Supreme court cases from digging
around
Mattox v. U.S., 156 US 237,243. (1895) "We are
bound to interpret the Constitution in the light of the law as it existed at the time it was adopted."
S.
Carolina v. U.S., 199 U.S. 437, 448 (1905). "The Constitution is a written instrument. As such, its meaning does not
alter. That which it meant when it was adopted, it means now."
SHAPIRO vs. THOMSON, 394 U. S. 618
April 21, 1969 . Further, the Right to TRAVEL by private conveyance for private purposes upon the Common way can NOT
BE INFRINGED. No license or permission is required for TRAVEL when such TRAVEL IS NOT for the purpose
of [COMMERCIAL] PROFIT OR GAIN on the open highways operating under license IN COMMERCE.
Marbury v. Madison, 5 US 137,(1803) "The Constitution of these United States is the supreme law of
the land. Any law that is repugnant to the Constitution is null and void of law."
Murdock v. Penn., 319 US 105, (1943) "No state shall convert a liberty into
a privilege, license it, and attach a fee
to it."
Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham, 373 US 262, (1969)
"If the state converts a liberty into a privilege, the citizen can engage in the right with impunity."
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 U.S. 425, (1886) "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."
Miller v. U.S., 230 F.2d. 486,489 "The
claim and exercise of a Constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime."
Brady
v. U.S., 397 U.S. 742, 748,(1970) "Waivers of Constitutional Rights, not only must they be voluntary, they must be knowingly
intelligent acts done with sufficient awareness."
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." The constitutional theory is that we the people are the sovereigns, the state and
federal officials only our agents."
Colten v. Kentucky (1972)407 U.S. 104@122.
92 S.Ct. 1953; Dissent by Douglas"If the nation comes down from its position of sovereignty and enters the domain of
commerce, itsubmits itself
to the same laws that govern individuals therein. It assumes the position of an ordinary citizen and it cannot recede from the fulfillment of its obligations;"
74 Fed. Rep. 145, following 91 U.S. 398.Before
we place the stigma of a criminal conviction upon any such citizen the legislative mandate must be clear and unambiguous.
Accordingly that which Chief Justice Marshall has called 'the tenderness of the law for the rights of individuals' [FN1] entitles
each person, regardless of economic or social status, to an unequivocal warning from the legislature as to whether he is within
the class of persons subject to vicarious liability. Congress cannot be deemed to have intended to punish anyone who is not
'plainly and unmistakably' within the confines of the statute. United States v. Lacher, 134 U.S. 624, 628, 10S.Ct. 625, 626, 33 L.Ed. 1080; United States
v. Gradwell, 243 U.S. 476,485, 37
S.Ct.
407, 61 L.Ed. 857. FN1 United States v. Wiltberger, 5 Wheat. 76, 95, 5 L.Ed. 37.We do not overlook those constitutional limitations which, for the protection
of personal rights, must necessarily attend all investigations conducted under the authority of Congress. Neither branch of
the legislative department, still less any merely administrative body, established by Congress, possesses, or can be invested
with, a general power of making inquiry into the private affairs of the citizen. Kilbourn v. Thompson, 103 U. S. 168,196
[26: 377, 386]. We said in Boyd v. United States, 116 U. S. 616, 630 [29: 746, 751]—and it cannot be too often repeated—that
the principles that embody the essence of constitutional liberty and security forbid all invasions on the part of the government
and its employes of the sancity of a man's home, and the privacies of his life. As said by Mr. Justice Field in Re Pacific
R. Commission, 32 Fed. Rep. 241,250, "of all the rights of the citizen, few are of greater importance or more essential
to his peace and happiness than the right of personal security, and that involves, not merely protection of his person
from assault, but exemption of his private affairs, books, and papers from the inspection and scrutiny of others. Without
the enjoyment of this right, all others would lose half their value."...
It is scarcely necessary to say that the power given to Congress to regulate interstate commerce
does not carry with it any power to destroy or impair those guarantees. This court has already spoken fully on that general
subject in Counselman v. Hitchock, 142 U. S. 547 [35: 1110], 3 Inters. Com. Rep. 816.... Suffice it hi the present case to
say that as the Interstate Commerce Commission, by petition in a circuit court of the United States seeks, upon grounds distinctly
set forth, an order to compel appellees to answer particular questions and to produce certain books, papers, etc., in their
possession, it was open to each of them to contend before that court that he was protected by the Constitution from making
answer to the questions propounded to him; or that he was not legally bound to produce the books, papers, etc., ordered
to be produced; or that neither the questions propounded nor the books, papers, etc., called for relate to the particular
matter under investigation, nor to any matter which the Commission is entitled under the Constitution or laws to investigate.
