal has no jurisdiction of the subject matter on which it assumes to act, its proceedings are absolutely void in the fullest sense of the term.” Dillon v. Dillon 187 p27 A court has no jurisdiction to determine its own jurisdiction, for a basic issue in any case before a tribunal is its power to act, and a court must have the authority to decide that question the first instance.” Rescue Army v. Municipal Court of Los Angeles, 171 P2d 8: 331 US 549, 91 K, ed, 1666m 67 S, Ct, 1409 “A departure by a court from those recognized and established requirements of law however close apparent adherence to mere form in methods of procedure which has the effect of depriving one of a constitutional right, is an excess of jurisdiction.” Wuest v. Wuest, 127 P2d 934, 937. . Clearfield Doctrine Governments descend to the Level of a mere private corporation, and take on the characteristics of a mere private citizen...where private corporate commercial paper [Federal Reserve Notes] and securities [checks] is concerned. ... For purposes of suit, such corporations and individuals are regarded as entities entirely separate from government. - Clearfield Trust Co. v. United States 318 U.S. 363-371 (1942) When governments enter the world of commerce, they are subject to the same burdens as any private firm or corporation -- U.S. v. Burr, 309 U.S. 242 See: 22 U.S.C.A.286e, Bank of U.S. vs. Planters Bank of Georgia, 6L, Ed. (9 Wheat) 244; 22 U.S.C.A. 286 et seq., C.R.S. 11-60-103 TREZEVANT CASE DAMAGE AWARD STANDARD Evidence that motorist cited for traffic violation was incarcerated for 23 minutes during booking process, even though he had never been arrested and at all times had sufficient cash on hand to post bond pending court disposition of citation, was sufficient to support finding that municipality employing officer who cited motorist and county board of criminal justice, which operated facility in which motorist was incarcerated, had unconstitutionally deprived motorist of his right to liberty. 42 U.S.C.A. Sec. 1983. Trezevant v. City of Tampa (1984) 741 F.2d 336, hn. 1 Jury verdict of $25,000 in favor of motorist who was unconstitutionally deprived of his liberty when incarcerated during booking process following citation for traffic violation was not excessive in view of evidence of motorists back pain during period of incarceration and jailors refusal to provide medical treatment, as well as fact that motorist was clearly entitled to compensation for incarceration itself and for mental anguish that he had suffered from entire episode. 42 U.S.C.A. Sec. 1983. Trezevant v. City of Tampa (1984) 741 F.2d 336, hn. 5 Tie in the federal reserve to bank law suit. Lewis v. United States, 680 F.2d 1239 (9th Cir. 1982) Mattox v. U.S., 156 US 237,243. (1895) We are bound to interpret the Constitution in the light of the law as it existed at the time it was adopted. S. Carolina v. U.S., 199 U.S. 437, 448 (1905). The Constitution is a written instrument. As such, its meaning does not alter. That which it meant when it was adopted, it means now. SHAPIRO vs. THOMSON, 394 U. S. 618 April 21, 1969 . Further, the Right to TRAVEL by private conveyance for private purposes upon the Common way can NOT BE INFRINGED. No license or permission is required for TRAVEL when such TRAVEL IS NOT for the purpose of [COMMERCIAL] PROFIT OR GAIN on the open highways operating under license IN COMMERCE. Marbury v. Madison, 5 US 137,(1803) The Constitution of these United States is the supreme law of the land. Any law that is repugnant to the Constitution is null and void of law. Murdock v. Penn., 319 US 105, (1943) No state shall convert a liberty into a privilege, license it, and attach a fee to it. Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham, 373 US 262, (1969) If the state converts a liberty into a privilege, the citizen can engage in the right with impunity. Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, (1966) Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation, which would abrogate them. The rights of the individuals are restricted only to the extent that they have been voluntarily surrendered by the citizenship to the agencies of government. City of Dallas v Mitchell, 245 S.W. 944 Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425, (1886) An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed. Miller v. U.S., 230 F.2d. 486,489 The claim and exercise of a Constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime. “To take away all remedy for the enforcement of a right is to take away the right itself. But that is not within the power of the State.” Poindexter v. Greenhow, 114 U.S. 270, 303 (1885). Brady v. U.S., 397 U.S. 742, 748,(1970) Waivers of Constitutional Rights, not only must they be voluntary, they must be knowingly intelligent acts done with sufficient awareness. Carnley v. Cochran, 369 U.S. 506, 516 (1962), Presuming waiver from a silent record is impermissible. The record must show, or there must be an allegation and evidence which show, that an accused was offered counsel but intelligently and understandingly rejected the offer. Anything less is not waiver. Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1, 78 S.Ct. 1401 (1958). No state legislator or executive or judicial officer can war against the Constitution without violating his undertaking to support it. The constitutional theory is that we the people are the sovereigns, the state and federal officials only our agents. The individual, unlike the corporation, cannot be taxed for the mere privilege of existing. The corporation is an artificial entity which owes its existence and charter powers to the state; but, the individuals rights to live and own property are natural rights for the enjoyment of which an excise cannot be imposed. Redfield v Fisher, 292 P 813, at 819 [1930] [I]n common usage, the term `person does not include the sovereign, [and] statutes employing the phrase are ordinarily construed to exclude it. United States v. Cooper Corp., 312 U.S. 600, 604 [1941;] accord, United States v. Mine Workers, 330 U.S. 258, 1947.] Colten v. Kentucky (1972)407 U.S. 104@122. 92 S.Ct. 1953; Dissent by DouglasIf the nation comes down from its position of sovereignty and enters the domain of commerce, it submits itself to the same laws that govern individuals therein. It assumes the position of an ordinary citizen and it cannot recede from the fulfillment of its obligations; 74 Fed. Rep. 145, following 91 U.S. 398. NO IMMUNITY “Sovereign immunity does not apply where (as here) government is a lawbreaker or jurisdiction is the issue.” Arthur v. Fry, 300 F.Supp. 622 ...an officer may be held liable in damages to any person injured in consequence of a breach of any of the duties connected with his office...The liability for nonfeasance, misfeasance, and for malfeasance in office is in his individual , not his official capacity... 70 Am. Jur. 2nd Sec. 50, VII Civil Liability “Knowing failure to disclose material information necessary to prevent statement from being misleading, or making representation despite knowledge that it has no reasonable basis in fact, are actionable as fraud under law.” Rubinstein v. Collins, 20 F.3d 160, 1990 [a] “Party in interest may become liable for fraud by mere silent acquiescence and partaking of benefits of fraud.” Bransom v. Standard Hardware, Inc., 874 S.W.2d 919, 1994 Ex dolo malo non oritur actio. Out of fraud no action arises; fraud never gives a right of action. No court will lend its aid to a man who founds his cause of action upon an immoral or illegal act. As found in Blacks Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, page 509. “Fraud destroys the validity of everything into which it enters,” Nudd v. Burrows, 91 U.S 426. “Fraud vitiates everything” Boyce v. Grundy, 3 Pet. 210 Fraud vitiates the most solemn contracts, documents and even judgments. U.S. v. Throckmorton, 98 US 61 When a Citizen challenges the acts of a federal or state official as being illegal, that official cannot just simply avoid liability based upon the fact that he is a public official. In United States v. Lee, 106 U.S. 196, 220, 221, 1 S.Ct. 240, 261, the United States claimed title to Arlington, Lees estate, via a tax sale some years earlier, held to be void by the Court. In so voiding the title of the United States, the Court declared: No man in this country is so high that he is above the law. No officer of the law may set that law at defiance with impunity. All the officers of the government, from the highest to the lowest, are creatures of the law and are bound to obey it. It is the only supreme power in our system of government, and every man who by accepting office participates in its functions is only the more strongly bound to submit to that supremacy, and to observe the limitations which it imposes upon the exercise of the authority which it gives. Shall it be said... that the courts cannot give remedy when the citizen has been deprived of his property by force, his estate seized and converted to the use of the government without any lawful authority, without any process of law, and without any compensation, because the president has ordered it and his officers are in possession? If such be the law of this country, it sanctions a tyranny which has no existence in the monarchies of Europe, nor in any other government which has a just claim to well-regulated liberty and the protection of personal rights. See Pierce v. United States (The Floyd Acceptances), 7 Wall. (74 U.S.) 666, 677 (We have no officers in this government from the President down to the most subordinate agent, who does not hold office under the law, with prescribed duties and limited authority); Cunningham v. Macon, 109 U.S. 446, 452, 456, 3 S.Ct. 292, 297 (In these cases he is not sued as, or because he is, the officer of the government, but as an individual, and the court is not ousted of jurisdiction because he asserts authority as such officer. To make out his defense he must show that his authority was sufficient in law to protect him... It is no answer for the defendant to say I am an officer of the government and acted under its authority unless he shows the sufficiency of that authority); and Poindexter v. Greenhow, 114 U.S. 270, 287, 5 S.Ct. 903, 912 WHEREAS, officials and even judges have no immunity (See, Owen vs. City of Independence, 100 S Ct. 1398; Maine vs. Thiboutot, 100 S. Ct. 2502; and Hafer vs. Melo, 502 U.S. 21; officials and judges are deemed to know the law and sworn to uphold the law; officials and judges cannot claim to act in good faith in willful deprivation of law, they certainly cannot plead ignorance of the law, even the Citizen cannot plead ignorance of the law, the courts have ruled there is no such thing as ignorance of the law, it is ludicrous for learned officials and judges to plead ignorance of the law therefore there is no immunity, judicial or otherwise, in matters of rights secured