Subject: The Frog Farm Frequently Asked-for Quotes (FFFAQ)
From: [email-masked] (Ian M. Schirado)
Date: Wed, 1 Sep 1993 17:15:16 GMT
Newsgroups: alt.society.sovereign,alt.society.resistance,alt.philosophy.objectivism,alt.politics.libertarian,misc.legal

The Frog Farm FAQ
                             September 1st, 1993

            "Laws are made for us; we are not made for the laws."
                              - William Milonoff

                                    *****

                              TABLE OF CONTENTS

                              1....Introduction
                              2....Disclaimer
                              3....Revision History
                              4....List of Topics
                              5....Actual Topics

                                    *****

                                 INTRODUCTION

The purpose of the Frog Farm is to discuss issues which involve a Free People
and their Public Servants, and how to deal with the various problems that can
arise between a free person who exercises and demands Rights and errant public
servants who exceed the scope of their powers. Topics covered include the
rights of Man and subsequent obligations, the nature of the contract for
government, the Federal and State Constitutions of the United States and their
Amendments, various types of Jurisdiction, and defending rights in the
courtroom.

The newsgroup alt.society.sovereign has recently (May 1993) become relatively
active recently in providing relevant information. Those interested in the
topics presented are highly encouraged to thoroughly read this document before
posting or requesting subscriptions to the mailing list.

The Frog Farm's FAQ is unique among FAQ's in that the answers consist of
information derived from only one source, that being the courts of the fifty
States and the federal Supreme Court (and thus the only authoritative source
regarding the subject matter). The information in question is also in the form
of legal citations, rather than a question-and-answer format. The Supreme
Court and the lesser appellate courts have repeatedly ruled on many points,
and they are rightfully described as "well settled". Unfortunately, most of
the time this established law goes unused out of fear or ignorance. The Frog
Farm is a clearinghouse for all information regarding defending one's rights
in the courtrooms of America. With the recent expansions of the Internet's
size and scope, and the millions of participants now discovering its vast,
untapped potential which is even now struggling to throw off the last vestiges
of its governmental umbilical cords, it is hoped that this information will
find an appreciative audience.

                                    *****

                                  DISCLAIMER

The Frog Farm was created to provide participants with a forum with which to
share their findings and opinions based on research and analysis of the
subject matter covered, drawing from personal experience where applicable.
Information is not provided for the purpose of providing legal or any other
professional services, which can only be provided by professionals. The
material written by the host and other private participants on this message
base is not intended to be construed as legal advice.  Information contained
herein that may pertain to tax or legal situations is for informational or
descriptive purposes only and no attempt to advise is intended or implied.
Information relative to such areas may be used in cooperation with competent
jurists or otherwise at the discretion of the reader. As there is always an
element of risk in exercising and defending one's lawful rights regardless of
the country one chooses to live in, neither the moderator, author of any
posted message or the administrator of any site involved in the transmission
of any messages posted, assumes any responsibility or liability for any loss
or damage incurred either directly or indirectly, as a consequence of the use
of any information herein provided through the Frog Farm.

All information provided is applicable, firstly, only to those living within
the geographical boundaries of one of the fifty States of North America.
(Those living in other countries would be well advised to educate their
friends and neighbors regarding America's unique legal foundation, and perhaps
look into the possibility of moving here.)

After that, whether or not you can exercise and defend Rights will depend on
whether or not you have the following things:

 o Pencil and paper. A typewriter helps; a computer may also.
 o Access to a good law dictionary. (Bouvier's is the best; use Black's only
   if you have no other choice.)
 o The ability to competently read and write at least 10% of the English
   language.
 o The will to learn, change your Status appropriately and defend your
   position. The first is much more easily acquired than the others.

                                    *****

                               REVISION HISTORY

1.0: Released May 10, 1993. Uploaded to uglymouse.css.itd.umich.edu in
     /pub/Politics/FrogFarm.
1.1: Released July 4th, 1993. Added new information on Jurisdiction and
     Venue; miscellaneous cleaning up and reorganizing.
1.2: Released September 1st, 1993. Cleaned up and reorganized a bit more;
     added new citations on the First Amendment and Civil Liability; added
     first-ever Frequently Asked Question, to wit, "Why the heck is it
     called the Frog Farm?"

                                    *****

                                LIST OF TOPICS

The best way to view this file is to search for a given string. Each entry in
the list of topics shows what string you should search for in order to find
the beginning of each topic entry. All topics are listed in the order they are
presented in.

To find information about                            Search for this
--------------------------------------------------------------------
SO WHY THE HECK IS IT CALLED THE FROG FARM, ANYWAY?  :whyfrog
ASHWANDER RULES: QUALIFYING FOR THE SUPREME COURT    :ashwand
RIGHT TO TRAVEL VS. PRIVILEGE TO DRIVE               :drive
RIGHT OF JURIES TO JUDGE BOTH LAW AND FACT           :jury
RIGHTS OF INDIVIDUALS VS. RIGHTS OF THE STATE        :state
SOME FOURTH AMENDMENT SPECIFIC CASES                 :4th
HALE VS. HENKEL: INDIVIDUALS ARE SOVEREIGN           :hale
WHAT IS SOVEREIGNTY AND WHO ARE SOVEREIGNS?          :sov
WHAT IS JURISDICTION AND WHAT ARE ITS LIMITS?        :juris
WHAT IS MONEY?                                       :money
SOME QUICK NOTES ON THE 2ND AMENDMENT                :2nd
INCOME TAXATION AND THE INFERNAL REVENUE SERVICE     :irs
WHAT ABOUT THE FIRST AMENDMENT?                      :1st
MISCELLANEOUS                                        :misc

                                     ****

                                    TOPICS

:whyfrog

There is a tale, possibly apocryphal or metaphorical, attributed by most to
Mark Twain, of how to cook a frog. If you drop a frog in a pot of boiling
water, so the story goes, he'll jump right back out just as quickly. But if
you put him in a pot of cold water, and slowly heat it up, he'll stay right
there...until it's too late, and he's boiled alive.

The tale is usually mentioned in the context of gradualism, or the tendency
of governments to always increase its power at the expense of the governed.

About three and a half years ago, I met someone on an electronic bulletin
board who called himself "Frog Farmer", who introduced me to the topics
discussed herein. (Although I use the masculine, it should be noted that I
never met FF in person, and it is equally likely for FF to be female.) When
I asked him why he chose that particular handle, he told me the above story.

In honor of his tireless sense of humor, and everything he introduced me to,
this FAQ is dedicated to him.

:ashwand

      THE ASHWANDER RULES: QUALIFYING YOUR CASE FOR THE SUPREME COURT

The Supreme Court has developed seven rules, called the "Ashwander Rules"
(Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley Authority 297 US 288,346 (1935)) for qualifying
a case to be heard there.  According to Justice Brandeis:

     "The Court developed, for its own governance in the cases confessedly
within its jurisdiction, a series of rules under which it has avoided passing
upon a large part of all the constitutional questions pressed upon it for
decision.  They are:

     1. The Court will not pass upon the constitutionality of legislation in a
friendly, non-adversary, proceeding, declining because to decide such
questions 'is legitimate only in the last resort, and as a necessity in the
determination of real, earnest and vital controversy between individuals.  It
was never thought that, by means of a friendly suit, a party beaten in the
legislature could transfer to the courts an inquiry as to the
constitutionality of the legislative act.' Chicago & Grand Trunk RR v.
Wellman, 143 U.S. 339,345.

      2. The Court will not 'anticipate a question of constitutional law in
advance of the necessity of deciding it.' Wilshire Oil Co. v. US, 295 US 188
'It is not the habit of the Court to decide questions of a constitutional
nature unless absolutely necessary to the decision of a case.'  Burton v. US,
196 US 283,295.

     3. The Court will not 'formulate a rule of constitutional law broader
than is required by the precise facts to which it is to be applied.'
Liverpool N.Y. & P.S.S. Co. v. Emigration Commissioners, 113 US 33,39.

     4. The Court will not pass upon a constitutional question although
properly presented by the record, if there is also present some other ground
upon which the case may be disposed of.  This rule has found most varied
application.  Thus, if a case can be decided on either of two grounds, one
involving a constitutional question, the other a question of statutory
construction or general law, the Court will decide only the latter.  Light v.
US, 220 US 523,538.

     5. The Court will not pass upon the validity of a statute upon complaint
of one who fails to show that he is injured by its operation. Tyler v. The
Judges, 179 US 405  Among the many applications of this rule, none is more
striking than the denial of the right of challenge to one who lacks a personal
or property right.

     6. The Court will not pass upon the constitutionality of a statute at the
instance of one who has availed himself of its benefits.  Great Falls Mfg. Co.
v. Attorney General 124 US 581.

     7. 'When the validity of an act of Congress is drawn in question, and
even if a serious doubt of constitutionality is raised, it is a cardinal
principle that this Court will first ascertain whether a construction of the
statute is fairly possible by which the question may be avoided.' Crowell v.
Benson, 285 US 22,62."

:drive

                  RIGHT TO TRAVEL V. PRIVILEGE TO DRIVE

"The  navigable waters  leading into  the Mississippi  and St. Lawrence,
*and  the carrying places between the same, shall be common highways and
forever  free*, as well to  the inhabitants of the  said territory as to
the  citizens of the United  States, and those of  any other States that
may  be admitted into the confederacy,  without any tax, impost, or duty
therefor."  [Northwest Ordinances, Article 4]
 
"Highways are for the use of the traveling public, and all have the right  to
use them in a reasonable and proper manner; the use thereof is an  inalienable
right of every citizen."   Escobedo v. State  35 C2d 870 in 8 Cal Jur 3d p.27

"Users  of the  highway for transportation  of persons  and property for
hire  may be  subjected to special  regulations not  applicable to those
using  the  highway  for  public  purposes."    Richmond  Baking  Co. v.
Department of Treasury 18 N.E. 2d 788.
 
"Constitutionally protected liberty includes...  the right to travel..."
13 Cal Jur 3d p.416
 
In  California,  a  license  is  defined as  "A  permit,  granted  by an
appropriate  governmental  body,  generally for  a  consideration,  to a
person  or firm, or corporation to pursue some occupation or to carry on
some business subject to regulation under the police power."  Rosenblatt
v. California 158 P2d 199, 300.
 
"Operation  of a motor vehicle upon public streets and highways is not a
mere  privilege but is a right or liberty protected by the guarantees of
Federal and State constitutions."  Adams v. City of Pocatello 416 P2d 46
 
"A  citizen  may  have  the  right,  under  the  14th  amendment  to the
Constitution  of the United States, to travel and transport his property
upon  the public highways by  auto vehicle, but he  has no right to make
the highways his place of business by using them as a common carrier for
hire; such use being a privilege which may be granted or withheld by the
state  in its  discretion, without  violating the  due process  or equal
protection clauses."  In Re Graham 93 Cal App 88.
 