These issues being determined in their favor by the court, the petition of the Commission could have been dismissed upon
its merits. Interstate Commerce Comm'n v. Brimson (1894), 154 U.S. 447, 38 L.Ed 1047, 1058,14 S.Ct. 1125.
Zeller v. Rankin, 101 S.Ct. 2020, 451 U.S. 939, 68 L.Ed 2d 326 When a judge knows that he lacks jurisdiction,
or acts in the face of clearly valid statutes expressly depriving him of jurisdiction, judicial immunity is lost.
JURISDICTION:
NOTE: It is a fact of law that the person asserting jurisdiction must, when challenged, prove that jurisdiction exists; mere
good faith assertions of power and authority (jurisdiction) have been abolished.
Albrecht v. U.S. Balzac v. People of Puerto Rico, 258 U.S.
298 (1922) "The United States District Court is not a true United States Court, established under Article 3 of the Constitution
to administer the judicial power of the United States therein conveyed. It is created by virtue of the sovereign congressional
faculty, granted under Article 4, 3, of that instrument, of making all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory
belonging to the United States. The resemblance of its jurisdiction to that of true United States courts, in offering an opportunity
to nonresidents of resorting to a tribunal not subject to local influence, does not change its character as a mere territorial
court."
HALE v. HENKEL 201 U.S. 43 at 89 (1906)Hale v. Henkel was decided by the united
States Supreme Court in 1906. The opinion of the court states:"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 (Common Law) "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." "He owes nothing" to the public so long as he does not trespass
upon their rights."HALE
V. HENKEL 201 U.S. 43 at 89 (1906)Hale
v. Henkel is binding on all the courts of the United States of America until another Supreme Court case says it isn’t.
No other Supreme Court case has ever overturned Hale v. HenkelNone of the various issues of Hale v. Henkel has ever been overruledSince 1906, Hale v. Henkel has been cited by the Federal and
State Appellate Court systems over 1,600 times! In nearly every instance when a case is cited, it has an impact on precedent
authority of the cited case.Compared
with other previously decided Supreme Court cases, no other case has surpassed Hale v. Henkel in the number of times it has
been cited by the courts.
Basso v. UPL, 495 F. 2d 906
Brook
v. Yawkey, 200 F. 2d 633
Elliot v. Piersol, 1 Pet. 328, 340, 26 U.S. 328, 340 (1828)
Under federal Law, which is applicable to all states, the U.S. Supreme Court stated that "if a court
is without authority, its judgments and orders are regarded as nullities. They are not voidable, but simply void, and form
no bar to a recovery sought, even prior to a reversal in opposition to them. They constitute no justification and all persons
concerned in executing such judgments or sentences are considered, in law, as trespassers."
Griffin v. Mathews, 310 Supp. 341, 423 F. 2d 272
Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 528
Howlett v. Rose, 496 U.S. 356 (1990)Federal Law and Supreme Court Cases apply to State Court Cases.
Sims v. Aherns, 271 SW 720 (1925) "The practice of law
is an occupation of common right."
Maine v. Thiboutot, 448 U.S. 1
Mookini v. U.S., 303 U.S. 201 (1938)"The term 'District Courts of the United States' as used in the rules without
an addition expressing a wider connotation, has its historic significance. It describes the constitutional courts created
under Article 3 of the Constitution. Courts of the Territories are Legislative Courts, properly speaking, and are not district
courts of the United States. We have often held that vesting a territorial court with jurisdiction similar to that vested
in the district courts of the United States (98 U.S. 145) does not make it a 'District Court of the United States'."Not only did the promulgating order use the term District
Courts of the United States in its historic and proper sense, but the omission of provision for the application of the rules
the territorial court and other courts mentioned in the authorizing act clearly shows the limitation that was intended."
