"If the legislature clearly misinterprets a Constitutional provision, the frequent repetition of the wrong will not create a right." Amos v. Mosley

"The People" does not include U.S Citizens." Barron v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore. 32 U.S 243

"Under our form of government, the legislature is not supreme ... like other departments of government, it can only exercise such powers as have been delegated to it, and when it steps beyond that boundary, its acts, like those of the most humble magistrate in the state who transcends his jurisdiction, are utterly void." Billings v. Hall

"Constitutional provisions for the security of person and property should be liberally construed." Boyd v. U.S., 116 US 616 (1886)

"Waivers of constitutional rights not only must be voluntary, but must be knowing, intelligent acts done with sufficient awareness of the relevant circumstances and likely consequences." Brady v. U. S., 397 U.S. 742 (1970)

"Party in interest may become liable for fraud by mere silent acquiescence and partaking of benefits of fraud." Bransom v. Standard Hardware, Inc., 874 S.W.2d 919, 1994

"Too many of us in this culture are enslaved by things. The only way for a Christian to live in an unfree world is to become so absolutely free that their very existence is an act of rebellion. There is nothing more maddening than a free person." Fr. Brennan Manning​

"An officer who acts in violation of the United States Constitution ceases to represent the government." Brookfield Co. v. Stuart, (1964) 2, 34 F. Supp. 94, 99 USDC, Washington, D C.

"Application of Texas statute, which makes it a crime to refuse to identify one's self to a police officer who has lawfully stopped one and requested such information, to detain defendant and require him to identify himself violated the Fourth Amendment where officers lacked any reasonable suspicion to believe that defendant was engaged or had engaged in criminal conduct." Brown v. Texas, supra.

"When officers detained defendant for the purpose of requiring him to identify himself, they performed a "seizure" of his person subject to the requirements of the Fourth Amendment." Brown v. Texas, 443 US at 47

"Men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights,-'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness;' and to 'secure, ' not grant or create, these rights, governments are instituted. That property which a man has honestly acquired he retains full control of, subject to these limitations: First, that he shall not use it to his neighbor's injury, and that does not mean that he must use it for his neighbor's benefit; second, that if the devotes it to a public use, he gives to the public a right to control that use; and third, that whenever the public needs require, the public may take it upon payment of due compensation." BUDD v. PEOPLE OF STATE OF NEW YORK, 143 U.S. 517 (1892)

"Among these unalienable rights, as proclaimed in that great document, is the right of men to pursue their happiness, by which is meant the right to pursue any lawful business or vocation, in any manner not inconsistent with the equal rights of others, which may increase their prosperity or develop their faculties, so as to give to them their highest enjoyment. The common business and callings of life, the ordinary trades and pursuits, which are innocuous in themselves, and have been followed in all communities from time immemorial, must therefore be free in this country to all alike upon the same conditions. The right to pursue them, without let or hinderance, except that which is applied to all persons of the same age, sex, and condition, is a distinguishing privilege of citizens of the United States, and an essential element of that freedom which they claim as their birthright. It has been well said that 'THE PROPERTY WHICH EVERY MAN HAS IN HIS OWN LABOR, AS IT IS THE ORIGINAL FOUNDATION OF ALL OTHER PROPERTY, SO IT IS THE MOST SACRED AND INVIOLABLE. The patrimony of the poor man lies in the strength and dexterity of his own hands, and to hinder his employing this strength and dexterity in what manner he thinks proper, without injury to his neighbor, is a plain violation of this most sacred property. It is a manifest encroachment upon the just liberty both of the workman and of those who might be disposed to employ him. . . The right to follow any of the common occupations of life is an inalienable right, it was formulated as such under the phrase 'pursuit of happiness' in the declaration of independence, which commenced with the fundamental proposition that 'all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.' This right is a large ingredient in the civil liberty of the citizen. To deny it to all but a few favored individuals, by investing the latter with a monopoly, is to invade one of the fundamental privileges of the citizen, contrary not only to common right, but, as I think, to the express words of the constitution. It is what no legislature has a right to do; and no contract to that end can be binding on subsequent legislatures. . ." BUTCHERS' UNION CO. v. CRESCENT CITY CO., 111 U.S. 746 (1884)

"...and it is the duty of the courts to be watchful for the constitutional rights of the citizen, and against any stealthy encroachments thereon." Byars v. U.S., 273 US 28 (1927)

"In enforcing the Fourth Amendment's prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures, the Court has insisted upon probable cause as a minimum requirement for a resonable search permitted by the Constitution." Chambers v. Maroney 399 US 42, 51

"No such ideas obtain here(speaking of America);"at the revolution, the Sovereignty devolved on the people; and they are truly the Sovereigns of the country, but they are Sovereigns without subjects (unless the African slaves among us may be so called) and have none to govern but themselves; the citizens of America are equal as fellow citizens, and as joint tenants in the Sovereignty." Chisholm v. Georgia (February Term, 1793) 2 U.S. 419, 2 Dall. 419, 1 L.Ed 440, pp. 471-472.

