"GOVERNMENTS ARE INSTITUTED AMONG MEN, DERIVING THEIR JUST POWERS
FROM THE CONSENT OF THE GOVERNED!"
Guess who are consenting to be Governed ? Answer: Voters, 14th
Amendment citizens of the United States. If you don't claim to be
one of them, don't pretend you are one them, guess what ? You are
not one of the governed (voters) and will get no administrative
relief. Treason by Design, By L.B. Bork
pacinlaw.org
HERE IS THE UNCONSCIONABLE KICKER! You may refer to it as the SET-UP!
It is a fact that is well documented that you have to be a citizen of
the United States to vote in any elections. You may verify this by
checking your [S]tate statutes regarding the state voting
regulations. Although it is difficult to see as the language is
intentionally written to confuse people if you decipher Section 2 of
the Fourteenth Amendment you will see that the de facto states or
governments only represent people who are voting. Someone who is
versed in syntax may be of assistance in the deciphering process.
Accordingly, earlier above in this article it was stated that it is a
crime to vote in elections! Illustrated forthwith is the pertinent
text taken from Section 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment which
exemplifies that it is a crime to vote. This is so evil it is beyond
belief:
". . . the right to vote at any election. . . is denied. . . except
for participation in rebellion, or other crime. . . "
You must understand that you cannot just create "citizens of the
United States " without violating inherent Constitutional premises
under the Law of Nations; accordingly, the constitutional government
[s] of the several states of America need to be usurped. This is done
by making voters unwittingly throw off their allegiance to their
lawful governments. The clause illustrated in Section 2 of the
Fourteenth Amendment does this.
Friday, April 10, 2009
Citizenship created for slaves ala the 14th Amendment
California Appellate Court Confirms Fragility of Red Light Camera Cases – You Have to Fight to Win
California Appellate Court Slams Sacramento Red Light Camera Program
Appellate court rules Sacramento County, California red light camera
program does not produce sufficient evidence to convict drivers.
A decision issued last month by the Appellate Division of the
Superior Court in Sacramento County, California would invalidate
at least eighty percent of red light camera tickets in Sacramento
if drivers were to bring their case to court and contest their
citations. A three judge panel found the photo system did not
generate evidence sufficient to convict local motorist David Graham,
38, of running a red light.
"Sometimes you can fight city hall," said Graham. "Now those bozos
will have to give me back every penny of the $371 they bilked me
for the ticket."
On March 2, 2008, Graham's 1995 Oldsmobile was photographed by a
red light camera at the intersection of Power Inn Road and Folsom
Boulevard. However, unlike most newer programs in California, the
angle of the red light camera photographs in Sacramento County do not
actually show the signal light in the photograph itself. Instead,
a data box superimposed on the citation photo shows the letter "R"
which indicates that the signal was red, according to Affiliated
Computer Services (ACS), the for-profit company that operates the
program. That was not sufficient evidence for the appellate court.
"Without photographs showing appellant committing the violation,
the system must be proven reliable beyond a reasonable doubt in
order for the people to meet their burden of proof," Presiding
Judge Maryanne G. Gilliard wrote.
The police employee who testified in Graham's case, Officer Holt,
said that he had examined logs that showed an ACS technician
had maintained the camera properly and that there were no
malfunctions. Graham used the California Rules of Evidence to
challenge this claim as hearsay.
"We have no way of knowing what the technician did to reach these
conclusions, because that technician is not in court, and Officer
Holt admits to having no direct, personal knowledge of what the
technician did," Graham wrote in his brief to the court.
The court noted that the first photograph on Graham's citation
showed his Oldsmobile behind the limit line with cross traffic
facing a red -- not a green -- light.
"Given the evidence adduced at appellant's trial, this panel finds
that a rational trier of fact could not reasonably find, beyond a
reasonable doubt, that the light controlling appellant's entry into
the intersection was red when he first crossed the limit line,"
Judge concluded "Therefore, we find that substantial evidence does
not support appellant's conviction. The conviction is reversed with
directions to dismiss the complaint."
Graham is now asking the court to publish his case so that it will
have precedential value. California courts have protected red light
camera programs in the past by holding similar decisions unpublished
to prevent mass refunds from programs operating in ways that violate
California law.
