Over time we have collected a lot of reference material.
We figured it would be better to share with all rather than just delete it.
If you want it, keep it, otherwise just delete it. 
Due to the volume it will take more than one mailing.

Cases Constitutional Law 

Your Constitution is an Iron Clad Contract, enforceable in a Court of Law

U.S. Constitution, Article Six, Clause 2:
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
(The Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution)

U.S. Constitution, BM of Rights, Article One:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

U.S. Constitution, BM of Rights, Article Two:
A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.

U.S. Constitution, BM of Rights, Article Four:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated; and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.

U.S. Constitution, BM of Rights, Article Five:
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous, crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service, in time of War, or public danger; nor shall any person be subject, for the same offense, to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled, in any criminal case, to be a witness against himself; nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

U.S. Constitution, BM of Rights, Article Six:
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law; and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor; and to have the assistance of Counsel for his defense.

U.S. Constitution, BM of Rights, Article Seven:
In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved; and no fact, tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States than according to the rules of the common law.

U.S. Constitution, BM of Rights, Article Eight:
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishment inflicted.

U.S. Constitution, BM of Rights, Article Nine:
The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

U.S. Constitution, BM of Rights, Article Ten:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Laches:
"Doctrine of laches," is based upon maxim that equity aids the vigilant and not those who slumber on their rights.
"neglect or omission to do what one should do as warrants presumption that one has abandoned right or claim", Eldridge v. Idaho State Penitentiary, 54 Idaho 213, 30 P.2d 781, 784.
"A failure to do something which should be done or to claim or enforce a right at a proper time", Hutchinson v. Kenney, C.C.A.N.C., 27 F.2d 254, 256.

Marbury v. Madison : 5 US 137 (1803):
"No provision of the Constitution is designed to be without effect," "Anything that is in conflict is null and void of law", "Clearly, for a secondary law to come in conflict with the supreme Law was illogical, for certainly, the supreme Law would prevail over all other laws and certainly our forefathers had intended that the supreme Law would be the bases of all law and for any law to come in conflict would be null and void of law, it would bare no power to enforce, in would bare no obligation to obey, it would purport to settle as if it had never existed, for unconstitutionality would date from the enactment of such a law, not from the date so branded in an open court of law, no courts are bound to uphold it, and no Citizens are bound to obey it. It operates as a near nullity or a fiction of law."
If any statement, within any law, which is passed, is unconstitutional, the whole law is unconstitutional by Marbury v. Madison.

Shephard's Citations:
A group of reporters that go through and keep track of all court cases that have come before the courts, especially the Supreme Court and they clarify, before the court, all the cases. All cases which have cited Marbury v. Madison case, to the Supreme Court has not ever been over turned. See Shephard's Citation of Marbury v. Madison.

Title 5, US Code Sec. 556(d), Sec. 557, Sec.706:
Courts lose jurisdiction if they do not follow Due Process Law.

Title 18, US Code Sec.2381:
In the presents of two or more witnesses of the same overt act, or in a open court of law, if you fail to timely move to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States and honor your oath of office, you are subject to the charge of capital felony treason.

American Jurisprudence Book 16: Constitution Law Section  16Am Jur 2d:

16Am Jur 2d., Sec. 97:
"Then a constitution should receive a literal interpretation in favor of the Citizen, is especially true, with respect to those provisions which were designed to safeguard the liberty and security of the Citizen in regard to person and property." Bary v. United States - 273 US 128
"Any constitutional provision intended to confer a benefit should be liberally construed in favor in the clearly intended and expressly designated beneficiary"
(You are the Beneficiary of the US Constitution)

16Am Jur 2d., Sec. 98:
"While an emergency can not create power and no emergency justifies the violation of any of the provisions of the United States Constitution or States Constitutions. Public emergency such as economic depression for especially liberal construction of constitutional powers and it has been declared that because of national emergency, it is the policy of the courts of times of national peril, so liberally to construed the special powers vested in the chief executive as to sustain an effectuate the purpose there of, and to that end also more liberally to construed the constituted division and classification of the powers of the coordinate branches of the government and in so far as may not be clearly inconsistent with the constitution."
(No emergency has just cause to suppress the constitution.)

16Am Jur 2d., Sec. 114:
"As to the construction, with reference to Common Law, an important cannon of construction is that constitutions must be construed to reference to the Common Law." "The Common Law, so permitted destruction of the abatement of nuisances by summary proceedings and is was never supposed that a constitutional provision was intended to interfere with this established principle and although there is no common law of the United States in a since of a national customary law as distinguished from the common law of England, adopted in the several states. In interpreting the Federal Constitution, recourse may still be had to the aid of the Common Law of England. It has been said that without reference to the common law, the language of the Federal Constitution could not be understood."

