ROWE RESERVE Lets see. How long ago was it I started signing my name to other peoples legal pleadings and challenging prosecutors and Judges to charge me with Unlicensed practice of law? 10... 20 years ago? No takers yet. Still looking for that showdown with a worthy opponent faster with the drop on the draw. Im your Huckleberry. APPEARANCE AND CERTIFICATION OF CHOSEN COUNSEL 1. THAT Texas Code of Criminal Procedure provides, “WHO MAY PRESENT PETITION,” stating : Either the party for whose relief the writ is intended, or any person for him, may present a petition to the proper authority for the purpose of obtaining relief. (Art. 11.12); Litigants may be assisted by unlicensed layman during judicial proceedings. (Brotherhood of Trainmen v. Virginia ex rel. Virginia State Bar 377 U.S. 1; Gideon v. Wainwright 372 U.S. 335; Argersinger v. Hamlin, Sheriff 407 U.S. 425); “ A Next Friend is a person who represents someone who is unable to tend to his or her own interest.” (FRCP, Rule 17, 28 USCA); and “ Members of groups who are competent non-lawyers may assist other members of the group [family, association, or class] achieve the goals of the group in court without being charged with Unauthorized practice of law. “ (NAACP v. Button 371 U.S. 415; United Mineworkers of America v. Gibbs 383 U.S. 715; and Johnson v. Avery 89 S. Ct. 747 (1969)); [O]ne brother may maintain any suite for another. ( 2 Inst. 564 ; Plowd. 304 a ; 1 Haw. P.C. 252); Natural affection or brotherly love are good [ a valid cause and standing in law ] to raise an[ y ] use[ age ] . - (The Principle Grounds And Maxims Of Law, William Noy Attorney General to King Charles I ( 1824) ); When many join in one act, the law says it is the act of him who could best do it; and things should be done by him who has the best skill. (Noys Max. h.t.) 2. THAT The practice of Law is an occupation of common right, the same being a secured liberty right. (Sims v. Aherns, 271 S.W. 720 (1925)); Our rights cannot, by acts of Congress, be bartered away, given away or taken away. (Butchers Union Co. v. Crescent City Co., 111 US 746 (1883)); The practice of Law can not be licensed by any state/State. (Schware v. Board of Examiners, 353 U.S. 232, 238, 239 (1957)); The State cannot diminish the rights of the people. (Hurtado v California, 110 U.S. 516 (1884)); “The claim and exercise of a Constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime.”(Miller v. U.S., 230 F.2d. 486, 489 (1956); There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of his exercise of Constitutional Rights. (Sherar v. Cullen, 481 F. 2d 946 (1973)); No state may convert a secured liberty right into a privilege, issue a license and fee for it. A state may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by [the] Federal constitution. (Murdock vs Pennsylvania 319 US 105 at 113 (1943)); The assertion of federal rights, when plainly and reasonably made, are not to be defeated under the name of local practice. (Davis v. Wechler, 263 U.S. 22, 24; Stromberb v. California, 283U.S. 359; NAACP v. Alabama, 375 U.S. 449; Davis v. Wechler, 263 U.S. 22, 24; Elmore v. Mcammon 640 (1966); Stromberb v. California, 283 U.S. 359; NAACP v. Alabama, 375 U.S. 449)). “No public policy of a state can be allowed to override the positive guarantees of the U.S. Constitution.” (16 Am.Jur. (2nd), Const. Law, Sect. 70) … the free inhabitants of each of these states, paupers, vagabonds and fugitives from Justice excepted, shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of free citizens in the several states. - Article IV of the Articles of Confederation, extending the privileges and immunities of citizenship to mere inhabitants. 3. THAT “The words people of the United States and citizens are synonymous terms, and mean the same thing. They both describe the political body who, according to our republican institutions, form the sovereignty, and who hold the power and conduct the Government through their representatives. They are what we familiarly call the sovereign people, and every citizen is one of this people, and a constituent member of this sovereignty.” (Dred Scott v Sanford, 60 US 393; 19 How. (1856); Boyd v. State of Nebraska 143 U.S. 135 (1892)); Every citizen and freeman is endowed with certain rights and privileges to enjoy which no written law or statute is required. These are the fundamental or natural rights, recognized among all free people. (U.S. v. Morris. 