A copy of the decision is available in a 150k PDF file at the source
link below.
Source: California v. Graham (California Superior Court, Appellate
Division, 2/20/2009)
http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/27/2715.asp
Thursday, April 09, 2009
ABOUT THE COMMON LAW AND THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES
Q. WAS THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA BASED ON THE COMMON LAW?
A. Yes. The Constitution of the united States of America originated as a Common Law document. That was the underlying law the founding fathers based the entire structure of our nation upon. It was the law of the land until the 1938 Supreme Court ruling (Erie Railroad) which statutorized the Common Law.
"It is never to be forgotten that in the construction of the
language of the Constitution, we are to place ourselves as
nearly as possible in the condition of the men who framed
that instrument." Ex Parte Bain. 12 U.S. 1 7 S. Ct. 781.
"We are bound to interpret the Constitution in the light of
the law as it existed at the time it was adopted." Mattos
v. U.S. 156 U.S. 237 at 243.
"It must be interpreted in the light of Common Law, the
principles and history of which were familiarly known to
the framers of the Constitution. The language of the
Constitution could not be understood without reference to
the Common Law." U.S. v. Wong Kim. Ark. 169 U.S. 649.18 S.
Ct. 456.
"In this, as in other respects, (a Constitutional provision)
must be interpreted in the light of the Common Law, the
principles and history of which were familiarly known to
the framers of the Constitution..." Minor v. Happersett. 21
Wall. 162.
"The language of the Constitution, as has been well said,
could not be understood without reference to the Common
Law." 1 Kent. Comm. 336, Kepner v. U.S. 195 U.S. 100 at
125.
Q. IS THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES THE SUPREME LAW?
A. Yes. The Constitution of the united States of America is the Supreme Law of the Land. Even after the Common Law was statutorized, and courts became Merchant Law courts imposing the Uniform Commercial Code, it must be noted that the U.C.C itself declares that it cannot be in conflict with the Common Law -- and in situations where it is, it bows to the tenants of the original Common Law.
"Law of the Land" means the "Common Law." State v. Simon 2
Spears 761.767 (1884) Justice O'Neal.
"Law of the Land" means "The Common Law." Taylor v. Porter
4 Hill 140. 146 (1843) Justice Bronson. Webster's
definition of "Law of the Land" at Dartmouth 4 Wheat 518.
581.
Q. MUST THE STATE CONSTITUTIONS AND STATE LAWS CONFORM AND COMPLY WITH THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES?
A. Yes. State Constitutions and State laws must be in compliance with, and in conformity to, the Constitution of the united States of America for that State to be acceptable as one of the sovereign states of the union of the united States of America.
"Provided, the Constitution to be formed in virtue of the
authority herein given, shall be republican, and consistent
with the Constitution of the united States; that it shall
contain the fundamental principles of civil and religious
Liberty; conformable to the provisions of the Constitution
of the United States." Enabling Act of Congress. Feb. 20,
1811. C.21. 2 U.S. Statute 641.
Q. IS ADMIRALTY AND MARITIME JURISDICTION SUBJECT TO COMMON LAW REMEDY?
A. "Even Admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, when brought inland,
is subject to the Common Law remedy the same as Equity; and
cannot supersede the sovereign Citizens' God endowed/given
unalienable/inalienable rights, and these same rights as
secured in and under the Constitution of the united States of
America." Title 5 USC. Sec. 559 Sentence #2, Title 28 USC.
Sec. 2072, Miranda v. Ariz. 384 U.S. 436 at 491 (1966).
"(a) Saving to suitors, in all cases, the right to a Common Law
remedy, where the Common Law is competent to give it; and
shall also have exclusive original cognizance of all seizures
on land, or other waters than as aforesaid made, and of all
suits for penalties and forfeiture res incurred, under the
laws of the United States." 1 Statute 177. Sec. 9(a).
"Third. Of all causes of Admiralty and Maritime jurisdiction:
saving to suitors, in all cases, the right of a Common Law
remedy, where the Common Law is competent to give it." 36
Statute 1161. Section 3rd.
