THE BEST OF CARL MILLER – “Know Your Constitution”
Carl Miller is an expert on the constitution and the bill of rights. He has studied law for 25 years and has a courtroom win-loss rate of over 90%. He is not an attorney; Carl prefers to represent himself in pria persona, and he delights in tying legal prosecutors in knots, often winning the praise and respect of the judges at the same time. Carl is a highly decorated hero of the Viet Nam War, serving in the elite Apache Troop both as a paratrooper and a crew chief.
The famous movie “Apocalypse Now” and the best-selling book Apache Sunrise are based on the true-life experiences of this group of brave and patriotic Americans.
Carl Miller was inducted into the top-secret project “Blue Book”, and he considers it an honor to have served in several operations supporting Lt. Col. James “Bo” Gritez, including operation “Eagle Snatch”. Carl is the veteran of hundreds of dangerous parachute jumps, breaking his legs or ankles six times, shot down 4 times and personally shot twice. Carl has miraculously escaped death numerous times. Carl credits divine intervention and God’s providence for preserving his life to this day so that he may complete the most important mission of his life; that of teaching others the importance of the constitution of the united states and how to use it, and by using it thus preserving it.
Carl has taught hundreds of people, including housewives and truck drivers the fine art of arguing the constitution and winning in court. Carl says it’s easy once you know how, and a whole lot of fun, too.
For over 25 years I have been doing research on the laws and the Constitution of the United States. I have watched as people in the “patriot movement” protesting everything from traffic tickets to income taxes have spewed forth their “theories and remedies” and ended up in jail…Or worse, dead.
Carl’s research and knowledge sets him apart from the rest. He has learned intimately the inner workings of the U.S. Constitution and the laws of the country and has formulated arguments for use in court for almost anything they will try to hammer you for. and has perfected them to the extent that he has an almost 100%-win rate in court!
Anyone who is an American and has any interest in the country and where it’s going, needs to read Carl’s information here. Whether you are just mildly interested, or you want to beat their sox off in traffic court, tax court, or any other venue, Carl Miller is hands down the best mentor and teacher you can have.
So, Here’s Carl:
“Good evening folks, I want to thank you for inviting me into your home tonight, to talk to you about an extremely important issue to you. I’m basically here to talk about the United States Constitution and our government, and some of the principles there of. You need to understand most thoroughly so that you can have an effective opportunity to exercise your constitutional rights.
The whole purpose of this is that you understand that these rights come from God. They are God inspired. God is the one who endowed you with these rights, and the constitution merely offers a legitimate program to protect those rights or to secure those rights and the blessings of those rights for ourselves and on our children for all times. It’s important that you understand that the constitution is God inspired, it’s important that you understand that a lot of the principles that are in the constitution actually come out of the Holy Bible, and it’s very important that you understand that this constitution allows you each to be a king or queen in your own right, as long as you recognize one principle that you don’t ever create a situation where you take away the rights of another.. So, the whole point of having the constitution is so that all of us can have these rights equally. As long as we respect our neighbor and allow them also to have the rights equally, the protections are going to last forever and the reality is that we are going to get thoroughly into your constitution, and we want you to find a constitution wherever you can, and we are basically going to take you step-by-step through some of the most important parts of this constitution so that you can better exercise your rights in a timely fashion.
Now the facts are simple: if you don’t know your rights, you don’t have any rights. We have come a long way with this program to help you.
The most important thing I can teach you about this constitution is the importance of reading it. You must read the constitution and understand what physically is involved. You must know your rights and timely assert them; that is your burden. If you do not, then a legal term called “latches” incurs in full force. “Latches” is a species of action wherein a party of reasonable intelligence and integrity, having a right to take an action as prescribed by law, and having failed to timely do so loses all right to proceed.
Basically, there’s an argument: “If I violate your rights you may or may not know about it. If you do know about it, you may or may not be able to do something about it. And if you do have the ability to do something about it, you may or may not have the financial wherewithal to go to a finished program. If you do have the financial wherewithal you may not have the intestinal fortitude to go to the finished program. So most of the time your governments and your abusive personalities in government or you corporations pretty much have Carte Blanche to injure you…Because in 99.99% of the cases most people will not proceed. But every now and then you run into that one hard nut, and he or she doesn’t quit until the cows come home. What happens is that person will prevail, and those are the people who are actually generating better protections and better constitutional rights for you. Those are the ones who are going to the supreme courts and courts of appeals that are pushing, that are spending their life funds to allow you to have the benefit. But if you aren’t there to catch the benefit then the benefit is lost.
It’s important that you understand that the constitution is in writing, It’s important that you understand that it’s a legal document, that it was ratified by all of the members in congress together, and that document has all the signatures on the document, and it’s important that you understand that there was an offer: the government offered to govern.
There was a consideration; the citizens considered how they were to be governed, and government promised that they would govern by constitution. And there was an agreement. The citizens agreed that if government promised that there would be government by constitution, they would allow the constitution into force.
Now there’s a unique situation in force here: It’s very rare when you find the party of the first part, which is the congressmen, officers of the government, who are also parties of the second part as representatives of we the people of the republic.
When they signed the document, they signed as officers of the government agreeing to the constitution, and simultaneously as officers and representatives of the people in the Republican form of government. When they signed that document that constituted an iron-clad contract in writing enforceable in a court of law, pursuant to the statute of frauds.
Now, all we ask is that they enforce the contract. If we read something in the constitution, and we have a good reason to believe it is the way it is, then they should honor that. And they should honor it in favor of you, the clearly intended and expressly designated beneficiary.
The first thing you need to understand is Article 6 paragraph 2 of the constitution. This is known as the supremacy clause of the constitution.
Basically, what it says is “This constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made pursuance thereof, and the treaties made, or which shall be made under the authority of the United States shall be the supreme law of the land. The judges in every state shall be bound thereby. Anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary are not withstanding in law.
First important case: Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803).
This is one of the leading cases in the history of the U.S. The opinion of the court was “Anything that is in conflict is null and void of law;”
“Clearly for a secondary law to come in conflict with the supreme was illogical; for certainly the supreme law would prevail over any other law, and certainly our forefathers had intended that the supreme law would be the basis for all laws, and for any law to come in conflict would be null and void of law. It would bear no power to enforce, it would bear no obligation to obey, it would purport to settle as though it had never existed, for unconstitutionality would date from the enactment of such a law, not from the date so branded by a court of law. No courts are bound to uphold it, and no citizens are bound to obey it. It operates as a mere nullity or a fiction of law, which means it doesn’t exist in law.
Now let me give you an example in today’s timing as to how effective this is: This argument is so effective that it literally nullifies the Brady Bill, it nullifies the crime bill that takes away the right of the people to keep and bear arms on these 19 weapons that turn into 159 weapons, it stops the 666 bill that just went through that they’re trying to take away the 4th Amendment, Because they have no power to pass a law that’s in conflict with the United States Constitution, and it’s automatically null and void of law from its inception; not from the day you go to court and brand it as unconstitutional.
A lot of people think they have got to go to court and brand it unconstitutional. But if you know your arguments and you can show your arguments, most of the time you will win. Every now and then you will run into a hard-nose, but I will show you how to deal with him, too.
The next thing I’m going to teach you is about the second amendment. The second amendment is the one everybody talks about today and the one that probably gets railroaded the most. The next is the fourth amendment and the fifth amendment.
The second amendment is one of the most vital amendments here because our forefathers had such an important understanding of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness…That was the first amendment…That they turned around and realized that without the right to protect that first right, they didn’t have that right. So, the second amendment they instituted the right of the people to keep and carry arms, and that right shall not be infringed. Now they started out by saying “A well regulated militia being necessary for the maintenance of a free state. Now that is a true statement. But the most important part about that second amendment is where it says, “The right of the people” and the Supreme Court has ruled in hundreds of cases that whenever it says “the right of the people” it means the right each, of every single citizen to possess the right equally.
Now a lot of guys like to hand out this crap… “Well, that’s a collective right, you have got to be a member of the militia”, that’s all B.S. You don’t have to be a member of the militia…All you have to do is be an American. You have the right. The right to keep and carry arms, and that right shall not be infringed.
Now note after “infringed” there is no sub paragraph a, b, c, d, e, which would stipulate what would be an acceptable infringement. So, all infringement is forbidden. I ask them “what is it that you don’t understand about the word infringement?” Because that’s what it says when you look it up in Black’s Law dictionary.
When you want to talk to these people in court you want to have Black’s Law Dictionary. You would be absolutely amazed what’s in Black’s Law Dictionary. These are the exact words that you need to be able to definitively define the word game problem we are having with these people today. They keep changing the words. But guess what? The words in this book are the words that were written when we were in the constitution when it was signed. And the definitions that are in this book are enforceable in a court of law. You can bring this book into court and pull it open and say, “this is the one, judge”. And they must listen. And that’s the way it is.
So, for sure if you are going to be in this, go down to a book store or Amazon.Com and get a copy of Black’s Law Dictionary. You need that to be in this because it’s like defining the map of how to get from A to B. You must have this book, so you can pull it out and say “Hey, don’t trample my rights.”
Another good book on the constitution you can pick up is “The American Constitution” put out by West Publishing co. This goes into a whole lot of widened arguments as to your constitution. Now after I’m finished talking to you, you’re going to have a new concept of the constitution and how it works. You’re going to understand that it’s what you say it is. If you have got an honest right…I’ll give you an example…
Now the first amendment basically talks about the right of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. But isn’t the right to work part of the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? You’ve got a right to work, right? To contract your labor, your skill and your time and life as you see fit, right? That’s a first amendment right. Another first amendment right would be the right to travel freely and unencumbered. No state can require you to have a license to travel freely and unencumbered and we will go into that and show you how that is taken care of.
The bottom line is you need to learn as much as you absolutely possibly can in the shortest possible time about your constitution, because I’m telling you right now as we speak, they’re trying to curtail that constitution and take away rights that you have that have been given to you by your forefathers. There are only two things that are going to stop that. The first thing is that if we all get together, get ahold of the constitution and start shaking it. “Whoa, horsy, we’re not letting you take away that constitution. This is America, we’ve got an American Flag on that pole out front. Last time I checked this is America and we have got a constitution here and you’re not touching that constitution.”
The second way we can do it is if necessary and proper our militia can come together and decide to tell these people that are giving aid and comfort to the enemies of our country by breaking our laws that you have broken the law of Title 18 U.S. Code section 2381, which says “When in the presence of two witnesses to the same overt act or in an open court of law if you fail to timely move to protect and defend the constitution of the United States and honor your oath of office you are subject to the charge of capital felony treason, and upon conviction you will be taken by the posse to the nearest busy intersection and at high noon hung by the neck until dead…The body to remain in state till dusk as an example to anyone who takes his oath of office lightly”.
You see, without that oath of office this constitution is worthless. That’s why we have you take that oath of office, so we know that you will honor that oath of office, and that you will keep our constitution. The bottom line here is that you must know to be able to exercise your constitution.