125 F 322, 325 (1903)). The right to the enjoyment of life and liberty and the right to acquire and possess property are fundamental rights of the citizens of the several states and are not dependent upon the Constitution of the United States or the federal government for their existence. (Hodges v. U.S., 203 US 1 (1942)); Under our system of government upon the individuality and intelligence of the citizen, the state does not claim to control him/her, except as his/her conduct to others [injured party] leaving him/her the sole judge as to all that affects himself/herself. (Mugler v. Kansas 123 U.S. 623, 659-60 (1887)); “The rights of sovereignty extend to all persons and things not privileged [ or licensed], 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. (Carlisle v. United States, 83 U.S. 147, 154 (1873)); The ultimate authority ... resides in the people alone. - The Federalist, No. 46, James Madison 4. THAT “The institutions of our society are founded on the belief that there is an authority higher than the authority of the State; that there is a moral law which the State is powerless to alter; that the individual possesses rights, conferred by the Creator, which government must respect. The Declaration of Independence stated the now familiar theme: ‘We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.’ And the body of the Constitution as well as the Bill of Rights enshrined those principles.” (McGowan v. Maryland, 366 US 420, 563, Supreme Court (1961)); 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)); No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law (statute, Code, Regulation, Restriction, instruction, demand or order). Indeed insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby... An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing law... A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. (Bonnett v. Vallier, 116 N.W. 885, 136 Wis. 193 (1908); Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425 (1886)); 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) 5. THAT There is a higher loyalty than loyalty to this country, [being] loyalty to God - (U.S. v. Seeger, 380 U.S. 163, 172, 85 S. Ct. 850, 13 L. Ed. 2d 733 (1965); God alone is the lawgiver of eternity - (Judge Henry Clay, Crimes of the Civil War, 1868, pages 428-432); and, The law is from everlasting. (Bouviers Law Dictionary, 1914, Maxim, page 2143. Psalm 90:2; 93:2; 145:13; whereas …[E]very man is independent of all laws, except those prescribed by nature. He is not bound by any institutions [ unions or Monopoly licensing boards, legislative democracies, social insurance or ton-tine wagering and pyramid schemes] formed 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); “[T]he people] have the rights antecedent to all earthly governments; rights that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws; rights 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); 6. THAT The right to the enjoyment of life and liberty and the right to acquire and possess property are fundamental rights of the citizens of the several states and are not dependent upon the Constitution of the United States or the federal government for their existence. (Hodges v. U.S., 203 US 1 (1942)); The Framers of the Bill of Rights did not purport to create rights. Rather, they designed the Bill of Rights to prohibit our Government from infringing rights and liberties presumed to be preexisting. ~Justice William J. Brennan, 1982; Requiring licensing or registration of any constitutional right is itself unconstitutional. (Follett vs. Town of McCormick, S.C., 321 U.S. 573 (1944)); Should any state convert a secured liberty right into a privilege, charge a fee and issue a license for it, one may ignore the license and fee and engage in the exercise of the right with impunity. (Shuttlesworth vs City of Birmingham 373 U.S. 262 (1962)); [O]ne who relies on prior decisions of the Supreme Court [Sheppardized and not overturned or superseded by inferior subsequent legislation] has a perfect defense for willfulness. (U.S. v. Bishop, 412 U.S. 346 (1973); “Should any state convert any right to work into a privilege, issue a license and charge a fee, the same is unconstitutional, null and void, bears no obligation to obey, and is without effect in law.” -Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803)) - creates no office and bestows no power, jurisdiction, or authority, confers no rights, imposes no duties or power to enforce, affords no protection and justifies no acts performed under it; purporting to settle as if it never existed, its unconstitutionality dating from enactment of such law, act, title, code, statute, action, claim, or order, whenever so branded., and further, If any portion of the instrument, action or process is unconstitutional, in its operation, and without articulated and warranted basis in fact and law, the entirety of the instrument or action are in law null and void. (See 16 Am Jur 2d., Sec. 256); “A state may impose an excise upon the franchise of corporations engaging in a business which every private Citizen has a right to engage in freely. The privilege taxed is the right to engage in such business with the special advantages which are incident to corporate existence. California Bank v. San Francisco, 142 Cal. 276, 75 Pac. 832, 100 A.S.R. 130, 64 L.R.A. 918. 