Veteran Owned - Veteran Operated
Barron v Mayor & City Council of Baltimore, 32 U.S. 243
“The People” does not include you and me.
Padelford Fay & Co v The Mayor and Alderman of the City of Savannah 14 Georgia 438, 520
"You cannot use the Constitution to defend yourself because you are not a party to it."
Marbury v. Madison : 5 US 137 (1803):
“No provision of the Constitution is designed to be without effect. Anything that is in conflict is null and void of law.”
FRC v GE 281 US 464, Keller v PE 261 US 428,1
"There have not been any Judges in America since 1789. There have just been Administrators."
FRC v GE 281 US 464, Keller v PE 261 US 428,1
"There are no Judicial courts in America and there have not been since 1789."
Jacobson v. United States, 503 U.S. 540, 548 (1992)
"Government agents may not originate a criminal design, implant in an innocent person's mind the disposition to commit a criminal act, and then induce commission of the crime so that the Government may prosecute."
Mathews v. United States, 485 U.S. 58, 63 (1988)
"A valid entrapment defense has two related elements: (1) government inducement of the crime, and (2) the defendant's lack of predisposition to engage in the criminal conduct."
According to 42 PA C.S.A. 502
"The United States Supreme Court is not the highest court in the land. The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania is."
Owen v Independence 100 S.Ct. 1398, 445 U.S. 622
"Officers of the court are expected and are deemed to know the law. Therefore, they have no immunity when violating a constitutional right."
Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 94 S.Ct. 1683, 1687 (1974)
When a state officer acts under a state law in a manner violative of the Federal Constitution, he "comes into conflict with the superior authority of that Constitution, and he is in that case stripped of his official or representative character and is subjected in his person to the consequences of his individual conduct. The State has no power to impart to him any immunity from responsibility to the supreme authority of the United States." [Emphasis supplied in original]. By law, a judge is a state officer. The judge then acts not as a judge, but as a private individual (in his person)
The 11th Amendment does not grant Judicial or government officials Immunity like they think! Ex Parte Young 209 U.S. 123 (1908)
If government officials attempt to enforce an unconstitutional law, sovereign immunity does not prevent people whom the law harms from suing those officials in their individual capacity for injunctive relief. This is because they are not acting on behalf of the state in this situation. The Court found that an official who engages in an unconstitutional action cannot be held to be performing it on behalf of the state, even if the official complies with the state's own laws. Peckham reached this curious result based on the Supremacy Clause, which makes the Constitution superior to all contrary laws. Violating the Supremacy Clause reduces a government official to the level of a private citizen, who can be sued. In arriving at this conclusion, Peckham managed to find that the official could be a state actor under the Fourteenth Amendment, which meant that his infringements on due process rights could be challenged, but a private individual under the Eleventh Amendment, which meant that he also could be sued.
Erie Railroad Co. v Tompkins. 304 US 64 (1938)
"The courts have committed fraud and coerced us into unconstitutional contracts which attempts to have us waive our unalienable rights which cannot be bought, sold, traded, given away, nor taken away. Due to the hidden and unconstitutional RULES in state codes, Due Process rights were violated.
16Am Jur 2d., Const. Law Sec. 258:
“On the other hand it is clear that Congress cannot by authorization or ratification give the slightest effect to a state law or constitution which is in conflict with the Constitution of the United States.”
16Am Jur 2d., Const. Law Sec. 257:
“The actual existence of a statute prior to determination, that it is unconstitutional is an operative fact and may have consequences which can not justify being ignored, when a statute which has been in effect for some time is declared unconstitutional, questions of rights claimed to have become vested of status of prior determinations deemed to have finality an acted upon accordingly and of public policy in the light of the nature, both of the statute and of it’s previous application demand examination. It has been said that in all inclusive statement of the principle of absolute retroactive inviolability cannot be justified. An unconstitutional statute is not necessarily a nullity it may have indeterminate consequences binding on the people.”