16Am Jur 2d., Sec. 117:
"Various facts of circumstances extrinsic to the constitution are often resorted to, by the courts, to aid them and determining its meaning, as previously noted however, such extrinsic aids may not be resorted to where the provision in the question is clear and unambiguous in such a case the courts must apply the terms of the constitution as written and they are not at liberty to search for meanings beyond the instrument."

16Am Jur 2d., Sec. 155:
"Since the constitution is intendant for the observance of the judiciary as well as other departments of  government and the judges are sworn to support its provisions, the courts are not at liberty to overlook or disregard its commands or counteract evasions thereof, it is their duty in authorized proceedings to give full effect to the existing constitution and to obey all constitutional provisions irrespective of their opinion as to the wisdom or the desirability of such provisions and irrespective of the consequences, thus it is said that the courts should be in our alert to enforce the provisions of the United States Constitution and guard against their infringement by legislative fiat or otherwise in accordance with these basic principles, the rule is fixed that the duty in the proper case to declare a law unconstitutional cannot be declined and must be performed in accordance with the delivered judgment of the tribunal before which the validity of the enactment it is directly drawn into question. If the Constitution prescribes one rule and the statute the another in a different rule, it is the duty of the courts to declare that the  Constitution and not the statute governs in cases before them for judgment.

16Am Jur 2d., Sec. 177:
"Declaratory judgments actions have often been utilized to test the constitutionality of a statute in government practices. The Uniform Declaratory Judgment Act makes pacific provisions of the determination of construction or validity of statutes and municipal ordinance by declaratory judgment and is considered to furnish a particularly appropriate method for the determination of controversies relative to the construction and validity of the statute and of ordinances. The Federal Declaratory Judgment Act, although it does not mention declarations as to the construction or validity of the statutes, has been invoked frequently as a means of a saying of the constitutionality of Congressional Legislation. A plaintiff can have a declaratory judgment action on the  constitutionality of either the Federal or State statute by a single Federal Judge so long as he does not ask to have  the operation of the statute enjoined. A court may grant declaratory relief, unless there is a case of controversy  before the court."
"No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law"
(Demand a Declaratory Judgment)

16Am Jur 2d., Sec. 255:
"In all instances, where the court exercise it's power to invalidate legislation on constitutional grounds, the conflict of the statute, with the constitution must be irreconcilable. Thus a statute is not to be declared unconstitutional unless so inconsistent with the constitution that it cannot be enforced without a violation thereof. A clear incompatibility between law and the constitution must exist before the judiciary is justified holding the law unconstitutional. This principle is of course in line with the rule that doubts as the constitutionality should be  resolved in favor of the constitutionality and the beneficiary."

16Am Jur 2d., Sec. 256:
"The general rule is that a unconstitutional statute, whether Federal or State, though having the form and  name of law as in reality no law, but is wholly void and ineffective for any purpose since unconstitutionality dates  from the enactment and not merrily from the date of the decision so braining it. An unconstitutional law in legal  contemplation is as inoperative as if it never had been passed. Such a statute lives a question that is purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not ever been enacted. No repeal of an enactment is necessary, since an  unconstitutional law is void. The general principles follows that it imposes no duty, converse no rights, creates no  office, bestows no power of authority on anyone, affords no protection and justifies no acts performed under it. A contract which rests on a unconstitutional statute creates no obligation to be impaired by subsequent legislation. No  one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law. No courts are bound to enforce it. Persons convicted and fined under  a statute subsequently held unconstitutional may recover the fines paid. A void act cannot be legally inconsistent  with a valid one and an unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede an existing valid law. Indeed, in so far as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby. Since an unconstitutional statute cannot repeal, or in anyway effect an existing one, if a repealing statute is unconstitutional, the statute which it attempts to repeal, remains in full force and effect and where a statute in which it attempts to repeal remains in full force and effect and where a clause repealing a prior law is inserted in the act, which act is unconstitutional and void, the provision of the repeal of the prior law will usually fall with it and will not be permitted to operate as repealing such prior law. The general principle stated above applied to the constitution as well as the laws of the  several states insofar as they are repugnant to the constitution and laws of the United States."

16Am Jur 2d., Sec. 257:
"The actual existence of a statute prior to determination, that it is unconstitutional is an operative fact and may have consequences which can not justify being ignored, when a statute which has been in effect for some time is declared unconstitutional, questions of rights claimed to have become vested of status of prior determinations deemed to have finality an acted upon accordingly and of public policy in the light of the nature, both of the statute and of it's previous application demand examination. It has been said that in all inclusive statement of the principle of absolute retroactive inviolability cannot be justified. An unconstitutional statute is not necessarily a nullity it may have indeterminate consequences binding on the people."

