*****Preamble Citizens (also known as de jure Citizens)*****former Arizona State Senator Wayne Stump (1989)
UCC REDEMPTION Court Loses
IRS Case Loses
Ed Lewis
Sick and tired of being sick and tired of government corruption of this Republic ?
When he began his quest to understand government and politics six years ago, this writer had no idea of the depth of deceit and corruption that exists in every level of government, from townships to the federal government, that he would be led to.
It is sickening as to the tyranny that now exists. The majority of articles read (have boycotted television news as it is most representative of deceit, not fact) convey the utter despair of citizens of this nation being railroaded by different government organizations, including the IRS, BATF, FBI, police departments, highway patrol departments, sheriff’s departments, city, county, and state departments of revenue, beginning with tax assessors who know not the law and refuse to one’s face to obey the law/statutes as written, and so on. Involve the government and one is certain to be confronted with corruption to the nth degree.
Thousands of rulings repugnant to our God-given rights are used to convict thousands more who have had charges repugnant to our God-given rights placed against them. The majority are not crimes since a citizen, a sovereign, cannot commit a crime against government. Most are, as you know, based on victimless crimes that are unlawful and against the laws of God.
If one doesn’t understand any more than this, it is a start in the right direction - Crimes cannot be committed against a government because governments haven’t any rights. The people create governments in order to protect the rights of the people, the sovereign. Therefore, without a citizen filing a complaint against another citizen, there is not a crime – except for the thousands daily by what the government does against citizens.
Courts are so corrupt that this writer just cannot believe that We, the People, have sat back for so long letting judges assume the power of God by refusing to hear defenses based on the Constitution for the United States of America.
He is also sick and tired of lawyers being given special status when the truth is that any attorney who has been accepted into the BAR has become part of a foreign organization, the British Accreditation Registry. Furthermore, no state, nor the federal government, can grant titles of nobility. In fact, Article I, Section 9, Clause 8 of the Constitution states this:
“No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States; And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.”
Then, in Article I, Section X, Clause 1, States are prohibited by “…or grant any Title of Nobility.
Thus, it is clear that neither the federal government nor any state may give any person any title of nobility. So, we must wonder what “nobility” means. Is it related only to kings, queens, princes, and the like? Here is the meaning according to the American Heritage English Dictionary, 4th Edition (2000)
“1. A class of persons distinguished by high birth or rank and in Great Britain including dukes and duchesses, marquises and marchionesses, earls and countesses, viscounts and viscountesses, and barons and baronesses: “The old English nobility of office made way for the Norman nobility of faith and landed wealth” (Winston S. Churchill). 2. Noble rank or status: Congress may not grant titles of nobility. 3. The state or quality of being exalted in character.”
Let’s examine this – British Accreditation Registry, the BAR to which lawyers pass a test for and seemingly are proud of. Here are this writer’s questions.
1. Why do citizens have to pass the BAR to practice law – isn’t it a British organization, not an organization authorized by the people of the United States of America?
2. Why are members of the BAR even permitted in courts that are of the people, by the people, and for the people in this union of Republics based on the rights of Man, the United States of America?
3. If titles of nobility are prohibited, shouldn’t any who are part of a foreign organization be prohibited from running for office and being judges, prosecutors, and filling other offices in the governments established by We, the People? After all, haven’t they by their acceptance into the BAR also declared themselves to be aligned with a foreign power and, therefore, acting as hidden subversive agents for the foreign power?
The writer read his copy of the Constitution again. Funny, but it does not state that one cannot practice law unless he belongs to a foreign organization. In fact, the Constitution states that the courts of the people will be common law courts. This, of course, means that reason and the rights of Man would prevail and not based on some half-witted interpretations made by lawyers. Admiralty courts would be moved to where they belong – the high seas.
The reader may notice that the writer hasn’t a very high opinion of BAR attorneys. In fact, to make it perfectly clear, the writer considers 99.9 percent of lawyers as complete waste (doo-doo) in regards to the administration of justice and not worthy to set foot in a place that is to be guided by reason and common sense. One might say their only interest is to create more money for themselves, the judges they strive to please, and the coffers of the city, county, and state they serve.
But, here we are. We have lawyers filling roughly 40 percent of Congress writing laws, a high percentage filling state legislatures, all the Supreme Court justices,19 of the last 28 presidents being members of the BAR, most judges in lower courts (lower than the US Supreme Court), and every government level being advised by members of the BAR.
If you have wondered about how we have come to have so many laws and rulings that are clearly repugnant to the rights given each of us by God, wonder no more. This writer has stated it before and he will state it again – and again – and maybe again until people start understanding the tragedy and utter complete distruction of the Constitution by lawyers guiding lawmaking, administration of bogus laws made by them, and being involved in “justice”, using the term very loosely. Their actions in promoting themselves and enhancing their earnings, their actions in denying the people the rights they have, and unlawful interpretations are acts of war against the people of this nation.
For example, the small city I live in has many unconstitutional city ordinances. In fact, most are. (By the way, it is the same in your city.) The city has a city attorney who advises the elected major and city council. Now, these elected officials are no more cognizant of the Constitution and their authority than the ordinary citizen with a 4th grade reading level or less (50 percent of the adult population, US Department of Education, 1995) sitting at a bar or watching TV while having a cold one. The city attorney, the advice giver based on his BAR affiliation, does not know the law of the land, the Constitution, nor does he know his duties and authority.
One would think that he would be well versed in the above as the primary duty of all levels of government is to uphold the Constitution and that no city (nor any state) may make any ordinance repugnant to the Constitution. One must ask, therefore, how can he properly advise the city government is he doesn’t know himself what is lawful?
One would also think that a city attorney would be well versed in state statutes but – wrong again. This lawyer did not know the rights of people as to trial by jury dictated by state statutes in support of the 6th and 7th amendments, the many statutes dictating the authority of city officials, or that he as city attorney could not – repeat – could not act as a prosecuting attorney in city ordinance cases.
So, what the citizens of this city are subjected to are incompetent officials who care not about the Constitution and make ordinances that are repugnant to citizen’s rights; having a city attorney who is ignorant of the law of the land but giving advice as if he is the all-knowing higher level of authority over the people; and then subjected to an Admiralty court in which the city attorney masquerades as a prosecutor and cares only about the ordinances he has written. He defends the unlawful ordinances rather than fulfilling his duty as a defender of rights. And the accused stands before a judge who is just as ignorant and guided not by the Constitution and the sovereign people but, instead, by laws that don’t exist. (No law repugnant to the Constitution is a law because of being null and void and man-made laws may not over ride those that are given by God.)
Well, guess what, Folks. The same situation that exists in this small city are the same situations that exist in larger cities, in counties, in states, and in the federal dealing which we are unlawfully subjected to. There is no difference – it is just on a larger scale.