16Am Jur 2d., Const. Law Sec. 255:
“In all instances, where the court exercise it’s power to invalidate legislation on constitutional grounds, the conflict of the statute, with the constitution must be irreconcilable. Thus a statute is not to be declared unconstitutional unless so inconsistent with the constitution that it cannot be enforced without a violation thereof. A clear incompatibility between law and the constitution must exist before the judiciary is justified holding the law unconstitutional. This principle is of course in line with the rule that doubts as the constitutionality should be resolved in favor of the constitutionality and the beneficiary.”
16Am Jur 2d., Const. Law Sec. 155:
“Since the constitution is intendant for the observance of the judiciary as well as other departments of government and the judges are sworn to support its provisions, the courts are not at liberty to overlook or disregard its commands or counteract evasions thereof, it is their duty in authorized proceedings to give full effect to the existing constitution and to obey all constitutional provisions irrespective of their opinion as to the wisdom or the desirability of such provisions and irrespective of the consequences, thus it is said that the courts should be in our alert to enforce the provisions of the United States Constitution and guard against their infringement by legislative fiat or otherwise in accordance with these basic principles, the rule is fixed that the duty in the proper case to declare a law unconstitutional cannot be declined and must be performed in accordance with the delivered judgment of the tribunal before which the validity of the enactment it is directly drawn into question. If the Constitution prescribes one rule and the statute the another in a different rule, it is the duty of the courts to declare that the Constitution and not the statute governs in cases before them for judgment."
U.S. v. Butler. 279 U.S. 116 (1929):
“The judicial branch has only one duty, to lay the Article of the Constitution which is involved beside the statute (rule or practice) which is challenged and to decide whether the latter squares with the former.”
Board of Trade v. Olson, 262 US 1; 29 ALR 2d 105
"The elementary doctrine that the constitutionality of a legislative act is open to attack only by persons whose rights are affected thereby, applies to statute relating to administrative agencies, the validity of which may not be called into question in the absence of a showing of substantial harm, actual or impending, to a legally protected interest directly resulting from the enforcement of the statute."
ASIS v. US, 568 F2d 284
"A judge ceases to sit as a judicial officer because the governing principle of administrative law provides that courts are prohibited from substituting their evidence, testimony, record, arguments, and rationale for that of the agency. Additionally, courts are prohibited from substituting their judgment for that of the agency. Courts in administrative issues are prohibited from even listening to or hearing arguments, presentation, or rational."
Thompson v. Smith, 154 SE 583
"When acting to enforce a statute and its subsequent amendments to the present date, the judge of the municipal court is acting as an administrative officer and not in a judicial capacity; courts in administering or enforcing statutes do not act judicially, but merely ministerially".
Merritt v. Hunter, C.A. Kansas 170 F2d 739
"Where a court failed to observe safeguards, it amounts to denial of due process of law, court is deprived of juris."
18 U.S. Code § 241 - Conspiracy against rights
If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District 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 under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.
(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 696; Pub. L. 90–284, title I, § 103(a), Apr. 11, 1968, 82 Stat. 75; Pub. L. 100–690, title VII, § 7018(a), (b)(1), Nov. 18, 1988, 102 Stat. 4396; Pub. L. 103–322, title VI, § 60006(a), title XXXII, §§ 320103(a), 320201(a), title XXXIII, § 330016(1)(L), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 1970, 2109, 2113, 2147; Pub. L. 104–294, title VI, §§ 604(b)(14)(A), 607(a), Oct. 11, 1996, 110 Stat. 3507, 3511.)
18 U.S. Code § 242 - Deprivation of rights under color of law
Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, 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 person being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.