16Am Jur 2d., Sec. 258:
"On the other hand it is clear that Congress cannot by authorization or ratification give the slightest effect  to a state law or constitution which is in conflict with the Constitution of the United States."

16Am Jur 2d., Sec. 260:
"Although it is manifested that an unconstitutional provision in the statute is not cured because included in  the same act with valid provisions and that there is no degrees of constitutionality."

Mudook v. Penn. 319 US 105:(1943)
"A state may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the Federal Constitution and that a flat license tax here involves restraints in advance the constitutional liberties of Press and Religion and inevitably tends to suppress their existence. That the ordinance is non-discriminatory and that is applies also to peddlers of wares and merchandise is immaterial. The liberties granted by the first amendment are and in a preferred position. Since the privilege in question is guaranteed by the Federal Constitution and exist independently of the states authority , the inquiry as to whether the state has given something for which it cannot ask a return, is irrelevant. No  state may convert any secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it"

Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham AL 373 US 262:(1962)
"If the state does convert your right into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it, you can ignore the  license and a fee and engage the right with impunity."

United States v. Bishop 412 US 346:
Sets the standard for criminal violation of Willful Intent
It must be proven that you are the party.
It must be proven that you had the method or opportunity to do the thing.
It must be proven that you did this with a Willful Intent.
Willfulness - "An evil motive or intent to avoid a know duty or task under a law, with a moral certainty."
"Now since the prosecutor does not have a cause of action for which relief can be granted, your Honor, may it please the court, Counsel is specifically precluded performing his major task, therefore, your Honor, may it please the court, at this time, I would Motion most graciously for a dismissal of Prejudice, for failure to state a cause of action for which relief may be granted by this Honorable Court and I would like to collect my cost and fees for having to defend this frivolous complaint, Sir, may it please the court."

Owen v. Independence 100 Vol. Supreme Court Reports. 1398:(1982)
Main v. Thiboutot 100 VoL Supreme Court Reports. 2502:(1982)
"The right of action created by statute relating to deprivation under color of law, of a right secured by the constitution and the laws of the United States and comes claims which are based solely on statutory violations of Federal Law and applied to the claim that claimants had been deprived of their rights, in some capacity, to which they were entitled."
"Officers of the court have no immunity when violating constitutional right, from liability" (When any public servant violates your rights they do so at their own peril.)

Title 18 US Code Sec. 241 & Sec. 242:
"If upon conviction, you are subject to a $10,000.00 fine, ten years in jail, or both, and if theft results, life in prison."

Title 42 US Code Sec. 1983, Sec. 1985, & Sec. 1986:
Clearly established the right to sue anyone who violates your constitutional rights. The Constitution guarantees: he who would unlawfully jeopardize your property loses property to you, and that's what justice is all about.
"Judge, you are deemed to know the law and are sworn to uphold it. You can hardly claim that you acted in good faith for willful deformation of a law and you certainly cannot pled ignorance of the law, for that would make the law look stupid for a knowledgeable judge to claim ignorance of a law, when a Citizen on the street cannot claim ignorance of the law. Therefore, there is no judicial immunity."

Bryars v. United States 273USR 28:
"Constitutional provisions, where the security of a person and property are to be liberally construed, and it is the duty of the courts to be watchful for the constitutional rights of the Citizen and against any stealth  encroachment therein. When a Federal Officer participates officially with a state official in a search, so that in substance and effect, it is their joint operation, the legality of the search and the use in evidence of the things seized is to be tested in Federal prosecutions as it would be if the undertaking were conclusively the Federal agent."

Boyd v. United States 116 USR 616:
"The Court is to protect against encroachment of constitutionality or secured liberty. It is equivalent to a compulsory production of papers, to make the non - production of them a confession of the allegations which is pretended they will prove. The seizure of compensatory production of a man's private papers to be used in evidence against him is equivalent to compelling him to be a witness against himself, violation of the fifth amendment, and in a prosecution for a crime, penalty or forfeiture is equally within the prohibition of the fifth amendment."