by the Constitution for the United States of America. See: Title 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983. When lawsuits are brought against federal officials, they must be brought against them in their individual capacity not their official capacity. When federal officials perpetrate constitutional torts, they do so ultra vires (beyond the powers) and lose the shield of immunity. Williamson v. U.S. Department of Agriculture, 815 F.2d. 369, ACLU Foundation v. Barr, 952 F.2d. 457, 293 U.S. App. DC 101, (CA DC 1991). Personal involvement in deprivation of constitutional rights is prerequisite to award of damages, but defendant may be personally involved in constitutional deprivation by direct participation, failure to remedy wrongs after learning about it, creation of a policy or custom under which unconstitutional practices occur or gross negligence in managing subordinates who cause violation. (Gallegos v. Haggerty, N.D. of New York, 689 F. Supp. 93 (1988). The law requires proof of jurisdiction to appear on the record of the administrative agency and all administrative proceedings. Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U. S. 533 “If you’ve relied on prior decisions of the Supreme Court you have a perfect defense for willfulness.” U.S. v. Bishop, 412 U.S. 346 State citizenship U.S. v. Anthony 24 Fed. 829 (1873) The term resident and citizen of the United States is distinguished from a Citizen of one of the several states, in that the former is a special class of citizen created by Congress. “We have in our political system a government of the United States and a government of each of the several States. Each one of these governments is distinct from the others, and each has citizens of it’s own...” United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875) “...he was not a citizen of the United States, he was a citizen and voter of the State,...” “One may be a citizen of a State an yet not a citizen of the United States”. McDonel v. The State, 90 Ind. 320 (1883) “That there is a citizenship of the United States and citizenship of a state,...” Tashiro v. Jordan, 201 Cal. 236 (1927) A citizen of the United States is a citizen of the federal government ... Kitchens v. Steele, 112 F.Supp 383 State v. Manuel, 20 NC 122: the term citizen in the United States, is analogous to the term `subject in common law; the change of phrase has resulted from the change in government. Supreme Court: Jones v. Temmer, 89 F. Supp 1226: The privileges and immunities clause of the 14th Amendment protects very few rights because it neither incorporates the Bill of Rights, nor protects all rights of individual citizens. Instead this provision protects only those rights peculiar to being a citizen of the federal government; it does not protect those rights which relate to state citizenship. Supreme Court: US vs. Valentine 288 F. Supp. 957: The only absolute and unqualified right of a United States citizen is to residence within the territorial boundaries of the United States. It is the duty of all officials whether legislative, judicial, executive, administrative, or ministerial to so perform every official act as not to violate constitutional provisions. Montgomery v state 55 Fla. 97-45S0.879 a. Inasmuch as every government is an artificial person, an abstraction, and a creature of the mind only, a government can interface only with other artificial persons. The imaginary, having neither actuality nor substance, is foreclosed from creating and attaining parity with the tangible. The legal manifestation of this is that no government, as well as any law, agency, aspect, court, etc. can concern itself with anything other than corporate, artificial persons and the contracts between them. S.C.R. 1795, Penhallow v. Doane’s Administrators 3 U.S. 54; 1 L.Ed. 57; 3 Dall. 54; and, b. the contracts between them involve U.S. citizens, which are deemed as Corporate Entities: c. Therefore, the U.S. citizens residing in one of the states of the union, are classified as property and franchises of the federal government as an individual entity, Wheeling Steel Corp. v. Fox, 298 U.S. 193, 80 L.Ed. 1143, 56 S.Ct. 773 Before we place the stigma of a criminal conviction upon any such citizen the legislative mandate must be clear and unambiguous. Accordingly that which Chief Justice Marshall has called the tenderness of the law for the rights of individuals [FN1] 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. 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. We do not overlook those constitutional limitations which, for the protection of personal rights, must necessarily attend all investigations conducted under the authority of Congress. Neither branch of the legislative department, still less any merely administrative body, established by Congress, possesses, or can be invested with, a general power of making inquiry into the private affairs of the citizen. Kilbourn v. Thompson, 103 U. S. 168,196 [26: 377, 386]. We said in Boyd v. United States, 116 U. S. 616, 630 [29: 746, 751]—and it cannot be too often repeated—that the principles that embody the essence of constitutional liberty and security forbid all invasions on the part of the government and its employes of the sancity of a mans home, and the privacies of his life. As said by Mr. Justice Field in Re Pacific R. Commission, 32 Fed. Rep. 241,250, of all the rights of the citizen, few are of greater importance or more essential