tips_and_tricks : Messages : 18737-18766 of 19466

[1] The Court's decision in the Slaughter-House Cases only confirms my view that state infringement on the right to travel is limited to the kind of barrier established in Edwards v. California, 314 U. S. 160 (1941), and its discussion is worth quoting in full:

I highlighted the travel portion of this case in yellow below. This case discusses three aspects of the right to travel under the US Constitution.

Saenz v. Roe, 526 US 489 - Supreme Court 1999

526 U.S. 489 (1999)

SAENZ, DIRECTOR, CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, et al.
v.
ROE et al., on
BEHALF OF THEMSELVES AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED

No. 98-97.

United States Supreme Court.

492*492 Justice Stevens, delivered the opinion of the Court.

In 1992, California enacted a statute limiting the maximum welfare benefits available to newly arrived residents. The scheme limits the amount payable to a family that has resided in the State for less than 12 months to the amount payable by the State of the family's prior residence. The questions presented by this case are whether the 1992 statute was constitutional when it was enacted and, if not, whether an amendment to the Social Security Act enacted by Congress in 1996 affects that determination.

California is not only one of the largest, most populated, and most beautiful States in the Nation; it is also one of the most generous. Like all other States, California has participated in several welfare programs authorized by the Social Security Act and partially funded by the Federal Government. Its programs, however, provide a higher level of benefits and serve more needy citizens than those of most other States. In one year the most expensive of those programs, Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC), which was replaced in 1996 with Temporary Assistance to 493*493 Needy Families (TANF), provided benefits for an average of 2,645,814 persons per month at an annual cost to the State of $2.9 billion. In California the cash benefit for a family of two—a mother and one child—is $456 a month, but in the neighboring State of Arizona, for example, it is only $275.

In 1992, in order to make a relatively modest reduction in its vast welfare budget, the California Legislature enacted � 11450.03 of the state Welfare and Institutions Code. That section sought to change the California AFDC program by limiting new residents, for the first year they live in California, to the benefits they would have received in the State of their prior residence.^[1] Because in 1992 a state program either had to conform to federal specifications or receive a waiver from the Secretary of Health and Human Services in order to qualify for federal reimbursement, � 11450.03 required approval by the Secretary to take effect. In October 1992, the Secretary issued a waiver purporting to grant such approval.

On December 21, 1992, three California residents who were eligible for AFDC benefits filed an action in the Eastern District of California challenging the constitutionality 494*494 of the durational residency requirement in � 11450.03. Each plaintiff alleged that she had recently moved to California to live with relatives in order to escape abusive family circumstances. One returned to California after living in Louisiana for seven years, the second had been living in Oklahoma for six weeks and the third came from Colorado. Each alleged that her monthly AFDC grant for the ensuing 12 months would be substantially lower under � 11450.03 than if the statute were not in effect. Thus, the former residents of Louisiana and Oklahoma would receive $190 and $341 respectively for a family of three even though the full California grant was $641; the former resident of Colorado, who had just one child, was limited to $280 a month as opposed to the full California grant of $504 for a family of two.

The District Court issued a temporary restraining order and, after a hearing, preliminarily enjoined implementation of the statute. District Judge Levi found that the statute "produces substantial disparities in benefit levels and makes no accommodation for the different costs of living that exist in different states."^[2] Relying primarily on our decisions in Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U. S. 618 (1969), and Zobel v. Williams, 457 U. S. 55 (1982), he concluded that the statute placed "a penalty on the decision of new residents to migrate to the State and be treated on an equal basis with existing residents." Green v. Anderson, 811 F. Supp. 516, 521 (ED Cal. 1993). In his view, if the purpose of the measure was to deter migration by poor people into the State, it would be unconstitutional for that reason. And even if the purpose was only to conserve limited funds, the State had failed to explain why the entire burden of the saving should be imposed on new residents. The Court of Appeals summarily 495*495 affirmed for the reasons stated by the District Judge. Green v. Anderson, 26 F. 3d 95 (CA9 1994).

We granted the State's petition for certiorari. 513 U. S. 922 (1994). We were, however, unable to reach the merits because the Secretary's approval of � 11450.03 had been invalidated in a separate proceeding,^[3] and the State had acknowledged that the Act would not be implemented without further action by the Secretary. We vacated the judgment and directed that the case be dismissed. Anderson v. Green, 513 U. S. 557 (1995) (per curiam).^[4] Accordingly, � 11450.03 remained inoperative until after Congress enacted the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA), 110 Stat. 2105.

PRWORA replaced the AFDC program with TANF. The new statute expressly authorizes any State that receives a block grant under TANF to "apply to a family the rules (including benefit amounts) of the [TANF] program . . . of another State if the family has moved to the State from the other State and has resided in the State for less than 12 months." 110 Stat. 2124, 42 U. S. C. � 604(c) (1994 ed., Supp. II). With this federal statutory provision in effect, California no longer needed specific approval from the Secretary to implement � 11450.03. The California Department of Social Services therefore issued an "All County Letter" announcing that the enforcement of � 11450.03 would commence on April 1, 1997.

The All County Letter clarifies certain aspects of the statute. Even if members of an eligible family had lived in California all of their lives, but left the State "on January 29th, intending to reside in another state, and returned on April 15th," their benefits are determined by the law of their State of residence from January 29 to April 15, assuming 496*496 that that level was lower than California's.^[5] Moreover, the lower level of benefits applies regardless of whether the family was on welfare in the State of prior residence and regardless of the family's motive for moving to California. The instructions also explain that the residency requirement is inapplicable to families that recently arrived from another country.

On April 1, 1997, the two respondents filed this action in the Eastern District of California making essentially the same claims asserted by the plaintiffs in Anderson v. Green,^[6] but also challenging the constitutionality of PRWORA's approval of the durational residency requirement. As in Green, the District Court issued a temporary restraining order and certified the case as a class action.^[7] The court also advised the Attorney General of the United States that the constitutionality of a federal statute had been drawn into question, but she did not seek to intervene or to file an amicus brief. Reasoning that PRWORA permitted, but did not require, States to impose durational residency requirements, Judge Levi concluded that the existence of the federal statute did not affect the legal analysis in his prior opinion in Green.

He did, however, make certain additional comments on the parties' factual contentions. He noted that the State did not challenge plaintiffs' evidence indicating that, although 497*497 California benefit levels were the sixth highest in the Nation in absolute terms,^[8] when housing costs are factored in, they rank 18th; that new residents coming from 43 States would face higher costs of living in California; and that welfare benefit levels actually have little, if any, impact on the residential choices made by poor people. On the other hand, he noted that the availability of other programs such as homeless assistance and an additional food stamp allowance of $1 in stamps for every $3 in reduced welfare benefits partially offset the disparity between the benefits for new and old residents. Notwithstanding those ameliorating facts, the State did not disagree with plaintiffs' contention that � 11450.03 would create significant disparities between newcomers and welfare recipients who have resided in the State for over one year.

The State relied squarely on the undisputed fact that the statute would save some $10.9 million in annual welfare costs—an amount that is surely significant even though only a relatively small part of its annual expenditures of approximately $2.9 billion for the entire program. It contended that this cost saving was an appropriate exercise of budgetary authority as long as the residency requirement did not penalize the right to travel. The State reasoned that the payment of the same benefits that would have been received in the State of prior residency eliminated any potentially punitive aspects of the measure. Judge Levi concluded, however, that the relevant comparison was not between new residents of California and the residents of their former States, but rather between the new residents and longer term residents of California. He therefore again enjoined the implementation of the statute.

Without finally deciding the merits, the Court of Appeals affirmed his issuance of a preliminary injunction. Roe v. Anderson, 134 F. 3d 1400 (CA9 1998). It agreed with the 498*498 District Court's view that the passage of PRWORA did not affect the constitutional analysis, that respondents had established a probability of success on the merits, and that class members might suffer irreparable harm if� 11450.03 became operative. Although the decision of the Court of Appeals is consistent with the views of other federal courts that have addressed the issue,^[9] we granted certiorari because of the importance of the case. Anderson v. Roe, 524 U. S. 982 (1998).^[10] We now affirm.

III

The word "travel" is not found in the text of the Constitution. Yet the "constitutional right to travel from one State to another" is firmly embedded in our jurisprudence. United States v. Guest, 383 U. S. 745, 757 (1966). Indeed, as Justice Stewart reminded us in Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U. S. 618 (1969), the right is so important that it is "assertable against private interference as well as governmental action . . . a virtually unconditional personal right, guaranteed by the Constitution to us all." Id., at 643 (concurring opinion).

499*499 In Shapiro, we reviewed the constitutionality of three statutory provisions that denied welfare assistance to residents of Connecticut, the District of Columbia, and Pennsylvania, who had resided within those respective jurisdictions less than one year immediately preceding their applications for assistance. Without pausing to identify the specific source of the right, we began by noting that the Court had long "recognized that the nature of our Federal Union and our constitutional concepts of personal liberty unite to require that all citizens be free to travel throughout the length and breadth of our land uninhibited by statutes, rules, or regulations which unreasonably burden or restrict this movement." Id., at 629. We squarely held that it was "constitutionally impermissible" for a State to enact durational residency requirements for the purpose of inhibiting the migration by needy persons into the State.^[11] We further held that a classification that had the effect of imposing a penalty on the exercise of the right to travel violated the Equal Protection Clause "unless shown to be necessary to promote a compelling governmental interest," id., at 634, and that no such showing had been made.

In this case California argues that � 11450.03 was not enacted for the impermissible purpose of inhibiting migration by needy persons and that, unlike the legislation reviewed in Shapiro, it does not penalize the right to travel because new arrivals are not ineligible for benefits during their first year of residence. California submits that, instead 500*500 of being subjected to the strictest scrutiny, the statute should be upheld if it is supported by a rational basis and that the State's legitimate interest in saving over $10 million a year satisfies that test. Although the United States did not elect to participate in the proceedings in the District Court or the Court of Appeals, it has participated as amicus curiae in this Court. It has advanced the novel argument that the enactment of PRWORA allows the States to adopt a "specialized choice-of-law-type provision" that "should be subject to an intermediate level of constitutional review," merely requiring that durational residency requirements be "substantially related to an important governmental objective."^[12] The debate about the appropriate standard of review, together with the potential relevance of the federal statute, persuades us that it will be useful to focus on the source of the constitutional right on which respondents rely.

The "right to travel" discussed in our cases embraces at least three different components. It protects the right of a citizen of one State to enter and to leave another State, the right to be treated as a welcome visitor rather than an unfriendly alien when temporarily present in the second State, and, for those travelers who elect to become permanent residents, the right to be treated like other citizens of that State.

It was the right to go from one place to another, including the right to cross state borders while en route, that was vindicated in Edwards v. California, 314 U. S. 160 (1941), which invalidated a state law that impeded the free interstate passage of the indigent. We reaffirmed that right in United States v. Guest, 383 U. S. 745 (1966), which afforded protection to the "`right to travel freely to and from the State of Georgia and to use highway facilities and other 501*501 instrumentalities of interstate commerce within the State of Georgia.' " Id., at 757. Given that � 11450.03 imposed no obstacle to respondents' entry into California, we think the State is correct when it argues that the statute does not directly impair the exercise of the right to free interstate movement. For the purposes of this case, therefore, we need not identify the source of that particular right in the text of the Constitution. The right of "free ingress and regress to and from" neighboring States, which was expressly mentioned in the text of the Articles of Confederation,^[13] may simply have been "conceived from the beginning to be a necessary concomitant of the stronger Union the Constitution created." Id., at 758.

The second component of the right to travel is, however, expressly protected by the text of the Constitution. The first sentence of Article IV, � 2, provides:

"The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States."

Thus, by virtue of a person's state citizenship, a citizen of one State who travels in other States, intending to return home at the end of his journey, is entitled to enjoy the "Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States" that he visits.^[14] This provision removes "from the citizens of each State the disabilities of alien age in the other States." Paul v. Virginia, 8 Wall. 168, 180 (1869) ("[W]ithout some 502*502 provision . . . removing from the citizens of each State the disabilities of alienage in the other States, and giving them equality of privilege with citizens of those States, the Republic would have constituted little more than a league of States; it would not have constituted the Union which now exists"). It provides important protections for nonresidents who enter a State whether to obtain employment, Hicklin v. Orbeck, 437 U. S. 518 (1978), to procure medical services, Doe v. Bolton, 410 U. S. 179, 200 (1973), or even to engage in commercial shrimp fishing, Toomer v. Witsell, 334 U. S. 385 (1948). Those protections are not "absolute," but the Clause "does bar discrimination against citizens of other States where there is no substantial reason for the discrimination beyond the mere fact that they are citizens of other States." Id., at 396. There may be a substantial reason for requiring the nonresident to pay more than the resident for a hunting license, see Baldwin v. Fish and Game Comm'n of Mont., 436 U. S. 371, 390-391 (1978), or to enroll in the state university, see Vlandis v. Kline, 412 U. S. 441, 445 (1973), but our cases have not identified any acceptable reason for qualifying the protection afforded by the Clause for "the `citizen of State A who ventures into State B' to settle there and establish a home." Zobel, 457 U. S., at 74 (O'Connor, J., concurring in judgment). Permissible justifications for discrimination between residents and nonresidents are simply inapplicable to a nonresident's exercise of the right to move into another State and become a resident of that State.

What is at issue in this case, then, is this third aspect of the right to travel—the right of the newly arrived citizen to the same privileges and immunities enjoyed by other citizens of the same State. That right is protected not only by the new arrival's status as a state citizen, but also by her status as a citizen of the United States.^[15] That additional source 503*503 of protection is plainly identified in the opening words of the Fourteenth Amendment:

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; . . . ."^[16]

Despite fundamentally differing views concerning the coverage of the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, most notably expressed in the majority and dissenting opinions in the Slaughter-House Cases, 16 Wall. 36 (1873), it has always been common ground that this Clause protects the third component of the right to travel. Writing for the majority in the Slaughter-House Cases, Justice Miller explained that one of the privileges conferred by this Clause "is that a citizen of the United States can, of his own volition, become a citizen of any State of the Union by a bon� fide residence therein, with the same rights as other citizens of that State." Id., at 80. Justice Bradley, in dissent, used even stronger language to make the same point:

"The states have not now, if they ever had, any power to restrict their citizenship to any classes or persons. A citizen of the United States has a perfect constitutional 504*504 right to go to and reside in any State he chooses, and to claim citizenship therein, and an equality of rights with every other citizen; and the whole power of the nation is pledged to sustain him in that right. He is not bound to cringe to any superior, or to pray for any act of grace, as a means of enjoying all the rights and privileges enjoyed by other citizens." Id., at 112-113.

That newly arrived citizens "have two political capacities, one state and one federal," adds special force to their claim that they have the same rights as others who share their citizenship.^[17] Neither mere rationality nor some intermediate standard of review should be used to judge the constitutionality of a state rule that discriminates against some of its citizens because they have been domiciled in the State for less than a year. The appropriate standard may be more categorical than that articulated in Shapiro, see supra, at 499, but it is surely no less strict.

Because this case involves discrimination against citizens who have completed their interstate travel, the State's argument that its welfare scheme affects the right to travel only "incidentally" is beside the point. Were we concerned solely with actual deterrence to migration, we might be persuaded that a partial withholding of benefits constitutes a lesser incursion on the right to travel than an outright denial of all benefits. See Dunn v. Blumstein, 405 U. S. 330, 339 (1972). 505*505 But since the right to travel embraces the citizen's right to be treated equally in her new State of residence, the discriminatory classification is itself a penalty.

It is undisputed that respondents and the members of the class that they represent are citizens of California and that their need for welfare benefits is unrelated to the length of time that they have resided in California. We thus have no occasion to consider what weight might be given to a citizen's length of residence if the bona fides of her claim to state citizenship were questioned. Moreover, because whatever benefits they receive will be consumed while they remain in California, there is no danger that recognition of their claim will encourage citizens of other States to establish residency for just long enough to acquire some readily portable benefit, such as a divorce or a college education, that will be enjoyed after they return to their original domicile. See, e. g., Sosna v. Iowa, 419 U. S. 393 (1975); Vlandis v. Kline, 412 U. S. 441 (1973).

The classifications challenged in this case—and there are many—are defined entirely by (a) the period of residency in California and (b) the location of the prior residences of the disfavored class members. The favored class of beneficiaries includes all eligible California citizens who have resided there for at least one year, plus those new arrivals who last resided in another country or in a State that provides benefits at least as generous as California's. Thus, within the broad category of citizens who resided in California for less than a year, there are many who are treated like lifetime residents. And within the broad subcategory of new arrivals who are treated less favorably, there are many smaller classes whose benefit levels are determined by the law of the States from whence they came. To justify � 11450.03, California must therefore explain not only why it is sound fiscal policy to discriminate against those who have been citizens for less than a year, but also why it is permissible to apply such a variety of rules within that class.

506*506 These classifications may not be justified by a purpose to deter welfare applicants from migrating to California for three reasons. First, although it is reasonable to assume that some persons may be motivated to move for the purpose of obtaining higher benefits, the empirical evidence reviewed by the District Judge, which takes into account the high cost of living in California, indicates that the number of such persons is quite small—surely not large enough to justify a burden on those who had no such motive.^[18] Second, California has represented to the Court that the legislation was not enacted for any such reason.^[19] Third, even if it were, as we squarely held in Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U. S. 618 (1969), such a purpose would be unequivocally impermissible.

Disavowing any desire to fence out the indigent, California has instead advanced an entirely fiscal justification for its multitiered scheme. The enforcement of � 11450.03 will save the State approximately $10.9 million a year. The question is not whether such saving is a legitimate purpose but whether the State may accomplish that end by the discriminatory means it has chosen. An evenhanded, across the-board reduction of about 72 cents per month for every beneficiary would produce the same result. But our negative answer to the question does not rest on the weakness of the State's purported fiscal justification. It rests on the fact that the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment expressly equates citizenship with residence: "That Clause does not provide for, and does not allow for, degrees of citizenship based on length of residence." Zobel, 457 U. S., at 69. It is equally clear that the Clause does not tolerate a hierarchy of 45 subclasses of similarly situated 507*507 citizens based on the location of their prior residence.^[20] Thus � 11450.03 is doubly vulnerable: Neither the duration of respondents' California residence, nor the identity of their prior States of residence, has any relevance to their need for benefits. Nor do those factors bear any relationship to the State's interest in making an equitable allocation of the funds to be distributed among its needy citizens. As in Shapiro, we reject any contributory rationale for the denial of benefits to new residents:

"But we need not rest on the particular facts of these cases. Appellants' reasoning would logically permit the State to bar new residents from schools, parks, and libraries or deprive them of police and fire protection. Indeed it would permit the State to apportion all benefits and services according to the past tax contributions of its citizens." 394 U. S., at 632-633.

See also Zobel, 457 U. S., at 64. In short, the State's legitimate interest in saving money provides no justification for its decision to discriminate among equally eligible citizens.

The question that remains is whether congressional approval of durational residency requirements in the 1996 amendment to the Social Security Act somehow resuscitates the constitutionality of � 11450.03. That question is readily answered, for we have consistently held that Congress may not authorize the States to violate the Fourteenth Amendment.^[21] Moreover, the protection afforded to the citizen by 508*508 the Citizenship Clause of that Amendment is a limitation on the powers of the National Government as well as the States.

Article I of the Constitution grants Congress broad power to legislate in certain areas. Those legislative powers are, however, limited not only by the scope of the Framers' affirmative delegation, but also by the principle "that they may not be exercised in a way that violates other specific provisions of the Constitution. For example, Congress is granted broad power to `lay and collect Taxes,' but the taxing power, broad as it is, may not be invoked in such a way as to violate the privilege against self-incrimination." Williams v. Rhodes, 393 U. S. 23, 29 (1968) (footnote omitted). Congress has no affirmative power to authorize the States to violate the Fourteenth Amendment and is implicitly prohibited from passing legislation that purports to validate any such violation.

"Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment gives Congress broad power indeed to enforce the command of the amendment and `to secure to all persons the enjoyment of perfect equality of civil rights and the equal protection of the laws against State denial or invasion. . . .' Ex parte Virginia, 100 U. S. 339, 346 (1880). Congress' power under � 5, however, `is limited to adopting measures to enforce the guarantees of the Amendment; � 5 grants Congress no power to restrict, abrogate, or dilute these guarantees.' Katzenbach v. Morgan, 384 U. S. 641, 651, n. 10 (1966). Although we give deference to congressional decisions and classifications, neither Congress nor a State can validate a law that denies the rights guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment. See, e. g., Califano v. Goldfarb, 430 U. S. 199, 210 (1977); Williams v. Rhodes, 393 U. S. 23, 29 (1968)." Missis- sippi Univ. for Women v. Hogan, 458 U. S. 718, 732-733 (1982).

509*509 The Solicitor General does not unequivocally defend the constitutionality of � 11450.03. But he has argued that two features of PRWORA may provide a sufficient justification for state durational requirements to warrant further inquiry before finally passing on the section's validity, or perhaps that it is only invalid insofar as it applies to new arrivals who were not on welfare before they arrived in California.^[22]

He first points out that because the TANF program gives the States broader discretion than did AFDC, there will be significant differences among the States which may provide new incentives for welfare recipients to change their residences. He does not, however, persuade us that the disparities under the new program will necessarily be any greater than the differences under AFDC, which included such examples as the disparity between California's monthly benefit of $673 for a family of four with Mississippi's benefit of $144 for a comparable family. Moreover, we are not convinced that a policy of eliminating incentives to move to California provides a more permissible justification for classifying California citizens than a policy of imposing special burdens on new arrivals to deter them from moving into the State. Nor is the discriminatory impact of � 11450.03 abated by repeatedly characterizing it as "a sort of specialized choice-of-law rule."^[23] California law alone discriminates among its own citizens on the basis of their prior residence.

The Solicitor General also suggests that we should recognize the congressional concern addressed in the legislative history of PRWORA that the "States might engage in a `race to the bottom' in setting the benefit levels in their TANF 510*510 programs."^[24] Again, it is difficult to see why that concern should be any greater under TANF than under AFDC. The evidence reviewed by the District Court indicates that the savings resulting from the discriminatory policy, if spread equitably throughout the entire program, would have only a miniscule impact on benefit levels. Indeed, as one of the legislators apparently interpreted this concern, it would logically prompt the States to reduce benefit levels sufficiently "to encourage emigration of benefit recipients."^[25] But speculation about such an unlikely eventuality provides no basis for upholding � 11450.03.

Finally, the Solicitor General suggests that the State's discrimination might be acceptable if California had limited the disfavored subcategories of new citizens to those who had received aid in their prior State of residence at any time within the year before their arrival in California. The suggestion is ironic for at least three reasons: It would impose the most severe burdens on the neediest members of the disfavored classes; it would significantly reduce the savings that the State would obtain, thus making the State's claimed justification even less tenable; and, it would confine the effect of the statute to what the Solicitor General correctly characterizes as "the invidious purpose of discouraging poor people generally from settling in the State."^[26]

* * *

Citizens of the United States, whether rich or poor, have the right to choose to be citizens "of the State wherein they 511*511 reside." U. S. Const., Amdt. 14, � 1. The States, however, do not have any right to select their citizens.^[27] The Fourteenth Amendment, like the Constitution itself, was, as Justice Cardozo put it, "framed upon the theory that the peoples of the several states must sink or swim together, and that in the long run prosperity and salvation are in union and not division." Baldwin v. G. A. F. Seelig, Inc., 294 U. S. 511, 523 (1935).

The judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.

It is so ordered.

[9] See Maldonado v.Houston, 157 F. 3d 179 (CA3 1998) (finding two tier durational residency requirement an unconstitutional infringement on the right to travel);Anderson v. Green, 26 F. 3d 95 (CA9 1994), vacated as unripe, 513 U. S. 557 (1995) (per curiam); Hicks v. Peters, 10 F. Supp. 2d 1003 (ND Ill. 1998) (granting injunction against enforcement of durational residency requirement); Westenfelder v. Ferguson, 998 F. Supp. 146 (RI 1998) (holding durational residency requirement a penalty on right to travel incapable of surviving rational-basis review). Two state courts have reached the same conclusion. See Mitchell v. Steffen, 504 N. W. 2d 198 (Minn. 1993), cert. denied, 510 U. S. 1081 (1994) (striking down a similar provision in Minnesota law); Sanchez v. Department of Human Services, 314 N. J. Super. 11, 713 A. 2d 1056 (1998) (strikingdown two-tier welfare system); cf. Jones v. Milwaukee County, 168 Wis. 2d 892, 485 N. W. 2d 21 (1992) (holding that a 60-day waiting period for applicant for general relief is not a penalty and therefore not unconstitutional).

[10] After this case was argued, petitioner Rita L. Saenz replaced Eloise Anderson as Director, California Department of Social Services.

[11] "We do not doubt that the one-year waiting-period device is well suited to discourage the influx of poor families in need of assistance. .. . But the purpose of inhibiting migration by needy persons into the State is constitutionally impermissible." 394 U. S., at 629.

"Thus, the purpose of deterring the in-migration of indigents cannot serve as justification for the classification created by the one-year waiting period . . . .If a law has `no other purpose . . . than to chill the assertion of constitutional rights by penalizing those who choose to exercise them, then it [is] patently unconstitutional.' United States v. Jackson, 390 U. S. 570, 581 (1968)." Id., at 631.

[12] Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 8, 10.

[13] "The 4th article, respecting the [sic] extending the rights of the Citizens of each State, throughout the United States . .. is formed exactly upon the principles of the 4th article of the present Confederation." 3 Records of the Federal Convention of 1787, p. 112 (M. Farrand ed. 1966). Article IV of the Articles of Confederation provided that "the people of each State shall have free ingress and regress to and from any other State."

[14] Corfield v. Coryell, 6 F. Cas. 546 (No. 3,230) (CCED Pa. 1823) (Washington, J.,on circuit)("fundamental" rights protected by the Privileges and Immunities Clause include "the right of a citizen of one state to pass through, or to reside in any other state").

[15] The Framers of the Fourteenth Amendment modeled this Clause upon the "Privileges and Immunities" Clause found in Article IV. Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., 1st Sess., 1033-1034 (1866) (statement of Rep. Bingham). In Dred Scott v.Sandford, 19 How. 393 (1857), this Court had limited the protection of Article IV to rights under state law and concluded that free blacks could not claim citizenship. The Fourteenth Amendment overruled this decision. The Amendment's Privileges or Immunities Clause and Citizenship Clause guaranteed the rights of newly freed black citizens by ensuring that they could claim the state citizenship of any State in which they resided and by precluding that State from abridging their rights of national citizenship.

[16] U.S. Const., Amdt. 14, � 1. The remainder of the section provides: "nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

[17] "Federalism was our Nation's own discovery. The Framers split the atom of sovereignty. It was the genius of their idea that our citizens would have two political capacities, one state and one federal, each protected from incursion by the other. The resulting Constitution created a legal system unprecedented in form and design, establishing two orders of government, each with its own direct relationship, its own privity, its own set of mutual rights and obligations to the people who sustain it and are governed by it." U. S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, 514 U. S. 779, 838 (1995) (Kennedy, J., concurring).

[18] App. 21-26.

[19] The District Court and the Court of Appeals concluded, however, that the "apparent purpose of � 11450.03 was to deter migration of poor people to California." Roe v. Anderson, 134 F. 3d 1400, 1404 (CA9 1998).

[20] See Cohen, Discrimination Against New State Citizens: An Update, 11 Const. Comm. 73, 79 (1994) ("[J]ust as it would violate the Constitution to deny these new arrivals state citizenship, it would violate the Constitution to concede their citizenship in name only while treating them as if they were still citizens of other states").

[21] "`Congress is without power to enlist state cooperation in a joint federal-state program by legislation which authorizes the States to violate the Equal Protection Clause.' Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U. S. 618, 641 (1969)." Townsend v. Swank, 404 U. S. 282, 291 (1971).

[22] Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 29, n. 10.

[23] Id., at 9; see also id., at 3, 8, 14, 15, 20, 22, 23, 24, 27, 28, 28-29.

[24] Id., at 8. See H. R. Rep. No. 104-651, p.1337 (1996)("States that want to pay higher benefits should not be deterred from doing so by the fear that they will attract large numbers of recipients from bordering States").

[25] Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 16. See States' Perspective on Welfare Reform: Hearing before the Senate Committee on Finance, 104th Cong., 1st Sess., 9 (1995).

[26] Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 30, n. 11.

[27] As Justice Jackson observed: "[I]t is a privilege of citizenship of the United States, protected from state abridgment, to enter any State of the Union, either for temporary sojourn or for the establishment of permanent residence therein and for gaining resultant citizenship there of. If national citizenship means less than this, it means nothing."Edwards v. California, 314 U. S. 160, 183 (1941) (concurring opinion)

"But lest it should be said that no such privileges and immunities are to be found if those we have been considering are excluded, we venture to suggest some which own their existence to the Federal government, its National character, its Constitution, or its laws.

"One of these is well described in the case of Crandall v. Nevada [, 6 Wall. 35 (1868)]. It is said to be the right of the citizen of this great country, protected by implied guarantees of its Constitution, `to come to the seat of government to assert any claim he may have upon that government, to transact any business he may have with it, to seek its protection, to share its offices, to engage in administering its functions. He has the right of free access to its seaports, through which all operations of foreign commerce are conducted, to the subtreasuries, land offices, and courts of justice in the several States.' And quoting from the language of Chief Justice Taney in another case, it is said `that for all the great purposes for which the Federal government was established, we are one people, with one common country, we are all citizens of the United States;' and it is, as such citizens, that their rights are supported in this court in Crandall v. Nevada." 16 Wall., at 79 (footnote omitted).

[2] As Chief Justice Burger aptly stated in Zobel: "In reality, right to travel analysis refers to little more than a particular application of equal protection analysis. Right to travel cases have examined, in equal protection terms, state distinctions between newcomers and longer term residents." 457 U. S., at 60, n. 6.

[3] The same analysis applies to divorce.

[1] Legal scholars agree on little beyond the conclusion that the Clause does not mean what the Court said it meant in 1873. See, e. g., Harrison, Reconstructing the Privileges or Immunities Clause, 101 Yale L. J. 1385, 1418 (1992) (Clause is an antidiscrimination provision); D. Currie, The Constitution in the Supreme Court 341-351 (1985) (same); 2 W. Crosskey, Politics and the Constitution in the History of the United States 1089-1095 (1953) (Clause incorporates first eight Amendments of the Bill of Rights); M. Curtis, No State Shall Abridge 100 (1986) (Clause protects the rights included in the Bill of Rights as well as other fundamental rights); B. Siegan, Supreme Court's Constitution 46-71 (1987) (Clause guarantees Lockean conception of natural rights); Ackerman, Constitutional Politics/Constitutional Law, 99 Yale L. J. 453, 521-536 (1989) (same); J. Ely, Democracy and Distrust 28 (1980) (Clause "was a delegation to future constitutional decision-makers to protect certain rights that the document neither lists . . . or in any specific way gives directions for finding"); R. Berger, Government by Judiciary 30 (2d ed. 1997) (Clause forbids race discrimination with respect to rights listed in the Civil Rights Act of 1866); R. Bork, The Tempting of America 166 (1990) (Clause is inscrutable and should be treated as if it had been obliterated by an ink blot).

[2] See 1620 Charter of New England, in 3 Thorpe, at 1839 (guaranteeing "[l]iberties, and ffranchizes, and Immunities of free Denizens and naturall Subjects"); 1622 Charter of Connecticut, reprinted in 1 id., at 553 (guaranteeing "[l]iberties and Immunities of free and natural Subjects"); 1629 Charter of the Massachusetts Bay Colony, in 3 id., at 1857 (guaranteeing the "liberties and Immunities of free and naturall subjects"); 1632 Charter of Maine, in 3 id., at 1635 (guaranteeing "[l]iberties[,] Francheses and Immunityes of or belonging to any of the naturall borne subjects"); 1632 Charter of Maryland, in 3 id., at 1682 (guaranteeing "Privileges, Franchises and Liberties"); 1663 Charter of Carolina, in 5 id., at 2747 (holding "liberties, franchises, and privileges" inviolate); 1663 Charter of the Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, in 6 id., at 3220 (guaranteeing "libertyes and immunityes of ffree and naturall subjects"); 1732 Charter of Georgia, in 2 id., at 773 (guaranteeing "liberties, franchises and immunities of free denizens and natural born subjects").

[3] See, e. g., The Massachusetts Resolves, in Prologue to Revolution: Sources and Documents on the Stamp Act Crisis 56 (E. Morgan ed. 1959) ("Resolved, That there are certain essential Rights of the British Constitution of Government, which are founded in the Law of God and Nature, and are the common Rights of Mankind—Therefore, . . . Resolved that no Man can justly take the Property of another without his Consent . . . this inherent Right, together with all other essential Rights, Liberties, Privileges and Immunities of the People of Great Britain have been fully confirmed to them by Magna Charta "); The Virginia Resolves, id., at 47-48 ("[T]he Colonists aforesaid are declared entitled to all Liberties, Privileges, and Immunities of Denizens and natural Subjects, to all Intents and Purposes, as if they had been abiding and born within the Realm of England "); 1774 Statement of Violation of Rights, 1 Journals of the Continental Congress 68 (1904) ("[O]ur ancestors, who first settled these colonies, were at the time of their emigration from the mother country, entitled to all the rights, liberties, and immunities of free and natural-born subjects, within the realm of England . .. Resolved . .. [t]hat by such emigration they by no means forfeited, surrendered or lost any of those rights").

[4] During the first half of the 19th century, a number of legal scholars and state courts endorsed Washington's conclusion that the Clause protected only fundamental rights. See, e. g., Campbell v. Morris, 3 H. & McH. 535, 554 (Md. 1797) (Chase, J.) (Clause protects property and personal rights); Douglass v. Stephens, 1 Del. Ch. 465, 470 (1821) (Clause protects the "absolute rights" that "all men by nature have"); 2 J. Kent, Commentaries on American Law 71-72 (1836) (Clause "confined to those [rights] which were, in their nature, fundamental"). See generally Antieau, Paul's Perverted Privileges or the True Meaning of the Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article Four, 9 Wm. & Mary L. Rev. 1, 18-21 (1967) (collecting sources).

[5] He also observed that, while the Supreme Court had not "undertaken to define either the nature or extent of the privileges and immunities," Washington's opinion gave "some intimation of what probably will be the opinion of the judiciary." Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., 1st Sess., 2765 (1866).

[6] During debates on the Civil Rights Act of 1866, Members of Congress also repeatedly invoked Corfield to support the legislation. See generally Siegan, Supreme Court's Constitution, at 46-56. The Act's sponsor, Senator Trumbull, quoting from Corfield, explained that the legislation protected the "fundamental rights belonging to every man as a free man, and which under the Constitution as it now exists we have a right to protect every man in." Cong. Globe, supra, at 476. The Civil Rights Act is widely regarded as the precursor to the Fourteenth Amendment. See, e. g., J. tenBroek, Equal Under Law 201 (rev. ed. 1965) ("The one point upon which historians of the Fourteenth Amendment agree, and, indeed, which the evidence places beyond cavil, is that the Fourteenth Amendment was designed to place the constitutionality of the Freedmen's Bureau and civil rights bills, particularly the latter, beyond doubt").

Call me at: 720-675-7230

On Skype: legalbear

Best times to call: 8:30 am to 9:00 pm MST

Join my Yahoo Group Tips & Tricks for Court by sending an email to:

tips_and_tricks-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

My blog: legalbearsblog.com

Tax sites: IRSTerminator.com IRSLienThumper.com IRSLevyThumper.com

(formatted like this so this email doesn't end up in your spam folder)

#18738

From: Ron Branson <victoryusa@...>
Date: Fri Jan 27, 2012 6:28 pm
Subject: The South Dakota Amendment E Piece Slate Magazine Refused to Publish by Gary L. Zerman

Slate refuses 'equal time'

The South Dakota Amendment E
Piece Slate Magazine Refused to Publish

By: Gary L. Zerman*

This is South Dakota Judicial Accountability’s (sponsors of “Amendment E” on the 2006 ballot) reply to Bert Brandenburg’s (Executive Director, Justice At Stake -JAS), two Slate pieces “Rushmore to Judgment,” March 14, and “Bench-Clearing Brawl,” July 28, 2006.

In Rushmore, Brandenburg wrote that our initiative is “… one of the most radical threats to justice this side of the Spanish Inquisition.” Apparently Brandenburg missed the fact that inquisitions are done by those in power – to the People. Not the other way around.

In Bench-Clearing Brawl, he wrote that the 2006 election will have “…a cluster of state ballots initiatives designed to hobble the courts… that point toward a political intimidation racket benefiting special interests that want courts to deliver results, not justice.” Imagine that? We’re a grass roots citizens’ group, yet he and his group JAS are the guys out of DC - and he calls us “special interests.” Any doubt who’s the real political intimidation racket, look at Justice at Stake Org. and No on E Amendment. See who they really are. Readers you decide if our initiative or Brandenburg - is the threat to justice.

If we’re so wrong in South Dakota, why does his Brawl piece point up that citizens in Colorado, Montana, Oregon, and Illinois are also putting forth measures to make the judiciary accountable? Actually he put it: “… court-bashers have been busily framing their anger in accountability terms that resonate with American values.” Resonate with American values? You bet. He didn’t tell you that resonation is also being felt in DC where Rep. Sensenbrenner and Sen. Grassley want an inspector general to ride herd over the federal judiciary and finally there is clamor for impeaching USDC (Cal.) Judge Manuel Real.

About impeachment, Brandenburg wrote “And judges every where can be impeached for misconduct.” Really? Name the last judge impeached? Federal or state. At SDJA we say, “Impeachment’s like Haley’s Comet, it comes around once every 76 years.” Moreover, over 99% of the misconduct complaints against federal judges, year-in-year-out are dismissed without discipline imposed. As Justice Kozinski (9^th Cir.) to his credit wrote, in his dissent against the dismissal (the 3^rd and final time) of the complaint against Judge Real:"... It does not inspire confidence in the federal judiciary when we treat our own so much better than everybody else."Bingo!

They claim it’s all about judicial independence. For a total debunking of their claim that immunity is required for independence, see Justice Douglas’ lone dissent in Pierson v. Ray, 386 US 547, 558 (1967). And what about the judges’ misconduct documented in all the recent articles about “Judicial Junkets” and “Juice vs. Justice”? No, the People won’t be fooled anymore. It’s about judicial accountability. Now!

Brandenburg’s hysterical hyperbole continued in Rushmore, writing our initiative would “… wipe out a basic doctrine called judicial immunity that dates back to the 13^th century, protecting judges from personal liability from doing their jobs on the cases before them. A special grand jury – essentially a fourth branch of government – would be created to indict judges…” He didn’t tell you the doctrine actually is absolute judicial immunity (AJI), and it covers corrupt and malicious judicial acts, even - eugenics. See Stump v. Sparkman, 435 US 349 (1978), a 5/3 decision, giving Judge Stump immunity, after he illegally ordered a 15-year-old girl sterilized; she never appeared in court, nor had counsel or any representation, was lied to and told she was having an appendectomy, and had no appeal – the sterilization irreversible. Nor did he tell you the three (3) dissenting justices were repulsed by Judge Stump’s behavior; so were the federal appellate justices, who voted 3/0 against immunity for Stump. The total vote in the case (district, appellate and Supreme Court) was 6/6. Thus the doctrine of absolute immunity is not so absolute – even among judges.