The most important part of your constitution is in the first ten amendments. Obviously, the right of the people to keep and carry arms shall not be infringed. And that right shall not be infringed. You must claim your right if you want to have it. You have to be willing to do that. And if they are going to take your right, then you have to be willing to challenge them whatever the cost. The bottom line is that any law that comes in conflict with that, what do we talk about in Article 6 paragraph 2? If any law should come in conflict with the supreme law it’s null and void of law, it bears no power to enforce, no obligation to obey, and it purports to settle as if it never existed. The unconstitutionality dates from the enactment of such law. If any portion of a bill is unconstitutional the entire bill is unconstitutional. Why? Repugnancy…It’s repugnant to the constitution.
Now, other cases involved are your rights to due process…Like under your 4th, 5th, and 6th amendments. The right of people to be secure in their houses, person, papers, and affects against unreasonable search and seizure shall not be violated. No warrant shall issue but upon probable cause supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the person or things to be seized. Obviously, that would imply that he’d gone before a judge and said this is the guy, he did it, this was the crime, and this is the evidence we are looking for, judge. We’d like to get a warrant and we swear that what we told you is the God’s truth. Then they can come over and search until hell freezes over.
Now it’s important to jump to the 9th amendment.
“Enumeration in this constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” This means congress has no authority to add on to the constitution in such a way that would take away rights previously guaranteed.
10th amendment: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the constitution, nor prohibited by it, are reserved to the states respectively or to the people.”
The constitution is a contract designed to limit government. When you get into your police powers you start understanding your police powers.
You will hear this all the time: “Well, we have police powers. Broad and sweeping police powers”. Black’s Law Dictionary says, “Police powers: The law of eminent domain in a state or political domain to enact laws for the common good and welfare, and to curb crime, and in great big black letters it says, “Within constitutional limitations…See 10th amendment”.
Do they have powers to take away rights guaranteed by the constitution? Obviously, they don’t. The 9th amendment put a clear limit on that.
5th amendment. “No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”
Due process: You have a right to due process of the law. If they don’t give you due process, Title 5 U. S. Code section 556 (d) is clear and specific and says if they deny you due process of the law all jurisdiction ceases automatically. If they deny you due process at any time, and you can prove it, you can force a showdown…You can say “Well, they might have had jurisdiction at one time, judge, but they lost it when they denied me due process”.
6th amendment: In all criminal prosecutions the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury of the state and district where the crime shall have been committed, and to be informed of the nature and the cause of the action and accusation. To be confronted with the witnesses against him. To have compulsory process to obtain witnesses in your favor, and to have assistance of counsel in your defense…Or you can stand as your own counsel. You are the one who best knows your case. You are the best person to present the facts on your case because you are the person who knows your case the best.
7th amendment: In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
The bottom line to this constitution is that it’s all in writing, it clearly represents a contract. I’m asking you to learn your contract, so that you can understand the rights you have under that constitution.
It is also important that you understand that this constitution is supposed to be enforced…From Am Jur vol. 16, constitutional law section, sec. 97… “That a constitution should receive a liberal interpretation in favor of the citizen is especially true with respect to those provisions which were designed to safeguard the liberty and security of the citizen in regard to both person and property. (see note 31, Bryer’s v United States 273 U.S. 28”.
In other words, it’s supposed to be liberally enforced in favor of the citizen for the protections of their rights and property. Any constitutional provision intended to confer a benefit should be liberally construed in favor of the clearly intended and expressly designated beneficiary. Dejammer v Hoskill of Albany
This constitution is a contract in writing enforceable in a court of law pursuant to the statute of frauds. “I’m asking for specific performance, your honor…In favor of me” “I am the beneficiary of the contract.”
The contract shall be enforced most favorably in favor of the non-preparer…And that’s you.
If you truly believe that you have a right, and you timely bring that right before a proper adjudicated authority, and you can clearly stipulate what your right was, guess what? They have to listen.
If you know your rights and you timely assert those rights, you have those rights. But if you sit on your haunches and you cry foul, you lose those rights.
Argument 98 dealing with the effects of an emergency.
“While an emergency cannot create power, and no emergency justifies the violation of any of the provisions of the United Stated constitution or state constitution, public emergencies such as economic depression they cannot be in conflict with the constitution. The concept that an emergency could conflict the constitution was rejected. In one case the court holds that neither the legislature nor any executive or judicial officer may disregard the provisions of the constitution in cases of emergency. Where the plain and unequivocal terms of the constitution present two questions of construction and departures in emergencies. So even in emergencies justifies the taking away of constitutional rights.
As to the construction with reference to the common law, an important canon of law is this: Constitutions must be construed with reference to the common law. Since in most respects the federal and state constitutions did not repudiate but shares the common law, this fact has been taken into consideration by the courts in construing certain clauses in a state constitution, such as the provision securing the right to a jury trial. Also, provisions in regard to crimes have been interpreted with reference to the common law rules, that one charged with a crime may be convicted of a lesser offense necessarily included in the crime charged. In such cases the courts of the state always regard the language in the common law sense. The common law prevails.
The common law also permitted destruction of the abatement of nuisances by summary proceedings… (Traffic Tickets). That’s what a traffic ticket does. It is a writ of assessment, a bill of attainder. It’s unlawful in the United States. And it was never supposed that a constitutional provision was intended to interfere with this established principle. And although there is no common law of the United States in the sense, Erie Railroad v Thompkins of a national customary law as distinguished from the common law of England adopted in the several states. In interpreting the constitutions of the United States, recourse still may be had to the aid of the common law of England. It has been said that without reference to this common law, the language of the United States constitution could not be understood. This is due to the fact that this instrument in the plan of government of the United States were founded on the common law as established in England at the time of the revolution. Therefore, it is the general rule that the phrases in the bill of rights taken from the common law must be construed in reference to the latter. Specifically, the United States Supreme Court has taken the common law into consideration in construing the fourth amendment and the fifth amendment provisions relating. So, the common law is extremely important. Most of you out there are citizens at the common law.
Sec. 114 of the Am Jure vol. 16. Sec 117: “Various facts and circumstances extrinsic to the constitution are often resorted to by the courts to aid them in determining its meaning. As previously noted, however, such extrinsic aids may not be resorted to where the provision in the question is clear, and unambiguous in such a case the court must apply the terms of the constitution as written. They are not at liberty to search for meanings beyond the instrument”.
Am Jure 16, sec 165: Since the constitution is intended for the observance of the judiciary as well as other parts of government, and the judges are sworn to support its provisions (sworn…as in Oath of office), the courts are not at liberty to overlook or disregard its commands or countenance evasions thereof. It is their duty in authorized proceedings to give full effect to the existing constitution, and to obey all constitutional provisions irrespective to their opinion of the wisdom or the desirably of such provisions, and irrespective of the consequences. Thus, is said that the courts should be in our alert to enforce the provisions of the United States Constitution, and guard against their infringement by legislative fiat or otherwise. In accordance with these basic principles the rule is fixed that the duty in the proper case to declare a law unconstitutional cannot be declined and must be performed in accordance with the delivery of judgment of the tribunal before which the validity of the enactment is directly drawn into question. If the constitution prescribes one rule, and the statute another, in a different rule, it is the duty of the court to declare that the constitution and not the statute governs in cases before them for judgment.
They are telling the judge “You have got to rule in favor of the constitution”. I’m asking the judge to do his duty under his sworn oath of office, and uphold the United States Constitution as he swore he would under Article XXXX, paragraph XXX [ Look up for your state] in this state, which says “That he shall swear to protect and defend the constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic, and he will perform his duties to the best of his abilities so help him God”
Am Jur 2nd sec 177 Declaratory judgments. Declaratory judgment actions have often been utilized to test the constitutionality of a statute and government practices. The uniform declaratory judgments act makes specific provisions of the determination of construction or validity of statutes or municipal ordinance by declaratory judgment and is considered to furnish a particularly appropriate method for the determination of controversies relative to the construction and validity of the statute, and of ordinances. The federal declaratory judgment act has been invoked frequently as a means of assaying the constitution of congressional legislation.
A plaintiff can have a declaratory judgment action on the constitutionality of either the federal or state statute by a single federal judge; so long as he does not ask to have the operation of the statute enjoined.
A court may grant declaratory relief unless there is a case in controversy before the court. That is the dispute must consist of specific adverse claims based upon present rather than future or speculative facts on which to base the adjudication. You have a right to demand a declaratory judgment.
16 Am Jur
Sec. 255. In all instances when the court exercises its power to invalidate legislation on constitutional grounds, the conflict of the statute with the constitution must be irreconcilable. The court is without authority to declare a statute unconstitutional unless it is in positive or in direct conflict with the statutes or with the constitution.
Thus, a statute is not to be declared unconstitutional unless so inconstant with the constitution that it cannot be enforced without a violation thereof. Because that would be violating the constitution: Marbury v Madison.
A clear incompatibility between law and the constitution must exist before the judiciary is justified in holding the law unconstitutional. This principle of course is in line with the rule that doubts in the constitutionality should be resolved in favor of the constitutionality and the beneficiary (you).
Sec. 256: The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, whether federal or state, though having the form and name of law is reality no law; but is wholly void and ineffective for any purpose. Since unconstitutionality dates from the time of the enactment, 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 a question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not ever been enacted.
No repeal of an enactment is necessary since an unconstitutional law is void. The general principle follows 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 statue 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. Persons convicted and fined under a statute subsequently held unconstitutional may recover the fines paid. A void act cannot be legally inconsistent with a valid one, and an unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede an existing valid law. Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby. Since an unconstitutional statute cannot repeal or in any way affect and existing one, if a repealing statute is unconstitutional, the statute which it attempts to repeal remains in full force and effect. Where a clause repealing a prior law is inserted in the act, which act in unconstitutional and void, the provision of the repeal of the prior law will usually fall with it and will not be permitted to operate as repealing such prior law.
The general principle stated above applies to the constitution as well as the laws of the several states insofar as they are repugnant to the constitution and the laws of the United States. Moreover, a construction of a statute which brings in conflict with a constitution will nullify it as effectively as if it had in its expressed terms been enacted in conflict therewith. Anything passed in conflict with the constitution is clearly unconstitutional.
Sec. 257: The actual existence of a statute prior to the determination that it is unconstitutional is an operative fact and may have consequences which cannot justify being ignored. When a statute which has been in effect for some time is declared unconstitutional, questions of rights claimed to have become vested of status of prior determinations deemed to have finality and acted upon accordingly and of public policy in the light of the nature, both of the statutes, and of its previous application demand examination.
It has been said that an all-inclusive statement of the principle of absolute retroactive invalidity cannot be justified (It would be ex-post facto). An unconstitutional statute is not necessarily a nullity; it may have indeterminate consequences binding upon the people.
Sec. 258: “On the other hand it is clear that congress cannot by authorization or ratification give the slightest effect to a state law or constitution which is in conflict with the constitution of the United States.
Sec. 260: Although it is manifest that an unconstitutional provision in the statute is not cured because its included in the same act with valid provisions, and that there are no degrees of constitutionality. So that an act is either constitutional or it is unconstitutional. (So, if you have a statute that is partly constitutional and partly unconstitutional, it is ALL unconstitutional.)