to his peace and happiness than the right of personal security, and that involves, not merely protection of his person from assault, but exemption of his private affairs, books, and papers from the inspection and scrutiny of others. Without the enjoyment of this right, all others would lose half their value. ... It is scarcely necessary to say that the power given to Congress to regulate interstate commerce does not carry with it any power to destroy or impair those guarantees. This court has already spoken fully on that general subject in Counselman v. Hitchock, 142 U. S. 547 [35: 1110], 3 Inters. Com. Rep. 816.... Suffice it hi the present case to say that as the Interstate Commerce Commission, by petition in a circuit court of the United States seeks, upon grounds distinctly set forth, an order to compel appellees to answer particular questions and to produce certain books, papers, etc., in their possession, it was open to each of them to contend before that court that he was protected by the Constitution from making answer to the questions propounded to him; or that he was not legally bound to produce the books, papers, etc., ordered to be produced; or that neither the questions propounded nor the books, papers, etc., called for relate to the particular matter under investigation, nor to any matter which the Commission is entitled under the Constitution or laws to investigate. These issues being determined in their favor by the court, the petition of the Commission could have been dismissed upon its merits. Interstate Commerce Commn v. Brimson (1894), 154 U.S. 447, 38 L.Ed 1047, 1058,14 S.Ct. 1125. Albrecht v. U.S. Balzac v. People of Puerto Rico, 258 U.S. 298 (1922) The United States District Court is not a true United States Court, established under Article 3 of the Constitution to administer the judicial power of the United States therein conveyed. It is created by virtue of the sovereign congressional faculty, granted under Article 4, 3, of that instrument, of making all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory belonging to the United States. The resemblance of its jurisdiction to that of true United States courts, in offering an opportunity to nonresidents of resorting to a tribunal not subject to local influence, does not change its character as a mere territorial court. Alexander v.Bothsworth, 1915. “Party cannot be bound by contract that he has not made or authorized. Free consent is an indispensable element in making valid contracts.” HALE v. HENKEL 201 U.S. 43 at 89 (1906) Hale v. Henkel was decided by the united States Supreme Court in 1906. The opinion of the court states: 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) Hale v. Henkel is binding on all the courts of the United States of America until another Supreme Court case says it isn’t. No other Supreme Court case has ever overturned Hale v. Henkel None of the various issues of Hale v. Henkel has ever been overruled Since 1906, Hale v. Henkel has been cited by the Federal and State Appellate Court systems over 1,600 times! In nearly every instance when a case is cited, it has an impact on precedent authority of the cited case. Compared with other previously decided Supreme Court cases, no other case has surpassed Hale v. Henkel in the number of times it has been cited by the courts. Basso v. UPL, 495 F. 2d 906 Brook v. Yawkey, 200 F. 2d 633 Elliot v. Piersol, 1 Pet. 328, 340, 26 U.S. 328, 340 (1828) Under federal Law, which is applicable to all states, the U.S. Supreme Court stated that if a court is without authority, its judgments and orders are regarded as nullities. They are not voidable, but simply void, and form no bar to a recovery sought, even prior to a reversal in opposition to them. They constitute no justification and all persons concerned in executing such judgments or sentences are considered, in law, as trespassers. Griffin v. Mathews, 310 Supp. 341, 423 F. 2d 272 Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 528 Howlett v. Rose, 496 U.S. 356 (1990) Federal Law and Supreme Court Cases apply to State Court Cases. Sims v. Aherns, 271 SW 720 (1925) The practice of law is an occupation of common right. “Members of groups who are competent non-lawyers can assist other members of the group achieve the goals of the group in court without being charged with Unauthorized practice of law. (NAACP v. Button, 371 U.S. 415; and United Mineworkers of America v. Gibbs (383 U.S. 715); and Johnson v. Avery 89 S. Ct. 747 (1969) Maine v. Thiboutot, 448 U.S. 1 Mookini v. U.S., 303 U.S. 201 (1938) The term District Courts of the United States as used in the rules without an addition expressing a wider connotation, has its historic significance. It describes the constitutional courts created under Article 3 of the Constitution. Courts of the Territories are Legislative Courts, properly speaking, and are not district courts of the United States. We have often held that vesting a territorial court with jurisdiction similar to that vested in the district courts of the United States (98 U.S. 145) does not make it a District Court of the United States. Not only did the promulgating order use the term District Courts of the United States in its historic and proper sense, but the omission of provision for the application of the rules the territorial court and other courts mentioned in the authorizing act clearly shows the limitation that was intended. Carlisle v. United States, 83 U.S. 147, 154 (1873), The rights of sovereignty extend to all persons and things not privileged, that are within the territory. They extend to all strangers resident therein: not only to those who are naturalized, and to those who are domiciled therein, having taken up their abode with the intention of permanent residence, but also to those whose residence is transitory. All strangers are under the protection of the sovereign while they are within his territory and owe a temporary allegiance in return for that protection. In Leiberg v. Vitangeli, 70 Ohio App. 479, 47 N.E. 2d 235, 238-39 (1942) These constitutional provisions employ the word person, that is. anyone whom we have permitted to peaceably reside within our borders may resort to our courts for redress of an injury done him in his land, goods, person or reputation. The real party plaintiff for whom the nominal plaintiff sues is not shown to have entered our land in an unlawful manner. We said to her, you may enter and reside with us and be equally protected by our laws so long as you conform thereto. You may own property and our laws will protect your title. We, as a people, have said to those of foreign birth that these constitutional guaranties shall assure you of our good faith. They are the written surety to you of our proud boast that the United States is the haven of refuge of the oppressed of all mankind. Court will assign to common-law terms their common-law meaning unless legislature directs otherwise. People v. Young (1983) 340 N.W.2d 805,418 Mich. 1. Common law, by constitution, is law of state. Beech Grove Inv. Co. v. Civil Rights Comn (1968) 157 N.W.2d 213, 380 Mich. 405. Common law is but the accumulated expressions of various judicial tribunals in their efforts to ascertain what is right and just between individuals in respect to private disputes. Semmens v. Floyd Rice Ford, Inc. (1965) 136 N.W.2d 704,1 Mich.App. 395. The common law is in force in Michigan, except so far as it is repugnant to, or inconsistent with, the Constitution or statutes of the state. Stout v. Keyes (1845) 2 Doug. 184, 43 Am. Dec. 465. The constitution was ordained ^nd established by the people of the United States for themselves, for their own government, and not for the government of the individual states. Each state established a constitution for itself, and in that constitution, provided such limitations and restrictions on the powers of its particular government, as its judgment dictated. The people of the United States framed such a government for the United States as they supposed best adapted to their situation and best calculated to promote their interests. The powers they conferred on this government were to be exercised by itself; and the limitations on power, if expressed in general terms, are naturally, and, we think, necessarily, applicable to the government created by the instrument. They are limitations of power granted in the instrument itself; not of distinct governments, framed by different persons and for different purposes. If these propositions be correct, the fifth amendment must be understood as restraining the power of the general government, not as applicable to the states. Sovereignty itself is, of course, not subject to law, for it is the author and source of law; but in our system, while sovereign powers are delegated to the agencies of government, sovereignty itself remains with the people, by whom and for whom all government exists and acts. And the law is the definition and limitation of power. For the very idea that one man may be compelled to hold his life, or the means of living, or any material right essential to the enjoyment of life, at the mere will of another. seems to be intolerable on any country where freedom prevails, as being the essence of slavery itself. See: Yick Wo v. Hopkins ,118 U.S. 356 (1886). He is not to substitute even his juster will for theirs; otherwise it would not be the common will which prevails, and to that extent the people would not govern. See: Speech by Judge Learned Hand at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, D.C. May 11,1919, entitled, Is there a Common Will? ... The Congress cannot revoke the Sovereign power of the people to override itself as thus declared. See: Perry v. United States , 294 U.S. 330, 353 (1935). In the United States, Sovereignty resides in the people, who act through the organs established by the Constitution. See: Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 Dall 419, 471; Penhallow v. Doanes Administrators, 3 Dall 54, 93; McCullock v. Maryland, 4 Wheat 316, 404, 405; Yick Wo v. Hopkins ,118 U.S. 356, 370 (1886). As men whose intentions require no concealment, generally employ the words which most directly and aptly express the ideas they intent to convey; the enlightened patriots who framed our constitution and the people who adopted it must be understood to have employed the words in their natural sense, and to have intended what they have said. See: Gibbons v. Ogden, 27 U.S. 1 No legislature can bargain away the public health or the public morals. The people themselves cannot do it. much less their servants. See: New Orleans Gas Co v. Louisiana Light Co ,115 U.S. 650 (1885). People are supreme, not the state. See: Waring v. the Mayor of Savannah, 60 Georgia at 93. Strictly speaking, in our republican form of government, the absolute sovereignty of the nation is in the people of the nation: and the residuary sovereignty of each state, not