(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 696; Pub. L. 90–284, title I, § 103(b), Apr. 11, 1968, 82 Stat. 75; Pub. L. 100–690, title VII, § 7019, Nov. 18, 1988, 102 Stat. 4396; Pub. L. 103–322, title VI, § 60006(b), title XXXII, §§ 320103(b), 320201(b), title XXXIII, § 330016(1)(H), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 1970, 2109, 2113, 2147; Pub. L. 104–294, title VI, §§ 604(b)(14)(B), 607(a), Oct. 11, 1996, 110 Stat. 3507, 3511.)
42 U.S. Code § 1983 - Civil action for deprivation of rights
Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer’s judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable. For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia.
(R.S. § 1979; Pub. L. 96–170, § 1, Dec. 29, 1979, 93 Stat. 1284; Pub. L. 104–317, title III, § 309(c), Oct. 19, 1996, 110 Stat. 3853.)
Title 18 USC §1621 concerning the "neglect to protect" by persons under Oath, and Title 42 USC § 1986, wherein a person having "knowledge of the law", "the power to stop a wrong" and the "duty to prevent a wrong from being done" is liable for any failure to act. Should they fail to prevent a wrong, having knowledge of the law, the power to prevent, and the legal or moral duty to prevent the wrong, which causes deprivations of your religious and/or civil rights or Liberties, suit can be brought for violations.
Brown v. Vasquez, 952 F.2d 1164, 1166 (9th Cir. 1991), cert. denied, 112 S.Ct. 1778 (1992),
"The court observed that the Supreme Court has "recognized the fact that`[t]he writ of habeas corpus is the fundamental instrument for safeguarding individual freedom against arbitrary and lawless state action.' Harris v. Nelson, 394 U.S. 286, 290-91 (1969)."
Dillon v. Dillon, 187 P 27
"Thus, where a judicial tribunal has no jurisdiction of the subject matter on which it assumes to act, its proceedings are absolutely void in the fullest sense of the term."
In Re Application of Wyatt, 300 P. 132; Re Cavitt, 118 P2d 846
"Jurisdiction is fundamental and a judgment rendered by a court that does not have jurisdiction to hear is void, ab initio."
Norwood v. Renfield, 34 C 329; Ex parte Giambonini, 49 P. 732
"A universal principle as old as the law is that a proceedings of a court without jurisdiction are a nullity and its judgment therein without effect either on person or property."
Rosemond v. Lambert, 469 F2d 416
"The burden shifts to the court to prove jurisdiction."
Joyce v. US, 474 F2d 215
"There is no discretion to ignore that lack of jurisdiction."
Stuck v. Medical Examiners, 94 Ca 2d 751. 211 P2d 389
"Once challenged, jurisdiction cannot be assumed, it must be proved to exist."
Hill Top Developers v. Holiday Pines Service Corp., 478 So. 2d. 368 (Fla 2nd DCA 1985)
"Defense of lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter may be raised at any time, even on appeal."
Basso v. Utah Power & Light Co., 495 F 2d 906, 910
"Jurisdiction can be challenged at any time." and "Jurisdiction, once challenged, cannot be assumed and must be decided."
Main v. Thiboutot, 100 S. Ct. 2502 (1980)
"The law provides that once State and Federal Jurisdiction has been challenged, it must be proven."
Latana v. Hopper, 102 F. 2d 188; Chicago v. New York, 37 F Supp. 150
"Court must prove on the record, all jurisdiction facts related to the jurisdiction asserted."
State v. Mobley (240 N.C. 476, 83 S.E. 2d 100)
"Each person has the right to resist an unlawful arrest. In such a case, the person attempting the arrest stands in the position of a wrongdoer and may be resisted by the use of force, as in self-defense."
Sapp v Tallahassee 348 SO.2d363; Reiff v City of Philadelphia, 477 F. Supp. 1262; Lynch v N.C. Dept. of Justice, 376 S.E. 2d 247
"It is not the duty of the police to protect you. Their job is to protect the Corporation and arrest code breakers."
Plummer v State, 136 Ind. 306
"Citizens may resist unlawful arrest to the point of taking an arresting officer’s life if necessary."