So far I’ve been trying to hammer home the power of this book (the constitution). If you know what’s in this book, (The constitution) I’m telling you that you are in full possession of your American citizenship. If you don’t know what’s in this book, you are going to be a slave; subject to the whim of extra-judicial people who want to tell you what to do, when to do it, how to do it, and how high to pack it.
Learn your constitution. Know your arguments backwards and forwards. Don’t let somebody come and tell you what the law is not, don’t let them tell you that you don’t have any rights. “I love it when these guys tell me I don’t have any rights…I say ‘well if you believe that, let’s go to court, and at the end of the day we’ll see who owns who…But I’m going to tell you right now that if you violate any of my constitutional rights I will sue your sox off and attach everything you have; Bank, business, and home’.”
Now, we’re going to get into a very special argument…This argument has taken 18 ½ years to develop, and I want you to pay attention.
This argument is a unique concept that has been honed like a razor, to a very meticulous edge so that you can understand what’s going on.
Obviously, we have established that you have a constitutional right. And obviously we have established that you are the beneficiary of the contract. We have established that the constitution is a contract in writing enforceable in a court of law, and that you have a right to claim specific performance on the contract. We have established that it is supposed to be interpreted in your favor. So, if you have an honest constitutional belief, they have to listen.
Now let’s take that to the next step: Can a state arbitrarily and erroneously convert your right into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it?
Murdock is basically a religious test case. A religious group wanted to go out and preach among the public as that is their right to evangelize.
Pennsylvania wanted them to have a license to solicit.
The group claimed their first amendment right of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, the right to worship and exercise their religion unencumbered. The points on the case that are established are “A state may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the federal constitution; and that a flat license tax here involved restrains in advance the constitutional liberty of press and religion, and inevitably tends to suppress the exercise thereof. That the ordinance is non-discriminatory, and that it applies also to peddlers of wares and merchandise is immaterial. The liberties granted by the first amendment are in a preferred position.” Since the privilege in question is guaranteed by the federal constitution, and exist independently of the state’s authority, the inquiry as to whether the state has given something for which it cannot ask a return is irrelevant.
No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. Now a lot of people will come back to me and say, “Well, I’m not a part of that religious group…It doesn’t apply to me”.
You need to reach. Understand we’re not talking about whether you are in the religious group or not. What we’re talking about here is “Are you and American and do you have rights?”
What they are talking about here is that that religious group exercised their rights timely. That they had a right to worship and evangelize as they chose, and that the state came in and arbitrarily converted that right into a privilege and issued a license and a fee for it. That is totally unconstitutional.
Now we took that case as a pioneering case, and we argue that case for all of your constitutional rights. All you need to do is keep in mind that
- You are an American and that you have constitutional rights.
- You have to keep in mind, what right can you pull the right out of the constitution?
If you can pull the right out of the constitution…and I will give you an example: How about the right to travel freely and unencumbered, pursuant to Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618 (1969)? How about the right to keep and bear arms? Does the state have the right to require a license and fee for the exercise of the right? And if they do can you ignore the license and fee?
The premise of this case is clearly established; NO STATE MAY CONVERT A SECURED LIBERTY INTO A PRIVILEGE, ISSUE A LICENSE AND FEE FOR IT, AND REQUIRE YOU TO HAVE THAT: OTHERWISE YOU COMMITTED A CRIME. That’s 100% unconstitutional.
Let’s jump to the next case: Shuttlesworth v. City of Birmingham, 373 U.S. 262 (1963) …This is another unique religious case. In this case six ministers were accused of inciting to riot and otherwise create a disturbance…Disturb the peace. They had a sit-down (this case came down in 1962). The city said they needed to have a license to have a public gathering. It went to the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court said “No, you don’t have to have a license for the exercise of a first amendment right to freely assemble.”
The gist of the case is that Negro ministers were convicted in the Alabama State Court of “Aiding and abetting in violation of criminal trespass ordinance in Birmingham Ala. The only evidence against them was to the effect that they had incited ten Negro students to engage in a sit-in demonstration at a white lunch counter as a protest against racial segregation. The court held that on the case of Peterson v City of Greenville, 373 U.S. 244 (1963) that the convictions of those ten students for criminal trespass were constitutionally invalid. Since those convictions had been set aside it follows that these petitioners did not incite, aid, or albeit any crime, and therefore the convictions of these petitioners must be set aside. Now basically what they were claiming was their constitutional right to freely assemble; the city was claiming that they had to have a license to put on a demonstration, which they didn’t have, and they were charging them with a criminal trespass, for not having a valid license to freely assemble and/or protest.
Now I want you to see the significance of this case in view of the case we just had. Murdock v Penn clearly established that no state could convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it.
Shuttlesworth v Birmingham Said that if the state does convert your right into a privilege and charge a license and a fee for it you can ignore the license and fee and engage in the right with impunity. That means they can’t punish you…they have to let you go.
It’s very important that you understand first your constitution is the supreme law of the land and that you have that right, and that right shall not be infringed, and it’s supposed to be enforced in favor of you, the clearly intended and expressly designated beneficiary. It’s very important that you understand that no state may convert that right into a privilege and issue a license and fee for it, and if they do. Shuttlesworth says you can ignore the license and engage in the right with impunity…They can’t punish you.
Now, the next case is very important, and it’s important that you see the argument.
U. S. v Bishop, 412 U. S. 346 (1973) …Basically what Bishop does is it sets a standard for what constitutes a criminal violation in terms of willful intent. Willfulness is one of the elements which is required to be proven. In any criminal element you have to prove that 1. You are the party, 2. That you had a method or opportunity to do a thing, and 3. That you did so with a willful intent.
Now, when we get to willful intent, willful is defined as an evil motive or intent to avoid a known duty or task under the law with immoral certainty. Obviously, you have decided that you have relied on the United States Constitution, and you have relied on the decisions of the supreme court. So, could you have willfully done any deed or crime? Obviously not. So, this case stipulates that you have a perfect defense for the element of willfulness. Since the burden on the prosecution is to prove that you did willfully and knowingly avoid a known duty or task under the law with immoral certainty, he cannot perform that task, because you obviously have your constitutional immunity to that. The previous case, Shuttlesworth says they couldn’t even punish you. The case before that said you don’t even need a license for the exercise of a right. And the case before that said your constitutional right is supreme over any state law. So, if they pass a law in violation of your constitution, the constitution overwhelms the state law, so the law doesn’t even exist in law.
Now, since the prosecutor does not have a cause of action for which relief can be granted, you honor would it please the court, counsel is specifically precluded from performing his major task, therefore your honor, would it please the court at this time I would motion most graciously for dismissal with prejudice for failure to state a cause of action for which relief may be granted by this honorable court, and I’d kinda like to collect my costs and fees for having to defend this patently frivolous and spurious complaint, sir, may it please the court.
This argument is a killer argument. It’s good for every single constitutional right you’ve got. All you have to do is fill in the blanks: What constitutional right, prove you have the constitutional right, tell them that the state does not have the right to convert that right into a privilege, and they can’t punish you if they do, and then claim that the prosecutor can’t prove willfulness so you obviously didn’t do any crime, and then flip around and demand for you dismissal, which is your right, and get your costs and fees for having to defend this frivolous case may it please the court, and I promise you, you will be amazed at the results.
These things have personally happened to me…I can relate the exact cases. That goes for practicing law without a license. Obviously, you have a right to work…The right to contract you labor as you see fit, not as some arbitrary and capricious bar association sees fit. If you don’t want to belong to the union, that’s your right. You are in a “right to work” state.
The bottom line is this: They cannot compel you to have a license or pay a fee for the exercise of your right. And if they do, you can ignore the license and engage the right with impunity. That means they can’t punish you. And since you have a perfect defense for the element of willfulness, punish you. They have to dismiss, they don’t have a cause of action.
Now this argument, I’m tellin’ you, has taken us over 18 years to develop in the courts, and in law libraries over the years; compiling and arguing cases and using this argument…It’s a killer argument…Have yet have they ever won against us on this argument, nor could they in the United States of America as long as the constitution stands.
Pay attention to this argument and start using it. We’ll show you some if the techniques later.
Now the word willfully has the same meaning, all right? In controlling the voluntary intentional violation of a known legal duty. And the distinction between the statute is found in the additional misconduct that is essential to the violation of the felony provision. If they can’t prove willfulness, they can’t prove nada.
Now that you’ve won, and your rights have been violated, the next thing they will claim is “Well, we acted in good faith…We had good faith reliance that you broke the law…And that means you can’t sue us”. That’s a lie. Since these two cases, Owen v. City of Independence, 445 U.S. 622 (1980) and Maine v Thiboutot, 448 U.S.1 (1980).
Basically, what these two cases say, “Where plain language of a statute supported by consistent judicial interpretation is strong, it is not necessary to look beyond the words of the statute.”
These are both civil rights cases. “The right of action created by statute relating to deprivation under color of state law of a right secured by the constitution and the laws of the United States encompasses claims which are solely based on statutory violations of federal law and applied to the claim that claimants had been deprived of their rights in some capacity, to which they were entitled.
Now when ever his happens, folks, you must understand something that goes for both of these cases: Owen was a police chief in the town of Independence, Mo. He got into a gripe with the city council and they fired him without just cause. Owen turned around and sued.
They claimed that they acted in “good faith.”
The Supreme Court said “You are deemed to be officers of the law; you are to advise us of the law; you can hardly claim that you in good faith for willful deprivation of the law, and you certainly can’t claim ignorance of the law, because a citizen out here on the street can’t claim ignorance of the law. It makes the law look stupid if an officer of the court or some officer of government doesn’t know the law and then they go ahead and abuse somebody’s constitutional rights.”
So, in matters of constitutional rights both these cases uphold one point: Whenever they violate your constitutional rights they do so at their own peril. It even says that at Title 18 Sec 241, 242. It says that upon conviction you are subject to a $10,000 fine, 10 years in jail, or both, and if death results life in prison. They’re telling you “Don’t violate somebody’s rights”.
Title 42 USC sec. 1983, 1985, & 1986 clearly establish your right to sue anybody that does that. Now they’re going to claim that you can’t sue them, because they have judicial immunity. Well, guess what? These two cases remove judicial immunity. There is no judicial immunity for violating someone’s constitutional rights.
Judge, you are deemed to know the law and swear to uphold it. You can hardly claim that you acted in good faith for willful deprivation of the law and you certainly can’t claim ignorance of the law for that would make the law look stupid for a knowledgeable judge to claim ignorance of the law when a citizen on the street can’t claim ignorance of the law.
Therefore, there is no judicial immunity. These cases have been on the books since 1982, so when someone says they can violate your rights with impunity, you just smile and say, “Make my day”.
