Juridiction for federal taxes. October 14, 2013 at 7:15pm I agree that jurisdiction is indeed the most important point. The average “person” has little chance of entering any federal court without being de-privatized. Those are administrative courts geared toward artificial entities with no constitutional rights afforded to “natural persons”.We must have “standing in court” as flesh and blood human beings with all rights preserved. The courts must acknowledge individual rights before the individual enters and unwittingly becomes subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the court.Rights of the People in Precedence Law(a) Miranda v. Arizona. Where rights secured by the Constitution involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them. Miranda v. Arizona 384 US 436, 491(b) The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime. Miller v U.S. 230F 486 at 489;(c) There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of this exercise of constitutional rights. Sherer v Cullen, 481 F 946(d) All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void (Marbury vs. Madison,5 U.S. (1803));(e) 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 (Norton vs. Shelby County,118 U.S.425, pg.442);(f) No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it (16 AmJur,2nd, Sec 177).(g) “Now 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 The laws of nature are the laws of God; whose authority can be superseded by no power on earth.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 has been the adjudications of our courts of justice.” And cited 8 Co. 118. a. Bonhams case. Hob. 87; 7. Co. 14. a. Calvins case.); Cf. U.S. v. Cruikshank, 2 Otto 542, 92 U.S. 542, 23 L.Ed. 588 (1875); Church of Holy Trinity v. U.S., 143 U.S. 226, 232 (1892); U.S. v. Seeger, 380 U.S. 163, 172, 85 S.Ct. 850, 13 L.Ed.2d 733 (1965) (There is a higher loyalty than loyalty to this country, loyalty to God); and that class of Authority, infra; Blasphemy; Christianity; 11 Serg. & Rawle, 394.(h) If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein. West Virginia Bd. of Ed. v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624, 642. [Cf. 16A Am.Jur.2d § 270; God] N.B. Robin v. Hardaway, 1 Jefferson 109, 114, 1 Va. Reports Ann. 58, 61 (1772) affd. Gregory v. Baugh, 29 Va. 681, 29 Va. Rep. Ann. 466, 2 Leigh 665 (1831)(i) We [Courts] have no more right to decline the exercise of jurisdiction which is given, that to usurp that which is not given. THE ONE OR THE OTHER WOULD BE TREASON TO THE CONSTITUTION. (Also see: U.S. vs Will, 449 US 200, 66 L.Ed.2d 392, at pg. 406).(j) It would be manifestly contrary to the objectives of those who created the Constitution, as well as those who were responsible for the Bill of Rights - let alone alien to our entire constitutional history and tradition - to construe Article VI as permitting the United States to exercise power under an international agreement without observing constitutional prohibitions. . . . The court has regularly and uniformly recognized the supremacy of the Constitution over a treaty. Justice Black(k) The constitutions of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; that they are entitled to freedom of person, freedom of religion, freedom of property and freedom of the press. Thomas Jefferson(l) Terrorism is the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce. . . . the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives (28 CFR 0.85(l)).(m) (I)n our republican forms of government the absolute sovereignty of the nation is in the people [Private Citizens] of the nation: and the residual sovereignty of each state, not granted [contracted] to any of its functionaries, is in the people [Private Citizens] of the state; [Emphasis mine] - Chisholm vs. Georgia, 2 U.S. (Dall.) 471 Bouviers Law Dictionary, 8th ed., Page 3096.(n) “The people of this State, as the successors of its former sovereign, are entitled to all the rights which formerly belonged to the King by his prerogative.” [Lansing v. Smith, 4 Wend. 9 (N.Y.)(1829), 21 Am.Dec. 89 10C Const. Law Sec. 298; 18 C Em.Dom. Sec. 3, 228; 37 C Nav.Wat. Sec.219; Nuls Sec. 167; 48 C Wharves Sec. 3, 7.](o) “The state cannot diminish rights of the people.” [Hertado v. California, 100 US 516.](p) “Decency, security, and liberty alike demand that government officials shall be subjected to the same rules of conduct that are commands to the citizen. In a government of laws, existence of the government will be imperiled if it fails to observe the law scrupulously. Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. To declare that in the administration of the criminal law the end justifies the means-to declare that the government may commit crimes in order to secure the conviction of a private criminal-would bring terrible retribution. Against that pernicious doctrine this court should resolutely set its face.” [Aff’d. Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S. 388, 414 (1971); United States v. Singleton, D.C. No. 96-10054-05-FGT, 144 F.3d 1343 (10th Cir. 1998);(q) A.L.A. Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States, 295 U.S. 495, 528 (1935) “First. Two preliminary points are stressed by the government with respect to the appropriate approach to the important questions presented. We are told that the provision of the statute authorizing the adoption of codes must be viewed in the light of the grave national crisis with which Congress was confronted. Undoubtedly, the conditions to which power is addressed are always to be considered when the exercise of power is challenged. Extraordinary conditions may call for extraordinary remedies. But the argument necessarily stops short of an attempt to justify action which lies outside the sphere of constitutional authority. Extraordinary conditions do not create or enlarge constitutional power. The Constitution established a national government with powers deemed to be adequate, as they have proved to be both in war and peace, but these powers of the national government are limited by the constitutional grants. Those who act under these grants are not at liberty to transcend the [295 U.S. 495, 529] imposed limits because they believe that more or different power is necessary. Such assertions of extra constitutional authority were anticipated and precluded by the explicit terms of the 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.”;(r) Home Bldg. & Loan Ass’n. v. Blaisdell, 290 U.S. 398, 425-426 (1934) “Emergency does not create power. Emergency does not increase granted power or remove or diminish the restrictions imposed upon power granted or reserved. The Constitution was adopted in a period of grave emergency. Its grants of power to the federal government and its limitations of the power of the States were determined in the light of emergency, and they are not altered by emergency. What power was thus granted and what limitations were thus imposed are questions [290 U.S. 398, 426] which have always been, and always will be, the subject of close examination under our constitutional system. The constitutional question presented in the light of an emergency is whether the power possessed embraces the particular exercise of it in response to particular conditions. Thus, the war power of the federal government is not created by the emergency of war, but it is a power given to meet that emergency. It is a power to wage war successfully, and thus it permits the harnessing of the entire energies of the people in a supreme co-operative effort to preserve the nation. But even the war power does not remove constitutional limitations safeguarding essential liberties.”;(s) United States v. Cohen Grocery Co., 255 U.S. 81 (1921) “We are of opinion that the court below was clearly right in ruling that the decisions of this court indisputably establish that the mere existence of a state of war could not suspend or change the operation upon the power of Congress of the guaranties and limitations of the Fifth and Sixth Amendments as to questions such as we are here passing upon.” Ex parte Milligan, 4 Wall. 2, 121-127; Monongahela Navigation Co. v. United States, 148 U.S. 312, 336, 13 S. Sup. Ct. 622; United States v. Joint Traffic Association, 171 U.S. 505, 571, 19 S. Sup. Ct. 25; McCray v. United States, 195 U.S. 27, 61, 24 S. Sup. Ct. 769, 1 Ann. Cas. 561; [255 U.S. 81, 89] United States v. Cress, 243 U.S. 316, 326;1 Hamilton v. Kentucky Distilleries Company, 251 U.S. 146, 156, 40 S. Sup. Ct. 106. “It follows that in testing the operation of the Constitution upon the subject here involved the question of the existence or nonexistence of a state of war becomes negligible, and we put it out of view.”;(t) Ex parte Milligan, 71 U.S. 2, 18 L.Ed. 281 (1866) “The constitution of the United States is a law for rulers and people, equally in war and peace, and covers with its shield of protection all classes of men, at all times and under all circumstances. No doctrine involving more pernicious consequences was ever invented by the wit of men that any of its great provisions can be suspended during any of the great exigencies of Government.”
Posted on: Tue, 04 Mar 2014 05:07:18 +0000