"The license charge imposed by the motor vehicle act is an excise or
privilege tax, established for the purpose of revenue in order to provide
a fund for roads while under the dominion of the state authorities, it is
not a tax imposed as a rental charge or a toll charge for the  use of the
highways  owned and controlled by the state."  - PG&E v. State  Treasurer,
168 Cal 420.
 
"The  same principles  of law  are applicable  to them  as to other vehicles
upon the  highway.  It  is therefore, the  adaptation and use, rather  than
the form  or kind of conveyance  that concerns the courts." Indiana Springs
Co. v. Brown, 74 N.E. 615.
 
"The  automobile is not inherently dangerous."  Moore v. Roddie, 180 P.
879, Blair v. Broadmore 93 S.E. 632.

"The  use of the automobile  as a necessary adjunct  to the earning of a
livlihood  in  modern life  requires us  in the  interest of  realism to
conclude  that the  RIGHT to  use an  automobile on  the public highways
partakes  of  the  nature  of  a  liberty  within  the  meaning  of  the
Constitutional guarantees. . ." Berberian v. Lussier (1958) 139  A2d 869,
872
 
"Truck  driver's  failure  to  be licensed  as  chauffeur  does not establish
him or  his employer  as negligent  as a  matter of  law with respect  to
accident  in which  driver was  involved, in  absence of any evidence  that
lack of such license  had any casual or causal connection with the accident."
Bryant v. Tulare Ice Co. (1954) 125 CA 2d 566
 
"The  RIGHT  of the  citizen  to DRIVE  on  the public  street with freedom
from police  interference, unless  he is  engaged in suspicious conduct
associated  in some  manner with  criminality is  a FUNDAMENTAL CONSTITUTIONAL
RIGHT which must be protected by the courts."  People v. Horton 14 Cal. App.
3rd 667 (1971)
 
"The  RIGHT to  TRAVEL on the  public highways  is a constitutional right."
Teche Lines v. Danforth, Miss. 12 So 2d 784, 787.
 
"The right to travel is part of the 'liberty' that a citizen cannot be
deprived without due process of law."   Kent v. Dulles 357 U.S. 116, U.S. v.
Laub 385 U.S. 475
 
"A  citizen may  have the  right, under  the 14th  amendment to the
Constitution  of the United States, to travel and transport his property upon
the public highways by  auto vehicle, but he  has NO right to make the
highways his place of business by using them as a common carrier for hire;
such use being a privilege which may be granted or withheld by the state  in
its  discretion, without  violating the  due process  or equal protection
clauses."  In Re Graham 93 Cal App 88.
 
"One  who DRIVES an automobile is an operator within meaning of the Motor
Vehicle Act."  Pontius v. McClean 113 CA 452
 
"The  word  'operator'  shall  not include  any  person  who solely transports
his own property  and who transports  no persons or property for  hire or
compensation."  Statutes  at Large  California Chapter 412 p.833
 
"The  right of a citizen to travel  upon the public highways and to transport
his  property  thereon, by  horse-drawn  carriage,  wagon, or automobile  is
not a mere privilege which may be permitted or prohibited at  will,  but a
common right  which he  has under  his right  to life, liberty, and the
pursuit of happiness."  Slusher v. Safety Coach Transit Co.,  229 Ky  731, 17
SW2d  1012, and  affirmed by the  Supreme Court in Thompson v. Smith 154 S.E.
579.
 
"CVC  17459.   The  acceptance by  a  resident of  this state  of a
certificate  of ownership or a certificate  of registration of any motor
vehicle  or any  renewal thereof,  issued under  the provisions  of this code,
shall constitute the CONSENT by the person that service of summons may  be
made upon him within or without this state, whether or not he is then  a
resident of this  state, in any action  brought in the courts of this  state
upon  a cause  of action  arising in  this state  out of the ownership or
operation of the vehicle." California Vehicle Code
 
"CVC  17460.   The acceptance  or retention  by a  resident of this state  of
a driver's  license issued pursuant to  the provisions of this code, shall
constitute the CONSENT of the person that service of summons may  be made upon
him within or without this state, whether or not he is then  a resident of
this  state, in any action  brought in the courts of this  state upon  a cause
of action  arising in  this state  out of his operation of a motor vehicle
anywhere within this state."  California Vehicle Code

:jury
 
                  INFORMED JURIES OF BOTH LAW AND FACT
 
"It may not be amiss here, gentlemen, to remind you of the good old rule, that
on the question of fact, it is the province of the jury, and on the question
of law, it is the province of the court to decide....it is presumed, that
juries are the best judges of facts; it is, on the other hand, presumed that
the courts are the best judges of law. But, it must be observed that by
law...you have nevertheless a right to take it upon yourselves to judge both,
in controversy...both objects are lawfully within your power of decision."
Justice John Jay to the jury, Georgia v. Brailsford, 3 Dall 1 (1794)

"The jury has an unreviewable and irreversible power...to acquit in disregard
of the instructions on the law given by the trial judge."  U.S. v Dougherty,
473 F2d 1113, 1139 (1972). Other info related to Dougherty case:  16 Am Jur
2d, Sec. 177.
 
"Jury lawlessness is the greatest corrective of law in its actual
administration. The will of the state at large imposed on a reluctant
community, the will of a majority imposed on a vigorous and determined
minority, find the same obstacle in a local jury that formerly confronted
kings and ministers." Dougherty, cited above, note 32, at 1130.

"The pages of history shine on instances of the jury's exercise of its
prerogative to disregard uncontradicted evidence and instructions to the
judge. Most often commended are the 18th century of Peter Zenger of seditious
libel, on the plea of Alexander Hamilton, and the 19th century acquittals in
prosecutions under the fugitive slave law." Dougherty, cited above, at 1130.

"The way the jury operates may be radically altered if there is alteration in
the way it is told to operate." (Dougherty, cited above, at 1135.) The jury's
options are by no means limited to the choices presented to it in the
courtroom...The jury gets its understanding as to the arrangements in the
legal system from more than one voice. There is the formal communication from
the 'judge'. There is the informal communication from the total culture -
literature; current comment, conversation; and, of course, history and
tradition." Dougherty, cited above, at 1135.

"...the jury has the power to bring in a verdict in the teeth of both law and
facts."  Oliver Wendell Holmes, 1920 Horning v DC. 254 US 135

"...no fact tried by a jury shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the
United States, than according to the rules of the common law." U.S.
Constitution, 7th Amendment.  [Only another common law jury can review a
decision of a jury. There is no other appeal.  Not even the Supreme Court can
review a jury's decision.]

"We recognize, as appellants urge, the undisputed power of the jury to
acquit, even if its  verdict is contrary to the  law as given by the judge,
and contrary to  evidence.  This  is a power  that must exist as long  as we
adhere to  the general verdict  in criminal  cases, for the courts  cannot
search the minds  of jurors to find  the basis upon which they judge.  If the
jury feels that the law under which the defendant is accused  is unjust, or
that  exigent circumstances justified the actions of  the  accused, or  for
any  reason  which appeals  to their  logic or passion,  the jury has the
power to acquit, and the courts must abide by the decision."  U.S. vs. Moylan,
417 F2d 1002, 1006 (1969).
 
"The  People themselves  have it  in their  power effectually  to resist
usurpation,  without  being driven  to an  appeal  in arms.   An  act of
usurpation  is  not  obligatory: it  is  not  law; and  any  man  may be
justified in his resistance.  Let him be considered as a criminal by the
general  government, yet only his fellow  citizens can convict him, they are
his jury, and if they pronounce him innocent, not all the powers of Congress
can hurt him; and innocent  they surely will pronounce him, if the  supposed
law he  resisted was  an act  of usurpation."  2 Elliot's Debates, 94; 2
Bancroft, History of the Constitution, 297.

:states
                 INALIENABLE RIGHTS AND STATES' RIGHTS
 
"There  can be no  sanction or penalty  imposed upon one  because of his
exercise of Constitutional rights."  Sherar v. Cullen  481 F. 946
 
"Where  rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no
rule-making  or legislation  which would  abrogate them."   U.S. Supreme
Court in Miranda v. Arizona 380 U.S. 436 (1966)
 
"Constitutional  rights may not be infringed simply because the majority
of the people choose that they be."  Westbrook v. Mihaly  2 C3d 756
 
"The  right to counsel exists not only at the trial thereof, but also at
every  stage  of a  criminal proceeding  where  substantial rights  of a
criminal accused may be effected."  Mempha v. Rhay 389 U.S. 128
 
"A  conviction obtained where the accused  was denied counsel is treated
as void for all purposes."  Burgett v. Texas 389 U.S. 109
 
"A  plaintiff  who  seeks  damages for  violation  of  constitutional or
statutory   rights  may  overcome  the  defendant  official's  qualified
immunity  only by showing that those  rights were clearly established at
the time of the conduct at issue." Davis v. Scherer, 82 L.Ed.2d 139,151.
 
"All  laws which are  repugnant to the Constitution  are null and void."
Marbury v. Madison, 5 US (2 Cranch) 137, 174, 176, (1803)
 
"The Bill of Rights was provided as a barrier, to protect the individual
against  arbitrary  exactions of  majorities,  executives, legislatures,
courts,  sheriffs, and  prosecutors, and  it is  the primary distinction
between  democratic  and totalitarian  processes."   STANDLER.   Supreme
Court of Florida en Banc, 36 So 2d 443, 445 (1948)
 
"Government  may not  prohibit or  control the  conduct of  a person for
reasons that infringe upon constitutionally guaranteed freedoms."  Smith
v. U.S. 502 F2d 512 CA Tex (1974)
 
"Where  rights secured by the constitution are involved, there can be no
rule-making  or  legislation which  would  abrogate them."    Miranda v.
Arizona (U.S. Supreme Court) 380 US 436 (1966)
 
"There  can be no  sanction or penalty  imposed upon one  because of his
exercise of Constitutional rights."  Sherar v. Cullen 481 F2d 946 (1973)
 
"We  find it intolerable that one constitutional right should have to be
surrendered  in order  to assert  another."  Simmons  v. US,  390 US 389
(1968)
 
"The claim and exercise of a Constitutional right cannot be converted to
a crime."  Miller v. US, 230 F 486 at 489
 
"When  any  court violates  the clean  and  unambiguous language  of the
constitution,  a fraud is perpetrated  and no one is  bound to obey it."
State v. Sutton 63 Minn 167, 65 NW 262, 30 LRA 630
 
"The state cannot diminish rights of the people."  Hurtado v. California
110 US 516.
 