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)); A State may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a Right granted by the federal Constitution... Thus, it may not extract a license tax for the privilege of carrying on commerce. (Murdoch v Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105, 113 (1942); Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 491 (1966)). “The sovereignty of a state extends to everything which exists by its own authority, or is introduced by its permission.” McCullough v. Maryland, 17 U.S. 316 (1819)); 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)); 7. THAT Federal Law and Supreme Court Cases apply to State Court Cases. (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)), as the Constitution, pursuant to the Statute of Frauds, is a contract in writing, binding upon all officers and agents of State or Federal government, to be enforced in ANY court of law (Am Jur vol. 16, constitutional law, sec. 97); 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 ( )). Every State law must conform in the first place to the Constitution of the United States, and then to the subordinate constitutions of the particular state; and if it infringes upon the provisos of either, it is so far void. ( Houston v. Moore, 18 US 1, 5 L.Ed 19 (1840)); Statutes that violate the plain and obvious principles of common right and common reason are null and void. (Bennett v. Boggs, 1 Baldw 60); The Constitution is the supreme law of the land ordained and established by the people. All legislation must conform to the principles it lays down. (United States v. Butler, 297 U.S. 1, 56 S.Ct. 312, 102 A.L.R. 914 (1935));Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them. (Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US 436, 491); 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. (Connolly 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); 8. Each citizen acts as a Private Attorney General who takes on the mantel of sovereign (Title 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983, Wood v. Breier, 54 F.R.D. 7, 10-11 E.D. Wis. (1972); Frankenhauser v. Rizzo, 59 F.R.D. 339 E.D. Pa. (1973); The people of the state, as the successors of its former sovereign, are entitled to all the rights [..mon law and commercial, immunities, remedies, relief, benefits and privileges, maintenance and cure] which formerly belonged to the king by his own prerogative. (Lansing v. Smith, 4 Wendell 9, NY (1829)); Where the word of a king is, there is power: and who may say unto him, What dost thou? (Ecclesiastes 8:4), and Who is the sovereign [de jure or de facto, Lawful or Legal), of a territory, is not a judicial, but a political, question, the determination of which by the legislative and executive departments of any government conclusively binds the judges [who are barred from making political determinations], as well as all other officers, citizens, and subjects of that government. This principle has always been upheld by this court, and has been affirmed under a great variety of circumstances. Gelston v. Hoyt, 16 U.S. (3 Wheat.) 246, 324; U. S. v. Palmer, Id. 610; The Divina Pastora 17 U.S.(4 Wheat.) 52; Foster & Elam v. Neilson, 27 U.S. (2 Pet.) 253, 307, 309; Keene v. McDonough, 33 U.S. (8 Pet.) 308; Garcia v. Lee, 37 U.S. (12 Pet.) 511, 520; Williams v. Suffolk Insurance Co., 38 U.S. (13 Pet.) 415; U. S. v. Yorba, 1 Wall. 412, 423; U. S. v. Lynde, 11 Wall. 632, 638. ... The Congress cannot revoke the Sovereign power of the people to override itself as thus declared. (Perry v. United States , 294 U.S. 330, 353 (1935)). [I]n our country the people are sovereign and the government cannot sever its relationship to them by taking away their citizenship. (Perez v. Brownell, 356 U.S. 44, 7; 8 S. Ct. 568, 2 L. Ed. 2D 603 (1958)); Nulification. 