The 13^th century was the only authority Brandenburg could muster in his pieces for judicial immunity. (That era gave us the divine right of kings, the Black Plague, beheading, drawing & quartering, serfdom and most thought the earth was flat.) That’s the best he can do? He omitted, like most of our critics, and the media, to provide you our core arguments:

1) there is no authority in our Constitution giving immunity to judges (nor do any USSC cases on AJI ever cite any);

2) judges giving judges AJI violates the doctrine of separation of powers - the so-called checks & balances (nor do any USSC cases mention this);

3) AJI turns the sovereignty of We the People on its head, placing the judiciary over, above and beyond the People, making the servant the master; and,

4) why has our USSC condoned eugenics? Stump v. Sparkman.

NOTE: Neither Chief Justice Roberts, nor Justice Alito, were asked any of these questions at their recent Senate Judiciary Committee confirmation hearings.
Checks & balances? Phooey.

Like in Rushmore, Brandenburg wrote in Bench-Clearing Brawl, the “… initiative would amend the state constitution to create a fourth branch of government: a special grand jury to sue judges and others for their decisions.” Here he demonstrates his fundamental misunderstanding of our Constitution. And that is dangerous. First, he ignores that the Constitution was designed to limit the power of government - not the People. All power resides in the People. Government gets its just powers from the consent of the governed. We never gave judges immunity. Second, he ignores that We the People are sovereign. Our Constitution starts: “We The People.” -- NOT we the government, nor we the judiciary. We are not a “branch” of government. We are the tree, the trunk, the roots. We are the masters - government is our servant, mere branches. Actually, with their dereliction to true checks & balances, they could be termed “The Three Little Twigs.”

Example: Remember Kelo v. City of New London? That’s the 5/4 eminent domain case, where the Kelo 5 wiped out the “public use” clause of the 5^thAmendment. Where was President Bush? Silent. Where was Congress? Hardly a whimper. To their credit, great dissents were written by Justices O’Connor and Thomas. O’Connor later told an audience of ASU law students that Kelo was “pretty scary” and “fuzzy jurisprudence.” Is Justice O’Connor a court basher too?

A further example:Illegal immigration. Plyler v. Doe, 457 US 202 (1982), another 5/4 decision, that opened the floodgates, and left the People - to pay the “check.”

Finally, Brandenburg concludes Brawl: “The courts that protect our rights need their own permanent campaign to counter the war rooms arrayed against them.” But aren’t we always told that the judiciary is non-political, above the fray, independent? So instead of holding miscreant judges accountable, Brandenburg and cronies want the judiciary to go on a permanent campaign. He’s admitted what we knew all along: the judiciary’s mostly just a bunch of politicos, junkets, juice and all, just like the other two twigs.

All we ask is a most basic covenant of life, something we all owe and ask of each other: individual accountability.

The People vehemently disagree with you Mr. Brandenburg. Readers check out the blogs at Slate's Jurisprudence Discussion. Honestly, Mr. Brandenburg does not work for us. Mr. Brandenburg please write some more pieces. And Slate please publish them.

*Gary L. Zerman is an attorney licensed in California and Arizona. He is counsel and a media representative for South Dakota Judicial Accountability Committee – SDJA – a grass roots citizens group, the sponsors of Amendment E.

Gary Zerman Email

Referenced materials

1) Call for a federal inspector general over federal judiciary. 4/25/06 Associated Press, 2 Lawmakers Call for Judiciary Watchdog, by Laurie Kellman; 4/27/06 U.S. Newswire, Sennsenbrenner, Grassley Introduce Legislation Establishing an Inspector General for the Judicial Branch; 5/22/06 Los Angeles Daily Journal,Criticism Mounts That Judiciary Lacks Self Discipline – Congressman Wants An Inspector General To Ensure Unethical Judges Are Punished, by Lawrence Hurley.

2) Judge Manuel Real. 1/18/04 LA Times, Judge [Real] May Face Sanctions, by Henry Weinstein; 10/3/05 Metropolitan News-Enterprise, Ninth Circuit Panel Tosses Misconduct Case Against Manuel Real, by Kenneth Ofgand; 12/6/05 Contra Costa Times (LA Times), DuPont Racketeering Suits Reinstated, by Myron Levin; 5/7/06 LA Times, Complaint Against Judge Has Broader Ramifications, by Henry Weinstein; 7/28/06 LA Times Editorial, Judicial Undersight.

3) 6/2/06 Los Angeles Daily Journal, Chief Judge to Set Up Panel for 7-Year-Old Misconduct Case, by Amelia Hansen.

4) 1/18/06 San Jose Mercury News-Associated Press, House Chairman Seek Probe, Possible Impeachment of LA Judge, by Erica Werner; 1/19/06 Los angels Daily Journal, Congressman’s Gambit Puts Judge on Path to Impeachment, by Lawrence Hurley; 7/18/06 LA Times, Impeachment Inquiry of Judge Sought, by Henry Weinstein.

5) Impeachment of federal judges. See U.S. v. Hastings, 681 F.2d 706 (1982), at 709, footnote 7, stating “Nine federal judges have been impeached and brought to trial before the Senate.” That would be only nine judges over 193 years, at that time.

6) 99% of complaints against federal judges–dismissed w/o discipline. 8/7/02 Las Vegas review Journal – Associated Press, Self-policing Federal Judges Rarely Impose Penalties, by Anne Gearan, which reported that “Of 766 ethical complaints last year [2001], only one resulted in a penalty… [P] In the single case last year in which the judge was punished, the penalty was a private censure and no details, not even the judge’s name were released.” 1/766 is .0013!; 8/7/02 Los Angeles Daily Journal (same AP article, extended version), Federal Judges Seldom Discipline Colleagues; 1/18/04 LA Times, Judge [Real] May Face Sanctions, by Henry Weinstein, which reported “…More than 99% of the complaints filed against federal judges around the country are dismissed out of hand. The 9^th Circuit Judicial Council has reprimanded only two jurists in the last decade, while rejecting hundreds of complaints, according to official records.”

7) Justice Alex Kozinski, 9^th Circuit Court of Appeals - dissent. 10/1/05 The Recorder, 9^th Circuit’s Kozinski Blasts L.A. Judge, Majority in Discipline Case, by Justine Scheck; 10/1/06 LA Times, L.A. Judge Avoids Sanctions by Panel – A Judicial Council does not Punish the Federal Jurist, Who Improperly Took Over a Bankruptcy Case – Two Judges File blistering Dissents, by Henry Weinstein10/3/05.

8) For Justice Kozinski’s dissent, see In re: Complaint of Judicial Misconduct, No. 03-89037, Order, filed September 27, 2005, (9^th Cir. Judicial Council).

9) Judicial Junkets. 12/20/04 Law.com-Associated Press, Senate Seek Legislation on Ethics for Judicial Trips, by Jim Abrams; 1/12/06 Human Event, Justice by Junket,by Ken Connor; 1/20/06 NY Times, Tripping Up on Trips: Judges Love Junkets as Much as Tom Delay Does, by Dorothy Samuels-Editorial Observer; 1/27/06 LA Times Editorial, Justice and Junkets; 1/28/06 Rocky Mountain News, Scalia ‘Junket’ Defended, by Karen Abbott; 1/30/06 LegalTimes.com, Political Spotlight Shine on Judicial Ethics; 4/18/06 Washington Post, Ethics Lapses by Federal Judges Persist, Review Finds, by Joe Stephens; 4/28/06 LegalTimes.com, CRC Report Says Increased Amount of ‘Junket for Judges,’ by Tony Mauro; 5/1/06 law.com,Watchdog Group Singles Out ‘Junketing Judges’, Tony Mauro; 5/3/06 USA Today,How to influence Judges; 5/08/06 Houston Chronical, Area Judge Ranked 4^th in free Trips, by Harvey Rice

10) Juice v. Justice. 3-Part Series by LA Times, titled JUICE V. JUSTICE by staff writers Michael Goodman and William C. Rempel.. Part I, 6/8/06 In Las Vegas, Thy’re Playing With a Stacked Judicial Deck – Some Judges Routinely Rule in Cases Involving Friends, Former Clients and Business Associates – and if Favor of Lawyers Who Fill their Campaign Coffers; Part II, 6/906 For a Vegas Judge and His Friends, One Good Turn Led to Another – James Mahan Got His Jobs on the State and Federal Benches Through connections of Old Pal George Swarts – Things Turned Out Well for Swarts Too; and, Part III, 6/10/06 How Some Judges Stay Under the Radar – some Senior Judges Are Exempt From Some Rules of Accountability – The Career of 3 Jurists Reflect The Ethical Questions That Can Result.

Follow up articles re above Las Vegas series by LA Times: 6/14/06 Series on Las Vegas Judges renews Calls for Reform; 6/18/06 John L. Smith: Unflattering Series on Judges Unlikely to Alter system, but Could Change Players; 6/23/06 Three Las Vegas Judges Face High Court Review – In Response to Times Investigation, Nevada’s Justices want the Senior Jurists to Answer Conflict-Of-Interest and Favoritism Allegations; 6/25/06 Inquiry Sought Into Vegas Jurist – The 9^th Circuit Might Already be Planning to Act on Complaints About Judge James C. Mahan.

11) Justice O’Connor. Her comments referenced in this piece re the Kelo v. City of New London, No. 04-108, decided June 28, 2005, are found in 9/20/05 The Arizona Republic – azcentral.com, O’Connor Notes ‘Scary’ Court Decision, by Joe Kamman.

#18739

From: Marvin Elsesser <elsesser.mp60@...>
Date: Mon Jan 30, 2012 6:00 pm
Subject: Re: Out of lock up. [1 Attachment]

elsesser.mp60

The ideal tyranny is that which is ignorantly self-administered by its victims. The most perfect slaves are, therefore, those which blissfully and unawaredly enslave themselves.”

Jerry,

So sorry to learn of your incarceration due to the usurpation of our rights. Enough is enough! Please check out www.michigandejure.org and see what you think.

Marvin Paul

"The limits of tyrants is prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress." Frederic Douglas, 1857

~ Charles de Montesquieu

From: Jerry Stanton <farm_stone@...>
To:
Sent: Friday, January 27, 2012 10:14 PM
Subject: [tips_and_tricks] Out of lock up. [1 Attachment]

Ted, Jerry You out of the LOCK UP now????
[10:21:28 PM] Jerry James Stanton: Got out of Kalamazoo Psychiatric Hospital today after being judged competent to stand trail. 1-27-2012 After being locked up for 72 days without a trial, lawful complaint or any controversy before the court to have jurisdiction over me. After the 72 days I agreed to plead no contest, pay fines, so I could go home and take care of my business again.
[10:33:33 PM] Jerry James Stanton: [The Creator] help America if this these kinds of crimes are allowed to continue against the people of the union states that challenge the Constitutionality of the laws of the Corporate STATES for profit that plunder the people using color of law to deprive the people of their rights to life, liberty and property.
[10:33:50 PM] Jerry James Stanton:

#18740

From: Ron Branson <victoryusa@...>
Date: Sun Feb 5, 2012 1:16 am
Subject: Summary Affirmance Common & Under Challenge by Att. Montgomery Sibley

-------- Original Message --------

Subject:	Re: A message from your contact form
Date:	Sat, 4 Feb 2012 06:19:13 -0500
From:	Montgomery Blair Sibley <mbsibley@...>
To:	Ron Branson <VictoryUSA@...>

The summary affirmance by the circuit court is a real abdication of their obligations -- I am taking that issue up on certiorari at this time to the Supremes. They will ignore it but all we can do is heap straw on the back of judicial tyranny.

On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 8:11 PM, Ron Branson <VictoryUSA@...> wrote:

Thanks Sibley. Just to update you as to what is going on on my end within the federal courts, I have appended some attachments of federal court documents. No sooner had I paid the $455 filing fee and submitted a Notice of Appeal to the Ninth Circuit, they set forth to dismiss my appeal five days later based upon the allegation that the Notice of Appeal presented no substantial issues to be decided upon appeal. Anyone who knows anything about law knows that one does not present an Opening Brief along with the filing of their Notice of Appeal. The simple fact is obvious, I was robbed of $455 by the Ninth Circuit and cheated out of a right to appeal a most preposterous dismissal.

-Ron Branson
(818) 310-8999

Montgomery Blair Sibley wrote:
Ron,

Glad to hear from you. Not surprised to hear you were cyber attacked. The threat we pose shakes them to the boots. This is my personal email. Please keep me in the loop. My latest is attached.

Montgomery

On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 11:50 PM, <service@...> wrote:

Name: Ron Branson

E-Mail: VictoryUSA@...

Message: Montgomery, this is Ron Branson. I just happen to come upon the mention of you. It won\'t surprise you to know that I have been pretty-well dismembered from the internet, and it is probably so because I became so influential on the Internet that something had to be done to silence me, or greatly hamper me from embarrassing the judiciary with the message of JAIL4Judges.

Since computer was hacked into, and all our emails were wiped out, and our password changed to lock me out, I have had to start all over. It is for this reason I do not have your email address. If you care to share it with me, I shall be glad to add it to my list. God be with you, Montgomery.

Ron Branson
VictoryUSA@...
(818) 310-8999

Sender IP: 208.127.221.37 - Referer: www.foxyform.com

You are receiving this e-mail message because you have registered a contact form at www.foxyform.com

#18741

From: Ron Branson <victoryusa@...>
Date: Sun Feb 5, 2012 1:38 am
Subject: Time to regroup?

Bill, you have asked for my permission to use the name of J.A.I.L. and link to the webpage. Sure, J.A.I.L. is open for all to use. After all, judicial accountability is the only remedy to get America back to strict adherence to the Constitution. Thank you for backing up JAIL4Judges. God bless.

Ron Branson
VictoryUSA@...

ifle wrote:

Ron,

J.A.I.L. has a great website.

I rediscovered yours today when I looked at my own old 2002 website (JuryPower.net) in the Wayback machine.

My site had a link to yours.

Change is hard to come by in the U.S. for many reasons.

One reason is the left and right don't join forces against common enemies.

Maybe with the young taking up the battle with Occupy movements, it might be time to recreate or reinvigorate J.A.I.L.?

Their Solutions Groups are looking for ballot measure ideas.

I'm forming an organization for credibility to support my opinion piece to the local newspaper.

My proposed title is: "Dismissing 3,000+ Appeals Makes Trial Judges Worse."

(3000+ is 86% of all appeals in small-time Oregon)

Will you give me your okay to use your name as a "member" and link to your webpage?

No cost, no obligation. You've already paid your dues in spades

Bill Vosburgh

503-261-3921

ifle@...

POB 219115

Portland, OR 97225

#18742

From: "FreeDave" <truthfreedom@...>
Date: Sun Feb 5, 2012 5:14 pm
Subject: "Redeeming Lawful Money"

free8008

Does anyone have any knowledge of the validity and/or results of "Redeeming
Lawful Money" as David Merrill of the Savings to Suitors group discusses?

Here is the current page of the thread to which I have been posting:
http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showthread.php?471-Redemption-of-Lawful-Money-at-\
US-Bank&p=6335&posted=1#post6335

Freedave

#18743

From: Ron Branson <victoryusa@...>
Date: Tue Feb 7, 2012 2:18 pm
Subject: Will Cameras Keep Our Judges Honest?

Will Cameras Keep Our Judges Honest?

It is contended that placing cameras in our courtrooms will keep our judiciary honest. Below is a presentation of this contention.

NFOJA

National Forum On Judicial Accountability

A message to all members of NFOJA

"The Times", a local newspaper, would likely appreciate your comments on this subject which you can post on its website by clicking on the story link below -

Letter to the Editor: Cameras should keep lawyers, judges from becoming abusive

Thank you!

Visit NFOJA at: http://50states.ning.com/?xg_source=msg_mes_network

Those who hold this position just do not understand the seriousness of our problem. Please do not misunderstand me, as I am not against cameras in the courtrooms. It goes without saying that since our courtrooms are our own public forum paid for by our public funds, we have every right to record everything that goes on within our courtrooms. But if we are going to labor under the delusion that this going to produce honest judges, then our visual perception of the problem is totally misguided.

Take, for example, a lawsuit I maintained within the federal court regarding a fraudulent state court "conviction," having neither notice, nor arraignment on criminal charges, yet containing imprisonment, and a "conviction" upheld on appeal, even though the court reporter signed an declaration testifying of the nonexistence of the proceeding relied upon by the state court of appeal.

This federal action passed through the hands of four federal judges who chose to recuse themselves from the case, and pass it on to the next judge. Upon reaching the fifth federal judge, the case was summarily dismissed with touching the issue of the fraud or the declaration of the court reporter. In fact, I had never seen the judge, nor the defense counsel defending the Los Angeles County defendants.

On appeal to the Ninth Circuit, the Notice of Appeal was summarily denied, and the dismissal affirmed without allowing either an Opening Brief, or a Record on Appeal. Everything was done summarily.

Now suppose we had cameras within each of these courtrooms. We would have a state recording of a nonexistent hearing on an arraignment that never happened, a recording of affirmation of "conviction" on a nonexistent proceeding with no charges, and a federal recording of an nonexistent proceeding in which the case was summarily dismissed, and an recording of a Ninth Circuit summary appeal having neither an Opening Brief, nor a Record on Appeal.

We must understand the nature of the problem, and that is the lack of judicial accountability to the People in the forum of an Independent Grand Jury on the sole issue of Judicial Immunity. Nothing else matters!

Our situation with the judiciary is well described in Isaiah 59:4 & following; "None calleth for justice, nor any pleadeth for truth: they trust in vanity, and speak lies; they conceive mischief, and bring forth iniquity.
5 They hatch cockatrice' eggs, and weave the spider's web: he that eateth of their eggs dieth, and that which is crushed breaketh out into a viper.
6 Their webs shall not become garments, neither shall they cover themselves with their works: their works are works of iniquity, and the act of violence is in their hands.
7 Their feet run to evil, and they make haste to shed innocent blood: their thoughts are thoughts of iniquity; wasting and destruction are in their paths.
8 The way of peace they know not; and there is no judgment in their goings: they have made them crooked paths: whosoever goeth therein shall not know peace.
9 Therefore is judgment far from us, neither doth justice overtake us: we wait for light, but behold obscurity; for brightness, but we walk in darkness.
10 We grope for the wall like the blind, and we grope as if we had no eyes: we stumble at noon day as in the night; we are in desolate places as dead men.
11 We roar all like bears, and mourn sore like doves: we look for judgment, but there is none; for salvation, but it is far off from us.
12 For our transgressions are multiplied before thee, and our sins testify against us: for our transgressions are with us; and as for our iniquities, we know them;
13 In transgressing and lying against the LORD, and departing away from our God, speaking oppression and revolt, conceiving and uttering from the heart words of falsehood.
14 And judgment is turned away backward, and justice standeth afar off: for truth is fallen in the street, and equity cannot enter.
15 Yea, truth faileth; and he that departeth from evil maketh himself a prey: and the LORD saw it, and it displeased him that there was no judgment.
16 And he saw that there was no man, and wondered that there was no intercessor: therefore his arm brought salvation unto him; and his righteousness, it sustained him."

This is a real picture of our situation, and such picture cannot be cured by installing cameras in our courtrooms. Cameras do not make honest men, only men who hide their evil deeds, to wit; John 3:19 "And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.
20 For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.
21 But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God."