"A  state may  not impose  a charge  for the  enjoyment of  a right granted
by the Federal Constitution."  Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105 (1943)

"Justice  Douglas maintained  that the privileges  and immunities clause
was  the proper basis for the  holding and further insisted that freedom
of  movement was a right of national citizenship binding upon the states
and  recognized as such by Crandall v. Nevada (73 US 35) before the 14th
Amendment was ratified."  in Edwards v. California 314 US 160
 
"Moreover,  a distinction  must be observed  between a  regulation of an
activity which may be engaged in as a matter of right and one carried on
by government sufference or permission.  In the latter case the power to
exclude  altogether generally includes the lesser power to condition and
may  justify  a  degree of  regulation  not admissable  in  the former."
Packard v. Banton 264 US 140
 
"Failure  to  obey  the  command  of  a  police  officer  constitutes  a
traditional  form of breach of the peace. Obviously, however, one cannot
be punished for failing to obey the command of an officer if the command
itself is violative of the constitution."  Wright v. Georgia 373 US 284
 
"Constitutional  rights may not be infringed simply because the majority
of the people choose that they be."  Westbrook v. Mihaly 2 C3d 756

:4th
                     SOME FOURTH AMENDMENT SPECIFIC CASES

     Brown  v  Texas,443 U.S.  47  (1979): "Two  police  officers, while
cruising  near noon in a patrol  car, observed appellant and another man
walking  away from one  another in an alley  in an area  that had a high
incidence of drug traffic.  They stopped and asked appellant to identify
himself  and explain what he  was doing.  One  officer testified that he
stopped  appellant because the  situation 'looked suspicious  and we had
never  seen that  subject in  that area before.'   The  officers did not
claim to suspect appellant of any specific misconduct, nor did they have
any  reason to  believe that  he was armed.   When  appellant refused to
identify himself, he was arrested for violation of a Texas statute which
makes  it a  criminal act for  a person to  refuse to give  his name and
address  to an officer  'who has lawfully stopped  him and requested the
information.'  Appeallant's motion to set aside information charging him
with  violation of the  statute on the ground  that the statute violated
the  First, Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth  Amendments was denied, and he
was convicted and fined."

     HELD:  The application of the Texas statute to detain appellant and
require  him to identify  himself violated the  Fourth Amendment because
the  officers lacked any reasonable  suspicion to believe that appellant
was  engaged or had engaged in criminal conduct.  Detaining appellant to
require  him to  identify himself  constituted a  seizure of  his person
subject  to the requirement of the  Fourth Amendment that the seizure be
'reasonable.'  Cf. Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1;... Delaware v. Prouse, 440
U.S. 648.  Here,  the state does not  contend that appellant was  stopped
pursuant to a practice  embodying neutral criteria, and the officer's
actions were not justified  on the ground that they  had a reasonable
suspicion, based on objective  facts, that he was involved in criminal
activity.  Absent any basis  for suspecting appellant  of misconduct, the
balance between the public  interest in crime  prevention and appellant's
right to personal security and privacy tilts in favor of freedom from
police interference. Pp. 50-53.

     Mr.  Chief Justice Burger delivered the opinion of the court; "This
appeal presents the question whether appellant was validly convicted for
refusing  to comply with  a policeman's demand  that he identify himself
pursuant  to a provision of the Texas  Penal Code which makes it a crime
to refuse such identification on request."

     "Appellant  refused to  identify himself and  angrily asserted that
the officers had no right to stop him."

     "The  Fourth Amendment, of course, `applies  to all seizures of the
person,  including seizures that involve only a brief detention short of
traditional  arrest.'  Davis v. Mississippi,  394 U.S. 721 (1969); Terry
v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 16-19 (1968).  '[W]henever a police officer accosts
an  individual and restrains  his freedom to walk  away, he has 'seized'
that  person... and  the fourth Amendment  requires that  the seizure be
'reasonable'.'  U.S. v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U.S. 873, 878 (1975)"

     "We  need  not decide  whether an  individual  may be  punished for
refusing  to identify himself  in the context  of a lawful investigatory
stop  which satisfies Fourth Amendment  requirements. See Dunaway v. New
York,  442 U.S. 200,210  n.12 (1979); Terry v.  Ohio... the county judge
who  convicted appellant was troubled by  this question, as shown by the
colloquy set out in the appendix to this opinion."

     "Accordingly,  appellant  may  not  be  punished  for  refusing  to
identify himself, and the conviction is Reversed."

    "APPENDIX TO THE OPINION OF THE COURT
        
 "THE COURT:...What do you think about if you stop a person lawfully, 
 and then if he doesn't want to talk to you, you put him in jail for 
 committing a crime?"

 "MR. PATTON [prosecutor]: Well first of all, I would question the 
 defendant's statement in his motion that the first amendment gives an 
 individual the right to silence."

 "THE COURT:...I'm asking you why should the State put you in jail 
 because you don't want to say anything?"

 "MR. PATTON: Well, I think there's certain interests that have to be 
 viewed."

 "THE COURT: Okay, I'd like you to tell me what those are."

 "MR. PATTON: Well, the Governmental interest to maintain the safety 
 and security of the society and the citizens to live in the society, 
 and there are certainly strong Governmental interests in that 
 direction and because of that, these interests outweigh the interests 
 of an individual for a certain amount of intrusion upon his personal 
 liberty.  I think these Governmental interests outweigh the 
 individual's interests in this respect, as far as simply asking an 
 individual for his name and address under the proper circumstances."

 THE COURT: But why should it be a crime to not answer?"

 "MR. PATTON: Again, I can only contend that if an answer is not given,
 it tends to disrupt."

 "THE COURT: What does it disrupt?"

 "MR. PATTON: I think it tends to disrupt the goal of this society to 
 maintain security _over_ its citizens to make sure they are secure in 
 their gains and their homes."

 "THE COURT: How does that secure anybody by forcing them, under 
 penalty of being prosecuted, to giving their name and address, even 
 though they are lawfully stopped?"

 "MR. PATTON: Well I, you know, under the circumstances in which some 
 individuals would be lawfully stopped, it's presumed that perhaps this
 individual is up to something, and the officer is doing his duty 
 simply to find out the individual's name and address, and to determine
 exactly what is going on."

 "THE COURT: I'm not questioning, I'm not asking whether the officer 
 shouldn't ask questions. I'm sure they should ask everything they 
 possibly could find out.  What I'm asking is what's the State's 
 interest in putting a man in jail because he doesn't want to answer 
 something.  I realize lots of times an officer will give a defendant a
 Miranda warning which means a defendant doesn't have to make a 
 statement.  Lots of defendants go ahead and confess, which is fine if 
 they want to do that.  But if they don't confess, you can't put them 
 in jail, can you, for refusing to confess to a crime?"

Davis v. Mississippi, 394 U.S. 721: "Fingerprint evidence is no exception to
the rule that all evidence obtained by searches and seizures in violation of
the constitution is inadmissible in a state court. Pp.723-724. The Fourth
Amendment applies to involuntary detention occurring at the investigatory
stage as well as at the accusatory  stage.  Pp. 726-727. Detentions for the
sole purpose of obtaining fingerprints are subject to the constraints of the
Fourth amendment.. P.727. "Nor  can fingerprint detention be employed
repeatedly to harass any individual, since the police need only one set of
each person's  prints...the general  requirement that the authorization  of a
judicial officer be obtained in advance of detention would seem not to admit
of any exception in the fingerprinting context."

:hale
            HALE VS. HENKEL: INDIVIDUALS EXIST FOR THEIR OWN SAKE
                      AND ARE SOVEREIGNS OVER GOVERNMENT

Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43:

"...we  are of  the opinion  that there is  a clear  distinction in this
particular  between an INDIVIDUAL and a CORPORATION, and that the latter
has no right to refuse to submit its books and papers for an examination
at  the  suit  of  the  state.    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 duty to the state or  to his neighbors to divulge his business,
or  to open  his doors  to an investigation,  so far  as it  may tend to
criminate  him.  He  owes no such  duty 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 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 and seizure except under a warrant of the law.  He
owes  nothing to the public  so long as he  does not trespass upon their
rights. Upon the other hand, the corporation is a creature of the state.
..."
 
"The right of a person under the 5th Amendment to refuse to incriminate
himself is purely  a personal privilege of  the witness.  It was never
intended  to permit  him to  plead the  fact that  some third person might
be incriminated by his testimony, even though he were  the agent of such
person."

And this case also gives us one of the Frog Farm's Golden Rules:

"Rights are only afforded the belligerent claimant in person."

Some other lines of defense can be seen in the following cases:

Powell  v. Alabama, 287 U.S. 45:  "In this court the judgements are assailed
upon the grounds  that the defendants, and  each of them, were denied  due
process  of law  and the  equal protection  of the  laws, in contravention  of
the  Fourteenth amendment,  specifically as follows... (2) they were denied
the right of counsel, with the accustomed incidents of  consultation  and
opportunity  of  preparation for  trial;" "However guilty  defendants, upon
due inquiry,  might prove  to have  been, they were,  until convicted,
presumed to be innocent.  It was the duty of the court  having their  cases in
charge to  see that  they were  denied no necessary  incident of a fair
trial, with any error  of the state court involving  alleged contravention  of
the state  statutes or constitution we,  of  course, have  nothing to  do.
The sole  inquiry which  we are permitted to make is whether the federal
Constitution was contravened... and as to  that, we confine  ourselves, as
already  suggested, to the inquiry  whether the  defendants were in  substance
denied  the right of counsel..."   "It is hardly necessary to  say that, the
right to counsel being  conceded, a  defendant should be  afforded a  fair
opportunity to secure  counsel of his own choice.  Not only was that not done
here, but such designation of counsel as was attempted was either so
indefinite or so  close  upon the  trial as  to amount  to a  denial of
effective and substantial  aid in that regard."  "In any event, the
circumstance lends emphasis  to the conclusion that during perhaps the most
critical period of  the proceedings against  these defendants, that is  to
say, from the time  of  their arraignment  until the  beginning  of their
trial, when consultation,  thoroughgoing investigation and  preparation were
vitally important,  the defendants did not  have the aid of  counsel in any
real sense,  although  they were  as much  entitled to  such aid  during that
period  as at the  trial itself.   People ex rel.  Burgess v. Risley, 66
How.Pr. (N.Y.) 67; Batchelor v. State, 189 Ind. 69, 76; 125 N.E. 733."

"It is not enough to assume that counsel thus precipitated into the case
thought there was no defense, and exercised their best judgement in proceeding
to  trial without  preparation. Neither  they nor  the court could  say what a
prompt  and thoroughgoing investigation might disclose as to the facts.  No
attempt was made to investigate.  No opportunity to do so was given.
Defendants were immediately hurried to trial."

"Under  the circumstances  disclosed, we hold  that defendants were not
accorded the right  of counsel in  any substantial sense."   "It is vain  to
give the accused a day in court, with no opportunity to prepare for  it,  or
to  guarantee  him counsel  without  giving the  latter any opportunity to
acquaint himself with the facts or law of the case."

