Power Independence Home 
Home Search search Menu menu Not logged in - Login | Register

 Moderated by: Joe Kelley
New Topic Reply Printer Friendly
Law Notes  Rate Topic 
AuthorPost
 Posted: Thu Sep 14th, 2017 05:47 pm
  PM Quote Reply
1st Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 5998
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
http://1215.org/lawnotes/lawnotes/foundation.htm

WARNING: It is impossible for you to learn that which you think you already know.

Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Thu Sep 14th, 2017 06:04 pm
  PM Quote Reply
2nd Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 5998
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
http://1215.org/lawnotes/lawnotes/attitude.htm

The whole court process is about getting even.

That can be defined as revenge. That can be defined as equitable commerce, or remedy. What is the intended message?

Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: Wed Sep 27th, 2017 06:15 pm
  PM Quote Reply
3rd Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 5998
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
https://www.nationallibertyalliance.org/files/lawnotes/Law.txt

Law

"For a crime to exist, there must be an injured party. There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of this exercise of Constitutional rights."- Sherar v. Cullen, 481 F. 945.

AT LAW. This phrase is used to point out that a thing is to be done according to the course of the common law; it is distinguished from a proceeding in equity

"All codes, rules, and regulations are for government authorities only, not human/Creators in accordance with God's laws. All codes, rules, and regulations are unconstitutional and lacking due process…" Rodriques v. Ray Donavan (U.S. Department of Labor) 769 F. 2d 1344, 1348 (1985).

"All laws, rules and practices which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void" [Marbury v. Madison, 5th US (2 Cranch) 137, 180]

The common law is the real law, the Supreme Law of the land, the code, rules, regulations, policy and statutes are “not the law”, [Self v. Rhay, 61 Wn (2d) 261]

"The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void and ineffective for any purpose, since its unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment... In legal contemplation, it is as inoperative as if it had never been passed... Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no right, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection and justifies no acts performed under it... A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing law. Indeed insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, (the Constitution) it is superseded thereby. No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it." [Bonnett v. Vallier, 116 N.W. 885, 136 Wis. 193 (1908); NORTON v. SHELBY COUNTY, 118 U.S. 425 (1886)]

"There, every man is independent of all laws, except those prescribed by nature. He is not bound by any institutions formed by his fellowman without his consent." [Cruden v. Neale, 2 N.C. 338 (1796) 2 S.E.]

"Under our system of government upon the individuality and intelligence of the citizen, the state does not claim to control him/her, except as his/her conduct to others, leaving him/her the sole judge as to all that affects himself/herself." Mugler v. Kansas 123 U.S. 623, 659-60.


"Statutes that violate the plain and obvious principles of common right and common reason are null and void." Bennett v. Boggs, 1 Baldw 60.

"The assertion of federal rights, when plainly and reasonably made, is not to be defeated under the name of local practice." Davis v. Wechsler, 263 US 22, at 24

"A State may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the Federal Constitution." Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105, at 113.

"The State cannot diminish rights of the people." Hertado v. California, 110 U.S. 516 "The Claim and exercise of a Constitutional Right cannot be converted into a crime."-Miller v. U.S. , 230 F 2d 486. 489 "If the state converts a liberty into a privilege the citizen can engage in the right with impunity" Shuttlesworth v Birmingham , 373 USs 262

"Laws are made for us; we are not made for the laws." [William Milonoff]

The very meaning of 'sovereignty' is that the decree of the sovereign makes law. [American Banana Co. v. United Fruit Co., 29 S.Ct. 511, 513, 213 U.S. 347, 53 L.Ed. 826, 19 Ann.Cas. 1047.] A consequence of this prerogative is the legal ubiquity of the king. His majesty in the eye of the law is always present in all his courts, though he cannot personally distribute justice. (Fortesc.c.8. 2Inst.186) His judges are the mirror by which the king's image is reflected. [1 Blackstone's Commentaries, 270, Chapter 7, Section 379.]