What do we do about it? How about forcing the Constitution be obeyed, that no titles of nobility be granted, that any who are associated with the BAR be prevented from holding any office, from being in any court, from being an elected official, and possibly even tried for treason. Simply put, restore the justice of common law and Article III courts.
This is our country. It is a country based on (contrary to dips who do NOT believe in common law as the supreme Law of the Land) the rights of people granted by God, not by privileges created and granted by a bunch of ignorant, evil, and essentially worthless people intent on robbing us of all our rights. And to do so by coercive, often physically threatening means and incarceration – prosecute them legally, them. File complaints against them. Get them arrested for statute violations, both federal and state, and rid this nation of these enemies of liberty.
This writer in his quests against government robbing him of his rights made the decision that should these unholy, evil people go to the extreme and take his life, that it will have been a life well-spent. His conscience will be clear and he will die a free man not succumbing to unlawful government edicts. Rather that than being in servitude to a bunch of “idiots” (wish I could use the language they no doubt use on we who believe in liberty) that do not realize the benefits of freely developing nations and people.
And, then, with any justice at all, remain as a very aggressive spirit haunting the factions who have destroyed this nation.
When we consider the nature and the theory of our institutions of government, the principles upon which they are sup- [118 U.S. 356, 370] posed to rest, and review the history of their development, we are constrained to conclude that they do not mean to leave room for the play and action of purely personal and arbitrary power. 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. It is, indeed, quite true that there must always be lodged somewhere, and in some person or body, the authority of final decision; and in many cases of mere administration, the responsibility is purely political, no appeal lying except to the ultimate tribunal of the public judgment, exercised either in the pressure of opinion, or by means of the suffrage. But the fundamental rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, considered as individual possessions, are secured by those maxims of constitutional law which are the monuments showing the victorious progress of the race in securing to men the blessings of civilization under the reign of just and equal laws, so that, in the famous language of the Massachusetts bill of rights, the government of the commonwealth 'may be a government of laws and not of men.' 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 in any country where freedom prevails, as being the essence of slavery itself. ---------------------------------
Citizenship
http://www.doprocess.net/articles/article%20citizen%20status%20er.htm
By: Scott Eric Rosenstiel
Awareness of the fact that there are two distinct classes of citizenship in America is growing, but unfortunately most of the information out there is factually incorrect to varying degrees regarding the *basis* of citizenship. Most people who are learning about citizenship know that there was a particular status of Citizenship created and established in the 1775-1789 period, and that a second status of citizen was created by the federal government later, and that this is the "citizen" referred to in the fourteenth amendment, ratified (at least allegedly) in 1868. The problem is that most people still don't understand, in a legal and technical sense, how or why this is so. To understand this basis we have to go back to the period when our dual constitutional system was formed.
There were originally, as we all know, thirteen states which by 1790 all united under the federal constitution proposed to them in 1787. Through the Civil War an additional twenty-two states (the act of congress admitting West Virginia was passed December 31st, 1862, although it didn't go into effect until June of 1863) were admitted, for a total of 35. While the war was still raging and everyone was distracted, the federal government created, in the same physical space as the existing 35 states, 35 "federal States." These "States" had the same names and the same physical boundaries as the real 35, so, apparently, the general public didn't notice the changeover. However, you can't really have two states in the same place. When the law says that something is true which isn't true (such as two states being in the same physical place), it's called a legal fiction. So there was now the union of the 35 states, and the new union of the 35 legal fiction "States" (it's far more complicated than this; this is just a very brief overview). For the sake of convenience, they will be referred to here as "states(1)" and the "States(2)." Over the years, from 1864 through 1959, the federal government added another fifteen States(2) into this second union, so that it now totals 50.
The reason why there are two classes of citizens is because there are two classes of states. There are, in contemplation of law, Citizens of the 35 states(1) respectively, and citizens of the 50 States(2) respectively. This fact was discovered working backwards. Realizing that modern law doesn't refer to the same "states" that we had back in 1789, from there it was just a matter of tracing the existence of the States(2) back to their origin. Here are just a few of the differences between the states(1) from before the war, and the States(2) from after the war:
1.Up until the Civil War, the term "United States," when used geographically, was always used in the plural. Since the war, it has always been used in the singular.
2.Up through 1862, whenever congress wanted to extend a federal law to the district of Columbia and the territories, as well as the states(1), they'd write "the United States and their territories." Since the term "United States" was only the collective name of the states(1), the territories needed to be separately mentioned.
3.Beginning in 1864, a new form of expression has been used in the laws, which now say that the terms "state" and "United States" include the district of Columbia and the territories. Those places were always within federal jurisdiction, which is also called the "United States." This helped reveal the conclusion that the "states" that have been referred to since no later than 1864 are also within federal jurisdiction.
4.Prior to the war, the courts always ruled that the states(1) and federal jurisdiction ("United States") were foreign nations to one another. Since the war, the courts have always ruled that the "states" are not foreign to federal jurisdiction. This would be true, of course, if the "states" referred to were in fact within federal jurisdiction.
5.Prior to the war, the courts ruled that the states(1) were *nations*, subject to the law of nations and therefore members of the family of nations. Since the war, the courts have ruled that the States(2) are subdivisions of federal jurisdiction, that they have no attributes of nationality, and that their power comes from the federal constitution. What else could these States(2) be other than federal entities?
6.Since the states(1) and federal jurisdiction were separate nations, the courts of the former could not be compelled to execute the laws of the latter. If they chose to do so, it was a matter of comity - the courtesy among nations. Since the war, the courts have ruled that the States(2) must execute all federal laws (except penal laws).
7.Prior to the war, the courts always ruled that the allegiance which the people had to the federal government was derived from their state(1) Citizenship. After the war, the fourteenth amendment was adopted (at least allegedly), and the courts have ruled that it declares that people owe complete, direct, and immediate allegiance to the federal government first, and their "state" citizenship is secondary. The basis of this amendment is that the "states" referred to are within federal jurisdiction - the 50 States(2).
8.The power to draft is based on citizenship. Prior to the war the federal government never had, and never claimed, the power to draft into the regular army, but only out of the state(1) militias. Beginning with the war, the federal government has drafted people into its armies, and done so on the basis that they were its citizens.
9.Since the federal government was a foreign power with respect to the states(1), and could only come within their borders to execute the few governmental powers granted to it, it never had or claimed the power to take land by eminent domain. If the federal government wanted land, the state(1) had to take it under its eminent domain power, and then transfer ownership to it. Since the war, the federal government has exercised eminent domain over land itself, and on the basis that the States(2) are within its territory.