Carlisle
v. United States, 83 U.S. 147, 154 (1873), 'The rights of sovereignty extend to all persons and things not privileged,
that are within the territory. They extend to all strangers resident therein: not only to those who are naturalized,
and to those who are domiciled therein, having taken up their abode with the intention of permanent residence, but also
to those whose residence is transitory. All strangers are under the protection of the sovereign while they are within his
territory and owe a temporary allegiance in return for that protection.' "
In
Leiberg v. Vitangeli, 70 Ohio App. 479, 47 N.E. 2d 235, 238-39 (1942) "These constitutional provisions employ the word
'person,' that is. anyone whom we have permitted to peaceably reside within our borders may resort to our courts for redress
of an injury done him in his land, goods, person or reputation. The real party plaintiff for whom the nominal plaintiff sues
is not shown to have entered our land in an unlawful manner. We said to her, you may enter and reside with us and be equally
protected by our laws so long as you conform thereto. You may own property and our laws will protect your title. "We,
as a people, have said to those of foreign birth that these constitutional guaranties shall assure you of our good faith.
They are the written surety to you of our proud boast that the United States is the haven of refuge of the oppressed of
all mankind."
Court will assign to common-law terms their common-law meaning unless legislature
directs otherwise. People v. Young (1983) 340 N.W.2d 805,418 Mich. 1.
Common
law, by constitution, is law of state. Beech Grove Inv. Co. v. Civil Rights Com'n (1968) 157 N.W.2d 213, 380 Mich. 405."Common law" is but the accumulated
expressions of various judicial tribunals in their efforts to ascertain what is right and just between individuals in respect
to private disputes.
Semmens v. Floyd Rice Ford, Inc. (1965) 136 N.W.2d 704,1 Mich.App.
395.The common law is in
force in Michigan, except so far as it is repugnant to, or inconsistent with, the Constitution or statutes of the state.
Stout v. Keyes (1845) 2 Doug. 184, 43 Am. Dec. 465."The constitution was ordained ^nd
established by the people of the United States for themselves, for their own government, and not for the government of
the individual states. Each
state established a constitution for itself, and in that constitution, provided such limitations and restrictions on the powers
of its particular government, as its judgment dictated. The people of the United States framed such a government for the United
States as they supposed best adapted to their situation and best calculated to promote their interests. The powers they conferred
on this government were to be exercised by itself; and the limitations on power, if expressed in general terms, are naturally,
and, we think, necessarily, applicable to the government created by the instrument. They are limitations of power
granted in the instrument itself; not of distinct governments, framed by different persons and for different purposes.
If these propositions be correct, the fifth amendment must be understood as restraining the power of the general government,
not as applicable to the states."
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. 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 on any country where freedom prevails, as being the essence of slavery itself. See: Yick
Wo v. Hopkins ,118 U.S. 356 (1886)."
He is not to substitute even his juster will for theirs; otherwise
it would not be the 'common will' which prevails, and to that extent the people would not govern." See: Speech by Judge Learned Hand at the Mayflower
Hotel in Washington, D.C. May 11,1919, entitled, "Is there a Common Will?"
"...
The Congress cannot revoke the Sovereign power of the people to override itself as thus declared." See: Perry v. United
States , 294 U.S. 330, 353 (1935).
"In the United States, Sovereignty
resides in the people, who act through the organs established by the Constitution." See: Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 Dall
419, 471; Penhallow v. Doane's Administrators, 3 Dall 54, 93; McCullock v. Maryland, 4 Wheat 316, 404, 405; Yick Wo v. Hopkins
,118 U.S. 356, 370 (1886).
"As men whose intentions require no concealment, generally employ the
words which most directly and aptly express the ideas they intent to convey; the enlightened patriots who framed our constitution
and the people who adopted it must be understood to have employed the words in their natural sense, and to have intended
what they have said." See: Gibbons v. Ogden, 27 U.S. 1
No legislature
can bargain away the public
health or the public morals. The people themselves cannot do it. much less their servants.
See: New Orleans Gas Co v. Louisiana Light Co ,115 U.S. 650 (1885).
People are supreme, not the state. See: Waring v. the Mayor of Savannah, 60 Georgia at 93.
Strictly
speaking, in our republican form of government, the absolute sovereignty of the nation is in the people of
the nation: and the residuary sovereignty of each state, not granted to any of its public functionaries, is
in the people of the state. See: 2 Dall. 471; Bouv. Law Diet. (1870).