"As  early as 1798 it was provided by statute, in the very language of  the
Sixth  amendment  to the  Federal  Constitution,  that  'In all criminal
prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right... to have the assistance of
counsel for his defence;"

"What,  then, does a hearing include? Historically and in practice, in our own
country at least, it has always included the right to the aid and  assistance
of  counsel  when desired  and  provided  by  the party asserting  the right."
"The United States by statute and every state in the  Union by express
provision  of law, or by  the determination of its courts, make it the duty of
the trial judge, where the accused is unable to employ counsel, to appoint
counsel for him."

[Frog  Farmer sez: Be careful! Use the due process provisions of the 5th
amendment, not  the unlawful 14th!   Powell  claimed 14th amendment
citizenship.]

     Almeida-Sanchez,  413 U.S.  266: Petitioner, a  Mexican citizen and
holder  of a valid work permit, challenges the constitution-ality of the
Border  Patrol's warrantless search of his automobile 25 air miles north
of  the  mexican border.   The  search, made  without probable  cause or
consent,  uncovered marihuana, which was used to convict petitioner of a
federal crime. . .

     Held:  The  warrantless  search  of  petitioner's  automobile, made
without  probable cause  or consent,  violated the  Fourth Amendment. Pp
269-275.   (a)The search cannot be justified on the basis of any special
rules  applicable to automobile searches, as probable cause was lacking;
nor  can it be justified by  analogy with administrative inspections, as
the  officers had  no warrant or  reason to believe  that petitioner had
crossed  the border or committed an offense, and there was no consent by
petitioner. Pp269-272.

     "The  search in  the present case  was conducted  in the unfettered
discretion  of the  members of  the border  Patrol, who  did not  have a
warrant, probable cause, or consent.  The search thus embodied precisely
the  evil the court saw in Camara  when it insisted that the 'discretion
of  the official in  the field' be circumscribed  by obtaining a warrant
prior to the inspection."

     "Two  other  administrative  inspection cases  relied  upon  by the
government  are equally inapposite.   Colonnade Catering  Corp. v. U.S.,
397  U.S.  72,  and  U.S.  v.  Biswell,  406  U.S.  311,  both  approved
warrantless  inspections of commercial enterprises engaged in businesses
closely regulated and licensed by the Government...A central  difference
between those cases  and  this  one is...petitioner here was not engaged
in any regulated or licensed business."

Just  in case  our rights are  violated by some  well-meaning but errant
public  servant, we have this handy little law to assist us in obtaining
redress of our grievances:

     Title 42 USC )1983:
 
     "Every   person  who,  under  color   of  any  statute,  ordinance,
regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or territory, or the District
of  Columbia, subjects,  or causes to  be subjected, any  citizen of the
United  States, or other person within  the jurisdiction thereof, to the
deprivation  of  any rights,  privileges, or  immunities secured  by the
Constitution  and laws,   shall  be liable  to the  party injured  in an
action at law, suit in equity or other proper proceedings for redress."
     Notice  that  this  statute  recognises  the  fact  that "statutes,
ordinances,   and  regulations"     together   with  "custom",   can  be
unconstitutional  and violate our rights.  Where they do so, it is up to
us  to  challenge  their jurisdiction  over  us.   Failure  to challenge
jurisdiction at the first instance of a rights violation can be fatal to
your  case, and will  be seen as  an admission that  the law in question
does indeed have jurisdiction over you.  So you better know your rights,
right?
     "To  maintain an action under  42 USC 1983, it  is not necessary to
allege or prove that the defendants intended to deprive plaintiff of his
Constitutional  rights or that they acted willfully, purposefully, or in
a  furtherance of a conspiracy.  . . it is  sufficient to establish that
the  deprivation. . . was the  natural consequences of defendants acting
under  color of law. . .  ."  Ethridge v. Rhodos,  DC Ohio 268 F Supp 83
(1967), Whirl v. Kern CA 5 Texas 407 F 2d 781 (1968)
 
     Title  18 United  States Code,  Section 241,  provides that... "any
person who goes on the highway in disguise to prevent or hinder the free
exercise  and enjoyment of any right  so secured by law...shall be fined
not more than $10,000.00 or imprisoned not more than ten years or both.
     Further,  Title 18, United States Code,  Section 242, provides  for
one  or  more  persons  who, under  color  of  law,  statute, ordinance,
regulation,  or custom, willfully subjects  any inhabitant of any state,
territory,  or  district to  the deprivation  of rights,  privileges, or
immunities  secured by the Constitution, or laws of the United States. .
. shall be fined not more than $1,000.00 or imprisoned not more than one
year or both.
     Title  18, United States  Code, Section 242, with  its color of law
provision,  gives a  cause of  action to  apply Title  18, United States
Code, Section 241, because Section 241 needs two persons in disguise and
Section  242 provides the second person under color of law as the "QUASI
SUMMONS" mentioned herein implies that a judge in the Municipal Court is
acting  in concert  to commit  an overt act  of fraud  and extortion for
conversion.
     Further, United States Code, Title 18, section 242 provides for one
or more persons who, under color of law, statute, ordinance, regulation,
or custom, willfully subjects any inhabitant of any state, territory, or
district to the deprivation of rights, privileges, or immunities secured
or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States. . . shall
be  fined not more than  $1,000 or imprisoned not  more than one year or
both.
 
Usually, it can be phrased something like:

"Demand is upon you to withdraw the invalid Notice #_____ within ten (10)
days  from receipt of this  Notice and  Demand or Action will commence in
the  United States  District Court  pursuant to Rule 7(a)  and (c) of the
criminal  rules of  procedure  by the jurisdiction  provided in Title 42,
United  States Code,  sections  1983 and 1985;  Title 28, U.S.C. sections
1331  and 1343 and others  with Title 18, U.S.C., sections 241, 242, 872,
1621, 1622, and 1623 providing for the administration of the penalties."

"...an...officer who acts in violation of the Constitution ceases to represent
the government." Brookfield Co. v Stuart, (1964) 234 F. Supp 94, 99 (U.S.D.C.,
Wash.D.C.)

"...an officer may be held liable in damages to any person injured in
consequence of a breach of any of the duties connected with his office...The
liability for nonfeasance, misfeasance, and for malfeasance in office is in
his 'individual', not his official capacity..." 70 AmJur2nd Sec. 50, VII Civil
Liability.

"Decency, security, and liberty alike demand that government officials be
subjected to the same rules of conduct that are commands to the citizen.  In
a Government of laws, existence of the government will be imperiled if it
fails to observe the law scrupulously.  Crime is contagious. If government
becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for the law...it invites every man
to become a law unto himself...and against that pernicious doctrine, this
court should resolutely set its face." Olmstead v U.S., 277 US 348, 485; 48
S. Ct. 564, 575; 72 LEd 944.

"Law and court procedures that are 'fair on their faces' but administered
'with an evil eye or a heavy hand' was discriminatory and violates the equal
protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment." Yick Wo v. Hopkins, Sheriff,
118 US 356, (1886).

"Judges must maintain a high standard of judicial performance with particular
emphasis upon conducting litigation with scrupulous fairness and
impartiality." 28 USCA  2411; Pfizer v. Lord, 456 F 2d 532; cert denied 92 S
Ct 2411; US Ct App MN, (1972).

"State Judges, as well as federal, have the responsibility to respect and
protect persons from violations of federal constitutional rights." Gross v.
State of Illinois, 312 F 2d 257; (1963).

:sov

                             WHO ARE SOVEREIGNS?

"...at the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people; and they are
truly the sovereigns of the country, but they are sovereigns without
subjects.. with none to govern but themselves; the citizens of America are
equal as fellow citizens, and as joint tenants in the sovereignty."  CHISHOLM
v. GEORGIA (US) 2 Dall 419, 454, 1 L Ed 440, 455 @DALL 1793 pp. 471-472.

"The words 'sovereign people' are those who form the sovereign, and who hold
the power and conduct the government through their representatives. Every
citizen is one of these people and a constituent member of this sovereignty."
Scott v. Sandford, Mo., 60 US 393, 404, 19 How. 393, 404, 15 L.Ed. 691.

"Sovereignty itself is, of course, not subject to the law, for it is the
author and source of law, but in our system, while sovereign powers are
delegated to the agencies of government, sovereignty itself remains with the
people, by whom and for whom all government exists and acts...For, the very
idea that one man may be compelled to hold his life, or the means of living,
or any material right essential to the enjoyment of life, at the mere will of
another, seems to be intolerable in any country where freedom prevails, as
being the essence of slavery itself." Yick Wo v. Hopkins, Sheriff, 118 U.S.
356.

"'Sovereignty' in government to that public authority which directs or orders
what is to be done by each member associated is relation to the end of the
association. It is the supreme power by which any citizen is governed and is
the person or body of persons in the state to whom there is politically no
superior. The necessary existence of the state and that right and power which
necessarily follow is 'sovereignty'. By 'sovereignty' in its largest sense is
meant supreme, absolute, uncontrollable power, the absolute right to govern.
The word which by itself comes nearest to being the definition of
'sovereignty' is will or volition as applied to political affairs." City of
Bisbee v. Cochise County, 28 P.2d. 982, 986, 52 Ariz. 1.

"'Sovereignty' is a term used to express a supreme political authority of an
independent state or nation. Whatever rights are essential to the existence of
this authority are rights of sovereignty. The rights to declare war, to make
treaties of peace, to levy taxes, and to take property for public uses, termed
the 'right of eminent domain,' are all rights of sovereignty. In this country
this authority is vested in the people, and is exercised through the joint
action of the federal and state governments. To the federal government is
delegated the exercise of certain rights or powetrs of sovereignty, and with
respect to sovereignty, 'rights' and 'powers' are synonymous terms; and the
exercise of all other rights of sovereignty, except as expressly prohibited,
is reserved to the people of the respective states, or vested by them into
their local government. When we say, therefore, that a state of the Union is
sovereign, we only mean that she possesses supreme political authority, except
as to those matters over which such authority is delegated to the federal
government or prohibited to the states." Moore v. Smaw, 17 Cal. 199, 218, 79
Am. Dec. 123.

"The 'sovereign powers' of a government include all the powers necessary to
accomplish its legitimate ends and purposes. Such powers must exist in all
practical governments. They are the incidents of sovereignty, of which a state
cannot divest itself." Boggs v. Merced Min. Co., 14 Cal. 279, 309.

"In all governments of constitutional limitations 'sovereign power' manifests
itself in but three ways. By exercising the right of taxation; by the right of
eminent domain; and through its police power." United States v. Douglas-Willan
Sartoris Co., 22 P. 92, 96. 3 Wyo. 287.

"The term 'sovereign power' of a state is often used without any very definite
idea of its meaning, and it is often misapplied. Prior to the formation of the
federal Constitution, the states were sovereign in the absolute sense of the
term. They had established a certain agency under the Articles of
Confederation, but this agency had little or no power beyond that of
recommending to the states the adoption of certain measures. It could not be
properly denominated a government, as it did not possess the power of carrying
its acts into effect. The people of the states, by the adoption of the federal
Constitution, imposed certain limitations in the exercise of their powers
which appertain to sovereignty. But the states are still sovereign. The
sovereignty of a state does not reside in the persons who fill the different
departments of its government, but in the people, from whom the government
emanated; and they may change it at their discretion. Sovereignty, then, in
this country, abides with the constituency, and not with the agent; and this
remark is true, both in reference to the federal and state governments."
Spooner v. McConnell, 22 Fed. Cas. 939, 943.