granted to any of its public functionaries, is in the people of the state. See: 2 Dall. 471; Bouv. Law Diet. (1870). The theory of the American political system is that the ultimate sovereignty is in the people, from whom all legitimate authority springs, and the people collectively, acting through the medium of constitutions, create such governmental agencies, endow them with such powers, and subject them to such limitations as in their wisdom will best promote the common good. See: First Trust Co. v. Smith, 134 Neb.; 277 SW 762. What is a constitution? It is the form of government, delineated by the mighty hand of the people, in which certain first principles of fundamental laws are established. See: Vanhornes Lessee v. Dorrance , 2 U.S. 304(1795). A constitution is designated as a supreme enactment, a fundamental act of legislation by the people of the state. A constitution is legislation direct from the people acting in their sovereign capacity, while a statute is legislation from their representatives, subject to limitations prescribed by the superior au&priry. See: Ellingham v. Dye, 178 Ind. 336; 99 NE 1; 231 U.S. 250; 58 L. Ed. 206; 34 S. Ct. 92; Sage v. New York, 154 NY 61; 47 NE 1096. . The People of a State are entitled to all rights which formerly belonged to the King by his prerogative. Lansing v. Smith, 4 Wendell 9, 20 (1829) In Europe, the executive is synonymous with the sovereign power of a state…where it is too commonly acquired by force or fraud or both…In America, however the case is widely different. Our government is founded upon Compact. Sovereignty was, and is, in the People. Glass v. The Sloop Betsy, 3 Dall 6.(1794) It is a Maxim {an established principle} of the Common Law that when an act of Parliament is made for the public good, the advancement of religion and justice, and to prevent injury and wrong, the King shall be bound by such an act, though not named; but when a Statute is general, and any prerogative Right, title or interest would be divested or taken from the King (or the People) in such case he shall not be bound. The People vs. Herkimer, 15 Am. Dec. 379, 4 Cowen 345 (N.Y. 1825). Chisholm v. Georgia, Dallas Supreme Court Reports, Vol. 2, Pages 471, 472 (1793) “It will be sufficient to observe briefly, that the sovereignties in Europe, and particularly in England, exist on feudal principles. That system considers the prince as the sovereign, and the people as his subjects; it regards his person as the object of allegiance... No such ideas obtain here; at the revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people; and they are truly the sovereigns of the country, but they are sovereigns without subjects... and have none to govern but themselves...” Ex parte - Frank Knowles, California Reports, Vol. 5, Page 302 (1855) “A citizen of any one of the States of the Union, is held to be, and called a citizen of the United States, although technically and abstractly there is no such thing. To conceive a citizen of the United States who is not a citizen of some one of the States, is totally foreign to the idea, and inconsistent with the proper construction and common understanding of the expression as used in the Constitution, which must be deduced from its various other provisions.” Manchester v. Boston, Massachusetts Reports, Vol. 16, Page 235 (1819) “The term, citizens of the United States, must be understood to intend those who were citizens of a state, as such, after the Union had commenced, and the several states had assumed their sovereignties. Before this period there was no citizens of the United States...” Butler v. Farnsworth, Federal Cases, Vol. 4, Page 902 (1821) “A citizen of one state is to be considered as a citizen of every other state in the union.” Douglass, Admr., v. Stephens, Delaware Chancery, Vol. 1, Page 470 (1821) “When men entered into a State they yielded a part of their absolute rights, or natural liberty, for political or civil liberty, which is no other than natural liberty restrained by human laws, so far as is necessary and expedient for the general advantage of the public. The rights of enjoying and defending life and liberty, of acquiring and protecting reputation and property, - and, in general, of attaining objects suitable to their condition, without injury to another, are the rights of a citizen; and all men by nature have them.” Allodial Land Barker v Dayton 28 Wisconsin 367 (1871): All lands within the state are declared to be allodial, and feudal tenures are prohibited. On this point counsel contended, first, that one of the principal elements of feudal tenures was, that the feudatory could not independently alien or dispose of his fee; and secondly, that the term allodial describes free and absolute ownership, ... independent ownership, in like manner as personal property is held; the entire right and dominion; that it applies to lands held of no superior to whom the owner owes homage or fealty or military service, and describes an estate subservient to the purposes of commerce, and alienable at the will of the owner; the most ample and perfect interest which can be owned in land. [Bowers v. DeVito, U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit, 686F.2d 616 (1882)“… there is no constitutional right to be protected by the state against being murdered by criminals or madmen. It is monstrous if the state fails to protect its residents against such predators but it does not violate