"Public officers are merely the agents of the public, whose powers and authority are defined and limited by law. Any act without the scope of the authority so defined does not bind the principal, and all persons dealing with such agents are charged with knowledge of the extent of their authority." Continental Casualty Co. v. United States

"There is a difference between an 'accosting' and arrest. One may be approached by an officer and questioned about his identity and actions." "However, failure to carry 'papers' and/or identification, or refusal to answer questions is not an arrestable offense." - Cornish vs. State, 215 Md 64, 137 A2d 170, 173

"The state citizen is immune from any and all government attacks and procedure, absent contract." see, Dred Scott vs. Sanford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393 or as the Supreme Court has stated clearly, "…every man is independent of all laws, except those prescribed by nature. He is not bound by any institutions formed by his fellowmen without his consent.” CRUDEN vs. NEALE, 2 N.C. 338 2 S.E. 70

"While the police have the right to request citizens to answer voluntary questions concerning unsolved crimes they have no right to compel them to answer." Davis v. Mississippi, 394 US 721, 727 n. 6

"If a magistrate instigates a prosecution before himself without probable cause and deliberately uses the process issued by him therein, not for the legitimate purpose of hearing the case, but to show his authority and to gratify his personal feelings of importance, the act savors of oppression and constitutes an illegal abuse of process." Dean v. Kochendorfer, 237 NY 384, 143 NE 229.

"The permissibility of a particular law enforcement practice is judged by balancing its intrusion on the individual's Fourth Amendment interests against its promotion of legitimate governmental interests." Delaware v. Prouse, 99 S.Ct. at 1396

"Stopping an automobile and detaining its occupants constitute a "seizure" within meaning of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments, even though purpose of stop is limited and resulting detention is quite brief."Delaware v. Prouse, 440 US 648,

"The idea prevails with some -- indeed, it found expression in arguments at the bar -- that we have in this country substantially and practically two national governments; one, to be maintained under the Constitution, with all of its restrictions; the other to be maintained by Congress outside and independently of that instrument, by exercising such powers as other nations of the earth are accustomed to exercise.

"It is settled that the streets of a city belong to the people of a state and the use thereof is an inalienable right of every citizen of the state."
Whyte v. City of Sacramento, 65 Cal. App. 534, 547, 224 Pac. 1008, 1013 (1924);  Escobedo v. State Dept. of Motor Vehicles, 222 Pac.2d 1, 5, 35 Cal.2d 870 (1950). 

"The Sixth Amendment, when naturally read, thus implies a right of self-representation. This reading is reenforced by the Amendment's roots in English legal history." Faretta v. California

"Personal involvement in deprivation of constitutional rights is prerequisite to award of damages, but defendant may be personally involved in constitutional deprivation by direct participation, failure to remedy wrongs after learning about it, creation of a policy or custom under which unconstitutional practices occur or gross negligence in managing subordinates who cause violation." Gallegos v. Haggerty, N.D. of New York, 689 F. Supp. 93 (1988).

"The law requires PROOF OF JURISDICTION to appear on the Record of the administrative agency and all administrative proceedings." Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 533

"Where jurisdiction is challenged, it must be proven." Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 528 at 533

"The individual may stand upon his constitutional rights as a Citizen. He is entitled to carry on his private business in his own way. His power to contract is unlimited. He owes no duty to the state or to his neighbors to divulge his business, or to open his door to an investigation, so far as it may tend to incriminate him. He owes no such duty to the state, since he receives nothing therefrom, beyond the protection of his life and property. His rights are such as existed by the law of the land long antecedent to the organization of the state. ...He owes nothing to the public so long as he does not trespass upon their rights." Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43 (1905)

"It is monstrous that courts should aid or abet the lawbreaking police officer. It is abiding truth that '[n]othing can destroy a government more quickly than its own failure to observe its own laws or worse, its disregard of the charter of its own existence.'" Justice Brennan quoting Mapp v. Ohio, 367 US 643, 659 (1961) in Harris v. New York, 401 US 222, 232. (1971)