"The district courts shall have original jurisdiction exclusive
of the Courts of the States, of:
(1) Any civil case of Admiralty or Maritime jurisdiction,
saving to Suitors in all cases all other remedies to
which they are otherwise entitled." Title 28 US.C.
Section 1333.
[Note that the term "Common Law" no longer appears in 28 U.S.C. 1333.]
Q. MUST THE DEPARTMENTS, AGENCIES, AND AGENTS OF THE THREE BRANCHES OF GOVERNMENT CONFINE THEIR ACTIONS UNDER THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA?
A. The three branches of government and their bureaucratic departments, agencies, and agents, must confine themselves to acting in and under the Constitution of and for the united States of America and its boundaries, restraints, limitations, and prohibitions it imposes upon them.
"That the people have an original right to establish, for future
government, such principles as, in their opinion, shall most
conduce to their own happiness, is the basis, on which the
whole American fabric has been erected. The exercise of this
original right is a very great exertion, nor can it, nor ought
it to be frequently repeated. The principles, therefore, so
established, are deemed fundamental and as the authority, from
which they proceed, is supreme, and can seldom act they are
designed to be permanent."
"This original and supreme will organize the government, and
assigns, to different departments, their respective powers. It
may either stop here, or establish certain limits not to be
transcended by those departments."
"Between these alternatives there is no middle ground. The
Constitution is either a superior, paramount law, unchangeable
by ordinary means, or it is on a level with ordinary
legislative acts, and like other acts, is alterable when the
legislature shall please to alter it." Marbury v. Madison. 2
Cranch (5 U.S.) 137.176. 177 (1803).
"..because, the United States have no constitutional capacity to
exercise municipal jurisdiction, sovereignty, or eminent domain,
within the limits of a State or elsewhere, except in the cases
in which it is expressly granted..." -Pollard's Lessee v. Hagan.
44 U.S. 212 at 233; Article 1 Sec 8 Clause 17 U.S. Constitution.
"That the Legislative, Executive and Judicial departments are
each formed in a separate and independent manner; and that the
ultimate basis of each is the Constitution only within the
limits of which each department can alone justify any act of
authority/jurisdiction." Hayburn's Case. 2 Dall. (2 U.S.) 409.
"Neither the Legislative, Executive and the Judicial departments
of the Federal Government can lawfully exercise any authority
beyond the limits marked out by the Constitution." Dred Scott
v. Sanford. 19 How. 393.
"The United States is entirely a creature of the Federal
Constitution, its power and authority has no other source and
it can only act in accordance with all the limitations imposed
by the Constitution." Reid v. Covert 354 U.S. 1(1957). IL. Ed.
2nd. 1148.
"The Federal Constitution has supremacy over a treaty and
executive agreement" Reid v. Covert. 354 U.S. 1.
"The rights and liberties of the Citizens of the united States
are not protected by custom and tradition alone, they are
preserved from the encroachments of the government by express/
enumerated provisions of the Federal Constitution." Reid v.
Covert. 354 U.S. 1.
"The prohibitions of the Federal Constitution are designed to
apply to all branches of the national government and cannot be
nullified by the executive or by the executive and the senate
combined." Reid v. Covort. 354 U.S.1.1 L. Ed. 2nd; 1148 (1957).
Q. IS THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES SUPERIOR TO ADMINISTRATIVE LAWS, RULES AND REGULATIONS?
A. Yes. The Constitution of the united States of America is not only the Supreme Law of the Land, and the actual government of the united States, but it is superior to all administrative laws, rules and regulations, and their administrative law, rules and regulations must be in compliance with and in conformity to, the Constitution of and for the united States of America.
"Where rights are secured by Constitution are involved, there can
be no rule making or legislation which will abrogate them"
Miranda v. Ariz. 384 U.S. 436 at 491(1966).
"..A regulation which is inconsistent with law is invalid." Title
5 U.S.C. Sect. 301.
"... because a statute may not operate in derogation of the
Constitution." Title 5 U.S.C. Section 559. Sentence 2.
"Congress may not, by any definition it may adopt, conclude the
matter, since it cannot by legislation alter the Constitution."
Eisner v. McComber. 252 U.S. 189 at 207.