Ron Branson
VictoryUSA@...

.

Reply | Messages in this Topic (3)

#18744

From: "bsafirebird1969" <m.embree.smith@...>
Date: Tue Feb 7, 2012 3:02 am
Subject: Re: "Redeeming Lawful Money"

bsafirebird1969

it is not supported by anything other than a sentence taken out of a statute

use at your own risk

--- In tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com, "FreeDave" <truthfreedom@...> wrote:
>
> Does anyone have any knowledge of the validity and/or results of "Redeeming
Lawful Money" as David Merrill of the Savings to Suitors group discusses?
>
> Here is the current page of the thread to which I have been posting:
>
http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showthread.php?471-Redemption-of-Lawful-Money-at-\
US-Bank&p=6335&posted=1#post6335
>
> Freedave
>

#18745

From: Walin <walin_1@...>
Date: Fri Feb 10, 2012 1:50 pm
Subject: Constitutionalists are now the New Terrorists

walin_1

Have you heard the news by the Administration via the FBI that those who protest the abuse of our Constitution are now deemed to be Terrorists, and will be targeted for monitoring and arrest as necessary? �This by way of the Patriot Post.
Wally

Reply | Messages in this Topic (3)

#18746

From: "Lady Veteran" <lady_veteran@...>
Date: Sun Feb 12, 2012 8:00 pm
Subject: RE: Constitutionalists are now the New Terrorists

lady_veteran

What is the credibility of the Patriot Post? Is it politically left or right?

Is it liberal?

Could be liberal baiting…it certainly sounds like it…

Bobbi

From: tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com [mailto:tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Walin
Sent: Friday, February 10, 2012 7:50 AM
To: tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [tips_and_tricks] Constitutionalists are now the New Terrorists

Reply | Messages in this Topic (3)

#18747

From: Max Price <maxprice2@...>
Date: Thu Feb 16, 2012 12:13 am
Subject: Fw: Countdown to Sentencing

maxprice2

Please send a letter.

----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Bernard von NotHaus <bernard@...>
To: nprice_69@...
Sent: Saturday, February 11, 2012 1:16 PM
Subject: Countdown to Sentencing

To be removed from all future mailings click HERE.

LIBERTY DOLLAR NEWS:
January 2012 Vol. 14 No. 01

Countdown to Sentencing

Dear Liberty Dollar Supporters!

Table of Contents:
1. Please Write Judge Voorhees
2. Donations Are Still Needed
3. U.S. debt now equals the economy!
4. Local Currencies 'In the U.S. we don't trust'
5. Visualize: All The World's Gold
6. Forty Economists pan new gold standard for US
7. What's Wrong with a Gold Standard?
8. Who Rules America
9. The Good Wife debuted with "Bitcoin for Dummies"
10. In the broadband race, USA is not No. 1

1. Please Write Judge Voorhees
WOW!!! Thank you, for the kind words of support copied to me from some of your letters to Judge Voorhees. As I am relying on your good judgment to be respectful to my trial judge, you are not required to send a copy of your letter to me but it is very endearing to read your comments in support of the historic work we did with the Liberty Dollar. Thank you for taking the time to write Judge Voorhees regarding my upcoming sentencing hearing - whose date has not yet been set.

Have you written a particularly good and respectful letter? Would you like to have your letter read in court and become part of the Liberty Dollar case history? Now is your opportunity. Please email a scan of your signed letter to me Editor@... or fax it to me 775.473.9929 and I will forward it to my attorney. Be a part of monetary history. Please send your letter to me. Thanks.

If you are an attorney and have not yet sent your letter to me, please do so asap.

NOW… In case you did not receive the Alert of January 18, 2012, please write to Judge Voorhees ASAP - the timing is critically important.

Now that I am simply waiting for my sentencing date, the time has come for your direct participation in the legal process that will help define your seized property, the future of the Liberty Dollar and possibly the rest of my life.

I know you have been wronged and suffered in many ways due to the government raid and court actions. I know you have been damaged emotionally and economically because of your stand for value and because you have been alienated from your seized property. And I know you have suffered politically over the loss that the Liberty Dollar could have provided to our great country.

Now is the time for you to speak up with a personal letter addressed to: The Honorable Richard L. Voorhees who was my trial judge and the judge who will sentence me very shortly. It is my opinion that the jury erred and the judge was fair and impartial so please address Judge Voorhees respectfully.

Please simply mention that you know me, heard me speak at an event, was a supporter, an associate, RCO or merchant or simply a part of the Liberty Dollar organization, used Liberty Dollars or supported the moral cause for a honest value based currency. And then explain why I should not go to prison because the Liberty Dollar was good for you and our country or that you don't know of any victims or that I am a good person or that you know I had no criminal intent.

FYI: Your letter need not be long. The sheer number of letters speaks much louder than the size of any one letter. So please share this request with your family and friends. I need individual letters from as many people as possible.

Please send a brief letter ASAP with your NAME and ADDRESS to:
The Honorable Richard L. Voorhees
U.S. District Judge
United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina
250 Charles R. Jonas Federal Bldg.
401 West Trade Street
Charlotte NC 28202
And add: PLEASE FREE BVNH to the bottom left hand corner of your envelope.

Please click HERE for a sample letter that is very long but equally outstanding.

After sentencing, the case regarding the seized material will begin the long process that will ultimately conclude with the return of your wrongfully seized property.

2. Donations Are Still Needed
Many thanks for the donations too! I wish I had time to reply to all the wonderful notes that often accompany the donations. The notes are truly priceless.

Donations are still needed and happily accepted to pay for the sentencing attorney. If you have not sent a few dollars, please consider making a donation. And while $20 is the most popular donation, please don't hesitate to send $5 or $10. Even a buck is greatly appreciated as a show of support for the ideals that the Liberty Dollar embodied.

While those dreaded depreciating non-Federal non-Reserve notes are still OK, it is best to send a check or money order made out to BERNARD and mailed to: Bernard von NotHaus, 527 N. Green River Road, Suite 158, Evansville, IN 47715 with words of support that are more cherished than the money.

Online donations are also available via www.givv.org that only accepts PayPal. And while it says that it is for "monthly donations" you can make a "one time" donation by sending your donation and then email Jason Pratt <jason@...> who will change your donation to just once.

Many, many thanks to everyone who have made a donation. Again, I wish I had time to reply but being a federal criminal it is a full time job plus many donations are anonymous with no name or return address.

3. U.S. debt now equals the economy!
This is a dangerous tipping point and one I had hoped we would never experience when Liberty Dollar was first issued on October 1, 1998. But the truth is that the national debt is actually accelerating and the social, economic and political consequences are sure to follow. My heart aches for the country. Please click HERE for the whole story.

4. Local Currencies 'In the U.S. we don't trust'
With the rise of the national debt and the corresponding loss of value (purchasing power) of the once mighty US dollar, people are beginning to take matters into their own hands and issuing their own currencies because they simply do not trust the US dollar.

Click HERE for the complete "Local Currencies 'In the U.S. we don't trust'" article by Blake Ellis for CNNMoney.com.

Concurrent to the CNNMoney.com 'In the U.S. we don't trust' article was: "Funny money?" that documented 11 local currencies: Unfortunately, none of the well intending currencies listed in the CNNMoney.com article on January 18, 2012 are value based, all are fiat so they don't provide any protection from inflation for the users or their community and do nothing to return their communities or the country to economic sustainability. Nor was the largest and most successful currency that was 100% based on gold and silver, even listed.
The eleven local fiat currencies listed were:
BerkShares: Southern Berkshire, MA Started: 2006
Equal Dollars: Philadelphia, PA Started: 1996
Ithaca Hours: Ithaca, NY Started: 1991
Bay Bucks: Traverse City, MI Started: 2006
Cascadia Hour Exchange: Portland, OR Started: 1993
Life Dollars: Bellingham and Seattle, WA Started: 2004
Downtown Dollars: Ardmore, PA Started: 2010
Potomacs: Washington, D.C. and suburbs Started: 2009
Local Trade Partners: Fayetteville, AK Started: 2009
Crescents: New Orleans, LA Started: 2004
Brooklyn Torches: Brooklyn, NY Started: Still forming

Please click HERE for the complete article of "Funny money?"

5. Visualize: All The World's Gold
Got a question re the size of the gold market, major mining countries or how it is used? Want a quick reference with snappy charts and graphics re all the fact and statistics on gold? Click HERE for "All the World's Gold."

6. Forty Economists pan new gold standard for US
As you may know, because of brainwashing and indoctrination, I have very little love for academia. This ridiculous article simply confirms my contempt.

A poll of nearly 40 bipartisan economists showed no support for the idea that pegging the currency to the price of gold would lead to a more stable US jobs market or keep prices in check.

"A gold standard regime would be a disaster for any large advanced economy. Love of the (gold standard) implies macroeconomic illiteracy," said Chicago Booth's Anil Kashyap.

Click HERE for the complete ridiculous article.

7. What's Wrong with a Gold Standard?
Here is another brain-dead loser of an article from a sales engineer, technology enthusiast, radio host and amateur economist (no less!) whose radio program broadcast is on WHO (AM) in Des Moines, Iowa Saturdays from 12:00 P.M. to 2:00 P.M. CST and hosted by Dan Adams and Brian Gongol.

Click HERE for What's Wrong with a Gold Standard?

8. Who Rules America
Wealth, Income, and Power by G. William Domhoff documents the details on the wealth and income distributions in the United States and explains how these two distributions are used as power indicators.

Some of the information may come as a surprise to many people. In fact, I know it will be a surprise and then some, because of a recent study (Norton & Ariely, 2010) showing that most Americans (high income or low income, female or male, young or old, Republican or Democrat) have no idea just how concentrated the wealth distribution actually is.

The images graphically display how financial wealth is currently distributed throughout the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate.

Please click HERE for this amazing article on who rules America.

9. The Good Wife debuted with "Bitcoin for Dummies"
Prime time television, widely known for fiction, has no duty to truth, or reality. It is therefore a perfect platform in which to insert outright lies, which as we know, if repeated enough, will be construed as the truth. For those of us with the insight, a backroom closed-door visit to Hollywood by agents of the District comes quickly to mind, and with little further contemplation, an outlandish attempt at jury tampering.

Recently, while NBC aired the hottest-trending-award-show-comic Ricky Gervais hosting the Golden Globe Awards, a new episode of CBS's The Good Wife debuted, entitled Bitcoin for Dummies. Here are two notable quotes from the first segment:

Defendant Dylan Stack: "According to the FBI it is a violation of federal law for individuals to create private coin or currency systems."

Treasury agent Higgs: "The penalty for creating a currency is ten to thirty years"

It is just me, but isn't this strikingly close to the DOJ arguments in my Liberty Dollar case? Is the gov now ghosting scripts for their subliminal messages?
Synopsis: The show's legal heavyweights quickly accede to a law that doesn't exist, and try instead to convince the judge first, that Bitcoin is not a currency, and failing that, that their client is... not the culprit.

Click HERE for Bitcoin for Dummies while it is still available.

10. In the broadband race, USA is not No. 1
The nation that invented the personal computer, television, the cellphone, the smart phone and - oh yes - the Internet, lags in creatively using all these things. In both landline and mobile broadband, America is, at best, mediocre when measured on a variety of metrics such as penetration rates, Internet speeds and price.

Why? The simple answer is that other countries have policies that promote competition and innovation. In contrast, policies here have allowed a few dominant players that control the least interesting parts of the broadband landscape (the cables and the wireless spectrum) to dominate.

Click HERE to read this important article.

Closing Remarks:
I sincerely hope you will send Judge a brief and respectful letter in my behalf. It is very important that this case does not become case law.

While I wish I could thank everybody individually for your support, many thanks to all who have taken the time to write Judge Voorhees and a special thanks for the donations. It is good people like you steadfast Liberty Dollar supporters who are leading the way towards a new value based monetary system for America.

Many thanks for your continued support. For it is only by banding together and adopting a free and independent currency that provides us with "just weights and measures" will we be able to throw off the yoke of a manipulated monetary/tax system and generate a peaceful and prosperous society.

Thank you again for all your efforts to return America to value - one dollar at a time!

Bernard von NotHaus
Monetary Architect/Editor
Editor@...

This Newsletter was sent to you because you requested it. Click HERE to Subscribe to Future Mailings.

To be removed from all future mailings click HERE.

#18748

From: Coalbunny <coalbunny@...>
Date: Mon Feb 20, 2012 8:59 am
Subject: College offers a course on the US Constitution

html5lover

It's worth checking out.  You can donate or take it for free.
And it;s seems to be a legit college.
c

https://www.hillsdaleoffer.com/civicrm/contribute/transact?reset=1&id=13&custom_\
16=OCC&custom_31=HIP7NAWX&custom_32=E007P

#18749

From: Coalbunny <coalbunny@...>
Date: Thu Feb 23, 2012 8:06 pm
Subject: Documents showing the FBIs anti-American stance

html5lover

Here is the pamphlet.  I have to ask which side Sheriff Joe Arpaio is
really on.
carl

2 of 2 Photo(s)

FBI-1.gif

FBI-2.gif

#18750

From: "compucheap" <stevesch007@...>
Date: Mon Feb 27, 2012 2:59 am
Subject: Re: College offers a course on the US Constitution

compucheap

Here's a shorter link.

http://www.hillsdaleoffer.com/hillsdaleconstitution101

Steve

#18751

From: "ottopartss" <ottopartss@...>
Date: Tue Feb 28, 2012 2:38 pm
Subject: The Original 13th Amendment - Unrebuttable Proof of its existence

ottopartss

The Original 13th amendment,  we have always heard about it how they took it
out.  Well the proof is here in this link, [The missing 13th amendment -
http://youtu.be/ELcJes31Y-U ] watch the short video and then down load the pdf
of certification of the 13th amendment and he wants the world to know so pass it
around don't be shy.
http://www.divshare.com/download/16898911-570
The download is of Connecticut, Massachusetts, Iowa, Oho, Virginia and Kansas,
also a pocket size of the Constitution, all showing the 13th original amendment.

#18752

From: Bruce Toski <toski_tech@...>
Date: Wed Feb 29, 2012 1:13 pm
Subject: the lost 13th amendment

toski_tech

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Constitution#Procedure

a few guys researched this and have posted various scans of old books showing the lost "Titles of Nobility Amendment" which was ratified by several states and made it into various books printed about the Constitution.

WIKI says this early 13th was "proposed by Congress in 1810 and ratified by twelve states".

How many states were there in 1810 ?

eighteen ? http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_states_were_in_the_us_in_1810

Here is the procedure according to Wiki

There are two steps. In the first step, the proposed Amendment must find a national super majority of 67% in Congress, both House (people) and Senate (states).

* This was done, right ? Should be able to verify in the Statutes at Large ?

The second step requires a super-super 75% majority of the states ratifying, representing a majority of the people in the states ratifying. Congress determines whether the state legislatures or special state conventions ratify the amendment.^[33]

I am guessing that, if only 12 out of 18 states ratified the 'lost' 13th amendment ... it never reached full lawful status as a 'cured' amendment ?

For Truth, Justice and Liberty,
Don Quixote

#18753

From: "randyconn" <yahoo@...>
Date: Wed Feb 29, 2012 2:23 pm
Subject: Re: Documents showing the FBIs anti-American stance

randyconn

Things have changed since 1985 when Arizona state senator Wayne Stump wrote a
letter to all the Arizona law enforcement about people without driver's licenses
and goverment contracts traveling freely.

      http://www.cyberclass.net/stumpletters.htm

--- In tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com, Coalbunny <coalbunny@...> wrote:
>
> Here is the pamphlet.  I have to ask which side Sheriff Joe Arpaio is
> really on.
> carl
>

#18754

From: "Legalbear" <bear@...>
Date: Fri Mar 2, 2012 3:39 am
Subject: Judicial Notice: Our Parents & the Public Schools Messed Us Up!

legalbear7

tips_and_tricks-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

HARRISON DIVISION

Eric Williams, Propria Persona Plaintiff

v. case No. 3:11-CV-03001-

JUDITH BEARDEN

KENFORD CARTER

COUNTY OF MARION Defendants

NOTICE OF IRREFUTABLE FACTS

OF WHICH THIS COURT IS REQUIRED TO TAKE

MANDATORY JUDICIAL NOTICE

IN SUPPORT OF

PLAINTIFF'S WRITTEN OPPOSITION

TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Please be advised that this list of items pertains to the requirement of the presentation of a birth certificate in order for an applicant to be issued a driver license by the State of Arkansas.

This court will please take Mandatory Judicial Notice that all of the items entered herein below are self evident irrefutable facts that cannot be reasonably denied:

1. That governments are artificial entities that do not exist in nature;

2. That creating an artificial political organization that assumes power in excess of that naturally held by its human creators cannot reasonably be accomplished;

3. That as governments are the artificial political creation of men, and that as individual men are not imbued by Nature with Natural individual authority to command other men, that those men who create artificial government entities cannot reasonably have authority or ability to imbue their artificial political creation with authority to command other men who have not freely, knowingly and willingly, having been fully informed of the negative consequences thereof prior thereto, intentionally surrendered themselves to the authority of such artificial creation;

4. That as the foregoing is self evidently true, that it cannot therefore, be possible for the artificial governments created by such men to be imbued by their creators with authority not naturally acquired or held by any one single individual man among those who participated in the creation of such artificial government;

5. That it is impossible for any combination of men to properly acquire or in any way imbue themselves with authority as a group, due merely to their numerical combination (or otherwise), to enable themselves to properly claim authority to regulate the activities of other men in the community, absent the willing and intentional voluntary submission of such other men, such other men not having been in any degree informed of the negative consequences to themselves prior to their intentional voluntary submission to such artificially created political authority;

6. That it is impossible for any combination of men to properly acquire or in any way imbue themselves with authority as a group, due merely to their numerical combination (or otherwise), in order for such men to properly determine what it shall be, other than the commission of commonly recognized crimes (rape, robbery, murder and trespass) that constitutes the acceptable activities of other men in the community;

7. That it is impossible for men who create government to have any proper authority to in any way "vote" themselves (or their self created artificial government entities) into a position of authority over those men and/or women who have not and do not willingly and intentionally, being fully informed of the negative consequences thereof prior thereto, agree to be bound by such voting procedures;

8. Based on the foregoing, that Arkansas has no evidence what-so-ever to prove in any way that I have ever willingly, knowingly and intentionally, being fully informed of the negative consequences thereof prior thereto, voluntarily agreed to submit myself to the authority of the artificial government, Arkansas;

Bouvier's Law Encyclopedia 3rd Rev. 8th Edition, 1914 provides the meaning of "Involuntary" as follows: "Involuntary, An involuntary act is that which is performed with constraint or with repugnance, or without the will to do it. An act is involuntary when it is done under duress."