The
theory of the American political system is that the ultimate sovereignty is in the people, from whom all legitimate authority
springs, and the people collectively, acting through the medium of constitutions, create such governmental agencies, endow
them with such powers, and subject them to such limitations as in their wisdom will best promote the common good. See:
First Trust Co. v. Smith, 134 Neb.; 277 SW
762.
What is a constitution? It is the form of government, delineated
by the mighty hand of the people, in which certain first principles of fundamental laws are established." See: Vanhorne's
Lessee v. Dorrance , 2 U.S. 304(1795).
A constitution is designated as a supreme enactment, a fundamental act of legislation by the
people of the state. A constitution is legislation direct from the people acting in their sovereign capacity, while a
statute is legislation from their representatives, subject to limitations prescribed by the superior au&priry.
See: Ellingham v. Dye, 178 Ind. 336; 99 NE 1; 231 U.S. 250; 58 L. Ed. 206; 34 S. Ct. 92; Sage v. New York, 154 NY 61; 47 NE 1096.
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 of limitation, is vested in a parliament or other legislative body subject to no
restrictions except the discretion of its members. See: U.S. v. William M. Butler, 297 U.S. 1.
The people themselves have it in their power effectually to resist usurpation, without being driven to an appeal in arms.
An act of usurpation is not obligatory: It is not law; and any man may be justified in his resistance. Let him be considered
as a criminal by the general government: yet only his fellow citizens can convict him. They are his jury, and if they
pronounce him innocent, not all powers of congress can hurt him; and innocent they certainly will pronounce him, if the supposed
law he resisted was an act of usurpation. See: 2 Elliot's Debates, 94; 2 Bancroft, History of the Constitution, 267.
But it cannot be assumed that the framers of the Constitution and the people who adopted it did
not intent that which is the plain import of the language used. When the language of the Constitution is positive and free
from all ambiguity, all courts are not at liberty, by a resort to the refinements of legal learning, to restrict its obvious
meaning to avoid hardships of particular cases, we must accept the Constitution as it reads when its language is unambiguous,
for it is the mandate of the sovereign powers. See: State v. Sutton, 63 Minn. 147, 65 WX N.W., 262,101, N.W. 74; Cook v. Iverson,
122, N.M. 251.
In this state, as well as in all republics, it is
not the legislation, however transcendent its powers, who are supreme— but the people—
and to suppose that they may violate the fundamental law is, as has been most eloquently expressed, to affirm that the
deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior
to the people themselves: that the men acting by virtue of delegated powers may do. not only what then- powers do not
authorize, but what they forbid. See: Warning v. the Mayor of Savannah, 60 Georgia, P. 93.
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, if the police can pick him up whenever they do not like the cut
of his jib, if they can "seize" and "search" him hi their discretion, 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)."
Personal liberty, or the Right to enjoyment of life and liberty,
is one of the fundamental or natural Rights, which has been protected by its inclusion as a guarantee in the various constitutions,
which is not derived from,
or dependent on, the U.S. Constitution, which may not be submitted to a vote and may not depend on the outcome of an election.
It is one of the most sacred and valuable Rights, as sacred as the Right to private property ... and is regarded as inalienable."
16 C.J.S., Constitutional Law, Sect.202, p.987
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. 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. (Yick Wo vs. Hopkins, U.S. 356 (1886). "...The Congress cannot revoke the Sovereign power of the people
to override their will as thus declared." Perry v. United States, 294 U.S. 330, 353 (1935).
"In the United States, Sovereignty resides in the people, who act through the
organs established by the Constitution." Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 Dall 419, 471; Penhallow v. Doane's Administrators, 3 Dall 54, 93; McCullock
v. Maryland, 4 Wheat 316,404,405; Yick Yo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356, 370.
"The rights of the individuals are restricted only to the extent that they have been voluntarily surrendered by the citizenship to the agencies
of government." City of Dallas v Mitchell, 245 S.W. 944
Supreme
Court Justice Brandeis spoke, in the case of Olmstead v. United States when he said: "Decency, security and liberty
alike demand that government officials shall be subjected to the same rules of conduct that are commands to the citizen. In
a government of laws, existence of the government will be imperiled if it fails to obsereve the laws scruplously. Our
government is the potent omnipresent teacher. For good or ill, it teaches the whole people by it's example. Crime is contagious.