The next case we want to talk about is Bryars v United States, 273 U. S. 28 (1927). This is a search and seizure case which sets constitutional standards which we talked about in the Am Jur Sections. I especially want you to pay attention to note #3 here:
“Constitutional provisions for the security of a person and property are to be liberally construed, and it is the duty of the court to be watchful for the constitutional rights of the citizen, and against any stealthy encroachment therein. When a federal officer participates with a state official in a search so that in substance and in effect it is their joint operation, the legality of the search and the use in evidence of the things seized is to be tested in federal prosecutions as it would be if the undertaking were exclusively the federal agent.”
The reality here is what they are setting is the standards must be liberally construed in favor of the citizen. It’s the duty of the court to make sure that happens. So now, you have a right to be wrong, you have a right to enter your viable defenses that you honestly think, no state can turn that right into a privilege and issue a license and a fee, and if they do you can ignore the license and fee. They must prove the burden of proof of willfulness which they cannot do. If they do violate your rights you do have a right to sue them Owens v City of Independence and Maine v Thiboutot, they have to give every consideration to you, and that’s the way it is.
The next case we want to talk about is Boyd v United States, 116 US 616: The court is to protect against encroachment of constitutionality or security liberty. It is equivalent to a compulsory production of papers to make the non-production of them a confession of the allegations, which is pretended they will prove, and a lot of times that will happen in federal cases. They will claim something, they won’t prove it, it’s happened to me, believe me, and then the fact that they have claimed it makes it true. And then, of course, you have to prove a negative, which is impossible.
Now, the seizure or compulsory production of a man’s private papers to be used in evidence against him is equivalent to compelling him to be a witness against himself. That’s a violation of the Fifth Amendment, and in a prosecution for a crime, penalty or forfeiture is equally within the prohibition of the Fifth Amendment.
The bottom line here is Boyd protects against the encroachment of constitutionally secured liberties. It’s arguing Fifth Amendment here but it’s basically arguing against encroachment.
Another case you should know is Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). This is one of the most important things I am going to tell you. The Miranda decision is a heavy-duty case. Every American should know this case forward, backward, and inside out.
This is the one that says “You have the right to remain silent, you have a right to an attorney, you have the right to have your attorney present during questioning, anything you say can and will be held against you on a court of law, if you can’t afford an attorney one will be appointed for you by the court, do you wish to make any statement on your behalf and do you understand the rights I have spoken to you.”
As soon as they start talking to you, they are required to say that. If they don’t say that, they screwed up. If they haul you into jail and they don’t tell you this, read it to you, and then they want to make you sign a little statement that you know your rights and you knowingly waive them, please folks, don’t sign that statement. Use your head for something other than a hat rack. Do not sign that statement…. EVER! You are knowingly waiving your constitutional rights. Don’t ever do that.
As soon as you hear those people talking like that you tell them “I want an attorney” …’And I’m not saying anything until I have an attorney”. (Especially if you are talking to federal people like BATF.) These people will lie, cheat and steal and do anything they can to hammer you. Their whole purpose in life is to hammer you. I don’t want you to think ‘Oh, what nice guys…maybe we can work this out…why don’t we just talk and maybe we can get things worked out.’
You don’t talk to these people, folks. When you talk to them you will learn the hard way. Do not talk to these people EVER! I don’t care if you think you’re a nice guy and you want to be courteous, if you think you’re going to work it out, or if you think you can talk to them and you’re smarter than them, I don’t care…YOU DON’T TALK TO THEM…PERIOD.
It’s when you open your big mouth that you get in trouble. Not that you would do anything wrong anyway, but they’ll twist, lie, cheat and steal and make it into something you didn’t do, and before you know it you won’t even recognize what’s happened. I’m telling you it’s happened to me.
Now, let’s look at this Miranda decision. In the absence of other effective measures, the following procedures to safeguard the Fifth Amendment privileges must be observed: the person in custody must prior to interrogation be clearly informed that he has a right to remain silent, and that anything he says will be held against him in a court of law. He must be clearly informed that he has a right to consult with a lawyer and have a lawyer with him during interrogation. DO THAT PLEASE. And that if he is indigent a lawyer will be appointed to represent him. If he indicates prior to endearing questioning that he desires to remain silent the questioning must cease. If he states he wants an attorney, the questioning must cease until an attorney is present.
Where an interrogation is conducted without the presence of an attorney and a statement is taken, a heavy burden rests on the government to demonstrate that the defendant knowingly and intelligently waived his constitutional counsel right. Don’t test that theory. But I’m telling you it works…I did it.
Where the individual answers some questions during interrogation or custody interrogation he hasn’t waived his privilege and may invoke his right to remain silent thereafter. The warnings require that the waiver needed are in the absence of a fully effective equivalent prerequisite to the admission or admissibility of any statement. Inculpability or exculpability made by the defendant. The limitations on the interrogation process required for the protection of the individual’s constitutional rights should not cause an undue interference with the proper system of law enforcement as demonstrated by the procedures of the FBI and the safeguards afforded to another jurisdictions. In each of these cases statements were obtained under circumstances that did not meet constitutional standards for protection of the privilege of self incrimination.
There are 4 Miranda cases. That was the leading case. Then there is the Miranda Warning case, that actually locks down the steps of the warning, and then there is a Miranda Interrogation case, which locks in the standards for in-custody jail interrogations.
Our next case is Norton v Shelby County, 118 US 425: An unconstitutional act is not law. It confers no rights, it imposes no duties, it affords no protections, it creates no office, it is in legal contemplation as inoperative as though it had never been passed.
The court follows the decision of the highest court in the state in construing the constitution and the laws of the state unless they conflict with or impair the efficacy of some principle of the constitution or of the federal statutes, a rule of the commercial or general law. The decision of the state courts and questions relating to the existence of its subordinate tribunals and the eligibility of election or appointment of their officers and the passage of its laws are conclusive upon federal courts.
Now, the most important thing is “While acts of defacto incumbent of an office lawfully created by law, an existing are often held to be binding from reasons of public policy. That’s a very important point…Public Policy. You want to watch out for the term “Public Policy…” it’s often confused with the state’s right of eminent domain of police powers. Police powers and public policy are almost the same thing, except that one is done without law because they want to, and the other is done because they’re claiming a police authority to do so.
When they’re talking about public policy, the acts of the person assuming to fill and perform the duties of an office which does not exist can have no validity whatever in law. An unconstitutional act is not law: It confers no rights, it imposes no duties, it affords no protections, it creates no office, it is in legal contemplation as inoperative as though it had never been passed.
Now, if you take these basic cases that we have gone over so far, you will have gone a long way in getting your constitutional rights back.
This book (Citizens Handbook) It includes the Constitution, jury instructions, arguments, and a lot more. Some of the important arguments in it go along with what I’ve been talking about.
“All laws which are repugnant to the constitution are null and void.” Marbury v Madison 5 U.S. 137
“Where rights secured by the constitution are involved there can be no rule or law-making legislation which would abrogate abolish them.” Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436
“An unconstitutional act is not law. It confers no rights, it imposes no duties, it affords no protections, it creates no office, it is in legal contemplation as inoperative as though it had never been passed.” Norton v Shelby County 118 US 425
“The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute though having the form and name of law in in reality no law but is wholly void.” 16 Am Jur Vol. 2, sec 177, 256
“Officers of the court have no immunity from liability when violating constitutional rights.” Owen v. City of Independence, 445 U.S. 622, and Maine v Thiboutot, 448 U.S.1
“No state shall convert secured liberties into privileges and issue a license and a fee for it.” Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105
“If the state does convert your liberty in to a privilege you can engage in that right with impunity.” Shuttlesworth v. City of Birmingham, 373 U.S. 262
“The court is to protect against any encroachment of constitutionally securities.” Boyd v United States, 116 US 616
“Constitutional rights must be interpreted in favor of the citizen.” Bryars v United States, 273 U. S. 28
We have covered all of these cases thoroughly, so that you can see clearly.
“The jury has the right to judge both the laws as well as the facts”
-John Jay, first chief justice of the Supreme Court.
“The jury has the right to determine both the law and the facts”
-Samuel Chase, Supreme Court Justice.
“The jury has the power to bring in a verdict in the teeth of both law and fact”
-Oliver Wendall Holmes, U. S. Supreme Court
“The law itself is on trial quite as much as the cause which is to be decided”
-Harlan F. Stone, chief justice, Supreme Court
“The pages of history shine on instances of the jury’s exercise of it’s prerogative to disregard the instructions of the judge” United States v Dougherty 473 fed 2nd, 113
How to use this information
Now that we have gone over the constitution and talked about some of the ways you can use it, now we’re going to go into some of the ways you can apply it. Always remember your best defenses are in your constitution, that that constitution is a viable contract, and it is enforceable in a court of law under the statute of frauds, that you have a right to claim those rights, that the burden is on you to claim them timely…The keyword here is timely…or you lose the right.
So, you want to be cognizant of your rights and be able to timely speak up. Now we’re going to concentrate as we did before on our main basic cases. We also want to give you some further advanced programming.
The book the federalist papers by Madison, Hamilton, and Jay…Those are the gentlemen who wrote the United States Constitution. You want the mentor edition because it is the unabridged edition.
Now the Supreme Court has ruled in the case of Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. 264 (1821) that this book, The Federalist Papers, was the exact record of the intent of the framers of the constitution…Madison, Hamilton, and Jay. So obviously being able to read their published thoughts as they were doing this constitution is very forceful in terms of constitutional interpretation. The intent of the lawmaker is the law. And it shall be liberally enforced in favor of you…you are the clearly intended and expressly designated beneficiary.
Everything you can do to enhance your position in terms of how your lawmakers thought when the framed this constitution clearly makes your case even stronger for the constitution to be interpreted in favor of you. So, we recommend you get a copy of this Federalist Papers and read it cover to cover, you want the mentor edition because that’s the unabridged edition. You will find that some of the other editions have some of the pages pulled out.
Part 2 – Advanced section
Now I want to get into some of the cases. Basically, the second program we have here is the advanced section. I’ll be covering procedures, teach you how to be your own lawyer, telling you some facts and issues on what to do, what happens when you get pulled over, how you exercise your rights in a timely fashion, and some of the problems that are going on in American today. I’m going to be talking about some of the studies that have been done.
We just had a law review put out by Joyce Lee Malcom, who started out working for the anti-gun people. She is a Harvard legal scholar, who is very knowledgeable after researching the people’s right to keep and bear arms all the way back to the 1700s in England. She came to the honest belief after all her research that yes, our right to keep and bear arms is a positive right that has come from serious law all the way back to the Magna Carta.
She published a book “To Keep and Bear Arms”, an extensive book which is a “definitive study on the right to keep and bear arms that verifies that the average person has this protected right that goes way back and is completely provable and enforceable
First you need to understand that at the beginning of every one of these laws there is an enabling clause that basically says how the law shall be brought into being. And there is an argument that says that the law that is presently here today is based on some law in the past. On almost every one of these constitutions all the way up through our history, through articles of confederation, through the U. S. Constitution, and through various state constitutions they’ll have an enabling law in the beginning. The enabling law allows them to bring their version of the constitution on what rights are there today; the rights that were had before are carried on, plus are further delineated by this constitution. But at no time do they have a right to abridge the previous document.