9. That it is significant and relevant that Bouvier Law Encyclopedia provides an act, although intentionally or purposely done, is none-the-less involuntarily done, when it is done under duress;

10. That Arkansas and or U.S. citizenship are both conditions of total and complete servitude wherein the citizen of either has purportedly, voluntarily agreed to conform to and obey any and every manner of edict which the administrators thereof deem it proper for them to impose on those who have designated themselves as citizens thereof;

11. That is, that there is no irrefutable evidence in the records of Arkansas or any other political subdivision of the United States, to prove that I had been fully and properly informed that United States citizenship is a condition of political servitude and that if I voluntarily claimed such citizenship I would be voluntarily submitting myself to a lifetime condition of political servitude limited only by the grace of the men, such being politicians, who manage the artificial entity they have created for their own personal benefit;

12. That as new born infants we humans have no naturally provided frame of reference to enable us to determine whether what we are then taught, at that young age (or during our entire lifetime thereafter), is good for us or not;

13. That is, that as such children we are totally at the mercy of government-paid and government-controlled adults who are charged by the government to inflict us with government biased mind controlling indoctrination;

14. That is, that as such children our minds are easily manipulated into conforming to whatever degree of servitude may be desired by the government-paid adults who have access to us enabling them to inflict the government's mind-controlling indoctrination upon us;

15. That this court must acknowledge the fact that when we humans are born we have no intellectual ability to evaluate in any degree what-so-ever that what we are taught is conducive to our own individual well-being or not;

16. That the government of Arkansas has been and is engaged daily in it's self serving indoctrination of every child in this state attending the government indoctrination centers euphemistically known as "public schools";

17. That the children of "Arkansas" are in attendance in such "schools" primarily because the government of Arkansas has mandated their attendance purportedly for the good of the children, but in truth, such mandatory attendance is to allow the indoctrination of the children for the good of the government;

18. That as children we humans in this society were and have since birth, been continually subjected to intense unending mind controlling indoctrination to imbue us with feelings of obligations of servitude to the artificial government for the purpose of continually convincing us that we owe fealty and loyalty to such government and that we have a duty to obey and conform to the dictates of the government with no natural right or any right what-so-ever to question or in any way doubt that we have such birth acquired "obligations";

19. That we are taught as impressionable young children, that it is shameful and unpatriotic for us to ever question any of the foregoing;

20. That the truth concerning the purpose of "requiring" the children's attendance in such government controlled indoctrination centers is to facilitate the indoctrination of the children into being docile taxpayers;

21. That it cannot be reasonably denied that no child has ever been naturally born into or naturally born under or naturally born subject to the political dominion of any government, all of which are artificially created entities;

22. That as government is an artificial political entity deriving its limited authority from the limited authority of the men who created it, that such government cannot possibly properly have any authority to claim mandatory "educational" dominion over any child, absent the fully informed voluntary compliance of the child's parent(s);

23. That as government is an artificial political entity deriving its limited authority from the limited authority of the men who created it, that such government's ability to secure the "voluntary" agreement of parents to send their children to be indoctrinated by the government in the government's indoctrination centers, euphemistically known as "public schools", is only because the parents were themselves indoctrinated in the same manner when they were small children;

24. That it is therefore also true that when the government asserts such "educational" dominion over children that such assertion is nothing more than a self-serving misuse and criminal abuse of the power of government, which cannot possibly properly have authority to require such attendance;

25. That any act that a young adult (usually of sixteen years of age) may have engaged in pertaining to their "application" for a driver license was engaged in by them as a result of their being subjected to intense intentional mind-controlling indoctrination, prior thereto as small children, while being required to attend the government's indoctrination centers euphemistically known as "public schools", without their ever being told or permitted to be exposed to the truth in regard to their Naturally imbued independent Sovereign political status;

26. That the truth that was withheld from such driver license applicants by the indoctrination officers in the government indoctrination centers euphemistically known as "public schools" was that they were born free, with no naturally birth acquired "citizenship" obligation or any obligation what-so-ever to apply for a "driver license" or other government mandated identification paraphernalia;

27. That the foregoing was especially true when such children were indoctrinated to believe that their ability to travel on the public way could only be properly exercised through their presentation of a document known as a "birth certificate", to the government's driver license issuing office in order for them to be issued a driver license;

28. That when born a human child has at the time of the child's birth not yet acquired the cognitive ability to take notice of any of the facts pertaining to its birth, such as the creation of a birth certificate (if any) or that the child has been "blessed" with an artificial designation known as a "name", as entered on the birth certificate.;

29. That at the time of its birth a human child has no ability to know where it was born, when it was born, who its own mother was, or whether a birth certificate was created in regard to its birth, or to know what a birth certificate is, or to even know its own gender or to be aware that there are such gender designations as boy and girl;

30. That a human child at birth has not even the ability to know that it has two arms, two legs, ten toes, ten fingers or any other part of its physical body what-so-ever provided by Nature;

31. That a name or a "true legal name" are NOT part of the human entity provided by Nature; that is, that a "name" is an artificial designation attached to the baby by the parents, which does not require a birth certificate in order for the parents to be able to relate that designation to their child;

32, That the child's parents are required by the government to record the name the parents have selected for their child with the government, on a birth certificate document, and file such document with the appropriate government recording office, thereby creating a legal artificial persona, so that the government can have such artificial persona readily available to enable the government to assign that artificial persona to the child as the child's "true legal name" when the child has been appropriately indoctrinated in the government's indoctrination centers, when the child then "applies for a driver license", as the first order of business during such license application and issuing procedure;

33. That when born the human child is totally at the mercy of the adults who will teach the child everything that the child will learn.

34. That there is no possible way that any man, woman, boy or girl can have even the slightest personal knowledge that a specific birth certificate has anything what-so-ever to do with their own birth;

35. That as far as such authority might pertain to those born here on this land, that the authority of Arkansas is limited to extend only to those persons who have willingly, knowingly and intentionally, having been fully informed of the negative consequences thereof prior thereto, voluntarily agreed to submit themselves to the authority of Arkansas;

36. That men and women who were subjected to the intense indoctrination as set forth herein above during their childhood, who thereupon "voluntarily agreed" to submit themselves to the authority of the government that caused and instituted their fraudulent indoctrination, such government cannot properly claim such submission to have been done in any truly voluntary manner;

Bouvier, "An act is involuntary when it is done under duress."

37. That the authority of the State of Arkansas is limited to extend only to and over those men and women who have willfully and intentionally agreed thereto, having been fully and properly informed of the negative consequences thereof prior thereto;

38. That when any man or woman who has been indoctrinated throughout their life to believe that they were born with an obligation to submit themself to the dictates of Arkansas, thereafter acquire an awareness that they were wrongfully and criminally intentionally fraudulently seduced into such belief by Arkansas, that such men and women then, by implementation of Natural Law, have an absolute Natural right to be and are by such awareness, immediately freed from any purported obligation they may have been seduced into agreeing to prior thereto;

39. That Arkansas has established that driver licenses will only be issued to applicants who present a birth certificate with their application in order to be issued such license;

40. That a birth certificate is a document created at the behest of the government wherein the government of Arkansas thereafter surreptitiously acquires an ownership interest in the "name" entered on the birth certificate, under Arkansas Code, Title 18, Chapter 28, Section 202.

41. That a birth certificate is a document created by parents at the behest of the government, wherein a name selected by the parents is entered thereon, thereby creating an artificial persona therein, created for the purpose of enabling the government to enter into a contractual relationship with the real live flesh and blood child, who thereinafter, as an adult man or woman, applies for a license, or franchise, to use such "name" as their "true legal name";

42. That when a child is born "in Arkansas" that the artificial "name" chosen by the child's parent(s) is entered on a birth certificate and the birth certificate is then surrendered to Arkansas. That thereafter, under Arkansas Code, Title 18, Chapter 28, Section 202, the ownership of the artificial "name" entered thereon is thereby transferred to Arkansas - that is, it is the ownership of the artificial name that is transferred to Arkansas, not the ownership of the real live flesh and blood child;

43. That the purpose of the birth certificate requirement is to have the driver license applicant, as an adult, "voluntarily" claim an attachment to the artificial persona "name" created on the birth certificate, as the applicant's "true legal name", the applicant not being informed by Arkansas that the first order of business in the driver licence application/issuance procedure, is the applicant's application for a franchise to use the name on the birth certificate, the name being owned by Arkansas;

44. That then, some sixteen years later, the child, (at that time a young adult), having been "properly" subjected to several years of mind-controlling governmental preparatory indoctrination, becomes a driver license applicant programmed to present what he has been fraudulently indoctrinated to believe is "his" birth certificate, to the local Arkansas Revenue Office in order for him to be issued a driver license;

45. That the first order of business upon the applicant's programmed "voluntary" act of presenting his application to Arkansas in order to be issued a driver license, is the creation of the applicant's franchise to use the "name" (owned by "Arkansas" entered on the birth certificate), said "name" thereby becomes the applicant's "true legal name" and may then be entered on the driver license with a picture of the "volunteer"; just like a McDonald's fast food franchisee applicant being granted a franchise license to use the McDonald's name to open a fast food outlet;

46. That the primary purpose for the issuing of a birth certificate is the creation of a singularly unique artificial persona, such persona being the name conjured up by the child's parents together with the entry thereon of the child's parents names and other relevant unique information such as the date, time, weight, etc. There is no hard factual identifying information entered on the birth certificate that could in any way connect the document to the child (or for that matter, to the child's parents), such as the parent's Social Security numbers or street address upon whose birth it had been created. The birth of the child is merely incidental at that time, being set up for when the child becomes a young adult and after the state has become the owner of the name entered on the birth certificate;

47. That the young adults' "official" "voluntary"application for his use of the artificial name entered on the birth certificate constitutes his "official" "voluntary" application for his use of government owned property, such property being the "name" entered on what the young adult has been programmed to believe is "his" birth certificate; thereby the young adult creates a legally acceptable nexus, enabling the artificial entity Arkansas to interrelate as being sovereign over the real live flesh and blood young adult, through the artificial persona "name" owned by the state;

48. That in accordance with the foregoing that the "name", then having been combined together with the applicant's picture and signature on the driver license, thereby acknowledges the applicants "voluntary" acceptance of the artificial entity Arkansas as being the applicant's political sovereign;

49. That there is no possible way that any human being can ever have personal knowledge as to the events of his or her own birth;

50. And acknowledge that no one has any ability to have personal knowledge as to when they were born, where they were born or who their own mother was;

51. And acknowledge that no individual man or woman can possibly have any ability what-so-ever to have personal knowledge as to the creation of a document known as a birth certificate purported to be in regard to their own birth;

52. That all of such foregoing information is indoctrinated into everyone as children for many continuing years, and quite often, due to the moral decay of this society, the birth certificate's indication as to the father of the child does not necessarily reflect that child's actual sperm donor.

53. And acknowledge that the true reason for the requirement of the presentation of a birth certificate in order for an applicant to be issued a driver license is to ensnare the applicant into volunteering into a condition of political servitude, such being "voluntary servitude", in order for the "authorities" of Arkansas to avoid a violation of the prohibition of involuntary servitude as set forth in Section Twenty-seven of Article Two of the Arkansas Constitution; so as to have the applicant "volunteer" "officially" into "citizenship", so that the person can be required to pay taxes and unwittingly "voluntarily" agreeing to submit himself to every manner of regulation possible to imagine;

54. And acknowledge that the foregoing is done in order to have the driver license applicant agree, officially, to his "voluntary" use of government owned property, such property being the "name" entered on the birth certificate the applicant so proudly presented to the local Arkansas Revenue Office in order for the applicant to be issued an Arkansas driver license;

55. That the nexus enabling the subservient interrelationship between the artificial entity Arkansas and real live flesh and blood men and women has been established through an insidious subterfuge, through apposition, whereby the Legislature of Arkansas has been able to surreptitiously "define" the word "person" through grammatical association of the term "natural person" with "corporations", "partnerships" and "co-partnerships", the latter three all clearly being artificial entities, to surreptitiously "define" "person" to also be an artificial entity, thereby, through "reverse engineering", causing the word "person" to be defined by association as an "artificial person" in Title 27 of the Arkansas Codes;

56. That the Arkansas Legislature could not use the words "man", "woman", "boy", or "girl" in the definition of the word "person" because "man", "woman", "boy", and "girl" are not in any way able to be reasonably construed as being artificial entities able to associate directly with the artificial entity, Arkansas;

57. That the term "natural person" as included in the definition of the word "person" in the Arkansas Codes is intended to be and is an artificial entity similar in many respects to its definition mates; firms, corporations, partnerships and co-partnerships. That is, all five of these artificial entities are created by voluntary human intellectual activity; all five have official government approved creating documents; all five are registered with the government; all five are obligated to obey and conform to the commands of the Arkansas Legislature and, last but not least, all five have a name conjured up by their private sector creators;

58. And acknowledge that the creating document relative to the term "natural person" referenced herein above as being defined in the various codes of Arkansas, is the birth certificate created by the parents of a newborn human baby at the time of the baby's birth wherein the baby's parents enter the "name" conjured up by them and then the parents file the birth certificate with the government just as do the men and women who create firms, corporations, partnerships and co-partnerships when such men and women create the appropriate government designated documents, including therein (but not limited to) the "name" of their artificial persona creations, and then file such documents with the appropriate government office;

59. And acknowledge that when the above mentioned birth certificate is filed with the government by the child's parents that the said document then lays fairly dormant in the government's files for the next 16 years. This situation continues until the child purportedly "named therein", having "matured" to the recognized age of reason and accountability, and having been, during those sixteen years, appropriately and fraudulently indoctrinated and subjected to government serving mind-control in the government indoctrination centers euphemistically known as "public schools" for approximately the ten previous years, therein the child being programmed to believe that he was born into citizenship with natural born obligations of political fealty to the artificial government, applies for a driver license. In such government "schools", of course, it has never ever been suggested to the young adult that the government of Arkansas is in any way "artificial". The young adult does as he has been programmed to do by going to the local Department of Revenue Office where he proudly presents "his" birth certificate in order to be issued the much coveted Arkansas driver license;

60. That when real live flesh and blood men and women officially "voluntarily" claim the use of the artificial persona "name" entered on "their" birth certificate as being "theirs" such men and women therein "voluntarily" agree to their personal use of government owned property, said property being the "name" on "their" birth certificate, and in so doing the men and women thereby unwittingly and unknowingly, not having been in any way previously informed of the negative consequences of their act, thereby relinquish the individual sovereignty they were born with without ever knowing they were actually born free and sovereign with no natural born citizenship nor natural born obligation of fealty to any artificial political entity;

61. That Arkansas Constitution Section Twenty-seven (27) of Article Two (2) prohibits involuntary servitude in the State of Arkansas;

62. That there is relevant significance in the fact that Bouvier's Law Encyclopedia 3rd Rev. 8th Edition, 1914 therein provides the meaning of "Involuntary" as follows:

"Involuntary, An involuntary act is that which is performed with constraint or with repugnance, or without the will to do it. An act is involuntary when it is done under duress."

63. That this Arkansas Constitutional prohibition of involuntary servitude clearly imbues Arkansas with an implied obligation and a clear duty to provide those men and women who opt out of Arkansas' political dominion some sort of passport type documents to protect such men and women from the enforcement officers of Arkansas and all of its political subdivisions;

64. That in regard to the issuance of a driver license, as the government of Arkansas has failed to provide an alternate means or procedure for those of us who do not choose to make an unsupportable claim to a birth certificate of which we know it is impossible for us to have any personal knowledge of such document's actual relevance to ourselves in order for us to apply honestly for, and be issued a driver license, that such failure on the part of Arkansas clearly constitutes Arkansas' acknowledgment that Arkansas can make no proper claim and has no proper ability to command or in any way govern any real live flesh and blood man and woman who is unwilling to commit a fraud by voluntarily "appearing" in the artificial domain of Arkansas under a "true legal name";

(As an aside: Another point in regard to the word "appear". As I understand it, to "appear" means to suddenly materialize, in a somewhat magical or artificial manner, such as is done when an actor in a screen play or stage play dons a role as a fictitious character. As I understand it, in order for me to "appear" in an Arkansas court, I would have to "don" the role of an artificial character, through my voluntary use of government owned property, such property being a "name" entered on a birth certificate filed with the government at the time of my birth, neither of which could I possibly have any knowledge of or control over.)

65. Based on the foregoing that when a real live flesh and blood man or woman "appears" in court that they can do so only by donning an artificial persona entity;

66. That the appearance of a person before a court is accomplished only by the person's acknowledgment of the person's artificial "name";

67. That in a court room setting, absent any objection thereto by the real live flesh and blood man, the acknowledgment of having a "name" by such real live flesh and blood man would constitute his acknowledgment that he has volunteered to don the artificial persona and `appear" in and participate in the artificial realm;

68. In regard to the foregoing, that I have never ever willingly, knowingly, intentionally, being fully informed of the negative consequences thereof prior thereto, given up the individual sovereignty I was born with and thereby ever agreed to submit myself to the political jurisdiction of Arkansas or any other artificial entity, government;

69. That for the government of Arkansas to maintain and insist that I should not operate my own private conveyance on the public way of this land because the statutes of Arkansas require all such operators to be issued a driver license prior thereto, would be and is a total absurdity in consideration of the fact that Arkansas has failed and refused to enact legislation that would provide a means whereby I could be issued a driver license without being required to present a birth certificate;

70. That for the government of Arkansas to maintain and insist that I should not operate my own private conveyance on the public way of this land because the statutes of Arkansas require all such operators to be issued a driver license prior thereto, would be a total absurdity in the context of my political status, as may be reasonably inferred. Such reasonable inference was recognized and stated by the U.S. Supreme Court in Holy Trinity Church v. United States;

71. That at the time of his birth a human baby is born sovereign over his own self with no naturally acquired obligation(s) of fealty or servitude to any other human or other entity, and most certainly not to any artificial entity;

72. That the natural born independence and individual sovereignty of the individual is recognized in Section Twenty-seven of Article Two of the Arkansas Constitution wherein involuntary servitude is prohibited in Arkansas;

73. That the acknowledgment of a birth certificate by a real live flesh and blood man or woman is critically necessary in order to establish a legally acceptable inter-relationship nexus with the artificial political entity known as government;

Please be advised, I have been informed by various government officers both in California and Arkansas, that if I were to somehow procure a birth certificate wherein the information entered thereon could reasonably apply to me and use it to apply

for and be issued a driver license, that my life would be much easier. Arkansas State Police Corporal Matthew Sheeley informed me during a "routine" traffic stop on April 17, 2009 of a vehicle where I was riding as a freeloader, that Sheeley didn't care where I got a birth certificate just so long as I got one.

Based on the foregoing:

74. That if I were to somehow procure a birth certificate and present it to be issued a driver license that my life would indeed, be much easier.

75. That if I were to do as advised by Corporal Sheeley and use information obtained from a grave marker in a cemetery to procure a "legitimate" birth certificate that if I were to present such a birth certificate to the local Revenue Office I could indeed be issued a driver license based on such a fraudulent presentation.

76. That if I were to do as advised by Corporal Sheeley that such an act on my part would constitute an intentional fraudulent act on my part;

77. That if I were to do as advised and Corporal Sheeley were to discover such, that Sheeley would then arrest me and charge me, quite properly, with criminal fraud;

78. That an honest man does not have a chance of being respected by the government of Arkansas;

79. That Arkansas has a Constitutional and moral duty to provide me either with an Arkansas driver license without my presentment of a birth certificate or assigning me a "true legal name" or to provide me some other manner of passport type document and other appropriate paraphernalia to protect me from the enforcement officers of Arkansas such as Matthew Sheeley, and its political subdivisions;

80. In some quarters it is believed that the courts of the United States and of Arkansas are operating under Admiralty or Maritime rules and that this society is operating generally under Admiralty or Maritime rules. This is purportedly evidenced by the wide use of nautical terms within the commercial community such as "highway" related to "high seas", and trucks delivering to "docks"; babies being "berthed" in "birth canals"; "islands" along the highways; The use by truckers of "bills of lading" rather than "waybill"; "currency" from "currents" of the seas, which "flows" throughout the states; opening the "cargo bay" to unload "cargo"; highways have "shipping lanes"; cars or other vehicles carry "passengers", just like ships; "commerce" is defined as the movement of cargo on the high seas.

81. In consideration of the foregoing maritime information, that if the foregoing is true that the courts of Arkansas are operating under Maritime or Admiralty rules in matters clearly and obviously not related to international commerce.

82. In consideration of the foregoing maritime information, that the courts of Arkansas are not to be operating at any time under either Maritime or Admiralty rules as such court proceedings might pertain to me.