If the government becomes a law breaker, it breeds contempt for the law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself;
it invites anarchy. To declare that in the administration of criminal laws the endjustifies the means-- to declare that the government
may commit crimes in order to secure theconviction
of a private criminal—would bring terrible retribution. Against that pernicious doctrine this
Court should resolutely
set its face. ...And so should every law enforcemnt student, practitioner,
supervisor, and adminstrator.. "
State v. Manuel, North Carolina, Vol. 20, Page 121 (1838)The
sovereignty has been transferred from one man to the collective body of the people - and he who before was a "subject
of the king" is now "a citizen of the State”.
Chisholm v. Georgia, Dallas Supreme Court Reports, Vol. 2, Pages 471, 472 (1793) “It will be sufficient
to observe briefly, that the sovereignties in Europe, and particularly in England, exist on feudal principles.
That system considers the prince as the sovereign, and the people as his subjects; it regards his person as the object
of allegiance... No such ideas obtain here; at the revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people; and they are truly
the sovereigns of the country, but they are sovereigns without subjects... and have none to govern but themselves...”
Ex parte - Frank Knowles, California Reports, Vol. 5, Page
302 (1855) “A citizen of any one of the States of the Union, is held to be, and called a citizen of the United States,
although technically and abstractly there is no such thing. To conceive a citizen of the United States
who is not a citizen of some one of the States, is totally foreign to the idea, and inconsistent with the proper construction
and common understanding of the expression as used in the Constitution, which must be deduced from its various other provisions.”
Manchester v. Boston, Massachusetts Reports, Vol. 16, Page
235 (1819) “The term, citizens of the United States, must be understood to intend those who were citizens of a state,
as such, after the Union had commenced, and the several states had assumed their sovereignties. Before
this period there was no citizens of the United States...”
Butler v. Farnsworth, Federal Cases, Vol. 4, Page 902 (1821) “A
citizen of one state is to be considered as a citizen of every other state in the union.”
Douglass, Adm'r., v. Stephens, Delaware Chancery, Vol. 1,
Page 470 (1821) “When men entered into a State they yielded a part of their absolute rights, or natural liberty, for
political or civil liberty, which is no other than natural liberty restrained by human laws, so far as is necessary and expedient
for the general advantage of the public. The rights of enjoying and defending life and liberty, of acquiring
and protecting reputation and property, - and, in general, of attaining objects suitable to their condition, without injury
to another, are the rights of a citizen; and all men by nature have them.”
Allodial Land Barker v Dayton 28 Wisconsin 367 (1871): "All lands within
the state are declared to be allodial, and feudal tenures are prohibited. On this point counsel contended, first, that one
of the principal elements of feudal tenures was, that the feudatory could not independently alien or dispose of his fee; and
secondly, that the term allodial describes free and absolute ownership, ... independent ownership, in like manner as personal
property is held; the entire right and dominion; that it applies to lands held of no superior to whom the owner owes homage
or fealty or military service, and describes an estate subservient to the purposes of commerce, and alienable at the will
of the owner; the most ample and perfect interest which can be owned in land."
[Bowers v. DeVito, U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit, 686F.2d 616 (1882)“… there is no constitutional
right to be protected by the state against being murdered by criminals or madmen. It is monstrous if the state fails to protect
its residents against such predators but it does not violate the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment or, we suppose,
any other provision of the Constitution. The Constitution is a charter of negative liberties: it tells the state to let people
alone; it does not require the federal government or the state to provide services, even so elementary a service as maintaining
law and order.”
Income taxes
1895: In Pollock vs Farmers’ Loan & Trust Co, the
Supreme Court rules that general income taxes are unconstitutional because they are unapportioned direct taxes. To this
day, the ruling has not been over-turned.
January 24, 1916:
In Brushaber vs. Union Pacific Railroad, the Supreme Court ruled: that the 16th Amendment doesn’t
over-rule the Court’s ruling in the Pollock case which declared general income taxes unconstitutional; The 16th Amendment
applies only to gains and profits from commercial and investment activities: The 16th Amendment only applies to excises taxes;
The 16th Amendment did not Amend the U.S. Constitution; The 16th Amendment only clarified the federal governments existing
authority to create excise taxes without apportionment.