the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment or, we suppose, any other provision of the Constitution. The Constitution is a charter of negative liberties: it tells the state to let people alone; it does not require the federal government or the state to provide services, even so elementary a service as maintaining law and order.” Income taxes Gregory v. Helverging, 293 U.S. 465, 1935 The legal Right of a taxpayer to decrease the amount of what otherwise would be his taxes, or altogether avoid them, by means which the law permits, cannot be doubted 1895: In Pollock vs Farmers’ Loan & Trust Co, the Supreme Court rules that general income taxes are unconstitutional because they are unapportioned direct taxes. To this day, the ruling has not been over-turned. January 24, 1916: In Brushaber vs. Union Pacific Railroad, the Supreme Court ruled: that the 16th Amendment doesn’t over-rule the Court’s ruling in the Pollock case which declared general income taxes unconstitutional; The 16th Amendment applies only to gains and profits from commercial and investment activities: The 16th Amendment only applies to excises taxes; The 16th Amendment did not Amend the U.S. Constitution; The 16th Amendment only clarified the federal governments existing authority to create excise taxes without apportionment. …the [16th] Amendment contains nothing repudiating or challenging the ruling in the Pollock Case that the word direct had a broader significance since it embraced also taxes levied directly on personal property because of its ownership, and therefore the Amendment at least impliedly makes such wider significance a part of the Constitution -- a condition which clearly demonstrates that the purpose was not to change the existing interpretation except to the extent necessary to accomplish the result intended, that is, the prevention of the resort to the sources from which a taxed income was derived in order to cause a direct tax on the income to be a direct tax on the source itself and thereby to take an income tax out of the class of excises, duties and imposts and place it in the class of direct taxes... 1939: Congress passes the Public Salary tax, taxing the wages of federal employees. 1940: Congress passes the Buck Act authorizing the federal government to tax federal workers living in the States. 1942, Congress passes the Victory Tax under Constitutional authority to support the WWII effort. Prsident Roosevelt proposes a voluntary tax withholding program allowing workers across the nation to pay the tax in installments. The program is a success and the number of tax payers increases from 3 percent to 62 percent of the U.S. population. 1944: The Victory Tax and Voluntary Withholding laws are repealed as required by the U.S. Constitution, however, the federal government continues to collect the tax claiming it’s authority under the 1913 income tax and the 16th Amendment. Erie Railroad v. Tompkins, 1938 Supreme Court of the United States had decided on the basis of Commercial (Negotiable Instruments) Law: that Tompkins was not under any contract with the Erie Railroad, and therefore he had no standing to sue the company. Under the Common Law, he was damaged and he would have had the right to sue. Hence, all courts since 1938 are operating in an Admiralty Jurisdiction and not Common Law courts because lawful money (silver or gold coin) does not exist. Courts of Admiralty only has jurisdiction over maritime contracts on the high seas ad navigable water ways. . We begin with one of the great masters of Constitution, Chief Justice John Marshall, writing in the year 1828. Here, Justice Marshall make a very clear distinction between judicial courts, authorized by Article III, and legislative (territorial) courts, authorized by Article IV. Marshall even utilizes some of the exact wording of Article IV to differentiate those courts from Article III judicial power courts, as follows: These [territorial] courts then, are not Constitutional courts, in which the judicial power conferred by the Constitution on the general government can be deposited. They are incapable of receiving it.They are legislative courts, created in virtue of the general rights of sovereignty which exists in the government, or in virtue of that clause which enables Congress to make all needful rules and regulations, respecting the territory belonging to the United States. The jurisdiction with which they are invested, is not a part of that judicial power which is defined in the 3d article of the Constitution, but is conferred by Congress, in the execution of those general powers which that body possesses over the territories of the United States. Although admiralty jurisdiction can be exercised in the States in those courts only which are established in pursuance of the 3d article of the Constitution, the same limitation does not extend to the territories. In legislating for them, Congress exercises the combined powers of the general and of the State government. [American Insurance Co. v. 356 Bales of Cotton] [1 Pet. 511 (1828), emphasis added] Though the judicial system set up in a Territory of the United States is a part of federal jurisdiction, the phrase court of the United States, when used in a federal statute, is generally construed as not referring to territorial courts. See Balzac v. Porto Rico, 258 U.S. 298 at 312 (1921), 42 S.Ct. 343, 66 L.Ed. 627. In Balzac, the high Court stated: The United States District Court is not a true United