This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby; any thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. [Constitution for the United States of America, Article VI, Clause 2.]

“Inferior courts” are those whose jurisdiction is limited and special and whose proceedings are not according to the course of the common law. Criminal courts proceed according to statutory law. Jurisdiction and procedure is defined by statute. Likewise, civil courts and admiralty courts proceed according to statutory law. Any court proceeding according to statutory law is not a court of record (which only proceeds according to common law); it is an inferior court.

"The very meaning of 'sovereignty' is that the decree of the sovereign makes law." American [Banana Co. v. United Fruit Co., 29 S.Ct. 511, 513, 213 U.S. 347, 53 L.Ed. 826, 19 Ann.Cas. 1047].

"Sovereignty' means that the decree of sovereign makes law, and foreign courts cannot condemn influences persuading sovereign to make the decree." [Moscow Fire Ins. Co. of Moscow, Russia v. Bank of New York & Trust Co., 294 N.Y.S. 648, 662, 161 Misc. 903].

“Sovereignty itself is, of course, not subject to law, for it is the author and source of law;” [Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 US 356, 370 (Undersigned is Sovereign and no court has challenged that status/standing)]

“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 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 v. Hopkins, 118 US 356, 370 Quotiens dubia interpretatio libertatis est, secundum libertatem respondendum erit]

The common law is the real law, the Supreme Law of the land, the code, rules, regulations, policy and statutes are “not the law”, [Self v. Rhay, 61 Wn (2d) 261]

Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Wed Sep 27th, 2017 06:32 pm
  PM Quote Reply
4th Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 5998
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
https://www.facebook.com/TruthForTrapperKillsmany/posts/779937162087283


STATUTES, CODES, RULES & REGULATIONS: STATUTES ARE NOT LAWS
With such overwhelming case law there is no question about the fact of the claim made here statutes are not law.

Plaintiff/the court now challenges prosecution and Magistrate to prove the statutes apply to plaintiff/court. Plaintiff denies being a government employee if the prosecution or state or Magistrates wish to say different then prove I have been a paid employee of federal or state Government. As well article 1 section 8 clause 14 says clearly the government makes the rules for the government not the people. Cruden v. Neale, 2 N.C. 338 (1796) 2 S.E.].
Constitutionally, "a statutory presumption cannot be sustained if there be no rational connection between the fact proved and the ultimate fact presumed." Tot v United States, 319 US 463, 467; 63 S.Ct. 1241, 1245, 87 L.Ed.2d 1519 (1943).

"Statutes apply only to state created creatures known as corporations no matter whether [creatures of statute and offices of] state, local, or federal [government]." (Colonial Pipeline Co. v. Traigle, 421 US 100. (1975) ).
“A statute will not be presumed to have extra territorial effect... outside the [territorial] jurisdiction of the legislature.. over persons residing outside the (territorial) jurisdiction of the legislature." (Bond v Jay, 7 Cranch 350, 3 L Ed 367). "

A “Statute’ is not a Law,” (Flournoy v. First Nat. Bank of Shreveport, 197 La. 1067, 3 So.2d 244, 248),
“A “Code’ or Statute’ is not a Law,” (Flournoy v. First Nat. Bank of Shreveport, 197 La. 1067, 3 So.2d 244, 248),
A “Code’ is not a Law,” (In Re Self v Rhay Wn 2d 261), in point of fact in Law,)