Miranda v. Arizona 384 US 436:
Where the Miranda warning the police gives at arrest, comes from. Refuse to say anything without a lawyer present. Do not ever sign a statement that you have been told of your rights. Keep your mouth shut!
"In the absence of other effective measures, the following procedures to safeguard the fifth amendment privileges must be observed. The person in custody must prior to interrogation be clearly informed that he has a right to remain silent and that anything he says will be used against him in a court of law. He must be clearly informed that he has a right to consult with a lawyer, to have a lawyer with him during interrogation and that if he is indigent, a lawyer will be appointed to represent him. If the individual indicates prior to and during questioning that he wishes to remain silent, the interrogation must cease. If he states that he wants an attorney, the questioning must cease until an attorney is present. Where an interrogation is conducted without the presence of an attorney and a statement is taken, a heavy burden rests on the government to demonstrate that the defendant knowingly and intelligently waived his constitutional consul right. Where the individual answers some questions during interrogation or cuts the interrogation, he has not waived his privilege and may invoke his right to remain silent thereafter. The warnings require that the waver needed our, in the absence of a fully effective equivalent perquisites to the admission or admissibility of any statement, inculpability or exculpability made by the defendant. The limitations on the interrogation presses required for the protection of the individual's constitutional rights should not cause an undue interference the proper system of law enforcement as demonstrated by the procedures of the FBI and the safeguards afforded to other jurisdictions. In each of these cases the statements were obtained under circumstances that did not meet constitutional standards for protection of the privilege against self incrimination." "Where rights secured by the constitution are involved, there can be no rule or law making or legislation which  would abrogate or abolish them."

Norton v. Shelby County 118 USR 425:
"An unconstitutional act is not law. It confers no rights, it imposes no duties, it affords no protections, it  creates no office. It is in legal contemplation as inoperative as though it has never been passed."
"The court follows the decision of the highest court of the state, in construing the constitution and the laws of the state unless they conflict with or impair the efficacy of some principle of the Federal Constitution or of the Federal Statutes or rule of the commercial or general law. The decision of the state court's in questions relating to the existence of its subordinate tribunals and eligibility in elections or appointment of their officers and the passage of its laws are conclusive upon Federal Courts. While acts of de facto incumbent of an office lawfully created by law. An existing or often held to be binding from reasons of public policy. The acts of the person assuming to fill  and perform the duties of an office, which does not exist, can have no validity whatever in law."

U.S. (vs) Dougherty 473 F2d 1113 at 1139
States: "The jury has an unreviewable and unreversible power...to acquit in disregard of the instructions on the law given by the trial judge..."

U.S. (vs) Moylan 417 F2d 1002 at 1006
States: "We recognize, as appellents urge, the undisputed power of the jury to acquit, even if its verdict is contrary to the law as given by the judge."

TEXAS CONSTITUTION Article 1 Section 19 states : No citizen of this State shall be deprived of life, liberty, property, privileges or immunities, or in any manner disfranchised, except by the due course of the law of the land.

Texas State Law on Larceny & Extortion Section 31.01 (a) : Creating or confirming by words or conduct, a false impression of law or fact that is likely to affect the judgment of another, in the transaction.

Cases   State Created Office Of  Person
Exhibit A
OFFICE OF THE PERSON
The official state office known as "person"
The word "person" in legal terminology is perceived as a general word, which normally includes in its scope a variety of entities other than human beings. See e.g. 1 U.S.C. sec. 1. Church of Scientology v U.S. Dept. of Justice (1979) 612 F. 2d 417, 425.

One of the very first of state statutes will have a section listed entitled "Definitions". Carefully study this section of the statutes and you will find a portion that reads similar to this excerpt: In construing these statutes and each and every word, phrase, or part hereof, where the context will permit;
1. The singular includes the plural and vice versa.
2. Gender-specific language includes the other gender and neuter.
3. The word "person" includes individuals, children, firms, association, joint adventures, partnerships, estates, trusts, business trusts, syndicates, fiduciaries, corporations, and all other groups or combinations.

Note: However, the definitions do not list man or woman – therefore, they are excluded from all the statutes!!!

Under the rule of construction "expression unius est exclusion alterius," where a statute or constitution enumerates the things on which it is to operate or forbids certain things, it is ordinarily to be construed as excluding from its operation all those not expressly mentioned.

Generally words in a statute should be given their plain and ordinary meaning. When a statute does not specifically define words, such words should be construed in their common or ordinary sense to the effect that the rules used in construing statutes are also applicable in the construction of the Constitution. It is a fundamental rule of statutory construction that words of common usage when used in a statute should be constructed in their plain and ordinary sense.

If you carefully read the statute laws enacted by your state legislature you will fmd that they are all written with phrases similar to these examples:
1. A person commits the offense of failure to carry a license if the person . . . .
2. A person commits the offense of failure to register a vehicle if the person . . . .
3. A person commits the offense of driving uninsured if the person . . . .
4. A person commits the offense of fishing if the person . . . .
5. A person commits the offense of breathing if the person . . . .

Notice that only "persons" can commit these state legislature-created crimes. A crime is by definition an offense committed against the "state". If you commit an offense against a human, it is called a tort. Examples of torts would be any personal injury, slander, or defamation of character.