9. THAT 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… (Rodriquez v. Ray Donovan, U.S. Department of Labor, 769 F. 2d 1344, 1348 (1985)); “The common law is the real law, the Supreme Law of the land, the code, rules, regulations, policy and statutes are “not the law.” (Self v. Rhay, 61 Wn 2d 261); That (a) A Statute is not a Law, (Flournoy v. First Nat. Bank of Shreveport, 197 La. 1067, 3 So.2d 244, 248), (b) nor is Code Law (In Re Self v Rhay, 61 Wn 2d 261), (c) a concurrent or joint resolution of legislature is not Law. (Koenig v. Flynn, 258 N.Y. 292, 179 N.E. 705, 707; Ward v. State, 176 Okl. 368, 56 P.2d 136, 137; State ex rel. Todd v. Yelle, 7 Wash.2d 443, 110 P.2d 162, 165); 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)); Government admits that often the word person is used … 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)); 10. THAT “The granting of licenses destroys the equality of all men because it gives special rights to a select group determined by the Government. Neither the Federal Government nor any of the several States has the power to grant a right or a privilege to one person in deference to another person. As the Declaration of Independence clearly states – all men are created equal. The granting of licenses and charters by a government destroys the equality of all men. All grants of this kind are void at common law, because they destroy the freedom of trade, discourage labor and industry, restrain persons from getting an honest livelihood, and put it in the power of the grantees to enhance the price of commodities. They are void because they interfere with the liberty of the individual to pursue a lawful trade or employment. ( Butcher’s Union Slaughterhouse and Livestock Company v. Crescent City Livestock Landing and Slaughterhouse Company U. S. Supreme Court 111 U. S. 746 (1884)); Federal Judge Richard Posner characterized the legal profession as a medieval guild with an elaborate structure of internal and external controls designed to suppress marketplace competition ... “a cartel of providers of services relating to society’s laws” which cartels primary function and focus is to restrict entry, facilitating the creation of unconstitutional Governmental regulations and UPL statutes at the state level to this end, further stating : The American Bar Association proposed model rules regarding the unauthorized practice of law where merely the bars preferred [strong arm] method to perpetuate a [criminal] monopoly to the disadvantage of consumers... Modern economists call this rent seeking, [and others extortion, and other still a protection racquet,] as throughout recorded history skilled craftsman and professions have tried to raise their members’ incomes, by usurping the power of the state to limit entry and competition on a cornered market, even in violation of criminal law ( in and effecting interstate commerce in violation of federal anti-racketeering and antitrust laws such as the Taft Hardy Act, regarding In house private government monopolies and closed union shops) , being fraud, from which no right or law may originate, such as UPL statutes generally. Because of what appear to be Lawful commands [Statutory obligations, Rules, Regulations, and Restrictions] 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... [ exploited by deceptive practices, barratry, legal plunder, and malicious selective prosecution by statute merchants for prize salvage in inferior administrative State courts]. (United States v. Minker, 350 U.S. 179, 187, 76 S.Ct. 281, 100 L.Ed. 185 (1956); 11. 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 Judiciary; is an irresponsible body (for impeachment is scarcely a scare-crow) working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little today and a little tomorrow, and advancing its noiseless step like a thief, over the field of jurisdiction, until all shall be usurped.” (Thomas Jefferson - Letter to Charles Hammond, August 18, 1821; ME 15:331 ); “The great object of my fear is the... Judiciary. That body, like gravity, ever acting with noiseless foot and unalarming advance, gaining ground step by step and holding what it gains, is engulfing insidiously the special governments into the jaws of that which feeds them.” (Letter to Judge Spencer Roane, 1821 ME 15:326) The judiciary is the subtle corps of sappers and miners constantly working under ground to undermine the foundations of our confederated fabric. They are construing our Constitution from a co-ordination of a general and special government to a general and supreme one alone. This will lay all things at their feet, and they are too well versed in English law to forget the maxim, boni judicis est ampliare jurisdictionem. (Letter to Thomas Ritchie, 1820. ME 15:297) “At the establishment of our constitutions, the judiciary bodies were supposed to be the most helpless and harmless members of the government. Experience, however, soon showed in