10.Bouvier's Law Dictionary, which was published before the war, said that a "state," within the meaning of the federal constitution, was "one of the commonwealths which form the United States of America." Every edition of Black's Law Dictionary (which was first published in 1891) says that a "state" is, "One of the component commonwealths *OR* states of the United States of America." It is identifying two classes of states: 1). Component commonwealths, and 2). States of the United States of America. The former is the old terminology from before the war. Since that expression identifies all of them (and not just the four states[1] that use the term 'commonwealth' in their official title), the "states of the United States of America" referred to must be identifying different "states" altogether.
The research for the origins of the States(2) ultimately led to the year 1863. I found that congress, through sections 4 and 5 of the Enrollment Act of March 3rd, 1863 (12 Stat. 731, et seq.) created military districts under a form of martial law, and I later, through a local congressman, received information from the Congressional Research Service showing, beyond all reasonable doubt, that these sections were never repealed. Section 4 creates the districts, and section 5 assigns a provost-marshal to each of them. The 1990 edition of Black's Law Dictionary gives the following in its definition of 'Provost- Marshal': "In military law, the officer acting as the head of the military police of any post, camp, city of other place in military occupation, or district under the reign of martial law." Interestingly, this act is also the first one, at least that I'm aware of, that uses the term "United States" in the singular, and it is also the first one to refer to the district of Columbia and the territories as being within the "United States."
This was only the beginning. Since the Civil War many other laws and governmental-type agencies have come along to further separate us from our rights, such as the Federal Reserve (private control of the money supply), FDA (no health freedom), Emergency War Powers (more military jurisdiction imposed upon citizens and constitutional provisions suspended), income tax (control of property and business), NSA/CIA/DIA (speaks for itself), just to name a few. I realize that those who believe in the power structure, who believe in Clinton/Dole/Powell etc. won't like what I'm saying, but I feel compelled to rely on facts, not faith in the system. For those of us who do want freedom, I see, potentially, a great opportunity in positioning ourselves in the states(1). (color emphasis has been added to provide additional seperation between the two concepts of citizenship.)
In the meantime, I've already begun, on a very limited basis, to start applying this information. Here are five cases:
1.In late 1994, a client who is a licensed acupuncturist came to me and told me that he needed to get an acupuncturist license. I told him that those laws, being passed since the Civil War, were passed by the California State(2), and being within the California state(1) and a citizen thereof, he wasn't subject to the license laws. He told me that he needed it anyway, because it would hurt his business not to have it. So I had him fill out the application, NOT GIVE A SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER (SSN), and send a letter with the application explaining how he's in the California state(1), not the California State(2), and therefore not subject to its acupuncturist laws, but that because the State(2) was going around saying that *everyone* had to have a license, he had to get one or his business would be destroyed. However, he said, he couldn't be compelled to do things that were impossible for him, such as give an SSN, since being in a state(1) and therefore not within federal jurisdiction, he didn't have one and had no means to get one. They gave him the license. When it came time to get his 1996 license (this would be late '95), he received a letter from the acupuncturist board stating that State(2) laws "prohibit[s] the processing of an initial or renewal license if the applicant fails to disclose his/her social security number..." and "If you fail to disclose your social security number... your application for initial or renewal license will not be processed AND you will be reported to the Franchise Tax Board, which will assess a $100 penalty against you." The letter was dated September 21st, 1995. Earlier this month (January, 1996), I asked him about his '96 license. He said that he applied for it in November, he didn't give an SSN, he used the same letter he used the previous year (with some slight changes I made), and he got it.
2.In early 1995, the business license people came after him for not having one. He responded by saying that since he was in the state(1), and not the State(2), he wasn't subject to the business license laws. He wrote to them several times before they acknowledged him. Finally they wrote back saying that the business he was conducting was that of a "licensed acupuncturist." He responded by saying that he was compelled to get the acupuncturist license, he included a copy of the letter he'd sent them, and that he was operating in the state(1), not the State(2). He's never heard from them since.
3.Also in early 1995, I had a client in Texas who convinced his workplace to except an IRS form W-8: Certificate of Foreign Status. He checked that he was an "exempt foreign person" (since he wasn't within the 50 States[2], DC, etc.). His company stopped all withholding and he hasn't had a single problem. In fact, he even filed a 1040NR to try to get back the previous year's taxes. Initially the IRS re-did his paperwork and said that he actually owed them money. He wrote back explaining how, as a Citizen of the Texas state(1) he's an "exempt foreign person" not working within the Texas State(2) or any of the other 50 States(2). They made no further attempt to collect the tax, and even assigned him a nonresident alien taxpayer identification number (NRA TIN). However, at this point he's still fighting it out for the refund.
4.In the fall of 1995 I had a client who had expired registration and an expired driver's license (DL). He wanted the California Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) to acknowledge that he wasn't subject to its code. I had an idea. I had him write a letter to the DMV claiming, "There is no law requiring me to get a driver's license." This isn't really true; I just wanted to see if they'd respond. They did, saying that the Vehicle Code requires everyone driving in this state to get a DL. He wrote back saying that the DL law was in the State(2), not the state(1), and that since he was in the state(1), and not the State(2), he wasn't liable for getting a DL. They never responded. What's important here is that when he gave them an argument that was wrong ("There is no DL law."), they were quick to tell him how wrong he was. But when he gave them the real argument, they didn't respond at all. If the state(1)/State(2) argument is wrong, it seems to me they would have responded, just like they did to the first letter. In the meantime, he's written them again, and hopefully they will respond this time. But I'm not holding my breath.
5.In late 1995 I had another client, and he was willing to get a DL, but he wanted to do it without divulging an SSN. The DMV here is very tough on this issue. I know of people who've been trying for years to get a DL without an SSN - with no luck. I know of one group that spent $800 buying every DMV form, and on top of that called DMV and other officials in Sacramento (the capitol of California), to see if there was any way to get a DL without an SSN. A former employee (and I use that term loosely - it has legal implications!) of theirs who worked on the project told me that they made no progress and eventually gave up. In fact, six people sued the DMV to get Dl's without SSN's on the basis that they were religious protestors to the use of the SSN. The judge ruled in their favor. The DMV then APPEALED. They wouldn't have done that unless (A) they really think they're legally right in saying that a person *must* give an SSN in order to get a DL and/or (B) they really want the SSN! I knew someone who attempted to get a DL without an SSN. He simply filled out the form, didn't put an SSN on it, and included a letter to the DMV telling them that he didn't have one. His application was rejected. I told my client that he had little if any chance of getting a DL without an SSN, but I was willing to try it as an experiment. He agreed. So he took the application and filled it out, and did not give an SSN (the application said that if he didn't give one, he'd automatically be denied). He included a letter explaining how he was in state(1), that the law requiring persons to have DL's was in State(2), and that he was only obtaining one because armed agents of the State(2) aren't honoring the jurisdictional distinguishment between the California state(1) and the California State(2). On December 26 he gave me a nice Christmas gift by calling me up and telling me that he got it! When the other person simply claimed he "didn't have one" with no explanation, they rejected his application. But here, where my client argued state(1)/State(2) (and nothing else), the DMV gave him the license without so much as a peep, much less appealing a judgment like they did with the religious protestors.