"Such rules shall not abridge, enlarge or modify any substantive
right and shall preserve the right of trial by jury as at Common
Law and as declared by the Seventh Amendment to the Constitution."
Title 28 U.S.C. Section 2072 at Clause #2.
Q. WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN AN ARTICLE I AND AN ARTICLE 3 COURT?
A. Administrative tribunals and administrative judges must restrict themselves to acting in and under the Constitution of the united States of America at Article 1, Section 8, Clause 9, and under the Administrative Procedures Act at Title 5 U. S. C. Sections 701 through 706, Olmstead vs. U.S. 277 U.S. 438 at 485, and are prohibited from hearing any issue At Law which has been enumerated to Constitutional Article 3 courts only. Since the Constitution of the united States of America has no provisions for Article I administrative tribunal courts to hear issues of law enumerated to them, they are prohibited for doing so in and under the further declaratory and restrictive clauses of the Preamble, too, and the Bill of Rights, Amendments 9 and 10; and Article 3 of the Constitution itself.
"To constitute tribunals inferior to the supreme Court." Article
1. Sec 8. Clause 9. U.S. Constitution.
"The judicial power of the United States shall be vested in one
supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may,
from time to time, ordain and establish..." Article 3 Section 1
U.S. Constitution.
"The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity,
arising under this Constitution." Article 3. Section 2. Clause
1. U.S. Constitution.
"The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights not be
construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
Amendment 9, the U.S. Constitution.
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the
Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved
to the States respectively, or to the people." Amendment 10,
the U.S. Constitution.
Q. DOES THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES HAVE SUPERINTENDENCY OVER BOTH ARTICLE 1 AND ARTICLE 3 COURTS?
A. The supreme Court of the united States of America has the superintendency of all inferior administrative Article 1, Sec. 8, Clause 9 tribunals/courts and all Article 3 inferior At Law/Common Law courts created/ordained and established by the Congress of the united States of America.
"This is the supreme Court, and by reason of its supremacy must
have the superintendence of the inferior tribunals and officers,
whether judicial or ministerial." Marbury v. Madison, I Cranch
143 at Pg. 63 (1803).
Q. WHAT ARE THE DUTIES OF COURT JUDGES?
A. It is the prime duty of court judges to protect the God endowed unalienable rights of the individual sovereign Citizen from governmental encroachments.
"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." U.S. v. Butler. 279 U.S. 116th Am. Jur
2nd. Sec. 177.178.210 and 547.
"It is the duty of the courts to be watchful for the
Constitutional rights of the citizen against stealthy
encroachments thereon." Boyd v. U.S. 116.635.
"This Constitution is the supreme Law of the Land. All judicial
officers of the united States are bound by oath or affirmation,
to support this Constitution." Hayburn's Case. 2 Dali.(2 U.S.S.)
409; Article #6. Clauses 2 and 3, U.S. Constitution.
"Disobedience or evasion of a constitutional mandate may not be
tolerated, even though such disobedience may promote in some
respects the best interests of the public." Slote v. Board of
Transfer. 274 N.Y. 367.
"...And officers (of government) that carry on a government
independent of a Constitution, constitute but a de facto
government of assumed and unlimited powers." Hepburn v. Griswald
8 Wall. 611.
"Law repugnant to the Constitution is void..." Marbury v. Madison
1 Cranch 137 (1803).
"The law provides that once State and federal jurisdiction has
been challenged, it must be proven." Main v. Thiboutot. 100 5.
Ct. 2502 (1980).
"Where there is absence of proof of jurisdiction, all
administrative and judicial proceedings are a nullity, and
confer no right, offer no protection, and afford no
justification, and may be rejected upon direct collateral attach."
Thompson v. Tolmie. 2 Pet. 157.7 L.Ed. 381. Griffith Vs. Frazier
8 Cr. 9.3 L.Ed. 471.
"Once jurisdiction is challenged, it must be proven." Hagens v.
Lavine. 415 U.S. 533 Note3.
"No sanctions can be imposed absent proof of jurisdiction."
Standard v. Lavine. 415 U.S. 533 Note 3.