83. In consideration of the foregoing information, that this Federal District Court in Harrison, Arkansas, is NOT to be operating under either Maritime or Admiralty rules in regard to this case that we are herein litigating.

84. That the purpose of the foregoing, and the following items, is to provide a basis for this court to require Arkansas' compliance with Section Twenty-seven of Article Two of the Arkansas Constitution, which happens to prohibit involuntary servitude in the State of Arkansas.

85. I hereby request that the Honorable Judge of this court in acknowledgment of the applicability of the items included in the Notice of Mandatory Judicial Notice that it is self evident and true Items filed concurrently herewith immediately order the Revenue Office of Yellville, Arkansas to immediately provide me with an identification card similar to an Arkansas driver license and license plates for all of the vehicles that I might operate with notations entered in the police computers of Arkansas that when the police encounter me on the highways of Arkansas that such police be informed through their police computers that I should not be stopped nor detained.

Be hereby advised, I freely acknowledge that I am subject in every respect to the common law and may be held accountable under the common law for any injury I might be responsible for in a properly established common law court.

Proceeding at all times under Threat, Duress and Coercion

_________________________________

Eric Williams, (870) 449-5029

Call me at: 720-675-7230

On Skype: legalbear

Best times to call: 8:30 am to 9:00 pm MST

Join my Yahoo Group Tips & Tricks for Court by sending an email to:

My blog: legalbearsblog.com

Tax sites: IRSTerminator.com IRSLienThumper.com IRSLevyThumper.com

(formatted like this so this email doesn't end up in your spam folder)

#18755

From: "Legalbear" <bear@...>
Date: Fri Mar 2, 2012 4:08 am
Subject: Federal Magistrate Acts as Counsel for State Defendants! Unbeeeeelievable!!

legalbear7

tips_and_tricks-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

HARRISON DIVISION

Eric Williams, Propria Persona Plaintiff

v. case No. 3:11-CV-03001-

JUDITH BEARDEN

KENFORD CARTER

COUNTY OF MARION Defendants

PLAINTIFF'S WRITTEN OBJECTIONS TO

MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

FILED CONCURRENTLY AND INCORPORATED HEREIN BY REFERENCE:

1.) NOTICE OF IRREFUTABLE FACTS OF WHICH THIS COURT IS REQUIRED TO TAKE MANDATORY JUDICIAL NOTICE

2.) PLAINTIFF'S BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S WRITTEN OPPOSITION TO MAGISTRATE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

1. I, Eric Williams, the Plaintiff in this case, pursuant to U.S.C. Section 636(b)(1), do hereby present my written objections to this Magistrate Judge's REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (hereinafter "MJ"or "MJRAR" or "RAR").

2. This Objection is filed under duress due to the failure of the District Judge to grant me the reasonable sixty day continuance I had timely requested.

3. There is no possible way that I can properly address the many erroneous conclusions presented by this MJ in his RAR, garnered by him through his multiple inappropriate ex-parte communications with two defendants in this case, County of Marion and Judith Bearden, by either this MJ or his Clerk, Ashley Bowen.

4. However, of even more significance is the unrevealed and undeclared political decision implicit in this MJ's RAR, wherein he continually makes reference to me as though it has already somehow been determined that I am subject to the political dominion of the United States and or of Arkansas, which determination has not been addressed and cannot be addressed by the judicial branch of the United States or of Arkansas, but which must be resolved by the Executive Branch of Arkansas, which I have been endeavoring to do since the very beginning of this impasse back in 2002.

5. The fact the Executive will not respond only serves to establish that I am correct in my analysis of the birth certificate issue.

6. Accusing this MJ of surreptitiously engaging in a political determination he does not have standing to address might seem like a stinging accusation. After all, the common understanding is, that under the constitutional system of separated powers supposedly prevailing in the United States, the Judicial System is supposed to operate outside the realm of politics. Its principal function in this system of "checks and balances," or so everyone is led to believe, is to check the excesses of the political branches.

7. Court cases are purportedly decided according to objective and neutral principles of law, not the ideological values of this MJ or any other judge or by influence of prevailing public opinion. The very legitimacy of the Judiciary, many argue, depends on this separation of law from politics.

8. Additionally, the wording, content and general tenor of this MJ's RAR clearly indicate he is functioning more as the self appointed Counsel of and for the defendants rather than functioning properly, as a neutral judicial officer!

9. This is particularly evident in this MJ's totally erroneous determination in regard to the wording and intent of Arkansas Codes, � 5-1-109, wherein this MJ's conclusion is exactly opposite of the clear wording and intent set forth therein, as I more fully address in my Brief in Support of this Instant Objection, filed concurrently herewith and incorporated herein, in full, by reference.

10. And I must state here that my Brief filed concurrently herewith does not set forth all of the relevant points in regard to this MJ's comments in regard to A.C.A. � 5-1-109, due to insufficient time being allowed by this Court for me to properly address all the issues.

THE FUNDAMENTAL, BASIC, PRIMARY ISSUE

11. Although there are three defendants in this case and this MJ, acting on their behalf as their self appointed defense counsel, has "researched" and presented his arguments in regard to their exposure to suit separately, however, the facts this MJ ignored clearly indicate all three of the defendants are exposed to being sued based on two totally separate issues (1) due to the undeniable fact that the State of Arkansas has not presented one shred of evidence that I have ever willingly, knowingly and intentionally, having been fully informed of the negative consequences thereof prior thereto, voluntarily agreed to submit myself to the political authority of the artificial political entity, State of Arkansas, of which two of the defendants are officers of and the third a sub political entity thereof.

12. The second fact establishing the exposure of the defendants named herein to suit by me being the fact that the Arrest Warrants I was arrested under had expired more than two years prior to my arrest, notwithstanding the totally absurd erroneous convoluted manipulated reasoning presented by this MJ in his comedy show RAR, which I totally expose in my Supplemental Brief filed concurrently herewith.

13. (It must be noted here again, that my political status as a separate Sovereign entity was forced upon my by the State of Arkansas through its failure to perform its duty to those over whom Arkansas claims political jurisdiction, specifically, being Arkansas failure to provide a means whereby those individuals who insist on being truthful, may be issued a driver license - once more, I have never ever refused to apply for or be issued an Arkansas driver license).

14. In his RAR this MJ states on page 9 thereof, under "Injunctive relief" that Under the United States Constitution, the State of Arkansas is protected from any manner of suit or relief by an immunity inherent in the Federal Constitution, including the Eleventh Amendment, however this MJ is in error in this assertion, due to this MJs failure to understand and acknowledge the Political status of this Plaintiff.

15. The United States Constitution, Article III, Section Two, provides as follows, (in relevant part): "The Judicial power shall extend to all cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution ... to all Cases; ... to Controversies ... between a State ... and foreign States ... "

17. As I have never knowingly and intentionally relinquished the individual Sovereignty I was born with I contend that I fall under the Constitutional category of a foreign State (that does not constitute a claim that I am a foreign state).

18. The Eleventh Amendment to the Federal Constitution provides as follows, and most certainly does not accord Arkansas immunity from suit by this Plaintiff: "The judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State."

19. Please take note that the Eleventh Amendment does not preclude a suit instituted by those among the Posterity of the People of the United States class, as such class established themselves in the Preamble, among which Posterity I claim my Political Status!

20. Once more, as I have never ever knowingly and intentionally relinquished the individual Sovereignty I was born with I have not entered into the political status of a citizen of any of the Fifty States that comprise the Federation known as the United States of America.

21. As I very clearly stated in my Complaint, particularly in the Supplemental Supporting Brief #1, titled, "PRELIMINARY MEMORANDUM - WHO I AM AND WHO I AM NOT", I claim my Political Status to be of the Posterity of the People of the United States as they proclaimed themselves in the Preamble to the Federal Constitution, I claim to be of the Posterity of the Rebels of July 4, 1776!

22. Please take note that there is no mention what-so-ever in Article III or in the Eleventh Amendment pertaining to the People of the United States. Please take further note that the Preamble to the Federal Constitution proclaims (in relevant part) that the purpose of the Constitution Ordained and Established thereunder, was/is for the purpose of enabling the People of the United States, to secure the blessings of liberty to Themselves and to their Posterity. There is no mention therein of any such application to citizens of the United States, created in the First Article of the Federal Constitution.

23. Yes, I am aware of the SCOTUS decision in the Dred Scott case - however Dred Scott was totally nullified by the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments.

24. The Thirteenth Amendment clearly prohibits citizenship by birth as it is self evident that citizenship is an acknowledgment of a political subservience to a political superior, and the Fourteenth Amendment is the government's work around, to enable the government to indoctrinate children, freeborn, fraudulently in government controlled schools, to believe they attained the subservient status of United States citizenship by birth.

25. Such children are also fraudulently taught that the Fourteenth Amendment declares citizenship by birth, which any proper student of English grammar will know is not true, that is, U.S. citizenship by birth is clearly absent from the Fourteenth Amendment to the Federal Constitution, due to the explanatory clause, "... , and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, ...".

26. And, as a minor but relevant aside, no one has ever been born in the United States, such being a totally artificial entity that does not physically exist - please take note that I most certainly do not claim that the United States does not exist.

MANDATORY JUDICIAL NOTICE

27. COMES NOW Eric Williams, Plaintiff in the above entitled case, to request Mandatory Judicial Notice be taken by this Court, pursuant to Rule 201(c)(2) of the Federal Rules of Evidence ("FREv"), of the following irrefutable facts pertaining to the Natural condition of human beings:

1.) No human infant has cognitive ability to take notice or any of the facts of its birth;

2.) No Birth Certificate includes information through which it could be determined which human infant's birth it was created in regard to;

3.) Due to the circumstances pertaining to the creation of a birth certificate there is no possibility that the infant upon whose birth it was created could claim an ownership interest in said document or in regard to any information entered thereon;

4.) Due to the circumstances of the creation of a birth certificate there is no possible way any of the information entered thereon at the time of its creation could provide any meaningful identification information needed in order for the State to create positive identification for the purpose of issuing a driver license to a driver license applicant;

5.) At the time a birth certificate is created there is no information entered thereon that would serve to identify who it was that created the document or who it was that owned the name entered thereon;

6.) That the Thirteenth Amendment to the Federal Constitution and Section Twenty-seven of the Arkansas Constitution both prohibit involuntary servitude;

7.) That a claim of citizenship constitutes the acknowledgment by such claimant of the claimant's political subservience to a political superior;

8.) That at the time of a child's birth the child is politically independent with no birth acquired obligation of political fealty to any political entity;

9.) That the State of Arkansas has no authority to require an individual of sixteen years of age who has not volunteered himself into a condition of political subservience to the State of Arkansas to have a driver license in order to operate his own automobile;

10.) That in order for the State of Arkansas to gain authority over an individual in order for the State of Arkansas to have authority to require that individual to obtain a driver license prior to operating his own automobile, the State of Arkansas must, through some means, entice the applicant to voluntarily enter himself into a condition of political subservience to the State of Arkansas;

11.) That under Arkansas Code, Title 18, Chapter 28, Section 202, the State of Arkansas becomes the owner of the names on all birth certificates recorded in the State of Arkansas five years after the said names are last accessed by their original owner;

12.) That when an applicant for a driver license presents a birth certificate in order to be issued a driver license the applicant must first be issued the applicant's "true legal name", without which, the state has no standing to require the applicant to apply for a driver license or to in any way comply with the statutes enacted by the state legislature.

28. And, additionally, I further request Mandatory Judicial Notice be taken by this Court, again pursuant to FREv Rule 201(c)(2), of the following irrefutable facts pertaining to the artificial nature of the State of Arkansas:

1.) That prior to July 4, 1776, all political authority wielded in the then Thirteen Colonies of North America was derived from the Monarch of the British Empire, King George III ("KJIII");

2.) That on July 4, 1776, upon the presentation of the Declaration of Independence ("DOI") the previous political authority of KGIII, ceased to exist in that land area which had prior thereto been under the dominion of KJIII;

3.) That upon the publication of the DOI all individual designations of political status of any description or authority under KJIII immediately ceased to exist and all the former subjects of KJIII became politically equal with none, or any combination thereof, having any political dominion over any other individual or combination thereof;

4.) That is, that on July 4, 1776, all former subjects of KGIII became individually politically sovereign over their own individual person with no political obligation of political subservience to any political entity that might be created by any of them, absent their individually determined freewill agreement (See acknowledging dicta of CJ John Jay, Chisholm v. Georgia 2 Dal/US 419 - prompter of the Eleventh Amendment);

5.) That prior to July 4, 1776 there was no country known as the United States of America and no politically sovereign independent states existing on the east coast of North America;

6.) That the creation of the Thirteen Political States and of the United States of America came as the result of the intellectual activity of the humans involved and that although it may very well be a natural act for humans to organize a government that such political organizations are not and were not created by an independent unilateral act instigated by Nature;

7.) That the DOI clearly acknowledges and proclaims that each individual man and woman is born free and independent with an inalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and that the DOI further provides and recognizes the natural right of people, when dissatisfied with the mode of government they are subjected to, that such people have the natural right to disassociate themselves from such association and form an association according to their individual inclinations;

8.) That the provisions of the DOI do not indicate that it takes more than one individual to determine he does not desire to associate with or be subject to the political dominion of those who are bent on controlling every aspect of his private life, as currently is the condition of those individuals claiming to be citizens of the United States.

29. The Fundamental. Basic, Primary Issue in the Arkansas state courts and in this instant law suit, is the Political Relationship between Arkansas and myself. This is in question due to the failure and refusal of the State of Arkansas to provide a means whereby a driver license applicant who does not have a birth certificate to present to the State, in order to be issued an Arkansas driver license could be issued such license; And, in conjunction with the foregoing, as an equal and parallel issue, being the refusal of the State of Arkansas to explain how the State acquires political subservient servitude of individuals born free and politically independent (as is proclaimed in Section 2 of Article 2 of the Arkansas Constitution, where it proclaims that "All men are created equally free and independent ... To secure these rights governments are instituted ... deriving their just power from the consent of the governed."), while the State at the same time maintains its compliance with the Federal Constitution's Thirteenth Amendment and Section Twenty-seven of Article Two of the Constitution for the State of Arkansas; both of which deny the ability of Arkansas to command any individual into a condition of servitude, political or otherwise - so how does Arkansas work around these several constitutional barriers? And why will Arkansas not answer that most reasonable question?

30. Please let this court be advised, I have never ever refused to apply for or be issued an Arkansas driver license, it is Arkansas who has failed to provide a reasonable alternative to its birth certificate requirement that has prevented me from being issued an Arkansas driver license! (All alternate means of issuance set forth in the Statutes of Arkansas are based on the presentation of a birth certificate in order to acquire such alternate means).

BIAS OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE AGAINST PLAINTIFF

31. The apparent preconceived bias of this MJ is most clearly revealed in his comment near the bottom of page 4 of his RAR, where he gratuitously wrote: "The Arkansas General Assembly obviously felt that it was not appropriate to allow a defendant to fail to appear for court, avoid arrest, and then have the benefit of having the original charges dismissed."

32. Although I contend that this MJ's analysis of the Arkansas statute of limitation provisions is ludicrous and more than somewhat convoluted, and exactly opposite to the actual wording of that provision, I would generally agree the foregoing snip might reasonably apply to an accused who fit into the unique mold cast therein by this MJ (which I contend does not exist in the Arkansas statute of limitations provisions, but only in the biased mind of this MJ), and I would agree with the MJ's view on this if an accused had indeed failed to appear and then worked diligently to avoid arrest in order to allow the statute of limitations to expire so that such an accused could avoid facing the original charges lodged against him, however, in this case such an analogy does not apply to me.

33. I had most certainly not failed to make myself available to the Arkansas District Court as this MJ totally misrepresents in his mind boggling RAR, for trial on August 12, 2005, and neither did I take any evasive actions to avoid arrest on August 12, 2005 or thereafter, as I set out in mind numbing detail in my Supporting Brief #4, filed with my Complaint, together with exhibits and other relevant documents filed concurrently therewith, and incorporated therein by reference, totaling some 340 pages.

34. The relevant Supporting Brief #4, setting forth my conduct on August 12, 2005, is incorporated herein by reference. It seems abundantly clear that this MJ did not bother to read this Supporting Brief prior to coming to the erroneous presumptions he entered into his highly prejudicial RAR, which I am not able to properly address herein due to the time limitations improperly and unreasonably imposed upon me by this inconsiderate Court!

35. Additionally, in regard to this MJ's erroneous presumption stating or at least strongly implying, that I had striven to avoid arrest during the years the statute of limitations was running, I hereby incorporate from my Complaint in this instant case, Supporting Brief # 2, in its entire 19 pages as all are relevant, but particularly the information in subparagraphs 1 through 5, on page 12 thereof, wherein I present details of five encounters I had with Arkansas Law Enforcement where, in none of those incidents did any of the police officers find any 2005 or 2006 County of Marion warrants for my arrest in their State Police Arrest Warrant database.

36. It is clear to me, that due to his intense bias against me that this MJ was not able to read this exhibit or comprehend that such events totally negated his preconceived presumption that the reason I was not arrested during the running of the statute of limitations was because I had intentionally skillfully avoided any contact with any Arkansas law enforcement.

37. Yes, I hid from law inforcemt by hiding myself it the Basxter County jail for six days so no Arkansas law enforcement officer would be able to find me on the streets of Arkansas - GET REAL!!!

38. If this MJ's analysis of the wording of the Arkansas statute of limitations was to be applied to all arrest warrants then no arrest warrants would ever expire, that is, according to the reasoning of this MJ, there is no statute of limitations for arrest warrants in Arkansas!

39. The bias of this MJ against me is further evidenced by the fact that he instructed his Law Clerk, Ashley Bowen, to contacted the clerks of the District and Circuit courts of the County of Marion, requesting that they furnish documents needed by this MJ to enable him to perform his self apointed role as Counsel for the defendants.

40. In a letter faxed to the District Court Clerk, Martha Moore, Ms.

Bowen simply requested docket sheets. I went to both clerk's offices on February 10, 2012 wherein I was furnished a copy of Ms. Bowen's letter by District Clerk Martha Moore who informed me that she had faxed only two pages to Ms. Bowen.

41. However, the Circuit Court Clerk, Dee Carlton, informed me she only talked to Ms. Bowen on the telephone and had not asked for or received a fax request from Ms. Bowen, and that Ms. Bowen had only requested docket sheets during that first call. The Circuit Clerk informed me she sent two pages of docket sheets to Ms. Bowen, and sent nothing else, indicating she had not sent the additional 13 pages I showed her that I had received from this MJ with his RAR. But then the Circuit clerk also informed me that Ms. Bowen had

called again later and talked to another Circuit Clerk who had faxed additional papers to Ms. Bowen.

42. I was then informed that the second clerk that had faxed papers to Ms. Bowen was not in the clerk's office at the time I was making the inquiry on Friday, February 10, 2012.

43. According to this MJ's RAR, on the bottom of page 2 thereof, this MJ indicates he had obtained docket sheets from the Marion County Clerk, attached thereto as Exhibits A1-A13, while the number of exhibits provided to me were numbered A1-A14.

44. It is obvious that the exhibits included with the MJRAR include substantially more than mere docket sheets, especially since the two docket sheets from the Circuit Clerk had been reformatted so that both docket sheers were presented on one exhibit, Exhibit A1.

45. The question begged by this MJ's request is what significance or need would there be for this MJ to review docket sheets? And why did the Circuit Clerk send additional documents?

46. Could it be that the purpose of this MJ's request was intended to be a hint to the County of Marion clerks that this MJ wanted documents that would serve to bolster this MJ's predetermined decision to construct justification to recommend that my Complaint be dismissed?