A concurrent or ‘joint resolution’of legislature is not “Law,” (Koenig v. Flynn, 258 N.Y. 292, 179 N. E. 705, 707; Ward v State, 176 Okl. 368, 56 P.2d 136, 137; State ex rel. Todd v. Yelle, 7 Wash.2d 443, 110 P.2d 162, 165).
…lacking due process[of law], in that they are ‘void for ambiguity’ in their failure to specify the statutes’ applicability to ‘natural persons,’ otherwise depriving the same of fair notice, as their construction by definition of terms aptly identifies the applicability of such statutes to “artificial or fictional corporate entities or ‘persons’, creatures of statute, or those by contract employed as agents or representatives, departmental subdivisions, offices, officers, and property of the government, but not the ‘Natural Person’ or American citizen Immune from such jurisdiction of legalism. (Rodriques v. Ray Donavan, U.S. Department of Labor, 769 F.2d 1344, 1348 (1985));

All codes, rules, and regulations are for government authorities only, not human/Creators in accord with God’s Laws. “All codes, rules, and regulations are unconstitutional and lacking due process of Law..”(Rodriques v. Ray Donavan, U.S. Department of Labor, 769 F.2d 1344, 1348 (1985)); …lacking due process of law, in that they are ‘void for ambiguity’ in their failure to specify the statutes’ applicability to ‘natural persons,’ otherwise depriving the same of fair notice, as their construction by definition of terms aptly identifies the applicability of such statutes to “artificial or fictional corporate entities or ‘persons’, creatures of statute, or those by contract employed as agents or representatives, departmental subdivisions, offices, officers, and property of the government, but not the ‘Natural Person’ or American citizen Immune from such jurisdiction of legalism.
“The Common Law is the real law, the Supreme Law of the land. The codes, rules, regulations, policy and statutes are “not the law.” (Self v. Rhay, 61 Wn 2d 261), They are the law of government for internal regulation, not the law of man, in his separate but equal station and natural state, a sovereign foreign with respect to government generally.)

"The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of it's enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it."

"It (the legislature or statutory laws) may not violate constitutional prohibits or guarantees OR AUTHORIZE OTHERS TO DO SO." Lockard v. Los Angeles 33 Cal2d 553; Cert den 337 US 939.

Constitutionally, "a statutory presumption cannot be sustained if there be no rational connection between the fact proved and the ultimate fact presumed." Tot v United States, 319 US 463, 467; 63 S.Ct. 1241, 1245, 87 L.Ed.2d 1519 (1943).

U.S. Const., Art. VI, cl. 2; Maryland v Louisiana, 451 US 725, 746; 101 S Ct 2114; 68 L Ed 2d 576 (1981) reveals that, "Where a state statute conflicts with, or frustrates, federal law, the former must give way."
“If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two Constitution is to be preferred to the statute.” (A. Hamilton, Federalist Papers #78 See also Warning V. The Mayor of Savannah, 60 Georgia, P.93; First Trust Co. v. Smith, 277 SW 762. Marbury v. Madison, 2 L Ed 60; and Am.Juris. 2d Constitutional Law section 177-178)
“It (the legislature or statutory laws) may not violate Constitutional prohibits or guarantees OR AUTHORIZE OTHERS TO DO SO.” Lockard v. Los Angeles 33 Cal2d 553; Cert den 337 US 939.

Weimer v Bunbury, 30 Mich 291; 1874 Mich. LEXIS 168 (1874) reveals that "The Bill of Rights in the American Constitution has not been drafted for the introduction of new law, but to secure old [already existing] principles against abrogation or violation."

Every man is independent of all laws, except those prescribed by nature. He is not bound by any institutions formed by his fellow man without his consent. Mugler v. Kansas 123 U.S. 623, 659-60.

"Insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, (constitution) it is superseded thereby." (16 Am Jur 2d 177, Late Am Jur 2d. 256)

"...all laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void' (Marbury v Madison, 5 US 1803 (2 Cranch) 137, 174, 170).

"Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them." - Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 491.
"The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime." Miller v. U.S., 230 F 2d 486, 489.

"There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of this exercise of Constitutional rights."- Sherar v. Cullen, 481 F. 945.

To disregard Constitutional law, and to violate the same, creates a sure liability upon the one involved:
"State officers may be held personally liable for damages based upon actions taken in their official capacities." Hafer v. Melo, 502 U.S. 21 (1991).