"The state cannot diminish rights of the people." U.S Supreme Court. Hertado v. California, 110 US 516

"The government waives its immunity when it violates one of its own statutes." Hollingshead v. United States, 85-2 USTC 9772 (5th Cir. 1985)

"An arrest made with a defective warrant, or one issued without affidavit, or one that fails to allege a crime is within jurisdiction, and one who is being arrested, may resist arrest and break away. If the arresting officer is killed by one who is so resisting, the killing will be no more than involuntary manslaughter." Housh v. People, 75 111. 491; reaffirmed and quoted in State v. Leach, 7 Conn. 452; State v. Gleason, 32 Kan. 245; Ballard v. State, 43 Ohio 349; State v Rousseau, 241 P. 2d 447; State vs. Spaulding, 34 Minn. 3621. 

"These principles apply as well to an officer attempting to make an arrest, who abuses his authority and transcends the bounds thereof by the use of unnecessary force and violent, as they do to a private individual who unlawfully uses such force and violence." Johnes v. State, 26 Tex. App. I; Beaverts v. State, 4 Tex. App. 1 75; Skidmore v. State, 43 Tex. 93, 903.

"Though the police are honest and their aims worthy, history shows they are not appropriate guardians of the privacy which the Fourth Amendment protects." Jones v. United States 362 U.S. 257, 273 (1959).

"The Fourth Amendment proscribes all unreasonable searches and seizures, and it is a cardinal principle that "searches conducted outside the judicial process, without prior approval by a judge or magistrate, are per se unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment-subject only to a few specifically established and well-delineated exceptions." Katz v. United States, 389 US 347, 357

"A Sovereign is exempt from suit, not because of any formal conception or obsolete theory, but on the logical and practical ground that there can be no legal Right as against the authority that makes the law on which the Right depends." Kawananakoa v. Polyblank, 205 U.S. 349, 353, 27 S. Ct. 526, 527, 51 L. Ed. 834 (1907)

"A peace officer cannot legally make an arrest without a warrant for an offense claimed to have been committed in his presence, under Code, §§ 5099, 5196, which he himself provokes or brings about." State v. Small, 184 Iowa, 882, 169 N. W. 116; Leighton v. Getchell, 169 N. W. 649. SCOTT v. FEILSCHMIDT (191 Iowa, 347) 182 NORTHWESTERN REPORTER 382

"The temporary detention of individuals during an automobile stop by the police, even if only for a brief period, constitutes a seizure within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. Therefore, an automobile stop is subject to the Constitutional requirement that the seizure not be ´unreasonable´ under the circumstances.” Litzenberger v. Vanim, No. 01-5454, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13843 (E.D. Pa. July 31, 2002) (citing Whren v. U.S., 517 U.S. 806, 809-10 (1996)

"Jurisdiction once challenged cannot be assumed and must be decided." Maine v. Thiboutot, 100 S.Ct. 2502

"It is monstrous that courts should aid or abet the lawbreaking police officer. It is abiding truth that '[n]othing can destroy a government more quickly than its own failure to observe its own laws or worse, its disregard of the charter of its own existence.'" Justice Brennan quoting Mapp v. Ohio, 367 US 643, 659 (1961) in Harris v. New York, 401 US 222, 232. (1971)

"An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; affords no protection, it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed." see, Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425, Quoting from Marbury v. Madison (1803), Marbury holds that a void act is void ab initio. "… the Constitution requires the judiciary to refrain from enforcing laws enacted contrary to the Constitution…”

"I had thought it self-evident that all men were endowed by their Creator with liberty as one of the cardinal unalienable rights. It is that basic freedom which the Due Process Clause protects, rather than the particular rights or privileges conferred by specific laws or regulations. . . It demeans the holding in Morrissey - more importantly it demeans the concept of liberty itself - to ascribe to that holding nothing more than a protection of an interest that the State has created through its own prison regulations. For if the inmate's protected liberty interests are no greater than the State chooses to allow, he is really little more than the slave described in the 19th century cases. I think it clear that even the inmate retains an unalienable interest in liberty - at the very minimum the right to be treated with dignity - which the Constitution may never ignore." MEACHUM v. FANO, 427 U.S. 215 (1976)

"In sum then, individuals accosted by police on the basis merely of reasonable suspicion have a right not to be searched, a right to remain silent, and, as a corollary, a right not to be searched if they choose to remain silent". Justices Brennan, Marshall and Stevens dissenting in Michigan v. DeFillipo 443 US at 45

"Sovereign individuals are subject only to a Common Law, whose primary purposes are to protect and defend individual rights, and to prevent anyone, whether public official or private person, from violating the rights of other individuals. Within this scene, Sovereigns are never subject to their own creations, and the constitutional contract is such a creation." To quote the Supreme Court, "No fiction can make a natural born subject." Milvaine v. Coxe's Lessee, 8 U.S. 598 (1808)

"Where rights secured by the Federal Constitution are involved, there can be no rule-making or legislation which would abrogate them." Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US 436 (1966)

"Fraud destroys the validity of everything into which it enters," Nudd v. Burrows, 91 U.S 426.

"Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the Government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law: it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. To declare that in the administation of the criminal law the end justifies the means - to declare that the Government may commit crimes in order to secure the conviction of a private criminal - would bring terrible retribution. Against that pernicious doctrine this Court should resolutely set its face." Justice Louis Brandeis in Olmstead v. U.S., 277 US at 485. (1928)

"Citizens may resist unlawful arrest to the point of taking an arresting officer’s life if necessary." see, Plummer v. State, 136 Ind. 306. This premise was upheld by the supreme Court of the United States in John Bad Elk v. U.S., 177 U.S. 529.

"A statute does not trump the Constitution." People v. Ortiz, (1995) 32 Cal.App.4th at p. 292, fn. 2. Conway v. Pasadena Humane Society (1996) 45 Cal.App.4th 163  

"The state constitutions in this country grant and limit the powers of the several departments of government, but, generally speaking, they are not to be considered as the origin of liberty or rights." [Ex parte Quarg, 149 Cal. 79, 84 P. 766, 5 L.R.A. (N.S.) 183, 117 Am. St. Rep. 115, 9 Ann. Cas. 747; People v. Warden of City Prison, 154 App. Div. 413, 139 N.Y.S. 277, 29 N.Y.Cr. R. 66.]

"Citizens may resist unlawful arrest to the point of taking an arresting officer's life if necessary." Plummer v. State, 136 Ind. 306.

"Knowing failure to disclose material information necessary to prevent statement from being misleading, or making representation despite knowledge that it has no reasonable basis in fact, are actionable as fraud under law."  Rubinstein v. Collins, 20 F.3d 160, 1990

"When a person, being without fault, is in a place where he has a right to be, is violently assaulted, he may, without retreating, repel by force, and if, in the reasonable exercise of his right of self defense, his assailant is killed, he is justified." Runyan v. State, 57 Ind. 80; Miller v. State, 74 Ind. 1.

"The practice of Law CAN NOT be licensed by any state/State." Schware v. Board of Examiners, 353 U.S. 238, 239

"We find it intolerable that one constitutional right should have to be surrendered in order to assert another." - Simmons v. U.S. 390 US 389 (1968)

"The practice of Law is AN OCCUPATION OF COMMON RIGHT!" Sims v. Aherns, 271 S.W. 720 (1925)

"The Fourth Amendment "is not  an adjunct* to the ascertainment of truth." The guarantees of the Fourth Amendment stand "as a protection of quite different constitutional values "values reflecting the concern of our society for the right of each individual to be let alone. To recognize this is no more than to accord those values undiluted respect." Tehan v. United States ex rel. Shott, 382 U. S. 406, 416.  Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 US 218, 242 (1973).

"Me, if I am here at all my presence is special as I am here as result of a force bill of pain and penalty against my Life, Liberty, pursuit of happiness and my well-being; and as I am aware of [the following]: "No sanction can be imposed absent proof of jurisdiction." Stanard v. Olesen, 74 S. Ct. 768

"The offense of resisting arrest, both at common law and under statute, presupposes a lawful arrest. It is axiomatic (self-evident) that every person has the right to resist an unlawful arrest. In such case the person attempting the arrest stands in the position of a wrongdoer and may be resisted by the use of force, as in self-defense." State v. Mobley 240 N.C. 476, 83 S.E. 2d 100,102 (1954).