So how does someone become a "person" and subject to regulation by state statutes and laws? There is only one way. You must ask the state for permission to volunteer to become a state person. You must volunteer because the U.S. Constitution forbids the state from compelling you into slavery. This is found in the 13th and 14th Amendments.

13th Amendment: Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for a crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the UNITED States or any place subject to their jurisdiction, found in section one.

14th Amendment, Section 1: 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; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law, nor deny any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

You become a state-created statutory "person" by taking up residency with the state and stepping into the office of "person". You must hold an "office" within the state government in order for that state government to regulate and control you. First comes the legislatively-created office, then comes their control. If you do not have an office in state government, the legislature's control over you would also be prohibited by the Declaration of Rights section, usually found to be either Section I or II of the State Constitution.

The most common office held in a state is therefore the office known as "person". Your state legislature created this office as a way to control people. It is an office most people occupy without even knowing that they are doing so.

The legislature cannot lawfully control you because you are a flesh and blood human being. God alone created you and by "Right of Creation", He alone can control you. It is the nature of law that what one creates, one controls. This natural law is the force that binds a creature to its creator. The way the state gets around God's law and thereby controls the people is by creating only an office, and not a real human. This office is titled as "person" and then the legislature claims that you are filling that office. Legislators erroneously now think that they can make laws that also control men. They create entire bodies of laws, motor vehicle code, building code, compulsory education laws, and so on ad nauseum. They still cannot control men or women, but they can now control the office they created. And look who is sitting in that office ... Person(s).

Then they create government departments to administer regulations to these offices. Within these administrative departments of state government are hundreds of other state-created offices. There is everything from the office of janitor to the office of governor. But these administrative departments cannot function properly unless they have subjects to regulate. The legislature obtains these subjects by creating an office that nobody even realizes to be an official state office.

They have created the office of "person".

The state creates many other offices such as police officer, prosecutor, judge, etc. and everyone understands this concept. However, what most people fail to recognize and understand is the most common state office of all, the office of "person". Anyone filling one of these state offices is subject to regulation by their creator, the state legislature. Through the state-created office of "person", the state gains its authority to regulate, control and judge you, the real human. What they have done is apply the natural law principle, "What one creates, one controls."

A look in Webster's dictionary reveals the origin of the word "person." It literally means, "the mask an actor wears."

The legislature creates the office of "person" which is a mask. They cannot create real people; only God can do that. But they can create the "office" of "person", which is merely a mask, and then they persuade a flesh and blood human being to put on that mask by offering a fictitious privilege, such as a driver license. Now the legislature has gained complete control over both the mask and the actor behind the mask..

A resident is another state office holder. All state residents hold an office in the state government. But not everyone who is a resident also holds the office of "person".
• Some residents hold the office of judge and they are not person(s).
• Some residents hold the office of prosecutor and they are not person(s).
• Some residents hold the office of police officer and they are not person(s). Some residents hold the office of legislator and they are not person(s).
• Some residents are administrators and bureaucrats and they are not person(s). Some residents are attorney(s) and they are not person(s).

An attorney is a state officer of the court and is firmly part of the judicial branch. The attorney will tell you that they are "licensed" to practice law by the state Supreme Court. Therefore, it is unlawful for any attorney to hold any position or office outside of the judicial branch. There can be no attorney legislators, no attorney mayors, no attorneys as police, and no attorneys as governor. Yes, I know it happens all the time; however, this practice of multiple office-holding by attorneys is prohibited by the Constitution and is a felony in most states. If you read farther into your state constitution you will find a clause stating this — the "Separation of Powers" — which will essentially read as follows:

Branches of government — The powers of the state government shall be divided into legislative executive and judicial branches. No person belonging to one branch shall exercise any powers appertaining to either of the other branches unless expressly provided herein.

Therefore, a police officer cannot arrest a prosecutor, a prosecutor cannot prosecute a sitting judge, a judge cannot order the legislature to perform, and so on.

Because these "offices" are not "persons", the state will not, and cannot prosecute them; therefore, they enjoy almost complete protection by the state in the performance of their duties. This is why it is impossible to sue or file charges against most government employees. If their crimes should rise to the level where they "shock the community" and cause alarm in the people, then they will be terminated from their office or state employment and then they are arrested, now as a common "person", and charged for their crimes. Simply put, the state will not eat its own.

The reason all state residents hold an office is so the state can control everything. It wants to create every single office so that all areas of your life are under the complete control of the state. Each office has prescribed duties and responsibilities and all these offices are regulated and governed by the state. If you read the fine print when you apply for a state license or privilege, you will see that you must sign a declaration that you are in fact a "resident" of that state. "Persons" is a subset of "resident", judge is a subset of "resident", and legislators and police officers are subsets of "resident". If you hold any office in the state, you are a "resident" and subject to all legislative decrees in the form of statutes.

