Does any of this count or is it all an illusion like most every thing else in the justus system?
CONSTITUTIONAL CASE LAW
Bennett v. Boggs,
, â€œStatutes that violate the plain and obvious principles of common right and common reason are null and voidâ€
. Would we not say that these judicial decisions are straight to the point --that there is no lawful method
for government to put restrictions or limitations on rights belonging to th
e people? Other cases are even more straight forward: â€œThe assertion of federal rights, when
plainly and reasonably made, is not to be defeated under the name of practice.â€
Davis v. Wechsler , 263 US 22, 24 . â€œWhere rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legisl ation which would abrogate them.â€
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US 436, 491 . â€œThe claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime.â€
Miller v. US, 230 F 486, 489. â€œThere can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of this exercise of constitutional rights.â€
Sherer v. Cullen, 481 F 946.
We could go on, quoting court decision after court decision, however, the Constitution itself answers our question ï¿½
Can a government legally put restrictions on the rights of the American people at anytime, for
any reason? The answer is found
in Article Six of the U.S. Constitution:
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 426, 491; 86 S. Ct. 1603 "Where rights secured by the Constitution are i nvolved, there can be no 'rule making' or legislation which would abrogate them."
Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425 p. 442 "An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed."
Sherar v. Cullen, 481 F. 2d 946 (1973) "There can be no sanction or penalty impos ed upon one because of his exercise of constitutional rights."
Simmons v. United States, 390 U.S. 377 (1968) "The claim and exercise of a Constitution right cannot be converted into a crime"... "a denial of them would be a denial of due process of law".
Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1, 78 S. Ct. 1401 (1958)
Note: Any judge who does not comply with
his oath to the Constitution of the United States wars against that Constitution and engages in acts in violation
of the supreme law of the land. The judge is engaged in acts of treason. The U.S. Supreme Court has stated that
"no state legislator or executive or judicial officer can war against the Constitution without violating his undertaking to support it". See also In Re Sawyer, 124 U.S. 200 (188); U.S. v. Will, 449 U.S. 200, 216, 101 S. Ct. 471, 66 L. Ed. 2d 392, 406 (1980); Cohens v. Virginia,
19 U.S. (6 Wheat) 264, 404, 5 L. Ed 257 (1821).
Hoffsomer v. Hayes, 92 Okla 32, 227 F. 417 "The courts are not bound by an officer's interpretation of the law under which he presumes to act."
Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (2 Cranch) 137, 180 (1803)
"... the particular phraseology of the constitution of th
e United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written constitutions, that a law repugnant to the constitution is void, and that
courts,as well as other departments, are bound by
that instrument." "In declaring what shall be the supreme law of the land, the Constitution itself
is first mentioned; and not the laws of the Unite
d States generally, but those only which shall be
made in pursuance of the Constitution, have that rank". "All law (rules and practices) which are repugnant to the Constitution are VOID". Since the 14th Amendment to the Constitution states "NO State (Jurisdiction) shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the rights, privileges, or immunities of citizens of the United States nor deprive any citizens of life, liberty, or property,
without due process of law, ... or equal protection under the law", this renders judicial immunity unconstitutional.
Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 94 S. Ct. 1683, 1687 (1974)
Note: By law, a judge is a state officer. The judge then acts not as a judge, but as a private individual (in his person). When a judge acts as a trespasser of the law
when a judge does not follow the law, the Judge loses
subject-matter jurisdiction and the judges' orders are not voidable, but VOID, and of no legal force or effe
ct. The U.S. Supreme Court stated that "when a state officer acts under a state law in a manner violative of the Federal Constitution, he comes into conflict with the superior authority of that Constitution, and he is in that case stripped of his official or representative character and is subjected in his person to the consequences of his individual conduct. The State has no power to impart to him any immunity from responsibility to
the supreme authority of the United States."
Miller v. U.S,** 230 F. 2d. 486, 490; 42 "There can be no sanction or penalty impos ed upon one, because of his exercise of constitutional rights."
**Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105 "No state shall convert a liberty into a license, and charge a fee therefore."
Shuttlesworth v. City of Birmingham, Alabama, 373 U.S. 262 "If the State converts a right (liberty) into a privileg e, the citizen can ignore the license and fee and engage in the right (liberty) with impunity."
Brinegar v. U.S, 388 US 160 (1949) Probable Cause to Arrest - Provides details on how to determine if a crime has been or is being committed.