what way they were to become the most dangerous; that the insufficiency of the means provided for their removal gave them a freehold and irresponsibility in office; that their decisions, seeming to concern individual suitors only, pass silent and unheeded by the public at large; that these decisions, nevertheless, become law by precedent, sapping, by little and little, the foundations of the constitution, and working its change by construction, before any one has perceived that that invisible and helpless worm has been busily employed in consuming its substance. In truth, man is not made to be trusted for life if secured against all liability to account.” (Letter to A. Coray, October 31, 1823) “Wicked men, ambitious of power, with hatred of liberty and contempt of law, may fill the place once occupied by Washington and Lincoln... our fathers... For this, and other equally weighty reasons... secured the inheritance they had fought to maintain, by incorporating in a written constitution the safeguards which time had proved were essential to its preservation. Not one of these safeguards can the President, or Congress, or the Judiciary disturb.” (Ex parte Milligan, 71 U.S. 2, 125 (1866)) 12. THAT As of the time of the writing of the Constitution, there were two great systems of law in the world—the Civil Law... ...and the Common Law. ... the basic concept of these two systems was as opposite as the poles—in the Civil Law the source of all law is the personal ruler; In the Common Law, . . . the source of all law is the people; they, as a whole, are sovereign. During the centuries, these two systems have had an almost deadly rivalry for the control of society, the Civil Law and its fundamental concepts being the instrument through which ambitious men of genius and selfishness have set up and maintained despotism; the Common Law, with its basic principles, being the instrument through which men of equal genius, but with the love of mankind burning in their souls, have established and preserved liberty and free institutions. . . The Civil Law was developed by Rome. . . The people under this system have those rights, powers, and privileges, and those only which the sovereign considers are for their good or for his advantage. He adds or takes away as suits his royal pleasure. All the residuum of power is in the Emperor. Under this system, the people look into the law to see what they may do. They may only do what the Emperor has declared they may do. . . Under our common law system, we look into the law to see what we may not do, for we may do everything we are not forbidden to do. This civil law concept explains why, over the centuries, it has been possible for the head of a state, operating under this concept, to establish with comparative ease a dictatorship. We must always remember that despotism and tyranny, with all their attendant tragedies to the people, as in Russia today, come to nations because one man, or a small group of men, seize and exercise by themselves the three great divisions of government—the legislative, the executive, and the judicial. . . When the [Civil Law] concept has been operative, [peoples] have suffered the resulting tragedies—[such as] loss of liberty, oppression, great poverty among the masses, insecurity, [and] wanton disregard of human life. - J. Reuben Clark, former US Under Secretary of State and Ambassador to Mexico. The Common Law is absolutely distinguishable from the Roman or Civil Law systems. (People v. Ballard 155 NYS 2d 59) CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, the undersigned, certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was served on all parties to the instant action by placing a true and correct copy of the same in the United States mail, all postage paid, on this the XX day of theXX month, this the year of our Lord XXXX A.D. ATTESTED VERIFICATION OF VERACITY AND TRUTH In Witness, Whereof, knowing the law of bearing false witness before God and Man, I solemnly affirm that I have read the foregoing and know the contents thereof; that the same is true and correct to the best of my own knowledge, except as to those matters which are therein stated on my information or belief, and as to those matters I believe them to be true and will testify to these in the legal or lawful court of any nation before both Man and God so help me. Without Prejudice, By All Rights Reserved Paul - Neil : Rowe, Private Attorney General; Private Citizen First Class Appearance and Certificate of Chosen Counsel Paul Neil Rowe Templates and Forms
Posted on: Thu, 22 Jan 2015 13:29:33 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015