States court established under Article III of the Constitution to administer the judicial power of the United States therein conveyed. It is created by virtue of the sovereign congressional faculty, granted under Article IV, Section 3, of that instrument, of making all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory belonging to the United States. The resemblance of its jurisdiction to that of true United States courts in offering an opportunity to nonresidents of resorting to a tribunal not subject to local influence, does not change its character as a mere territorial court. [Balzac v. Porto Rico, 258 U.S. 298 at 312] [42 S.Ct. 343, 66 L.Ed. 627 (1921)] . Your Right of Defense Against Unlawful Arrest “Citizens may resist unlawful arrest to the point of taking an arresting officers life if necessary.” Plummer v. State, 136 Ind. 306. This premise was upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States in the case: John Bad Elk v. U.S., 177 U.S. 529. The Court stated: “Where the officer is killed in the course of the disorder which naturally accompanies an attempted arrest that is resisted, the law looks with very different eyes upon the transaction, when the officer had the right to make the arrest, from what it does if the officer had no right. What may be murder in the first case might be nothing more than manslaughter in the other, or the facts might show that no offense had been committed.” “An arrest made with a defective warrant, or one issued without affidavit, or one that fails to allege a crime is within jurisdiction, and one who is being arrested, may resist arrest and break away. lf the arresting officer is killed by one who is so resisting, the killing will be no more than an involuntary manslaughter.” Housh v. People, 75 111. 491; reaffirmed and quoted in State v. Leach, 7 Conn. 452; State v. Gleason, 32 Kan. 245; Ballard v. State, 43 Ohio 349; State v Rousseau, 241 P. 2d 447; State v. Spaulding, 34 Minn. 3621. “When a person, being without fault, is in a place where he has a right to be, is violently assaulted, he may, without retreating, repel by force, and if, in the reasonable exercise of his right of self defense, his assailant is killed, he is justified.” Runyan v. State, 57 Ind. 80; Miller v. State, 74 Ind. 1. “These principles apply as well to an officer attempting to make an arrest, who abuses his authority and transcends the bounds thereof by the use of unnecessary force and violence, as they do to a private individual who unlawfully uses such force and violence.” Jones v. State, 26 Tex. App. I; Beaverts v. State, 4 Tex. App. 1 75; Skidmore v. State, 43 Tex. 93, 903. “An illegal arrest is an assault and battery. The person so attempted to be restrained of his liberty has the same right to use force in defending himself as he would in repelling any other assault and battery.” (State v. Robinson, 145 ME. 77, 72 ATL. 260). “Each person has the right to resist an unlawful arrest. In such a case, the person attempting the arrest stands in the position of a wrongdoer and may be resisted by the use of force, as in self- defense.” (State v. Mobley, 240 N.C. 476, 83 S.E. 2d 100). “One may come to the aid of another being unlawfully arrested, just as he may where one is being assaulted, molested, raped or kidnapped. Thus it is not an offense to liberate one from the unlawful custody of an officer, even though he may have submitted to such custody, without resistance.” (Adams v. State, 121 Ga. 16, 48 S.E. 910). “Story affirmed the right of self-defense by persons held illegally. In his own writings, he had admitted that ‘a situation could arise in which the checks-and-balances principle ceased to work and the various branches of government concurred in a gross usurpation.’ There would be no usual remedy by changing the law or passing an amendment to the Constitution, should the oppressed party be a minority. Story concluded, ‘If there be any remedy at all ... it is a remedy never provided for by human institutions.’ That was the ‘ultimate right of all human beings in extreme cases to resist oppression, and to apply force against ruinous injustice.’” (From Mutiny on the Amistad by Howard Jones, Oxford University Press, 1987, an account of the reading of the decision in the case by Justice Joseph Story of the Supreme Court. As for grounds for arrest: “The carrying of arms in a quiet, peaceable, and orderly manner, concealed on or about the person, is not a breach of the peace. Nor does such an act of itself, lead to a breach of the peace.” (Wharton’s Criminal and Civil Procedure, 12th Ed., Vol.2: Judy v. Lashley, 5 W. Va. 628, 41 S.E. 197 . Be aware that in 1781 two men came here from England and created two Federal corporations, one was the AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION” and the other “THE UNITED STATE CORPORATION”. The control of the government transferred to the UNITED STATES CORPORATION at that time, which was one of the first ILLEGAL UNLAWFUL CONSTITUTIONAL ACTS of our GOVERNMENT. Following the precepts formulated by Colonel Mandel House, personal advisor to Woodrow Wilson (President of the United States) and an unknown member of the Illuminati, our country (a Dream of Baron Rothschild and the other members of the Illuminati are still being used by our Rulers to this date in their quest to take over and own the United States of America.
Posted on: Fri, 22 Nov 2013 18:06:48 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015