"The proponent of the Rule has the burden of proof..." Title 5
U.S.C.. Sec. 556(d).
"Jurisdiction can be challenged at any time, even on final
determination." Basso v. Utah Power & Light Co. 495 F 2nd 906 at
910.
Q. CAN THE STATE GOVERNMENTS GRANT OR TAKE AWAY AN INDIVIDUAL'S RIGHTS?
A. No. Individuals have God endowed unalienable Rights (Declaration of Independence, Paragraph 2) and these same rights are secured in the Preamble and the Constitution of the united States of America, and in the Preamble and the Bill of Rights (the first ten Amendments) of the Constitution of the united States of America. These Rights existed long before the organization of the State and can be taken from an individual only by Constitutional due process of law that is in conformity with the Constitution of the united States of America.
"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 doors to an investigation, so far
as it may tend to incriminate him. He owes no 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, and can only be
taken from him by due process of law, and in accordance with
the Constitution."
"Among his rights are a refusal to incriminate himself, and
the immunity of himself and his property from arrest or
seizure except under warrant of the law."
"He owes nothing to the public so long as he does not
trespass upon their rights."
"Upon the other hand, the corporation is a creature of the
State. It is presumed to be incorporated for the benefit of
the public. It receives certain special privileges and
franchises, and holds them subject to the laws of the State
and the limitations of its charter."
"Its powers are limited by law. It can make no contract not
authorized by its charter. Its rights to act as a
corporation are only preserved to it so long as it obeys the
laws of its charter." Hale v. Henkel. 201 U.S. 43 at 89
(1906); Pinkerton v. Verberg 78 Mich. 573.584.
Q. DO INDIVIDUALS HAVE RIGHTS TO LABOR?
A. Yes. Individuals have a God given unalienable right to labor, and to the fruits of that labor. That right is a natural right and a constitutional right, from unlawful interference from government encroachment.
"A State may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right
secured by the Federal Constitution." Murdock v. Penns. 319
U.S. 105.
"Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there
can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate
them." Miranda v. Ariz. 384 U.S. 436 at 491(1966).
The Origins of Birth Registration – It’s not what you think.
The Sheppard-Towner Maternity Act was "for the promotion, the welfare and hygiene of maternity and infancy and for other purposes," It was passed with a vote of 63 to 7, and by the house with a vote of 279 to 39, and was finally signed by the president and became law on Nov. 23, 1921. The act provided for the current fiscal year (1922) $10,000 for each state accepting the provisions of the act, and additional sum of $1,000,000.
The bill was a direct outgrowth of a nine year study made by the "Federal Children's Bureau." Note the Bureau was not the federal bureau for children but the bureau of the federal children. This act and the acceptance of its benefits by the states created the "United States birth registration area."44
"(2) Birth Registration Document. The Social Security Administration (SSA) may enter into an agreement with officials of a State... to establish, as part of the official birth registration process, a procedure to assist SSA in assigning social security numbers to newborn children. Where an agreement is in effect, a parent, as part of the official birth registration process, need not complete a Form SS-5 and may request that SSA assign a social security number to the newborn child.45
Did the federal government have the right to impose such legislation on the States? In 1923, it was argued by Mr. Alexander Lincoln, Assistant Attorney General of Massachusetts, "The act is unconstitutional. It purports to vest in agencies of the Federal Government powers which are almost wholly undefined, in matters relating to maternity and infancy, and to authorize appropriations of federal funds for the purposes of the act." The complaint went on to state that, "The act is invalid because it assumes powers not granted to Congress and usurps the local police power." "The act is not made valid by the circumstance that federal powers are to be exercised only with respect to those States which accept the act, for Congress cannot assume, and state legislatures cannot yield, the powers reserved to the States by the Constitution. The act is invalid because it imposes on each State an illegal option either to yield a part of its powers reserved by the Tenth Amendment or to give up its share of appropriations under the act."46
In the final analysis the Act was an offer from one corporate entity to another for the purpose of providing an avenue for the individual citizen of America to register as a subject of the State and therefore a citizen of the Federal corporate State, the true and actual sovereign agent, called the United States. The federal government would assume the position of Father of the subject citizen according to the law of Parens Patriae.47
Posts