"Sovereignty means supremacy in respect of power, domination, or rank; supreme
dominion, authority or rule." Brandes v. Mitteriling, 196 P.2d 464, 467, 657
Ariz 349.

"'Government' is not 'sovereignty.' 'Government' is the machinery or expedient
for expressing the will of the sovereign power." City of Bisbee v. Cochise
County, 78 P.2d 982, 986, 52 Ariz. 1.

"The 'sovereignty' of the United States consists of the powers existing in the
people as a whole and the persons to whom they have delegated it, and not as a
seperate personal entity, and as such it does not posssess the personal
privileges of the sovereign of England; and the government, being restrained
by a written Constitution, cannot take property without compensation, as can
the English government by act of king, lords, and Parliament." Filbin
Corporation v. United States, D.C.S.C., 266 F. 911, 914.

"'Sovereignty' is the right to govern. In Europe the sovereignty is generally
ascribed to the prince; here it rests with the people. There the sovereign
actually administers the government; here, never in a single instance. Our
governors are the agents of the people, and at most stand in the same relation
to their sovereign in which regents in Europe stand to their sovereign. Their
princes have personal powers, dignities, and pre-eminences. Our rulers have
none but official, nor do they partake in the sovereignty otherwise, or in any
other capacity than as private citizens." Chisholm v. State of Georga, Ga., 2.
U.S. (2 Dall.) 419, 471, 1 L. Ed. 440.

"States and state officials acting officially are held not to be 'persons'
subject to liability under 42 USCS section 1983." Wills v. Michigan Dept. of
State Police, 105 L.Ed. 2nd 45 (1989).

"Statutes employing the word 'person' are ordinarily construed to exclude the
sovereign." 56 L.Ed. 2d. 895

"A foreign sovereign power must in courts of United States be assumed to be
acting lawfully, the meaning of 'sovereignty' being that decree of the
sovereign makes law." Eastern States Petroleum Co. v. Asiatic Petroleum
Corporation, D.C.N.Y., 28 F.Supp. 279, 281.

"The very meaning of 'sovereignty' is that the decree of the sovereign makes
law." American Banana Co. v. United Fruit Co., 29 S.Ct. 511, 513, 213 U.S.
347, 53 L.Ed. 826, 19 Ann.Cas. 1047.

"'Sovereignty' means that the decree of sovereign makes law, and foreign
courts cannot condemn influences persuading sovereign to make the decree."
Moscow Fire Ins. Co. of Moscow, Russia v. Bank of New York & Trust Co., 294
N.Y.S. 648, 662, 161 Misc. 903.

:juris

                 JURISDICTION AND LAWS VOID _ab initio_
 
"When  any court violates the clean and unambiguous language of the
Constitution,  a fraud is perpetrated  and no one is  bound to obey it."
State v. Sutton, 63 Minn. 147, 65 N.W. 262
 
"Since  an  unconstitutional law  is  void, the  general principles follow
that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no offices, bestows
no power  or authority  on anyone,  affords no  protection, and justifies
no acts performed under it."  16 Am Jur 2d 177.
 
"It  cannot  be assumed  that the  framers of  the constitution  and the
people  who adopted it, did not intend that which is the plain import of
the  language used.   When the language of  the Constitution is positive
and free of all ambiguity, all courts are not at liberty, by a resort to
the  refinements of legal  learning, to restrict  its obvious meaning to
avoid   the  hardships  of  particular  cases.     We  must  accept  the
constitution  as it reads  when it's language is  unambiguous, for it is
the mandate of the sovereign power."  Cooke v. Iverson 122 N.W. 251
 
"Under  our form of government, the legislature is not supreme. . . like
other  departments of  government, it can  only exercise  such powers as
have  been delegated to it, and when  it steps beyond that boundary, its
acts,  like  those  of  the  most humble  magistrate  in  the  state who
transcends his jurisdiction, are utterly void."  Billings v. Hall 7 CA 1

"The powers of state government are legislative, executive, and judicial.
Persons charged with the exercise of one power may not exercise either of
the others except as permitted in this Constitution." Article III, Section 3,
Constitution of the State of California

"If   the  legislature   clearly  misinterprets   a  Constitutional provision,
the  frequent  repetition of  the  wrong will  not  create a right."   Amos v.
Mosley, 77 SO 619.  Also see Kingsley v. Metril, 99 NW 1044

"Where  the meaning of  the Constitution is  clear and unambiguous, there  can
be no resort  to construction to attribute  to the founders a purpose  or
intent NOT MANIFEST IN ITS LETTER."  Norris v. Baltimore 192 A 531

"No  legislative act contrary to the Constitution can be valid. To deny  this
would be to affirm that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the
servant is above the master; that the representatives of the people are
superior to the people; that men, acting by virtue of powers may do not
only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid. It is not to be
supposed that the Constitution could intend to enable the representatives of
the people to substitute their will to that of their constituents.  A
Constitution is, in  fact, and must be  regarded by judges as fundamental law.
If there should  happen to  be an  irreconcilable variance between the  two,
the Constitution is to be preferred to the statute." A. Hamilton, Federalist
Papers #78

     See  also Warning v. The Mayor of Savannah, 60 Georgia, P.93; First
Trust  Co. v. Smith,  277 SW 762,   Marbury v.  Madison, 2 L  Ed 60; and
Am.Juris. 2d Constitutional Law, section 177-178
 
     16  Am. Jur. 2d 256: "The  general rule is that an unconstitutional
statute,  whether federal or  state, though having the  form and name of
law,  is in reality no law, but  is wholly void, and ineffective for any
purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment,
and  not  merely  from the  date  of  the decision  so  branding  it, an
unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it
had  never  been passed...since  an  unconstitutional law  is  void, the
general  principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights,
creates  no office, bestows no power  or authority on anyone, affords no
protection,  and justifies no acts performed  under it...NO ONE IS BOUND
TO  OBEY AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL LAW [my  emphasis], and no courts are bound
to enforce it."

                         SEVEN ELEMENTS OF JURISDICTION

1. The accused must be properly identified, identified in such a fashion there
is no room for mistaken identity. The individual must be singled out from all
others; otherwise, anyone could be subject to arrest and trial without benefit
of "wrong party" defense. Almost always, the means of identification is a
person's proper name, BUT ANY MEANS OF IDENTIFICATION IS EQUALLY VALID IF SAID
MEANS DIFFERENTIATES THE ACCUSED WITHOUT DOUBT. (There is no constitutionally
valid requirement you must identify yourself (4th Amendment); see Brown v.
Texas, 443 US 47 and Kolender v Lawson, 461 US 352.)

2. The statute of offense must be identified by its proper or common name. A
number is insufficient. Today, a citizen may stand in jeopardy of criminal
sanctions for alleged violation of statutes, regulations, or even low-level
bureaucratic orders (example: Colorado National Monument Superintentdent's
Orders regarding an unleashed dog, or a dog defecating on a trail). If a
number were to be deemed sufficient, government could bring new and different
charges at any time by alleging clerical error. For any act to be triable as
an offense, it must be declared to be a crime. Charges must negate any
exception forming part of the statutory definition of an offense, by
affirmative non-applicability. In other words, any charge must affirmatively
negate any exception found in the law.

Example of exception: ".... thereof to make a return (other than a return
required under authority of 6015).....Indictment or information is defective
unless every fact which is an element in a prima facie case of guilt is
stated. Assumption of element is not lawful. Otherwise, accused will not be
thoroughly informed. 26 USC 6012 is a necessary element of the offense. Since
6012 isn't cited, the information is fatally defective. Additionally,
information did not negate the exception (other than required under authority
of section 6015)."

After reading 6012 and 6015, and knowing that the 7203 elements are:

   A. You were required to perform
   B. You failed to perform
   C. Your failure was willful

you may wish to ask, "how often is a valid 7203 or other information or
indictment brought? How many citizens have been convicted on a fatally
defective process?"

3. The acts of alleged offense must be described in non-prejudicial language
and detail so as to enable a person of average intelligence to understand
nature of charge (to enable preparation of defense); the actual act or acts
constituting the offense complained of. The charge must not be described by
parroting the statute; not by the language of same. The naming of the acts of
the offense describe a specific offense whereas the verbiage of a statute
describes only a general class of offense. Facts must be stated. Conclusions
cannot be considered in the determination of probable cause.

4. The accuser must be named. He/she may be an officer or a third party, but
some positively identifiable person (human being) must accuse; some certain
person must take responsibility for the making of the accusation, not an
agency or an institution. This is the only valid means by which a citizen may
begin to face his accuser. Also, the injured party (corpus delicti) must make
the accusation. Hearsay evidence may not be provided. Anyone else testifying
that they heard that another party was injured does not qualify as direct
evidence.

5. The accusation must be made under penalty of perjury. If perjury cannot
reach the accuser, there is no accusation. Otherwise, anyone may accuse
another falsely without risk.

6. To comply with the five elements above, that is for the accusation to be
valid, the accused must be accorded due process. Accuser must have complied
with law, procedure and form in bringing the charge. This includes
court-determined probable cause, summons and notice procedure. If lawful
process may be abrogated in placing a citizen in jeopardy, then any means may
be utilized to deprive a man of his freedom, and all dissent may be stifled by
utilization of defective process.

7. The court must be one of competent jurisdiction. To have valid process, the
tribunal must be a creature of its constitution, in accord with the law of its
creation, i.e., Article III judge.

Lacking any of the seven elements or portions thereof, (unless waived,
intentionally or unintentionally) all designed to ensure against further
prosecution (double jeopardy); it is the defendant's duty to inform the court
of facts alleged for determination of sufficiency to support conviction,
should one be obtained. Otherwise, there is no lawful notice, and charge must
be dismissed for failure to state an offense. Without lawful notice, there is
no personal jurisdiction and all proceedings prior to filing of a proper trial
document in compliance with the seven elements is void. A lawful act is always
legal but many legal acts by government are often unlawful. Most bureaucrats
lack elementary knowledge and incentive to comply with the mandates of
constitutional due process. They will make mistakes. Numbers beyond count have
been convicted without benefit of governmental adherence to these seven
elements. Today, informations are being filed and prosecuted by "accepted
practice" rather than due process of law.

See Corpus Juris Secundum (CJS), Volume 7, Section 4, Attorney & client: The
attorney's first duty is to the courts and the public, not to the client, and
wherever the duties to his client conflict with those he owes as an officer of
the court in the administration of justice, the former must yield to the
latter. Clients are also called "wards" of the court in regard to their
relationship with their attorneys.