Now, going all the way back to the Magna Carta, you can see the decisions where it comes down. The Magna Carta, the Declaration of Independence, the articles of confederation, the United States Constitution, the Virginia acts of concession, the Northwest Ordinance, the Northwest Territorial Government, the Northwest Territorial Division, Indiana Michigan Territorial Division, the enabling acts, and that’s what I’m trying to explain to you today.
In Michigan we have the constitution of 1835, the constitution of 1850, the constitution of 1908, the constitution of 1963. Every time one of these constitutions comes by, the enabling acts at the beginning of it state that everything that was before guaranteed is brought forward…And if anything, it’s supposed to be made stronger.
So, all of the rights brought forward are carried all the way back from the Magna Carta as a line of succession. The important thing to understand is that we are going to cover procedures. We are back to our normal procedure here, we have our court cases here, we are going to start giving you examples of court cases as we go, and we are going to show you how you can exercise rights.
One of the first cases we are going to bring is basically the “right to travel”. There’s a lot of people interested in this particular issue, and license plates and driver’s licenses, and all this, and you have a lot of programming that’s problematic from this, and you have a lot of people that are looking to argue, so we want to share some basic arguments with you.
We’re going to claim a first amendment right to travel, and we’re going to claim also a fifth amendment under due process and equal protection under the law. We find in the Michigan Constitution the protected right to travel. “The freedom to travel is a fundamental right that should be unlimited by statutes, rules, or regulations which unreasonably burden or restrict movement. A law which substantially affects or penalizes the exercise of the right to travel may be justified only by a compelling state interest and must be tailored carefully to avoid unnecessary infringement of the right.
Freedom to travel throughout the United States has long been recognized as a basic right under the federal constitution (see note 54).
Shapiro v Thompson 394 U.S. P 618 In the beginning of the case they’re talking about inhibiting migration by needy persons into a state is constitutionally impermissible. “All citizens must be free to travel throughout the United States uninhibited by statues, rules, or regulations which unreasonably burden or restrict this movement. If a law has no other purpose than to chill assertions of constitutional rights by penalizing those who choose to exercise them, it is patently unconstitutional.”
“The equal protection clause prohibits apportionment of state services according to par tax contributions of its citizens. Any classification which serves to penalize the exercise of the right of interstate travel, unless shown to be necessary to promote a compelling government interest, is unconstitutional.”
When we go into the case, we find out that it says “The right finds no explicit mention in the constitution. That a right so elementary was conceived, from the beginning, to be necessary concomitant of the stronger union, the constitution created. In any event freedom to travel throughout the Unites States has long been recognized as a basic right under the constitution.”
We have established that the right is clearly there. For more arguments on that you can go to the law library and find the Federal Digest and look up the book “Words and Phrases”. In this book look up the words “Right to travel” and you will get every Supreme Court Case that has anything to do with the right to travel. One of the leading cases in this one, Shapiro v Thompson, that it’s such a basic right it doesn’t need to be mentioned.
It is important that you be able to back your arguments up…
In moving from jurisdiction to jurisdiction they were exercising their constitutional right, and any classification which penalizes the exercise of the right, unless shown to be necessary to promote a compelling government interest, is unconstitutional. The reality was that they exercised their right to timely travel. And the state didn’t want to allow that. Now let’s flip back here. I’m going to ask you a series of questions. First of all, is the constitution is the supreme law of the land?
YES…Marbury v Madison.
Can a state arbitrarily and erroneously convert a secured liberty…In this case the right to travel freely and unencumbered, into a privilege, and issue a license and a fee for it?
NO…Obviously, we decided in Murdock v Pennsylvania clearly “No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege”. Now does everybody see how we plugged that in? Just like on your computer, you fill in the blanks. You have the court case; it says, “no state can convert the liberty into a privilege and issue a license and fee for it”. What right are we talking about? The right to travel freely and encumbered. So, you plug that in.
So, does the state have the right to require you to have a license for the exercise of that right? No.
Now, what happens if the state requires you to have a license?
Shuttlesworth v. City of Birmingham, you can ignore the license and engage in the right with impunity. That means they can’t punish you. Now, what happens if they pull you over and give you a ticket? Well, you’re going to go to court and fight it. You’re going to file a brief and we’re going to show you how to do that at a later time. We will show you exactly what to put down there, but these are the cases you’re going to be putting down on your memorandum of laws as why you have a reason to feel that you’re right.
First, that your constitutional right is superior to any law that they would put down. You have that right and they can’t pass a law that takes away that right. Secondly, if they do, it’s unconstitutional, thirdly no state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and fee for it, and if they do you can ignore the license and the fee and engage in the right with impunity… Shuttlesworth v. City of Birmingham. And since you have not done anything evil, and you have relied on your constitution and on Supreme Court decisions, you have a perfect defense to the charge of willfulness, so you could not have been charged with willfully not going and getting a license. You have the perfect defense. United States v Bishop defines willfulness as an evil motive or intent to avoid a known duty or task under the law with immoral certainty. Obviously, you didn’t do that, did you? Because you have a perfect defense; you relied on previous decisions of the Supreme Court…Shuttlesworth, Murdock, Marbury…You relied on your constitutional right to travel freely and unencumbered pursuant to Shapiro v Thompson, so you have a perfect defense.
So now where are we at? “Your honor, may it please the court, I motion for dismissal with prejudice for failure to state a cause of action for which relief may be granted, and I would like my costs and fees for having to defend this frivolous case. You have the right to collect for your time to go to court. You submit your bill, you submit your proposed order, you fill out your own proposed order, that makes the case go faster and the judges like that. It intimidates the Hell out of the prosecutor when you do your own order.
Now, if they say “Well, that’s how you interpret that, sir” …
“That’s right, sir, that is how I interpret it”.
“And 16th Am Juris 2nd, section 97 says that it shall be interpreted in my favor, because I am the clearly intended and expressly designated beneficiary, the citizen, for the protection of your rights and property; see Byars v. United States, 273 U.S. 28. That deals with unlawful search and seizure, but it also says it’s supposed to be decided in favor of you, the clearly intended and expressly designated beneficiary for the protection of your rights & property, so they have to enforce it in favor of you, right?
Boyd v United States is next: The court is to protect against any encroachment of constitutionally secured liberties. It’s their duty, they have no choice…They have to do it.
In Norton v Shelby County An unconstitutional act is not law. It confers no rights, it imposes no duties, it affords no protections, it creates no office, it is in legal contemplation as inoperative as though it had never been passed.
Now, after you write all of this down you casually say “Wherefore your honor, I pray before this honorable court for your just and lawful relief. I ask that you dismiss this case with prejudice for failure to state a cause of action for which relief can be granted, and I pray the court for my just relief for having to defend this patently frivolous and spurious case, and my costs are (whatever they are)” You submit that on your order. “I have a proposed order, your honor, it’s in my brief.”
At that point they will turn to the prosecutor and ask what he is going to do, and at this point he will usually agree to dismiss.
They don’t like going up against you, and they can easily be intimidated. I remember this one gentleman who didn’t have any plates on his car and the called him into court. He was standing in the hallway and the prosecution said, ‘Will you come over here, sir, I’d like to talk to you.’ So, he went in and sat down and said to the prosecutor “What can I do for you?”
The prosecutor said “Sir, what can I do for you…It’s not what you can do for me…I’m the prosecutor. What do you want to do on this case?”
“Well, I assumed there was something I could do for you. You called me in here.”
“Well, what do you want to do? How do you want to plead on your case”?
“Well I don’t intend to plead, sir, I intend to answer in the form of a demur, such that I do not acquiesce to quasi jurisdiction, cause that’s an issue to be brought up in my pleadings and briefs to be filed with the court.”
“Are you an attorney, sir?” he asked
“No, I’m a truck driver.”
The prosecutor was absolutely in a panic. They don’t anticipate that people that are in other jobs other than theirs have any brains. It blows their doors off when all of a sudden, this truck driver can come in and argue law, and all of a sudden, it’s like “Shoot…This guy is good…I have to treat him like an attorney.”
So, what does this guy do? The first thing he does right out of the chute he walks up to the judge and tells him “Judge, I’m going to dismiss this case.” He realized he was going to get hammered.
Then my guy says, “He can’t do that, I took the day off to come over here and battle”.
I told him…I said “Shut up. Sit down and relax…You won. Now just submit your bill.”
So, the bottom line is this: When you file your papers, and they turn around and you have a win, make sure you have you little bill in there for lost time from work, copies of any copies, filing fees, etc. you had to pay. They have to reimburse you if you win.
When you win, they will put a code on your license, and whenever you get pulled over the will just hand your license back and tell you to have a nice day. They don’t like people like you…Because you’re an American, and Americans don’t give up. They never surrender, and they fight.
One judge told me one time “Have you any idea how much money you’ve cost this court today?”
“I hope it was a bunch, your honor, and I hope you have to go write a whole bunch more tickets to break even. The way I figure the more tickets you have to write the sooner the public is going to wake up to this theft, and maybe they’ll start doing something positive to stop this kind of stuff, cause it’s my belief is that they should be wearing masks out there when they’re robbing the people.”
When they learn that you are eager to face them in court and fight with them…Now the system is not profitable. So, they back off…They put a code on your license and won’t bother you anymore.
Right to Work
Now let’s take another right. Take your right to work… contract your time and labor and life as you see fit. Your right to work is protected by the First Amendment of the constitution. You have a right to work and contract you time and labor and life as you see fit.
I get hauled into court here in Oakland county. The judge was the spittin’ image of Abe Lincoln. He leans over the chair and says “Well, it’s been reported to me son, that you don’t have a license to practice law. Is that correct?”
Looked up at him and said, “I’m not practicing; I know what the hell I’m doing.” And the whole court broke out laughing.
“That’s pretty good, I like somebody with a sense of humor. But that doesn’t change anything, son. You have to have a license to practice law.”
I said “Your honor, I’m an unenfranchised common law freeman. I live at the common law. I’m not a participant in any tontine schemes and limited liability on a joint venture for profit with an insurable interest requiring me to participate in these illegal corporate Ponzi schemes. I’m just a little Joe from Kokomo. I live on the block…I live at the common law.”
“I have a right to work and contract my labor, my time, and my skill, and my life as I see fit, not as some third party arbitrary and capricious Bar Association sees fit.”
I said “Your Honor, the state of Michigan arbitrarily and erroneously converted my right to work into a privilege and issued a license and a fee for it. That’s unconstitutional Marbury v Madison 5 U.S. 137 (1803). Anything in conflict or repugnancy is null and void of law.”
“Since the state converted my right into a privilege and issued a right and a privilege and issued a license and fee for it, Murdock v Pennsylvania says clearly “No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it”.
“And if they do, Shuttlesworth v. City of Birmingham, 373 U.S. 262 says I may ignore the license and fee and engage in the right with impunity…That means you can’t punish me, and United States v Bishop defines willfulness as an evil motive or intent to avoid a known duty or task under the law with immoral certainty. I submit, your honor, I couldn’t have done an evil task, because I was totally following the constitution and the U. S. Supreme Court.”