47. How can it possibly be appropriate for a MJ to contact defendants to initiate an ex-parte request that defendants provide him with documents pertaining to a case he is adjudicating, with no notice to the Plaintiff?

48. If this MJ wants to act as counsel for the defendants then he should first resign as a CMJ of the Federal Court!

49. The foregoing begs the question. Who else did this MJ or his Clerk call requesting information that would bolster his determination to construct a Recommendation that my case be dismissed?

50. Who would it be that would be best positioned to provide this MJ with documents from this voluminous case file that would serve best to help this MJ construct his predetermined dismissal recommendation? It is my clear understanding that Asa Hutchinson is still on this case as counsel for all three defendants, and that Asa Hutchinson has previously been a prosecutor for the United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas??? And that the questionable integrity of Asa Hutchinson is fairly widely known.

51. I want a subpoena issued for the telephone records of Ms. Ashley Bowen and Chief Magistrate Judge James R. Marschewski for the dates January 27 through February 2, 2012, inclusive.

JUDICIAL IMMUNITY

(Please note that I more fully address the issue of Judicial Immunity in my supporting brief filed concurrently herewith. I apologize for any duplication but due to the time constraints imposed upon me by this court I simply do not have time to more properly organize my pleadings).

52. In order for me to address the issue of Political Jurisdiction in the Arkansas courts the first pleading I filed was a motion for an Evidentiary Hearing which Judge Bearden characterized as a Preliminary Hearing. That hearing supplanted the Arraignment proceeding that had been originally scheduled for that day. That hearing dragged on for seven months comprising four court hearings until the charges against me were dismissed by Judge Webb because I had brought to his attention that the warrants he was proceeding under had expired at least two years prior to the day I was arrested.

53. An Arraignment was never conducted in the Arkansas courts and a plea was never entered in that matter. Moreover, the proceedings in the Arkansas courts were conducted entirely in Administrative mode, never in judicial or prosecutorial mode as was acknowledged by Defendant Judge Bearden during a colloquy she participated in during the preliminary/evidentiary hearing of November 23, 2009, as is more fully set forth on page 16 of Exhibit #1 (and audibly on exhibit 1a), concurrently filed herein with my Complaint.

54. The Fundamental Basic issue in those four hearings was the issue of Political Jurisdiction. Please see Exhibit 8 filed with my Complaint wherein I set forth twenty examples of previous appellate court case rulings establishing that once jurisdiction is challenged the court cannot move forward to a prosecution of the factual issues until the issue of jurisdiction is established; and that the court cannot simply claim jurisdiction, jurisdiction must be properly established with factual evidence, properly proved.

55. There are many different aspects of jurisdiction, the most common being subject matter and personal. Both of the foregoing presume Political Jurisdiction has been established, which is rarely raised, however, in the case at hand, pertaining to me, addressed in the Arkansas courts subject hereof, the only jurisdictional issue addressed was Political Jurisdiction and such issue was addressed only in administrative mode, never in judicial or prosecutorial mode as has been erroneously represented by this MJ in his RAR!

56. I contend that it is totally impossible for any court of Arkansas to determine the political jurisdiction of Arkansas over an individual who has not volunteered to submit himself to the political dominion of the state of Arkansas, as is clearly implied in the closing words of Section 2 of Article 2 of the Arkansas Constitution, "... from the consent of the governed".

57. This is why I Served a Request for Admissions on Arkansas Governor Mike Beebe, Arkansas Attorney General Dustin McDaniel, State Senator Johnny Key and Representative Monty Davenport, but the primary official with the responsibility to address this issue would be and is, Governor Mike Beebe.

58. However true that may be, the point here is that until the Executive of Arkansas establishes it has properly established that it has political dominion over me, honorably acquired, in full conformance with the Federal Constitution's Thirteenth Amendment and Sections Two and Twenty-seven of Article Two of the Arkansas Constitution, it would be totally impossible for any lesser official of Arkansas to have authority to require me to conform to any Arkansas rules. Please understand that the foregoing is not stated from any manner of rebellion, it is stated as a matter of Natural and Constitutional Law!

59. When Arkansas purports to establish a requirement that all drivers apply for and be issued a driver license Arkansas thereby imbues itself with a requirement to provide a means whereby every applicant who is otherwise qualified may be issued such a license.

60. As I stated in my Complaint, I have never ever refused to apply for or be issued an Arkansas driver license. When I relocated to Arkansas in the year 2000 I immediately presented myself to the Revenue Office in Yellville where I attempted to apply for a driver license however the clerk refused to issue such license to me because I am unable to and refuse to present a document I know I do not know was created as a record of my birth, and, more to the point, heretofore no Arkansas official has been willing or is willing or able to present me a reasonable explanation as to how Arkansas acquires such dominion over anyone, or why Arkansas requires such a spurious document as a birth certificate to be presented by a driver license applicant, when there is no information what-so-ever on that document that contributes any information what-so-ever to the establishment of positive identification, or which could connect that document to the applicant absent the "voluntary" unsupportable claim of the applicant.

61. Why do the clerks of the Arkansas Revenue Offices never ever ask a sixteen year old driver license applicant if the applicant can present proof that the birth certificate being presented by the applicant was created at the time of the applicant's birth?

62. Please be reminded that it was Arkansas that has refused to establish a means by which I could be issued a driver license without my knowingly committing perjury and at the same time voluntarily relinquishing the condition of Freedom with which I was born, as is purportedly protected under Section 2 of Article 2 of the Arkansas Constitution.

63. I contend that due to the fact that Arkansas has intentionally failed and refused to provide me a means of being issued an Arkansas driver license without me committing perjury and/or giving up every aspect of freedom I was born with, that Arkansas has thereby voluntarily abdicated any possible claim it might have reasonably had to require me to procure an Arkansas driver license or to exercise political dominion over me in any manner.

64. How is the foregoing not a reasonable position under the circumstances presented?

65. I contend that the forgoing totally forestalls any manner of judicial immunity that Defendant Bearden might otherwise be entitled to because before the judiciary of the State of Arkansas can have authority to proceed judicially over anyone (wherein judicial immunity would automatically attach) the Executive Branch of Arkansas must first comply with Sections Two and Twenty-seven of Article Two of its own Constitution by negotiating some manner of contractual agreement with the individual, which is what I have been attempting to do since I relocated to Arkansas in the year 2000.

66. I contend that Arkansas uses the "voluntary" presentation of a birth certificate by a driver license applicant to surreptitiously comply with the Constitutional restraints herein mentioned, without Arkansas properly informing the driver license applicants of how they are being manipulated, as is more fully set forth in my 45 page Supporting Brief #6 filed concurrently with my Complaint which is hereby incorporated herein, in full, by reference.

PROSECUTORIAL IMMUNITY

(Please note that I more fully address the issue of Prosecutorial Immunity in my supporting brief filed concurrently herewith. I apologize for any duplication but due to the time constraints imposed upon me by this court I simply do not have time to more properly organize my pleadings).

67. I hereby contend that the self same arguments presented in paragraph 52 through 66, herein above, modified as appropriate to reflect application to Defendant Kenford Carter, likewise establish that Mr. Carter has no refuge in any manner of immunity.

68. Additionally, I contend that the MJ in this matter has stumbled when he contended in his RAR that Defendant Carter on January 20, 2010 appeared in the Circuit Court of the County of Marion where this MJ contends that Defendant Carter filed a nol pros motion that was ignored by Judge Webb, when Judge Webb elected instead to grant my Motion to Dismiss.

MANIFEST BIAS OF MJ AGAINST PLAINTIFF

69. I contend that the foregoing statement of this MJ serves once again to demonstrate the bias and prejudice of this MJ against me because Defendant Kenford Carter had nothing what-so-ever to do with any of the proceedings in the Circuit Court. The name of the Deputy Prosecutor in the Circuit Court was Christopher Carter, which I was careful to point out in the 340 pages I filed concurrently with my Complaint, which it is clear that this MJ did not read much more than the first page or two thereof, and indexes of the exhibits and supportive briefs, but instead, relied on information he improperly garnered from the clerks of defendant Bearden and County of Marion and elsewhere when he appointed himself as Counsel for the Defendants.

70. If this Court permits, I will file extended written objections to this MJRAR I will set forth therein additional evidence of this MJ's bias against me and more fully and properly address the errors in his RAR.

IMMUNITY OF COUNTY OF MARION

(Please note that I more fully address the issue of the lack of

Immunity of the County of Marion in my supporting brief filed concurrently herewith. I apologize for any duplication but due to the time constraints imposed upon me by this court I simply do not have time to more properly organize my pleadings).

71. I hereby contend that the self same arguments presented in paragraph 52 through 66, herein above, modified as appropriate to reflect application to Defendant County of Marion, together with additional information I present in my Supporting Brief filed concurrently herewith, likewise establish that the County of Marion has no refuge in any manner of immunity, and as is further evidenced in the fact that County of Marion allowed its clerk to communicate information in a totally inappropriate ex-parte communication with this MJ initiated by this MJ.

CONCLUSION AND REQUEST

72. Therefore, based on the reasons set forth herein above and in Plaintiff's Supporting Brief referenced and incorporated herein, Plaintiff requests that the Magistrate Judge's REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION be Stricken in the interest of Justice and as a matter of Law, and that the defendants' motions to dismiss should be denied or, in the event that the Judge in this matter needs more information to justify such dismissal, that this Plaintiff be accorded an appropriate extension to allow this Plaintiff to create and file a more comprehensive objection to this MJ's RAR, And, additionally, that the judge assigned to this case read the entire case file, including all exhibits and Supporting Briefs filed concurrently with the Complaint, and that this Plaintiff be accorded any and all other just and proper relief to which this Plaintiff might be entitled.

PROCEEDING AT ALL TIMES

UNDER THREAT, DURESS AND COERCION!

_________________________________________

Eric Williams, Propria Persona

Call me at: 720-675-7230

On Skype: legalbear

Best times to call: 8:30 am to 9:00 pm MST

Join my Yahoo Group Tips & Tricks for Court by sending an email to:

My blog: legalbearsblog.com

Tax sites: IRSTerminator.com IRSLienThumper.com IRSLevyThumper.com

(formatted like this so this email doesn't end up in your spam folder)

#18756

From: Cliff Bass <cliff_bass@...>
Date: Fri Mar 2, 2012 6:53 am
Subject: Re: the lost 13th amendment

cliff_bass

Why are you relying upon the Constitution, an untitled document that was done by deputies which were appointed by the states with the specific instructions to revise the Articles of Confederation, an internal document only?

__________________________________________________

By New-Hampshire, "to discuss and decide upon the most effectual means to remedy the defects of the federal union."

Massachusetts, "in conformity with the resolution of Congress recommending a convention for the sole purpose of revising the articles of confederation, to render the federal constitution adequate to the preservation of the union."

Connecticut, "for the sole and express purpose of revising the articles of confederation, to render the federal constitution adequate to the exigencies of government and the preservation of the union."

New-York, in the same words.

New-Jersey, "for the purpose of taking into consideration the state of the union, as to trade and other important subjects, and of devising such other provisions, as shall appear to be necessary, to render the constitution of the federal government adequate to the exigencies thereof."

Pennsylvania, "to devise such alterations and further provisions, as may be necessary to render the federal constitution fully adequate to the exigencies of the union."

Delaware, in the same words, with a proviso, that each state shall have one vote in Congress.

Maryland, in the same words, without the proviso.

Virginia, in the same words. This state passed the first law for appointing delegates to the convention.

North-Carolina, "for the purpose of revising the federal constitution."

South-Carolina, "to devise such alterations as may be thought necessary, to render the federal constitution entirely adequate to the actual situation and future good government of the confederated states."

Georgia, "to devise such alterations as may render the federal constitution adequate to the exigencies of the union."

_____________________________________________________

Why would you even consider relying upon such document as the said "guys" have supposedly produced?

The first union is still there.

--- On Wed, 2/29/12, Bruce Toski <toski_tech@...> wrote:

From: Bruce Toski <toski_tech@...>
Subject: [tips_and_tricks] the lost 13th amendment
To: ottopartss@...
Cc: tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com
Date: Wednesday, February 29, 2012, 7:13 AM

a few guys researched this and have posted various scans of old books showing the lost "Titles of Nobility Amendment" which was ratified by several states and made it into various books printed about the Constitution.

WIKI says this early 13th was "proposed by Congress in 1810 and ratified by twelve states".

How many states were there in 1810 ?

eighteen ? http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_states_were_in_the_us_in_1810

Here is the procedure according to Wiki

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Constitution#Procedure

There are two steps. In the first step, the proposed Amendment must find a national super majority of 67% in Congress, both House (people) and Senate (states).

* This was done, right ? Should be able to verify in the Statutes at Large ?

The second step requires a super-super 75% majority of the states ratifying, representing a majority of the people in the states ratifying. Congress determines whether the state legislatures or special state conventions ratify the amendment.^[33]

I am guessing that, if only 12 out of 18 states ratified the 'lost' 13th amendment ... it never reached full lawful status as a 'cured' amendment ?

For Truth, Justice and Liberty,
Don Quixote

#18757

From: Justice <justice@...>
Date: Fri Mar 2, 2012 1:12 pm
Subject: Re: US Supreme Court: license & registration within a state's powers?

deepwithinsi...

Barry,

Help me word this question.

The real issue is not the "right to travel," for this is well established.

Rather the fundamental legal question is several fold: 1) whether personal use of the highways is a property right of individual liberty, and 2) whether the use of an automobile for travel on the public highways is adjunct property right of liberty; and 3) whether the state can compel the surrender of these personal rights by statutory extortion, i.e. requiring the procurement of the benefit of a certificate of title; and whether the procurement of the certificate of title shrouds the property in the cloak or status of a "motor vehicle" thereby converting the unalienable right to a privilege subject to the motor vehicle code.

On 8/17/2011 3:50 PM, Legalbear wrote:

I’ve seen a lot of research on “right to travel”, but, I’ve never seen anyone address this case. Please note the references to “commerce”:

Hendrick v. Maryland, 235 US 610 - Supreme Court 1915

235 U.S. 610 (1915)

HENDRICK
v.
STATE OF MARYLAND.

No. 77.

Supreme Court of United States.

Argued November 11, 12, 1914.

Decided January 5, 1915.

ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF PRINCE GEORGE'S COUNTY, STATE OF MARYLAND.

611*611 Mr. Jackson H. Ralston and Mr. Osborne I. Yellott, with whom Mr. Clement L. Bouve and Mr. William E. Richardson were on the brief, for plaintiff in error.

Mr. Enos S. Stockbridge and Mr. Edgar Allan Poe, Attorney General of the State of Maryland, for defendant in error.

618*618 MR. JUSTICE McREYNOLDS delivered the opinion of the court.

Plaintiff in error was tried before a Justice of the Peace, Prince George's County, Maryland, upon a charge of violating the Motor Vehicle Law. A written motion to quash the warrant because of conflict between the statute and the Constitution of the United States was denied; he was found guilty and fined. Thereupon an appeal was taken to the Circuit Court — the highest in the State having jurisdiction — where the cause stood for trial de novo upon the original papers. It was there submitted for determination by the court upon an agreed statement of facts grievously verbose but in substance as follows:

The cause was originally brought July 27, 1910, before a Justice of the Peace for Prince George's County by the State against John T. Hendrick for violating § 133 of the Motor Vehicle Law effective July 1, 1910. He is and then was a citizen of the United States, resident and commorant 619*619 in the District of Columbia. On that day he left his office in Washington in his own automobile and drove it into Prince George's County and while temporarily there was arrested on the charge of operating it upon the highways without having procured the certificate of registration required by § 133 of the Motor Vehicle Law. He was brought before a Justice of the Peace and fined fifteen dollars after having been found guilty of the charge set out in a warrant duly issued — a motion to quash having been denied. Whereupon he filed his appeal. At the time and place aforesaid he had not procured the certificate of registration for his automobile required by § 133. Upon the foregoing the court shall determine the questions and differences between the parties and render judgment according as their rights in law may appear in the same manner as if the facts aforesaid were proven upon the trial. Either party may appeal.

The Maryland legislature, by an act effective July 1, 1910 (c. 207, Laws 1910, 168, at p. 177), prescribed a comprehensive scheme for licensing and regulating motor vehicles. The following summary sufficiently indicates its provisions:

The Governor shall appoint a commissioner of motor vehicles, with power to designate assistants, who shall secure enforcement of the statute. Before any motor vehicle is operated upon the highways the owner shall make a statement to the commissioner and procure a certificate of registration; thereafter it shall bear a numbered plate. This certificate and plate shall be evidence of authority for operating the machine during the current year (§ 133). Registration fees are fixed according to horse-power — six dollars when 20 or less; twelve dollars when from 20 to 40; and eighteen dollars when in excess of 40 (§ 136). No person shall drive a motor vehicle upon the highway until he has obtained at a cost of two dollars an operator's license, subject to revocation for cause 620*620 (§ 137). Any owner or operator of an automobile, non-resident of Maryland, who has complied with the laws of the State in which he resides requiring the registration of motor vehicles, or licensing of operators thereof, etc., may under specified conditions obtain a distinguishing tag and permission to operate such machine over the highways for not exceeding two periods of seven consecutive days in a calendar year without paying the ordinary fees for registration and operator's license (§ 140a); but residents of the District of Columbia are not included amongst those to whom this privilege is granted (§ 132). Other sections relate to speed, rules of the road, accidents, signals, penalties, arrests, trials, fines, etc. All money collected under the provisions of the Act go to the commissioner, and except so much as is necessary for salaries and expenses must be paid into the state treasury to be used in construction, maintaining, and repairing the streets of Baltimore and roads built or aided by a county or the State itself. Section 140a is copied in the margin.^[1]

621*621 Plaintiff in error maintains that the act is void because — It discriminates against residents of the District of Columbia; attempts to regulate interstate commerce; violates the rights of citizens of the United States to pass into and through the State; exacts a tax for revenue — not mere compensation for the use of facilities — according to arbitrary classifications, and thereby deprives citizens of the United States of the equal protection of the laws.

If the statute is otherwise valid, the alleged discrimination against residents of the District of Columbia is not adequate ground for us now to declare it altogether bad. At most they are entitled to equality of treatment, and in the absence of some definite and authoritative ruling by the courts of the State we will not assume that upon a proper showing this will be denied. The record fails to disclose that Hendrick had complied with the laws in force within the District of Columbia in respect of registering motor vehicles and licensing operators, or that he applied to the Maryland commissioner for an identifying tag or marker — prerequisites to a limited use of the highways without cost by residents of other States under the plain terms of § 140a. He cannot therefore set up a claim of discrimination in this particular. Only those whose rights are directly affected can properly question the constitutionality of a state statute and invoke our jurisdiction in respect thereto. Hatch v. Reardon, 204 U.S. 152, 161; Williams v. Walsh, 222 U.S. 415, 423; Collins v. Texas, 223 U.S. 288, 295, 296; Missouri, 622*622 Kansas & Texas Ry. v. Cade, 233 U.S. 642, 648, and cases cited.

The movement of motor vehicles over the highways is attended by constant and serious dangers to the public, and is also abnormally destructive to the ways themselves. Their success depends on good roads the construction and maintenance of which are exceedingly expensive; and in recent years insistent demands have been made upon the States for better facilities, especially by the ever-increasing number of those who own such vehicles. As is well known, in order to meet this demand and accommodate the growing traffic the State of Maryland has built and is maintaining a system of improved roadways. Primarily for the enforcement of good order and the protection of those within its own jurisdiction the State put into effect the above-described general regulations, including requirements for registration and licenses. A further evident purpose was to secure some compensation for the use of facilities provided at great cost from the class for whose needs they are essential and whose operations over them are peculiarly injurious.