This would seem to suggest that my client's argument is what made the difference between him and the others, and his argument could only make a difference if there was at least some merit to it.
These are just a few examples. I've had other experiences as well, and will continue to finish researching this issue and putting it into effect. Please keep in mind, however, that this is just a very brief overview of this subject. I've collected several thousand pages of material showing how a second class of "state" was created and how we're under a form of martial law. I could further document all kinds of things that are being suppressed, but I long ago realized that people won't allow their belief systems to be challenged too much, too fast.
If you're interested in further information, I have two books available on this subject. The first is 'The Sovereignty Manual.' It's introductory in nature and can be obtained from me for $5.00. The other is my main work to this point, and is called 'The Complete Book On Sovereign Citizenship.' It's 535 pages approx., and has hundreds of cites illustrating the state(1)(2) principle. It can be obtained from by sending a check or money order for $59.95 + $4.00 shipping to: Ken Adler, c/o P.O. Box 950561, Mission Hills, California, 91395. Or call me voice at (818) 762-5412. I also have a computer BBS on this topic, which you can call at (818) 762-1288. I encourage distribution of this article, and only ask that it be kept in its entirety. Thanks! Updated : Wednesday, April 16, 1997 4:12:30 PM Created: Monday Mar. 04, 1996 11:24:11 AM © copyright 1995, 1996Jah Red Productions -----------------------------
Editorial Commentary by William D Duff
What does Ken Adler's investigation reveal? Simply that our true citizenship has been hidden from us. The citizenship our government sells us in the modern America is nothing more than an illusion created by the Federal Government in it's effort to circumvent the Constitutional limitations put on it. I wonder what school this is taught in?
Ken's investigation coincides perfectly with another investigative article I ran into on the LawGiver's Website called "Our Status In America" which I have established as an article by the same title on this site as well.
William Duff ---------------------------------
http://www.doprocess.net/articles/article%20consider%20the%20battle%20ice.htm
I snagged this article for your edification. It describes the environment and social/governmental interaction that exists for all of us, whether or not we resist. Don't miss my commentary at Bottom of page.
Thanks ICE and James Montgomery
wdd
Quite a lot to ponder ... especially about the "legal system". ICE *******************************************************************
CONSIDER THE BATTLES YOU UNDERTAKE
by James Montgomery
I don't know how many ways I can say this, but it does not matter what you file, or where you file it, if via the police power, or war power the government can bring you into their jurisdiction, the court will render a judgement and carry it out with it's police powers. It depends on your case, your visibility, your local law enforcement officers, the district attorneys office and finally the judge, if any thing will done, or be carried out. If you have a police department, a D.A.'s office or a judge that can be bluffed, or they are not interested in pursuing the case, because of possible public enlightenment, or public scrutiny, you will think you have discovered the silver bullet and hit the patriot trail. Move the same exact case to another State, use the same arguments, against a system with no toleration for patriot arguments and you will be hit hard.
That's why I am so amazed at patriots around the country that say, oh "I have the silver bullet", and start selling it to others. Other patriots use it in a different jurisdiction and they go to jail, or lose their shirt; or they may win, it just depends, and not on the law, that is the problem. The super patriot says well you did not use it right. NO NO NO, every jurisdiction is different. Why? Because you are dealing with public policy, not the law. You are made to learn and argue public policy, their law and procedure. However, if your case is challenging the public policy you can forget it. Public policy, as a result of an earlier Conquest, overrules the law that they have allowed the public to presume exists, as in the system of government we now have. You can be correct and the best litigator that ever walked into a courtroom, but if you are challenging public policy you will lose, sooner or later when it counts the most. As I said above, if the loss were due to the law, or a procedure, I would say, you know your enemy, do battle. But most are fighting a battle they can never win because they don't know the enemy they are fighting. They are using a law that does not exist, and trying to force the courts with the police and war powers behind them to use a law they have already defeated. You say how can the judge do that if your argument is correct, your paperwork is correct and your procedure is perfect? The law you are trying to use can be turned any way the judge wants, either by using metaphors, made up procedure, to do otherwise could weaken the Conquerors law, and power to tax. Don't take me wrong, any win is a good win, any way you can win, but you better understand the beast you are up against, and the harsh law of Admiralty, that governs the Conquered.
If you are visible and you are enough of a threat, they will risk the public becoming aware of the fact the law is not adhered to, or that Constitutional rights do not exist, when they come into conflict with the public policy, the status quo. That is why a lawyer will have more success in a court room, not because he is smarter, or knows the procedure better, but because he will not threaten the court decorum; meaning, bring a case that threatens a judge personally, or the public policy he has sworn by oath to defend and protect.
A patriot enters the judge's court, not licensed by his fraternity (ABA) and makes known his/her feels of nothing but contempt for the governments system the judge represents and has sworn to protect. The patriot makes this abundantly clear in his paperwork and argument, challenging the public policy, or threatening the judge with a Title 42 law suit if he violates legal procedure, etc. Which the judge has to do not to expose the Conquest, or violate his oath, via the 14th Amendment, not to help the enemy in any way, or face expulsion.
At the same time the judge must dispose of you, or your case no matter the process, because he knows he will be protected for his loyalty to the system, that gave him his power. Your being there, demanding a lawful remedy from a law that has been conquered, proves you are mentally challenged and a threat to the public policy these judges make their living at.
Why do you think they will not allow, or continue to allow, in lenient jurisdictions, patriots to change, or challenge the public policy. Its not going to happen, not for long anyway, you may win 20 cases in a jurisdiction, and really have a following, and then the decision is made that you will no longer be permitted to win on any issue, because you have become a threat to their public policy. The possibility of the public becoming aware of the Conquest, or possible collateral damage to the court denying what appears to be a reasonable lawful remedy to you, is superseded and subordinate to the Conquerors public policy.
The judge has a great deal to work with, so as to never draw attention to the truth, this ammo is supplied by you, remember Mercier used the example that if you have a plane with 12 engines and these engines are the social contracts connecting you to their jurisdiction, and you remove 11, the plane will still fly.
The only way you could break all the contracts is to die. Lets say hypothetically, you did break all the contracts and remained above ground, you still have to get past public policy and the Conquest. This is an issue Mercier was not aware of, or for what ever reason did not deal with, and Conquest by it's own nature trumps any argument you can come up with.