If the U.S. Supreme Court acknowledged the authority of the common law Grand Jury (U.S. v. Williams), why would the state have authority to counter that opinion? The common law is superior to all statutory law, and we must only invoke it in the right way to have superior standing. We need to stop putting the common law and the Grand Juries underneath their inferior statutory laws. The people (singular AND plural) have the ultimate authority!

American Jurisprudence 2nd 1964 vol. 16 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW § 177 Generally statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted. Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it. A contract which rests on an unconstitutional statute creates no obligation to be impaired by subsequent legislation.

No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it. Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby. It is said that all persons are presumed to know the law, meaning that ignorance of the law excuses no one; if any person acts under an unconstitutional statute, he does so at his peril and must take the consequences. Pg. 403 – 405 16Am Jur 2d., Const. Law Sec. 70:

“If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two Constitution is to be preferred to the statute.” (A. Hamilton, Federalist Papers #78 See also Warning V. The Mayor of Savannah, 60 Georgia, P.93; First Trust Co. v. Smith, 277 SW 762. Marbury v. Madison, 2 L Ed 60; and Am.Juris. 2d Constitutional Law section 177-178).
A “Statute’ is not a Law,” (Flournoy v. First Nat. Bank of Shreveport, 197 La. 1067, 3 So.2d 244, 248),
A “Code’ is not a Law,” (In Re Self v Rhay Wn 2d 261), in point of fact in Law,)

A concurrent or ‘joint resolution’of legislature is not “Law,” (Koenig v. Flynn, 258 N.Y. 292, 179 N. E. 705, 707; Ward v State, 176 Okl. 368, 56 P.2d 136, 137; State ex rel. Todd v. Yelle, 7 Wash.2d 443, 110 P.2d 162, 165).
All codes, rules, and regulations are for government authorities only, not human/Creators in accord with God’s Laws.

“All codes, rules, and regulations are unconstitutional and lacking due process of Law..”
(Rodriques v. Ray Donavan, U.S. Department of Labor, 769 F.2d 1344, 1348 (1985)); …lacking due process of law, in that they are ‘void for ambiguity’ in their failure to specify the statutes’ applicability to ‘natural persons,’ otherwise depriving the same of fair notice, as their construction by definition of terms aptly identifies the applicability of such statutes to “artificial or fictional corporate entities or ‘persons’, creatures of statute, or those by contract employed as agents or representatives, departmental subdivisions, offices, officers, and property of the government, but not the ‘Natural Person’ or American citizen Immune from such jurisdiction of legalism.
“All codes, rules and regulations are applicable to the government authorities only, not human/Creators in accordance with God’s laws. All codes, rules and regulations are unconstitutional and lacking in due process …” Rodriques v Ray Donavan (U.S. Department of Labor), 769 F. 2d 1344, 1348 (1985).

U.S. Const., Art. Vl, cl. 2; Maryland v Louisiana, 451 US 725; 746; 101 S Ct 2114; 68 L Ed 2d 576 (1981) reveals that. “Where a state statute conflicts with, or frustrates, federal law, the former must give way.”
"It (the legislature or statutory laws) may not violate constitutional prohibits or guarantees OR AUTHORIZE OTHERS TO DO SO." Lockard v. Los Angeles 33 Cal2d 553; Cert den 337 US 939.

Constitutionally, "a statutory presumption cannot be sustained if there be no rational connection between the fact proved and the ultimate fact presumed." Tot v United States, 319 US 463, 467; 63 S.Ct. 1241, 1245, 87 L.Ed.2d 1519 (1943).

Words and phrases in statues must be construed according to the rules of grammer and their common and approved usuage...Velquez. V. East strousburg,949.A2d 354,358-359(PA Cmwlth.2007)....