Corpus Juris Secundum assumes courts will operate in a lawful manner. If the
accused makes this assumption, he may learn, to his detriment, through
experience, that certain questions of law, including the question of personal
jurisdiction, may never be raised and addressed, especially when the accused
is represented by the bar. (Sometimes licensed counsel appears to take on the
characteristics of a fox guarding the hen house.)

Jurisdiction, once challenged, is to be proven, not by the court, but by the
party attempting to assert jurisdiction. The burden of proof of jurisdiction
lies with the asserter. The court is only to rule on the sufficiency of the
proof tendered.  Se McNutt v. GMAC, 298 US 178. The origins of this doctrine
of law may be found in Maxfield's Lessee v Levy, 4 US 308.

                       DIFFERENT KINDS OF JURISDICTION

IN PERSONAM: Power which a court has over the defendant's person. It is
absolutely required before a court may enter a personal judgment. Jurisdiction
over a person may be waived by consent.

 In Personam jurisdiction may be acquired by an act of the defendant within a
jurisdiction under a law or statute by which the defendant implies consent to
the jurisdiction of the court over his person.

 Examples of how a court may acquire personal jurisdiction: Entry of
appearance, proper service, or implication (e.g., the operation of a motor
vehicle on the highways of a State may confer jurisdiction of the operator and
owner on the courts of that State).

 For more info, see Hess v Pawloski, 274 US 352.

 IN REM: Power of a court over a thing, so that its judgment is valid against
the rights of every person in the thing. An action in rem is a proceeding that
takes no cognizance of the owner, but determines the right in specific
property against all of the world, equally binding upon everybody.

 In this action, the court is required to have control or power over the
thing. Examples: A boat or other vehicle inside of which narcotics are
discovered; a judgment of registration of title to land.

 For more info, see Calero Toledo v Pearson Yacht Leasing Co., 416 US 663.
Also look at any cases which are in the form of "United States v X", where X
is a thing instead of a person, e.g., "$20,000 in United States currency" or
"Forty Barrels and Twenty Kegs of Coca-Cola".

 QUASI IN REM: The power of a court over the defendant's interest in property,
real or personal, within the geographical limits of the court. The court's
judgment or decree binds only the defendant's interest, and not the whole
world, as in the case of in rem. This term is applied to proceedings which are
not strictly in rem, but are brought against the defendant personally, though
the real object is to deal with particular property, or to subject property to
the discharge of asserted claims.

 Examples: Foreclosure of a mortgage, quieting title, effecting a partition.

 For more info, see Freeman v Alderson, 119 US 185.

 SUBJECT MATTER: The power of a particular court to hear a type of case. Three
elements must be present for a court to have proper jurisdiction over the
subject matter:

 1) The court must have cognizance of the class of cases.
 2) The proper parties must be present.
 3) The point decided upon must be, in substance and effect, within the issue.
    See Reynolds v Stockton, 140 US 254.

 "The criminal jurisdiction of the United States is wholly statutory." U.S. v
Flores, 289 US 137,,151 (1933).

 "The legislative authority of the Union must first make an act a crime, affix
a punishment to it, and declare the court that shall have jurisdiction of the
offense." U.S. v Hudson, 7 Cranch 32,34 (1812).

 Subject matter jurisdiction, unlike personam and venue (see below), may NOT
be waived or conferred by consent of the parties and the court.

 VENUE: Venue does not actually refer to jurisdiction at all. "Jurisdiction"
means the inherent power of the court to decide a case. "Venue" designates the
PARTICULAR GEOGRAPHICAL AREA (county, city, district, state, etc) in which a
court with jurisdiction may properly hear a case.

 In federal cases, the prosecutor's discretion regarding the location of the
prosecution is limited by Article III, Section 2 of the federal Constitution,
which requires trial in the State where the offense "shall have been
committed", and the Sixth Amendment, which guarantees an impartial jury "of
the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed".

 The addressing of venue in reference to an accusation of failing to "file a
document" can be seen in U.S. v Lombardo, 241 US 73,76-7. Here, interestingly,
the court stated that "filing is not complete until the document is delivered
and received...to the office and not sent through the United States mails."

 A challenge of venue may be waived, so as always, it is crucial that if a
challenge is to be made, that it be timely.

[Further review of the topics of jurisdiction and venue should be made prior
to submitting any Motions. Good sources that will lead to other sources are
the law encyclopedias _American Jurisprudence_ and _Corpus Juris Secundum_.]

Things to think about and take care of in a typical case: (partial list)

 The act or omission in question: Is it declared by law to be a crime?
 Research the law/code/ordinance
 The victim: Who?
 What Life, Liberty or Property was harmed?
 Is the person Natural or Juristic?
 Is he At Law, or in Equity?
 Is the person competent to testify?
 The complaint: Verified by affidavit signed by victim?
 If no victim, serve & file constructive notice on gov't agent and judge
 Ten days later, file Suit
 Grand jury indictment/information
 Grand Jury represents the People
 District Attorney = The State
 Object to prosecution by information, Demand Grand Jury Indictment.
 Warrant - Made out for the party arrested?
 Check spelling-Joe Blow is not Jo Bloe!
 Signed by a judge?
 Check "judge's" Oath of Office/compare with required oath in Constitution
 Arrest - You have the right to remain silent
 You have the right to counsel present
 Not required to give fingerprints [Davis v. Mississippi]
 Give Miranda/Titles 18,42 warning
 Writ of Habeas Corpus
 Arraignment - Starts calendar for speedy trial
 Appear specially, not generally
 Demand all rights at all times
 Disclaim equity jurisdiction
 Give Miranda/Titles 18,42 warning
 Demand to see a verified complaint - Must be sworn to by complainant within 15
  days of Notice to Appear
 Must have the seal of the court
 Defendent cannot understand charges without counsel
 Demand counsel of choice
 Object to denial by judge
 Cite cases
 File written Demand for Counsel of Choice
 If judge appoints Public Defender, object!
 You have to talk with Public Defender before you can accept him as counsel.
 You cannot relate to him.
 You have no confidence in him
 You cannot be forced to employ counsel beholden to your adversary
 Stand "mute"
 Judge will enter "Not guilty" plea
 Object! Let the record show that defendant stands mute
 File "Arraignment & Plea"
 File Demand for Plaintiff to Show Constraining Need or in the Alternative
  to Dismiss
 File Demand for Jury Trial in which the jury decides both the law and the
  facts At Law
 File Notice of intention to tape record the proceedings per Rule 980(f)
  "unless otherwise ordered for cause"
 File Demand for court reporter to take transcripts at all hearings
 File Demand for transcripts of all proceedings
 File Demand for Evidentiary Hearing
 File/serve Declaration-Petition for Redress of Grievances
 The Preliminary (Evidentiary)Hearing
 Appear specially, not generally
 Claim all rights at all times
 Challenge jurisdiction

 ADMINISTRATIVE AND PROCEDURAL MATTERS
 Demand formal, verified complaint
 You intend to challenge jurisdiction but you need counsel to adequately argue
  jurisdiction
 Appearing pro per, not pro se
 Get judicial notice of demand for counsel of choice and supporting brief
 Get judicial determination for the record that the court is denying
  unfettered counsel of choice [final judgement on the matter]
 Demand that hearing be postponed so that denial of counsel may be appealed to
  higher court
 Does court honor demand for rights sua sponte?
 Demand that the court prove both agency's and court's jurisdiction on the
  record.
 "Jurisdiction cannot be assumed & must be decided" Maine v. Thiboutot
  100S.Ct.2502 (1980)
 "Jurisdiction cannot be presumed" Smith v. McCullough 46S.Ct.338(1926)
 Examine/cross-examine witnesses
 Discovery:File/serve Demand
 Suppression hearing
  file Demand to Supress Evidence
 Formulate jury instructions
 They must have foundation in the record
  in the Evidence Exhibits
  in the Testimony of Witnesses
 Formulate questions for witnesses
  For Cross-exam
  For Direct exam
 Keep Proposed Jury Instructions in mind
 Subpoena Witnesses
  Expert witnesses
  Gov't agents
  Witnesses at scene of arrest
 Alibi
 Motion [Demand] Hearing
 Give equity disclaimer/Demand rights
 Challenge ensign v. flag
 Give Miranda/Title 18 warning
 File Constructive Notice
 Demand Counsel of choice
 File paper
 Demand Dismissal for Lack of Jurisdiction
 File jurisdiction briefs on Status, Status of Citizens, Merchant At Law,
  Rights, Memorandum of Law, Equity, The Monetary System
 Demand Rights Sua Sponte
 File paper
 Demand jury trial w/12 jurors
 File Notice & Demand
 Jury Selection
 Questions for Jurors
 Prosecution's Opening Statement
 Defense Opening Statement (may wait)
 Prosecution Examines Witnesses
 Object! Object! Object!
 Defense Cross-examines
 Defense may testify
 Not required to take Oath
 Prosecution Closing Statement
 Prosecution rests
 Defense challenges Prima Facie Case
 Code Pleading
 Defense moves for directed verdict of aquittal
 Defense Opening Statement if delayed
 Defense Examines Witnesses
 Prosecution cross-examines
 Object! Object! Object!
 Defense Closing Statement
 Defense rests
 Prosecution 2nd Closing Statement
 Judge's Instuctions to Jury
 Object! Object! Object!
 Jury Deliberations
 Jury Verdict
 Defense Motion for Verdict of Aquittal Notwithstanding Jury Verdict
 Motion for New Trial if appropriate
 Notice of Appeal
 Demand for Stay of Execution Pending Appeal and Order
 If denied, file Writ of Habeas Corpus
 Demand for transcripts at gov't expense
 Proposed statement on Appeal
 Use court's form as a cover sheet
 Fill blanks with "see Proposed Settled Statement [Attached]
 Don't put signature on form
 Prosecution's Amendments
 Defense Revised Proposed Statement
 Settlement conference
 Opening Brief on Appeal
 Prosecution's Rebuttal to above
 Prosecution's Opening Brief
 Defense rebuttal
 Defense Closing Brief

:money

                  THE FEDERAL RESERVE, MONEY, AND DEBT
 
     Current Law: No State Shall Make Any Thing But Gold And Silver Coin
A Tender In Payment Of Debt. (U.S. Constitution, Art. 1, sec. 10)
 
     Current  Law: 31 United States Code 371:   "The money of account of
the  United  States shall  be expressed  in dollars  or units,  dimes or
tenths,  cents or hundredths, and mills or thousandths, a dime being the
tenth  part of a dollar,  a cent the hundredth part  of a dollar, a mill
the  thousandth part of a dollar, and all accounts in the public offices
and all proceedings in the courts shall be kept and had in conformity to
this regulation."
 
     The  question was put to an attorney:  Is Article 1, section 10, of
the  United States Constitution, particularly  the words "No state shall
...  make any  Thing but  gold and  silver coin  a tender  in payment of
debt..." still binding on a State?
 