"An illegal arrest is an assault and battery. The person so attempted to be restrained of his liberty has the same right, and only the same right, to use force in defending himself as he would have in repelling any other assault and battery." State v. Robinson 145 Me. 77,72 Atl. 2d 260, 262 (1950)

"It must be recognized that whenever a police officer accosts an individual and restrains his freedom to walk away, he has 'seized' that person." Terry v. Ohio, 392 US 1, 16 (1968)

"The point of the Fourth Amendment, which often is not grasped by zealous officers, is not that it denies law enforcement the support of the usual inferences which reasonable men draw from evidence. Its protection consists in requiring that those inferences be drawn by a neutral and detached magistrate instead of being judged by the officer engaged in the often competitive enterprise of ferreting out crime." Terry v. Ohio, 392 US 1, 34 (1968)

"There have been powerful hydraulic pressures throughout our history that bear heavily on the court to water down constitutional guarantees and give the police the upper hand. That hydraulic pressure has probably never been greater than it is today. Yet if the individual is no longer to be sovereign we enter a new regime. The decision to enter it should be made only after a full debate by the people of this country." See: Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 39 (1967).

"Americans are slaves to the Queen & own absolutely nothing". (Tillman v. Roberts 108 So. 62, Van Koden V. Van Koten 154 N.E. 146, Senate Document 43 & 73rd Congress 1st Session, Wynehammer v. People 13 N.Y. REP 378, 481)

"The Constitution is a written instrument. As such it's meaning does not alter. That which it meant when adopted, it means now." United States Supreme Court in South Carolina vs. United States (1905) 

"If you´ve relied on prior decisions of the Supreme Court you have a perfect defense for willfulness." U.S. v. Bishop, 412 U.S. 346

 "The very highest duty of the States, when they entered into the Union under the Constitution, was to protect all persons within their boundaries in the enjoyment of these "unalienable rights with which they were endowed by their Creator.", U.S. v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875)

"The pages of history shine on instances of the jury's exercise of its prerogative to disregard instructions of the judge." ~ U.S. vs. Dougherty, 1972

"Many citizens because of their respect for what only appears to be a law are cunningly coerced into waiving their rights due to ignorance." - U.S. v. Minker
 

"The question is not what power the federal government ought to have, but what powers, in fact, have been given by the people. The federal union is a government of delegated powers. It has only such as are expressly conferred upon it, and such as are reasonably to be implied from those granted. In this respect, we differ radically from nations where all legislative power, without restriction or limitation, is vested in a parliment or other legislative body subject to no restriction except the discretion of its members." U.S v. William M. Butler 297 U.S 1 (1936)

"One encroachment leads to another; precedent gives birth to precedent; what has been done may be done again; thus radical princples are generally broken in upon, and the constitution eventually destroyed. Where is the security, where the inviolability of property, if the legislature, by a private act, affecting particular persons only, can take land from one citizen, who acquired it legally, and vest it in another. the rights of private property are regulated, protected, and governed by general, known, and established laws; and decided upon, by general, know, and established tribunals; laws and tribunals not made and created on an instant exigency, on an urgent emergency, to serve a present turn, or the interest of a moment." Justice William Patterson, 'VanHorne's Lessee v. Dorrance (C.C. Pa. 1795)

"If the magistrate has not such jurisdiction, then he and those who advise and act with him, or execute his process, are trespassers." Von Kettler et.al. v. Johnson, 57 Ill. 109 (1870)

When a Citizen challenges the acts of a federal or state official as being illegal, that official cannot just simply avoid liability based upon the fact that he is a public official. In United States v. Lee, 106 U.S. 196, 220, 221, 1 S.Ct. 240, 261, the United States claimed title to Arlington, Lee's estate, via a tax sale some years earlier, held to be void by the Court. In so voiding the title of the United States, the Court declared:
"No man in this country is so high that he is above the law. No officer of the law may set that law at defiance with impunity. All the officers of the government, from the highest to the lowest, are creatures of the law and are bound to obey it. It is the only supreme power in our system of government, and every man who by accepting office participates in its functions is only the more strongly bound to submit to that supremacy, and to observe the limitations which it imposes upon the exercise of the authority which it gives.
"Shall it be said... that the courts cannot give remedy when the citizen has been deprived of his property by force, his estate seized and converted to the use of the government without any lawful authority, without any process of law, and without any compensation, because the president has ordered it and his officers are in possession? If such be the law of this country, it sanctions a tyranny which has no existence in the monarchies of Europe, nor in any other government which has a just claim to well-regulated liberty and the protection of personal rights."
"Those who won our independence believed that the final end of the State was to make men free to develop their faculties; and that in its government the deliberate forces should prevail over the arbitrary. They valued liberty both as an end and as a means. They believed liberty to be the secret of happiness and courage to be the secret of liberty. They believed that freedom to think as you will and to speak as you think are means indispensable to the discovery and spread of political truth; that without free speech and assembly discussion would be futile; that with them, discussion affords ordinarily adequate protection against the dissemination of noxious doctrine; that the greatest menace to freedom is an inert people; that public discussion is a political duty; and that this should be a fundamental principle of American government...they knew that order cannot be secured merely through fear of punishment for its infraction; that it is hazardous to discourage thought, hope and imagination; that fear breeds repression; that repression breeds hate; that hate menaces stable government; that the path of safety lies in the opportunity to discuss freely supposed grievances and proposed remedies; and that the fitting remedy for evil counsels is good ones." - Justice Louis Brandeis, Whitney v. California, 274 US at 375