…the
[16th] Amendment contains nothing repudiating or challenging the ruling in the Pollock Case that the
word direct had a broader significance since it embraced also taxes levied directly on personal property because of its ownership,
and therefore the Amendment at least impliedly makes such wider significance a part of the Constitution -- a condition which
clearly demonstrates that the purpose was not to change the existing interpretation except to the extent necessary to accomplish
the result intended, that is, the prevention of the resort to the sources from which a taxed income was derived in order to
cause a direct tax on the income to be a direct tax on the source itself and thereby to take an income tax out of the class
of excises, duties and imposts and place it in the class of direct taxes...
Indeed in the light of the history which we have given and of the decision in the Pollock Case and the ground
upon which the ruling in that case was based, there is no escape from the Conclusion that the Amendment was drawn for the
purpose of doing away for the future with the principle upon which the Pollock Case was decided, that is, of determining whether
a tax on income was direct not by a consideration of the burden placed on the taxed income upon which it directly operated,
but by taking into view the burden which resulted on the property from which the income was derived, since in express terms
the Amendment provides that income taxes, from whatever source the income may be derived, shall not be subject to the regulation
of apportionment…
1939: Congress passes the Public Salary tax, taxing the wages of federal employees.
1940: Congress passes the Buck Act authorizing the federal government to tax
federal workers living in the States.
1942, Congress passes
the Victory Tax under Constitutional authority to support the WWII effort. President Roosevelt proposes a voluntary tax withholding
program allowing workers across the nation to pay the tax in installments. The program is a success and the number of tax
payers increases from 3 percent to 62 percent of the U.S. population.
1944: The Victory Tax and Voluntary Withholding laws are repealed as required by the U.S. Constitution, however,
the federal government continues to collect the tax claiming it’s authority under the 1913 income tax and the 16th Amendment.
Erie Railroad v. Tompkins, 1938 Supreme Court of the United States had
decided on the basis of Commercial (Negotiable Instruments) Law: that Tompkins was not under any contract
with the Erie Railroad, and therefore he had no standing to sue the company. Under the Common Law, he was damaged and he would
have had the right to sue. Hence, all
courts since 1938 are operating in an Admiralty Jurisdiction and not Common Law courts because lawful money (silver
or gold coin) does not exist.Courts of Admiralty
only has jurisdiction over maritime contracts on the high seas ad navigable water ways.
In Blockburger v. U.S., 284 U.S. 299 (1932), the Supreme Court
held that punishment for two statutory offenses arising out of the same criminal act or transaction does not violate the Double
Jeopardy Clause if 'each provision requires proof of an additional fact which the other does not.' Id. at 304.
Boyd v. United, 116 U.S. 616 at 635 (1885)Justice Bradley, "It may be that it is the obnoxious thing in its mildest
form; but illegitimate and unconstitutional practices get their first footing in that way; namely, by silent approaches and
slight deviations from legal modes of procedure. This can only be obviated by adhering to the rule that constitutional provisions
for the security of persons and property should be liberally construed. A close and literal construction deprives them of
half their efficacy, and leads to gradual depreciation of the right, as if it consisted more in sound than in substance. It
is the duty of the Courts to be watchful for the Constitutional Rights of the Citizens, and against any stealthy encroachments
thereon. Their motto should be Obsta Principiis."
Downs v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244 (1901)"It will be an evil day for American
Liberty if the theory of a government outside supreme law finds lodgement in our constitutional jurisprudence. No higher duty
rests upon this Court than to exert its full authority to prevent all violations of the principles of the Constitution."
Duncan v. Missouri,
152 U.S. 377, 382 (1894) Due process of law and the equal protection of the laws are secured if the laws operate on all alike,
and do not subject the individual to an arbitrary exercise of the powers of government."
Giozza v. Tiernan, 148 U.S. 657, 662 (1893), Citations Omitted
"Undoubtedly it (the Fourteenth Amendment) forbids any arbitrary deprivation of life, liberty or property, and secures
equal protection to all under like circumstances in the enjoyment of their rights... It is enough that there is no discrimination
in favor of one as against another of the same class. ...And due process of law within the meaning of the [Fifth and Fourteenth]
amendment is secured if the laws operate on all alike, and do not subject the individual to an arbitrary exercise of the powers
of government."