The only way to remove, or combat conquest is by an organized belligerent at war with the Conqueror, and as far as the American people are concerned, that ain't going to happen. So regardless of what paper you may file, it is meaningless under our present situation, not that it is not valid under the law, as you were lead to believe existed, not that your convictions, or mine are wrong. As a former soldier and I hope an intelligent man, I know suicide is foolish and a sin, and that you must pick and choose your battles, not be drawn into a battle out of pride, or arrogance, that cannot be won.
Does this mean you do not try, or just lay down? No, of course not, that decision is up to the individual and the assessment you have made, with the facts, as to the possibility of your success. Count the costs, the area you live in, the case you find yourself fighting. I recommend that before anyone put their butts on the line, you make sure you know what you are doing, and that you know the facts as seen by both sides. Then read the book, "The Art Of War", if after this and your assessment you come to the conclusion nothing will be gained, not even public awareness by your fight in their arena. I suggest you find another way to fight, or pick a better battle. I have come to this knowledge on my own, and have done my own research, in the trenches so to speak. I have discovered factual information, that caused me to rethink the remedies available to me, I verified the information to my satisfaction, that very few people agree with. I can't help that................................................................................. James Montgomery ************************************************************
Commentary
by William Duff
While it is true that Courts seem to do whatever they want, whenever they want regardless of the applicable law or Constitutional protection, there is more to this story.
Based upon the limited view provided me in the 4 years during which I have been resisting traffic laws it has become clear to me that there is a hierarchy in the courts that makes greater attempts to at least present the illusion that our Constitution is still in control. For instance, all over the country, traffic courts make it clear that we before them we have no rights. At the next level up, the County Circuit Court will protect rights upon which you clearly articulate your demand for. Should you not demand your rights, none will be afforded you. Should you leave any wiggle room whatsoever in that demand the court will, in all likelihood, escape your demand for your rights as was described above by Mr. Montgomery's article. That is precisely what we are all up against. The Courts do not protect our rights unless we demand it. Since, in most cases, we don't, the Courts do pretty much anything they like.
For those of us who are demanding our rights, courts are dismissing cases rather than taking the chance a precident will be set. Or could it be that the courts just don't want to spend the time, money and effort? Who knows. In any event, we all will continue to guess until the courts finally do provide guidance. In the interim, I for one will continue forcing the courts to make a decision whether to dismiss or take the chance that I can set a precedence whenever I have the opportunity. I hope all of you will do that as well. -----------------------
http://www.doprocess.net/articles/article%20const%20authorit%20petition.htm
INITIATIVE
PETITION
WE DEMAND OF THE CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
Since Martial law obviously exists in the Courts throughout this country and is thereby the current state of our society, Evidenced by The symbol of Authority these courts display which is that of the United States Military and not that of the U.S. Civilian Authority, The Courts have failed to provide constitutional protections for the citizens of this country as is their charge and oath. The courts are ignoring the Bill of Rights and the Constitution of the United States of America.
Tell our Congress:
That we the people demand that the Congress pass all laws with the Clear statement proving Constitutional each authority attached.
That all existing laws must include a clear statement of Constitutional Authority and where a law does not qualify it must be immediately be repealed.
That all Courts must be held accountable to that constitutional authority and in doing so must provide the Constitutional basis upon which all verdicts are rendered.
That All civilian Courts must remove from display any symbol of authority which does not represent the civilian authority of the United States Constitution and the civilian authority of State in which it is convened
That in all three branches of government, no symbol of authority shall be placed on an equal or greater height with that of the symbol of Civilian authority.
That the Primary symbol of Authority in the office of the President must be the symbol of civilian Authority and all other authorities over which the President presides be subordinate thereto, including but not limited to the Military Flag of the United States of America.
Finally, That all Courts must provide authorities originating from the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State in which it has ruled with every criminal or civil decision it renders
Upon a resolute determination by the people of this country to see these necessary adjustments enacted, and all the above conditions being met, Martial law will no longer rule over the citizenry. Instead........ our government will again answer to "we the people"
Upon a resolute determination by the people of this country to see these necessary adjustments enacted,and all the above conditions being met, Martial law will no longer rule over the citizenry. Instead........ our government will again answer to "we the people"
First signer ---- William D Duff, 2421nw Kingsridge Dr, Blue Springs, MO, 64015, 816-224-4648
Add your signature here .. same format as above. -------------------
http://www.doprocess.net/articles/article%20dueprocess%20lll.htm
From the 'Lectric Law Library's stacks
Due Process Mini-Outline:
PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS: (Law Affects All)
The Due Process Clause of the 5th-applies to the Federal Government
The 14th Amendment-applies to the States
Both provide that the govt shall not take a person's life, liberty, or property w/o due process of law.
-Due Process contemplates fair process/procedure, which requires at least an opportunity to present objections to the proposed action.
-Fair Process is required for intentional acts of the government or
its employees.
1) Is there a
a) Property Interest [legitimate claim of entitlement] OR
b) Liberty Interest [free from physical restraint or "stigma plus"
, damages to reputation plus some additional harm, such as unable to
obtain further employment b/c of the stigma]
***If Liberty or Property Interest is violated then:
2) What Process is Due? {Mathews v. Eldridge balancing test: Private
interest affected & risk of erroneous deprivation versus Government's
interest.}
Property:
-Property includes more than presonal belongings & realty, chattels,
or money, but an abstract need or desire for (or unilateral expectatio
of) the benefit is not enough. There must be a legitimate claim or
entitlement to the benefit under state or federal law. [Board of Regents
v. Roth; Leis v. Flynt] Examples of Property Interest include:
1) Public Education: There is a property interest in public
education when school attentance is required. Thus, a significant
suspension (ie. 10 days) requires procedural due process. [Goss v.
Lopez].
2) Welfare Benefits: One has a property interest in welfare
benefits if she has previously been determined to meet the statutory
criteria. [Goldberg v. Kelly]
3) Continued Pubilc Employment: If there is a state statute or
ordinance that creates a public employment K, or there is some clear
practice or mustual understanding that an employee can be terminated
only for "cause", then there is a property interest. [Arnett v. Kennedy]
-But if the employee olds his position on ly at the "will" of
the employer, there is no property interst in continued employment.
[Bishop v. Wood]
Notice of Adversary Proceedings:
-When the government seeks to use a judicial or administrative
process to take or terminate property intersts, it MUST GIVE NOTICE to
those persons whose property interests may be taken by that process.
The form of notice must be reasonably designed to insure that those
persons will in fact be notified of the proceedings.
Civil Forfeitures:
-Procedural due process limits the government's ability to seize
property allegedly subject to forfeiture (which most often occurs when
the government claims that the property was connected to, or was the
product of, criminal activity). Absent exceptional circumstances, the
government must provide the owner of Real Property notice and an
opportunity for some type of hearing PRIOR to seizing real property.
SUSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS: (Law Affects All)
Scope:
1) Determination that the substance of a law [the restrictions that
the regulation seeks to impose] affecting ALL people is VALID under the
Constitution.
2) Generally, most substantive issues are reviewed under Equal
Protection grounds.
Rational Basis Test:
1) All laws must be non-arbitrary, ie reasonable
2) Historically applied to Economic legislation.
3) Applied to Social Welfare legislation as long as fundamental
rights aren't impinged.
STRICT SCRUTINY:
1) Applied where Fundamental Rights are infringed by law. {Griswold
v. CT}
a) Fundamental rights for the purpose of substantive due process
include Sex, Marriage, and Children Issues.
b) Contraception {Eisenstadt v. Baird}
c) Abortion {Roe v. Wade}
i.) Woman's decision
ii) State doesn't have to finance nor provide
iii) "Undue Burden" test {Planned Parenthood v. Casey}
d) Doesn't include consensual homosexual sodomy
e) Raising children
f) Living w/close relative-limited
i) Zoning ordinance which impaired liberty interest of extended
families from living together is invalid. {Moore v. East Cleveland}
ii) State may reduce property interest of welfare by counting
all children in a household as a single group. {Anderson v. Edwards}
EQUAL PROTECTION (Law Affects Some)
Scope: Review is always Substantive:
1) Regulates ability of government to Classify individuals for purpose
of receiving benefits or punishment.
a) Classification must relate to proper governmental purpose and must
NOT be ARBITRARY.
i) Treating similar persons in similar settings
ii) Improper purpose of selecting wrong class while excluding
right class
1) Classification must be substantially related to an important
governmental objective.
2) Reguirements are satisfied where no better available alternative
exists.
a) Concern is not to cause needless disadvantage.
Legitimacy: Almost Suspect
1) Almost suspect
a) All female state-supported nursing school unconstitutional {MS U
for Women v. Hogan}
b) Peremptory challenge to exclude prospective jurors based on gender
is unconstitutional. {JEB v. AL}
2) Statutory Rape:
a) Valid to punish males only b/c of important state interest in
preventing pregnancy {Michael M.}
3) Male-Only Draft:
a) Important governmental interest in preparing combat troops
{Rostker v. Goldberg}
STRICT SCRUTINY:
Test:
1) Whether classification is Necessary to promote a Compelling
governmental interest.
Fundamental Rights:
1) Where fundamental rights infringed, law generally struck down.
2) Right To Privacy
a) Random Drug Testing of student athletes is Permissible b/c the
State, as schoolmaster, exercises temporary custody thereby imposing
Lesser Privacy Expectation {Vernonia v. Acton}
3) Interstate Travel:
a) Limited reasonable residency requirements permissible
4) Implied fundamental Right To Vote
a) Bizarre race-based redistricting is impermissible {Miller v.
Johnson}
a) Classification based on race will be invalid unless narrowly
tailored to achieve a compelling state interest.
2) Race And National Origin-13th Amend addresses Private acts.
3) Affirmative Action: Reverse Discrimination:
a) Upheld: corrects past identifiable discrimination (past societal
discrimination not enough, Blake at least for quota, but race can be a
factor I admissions.
i) Ct may not order suburban white students to attend
interdistrict school which no longer harbors effects of past
discrimination. {MO v. Jenkins}
[a] Freeman Test: Whether
(1) Compliance w/decree where federal supervision is to be
w/drawn; (2) Judicial control necessary to achieve compliance; AND:
(3) District has demonstrated good-faith commitment.
b) Upheld: Minority business set aside program adopted by Congress.
c) Affirmative action plan for promoting black firefighter unlawfully
discriminated against whites.
d) Courts must review affirmative-action programs initiated by
Federal Govt that take race into consideration under Strict Scrutiny
4) Classification that Burdens Minority is unconstitutional most of the
time
a) Must show discriminatory purpose
b) Separate but equal doctrine has no place in public education
{Brown v. Board of Education}
i) Later decisions expanded invaidation of doctrine.
c) Regulation which denied group home for mentally retarded persons
is invalid under rational basis standard {City of Cleburne v. Cleburne
Living Center}
5) Alienage:
a) Requirement of US citizenship
i) No requirement for private employment or government benefits.
b) Reasonable regulation upheld only if enacted by Congress &
political function.
c) Mere rationality for participation in government
i) Permissible government regusal to hire police, teachers,
positions w/direct effect on functioning of government.
Equal Protection:
Where a law treats certain classes of people differently than others, it
is an equal protection question.
Substantive Due Process:
Generally where the law limits the liberty of all persons to engage in
some activity, it is a due process question.
-----------------------------------
http://www.doprocess.net/articles/article%20%20substantive%20due%20process.htm
Substantive Due Process
"Substantive Due Process" is the fundamental constitutional legal
theory upon which the Griswold/Roe/Casey privacy right is based.
The doctrine of Substantive Due Process holds that the Due Process
Clause not only requires "due process," that is, basic procedural
rights, but that it also protects basic substantive rights.
"Substantive" rights are those general rights that reserve to the
individual the power to possess or to do certain things, despite the
government’s desire to the contrary. These are rights like freedom of
speech and religion. "Procedural" rights are special rights that,
instead, dictate how the government can lawfully go about taking
away a person’s freedom or property or life, when the law
otherwise gives them the power to do so.
The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, adopted in
1868, states "nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty,
or property, without due process of law . . . " The facially clear
meaning of this passage is that a state has to use sufficiently fair
and just legal procedures whenever it is going to lawfully take away
a persons life, freedom or possessions. Thus, before a man can be
executed, imprisoned or fined for a crime, he must get a fair trial,
based on legitimate evidence, with a jury, etc. These are procedural
or "process" rights.
However, under "Substantive Due Process," the Supreme Court has
developed a broader interpretation of the Clause, one that protects
basic substantive rights, as well as the right to process. Substantive
Due Process holds is that the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and
Fourteenth Amendments guarantee not only that appropriate and
just procedures (or "processes") be used whenever the government
is punishing a person or otherwise taking away a person’s life,
freedom or property, but that these clauses also guarantee that a
person’s life, freedom and property cannot be taken without
appropriate governmental justification, regardless of the
procedures used to do the taking. In a sense, it makes the "Due
Process" clause a "Due Substance" clause as well.
This is an extremely significant idea because of how it greatly
expands the power of judicial review exercised by the federal
courts. This happens in two ways:
First, it gives the federal courts unqualified
discretion to decide what substantive rights are
protected under Due Process and how extensive
that protection is. There are two ways the Supreme
Court does this:
Under the substantive wing of the "Incorporation"
doctrine, where the Court adopt selected provisions
of the Bill of Rights and apply them to the states
under Due Process. This can be called "Substantive
Incorporation."