     He  replied, in writing, "...the only  lawful answer is Yes.  Meant
to  'crush  paper  money'  by unanimous  consent  of  the constitutional
Convention of 1787, this section prohibits the States from imposing upon
the  people a paper  currency, paper money, or  anything else other than
gold  or silver coin as a medium  of exchange in the discharge of debts.
Since  the Constitution can  be changed by amendment  only, and since no
amendment has changed this section, no federal action can excuse a State
of this prohibition.

     The effect of this section is thus:

     If a paper FRN is delivered to, or received from a State-authorized
party without particular objection to its being an unlawful tender under
Article  1, Section 10,  no Constitutional question  has arisen, and the
payor/payee,  in remaining  silent, has renounced  his individual rights
flowing from the Constitutional prohibition.

     Those rights are the following:

     A. Discharge of the debt in gold or silver coin, if provided for in
the debt;

     B.  Dismissal or forgiveness of the debt altogether, if the debt is
not denominated in gold or silver coin, since any rule or judgement that
is repugnant to the Constitution is void, invalid, and without effect.

     As  with other rights, the  right to gold and  silver coin, and the
right to be forgiven of any debt not denominated in same, are considered
waived unless properly and timely asserted."
 
Specifically regarding "notes" and such, the courts have had some equally
interesting things to say:

     "They  had a  certain contingent value,  and were used  as money in
nearly  all the business transactions of  many millions of people.  They
must  be regarded therefore,  as a currency imposed  on the community by
irresistable force."  75 U.S. 11

     "Considered  in themselves, and in  the light of subsequent events,
these  notes had no real value, but they were made current as dollars by
irresistable  force.   They  were the  only measure  of value  which the
people  had, and  their use was  a matter of  almost absolute necessity.
And  this use  gave them a  sort of value,  insignificant and precarious
enough it is true, but always having a sufficiently definite relation to
gold  and silver, the universal measure of  value, so that it was always
easy  to ascertain how much gold and silver was the real equivalent of a
sum expressed in this currency."  75 U.S. 13
 
"One is said to act in a fiduciary capacity when the business that he
transacts, or  the  money or  property  which he  handles, is  not  his
own..."   A "fiduciary   relation"  can  include  "informal  relations  which
exist whenever  one man trusts and relies  upon another--it exists where there
is  special confidence reposed in one  who in equity and good conscience is
bound to act in  good faith and with due  regard to interests of one reposing
the  confidence." Black's Law Dictionary, 4th ed.

The  Federal Reserve itself  tells  you  that  it is "confidence"  that is the
reason that anyone  at all accepts  FRNs!  By accepting  the government's
obligations in  good faith  and confidence, besides  becoming  a fiduciary
(with a  corresponding duty,  making you "subject"  to  specific performance,
you  then become  an "accomodation party",  in effect becoming like a
co-signor for the government's debts. Until  the Federal Reserve has  been
fully paid for  use of it's special paper, it has a lien upon all that you
have acquired with it.  Thus that man  that passed the FRN to you does not
really own your goods - now the Fed owns them, although they do not have
possession of them.  It is like the plantation owner, who owns the clothes on
the backs of his slaves.
 
Don E. Williams Co. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 429 U.S. 569
(1977):  Notes  cannot pay  debt, debt  cannot pay  debt.
 
"No  state shall  make any thing  but gold  and silver coin  a tender in
payment  of debts."   U.S.  Constitution, Article  1, section  10, never
amended.  Thus, any other form of promised money is a fraud.
 
"Federal Reserve Notes are not legal money."  Justice Martin V. Mahoney,
Credit  River Township, Dec. 7-9, 1968 in Jerome Daly vs. First National
Bank of Montgomery, Minn.

:2nd

                    SOME QUICK NOTES ON THE 2ND AMENDMENT
 
     In a recently decided U.S. Supreme Court case, United States versus
Verdrigo-Urquidez,  110 S. Ct. 1056,  1060-61 (1990), the Court referred
to  the Second Amendment  and specifically addressed  the meaning of the
words  "the people" as used in  the First, Second, and Fourth Amendments
to  the U.S.  Constitution. While  the specific  case involved  only the
protections  afforded  to individuals  under  the Fourth  Amendment, the
Court  did  clearly state  that  the words  "the  people" in  the Second
Amendment  have the  same meaning  as they  do in  the First  and Fourth
Amendments, i.e., the rights of individuals.

      While the dicta doesn't define how the Supreme Court would rule on
a  particular Second Amendment case, it does indicate the Court believes
that  the "right to keep and bear  arms" is an _individual_ right rather
than  a _collective_ right  as the anti-gun movement  and the mass media
would like everyone to believe.
 
 In 1856 the U.S. Supreme Court declared that local law enforcement had no
duty to protect a particular person, but only a general duty to enforce the
laws. [South v. Maryland, 59 U.S. (HOW) 396,15 L.Ed., 433 (1856)].

 In 1982, the U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit, held that:

"...there is no constitutional right to be protected by the state against
being murdered by criminals or madmen.  It is monstrous if the state fails to
protect its residents against such predators but it does not violate the due
process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment or, we suppose, any other provision
of the Constitution.  The Constitution is a charter of negative liberties: it
tells the state to let people alone; it does not require the federal
government or the state to provide services, even so elementary a service as
maintaining law and order." [Bowers v. DeVito, U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh
Circuit, 686F.2d 616 (1982) See also Reiff v. City of Philadelphia,
477F.Supp.1262 (E.D.Pa. 1979)].

     There are a few, very narrow exceptions.  in 1983, the District of
Columbia Court of Appeals remarked that:

"In a civilized society, every citizen at least tacitly relies upon the
constable for protection from crime. Hence, more than general reliance is
needed to require the police to act on behalf of a particular individual.
...Liability is established, therefore, if the police have specifically
undertaken to protect a particular individual and the individual has
specifically relied upon the undertaking.   ...Absent a special relationship,
therefore, the police may not be held liable for failure to protect a
particular individual from harm caused by criminal conduct.  A special
relationship exists if the police employ an individual in aid of law
enforcement, but does not exist merely because an individual requests, or a
police officer promises to provide protection." [Morgan v. District of
Columbia, 468 A2d 1306 (D.C. App. 1983)].

     As a result, the government - specifically, police forces - has no
legal duty to help any given person, even one whose life is in imminent
peril.

In a New York case, a Judge Keating dissented, bitterly noting that Linda
Riss was victimized not only because she had relied on the police to protect
her, but because she obeyed New York laws that forbade her to own a weapon.
Judge Keating wrote:

"What makes the city's position particularly difficult to understand is that,
in conformity to the dictates of the law, Linda did not carry any weapon for
self-defense.  Thus, by a rather bitter irony she was required to rely for
protection on the City of New York, which now denies all responsibility to
her."  [Riss v. City of New York, 293 N.Y. 2d 897 (1968)].

The California Court of Appeals held that any claim against the police
department:

"...is barred by the provisions of the California Tort Claims Act,
particularly Section 845, which states: `Neither a public entity nor a public
employee is liable for failure to establish a police department or otherwise
provide police protection or, if police protection service is provided, for
failure to provide sufficient police protection."  [Hartzler v. City of San
Jose, App., 120 Cal.Rptr 5 (1975)].

     The Superior Court of the District of Columbia held that:

"...the fundamental principle (is -ed.) that a government and its agents are
under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection,
to any particular individual citizen...The duty to provide public services is
owed to the public at large, and, absent a special relationship between the
police and an individual, no special legal duty exists."

In an accompanying memorandum, the Court explained that the term "special
relationship" did not mean an oral promise to respond to a call for help.
Rather, it involved the provision of help to the police force. [Warren v.
District of Columbia, D.C. App., 444 A.2d 1 (1981)].

"...the defendant law enforcement agencies and officers did not owe them (the
children - ed.) any legal duty of care, the breach of which caused their
injury and death...Our law is that in the absence of a special relationship,
such as exists when a victim is in custody or the police have promised to
protect a particular person, law enforcement agencies and personnel have no
duty to protect individuals from the criminal acts of others; instead their
duty is to preserve the peace and arrest law breakers for the protection of
the general public.  In this instance, a special relationship of the type
stated did not exist....Plaintiff's argument that the children's presence
required defendants to delay (the) arrest until the children were elsewhere is
incompatible with the duty that the law has long placed on law enforcement
personnel to make the safety of the public their first concern; for permitting
dangerous criminals to go unapprehended lest particular individuals be injured
or killed would inevitably and necessarily endanger the public at large, a
policy that the law cannot tolerate, much less foster."  [Lynch v. N.C. Dept.
of Justice, 376 S.E. 2nd 247 (N.C. App. 1989)].

"....a distinction must be drawn between a public duty owed by the officials
to the citizenry at large and a special duty owned to a specific identifiable
person or class of persons.....Only a violation of the latter duty will give
rise to civil liability of the official....to hold a public official civilly
liable for violating a duty owed to the public at large would subject the
official to potential liability for every action he undertook and would not be
in society's best interest.".....no special relationship existed that would
create a common law duty on the defendants to protect the decedent (Marshall -
ed.) from Mundy's criminal acts. Similarly, without a special relationship
between the defendants and the decedent, no constitutional duty can arise
under the Due Process Clause as codified by 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983.  Therefore,
plaintiff's (Mrs. Marshall - ed.) due process claim also must fall." [Marshall
v. Winston, 389 S.E.2nd 902 (Va. 1990)].

:irs

               THE IRS, INCOME TAXATION, AND THE 16TH AMENDMENT
 
"Income is realized gain."  Schuster v. Helvering, 121 F 2d 643.
 
"The  word  profit, as  ordinarily used,  means the  gain made  upon any
business   or   investment-a  different   thing  altogether   from  mere
compensation for labor.  There is a clear distinction between profit and
wages  or  compensation for  labor.   Compensation  for labor  cannot be
regarded  as profit within the meaning of the law."  Oliver v. Halstead,
196 Va. 992.
 
"Reasonable  compensation for labor or services rendered is not profit."
Laurendale Cemetary Assoc. v. Matthews, 245 Pa. 239.
 