“I would submit that prosecution counsel’s burden is that I did willfully and knowingly avoid a known duty or task under the law…Namely to get the license.”
“And I would submit he’s specifically precluded…He cannot perform his task. Therefore, I motion to dismiss with prejudice for failure to claim a cause of action for which relief may be granted, and I would like to collect my costs and fees for having to defend this frivolous and spurious complaint.”
The judge turns to the prosecution and asks what he wants to do. The prosecution, being overwhelmed, simply dismissed the case.
Since then every time I see some little person get jammed, I’m out there flippin’ that wrench. I flip that wrench on them so good that usually they just back off.
Dr. Kevorkian was a perfect example. The poor man was just trying to help these poor people and they were jamming him every which way but loose. So, we taught him about a thing called “Quo Warranto.” I got a hold of his attorney and submitted all the arguments.
We’re going to bring up several arguments here. We’re going to bring up police powers, and we’re going to bring up Quo Warranto.
Quo Warranto is a basic right that goes back to English law. An old English practice. A writ in the nature of a writ of right for the King…against him who claimed or usurped any office, franchise or liberty, to inquire by what authority is he supporting his claim, in order to determine the right. It lay also in the case of a non-user or a long-neglected franchise (corporation), or misuser or abuser of a franchise. Being a writ commanding the defendant to show by what warrant he exercises such a corporate franchise, having never had any grant of it, or having forfeited it by neglect or abuse.
A common law writ designed to test whether a person exercising power is legally entitled to do so. An extraordinary proceeding prerogative in nature addressed to preventing a continued exercise of authority unlawfully asserted. Johnson v. Manhattan Railway Co., 289 U.S. 479 (1933) It is intended to prevent exercise of powers that are not conferred by law and is not ordinarily available to regulate the manner of exercising such power.
Police powers are defined as “the right of eminent domain of a state or political sub-division to enact laws for the common good and welfare”.
Black’s Law Dictionary…Police Powers: “An authority conferred by the American Constitutional system in the 10th Amendment, U. S. Constitution upon the individual states and in turn delegated to the local governments through which they are enabled to establish a special department of police. Such laws and regulations as tend to prevent the commission of fraud and/or crime, and secure generally the comfort, safety, morals, health and prosperity of its citizens by preserving the public order and preventing a conflict of rights in the common intercourse of the citizens and insuring to each an uninterrupted enjoyment of all the privileges conferred upon him or her by the general laws…the constitution.”
“The power of the state to place restraints on personal freedoms and property rights of persons for the protection of the public safety, health and morals, or to promote the public convenience and general propriety. The police power is subject to limitations of the federal and state constitutions, and especially to the requirements of due process. Police power is the exercise of the sovereign right of the government to promote order, safety, security, health, morals and general welfare within constitutional limitations is an essential attribute.” Marshall v Kansas City, Mo. 35 SW 2nd, p 877…See 10th Amendment.
Now when you see the 10th Amendment, “The burdens placed on the national government as a result of states’ regulation of their internal affairs save, as congress may act to remove them, constitute normal incidents of operation within the same territory of a dual system of government. And no immunity of national government from such burden is to be implied from the constitution.” Penn Dairies, Inc. v. Milk Control Commission, 318 U.S. 261 (1943).
“The people of the Unites States residing within any state are subject to 2 governments: one state and the other national…But there need be no conflict between the two, because the powers which one possesses the other does not.” United States v. Cruikshank 92 US 542 (1876) …A very important case.
“Within the area of delegated powers, expressed or implied, this amendment does not reduce the powers of the United States” …U.S. v Manning 215 fed sup, p 272. “The federal union has only those powers expressly conferred on it, and those reasonably implied from powers granted, while each state has all governmental powers except such as the people by the constitution have conferred to the United States. Denied to the state or reserved to the people themselves. Anderson v Gladden 188 fed sup., 666: “It is when federal legislation attempts to confer power upon the national government that it is not within the expressed or implied powers given by the constitution, that the legislation becomes vulnerable to this amendment.”
Now, what are we talking about here? The Brady Bill…That’s not within their powers, they have no 10th Amendment powers to take away the 2nd Amendment. Does that make sense to everybody? They don’t have any powers to go take away the 2nd or any other of the Amendments.
And the 9th Amendment precluded them from adding onto the constitution in such a way that would take away the powers. So, by the 9th and 10th Amendments they’re totally locked out from doing a lot of the things they do. But see, you gotta know that and be able to timely exercise it.
So, it’s very important to understand your 10th Amendment powers.
“When in the course of human events it becomes necessary and proper” …and this is what we did for Dr. Kevorkian. We made sure his lawyer got this knowledge…We went in there and we dug up a writ of Quo Warranto.
A writ of Quo Warranto.
Now this doesn’t look like much but let me tell you something. What we’re talking about doing here…See, most cities, at least in the state of Michigan, are by public act 230 public acts or public act 287 public acts, and in every one of them there is a rights and powers section…usually it’s recorded at 2.2 or 3.1, and it basically says “Subject to the constitution of the United States and the general laws of the state of Michigan, the City of or the township of has rights and powers too. Then it starts listing the powers: The right to have a police department, the right to have a fire department, the right to have a city hall…and it starts listing all these powers.
The antithesis to the argument is that if they’re not in the constitution of the United States and the general laws of the state of Michigan then they don’t have any rights and powers.
In other words, they are in violation of their corporate charter; their franchise. They promised that they would be within the constitution of the United States and the general laws of the state of Michigan.
Now a lot of people don’t understand the power of this argument, so I want to really push this one home. I want you to understand. Whenever these little townships and cities start acting like King Farouche like you don’t matter and they don’t have to listen to you, this is what I want you to do: You ask them this question: Are you violating my constitutionally protected civil rights by however you claim they are. Because if you are, you have just waived your right to be the city of.
They will laugh at you for a little bit, then you explain to them public act 230 of Public Acts which states the rights and powers section of the constitution of the United States and the general laws of Michigan. You have rights and powers. The antithesis of that is that if you are not going to be within the constitution of the United States and the general laws of the state of Michigan, and you’re going to violate my constitutional rights and trample my rights, what we are going to do here is go for a “Writ of Mandamus in Quo Warranto”. (That’s the legal term).
It is an ancient law that goes way back to England in the ancient times. Basically, here is the judgment and the action for it.
You put down here the case. “The case came on regularly for trial before the honorable (_____) on jury trial or non-jury, on the date of _____. ______counsel and ____ opposing counsel.
The court heard the testimony and examined the proofs offered by the parties. The court considered itself fully advised on the premise and filed in its findings of fact and conclusions of law, and directed that judgments be entered in accordance with such findings. Which means that they figured out they violated your constitutional rights, they didn’t have the right to violate your constitutional rights, and in the hearing, you showed they violated your constitutional rights, and the judge figured out they violated your constitutional rights. So now for your prayer for relief we’re going to get this Quo Warranto. And that’s exactly what happened with Dr Kevorkian.
Notice he was in jail and they were hammering the tail out of him. The next thing you know everything got really quiet. The next thing you know they’re letting him go, and they were minding their business. This is how it happened.
It is therefore ordered and adjudged and decreed:
- “Defendant Corporation the city of _______has violated provisions of the act under which it was created, and also has violated provisions of public act 230 Public Acts sec. 2.2 rights and powers section” …In other words they didn’t uphold the constitution of the United States and the general laws of the state of Michigan. “Defendant Corporation the city of ____accordingly has forfeited its charter and has become liable to be dissolved by the abuse of its power”. How much money are we talking about here? Nine decimal points plus, wouldn’t you think? Now do you think they are going to bother some little doctor when they’re looking at shutting down a major city? What do you think is going to happen? Everything is going to get quiet and they are going to let the doctor go. Same thing for you.
- Now, Defendant corporation _____ now therefore is dissolved, and the corporate rights and privileges of franchise of defendants are declared forfeited to the people. Defendant corporation ______’s trustees, directors, officials, and other officers, attorneys, and agents are forever restrained and enjoined from exercising any of the franchise corporate rights and/or privileges previously exercised by said defendant city, and from collecting or receiving any debts and/or demands belonging to or held by defendant city, and from paying out or in any manner interfering with transferring or delivering to any person any of the deposits, money, securities, property and affects of the defendant city or held by it.
You name a trustee, which the state would do…probably the state attorney general…after your complaint is filed is appointed receiver of all the property, real and personal, things in action and affects of defendant city corporation held by investment by defendants or in or to which defendant may be in any wise interested or entitled to. Plaintiff…the people of the state of whatever… shall recover of defendant corporation city of ____, the sum of (damages real and personal). They don’t like it when you do that…because you can go a hundred million three times that amount in punitive damages, they get a little upset. As costs and disbursements of this action and the receivers is directed to pay the sum out of their pocket to whoever the attorney general stipulated there as an injured party.
You can put down there “the honorable judge so-and-so presiding (date entered)”, and he signs that, the city is no longer a city. When they violate your constitution, this is one of the most powerful tools that you can use. And when you jam this on you better wear a bullet proof vest to court, cause you’re probably going to get shot at by the time you get home…But it’s nice to threaten. Just drop one of them in the mail and tell them If I don’t get reasonable cause for my action in the near future, you’re going to get one of these in the mail for real.
Here is the summons for Quo Warranto. This is for the start of the thing. Summons, form 41.
By the way you can get this from 21 Am Juris practical forms and practice.
Alright, you name the party, you put down who you are…
The people of the state of Michigan v, __________
You are summoned to appear before _____ court on such and such a date, to show by what authority you claim to have use and/or enjoy rights and liberty and franchise (namely the corporations city of) set out and complained of in such and such a time summons and further to do and receive all things which the court shall then order concerning you.
This is kinda like pulling their driver’s license for drunk driving. Now that’s an over simplification, but sometimes these city halls operate like a drunken sailor, and the think they can abuse citizen’s rights, and trash them…” You know who I am?” “No, and I don’t care…”
You know who I’m…I’m your boss…I’m the people. You’re elected to work for me…And I’m trying to be nice. So, I’d appreciate it if you’d just…we can just sit down and work this out. But if we can’t work this out, I’m gonna sock it to ya, baby. And that’s basically how I feel about it.
Now we can get into some of these other things… In the constitution of the state of Michigan…the latest and greatest…the very first thing they talk about…Notice it says section one… “All political power is inherent in the people. Government is instituted for their equal benefit, security and protection. Equal protection in discrimination. “No person shall be denied equal protection under the law. Nor shall any person be denied of the enjoyment of their civil or political rights or be discriminated against in the exercise thereof because of religion, race, or national origin. The legislature shall implement this section by appropriate legislation. Then they go down through all these…freedom of worship, etc.
This is what we’re talking about here folks. You know your rights…You got ‘em…You don’t know ‘em…You don’t get ‘em.
Get back into police powers generally. This is something you gotta understand. Generally, the police power is the exercise of the sovereign right of the government to promote order, safety and health and morals, and the general welfare of the society within constitutional limits.