Under the "Fundamental Rights" theory, where the
Court adopts whatever substantive rights it thinks
are so basic, natural and fundamental that they must
be protected even without reliance on any particular
provision of the Constitution. Instead the Court is said
to root these guarantees directly in the word
"Liberty" in the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process
Clause.
Second, once the federal courts decide what
substantive rights are protected buy Substantive
Due Process, it can use Judicial Review to enforce
these rights by reviewing all state legislation for
compliance with these rights.
In the original U.S. Constitution itself, there are not that many
express restrictions on the power of the states. Most are in Art. I §
10 and in Art. VI. The Bill of Rights was added in 1791. But by it own
terms, applies only to the federal government. See Barron v.
Baltimore, 7 Pet. 243 (1833). The Bill of Rights contains both
substantive and procedural rights designed to limit the power of the
federal government. After the adoption of the 14th Amendment in
1868, the Supreme Court determined that many of the procedural
provisions of the Bill of Rights (like the Fourth and Fifth Amendments)
would also be protected by the 14th Amendment’s Due Process
Clause, which was directed at the states. However, the Court also
used the theory of Substantive Due Process to apply ("incorporate")
many of the substantive provisions of the Bill of Rights (like the First
Amendment) to the states as well. E.g. Gitlow v. NewYork, 268 U.S.
652 (1925). In the late 1800’s the Supreme Court also began to use
Substantive Due Process to establish various substantive rights not
actually articulated in the Constitution under the "Fundamental
Rights" theory. See Lochner v. New York, 198 U.S. 45 (1905). Later
on, the Court would repudiate the "fundamental rights" version of
Substantive Due Process as an infringement on the authority of state
legislatures. See West Coast Hotel v. Parrish, 300 U.S. 379 (1937);
Ferguson v. Skrupa, 372 U.S. 726 (1963). In Griswold v. Connecticut,
381 U.S. 479 (1965), at least four of the seven votes that affirmed the
right to privacy were based on the fundamental rights theory. This
reliance continued in Roe and Casey. Even while different
constitutional theories were advanced in Griswold, Roe and Casey
to support the right to privacy all of them, directly or indirectly, rely
on Substantive Due Process.
Critics of Substantive Due Process claim that it is not the laws it
strikes down, but rather the theory itself which is "unconstitutional."
They claim that it is a pure usurpation of power by the Court since
they Court can’t use Judicial Review to strike down a state law
unless the law is really contrary to the Constitution. Critics claim that
"Substantive Due Process" is an oxymoron and that there is no way a
reasonable person with a sixth grade grasp of grammar could read
the "Due Process" Clause to assure anything but procedural rights.
They say that when the Court uses judicial review to enforce these
pseudo-Constitutional rights they are stealing the legitimate
law-making power from the state legislatures.
Supporters of Substantive Due Process, on the other hand, point to
its long history and its dynamic ability to defend basic human rights
from infringement by the government. They argue that Substantive
Due Process provides comprehensive nation-wide protection for all
our most cherished rights, which might otherwise be at the mercy of
state governments. They argue that the doctrine is a simple
recognition that no procedure can be just if it is being used to
unjustly deprive a person of his basic human liberties and that the
Due Process Clause was intentionally written in broad terms to give
the Court flexibility in interpreting it.
Critics respond by saying that just because something is a basic
human right does not make it a "Constitutional" right. Constitutional
rights, by definition are enshrined in the Constitution.
Most Justices on the current Court support the theory to some
extent or another, but there are grave differences as to how freely
the Court should be willing to assert the Fundamental Rights theory
that originally spawned the right to privacy.
[NOTE: While there actually are two slightly different "Due Process"
clauses in the U.S. Constitution, one in the Fifth Amendment, applying
to the federal government, and the second in the Fourteenth
Amendment, applying to the states, it is the 14th Amendment’s Due
Process Clause which is really important here, because it applies to
the states. The Supreme Court has generally interpreted them to be
identical in meaning. While substantive due process applies to both
clauses, because it is the state law that is most relevant here, this
treatment we will be speaking to the 14th Amendment clause in
particular. It should be noted that there is a history of substantive
due process in American federal and state jurisprudence well before
the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868.]
http://www.doprocess.net/articles/article%20an%20empire%20of%20men%20tom%20pardue.htm
An Empire of Men
by Ltc. Tom Pardue (USA -Ret)
When one regards the expression "police powers" he thinks
of it in tangible terms. This would be the power of the county
sheriff or the local corporate security guards (aka city
police). The doctrine of "police powers" "exists" in the
abstract. "Bouvier's Law Dictionary" (1856) defines it as "the
measures which are adopted to keep order, the, laws and
ordinances on cleanliness, health, the markets, &c."
Blackstone described police powers as "the due regulation
and domestic order of the kingdom, whereby individuals of
the state, like members of a well governed family, are bound
to conform their general behaviour to the rules of propriety,
good neighborhood and good manners; and to be decent,
industrious and inoffensive in their respective stations."
Blackstone hypothesized that this power could be extended
so far as to allow the king to prescribe the type of fabric in
burial clothes. This would promote the general welfare of the
kingdom by boosting domestic industry.
The "Lincoln Library of Essential Information" (1928) defines
"police powers" as "a general term that expresses the
fundamental power vested in every state to limit and
regulate the exercise of private rights in the interest of
public health, public morals, public safety, and the general
welfare of the community." This source neglects to specify
how this power was "vested" in the state.
In Donahoe v. Richards, 38 Me. 376 (1854), the Supreme Court
of Maine cited the maxim "salus populi suprema lex" -- "the
health of the people is the supreme law." Under the mantle
of "salus populi suprema lex" governments have prohibited
the sale of liquor and cigarettes and gambling. Cities and
towns have prohibited the making of bricks in a town, the
maintenance of livery stables, public laundries, billboards,
public garages, coal yards and slaughterhouses.
Theoretically governments, city, county and state, may
impose any regulation - including zoning regulations, building
codes, etc., - reasonably calculated to secure the public
welfare while not unreasonably interfering with property
rights and the rights of individuals. I once read that this
doctrine has been used to enact gun control in cities and
towns. These enactments were accomplished notwithstanding
state constitutions that forbade such.
In "The Oxford Companion to the Supreme Court," Harry N.
Scheiber, Constitutional lawyer and libertarian author,
observed that "[F]or two centuries, judges and scholars alike
have repeatedly affirmed that the concept of 'police powers'
resists a clear definition." Scheiber continued to relate that
this definition changes with "shifting social economic
realities" and concepts of the reach of government.
In "Berman V. Parker," 348 U.S. 26 (1954), Justice Douglas
remarked that "An attempt to define its [police powers]
reach or trace its outer limits is fruitless . . . " It should be
plain that the doctrine of police powers is quite subjective
and arbitrary. Therein lies the danger.