In the absence of national legislation covering the subject a State may rightfully prescribe uniform regulations necessary for public safety and order in respect to the operation upon its highways of all motor vehicles — those moving in interstate commerce as well as others. And to this end it may require the registration of such vehicles and the licensing of their drivers, charging therefor reasonable fees graduated according to the horse-power of the engines — a practical measure of size, speed, and difficulty of control. This is but an exercise of the police power uniformly recognized as belonging to the States and essential to the preservation of the health, safety and comfort of their citizens; and it does not constitute a direct and material burden on interstate commerce. The reasonableness of the State's action is always subject to 623*623 inquiry in so far as it affects interstate commerce, and in that regard it is likewise subordinate to the will of Congress. Barbier v. Connolly, 113 U.S. 27, 30, 31; Smith v. Alabama, 124 U.S. 465, 480; Lawton v. Steele, 152 U.S. 133, 136; N.Y., N.H. & H.R.R. v. New York, 165 U.S. 628, 631; Holden v. Hardy, 169 U.S. 366, 392; Lake Shore & Michigan Southern Railway v. Ohio, 173 U.S. 285, 298; Chicago, B. & Q.R.R. v. McGuire, 219 U.S. 549, 568; Atlantic Coast Line v. Georgia, 234 U.S. 280, 291.

In Smith v. Alabama, supra, consideration was given to the validity of an Alabama statute forbidding any engineer to operate a railroad train without first undergoing an examination touching his fitness and obtaining a license for which a fee was charged. The language of the court, speaking through Mr. Justice Matthews, in reply to the suggestion that the statute unduly burdened interstate commerce and was therefore void, aptly declares the doctrine which is applicable here. He said (p. 480):

"But the provisions on the subject contained in the statute of Alabama under consideration are not regulations of interstate commerce. It is a misnomer to call them such. Considered in themselves, they are parts of that body of the local law which, as we have already seen, properly governs the relation between carriers of passengers and merchandise and the public who employ them, which are not displaced until they come in conflict with express enactments of Congress in the exercise of its power over commerce, and which, until so displaced, according to the evident intention of Congress, remain as the law governing carriers in the discharge of their obligations, whether engaged in the purely internal commerce of the State or in commerce among the States."

The prescribed regulations upon their face do not appear to be either unnecessary or unreasonable.

In view of the many decisions of this court there can be 624*624 no serious doubt that where a State at its own expense furnishes special facilities for the use of those engaged in commerce, interstate as well as domestic, it may exact compensation therefore. The amount of the charges and the method of collection are primarily for determination by the State itself; and so long as they are reasonable and are fixed according to some uniform, fair and practical standard they constitute no burden on interstate commerce. Transportation Co. v. Parkersburg, 107 U.S. 691, 699; Huse v. Glover, 119 U.S. 543, 548, 549; Monongahela Navigation Co. v. United States, 148 U.S. 312, 329, 330; Minnesota Rate Cases, 230 U.S. 352, 405; and authorities cited. The action of the State must be treated as correct unless the contrary is made to appear. In the instant case there is no evidence concerning the value of the facilities supplied by the State, the cost of maintaining them, or the fairness of the methods adopted for collecting the charges imposed; and we cannot say from a mere inspection of the statute that its provisions are arbitrary or unreasonable.

There is no solid foundation for the claim that the statute directly interferes with the rights of citizens of the United States to pass through the State, and is consequently bad according to the doctrine announced in Crandall v. Nevada, 6 Wall. 35. In that case a direct tax was laid upon the passenger for the privilege of leaving the State; while here the statute at most attempts to regulate the operation of dangerous machines on the highways and to charge for the use of valuable facilities.

As the capacity of the machine owned by plaintiff in error does not appear, he cannot complain of discrimination because fees are imposed according to engine power. Distinctions amongst motor machines and between them and other vehicles may be proper — essential indeed — and those now challenged are not obviously arbitrary or oppressive. The statute is not a mere revenue measure 625*625 and a discussion of the classifications permissible under such an act would not be pertinent.

There is no error in the judgment complained of and it is accordingly

Affirmed.

[1] "140a. Any owner or operator not a resident of this State who shall have complied with the laws of the State in which he resides, requiring the registration of motor vehicles or licensing of operators thereof and the display of identification or registration numbers on such vehicles, and who shall cause the identification numbers of such State, in accordance with the laws thereof, and none other, together with the initial letter of said State, to be displayed on his motor vehicle, as in this subtitle provided, while used or operated upon the public highways of this State, may use such highways not exceeding two periods of seven consecutive days in each calendar year, without complying with the provisions of Sections 133 and 137 of this subtitle; if he obtains from the Commissioner of Motor Vehicles and displays on the rear of such vehicle a tag or marker which the said Commissioner of Motor Vehicles shall issue in such form and contain such distinguishing marks as he may deem best; provided, that if any non-resident be convicted of violating any provisions of Sections 140b, 140c, 140d, 140e and 140l of this subtitle, he shall thereafter be subject to and required to comply with all the provisions of said Sections 133 and 137 relating to the registration of motor vehicles and the licensing of operators thereof; and the Governor of this State is hereby authorized and empowered to confer and advise with the proper officers and legislative bodies of other States of the Union and enter into reciprocal agreements under which the registration of motor vehicles owned by residents of this State will be recognized by such other States, and he is further authorized and empowered, from time to time, to grant to residents of other States the privilege of using the roads of this State as in this section provided in return for similar privileges granted residents of this State by such other States."

Call me at: 720-675-7230

On Skype: legalbear

Best times to call: 8:30 am to 9:00 pm MST

Join my Yahoo Group Tips & Tricks for Court by sending an email to:

tips_and_tricks-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

My blog: legalbearsblog.com

Tax sites: IRSTerminator.com IRSLienThumper.com IRSLevyThumper.com

(formatted like this so this email doesn't end up in your spam folder)

#18758

From: enilak666@...
Date: Sat Mar 3, 2012 8:07 am
Subject: Re: Re: Documents showing the FBIs anti-American stance

enilak666

What "things" have changed since that time? Have the laws that protect the unalienable Right to use the public highways changed, or have the state(s) continued to willfully ignore those Rights? I believe the issue yet remains unresolved regarding what is a right and what is a privilege, with all it's regulations and fees, fines, etc. It all seems to be a matter of view point, with the courts having an agenda to not reveal the complete truth to an ignorant public.

--- On Wed, 2/29/12, randyconn <yahoo@...> wrote:

From: randyconn <yahoo@...>
Subject: [tips_and_tricks] Re: Documents showing the FBIs anti-American stance
To: tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com
Date: Wednesday, February 29, 2012, 6:23 AM

Things have changed since 1985 when Arizona state senator Wayne Stump wrote a letter to all the Arizona law enforcement about people without driver's licenses and goverment contracts traveling freely.

http://www.cyberclass.net/stumpletters.htm

--- In tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com, Coalbunny <coalbunny@...> wrote:
>
> Here is the pamphlet. I have to ask which side Sheriff Joe Arpaio is
> really on.
> carl
>

#18759

From: "Frog Farmer" <frogfrmr@...>
Date: Sun Mar 4, 2012 9:41 am
Subject: RE: Re: Documents showing the FBIs anti-American stance

originalfrog...

> What "things" have changed since that time?

The consciousness of the people has changed.  Their willingness to waive
rights for privileges has never been higher.

> Have the laws that protect
> the unalienable Right to use the public highways changed, or have the
> state(s) continued to willfully ignore those Rights?

Since winning the drivers license, registration and insurance issues
three times three different ways in California, I can only conclude that
the people (at least the ones I personally know) cannot be bothered to
know law or about rights and other involved issues that take more than
15 minutes of thought.  The last time I won, the judge read a short list
of reasons why I won to the filled courtroom, and then the next guy who
was charged with the exact same charges as I was, and standing directly
in line behind me, proceeded to plead guilty and accept punishment.
Apparently he had been day-dreaming during the preceding twenty minutes.
That was the last time I ever had to deal with the issues, in 1985.

There have been a few key facts revealed here on this list that go
routinely ignored by most, because voluntary slavery is very
comfortable, until it isn't anymore. One is the true status of what
people call, without knowing which ones they are, "the legal tender
laws".  It is very important to know Thomas Jefferson's (as an example
of a free man from that period) definition of "dollar" that is
permanently enshrined in the law.  Then if one thinks that is a wrong
definition, one should offer the new one and the date they believe it
came into existence.  Anyone here care to give it a shot?!

(Oops! That could be interpreted as a Socratic question, so let me
provide my answer: Barry might deign it worth his time because it is his
list.)  I personally get tired repeating myself.

On another note, the last two days have provided me with two
confrontations with city police wherein I was asked for identification.
The encounters ended without me showing any "ID" (I know what the Q in
IQ stands for...what does the D in ID stand for??) but both parties were
invited to drop any official persona and act as friends in the
neighborhood.  This invitation was accepted and they got my nickname
that friends call me, and they never said they wanted any more.  I
educated them, and let them know that I would never use the violations I
showed them they were already guilty of in connection with these two
meetings we had (a freebie??).  Because I did not want to waste time, I
dismissed them after proving that they were not ready for trouble and
that nobody wanted any anyway, right?

The technical brick was California Penal Code 810 among a few others.

Imagine when asked for ID, and if you are in a hurry, you reply with (in
a strange alien sounding voice) "take me to your leader".  Failure to
provide identification documents coupled with a demand for an
"immediate" trip to the magistrate, versus a trip that contains
"necessary delay" (such as with a rights waiving subject compliant one)
would bring into question WHO gets to feel your disqualification wrath
next, according to PC810 provisions.  Today my contestant for
credibility explained that no magistrate is on duty on Saturday.  I told
him how finding malfeasance and misfeasance was not as challenging as it
once had been and that he probably would not want to cause trouble by
having me require the law be followed in every jot and tittle!

So, instead, we all decide to have a nice day, right?  Right.  OR we are
off and having fun in a new charade designed to keep locals apparently
employed.  This is the subject for discussion I would raise with the
first person I failed to disqualify (so far, nobody has qualified,
boo-hoo-hoo!):  Would you like this to cost the system the most or the
least?  I can modify my reactions in the interests of the common good,
but current events have me in a quandary.  Only a few years ago when I
was being trained to manage a few million dollars of what I refer to as
"mind money", there were only "3 trillion dollars" in the world's credit
system.  Today, the number grows by billions with each breath.  Last
biggest number I heard was in the hundreds of trillions.  I cannot find
a volunteer Certified Public Accountant who wants to go on record
auditing and preparing tax returns for the monetary instruments that I
present to him for that purpose, which I received in trade or in return
for my time, etc.  None has yet known of the Kahre case!!!  So, are we
after a big bottom line on this case, or the smallest possible?  I will
try to please!  Are we laying them off or making busy work for them??
How many can we cram into this bus??

> I believe the
> issue yet remains unresolved regarding what is a right and what is a
> privilege, with all it's regulations and fees, fines, etc. It all
> seems to be a matter of view point, with the courts having an agenda
> to not reveal the complete truth to an ignorant public.

It's a matter of admissions and confessions made by the proud arrogant
ignorant willing subjects who waive the right in return for the
privilege.  It's because of lies they believe and even defend!  They do
it out of ignorance, laziness, stupidity, fear, cowardice, greed, lack
of morals, convenience and expedience.  I never look to the court to
instruct me, even though it might do so.  I look to instruct the court!
(If I'm in a charitable mood - as my time here runs out I'm getting
really cranky!)

Regards,

FF

#18760

From: "Mike" <mikeo11136@...>
Date: Sun Mar 4, 2012 5:55 pm
Subject: IRS Levy

mikeo11136

How do I stop the IRS levy on my pension and social security without giving up
my rights or property? I have requested proof of authority but get no response.

#18761

From: lg900df@...
Date: Tue Mar 6, 2012 3:06 am
Subject: Re: IRS Levy

dave.wissel

Re: How do I stop IRS Levy on pension/SS?
Answer: Short answer for immediate remedy is to try some of LEGAL BEAR"S package.

Or use in combination with some other aspects as discussed below.

Let's focus on some principles some of which you know:

Fact: The government of the US is a thief, liar and deceiver. How are you ASSURED of this? Well...firstly its their actions and.... if you take the time to research....Its own organic laws of the USA expose the territorial limitations of its laws and show ALL of its origin in power and authority as linked to that territory. [reference to learn a lot: www.edrivera.com]
Observation: What acknowledgement from that government will you receive back for what could be a valid argument you make? Answer: At best silence...maybe your money forwarded to you.
Observation: What is the worst fear of a thief, liar, or deceiver? Answer: EXPOSURE! NEVER OVERLOOK THIS! That same government does NOT like being EXPOSED at being a thief, liar and deceiver. [So you can continually certified-mail pummel various parties complaining the govt. of the US is "DECLARING WAR ON YOU" by taking your food, shelter, pursuit of happiness, ability to pay medical, etc.}. Such parties are the Senate IRS Oversight committee, Congress-slime, President, Dept of Treasury, etc.the Taxpayer Advocate [saying you aren't a taxpayer but the IRS is stealing from you as if you were}, etc. Hint: By using very strong words you WILL get their attention for they have MANDATES to circumvent certain situations. By using words swiped DIRECTLY and by reference to the 1st law of the USA, the Declaration of Independence and by proclaiming yourself non-violent, you won't get yourself in trouble. [Suggest you take a highlighter to that document and NOTE any similarity to your situation.] Your goal is to RAISE your DOOR to the SQUEAKY ONE that in the eyes of management is this decision: Is it worth it for us to continually steal from this man, or are his complaints getting so hard to ignore that we should just let him go?
Fact: It is very difficult to prevent a determined thief from stealing or being a liar or deceiver.
Observation: Which is more valuable to you....having the chances to tell government employees the truth or having all the money--that they now steal from another--to potentially give to you?
Observation: Keep this in mind for it appears to be working in part. Part of what the IRS does is simply: (1) 'to get your attention...and (2).to bring you back in compliance and keep you there." Those are THEIR words FYI.

#18762

From: Larry Barron <knot_disclosed@...>
Date: Wed Mar 7, 2012 2:59 am
Subject: Re: IRS Levy

knot_disclosed

Hi,

I am on SSI and SSDI (I am Disabled) and I was wondering, If I DO go ahead and become sovereign, can I still receive my SSI and my SSDI? As they are my ONLY source of income and I CANNOT lose my medicare and medicaid because I NEED the medications that they provide! ( I have both a physical AND a mental disorder, I am Bi-Polar and have a VERY bad back due to a car wreck). And is there ANY way to get these blasted student loan people off my back? they KEEP sending me stuff that says that I must pay them back but that I am under the income limit of the poor so they will defer it for X number of months due to my disability and income... I am PERMANENTLY disabled (as in for life, not just for the next few months). I could SORELY use some advise and help.

Many thanks
Larry Barron

When we speak we are afraid our words will not be heard or welcomed. But when we are silent, we are still afraid. So it is better to speak, remembering that we were never meant to survive.
--Audre Lorde

Medicine did this to me!
Whats your excuse?

#18763

From: E Junker <westernwit@...>
Date: Wed Mar 7, 2012 6:39 pm
Subject: Re: IRS Levy

westernwit

1) "Like fire, government is a dangerous servant and a cruel master." -- Pres. George Washington

Accepting SSI and SSDI makes you a definition of a dependent, that is NOT sovereign.

2) Make a standard letter to the Student Loan folks listing your circumstance, ie disabled and such. Attach a statement from your physician attesting to the facts.

Set the letter up so that all you need change is the date for submitting it to whom it may concern. Make lots of good copies of the Physicians Statement for attaching to the standard letter. (Always save the original to make copies from...)

Each time you get a demand from these blasted student loan people, change the date on the standard letter, staple a copy of the Phys. Statement and pop it in the mail.

3) Stop making deals with the US Government.

From: Larry Barron <knot_disclosed@...>
To: "tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com" <tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, March 6, 2012 7:59 PM
Subject: Re: [tips_and_tricks] IRS Levy

Hi,

Medicine did this to me!
Whats your excuse?

#18764

From: Coalbunny <coalbunny@...>
Date: Wed Mar 7, 2012 6:58 pm
Subject: Re: IRS Levy

html5lover

Larry you have to fill out a form to have the student loans forgiven based on permanent disability. Along with that form you need a medical doctor to diagnose you are permanently disabled. The process can take a couple months to complete, and then anywhere from 2-5 years as the trial period in which you are not billed. At the end of the trial period they will decide if you are too disabled to work or not.
Hope that helps,
Carl

On 3/6/2012 7:59 PM, Larry Barron wrote:

Hi,

I am on SSI and SSDI (I am Disabled) and I was wondering, If I DO go ahead and become sovereign, can I still receive my SSI and my SSDI? As they are my ONLY source of income and I CANNOT lose my medicare and medicaid because I NEED the medications that they provide! ( I have both a physical AND a mental disorder, I am Bi-Polar and have a VERY bad back due to a car wreck). And is there ANY way to get these blasted student loan people off my back? they KEEP sending me stuff that says that I must pay them back but that I am under the income limit of the poor so they will defer it for X number of months due to my disability and income... I am PERMANENTLY disabled (as in for life, not just for the next few months). I could SORELY use some advise and help.

Many thanks
Larry Barron

When we speak we are afraid our words will not be heard or welcomed. But when we are silent, we are still afraid. So it is better to speak, remembering that we were never meant to survive.
--Audre Lorde

Medicine did this to me!
Whats your excuse?

#18765

From: lg900df@...
Date: Wed Mar 7, 2012 7:56 pm
Subject: Re: IRS Levy

dave.wissel

Re: Become sovereign and SSI and SSDI

Answer: No need to become what you already are--just simply declare your independence and cite the 1st law of the USA as authority. Oh...you don't know what the first law of the USA is? Well....google "Organic Laws of the USA" and find the House of Representatives website and start reading. FYI: Loose the term sovereign please....its been trashed by those in the movement who proclaim "sovereign citizen"...an OXYMORON...for ALL citizenship entails ALLEGIANCE and if you have alligience, then obviously you aren't sovereign.

Re: Any way to get rid of Student loan people.
Answer: Yes....stop talking to them on the phone. Get a PO BOX or UPS Store Mailbox, jerk your mailbox out of the ground, refuse all that type of mail. Don't place a forwarder at the PO. Anything you get in the mail that is garbage,cross out your address, mark "No such Addressee/Return To sender" and drop back in a mailbox--hopefully in the town just over from your town. Now NOTICE CAREFULLY....all debt collectors fall under federal law when they send you stuff marked: "This is from a debt collector". A debt collector to invoke the jurisdiction in federal law must either find you where you signed the original contract or where you reside. Here is a clue: Only YOU yes YOU can claim a residence. So....if YOU don't claim a residence and offer no strong evidence thereof, you make it very difficult for them to PLACE you there. They simply don't have that power.

#18766

From: "Legalbear" <bear@...>
Date: Thu Mar 8, 2012 12:14 am
Subject: Amazing video about Tenn. locals opposing tyranny w/ arms!

legalbear7

If they can do it, why not us? Only this time with arms that
come from creative use of the law. Very inspirational:

http://voxvocispublicus.homestead.com/Battle-of-Athens.html

Call me at: 720-675-7230
On Skype: legalbear
Best times to call: 8:30 am to 9:00 pm MST
Join my Yahoo Group Tips & Tricks for Court by sending an
email to:
tips_and_tricks-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
My blog: legalbearsblog.com
Tax sites: IRSTerminator.com IRSLienThumper.com
IRSLevyThumper.com
(formatted like this so this email doesn't end up in your
spam folder)