Kolander v. Lawson (461 U.S. 352, 1983)
"A police officer cannot arrest a citizen merely for refusing to provide identification."
Brookfield Const. Co. v. Stewart, 284 F. Supp.94.
”An officer who acts in violation of the Constitution ceases to represent the government."
Bonnett v. Vallier, 116 N.W. 885, 136 Wis. 193 (1908); NORTON v. SHELBY COUNTY, 118 U.S. 425 (1886)
Bonnett v Vallier, 136 Wis 193, 200; 116 NW 885, 887 (1908); State ex rel Ballard v Goodland, 159 Wis 393, 395; 150 NW 488, 489 (1915); State ex rel Kleist v Donald, 164 Wis 545, 552-553; 160 NW 1067, 1070 (1917); State ex rel Martin v Zimmerman, 233 Wis 16, 21; 288 NW 454, 457 (1939); State ex rel Commissioners of Public Lands v Anderson, 56 Wis 2d 666, 672; 203 NW2d 84, 87 (1973); Butzlaffer v Van Der Geest & Sons, Inc, Wis, 115 Wis 2d 539; 340 NW2d 742, 744-745 (1983)
"No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no law enforcement are bound to enforce it."
Miller v. United States Court of Appeals (1956, 5th Circuit Ct. of Appeals)
“Execution of process and the performance of duty by constituted officers must not be thwarted. But these agents, servants of a Government and a society whose existence and strength comes from these constitutional safeguards, are serving law when they respect, not override, these guarantees.”
Shuttlesworth v City of Birmingham, Alabama, 373 U.S. 262
“If the State converts a right (liberty) into a privilege, the citizen can ignore the license and fee and engage in the right (liberty) with impunity.”
Murdock v Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105
"No state shall convert a liberty into a license and charge a fee therefore."
Hertado v. California, 110 U.S. 516
"The State cannot diminish rights of the people."
Davis v. Wechsler, 263 U.S. 22, 24
"The assertion of federal rights, when plainly and reasonably made, is not to be defeated under the name of local practice."
Miller v. U.S., 230 F 2d 486, 489
"The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime."
Sherar v. Cullen, 481 F. 945
"There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of this exercise of Constitutional rights."
16Am Jur 2d., Const. Law Sec. 70: (American Jurisprudence, Book 16, 2nd Ed. Section 70)
“No public policy of a state can be allowed to override the positive guarantees of the U.S. Constitution.”
Miranda v. Arizona (384 U.S. 436, 1966)
“Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them.”
Norton v. Shelby County 118 USR 425 (1886):
“An unconstitutional act is not law. It confers no rights, it imposes no duties, it affords no protections, it creates no office. It is in legal contemplation as inoperative as though it has never been passed.”
Auerbach v Samuels, 10 Utah 2nd. 152, 349 P. 2nd. 1112,1114. Alleghany Corp v Kirby., D.C.N.Y. 218 F. Supp. 164, 183. Keeton Packing Co. v State., 437 S.W. 20, 28.
"The Oath of office is a quid pro quo contract cf [U.S. Const. Art. 6, Clauses 2 and 3, Davis Vs. Lawyers Surety Corporation., 459 S.W. 2nd. 655, 657., Tex. Civ. App.] in which clerks, officials, or officers of the government pledge to perform (support and uphold the United States and states Constitutions) in return for substance (wages, perks, benefits). Proponents are subjected to the penalties and remedies for Breach of Contract, Conspiracy cf [Title 18 U.S.C., Sections 241, 242]. Treason under the Constitution at Article 3, Section 3., and Intrinsic Fraud cf."
Hafer v. Melo, 502 U.S. 21 (1991)
“State officers may be held personally liable for damages based upon actions taken in their official capacities.”
AM14.3/HO, IR No person shall hold office if he rebels against or violates the U.S. Constitution (treason).
AM14.3/RD Congress shall impeach anyone who rebels against or violates the U.S. Constitution.
Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1, 78 S.Ct. 1401 (1958).
"No state legislator or executive or judicial officer can war against the Constitution without violating his undertaking to support it."
28 U.S. Code § 453 - Oaths of justices and judges -
Each justice or judge of the United States shall take the following oath or affirmation before performing the duties of his office: “I, ___ ___, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as ___ under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God.”
5 U.S. Code § 3331 - Oath of office -
An individual, except the President, elected or appointed to an office of honor or profit in the civil service or uniformed services, shall take the following oath: “I, AB, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.” This section does not affect other oaths required by law.
Chicago Motor Coach v Chicago, 169 NE 221
"The use of the highways for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege, but a common fundamental right of which the public and individuals cannot be rightfully deprived."
Kent v Dulles, 357 US 116, 125
"The right to travel is a part of the liberty of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment."
Schactman v Dulles 96 App DC 287, 225 F2d 938, at 941
"The right to travel is a well established common right that does not owe its right to existence to the federal government. It is recognized by the courts as a natural right."
Thompson v Smith, 154 SE 579
"The right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit and permit at will, but a common law right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."
Caneisha Mills v. D.C. 2009
“The use of the automobile as a necessary adjunct to the earning of a livelihood in modern life requires us in the interest of realism to conclude that the RIGHT to use an automobile on the public highways partakes of the nature of a liberty within the meaning of the Constitutional guarantees. . .”
Berberian v. Lussier (1958) 139 A2d 869, 872, See also: Schecter v. Killingsworth, 380 P.2d 136, 140; 93 Ariz. 273 (1963).
“The right to operate a motor vehicle [an automobile] upon the public streets and highways is not a mere privilege. It is a right of liberty, the enjoyment of which is protected by the guarantees of the federal and state constitutions.”
Adams v. City of Pocatello, 416 P.2d 46, 48; 91 Idaho 99 (1966).
“A traveler has an equal right to employ an automobile as a means of transportation and to occupy the public highways with other vehicles in common use.”
Campbell v. Walker, 78 Atl. 601, 603, 2 Boyce (Del.) 41.
“The owner of an automobile has the same right as the owner of other vehicles to use the highway,* * * A traveler on foot has the same right to the use of the public highways as an automobile or any other vehicle.”
Simeone v. Lindsay, 65 Atl. 778, 779; Hannigan v. Wright, 63 Atl. 234, 236.
“The RIGHT of the citizen to DRIVE on the public street with freedom from police interference, unless he is engaged in suspicious conduct associated in some manner with criminality is a FUNDAMENTAL CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT which must be protected by the courts.” People v. Horton 14 Cal. App. 3rd 667 (1971) “The right to make use of an automobile as a vehicle of travel long the highways of the state, is no longer an open question. The owners thereof have the same rights in the roads and streets as the drivers of horses or those riding a bicycle or traveling in some other vehicle.”
House v. Cramer, 112 N.W. 3; 134 Iowa 374; Farnsworth v. Tampa Electric Co. 57 So. 233, 237, 62 Fla. 166.
“The automobile may be used with safety to others users of the highway, and in its proper use upon the highways there is an equal right with the users of other vehicles properly upon the highways. The law recognizes such right of use upon general principles.
Brinkman v Pacholike, 84 N.E. 762, 764, 41 Ind. App. 662, 666.
“The law does not denounce motor carriages, as such, on public ways. They have an equal right with other vehicles in common use to occupy the streets and roads. It is improper to say that the driver of the horse has rights in the roads superior to the driver of the automobile. Both have the right to use the easement.”
Indiana Springs Co. v. Brown, 165 Ind. 465, 468.
U.S. Supreme Court says No License Necessary To Drive Automobile On Public Highways/Streets.