They will say, "All men are free", because that is a true statement. They will always say that we are "free men". But they will never tell you that legislator-created "offices" that you are occupying are not free. What they do not say is that holding any state office binds free men into slavery for the state. They are ever ready to trick you into accepting the state office of "person," and once you are filling that office, you cease to be a free man. You become regulated creatures, called "persons," totally created by the legislature. You will hear "free men" mentioned all the time, but you will never hear about "free persons."

If you build your life in an office created by the legislature, it will be built on shifting sands. The office can be changed and manipulated at any time to conform to the whims of the legislature. When you hold the office of "person" created by the legislature, your office isn't fixed. Your duties and responsibilities are ever changing. Each legislative session binds a "person" to ever more burdens and requirements in the form of more rules and statutes.

Most state constitutions have a section that declares the fundamental power of the people:
Political power – All political power is inherent in the people. The enunciation herein of certain Rights shall not be construed to deny or impair others retained by the people. Notice that this says "people" ... it does not say "persons." This statement declares beyond any doubt that the people are Sovereign over their created government. This is natural law and the natural flow of delegated power.

A Sovereign is a private, non-resident, non-domestic, non-person, non-individual person, NOT SUBJECT to any real or imaginary statutory regulations of quasi-laws enacted by any state legislature which was created by the people.

When a Sovereign is pulled over by the police, roll down your window and say, "You are speaking to a Sovereign political power holder. I do not consent to you detaining me. Why are you detaining me against my will?"

Now the state office of "policeman" knows that "He", policeman, is talking to a flesh and blood Sovereign. The police officer cannot cite a Sovereign because the state legislature can only regulate what they create. And the state does not create Sovereign political power holders. It is very important to lay the proper foundation right from the beginning. Let the police officers know that you are a Sovereign. Remain in your proper office of Sovereign political power holder. Do not leave it. Do not be persuaded by police officer pressure or tricks to put on the mask of a state "person."

Why aren't Sovereigns subject to the state's charges? Because of the concept of office. The state is attempting to prosecute only a particular office known as "person." If you are not in that state-created office of "person," the state statutes simply do not apply to you. This is common sense. For example, if you are not in the state of Wisconsin, then Wisconsin rules do not apply to you. For the state to control someone, they have to first create the office. Then they must coerce a warm-blooded creature to come fill that office. They want you to fill that office.

Here is the often-expressed understanding from the United States Supreme Court that in common usage, the term "person" does not include the Sovereign. Statutes employing the "person are ordinarily construed to exclude the Sovereign." Wilson v. Omaha Tribe, 442 U.S. 600, 604 (1941). See also, United States v. Mine Workers, 330 U.S. 258, 275 (1947).

The idea that the word "person" ordinarily excludes the Sovereign can also be traced to the "familiar principles that the King is not bound by any act of Parliament unless he be named therein by special and particular words." Dollar Savings Bank v. United States, 19 Wall 227, 239 (1874). As this passage suggests, however, this interpretive principle applies only to the enacting Sovereign, United States v. California, 297 U.S. 175, 186 (1936). See also Jefferson County Pharmaceutical Assn., Inc. v. Abbott Laboratories, 460 U.S. 150, 161, n 21 (1983). Furthermore, as explained in United States v. Herron, 20 Wall, 251, 255 (1874), even the principle as applied to the enacting Sovereign is not without limitations. "Where an act of Parliament is made for the public good, as for the advancement of religion and justice or to prevent injury and wrong, the king is bound by such act, though not particularly named therein, but where a statute is general and thereby any prerogative, right, title, or interest is divested or taken from the king in such case the king is not bound, unless the statute is made to extend to him by express words."

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Holmes explained: "A Sovereign is exempt from suit, not because of any formal conception or obsolete theory, but on the logical and practical ground that there can be no legal Right as against the authority that makes the law on which the Right depends." Kawananakoa v. Polyblank, 205 U.S. 349, 353, 27 S. Ct. 526, 527, 51 L. Ed. 834 (1907).

The majority of American states fully embrace the Sovereign immunity theory as well as the federal government. See Restatement (Second) of torts 895B, comment at 400 (1979). The following U.S. Supreme Court case makes clear all these principals. I shall have occasion incidentally to evince how true it is that states and governments were made for man, and at the same time, how true it is that his creatures and servants have first deceived, next vilified, and at last oppressed their master and maker.