Kentucky Railroad Tax Cases, 115 U.S. 321, 337 (1885) "The rule of equality... requires the same means
and methods to be applied impartially to all the constitutents of each class, so that the law shall operate equally and uniformly
upon all persons in similar circumstances".
Butz v. Economou, 98 S. Ct. 2894 (1978); United States v. Lee, 106 U.S. at 220, 1 S. Ct. at 261 (1882) "No
man [or woman] 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."
Olmstad
v. United States, (1928) 277 U.S. 438 "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."
Mallowy v. Hogan, 378 U.S. 1 "All rights and safeguards
contained in the first eight amendments to the federal Constitution are equally applicable."
U.S. v. Lee, 106 U.S. 196, 220 1 S. Ct. 240, 261, 27 L. Ed
171 (1882) "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 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 on the exercise of the authority which
it gives."
Ableman v. Booth, 21 Howard 506 (1859) "No judicial process, whatever form it may assume, can have any
lawful authority outside of the limits of the jurisdiction of the court or judge by whom it is issued; and an attempt to enforce
it beyond these boundaries is nothing less than lawless violence."
Stump v. Sparkman, id., 435 U.S. 349 Some Defendants urge that any act "of a judicial nature" entitles
the Judge to absolute judicial immunity. But in a jurisdictional vacuum (that is, absence of all jurisdiction) the second
prong necessary to absolute judicial immunity is missing. A judge is not immune for tortious acts committed in a purely Administrative,
non-judicial capacity.
Marbury v. Madison,
5 U.S. (2 Cranch) 137, 180 (1803) "... the particular phraseology of the constitution of the United States confirms and
strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written constitutions, that a law repugnant to the constitution
is void, and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument.""In declaring what shall be the supreme law of the land, the Constitution
itself is first mentioned; and not the laws of the United States generally, but those only which shall be made in pursuance
of the Constitution, have that rank"."All
law (rules and practices) which are repugnant to the Constitution are VOID".Since the 14th Amendment to the Constitution states "NO State (Jurisdiction) shall make or
enforce any law which shall abridge the rights, privileges, or immunities of citizens of the United States nor deprive any
citizens of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law, ... or equal protection under the law", this renders
judicial immunity unconstitutional.
Piper v. Pearson, 2 Gray 120, cited in Bradley v. Fisher, 13 Wall. 335, 20 L.Ed. 646 (1872)"Where there is no jurisdiction, there can be no discretion, for discretion
is incident to jurisdiction."
Chandler v. Judicial Council of the 10th Circuit, 398 U.S. 74, 90 S. Ct. 1648, 26 L. Ed. 2d 100Justice Douglas,
in his dissenting opinion at page 140 said, "If (federal judges) break the law, they can be prosecuted." Justice
Black, in his dissenting opinion at page 141) said, "Judges, like other people, can be tried, convicted and punished
for crimes... The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution".
Davis v. Burris, 51
Ariz. 220, 75 P.2d 689 (1938) A judge must be acting within his jurisdiction as to subject matter and person, to be entitled
to immunity from civil action for his acts.
U.S. v. Dixon, 113 S.Ct. 2849, 2856 (1993), the Court clarified the use of the 'same elements test' set forth
in Blockburger when it over-ruled the 'same conduct' test announced in Grady v. Corbin, 495 U.S. 508 (1990), and held that
the Double Jeopardy Clause bars successive prosecutions only when the previously concluded and subsequently charged offenses
fail the 'same elements' test articulated in Blockburger. See also Gavieres v. U.S., 220 U.S. 338, 345 (1911) (early precedent
establishing that in a subsequent prosecution '[w]hile it is true that the conduct of the accused was one and the same, two
offenses resulted, each of which had an element not embraced in the other').
Be aware that in 1781 two men came here from England and created two Federal corporations, one was the "AMERICAN
BAR ASSOCIATION” and the other “THE UNITED STATES CORPORATION”. The control of the government
transferred to the UNITED STATES CORPORATION at that time, which was one of the first ILLEGAL UNLAWFUL CONSTITUTIONAL ACTS
of our GOVERNMENT. Following the precepts formulated by Colonel Mandel House, personal advisor to Woodrow
Wilson (President of the United States) and an unknown member of the Illuminati, our country (a Dream of Baron Rothschild
and the other members of the Illuminati are still being used by our Rulers to this date in their quest to take over and own
the United States of America.