Holland v. Shackelford, 137 S.E. 2d 298, 304, 220 Ga. 104; Stavola v. Palmer, 73 A.2d 831, 838, 136 Conn. 670
“There can be no question of the right of automobile owners to occupy and use the public streets of cities, or highways in the rural districts.” Liebrecht v. Crandall, 126 N.W. 69, 110 Minn. 454, 456 “The word ‘automobile’ connotes a pleasure vehicle designed for the transportation of persons on highways.”
American Mutual Liability Ins. Co., vs. Chaput, 60 A.2d 118, 120; 95 NH 200 Motor Vehicle: 18 USC Part 1 Chapter 2 section 31 definitions:
“(6) Motor vehicle. – The term “motor vehicle” means every description of carriage or other contrivance propelled or drawn by mechanical power and used for commercial purposes on the highways…” 10) The term “used for commercial purposes” means the carriage of persons or property for any fare, fee, rate, charge or other consideration, or directly or indirectly in connection with any business, or other undertaking intended for profit. “A motor vehicle or automobile for hire is a motor vehicle, other than an automobile stage, used for the transportation of persons for which remuneration is received.”
International Motor Transit Co. vs. Seattle, 251 P. 120
The term ‘motor vehicle’ is different and broader than the word ‘automobile.’”
City of Dayton vs. DeBrosse, 23 NE.2d 647, 650; 62 Ohio App. 232
“Thus self-driven vehicles are classified according to the use to which they are put rather than according to the means by which they are propelled” – Ex Parte Hoffert, 148 NW 20 ”
The Supreme Court, in Arthur v. Morgan, 112 U.S. 495, 5 S.Ct. 241, 28 L.Ed. 825, held that carriages were properly classified as household effects, and we see no reason that automobiles should not be similarly disposed of.”
Hillhouse v United States, 152 F. 163, 164 (2nd Cir. 1907).
“…a citizen has the right to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon…”
State vs. Johnson, 243 P. 1073; Cummins vs. Homes, 155 P. 171; Packard vs. Banton, 44 S.Ct. 256; Hadfield vs. Lundin, 98 Wash 516, Willis vs. Buck, 263 P. l 982; Barney vs. Board of Railroad Commissioners, 17 P.2d 82
“The use of the highways for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege, but a common and fundamental Right of which the public and the individual cannot be rightfully deprived.”
Schlesinger v. City of Atlanta, 129 S.E. 861, 867, 161 Ga. 148, 159;
“A highway is a public way open and free to any one who has occasion to pass along it on foot or with any kind of vehicle.”
Doolan v. Carr, 125 US 618; City v. Pearson, 181 Cal. 640
"An action by Department of Motor Vehicles, whether directly or through a court sitting administratively as the hearing officer, must be clearly defined in the statute before it has subject matter jurisdiction, without such jurisdiction of the licensee, all acts of the agency, by its employees, agents, hearing officers, are null and void."
United States v Spires 3 F. 3d 1234,1237 (9th Cir 1993)
“A person’s disobedience to a show of authority is by itself insufficient to establish voluntary consent.”
Tillman v Roberts 108 So. 62, Van Koten v Van Koten 154 N.E. 136, Senate Document 43 & 73rd Congress 1st Session, Wynehammer v People 12 N.Y. REP 378, 481
"We are slaves and own absolutely nothing not even what we think are our children."
Helvering v Davis 301 us 619, Steward Co. v Davis 301 US 548
"Social Security is not insurance or a contract, nor is there a Trust Fund."
U.S. v. Will, 449 U.S. 200, 216, 101 S.Ct. 471, 66 L.Ed.2d 392, 406 (1980); Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. (6 Wheat) 264, 404, 5 L.Ed 257 (1821)
"Whenever a judge or official acts where he/she does not have jurisdiction to act, the judge or official is engaged in an act or acts of treason."
18 U.S.C. Section 2382
"Any judge or attorney or official who does not report the above judges for treason as required by law may themselves be guilty of misprison of treason."
Copyright © 2017 Joe Berlyak - All Rights Reserved.