Constitutionally Guaranteed Right

Thursday, September 26, 2013 [original date]

Constitutionally Guaranteed Right Cannot Be Converted Into A Crime

Miller v. US (5th Circuit) 230 F. 2d. 486 (1956) “The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot thus be converted into a crime”
Miranda v. Arizona 384 US 436 (1966)
“Where rights are secured by the constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them.”
Hale v. Henkel 201 US 43 (1906)
“…There is a clear distinction…between an individual and a corporation…The individual may stand upon his constitutional rights as a citizen. He is entitled to carry on his private business in his own way…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’s powers are limited by law.”
Byars v. United States 273 US 28 (1927)
“…it is the duty of courts to be watchful for the constitutional rights of the citizen, and against any stealthy encroachment thereon.”
Marbury v. Madison (1 Cranch 170) 5 US 137 (1803)
“…a legislative act contrary to the constitution is not law…an act of the legislature repugnant to the constitution is void.”
Norton v. Shelby County 118 US 425 (1886)
“An unconstitutional act is not law…it imposes no duty…it is, in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed.”
Mugler v. Kansas 123 US 623 (1887)
“The supreme court of the United States is, however, the final expositor and arbiter of all disputed questions touching the scope and meaning of that sacred instrument [the US Constitution], and its decisions thereon are binding upon all courts, both state and federal.”
Ex Parte Young 209 US 123 (1908)
“The Eleventh Amendment provides no shield for a state official confronted by a claim that he had deprived another of a federal right under the color of state law…when a state officer acts under a state law in a manner violative of the federal 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.”
Staub v. Baxley 355 US 313 (1958)
“…an ordinance which makes the peaceful enjoyment of freedoms which the constitution guarantees contingent upon the uncontrolled will of an official – as by requiring a permit or license which may be granted or withheld in the discretion of such official – is an unconstitutional censorship or prior restraint upon the enjoyment of those freedoms.”
United States v. Jackson 390 US 570 (1968)
“If a law has ‘no other purpose…’ than to chill the assertion of constitutional rights by penalizing those who choose to exercise them, then it [is] patently unconstitutional.”
Cohens v. Virginia (6 Wheaton) 19 US 264 (1821)
“A law cannot exceed the authority of the lawgiver. We have no more right to decline the exercise of jurisdiction which is given, than to usurp that which is not given. The one or the other would be treason to the constitution. The several state legislatures and judiciaries, are all bound by solemn obligation of an oath, to support the federal constitution;…willfully legislating in violation of that constitution…[is] guilty of perjury. [309]”
Post borrowed from:  http://www.titanians.org/right-to-travel-is-guaranteed/

RIGHT TO RESIST – 5/18/12 RULING

MICHIGAN SUPREME COURT UPHOLDS RIGHT TO RESIST POLICE MISCONDUCT

http://voiceofdetroit.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/To-Exist-is-to-Resist.jpg

 

LEAVE TO APPEAL

1835 Original Seal for MichiganThis e-mail is only going out to a few folks who might actually read it and share the information about the property rights cause with friends. Our judicial system is constitutionally bankrupt but we must use the system to expose it to everyone who wants to reestablish liberty in America. To have a case heard by the MI Supreme Court you must ask their permission, this process is called LEAVE TO APPEAL!  This LEAVE is not the actual BRIEF that must be filled if you are GRANTED permission to go before the MI Supreme Court it is just to present why you think this case is important and why they should hear your case. There is only about a 5% chance the case they will agree to hear the case and that is ok because this is a step in the overall exposure process. Below is just the introduction to the leave to appeal. Attached is the actual leave that was filed with the court. The attached also have both the opinion of the circuit and appeals courts. I have highlighted a couple statements in the Appeals Court OPINION I think you will find very interesting.

“Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn’t pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same.” –Ronald Reagan

Greg

GROUNDS   (INTRODUCTION)   MCR 7.302 (B)
This Constitutional and statutory case against the State could affect hundreds of thousands of acres of private property and property owners within the exterior boundaries of Michigan. Plaintiff’s / Appellant’s sought declaratory relief to prevent defendant Department of Environment Quality (DEQ) from entering the property to inspect for wetlands and to require wetland permit with restriction if State so desired.
The state has properly admitted they do not have any Holds, Liens, Monetary, Proprietary or Contractual interests in the physical Property which the Plaintiffs / Appellants is the Assign and holds fee simple patent with no reservation, as evidenced by chain of title. However, the state and lower courts claims PA 451 of 1994, MCL 324.30301 gives jurisdiction over the person and police powers are granted to them by Art. IV § 52 of Michigan Constitution to enter, inspect, and require permits. The Court has also stated this kind of entry and requirement for a permit would not constitute a taking.
The term “property” embodies more than just physical, corporeal assets; it can include intangible entities, such as rights and interests.[1]   The patent 4829 Grants all rights, privileges, immunities, and appurtenances of whatsoever nature, to heirs and assigns forever.” In its precise legal sense, property is nothing more than a collection of rights;[2] indeed, “property,” in law, is not the material object itself, but is the right and interest or domination rightfully obtained over such object, with the unrestricted right to its use, enjoyment, and disposition.[3] The right to exclude others, as well as their property, is one of the most essential sticks in the bundle of rights that are commonly characterized as property. [4] Our case was brought to defend the right to exclude other from the property, to retain control of resources and defend the right not to have to enter into any permitting scheme (contract) with the state for rights already secured.
Art. I § 14 Jury trials “The right of trial by jury shall remain, but shall be waived in all civil cases unless demanded by one of the parties in the manner prescribed by law.  So far, this case has been bantered around on the states home court by trustees and actors of the state, and now needs to be addressed by a jury, the ones who authorize the state to exist, and the ones whose properties are at risk.
The Declaration of Independence clearly states:
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,…”

LEAVE TO APPEAL SUPREME COURT searchable PDF DOCUMENT
Continue reading

BY CONSENT OF THE GOVERNED

BY CONSENT OF THE GOVERNED

Published on Mar 3, 2013

A Film by Steve: Bates which took almost 9 months to make covering the multiple aspects and uses of the term, ‘consent of the governed’. Something members of the World Freeman Society have revoked by Claim of Right.

Governments, Police all operate by consent. They require your consent by acquiescence to make rulings, statutes, acts and war & taxes, all by your consent. Some things are good, we like Peace Officers keeping us safe, but do not consent to their revenue making activities. There are many good reasons to have a government, but we must remember who we are and who ‘they’ are.

We are the Public and they are the Public Servants. And when they forget that, and start treating us like their property, it is our duty to inform others, help educate and hold accountable those whose actions do not reflect the mandate we as the people demand.

“Consent Of The Governed: The Freeman Movement Defined” is nearly 3 hours long, and covers a wide range of topics that effect and hinder our human freedom when dealing with civil SERVANTS who seek to claim authority over us, so be prepared to set aside some educational viewing time … however, I promise you, it will be time well spent.