Generally, the police powers are the exercise of the sovereign of the government to promote order, safety, health and morals and the general welfare of the society within constitutional limits. As otherwise stated, the police power of the state is a power or organization of a system of regulations to foster the health, order, and comfort of the people, and to prevent and/or punish injuries and offences to the public. But it has to be within constitutional limitations, and it embraces all the rules for the protection of life, liberty, and property.
So, it’s up to you and it’s up to me. We have to get ahold of our constitution, and you start learning that constitution, quote it chapter and verse, and guess what…You’ll notice a unique different change. One, after a while, they start to listen. Any you actually affect positive change, and every time they see you, they “Oh, for God’s sake don’t give that guy a ticket.”
I’ve actually been pulled over with no plates on my car, and a friend of mine recorded this off the police radio: “Do you have positive I.D. on the guy?” He said “Yeah, it’s him.” They said, “Don’t give that guy a ticket.”
“But Sarge, he doesn’t have any plates on his car.”
“I don’t give a damn what he has, don’t give that guy a ticket.”
“But Sarge, he told me he has just been waiting to fight it and beat it all the way to the supreme court, and I wrote that on the ticket.”
“You gave that guy a ticket? I just told you not to give that guy a ticket. What are you…Deaf? You got some problem with your hearing?”
“But he didn’t have plates on his car.”
The Sarge said “Fine, you gave him a ticket? Fine. Tomorrow at 9 o’clock I want you to be here when the city attorney comes in and you’re going to personally deliver the ticket to him, and he ain’t going to like it. He isn’t gonna be really happy with you. He hates that guy.
Every time he goes to court that guy blows his doors off. He looks like a fool.
So, we go to court. I come up before the court, and the judge starts acting like a prosecutor. He starts asking me all kinds of discovery questions. Now, this is very important. If you’re going to be your own attorney, you have to know the program.
When you hear him call your case you get off your tail feather and you run right up there as quickly as you can without knocking anybody down and you say “Ready your honor”
You state your appearance…” I’m so and so, here before this honorable court. I’m standing as my own counsel, I’ve appointed myself my own attorney and I’m ready to proceed with my administrative and procedural matters, and at this time your honor may it please the court I motion for dismissal with prejudice for failure to state a cause of action for which relief can be granted.
The judge bips off right away “Well, you got a ticket on such and such a …”
I said “Whoa, your honor, are you the judge; the disinterested third party that’s going to try this case. The tryer of fact?
He said “Yes.”
I said, “Is this the prosecutor over here to my right?”
He said “Yeah, that’s him.”
I said “OK, are you going to prosecute this case your honor?”
He said “No, I’m the judge.”
I said “Then why are you asking discovery questions? Isn’t that his job…Isn’t that what he’s supposed to do? He’s supposed to present his case as the prosecutor…tryer of the case. You’re the tryer of fact, and he’s the tryer of the case. If you’re going to act as the judge and the prosecutor of the case, I’m going to object…on the record…as a mistrial…as an appealable issue.”
“OK it’s on the record. Now let me ask you this: did you get a ticket on Sept 30th?
I said, “Yes sir.”
“Do you have any plates on your car?”
“No sir, and I don’t intend to.”
He said, “I assume you have a very good reason for that.”
I said, “Yes sir”, and I shut up.
He said, “Can I hear it?”
“Well, your honor, I’m an unenfranchised common law freeman. I’m not a participant in any tontine schemes and limited liability on a joint venture for profit with an insurable interest requiring me to participate in these corporate ponzi schemes. I’m just a little Joe from Kokomo. I live on the block…I travel at the common law.
I have a right to travel freely and unencumbered pursuant to Shapiro v Thompson, and that right is so basic it doesn’t even need to be mentioned.
The state of California arbitrarily and erroneously converted my right into a privilege and issued a license plate and a fee for it.
Murdock v Pennsylvania says no state may convert a secured right into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it. AND IF THEY DO…Shuttlesworth V Birmingham Alabama says I can ignore the license and engage in the right with impunity. That means you can’t punish me.
Since I’ve relied on previous decisions of the U S Supreme Court and on constitutional defenses, I have a perfect defense for willfulness…I am immune to the prosecution, therefore the prosecution does not have a cause of action for which relief can be granted.
I motion for dismissal with prejudice for failure to state a claim of action for which relief can be granted, and I would like to collect my costs and fees for having to defend this frivolous case.”
The judge laughed and said, “Motion granted” and he left the bench.
So, I’m telling you that you can effect change. Knowledge is power. You know your constitution and you will have that power.
An unconstitutional act, wrongfully done, is still wrong and unconstitutional. The reality Is that the person that’s properly motivated. Properly willing and properly trained to do whatever is necessary and proper to defend the constitution will almost always prevail on the merits. The reality is that the burden is on you. You want your constitution then you damn well better grab ahold of it and you better hold on tight and don’t let go for nuthin’.
You read your constitution and you learn your constitution, and you quote your constitution chapter and verse, frontwards, backwards, upside and down. When people come up to you and say, “We want you to take a drug test, that’s part of your job.” You tell them to “Go fish.”
I’m not taking a drug test. I’m not required to prove a negative. You’re required to prove a positive. If you think I’m doing something negligent fine…You go file papers and you take necessary precautions and what have you, and we will go to court.
But I’m not going to be convicted before the fact and then I gotta provide evidence that I’m not guilty. That’s the cart before the horse. That’s back ass-wards. I’m not going to do that.
Not only that, the 5th Amendment says that I have the right not to be a participant in a compulsory process that’s going to make an incriminating situation for me. Now I have nothing to hide, and I’m not even arguing from what I got to hide…I’m arguing from the fact that the right stands and I’m exercising it.
Then I usually ask some simple questions. “Well, if they find anything will I get fired?
“Well, hell yes…You’re going to be penalized.”
So, there are penalties. “And if they find anything will I be criminally prosecuted?”
So why would you want to do some damn stupid thing like that?
This guy comes up to me this last convention we had, and they wanted to take a test as to whether I’ve got any drugs in my system.
I said first of all what’s in my system is between me and my doctor, and none of your damn business. I said I don’t take drugs and I got nothing to hide, but I’m not going to voluntarily enter into anything…What if your guy screws up and says I have drugs? Now I can’t get a job ever? What, are you kidding me? Is this some new hobby you just took up? I’m not going to play that game.
It is not my burden to prove a negative. It is your burden to prove a positive. If you have a just claim for which relief can be granted, you go file your papers and we’ll sit down and talk.
But until such time you can go fish. I’m not gonna play, I’m not required to play, and if you fire me for the exercise of my constitutional right, I’m going to tell you about Miller v. United States, 230 F 486, at 489 which says, “The claim and exercise of a constitutional right shall not be converted into a crime.” You’re doing that and your punishing me. And if you fire me for it I will sue your sox off and attach everything you own, bank, business, and home.
Now I want to get into some of these other subjects. Traffic cases…This is the most practical way to deal with these traffic cases.
When you are pulled over what is happening? Now you have a policeman and he’s conducting discovery. Anything you say can and will be held against you, and if you don’t think so, just keep rattling…and it will all get written down on the ticket. I found that out and told the officer I’ve just been waiting to get this ticket, so I can fight it all the way to the Supreme Court. I wrote that word for word right on the ticket. When these people are with you, you keep your hatch buttoned. If you say anything it’s “Yes sir, no sir, what can I do for you sir.”
They always like to say something like “Going a little fast, were we?”
I say, “I neither admit nor deny and I leave you to your proofs in court.”
“Oh, a lawyer?”
No, I’m not a lawyer, I’m smart enough to know to keep my mouth shut, because I realize that anything I say is gonna be put down on your paper.
If you have a charge you make it and I’ll see you in court.
“Oh…You want to go to court?”
Oh, yeah, I always go to court. I fight everything like murder one. It’s kinda like hobby of mine.
“Well…let’s see what we get.” And they walk back to the car and they start writing…or they usually come back and say “Well, you were going a little fast, think about slowing down…We’re going to let you off with a warning…You have a good day.
Always be courteous. I can blow their doors off any time I want. But still “yes sir, no sir”.
Courtesy pays. You treat people the way you want to be treated and nine times out of ten you will benefit.
You treat people like a yahoo and you’re going to be treated like a yahoo yourself.
So, I highly recommend courtesy as an effective way.
I had a policeman one time tell me “You ever eat a flashlight…the hard way?”
I looked at him and I said “Quite frankly officer, most of the officers I’ve run into are extremely professional, and I treat them with a great deal of courtesy and professionalism, ‘cause I respect what they’re doing…that they risk their life every day. And at no time would I give an officer enough static that he would want to make me eat a flashlight…I mean I treat them very cordially.
And I respect what they’re trying to do. I don’t agree with everything they’re trying to do, ‘cause some of the stuff is kinda unlawful. But I will give them the courtesy they have coming.
He turned to me and said “I’m sorry…I’ve got a big mouth. I didn’t mean it…You’re right. I was out of line”
See, you treat people with courtesy, and nine times out of ten you can even back down some guy that’s talking a lot of manure.
But the louder you talk, the more belligerent you are, the louder and more belligerent hey will become. Remember…The best weapon you have is between your ears…So use it!
Now we’ve gone past that and you have a ticket. Now what do you do?
Wow…Look on the ticket. See if he signed it. A lot of times they don’t sign it. Guess what…If he didn’t sign it, there ain’t no sworn complaint. How can you defend against a non-sworn complaint? A lot of times a cop forgets to sign the ticket. Look…Open your eyes…Hey, this guy didn’t sign it today. It says under penalty of perjury I attest and certify this is a true in fact complaint.
Well what happens if they don’t sign it? It ain’t a complaint.
Now the next thing you have to do is notify the court within the time period which is usually 10 days. One of their dirtiest tricks is you call in and you think you got it noticed and guess what? They claim you didn’t call in. And they go ahead and say that you didn’t show up. Then they find you guilty and bingo…You’re out of there.
So, I recommend that you call them, tell them that you want a formal hearing, ask the name of the party you are speaking to, so that you have a name of somebody who works there who you talked to, to verify that you called. Then immediately or sooner type up a little notice that says “I, _____, do hereby request a formal hearing” and send it to them certified mail or run down there, walk right in and get them to set up a hearing. You want a formal hearing.
5 days before that hearing you’re required to serve your papers on opposing counsel. If you don’t do it in a timely fashion you will not be able to enter your briefs. Sometimes you can get away with it the last minute by handing it to them and they won’t say anything, but if they want to hammer you, they can use the 5-day court rule. I have used it effectively several times.
Now, look at what it says on the complaint. See what they say you violated, and you go down to the local law library and you look up exactly what they say and then you enter a defense.
“I neither admit nor deny and I leave you to your strictest proofs in a competent court of law of original jurisdiction.”
But before we go there, you need to choose exactly how you want to proceed. If you want to be the hardest hard nose you can, you don’t file any papers at all. And as soon as you call the case you go to the front as quickly as possible and you say in a loud and clear voice “Ready your honor”.