The doctrine of "police powers" came into our common law
system through the British common law we inherited. The
Tennessee constitution preserves the common law doctrines
in Article XI Section 1. "All laws and ordinances now in force
and use in this state, not inconsistent with this Constitution,
shall continue in force and use until they shall expire, be
altered or repealed by the Legislature. . ."
This doctrine is a logical result of a British type constitutional
system. A distinctive of the British system is an unwritten
Constitution. Historian Bernard Bailyn remarked that to
Blackstone and his contemporaries constitution meant "the
constituted - that is, existing - arrangement of governmental
institutions, laws and customs together with the principles
and goals that animated them." For all practical purposes
every act of Parliament was in a sense part of the
constitution. Contrast this with our system that Bailyn
described as a document perceived by eighteenth century
Americans "as a written document. . . beyond the power of
ordinary legislation to alter. . ." Or as Jefferson declared in
the Kentucky Resolutions (1798 ) a document that "bind[s]
him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution."
A British type constitutional system is particularly vulnerable
to abuse. Verification of this claim is seen in the squeeze the
British and Canadian governments have put on gun owners.
Theoretically our written constitution protects us from this
abuse.
With no absolute objective standard to define the terms
"domestic order, rules of propriety, good neighborhood and
good manners, decent, industrious and inoffensive, public
health, public morals, public safety, and the general welfare"
there is no limit to what government can do. The definition is
worked out of the worldview and presuppositions of the
dominant class in power. If this worldview is the "nanny
state" worldview the "chains" of the constitution are not
binding.
The "nanny state" advocates were not the folks that founded
this nation. They stayed in Britain or escaped to Canada.
That's why we have written Constitutions. The written
constitution is the logical outworking of a Calvinist
worldview. As Leopold von Ranke (German historian and one
of the profoundest scholars of modern times) declared "John
Calvin was the virtual founder of America." Historian
Jackman observed that "[H]e that will not honor the memory
and respect the influence of Calvin, knows but little of the
origin of American liberty. He bequeathed to the world a
republican spirit in religion, with the kindred principles of
republican liberty."
The Calvinist theology of government is quite simple. It is
found in Roman's 13 - the government wields a sword. This
sword goes against those who commit crimes for which God
has decreed a penal sanction in the first five books of the
Bible. No one man has absolute power - this belongs only to
God. Thus we arrive at a division of labor - three coordinate
branches of government with qualified checks and balances
on each other.
With no objective standard for right or wrong, a particular
system using the doctrine of police powers is ripe for
exploitation by tyrants. The field is wide open and I'm
reasonably certain that there are more abuses than I'm able
to present. Here are just a few.
Article 1 Section 10 of the U.S. Constitution declares that "No
State shall pass any law impairing the obligation of contracts
. . . " This is completely unambiguous as compared to the
entirely ambiguous doctrine of police powers. "Home Building
Loan Association V. Blaisdell," 290 U.S. 398 (1934) was a suit
against the state of Minnesota for passing a law impairing
the obligation of contracts. A Minnesota statute, approved
April 18, 1933, declared the existence of an emergency
demanding an exercise of the police power for the protection
of the public and to promote the general welfare of the
people, by temporarily extending the time allowed by
existing law for redeeming real property from foreclosure
and sale under existing mortgages. The U.S. Supreme court
upheld the Minnesota law declaring that "[W]hatever doubt
there may have been that the protective power of the State,
its police power, may be exercised -- without violating the
true intent of the provision of the Federal Constitution . . . "
"Munn V. Illinois" 94 U.S. 113 (1877) was another example of
abuse of power. The controversy centered on the Illinois
constitution, Article XIII. Section 1. This article declared that
"[A]ll elevators or storehouses where grain or other property
is stored for a compensation, whether the property stored be
kept separate or not, are declared to be public warehouses."
Under this provision the state proceeded to arbitrarily set
rates for warehouse owners.
Ruling for the state U.S. Supreme court Chief Justice Waite
declared that "[U]nder the powers inherent in every
sovereignty, a government may regulate the conduct of its
citizens toward each other, and, when necessary for the
public good, the manner in which each shall use his own
property." Again, I challenge all to define these attributes.
Justice Stephen Field in dissent observed that "If this be
sound law, if there be no protection, either in the principles
upon which our republican government is founded or in the
prohibitions of the Constitution against such invasion of
private rights, all property and all business in the State are
held at the mercy of a majority of its legislature . . . What is
termed the police power of the State, which, from the
language often used respecting it, one would suppose to be
an undefined and irresponsible element in government . . .
The legislation in question is nothing less than a bold
assertion of absolute power by the State to control at its
discretion the property and business of the citizen, and fix
the compensation he shall receive. The will of the legislature
is made the condition upon which the owner shall receive the
fruits of his property and the just reward of his labor,
industry, and enterprise. 'That government,' says Story, can
scarcely be deemed to be free where the rights of property
are left solely dependent upon the will of a legislative body
without any restraint. The fundamental maxims of a free
government seem to require that the rights of personal
liberty and private property should be held sacred . . . The
decision of the court in this case gives unrestrained license
to legislative will."
This doctrine is not without other dissent. In Herman v. The
State, 8 Ind. 490 (1855) Judge Samuel E. Perkins wrote
"[S]uch governments as those described, could adopt the
maxim quoted by counsel, that the safety of the people is the
supreme law, and act upon it; and being severally the sole
judges of what their safety, in the countries governed,
respectively required, could prescribe what the people
should eat and drink, what political, moral and religious
creeds they should believe in, and punish heresy by burning
at the stake, all for the public good. . . But here, we have
written constitutions which are the supreme law, which our
legislators are sworn to support, within whose restrictions
they must limit their action for the public welfare, and whose
barriers they cannot overleap under any pretext of supposed
safety of the people; for along with our written constitutions,
we have a judiciary whose duty it is, as the only means of
securing to the people safety from legislative aggression, to
annul all legislative action without the pale of those
instruments."
In 1789 John Adams wrote "[T]he very definition of a republic
is 'an empire of laws, and not of men.'" The majority opinion
of the court in the two cases cited does not comport with
this definition. Justice Field's and Justice Perkins' discoveries
of law do.
The police powers doctrine, a defect in the common law, has
steadily and stealthily converted this republic of Tennessee
into an empire of men. These men know not the true meaning
of liberty (2 Cor. 3:17 Now the Lord is the Spirit; and where
the Spirit of the Lord is, {there} is liberty.). They have a slave
mentality. They are slaves to the messianic state and cannot
envision any government besides one of absolute power.
Copyright 1998 © by Ltc. Tom Pardue (USA -Ret) All rights
reserved.
[Americans for Constitutional Integrity Home Page:
http://pages.preferred.com/~tpardue/index.html ]
---------------------------