A state, useful and valuable as the contrivance is, is the inferior contrivance of man, and from his native dignity derives all its acquired importance. Let a state be considered as subordinate to the people. But let everything else be subordinate to the state. The latter part of his position is equally necessary with the former. For in the practice and, even at length in the science of politics, there has very frequently been a strong current against the natural order of things, and an inconsiderate or an interested disposition to sacrifice the end to the means. As the government has claimed precedence over the people, so, in the same inverted course of things, the government has often claimed precedence over the state; and to this perversion in the second degree, many of the volumes of confusion concerning Sovereignty owe their existence. The ministers, dignified very properly by the appellation of the magistrates, have wished, and have succeeded in their wish, to be considered as the Sovereigns of the state. This second degree of perversion is confined to the old world and begins to diminish even there, but the first degree is still to prevalent even in the Several states of which our union is composed. By a state, I mean a complete body of free persons united together for their common benefit, to enjoy peaceably what is their own, and to do justice to others.

It is an artificial person. It has its affairs and the interests; it has its rules; it has its Rights; and it has its obligations. It may acquire property distinct from that of its members. It may incur debts to be discharged out of the public stock, not out of the private fortunes of individuals. It may be bound by contracts and for damages arising from the breach of those contracts. In all our contemplations, however, concerning this feigned and artificial person, we should never forget that in truth and nature, those who think and speak and act are "men." Is the foregoing description of a state a true description? It will not be questioned, but it is. It will be sufficient to observe briefly that the Sovereignties in Europe, and particularly in England, exist on feudal principles. That system considers the prince as the Sovereign, and the people as his subjects; it regards his person as the object of allegiance and excludes the idea of his being on an equal footing with a subject, either in a court of justice or elsewhere. That system contemplates him as being the fountain of honor and authority; and from his grace and grant derives all franchise, immunities and privileges. It is easy to perceive that such a Sovereign could not be amenable to a court of justice or subjected to judicial control and actual constraint. It was of necessity, therefore, that suability became incompatible with such Sovereignty. Besides, the prince having all the executive powers, the judgment of the courts would in fact be only monitory, not mandatory to him, and a capacity to be advised is a distinct thing from a capacity to be sued. The same feudal ideas run through all their jurisprudence and constantly remind us of the distinction between the prince and the subject.

No such ideas exist here (speaking of America). At the Revolution, the Sovereignty devolved on the people and they are truly the Sovereigns of the country. But they are Sovereigns without subjects (unless the African slaves among us may be so called) and have none to govern but themselves. The citizens of America are equal as fellow citizens and as joint tenants in the Sovereignty. Chisholm v. Georgia (February Term, 1793) 2 U.S. 419 2D all. 419, 1 L Ed 440. There are many ways you can give up your Sovereign power and accept the role of "person." One is by receiving state benefits. Another is by asking permission in the form of a license or permit from the state.

One of the subtlest ways of accepting the role of "person" is to answer the questions as a bureaucrat knocks on your door and wants to know why your children aren't registered in school, or a police officer pulls you over and starts asking questions. You immediately fill the office of "person" if you start answering questions. It is for this reason that you should ignore or refuse to "answer" their questions and instead act like a true Sovereign, a King or Queen, and ask only your own questions of them.

You are not a "person" subject to their laws. If they persist and haul you into their court unlawfully, your response to the judge is simple and direct. You the Sovereign must tell him:
• I have no need to answer you in this matter.
• It is none of your business whether I understand my Rights or whether I understand your fictitious charges.
• It is none of your business whether I want counsel.
• The reason it is none of your business is because I am not a "person" regulated by the state. I do not hold any position of office where I am subjected to the legislature.
• The state legislature does not dictate what I do.
• I am a free Sovereign "Man" (or "Woman") and I am a political power holder as lawfully decreed in the State Constitution at Article I (or II) and that constitution is controlling over you.

You must NEVER retain or hire an attorney, a state officer of the court, to speak or file written documents for you. Use an attorney (if you must) only for counsel and advice about their "legal" system. If you retain an attorney to represent you and speak in your place, you become "NON COMPOS MENTIS" (not mentally competent) and you are then considered a ward of the court. You LOSE all your Rights, and you will not be permitted to do anything herein. The judge knows that as long as he remains in his office, he is backed by the awesome power of the state, its lawyers, armed police and prisons. The judge will try to force you to abandon your Sovereignty sanctuary by threatening you with jail. No matter what happens, if you remain faithful to your Sovereignty, the judge and the state may not lawfully move against you. The state did not create the office of Sovereign political power holder; therefore, they do not regulate and control those in the office of Sovereign. They cannot ascribe penalties for breach of that particular office. The reason they have no authority over the office of the Sovereign is because they did not create it and the Sovereign people did not delegate to them any such power. When challenged, simply remind them that they do not regulate any office of the Sovereign and that their statutes only apply to those state employees in legislator-created offices.