You state your full name and say “I’m appearing in court in propria persona which means in your own proper person. I’ve appointed myself my own attorney and I’m ready to proceed with my administrative and procedural matters, and at this time your honor may it please the court I motion for dismissal with prejudice for failure to state a cause of action for which relief can be granted.”
All of a sudden, the cop will go “Oops…, especially if you wear an army jacket and you look like you’re 3 sheets in the wind. The cop leaned back and goes “Oh crap, we’re gonna get sued…I didn’t know the guy was a lawyer.”
Then he starts taking to the prosecutor and the prosecutor will go “Turkey…You brought me one of those, huh?” “I’m gonna get killed…And you’re gonna sit here and pay for it, I promise you.”
Then what happens is out of your mouth you tell the judge in the clearest and most expedient language “Your honor, may it please the court, is this a court of law or is it a court of equity?”
He will immediately respond with “There’s no equity here” just like he got hit in the knee with a hammer, and his leg jumped. And just that fast it’ll happen. Because he thinks there’s no lawsuit here and therefore there’s no equity. The judges don’t even understand what happened with this shift from 1962 when they moved these courts together, so you have to find out what hat the judge is wearing. Is he wearing a criminal hat or a civil hat? You have a right to ask.
You quickly say “Judge is this a court of equity or a court of law?”
We just did this in a beautiful case. This little gal…she couldn’t have been 80 pounds soakin’ wet. The cop was about 6’2”, about 320, big heavy-duty state trooper.
She walks in “Your honor, I am representing myself as my own counsel. I would like to proceed with my administrative and procedural matters, but before we go, I have a declaratory ruling, sir. Could I ask you a question?”
“Oh, sure honey…go ahead. But you understand only a fool stands as his own attorney”.
“That may be. Sir, but I’m the best person that knows the facts of my case and I think I have a chance I’d like to try, is that OK?”
“No problem…You have that right.”
She asked, “Is this a court of equity or a court of law?”
The judge immediately “There’s no equity here.”
She said, “Thank you sir.” She rolled up her hand and in her hand was a ticket that said civil infraction and she said, “How may we hear this civil infraction sir?”
The judge did a Homer Simpson. He goes “Hup…So that’s where you’re going with this, huh…”
The whole court broke out laughing. They realized that the judge did a Homer Simpson.
Then the judge realized he did a Homer Simpson and he started laughing.
He goes “Aww, you’re not going to pull that here today, are you?”
She thought for a minute and said, “Yes I am, sir.”
And everybody started laughing again.
The cop then goes “Well, if they are going to play around like this, I’m going to put 15 over on the ticket, judge.”
The judge says “No, you’ve got what’s on the ticket, and you’re not changing the ticket after the fact. If it was 15 over, you should have written 15 over.”
The cop said “Well I just don’t want to screw around; this is getting out of hand. She was guilty your honor.”
She goes “Your honor, we haven’t even got to that, your honor. There’s no jurisdiction. This is where we’re at. We’re at no jurisdiction.”
The judge says “Alright, are we going to go through with this. Tell me the truth.”
“Yes, I am, sir, I’m going all the way, all the way to the Supreme Court.” She said.
The judge goes “OK, now, we’re going to have to set a hearing.”
She says “And I’d like a formal hearing too, sir. And a trial by jury, sir, because the value in controversy is in excess of $20 and pursuant to the 7th Amendment I have a right to trial by jury.”
He said “OK, we’ll send you notice.”
It’s been 3 ½ weeks and no notice. We call them every day and they won’t even talk about this case. The only reason they said that was so all the poor little people in the courtroom didn’t get the idea that they could get up there and do the same thing this little gal did.
They’re not going to call her back ‘cause they got no jurisdiction. They’re not going to try that case because she’s going to blow their doors off.
Now that’s one of the most beautiful tact’s, and the fastest. The last time I did it I was before a particularly obnoxious judge, and he basically said to me “How many times have you pulled this?”
I said, “About a dozen, your honor.”
“Oh, going for lucky 13, huh? This is very clever, but I’m going to give you some advice young man…Don’t ever get caught doing nothing in my town again…Got me?”
I said “Sir, I never try to do anything. I always try to be a gentleman”
He said, “Well you better not get caught doing nothing…Because I will hammer your tail.”
I said, “Does that mean the case is dismissed your honor?”
He says, “it’s dismissed…You’re out of here.”
I’m telling you this works, and it works really well.
Now the next effective step that you can do is you can turn around and ask the judge if he is a licensed attorney to practice law. Why? Because none of the judges are licensed…Take my word for it. The Michigan constitution says under the adjuicary act that they are required by law to have a license…That they are required to be licensed by the state of Michigan.
The state of Michigan does not license attorneys…The BAR association licenses them…They give them a number and a card that says “yeah, you’re a member of the BAR association. But if you call up the BAR association, they will tell you they don’t give anybody a license. The state of Michigan doesn’t give them a license, the BAR association doesn’t give them a license, so what license could they be talking about? A Mickey Mouse license? ‘Cause that’s the only one left.
The state doesn’t issue one, the BAR doesn’t issue one, and the one they have hanging on the wall is not a license from the state of Michigan, and the constitution of the state of Michigan says all judges will be licensed to practice law before state. You ask him “Where’s the guy’s license?” Because he doesn’t have one.
“Your honor, may it please the court, since you don’t have a license, I’m asking you to recuse yourself until we can get a judge that has a license.”
Now a little lady name of Virginia Crepps is the one that perfected this one. She’s a genius at it, she’s a little Spitfire if you ever watch her in court, you’re actually going to see a treat, because she is something’ else. She’s got character, she graduated a full attorney from Wayne State University, and then she refused to join the BAR because she didn’t want to compromise her rights with their political chicanery. She is a full-fledged serious legal business person. To hear her work in court is absolutely like listening to Stradivarius work the violin. She walks in and blows their doors off. She’s on about 3 judges now for this same thing. She blew the first judge out, so they sent in another judge, they moved her over to the other end of town over in Berkley, Michigan. Then she walked in and blew that judge out the door. So, then they sent her to another judge, so she turned around and went before the state licensing commission, and now they’ve handed it up to the judicial people of the state to try and resolve the problem. They’re going to have to end up dropping it. The judge doesn’t have a license. Now let’s suppose the judge could prove he had a license…which he doesn’t…” Judge, let me ask you a question: Under your retirement fund, isn’t it a fact that you get a certain percentage of the rake off of all the tickets that come before your bench?”
“And isn’t it that for every $40 that comes across your bench you get $18.75”
“So, you have a financial interest in this matter, isn’t that correct?”
“Well isn’t that a violation of judicial canon number 7? You’re not supposed to have any financial interest in any matter that comes before your court.”
“I’m going to ask you to recuse yourself for bias your honor, may it please the court.” And every single judge has got it.
Now does everybody understand how many ways you can hammer them right out of the chute without even being nasty?
The judge doesn’t have a license, the judge has a personal interest in the case for financial reasons, there is no jurisdiction to hear the matter, and I’ll tell you a secret; once you challenge jurisdiction the burden falls on the plaintiff to prove jurisdiction. And he can’t do it. It cannot be done. There isn’t any. There is no jurisdiction to hear a traffic ticket in the United States of America.
I know, you’re sitting back saying “Oh, come on…They have been getting us for years.”
A traffic is a writ of assistance or a bill of attainder. You look in your constitution and you’ll find out. Bills of attainder are against the constitution. It’s stated at least twice that I know of.
I’m tellin’ you, you read your constitution. There is no place for a traffic ticket. You cannot have a writ of assistance that has civil equity arguments that transmit into law penalties. They can’t throw you in jail for a debt, because that’s a debtor’s prison, and we have a constitutional argument against that also.
So how do they do it?
‘Cause they want to…and because you don’t know any better. That’s how they do it.
What if they say it’s a court of equity?
If they say it’s a court of equity and there is equity then you turn to him and say “Thank you, your honor, I appreciate your time, I would like to know who the injured party is and where the contract is. Can you show me the contract?”
There is no contract unless you didn’t sign your license UD 1-207 without prejudice. Where is the contract? It’s where you sign for that license. So, don’t sign for that license unless you put UD 1-207 w/o prejudice ucc-1-207.
Now, they can’t produce the contract, and if they could produce the contract you have exercised your waiver under the contract not to give up your constitutional rights to travel freely and unencumbered, right? And let me ask you this: Can you enter into an unconstitutional contract? Not lawfully. The contract is voidable for not lawful performance. It has to be a lawful contract for you to enter into it.
Alright, now the next thing: who is the injured party? Who got injured? Show me judge. The parking meter out there?
Another neat trick I like to do, especially in speeding tickets is I like to confront my accuser. I always like to call the black box that accused me of speeding to the stand, and the judge always gets upset.
I tell him “Well your honor, I’ve been asking this policeman here for 3 hours how this black box that he’s been playing with works. He can’t tell me, and we have been through the whole stationary radar manual, and I’ve asked him every question, and I don’t know how he passed his second-class radio operator’s license, ‘cause he don’t know how the damn thing works. He doesn’t even know how to set the thing up to test the thing in all environments. On top of that he is not the witness. He is nothing but a hearsay witness. His testimony is inadmissible in any court in the land, ‘cause you can’t have hearsay testimony.
He says, “What the hell are you talkin’ about?”
I said “He did not actually accuse me…That black box with flashing lights on it and little beepers accused me. If I had a black box in here with little lights on it and making noises and accusing and saying “He didn’t speed, he didn’t speed, he didn’t speed, we know how far that would go, right judge? You’d throw it right out through that window, judge.”
But you let this guy bring his idiot box in with flashing lights and beepers on it, and his thing is by the book and admissible in court. He can’t tell me how the thing works, we’ve been trying for 3 ½ hours to test him to see if he knows how it works, he couldn’t pass that test to save his life, and the bottom line is I still don’t think the damn thing works, and personally I want to call it to the stand to confront my accuser, under article 1 section 13 paragraph 5 I have the right to confront my accuser, and I’d like to confront my accuser and I’m serving a subpoena, a subpoena duces tecum, which means bring your books and records, too.
He goes “That’s pretty clever.”
I say “Not only that your honor, He’s arguing apples and oranges. I have a speedometer in my car, and it might be plus or minus 12 miles per hour on a factory made one, and a handmade one is supposed to be at 6 mph. Mine’s got a little needle on it that works off a little cable that goes to the transmission and runs off a little gear. It doesn’t have 4 decimal places, and it doesn’t do space logic and all this other stuff and shoot out a mile ahead and tell me how fast the telephone poles are flying by. He’s got this handy dandy gadget in his car that’s measuring the speed one way, and I’ve got this one that’s measuring speed my way. So how could I be guilty to the extent that his is talking about because I don’t have one of them in my car? You see the apples and the oranges here judge? It’s not really a fair test, is it?
“That’s a pretty good argument you have there. I’ll tell you what we’re gonna do. You’ve cost my court enough for the day…I’m gonna dismiss the case.”
“Fine by me, your honor.”