The separate source of substantive law must constitute a “money-mandating constitutional provision, statute or regulation that has been violated, or an express or implied contract with the United States.” Loveladies Harbor, Inc. v. United States, 27 F.3d 1545, 1554 (Fed. Cir. 1994).

In order for a claim against the United States founded on statute or regulation to be successful, the provisions relied upon must contain language which could fairly be interpreted as mandating recovery of compensation from the government.” Cummings v. United States, 17 Cl. Ct. 475, 479 (1989), aff’d, 904 F.2d 45 (Fed. Cir. 1990); see also United States v. Testan, 424 U.S. 392, 398 (1976).
“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.” Marbury v. Madison, 5 US 137:

“All laws, rules and practices which are repugnant to the Constitution are and void.” Marbury v. Madison, 5th US (2 Cranch) 137, 180 .

16 Am Jur 2d, Sec 177 late 2d, Sec 256:
The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any statute, to be valid, must be in agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows:

The General rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law is in reality no law, but is wholly void and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.

Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it.

A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law. Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the
land, it is superseded thereby.

No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.

Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: Wed Sep 27th, 2017 06:58 pm
  PM Quote Reply
5th Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 5998
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
http://1215.org/lawnotes/lawnotes/courtrec.htm


_____________________________________
This writer concludes, from the definitions below, that a
court of record is a court which must meet the following
criteria:

1. generally has a seal
2. power to fine or imprison for contempt
3. keeps a record of the proceedings
4. proceeding according to the common law (not statutes or codes)
5. the tribunal is independent of the magistrate (judge)

Note that a judge is a magistrate and is not the tribunal.
The tribunal is either the sovereign himself, or a fully
empowered jury (not paid by the government)
_______________________________________

Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Thu Sep 28th, 2017 02:32 pm
  PM Quote Reply
6th Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 5998
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/123/623/case.html
_____________________________________
"the jurisdiction of courts of equity seems to be of a very ancient date, and has been distinctly traced back to the reign of Queen Elizabeth. The jurisdiction is applicable not only to public nuisances, strictly so called, but also to purprestures upon public rights and property. . . . In case of public nuisances, properly so called, an indictment lies to abate them, and to punish the
Page 123 U. S. 673
offenders. But an information also lies in equity to redress the grievance by way of injunction."
2 Stroy, Eq.Jur. §§ 921, 922. The ground of this jurisdiction in cases of purpresture, as well as of public nuisances, is the ability of courts of equity to give a more speedy, effectual, and permanent remedy than can be had at law. They cannot only prevent nuisances that are threatened, and before irreparable mischief ensues, but arrest or abate those in progress, and, by perpetual injunction, protect the public against them in the future, whereas courts of law can only reach existing nuisances, leaving future acts to be the subject of new prosecutions or proceedings. This is a salutary jurisdiction, especially where a nuisance affects the health, morals, or safety of the community. Though not frequently exercised, the power undoubtedly exists in courts of equity thus to protect the public against injury. District Attorney v. Railroad Co., 16 Gray, 245; Attorney General v. Railroad, 3 N. J. Eq. 139; Attorney General v. Ice Co., 104 Mass. 244; State v. Mayor, 5 Port. (Ala.) 279, 294; Hoole v. Attorney General, 22 Ala. 194; Attorney General v. Hunter, 1 Dev.Eq. 13; Attorney General v. Forbes, 2 Mylne & C. 123, 129, 133; Attorney General v. Railway Co., 1 Drew. & S. 161; Eden, Inj. 259; Kerr, Inj. (2d Ed.) 168.
_____________________________________

Could not find: "Every man is independent of all laws, except those prescribed by nature. He is not bound by any institutions formed by his fellow man without his consent. Mugler v. Kansas 123 U.S. 623, 659-60."

Back To Top PM Quote Reply

Current time is 10:44 pm  
Power Independence > Study Group > Study Group > Law Notes Top




UltraBB 1.17 Copyright © 2007-2008 Data 1 Systems