This Sovereign individual paradigm is explained by the following U.S. Supreme Court case: "The individual may stand upon his constitutional Rights as a citizen. He is entitled to carry on his private business in his own way. His power to contract is unlimited. He owes no such duty (to submit his books and papers for an examination) to the State since he receives nothing therefrom beyond the protection of his life and property. His Rights are such as existed by the law of the land [Common Law] long antecedent to the organization of the State, and can only be taken from him by due process of law and in accordance with the Constitution. Among his Rights are a refusal to incriminate himself and the immunity of himself and his property from arrest or seizure except under a warrant of the law. He owes nothing to the public so long as he does not trespass upon their Rights." Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43 at 47 (1905).

Let us analyze this case. It says, "The individual may stand upon his constitutional Rights." It does not say, "Sit on his Rights." There is a principle here. "If you don't use 'em, you lose 'em." You have to assert your Rights, demand them, "stand upon" them.

Next it says, "He is entitled to carry on his private business in his own way." It says "private business" — you have a Right to operate a private business. Then it says "in his own way." It doesn't say "in the government's way."

Then it says, "His power to contract is unlimited." As a Sovereign individual, your power to contract is unlimited. In common law there are certain criteria that determine the validity of contracts. They are not important here except that any contract that would harm others or violate their Rights would be invalid. For example, a "contract" to kill someone is not a valid contract. Apart from this obvious qualification, your power to contract is unlimited.

Next it says, "He owes no such duty (to submit his books and papers for an examination) to the State since he receives nothing therefrom beyond the protection of his life and property." The court case contrasted the duty of the corporation (an entity created by government permission — feudal paradigm) to the duty of the Sovereign individual. The Sovereign individual doesn't need and didn't receive permission from the government, hence has no duty to the government.

Then it says, "His Rights are such as existed by the law of the land (Common Law) long antecedent to the organization of the State." This is very important. The Supreme Court recognized that humans have inherent Rights. The Constitution for The United States of America (including the Bill of Rights) does not grant us Rights. We have fundamental Rights, irrespective of what the Constitution says. The Constitution acknowledges some of our Rights and Amendment IX states, "The enumeration in the Constitution of certain Rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." The important point is that our Rights antecede [come before, are senior to] the organization of the state.

Next the Supreme Court says, "And [his rights] can only be taken from him by due process of law and in accordance with the Constitution." Does it say the government can take away your Rights? No! Your Rights can only be taken away "by due process of law, and in accordance with the Constitution." Due process of law involves procedures and safeguards such as trial by jury. "Trial by jury" means inter alia ... the jury judges both the law and fact.

Then the case says, "Among his Rights are a refusal to incriminate himself and the immunity of himself and his property from arrest or seizure except under a warrant of the law." These are some of the Rights of a Sovereign individual. Sovereign individuals need not report anything about themselves or their business to anyone.

Finally, the Supreme Court says, "He owes nothing to the public so long as he does not trespass upon their Rights." The Sovereign individual does not have to pay taxes. If you should discuss Hale v. Henkel with a run-of-the-mill attorney, he or she will tell you that the case is "old" and that it has been "overturned." If you ask that attorney for a citation of the case or cases that overturned it, there will not be a meaningful response. Upon researching Hale v. Henkel, it was found: "We know that Hale v. Henkel was decided in 1905 in the U.S. Supreme Court. Since it was the Supreme Court, the case is binding on all courts of the land, until another Supreme Court case says it isn't. Has another Supreme Court case overturned Hale v. Henkel? The answer is NO. As a matter of fact, since 1905, the Supreme Court has cited Hale v. Henkel a total of 144 times. A fact more astounding is that since 1905, Hale v. Henkel has been cited by all the federal and state appellate court systems a total of over 1,600 times. None of the various issues of this case has ever been overturned.

So if the state through the "office" of the judge continues to threaten or does imprison you, they are trying to force you into the state-created office of "person." As long as you continue to claim your Rightful office of Sovereign, the State lacks all jurisdiction over you. The state needs someone filling the office of "person" in order to continue prosecuting a case in their courts. Do not sign their papers or cooperate with them because most things about your life are private and are not the state's business to evaluate. Here is the Sovereign Peoples' command in the constitution that the state respect their privacy:

Right of Privacy — Every man or woman has the Right to be let alone and free from government intrusion into their private life except as otherwise provided herein. This section shall not be construed to limit the public's Right of access to public records and meetings as provided by law.

Disclaimer: We are just people that get together and exchange information.
We are not a group or organization.
We are not a company or corporation or association. 
We sell nothing and we charge nothing.

To cancel your class e-mail click "reply" and type "stop messages".