"When lawsuits are brought against federal officials, they must be brought against them in their "individual" capacity not their official capacity. When federal officials perpetrate constitutional torts, they do so ultra vires (beyond the powers) and lose the shield of immunity." Williamson v. U.S. Department of Agriculture, 815 F.2d. 369, ACLU Foundation v. Barr, 952 F.2d. 457, 293 U.S. App. DC 101, (CA DC 1991).
 

"Here is the often expressed understanding from the United States Supreme Court, that "in common usage, the term "person" does not include the Sovereign, statutes employing the person are ordinarily construed to exclude the Sovereign." Wilson v. Omaha Tribe, 442 U.S. 653, 667 (1979) (quoting United States v. Cooper Corp., 312 U.S. 600, 604 (1941)). See also United States v. Mine Workers, 330 U.S. 258, 275 (1947).

"The carrying of arms in a quiet, peaceable, and orderly manner, concealed on or about the person, is not a breach of the peace. Nor does such an act of itself, lead to a breach of the peace." Wharton's Criminal and Civil Procedure, 12th Ed., Vol.2: Judy v. Lashley, 5 W. Va. 628, 41 S.E. 197

" (3) That an acceptance of a license, in whatever form, will not require the licensee to respect or to comply with any provisions of the statute or with any regulations prescribed by the state . . . that are repugnant to the Constitution of the United States." W. W. CARGILL CO. V. MINNESOTA, 180 U. S. 452 (1901)

 

"When we consider the nature and the theory of our institutions of government, the principles on which they are supposed 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."Yik Wo v. Hopkins, 118 US 356 (1885)
 

Ex dolo malo non oritur actio. Out of fraud no action arises; fraud never gives a right of action. No court will lend its aid to a man who founds his cause of action upon an immoral or illegal act. As found in Black's Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, page 509.
 

"… a military flag is a flag that resembles the regular flag of the United States, except that it has a YELLOW FRINGE border on three sides. The president of the United States designates this deviation from the regular flag, by executive order, and in his capacity as Commander-in-Chief.” [Executive Order 10834, August 21, 1959; 24 F.R.6865, issued by Dwight David Eisenhower]

 

"A national government is a government of the people of a single state or nation, united as a community by what is termed the "social compact,’ and possessing complete and perfect supremacy over persons and things, so far as they can be made the lawful objects of civil government. A federal government is distinguished from a national government by its being the government of a community of independent and sovereign states, united by compact." Black's Law Dictionary

WHEREAS, officials and even judges have no immunity (See, Owen vs. City of Independence, 100 S Ct. 1398; Maine vs. Thiboutot, 100 S. Ct. 2502; and Hafer vs. Melo, 502 U.S. 21; officials and judges are deemed to know the law and sworn to uphold the law; officials and judges cannot claim to act in good faith in willful deprivation of law, they certainly cannot plead ignorance of the law, even the Citizen cannot plead ignorance of the law, the courts have ruled there is no such thing as ignorance of the law, it is ludicrous for learned officials and judges to plead ignorance of the law therefore there is no immunity, judicial or otherwise, in matters of rights secured by the Constitution for the United States of America. See: Title 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983.

18 U.S.C §241. Conspiracy against rights of citizens
If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppressed, threaten, or intimidate any citizen in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same; or If two or more persons go; in disguise on the highway, or on the premises of another, with intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege so secured -- they shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results, they shall be subject to imprisonment for any term of years or for life.

18 U.S.C §242. Deprivation of rights under color of law
Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any inhabitant of any State, Territory, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such inhabitant being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined not more than $1,000, or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if death results shall be subject to imprisonment for any term of years or for life.

§ 1-207. Performance or Acceptance Under Reservation of Rights.
A party who with explicit reservation of rights performs or promises performance or assents to performance in a manner demanded or offered by the other party does not thereby prejudice the rights reserved. Such words as "without prejudice", "under protest" or the like are sufficient.
 

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." - United States Constitution

 

 

Go To

 

Page 2 of