"The  general term 'income' is not  defined in the Internal Revenue
Code."  US v. Ballard, 535 F. 2d 400 (1976)

"...it  becomes essential to distinguish  between what is, and what is  not
'income'...Congress  may not,  by any  definition it  may adopt, conclude
the  matter,  since  it   cannot  by  legislation  alter  the Constitution,
from which alone  it derives its  power to legislate, and within  whose
limitations alone, that  power can be lawfully exercised." Eisner V. Macomber,
252 US 189 (1920)

"...'income,'  as used in the statute should  be given so as not to include
everything that comes in. The true function of the words 'gains' and
'profits'  is to  limit the  meaning  of the  word 'income'."   So. Pacific
v. Lowe, 2389 F. 847 (US Dist  Ct. S.D. N.Y., 1917); 247 US 330 (1918)

"Income  within  the meaning  of  the Sixteenth  Amendment  and the Revenue
Act,  means  'gain'...  and  in  such  connection  'Gain' means
profit...proceeding   from  property,  severed   from  capital,  however
invested or employed, and coming in, received, or drawn by the taxpayer, for
his seperate use, benefit and disposal."  Staples v. US, 21 F. Supp 737 (US
Dist. Ct. ED PA, 1937)

"...the  definition of 'income' approved by this court is: The gain derived
from  capital,  from [not  by]  labor, or  from  both combined, provided  it
be  understood to  include profits  gained through  sale or conversion of
capital assets."  Eisner v. Macomber, 252 US 189 (1920)

They  define  the IRS  income tax  in Title  26 of  the US  code in Section
1: "there is  hereby imposed on the  taxable income of every... individual,  a
tax..."   This is clearly  a direct tax,  even if we knew what  they were
taxing, in direct violation of the constitution. This is confirmed  by the
courts:  "such a tax  would be by  nature a capitation rather than excise
tax."  Peck & Co. v. Lowe, 247 US 165 (1918)

"Our tax system is based upon VOLUNTARY assessment and payment, not upon
distraint." - U.S. Supreme Court in Flora v. U.S. (1959) ["Voluntary"  means
"acting  or  done  without  any  present  legal obligation to do the  thing
done"   Webster's Third World International Dictionary]

"Statutes  levying taxes should be construed,  in case of doubt, against
the  government and in favor of the  citizen."  Miller v. Gearing 258 F.
225
 
     "The  legal  right of  a taxpayer  to decrease  the amount  of what
otherwise  would be his taxes, OR  ALTOGETHER AVOID THEM, by means which
the law permits, cannot be doubted." Gregory vs.  Helvering 293 U.S. 465
 
"The   explanations  and  examples  in  this publication  reflect the official
INTERPRETATION by  the IRS of tax laws enacted  by Congress  and...Court
decisions...The publication covers  some subjects on which CERTAIN COURTS HAVE
TAKEN POSITIONS MORE FAVORABLE TO TAXPAYERS THAN THE OFFICIAL POSITION OF THE
SERVICE.  Until these  interpretations  are  resolved  by higher  court
decisions,  or otherwise  [like when there is no higher court, in the case of
a Supreme Court  decision!--FF],  the  publication will continue  to  present
the viewpoint of the Service." IRS, Publication 17

"One does not derive taxable income  by rendering services and charging  for
them. IRS cannot enlarge the scope of the statute." Edwards v. Keith, 231 F
110,113
 
"An income  tax is neither a property tax nor a tax on  occupations of common
right, but is  an excise tax...The legislature  may  declare  as 'privileged'
and  tax as  such  for state revenue, those pursuits not matters of common
right, but it has no power to declare as a  'privilege' and tax  for revenue
purposes, occupations that are of common right." Sims v. Ahrens, 271  SW 720
(1925)
 
"Income  is realized gain." Schuster v. Helvering, 121 F 2nd 643

"The  word  profit, as ordinarily used, means the gain made upon any business
or investment - a different thing altogether from mere compensation for labor.
There is a clear  distinction between profit  and wages or  compensation for
labor. Compensation  for labor cannot be regarded  as profit within the
meaning of the law." Oliver  v.  Halstead,  196  Va.  992
 
"Decided cases have made the  distinction between wages and income and have
refused to equate the two." Central Illinois Publishing Service  v. U.S., 435
U.S. 31, p.90
 
"Income, as  used in the statute should  be given the meaning so as  NOT to
include everything that comes in.   The TRUE function  of the words 'gains'
and 'profits' is to LIMIT the meaning of the word 'income'." So.Pacific v.
Lowe, 238 F. 847
 
"...the  provisions  of the  Sixteenth  Amendment conferred  no new power  of
taxation  but  simply prohibited  the  previous  complete and plenary  power
of  income  taxation  possessed  by  Congress  from  the beginning  from being
taken out of  the catagory of indirect taxation to which  it inherently
belonged and being placed in the category of direct taxation..."  Stanton v.
Baltic Mining Co., 240 U.S. 103.
 
"A  tax laid upon the happening  of an event, as distinguished from its
tangible fruits, is an indirect tax..."  Tyler v. U.S. 281 U.S. 497
 
"The  conclusion reached in the Pollock Case did not in any degree involve
holding  that  income taxes  generically  and  necessarily came within  the
class of  direct  taxes on  property,  but on  the contrary recognized  the
fact that taxation on income was in its nature an excise entitled  to be
enforced as such..."   Brushaber v.  Union Pacific R.R. Co., 240 U.S. 1

"Excises   are  taxes   laid...upon  licenses   to  pursue  certain
occupations,   and   upon   corporation   privileges...The   tax   under
consideration  may  be  described  as  an  excise  upon  the  particular
privilege of doing business in a corporate capacity.  The requirement to pay
such taxes  involves the exercise  of privileges."   Flint v. Stone Tracy Co.,
220 U.S. 107.
 
"The  individual, unlike the  corporation, cannot be  taxed for the mere
privilege of  existing.  The  corporation is  an artificial entity which  owes
its existence  and  charter powers  to  the state;  but the individuals'
rights to live and own property are natural rights for the enjoyment  of which
an  EXCISE cannot be imposed."   Redfield v. Fisher, 292 P. 813.
 
"The   right  to  labor   and  to  its   protection  from  unlawful
interference  is a constitutional  as well as  a common-law right. Every man
has a natural right to the fruits  of his own industry."  48 Am Jur 2d,
section 2, page 80.

:1st

Well, okay, yes we do have some quick quotes on the First Amendment. Freedom
of speech per se doesn't usually come up too often, but note that this
amendment also gives us freedom of (OR FROM) religion, the right to speak or
not speak (i.e., remain silent), etc. Bear this in mind when reading the
following...

"The several states has no greater power to restrain individual freedoms
protected by the First Amendment than does the Congress of the United States."
Wallace v Jaffree, 105 S Ct 2479; 472 US 38, (1985).

"Loss of First Amendment Freedoms, for even minimal periods of time,
unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury.  Though First Amendment rights
are not absolute, they may be curtailed only by interests of vital importance,
the burden of proving which rests on their government."  Elrod v. Burns, 96 S
Ct 2673; 427 US 347, (1976).

:misc

                             MISCELLANEOUS
 
From the Roger Sherman Society:
 
The question is often asked, "How can one individual stand alone against
'City  Hall'?"   After serious  practice combined  with continued faith,
study, and prayer, our answer came:
 
1.  Obtain, and study  carefully, a copy  of West's Annotated California
Codes,   Government  Code,  Title  2,   Div.  3,  Ch.  5  Administrative
Adjudication sections 11500-11528.  If you have difficulty understanding
it, ask a lawyer to explain it.  If the lawyer discourages you and tells
you  it does not apply to the  letter, bill, ticket, or other accusation
you  received  from the  IRS, DMV,  FTB, Licensing  Agency or  other ABC
government administrative agency/officer, then find another lawyer, or a
paralegal,  or even a teacher of the English language.  Find someone who
can help you UNDERSTAND this legal procedure; not necessarily someone to
do it for you.  (For those living in other states, see #7 below.)
 
2.   Upon  receipt of  the accusation, send  the Agency  Hearing Board a
NOTICE  OF  DEFENSE (sec.  11506)  and be  sure  to ask  for  a hearing.
(Bender form 15.)
 
3.   The Administrative Hearing  is the place where  you will put ON THE
RECORD your Evidence of substantive Rights.  This is the place where you
enter  your Recisions and Waivers and  Claims and Declarations, etc., on
the  RECORD.  You may  also enter questions of  Discovery such as "Where
does  the Agency have an Interest  in Respondent (that's you) to convert
his  right to travel/contract into  the privilege to drive/be employed?"
or "What evidence does the Agency depend upon to show that Respondent is
subject  to the  licensing requirements and  state administrative police
powers  in  this  instant  case?" or  "Is  a  Tax  Identification Number
mandatory or voluntary and what section of the Code says that?" or "As I
do  not have a license,  by what section of  the Code does the Licensing
Agency claim it may regulate Respondent?"  (Do not become angry with any
answers  you may receive, as all of this information is entered here for
the Record.)
 
4.   If/When the Administrative Hearing Board rules against you, you may
take their Decision for a review in the Superior Court of your County by
a  Petition  for  Writ  of  Mandate (CCP  secs.  1085,  1086)  to Review
Administrative Decision (CCP sec. 1094.5)  cost of bringing this Writ of
Mandate is included in the Petition. There is no charge to file it.
 
5.   If you are denied the  Administrative Hearing, you have been denied
due  process of law (Gov't  Code Sec. 11506) and  you might want to file
the  Mandate for Review of the  Administrative Decision (Bender form 35)
and claim some damages.
 
6. If you followed the above instructions you may have eliminated any or
all  of  the following:  going to  Justice  Court, Municipal  Court, Tax
Court,  losing your  property, and  even going to  jail; AND  you may be
rewarded  for being vigilant and claiming  your Rights just by following
the  Forms.  Be  sure to read carefully  the instructions following each
Form, and Govt Code secs. 11500-11528.
 
7.   Evry State  in the Union  must have equivalent  statutes and Forms.
You  legal researchers  out there get  busy and find  your state's codes
which are equivalent to Calif. Govt. Code 11500-11528 and the procedural
code  sections for the Review Mandate--Calif.  CCP secs. 1085, 1086, and
1094,5,  and the equivalent to  Bender Form Numbers 15  and 35.  Let the
people  in your state know the forms they  can use to stand up and claim
their  Rights so that the agencies will  get the message to do their job
of regulating the business of the state and nothing more.
 
     Maybe  we should  begin to entertain  the possibility  that we, the
individual  sovereigns, DID SOMETHING to  change our sovereign status to
that  of a 14th Amendment subject who  is in debt (the validity of which
cannot be questioned).
 
     We  do have the right to contract (somehow) out of the jurisdiction
of  sovereignty secured  (though not  granted) by  the Constitution; and
maybe  we did exercise  that right to contract  into a commercial status
and abandoned our sovereign status.
 
     We  submit that  we were registered  at birth  into an eleemosynary
corporate  estate  which  made us  eligible  to apply  for  benefits and
privileges.   Did we not make application for the benefits of the social
security insurance policy and other benefits which are in the commercial
jurisdiction?
 
     REMEMBER:  Commerce is a subject of the U.S.  If you are registered
in  commerce, you are  registered as a subject.   Birth Certificates are
registered  in  the U.S.  Department of  Commerce; ALSO,  the commercial
jurisdiction  is the one  that uses NOTES (which  are evidences of debt)
and  not SUBSTANCE to  pay debts.   (For purposes of  this discussion we
will  not address the validity of the  NOTES or PROMISES TO PAY nor will
we  address  the  subject  of  discharge  of  debt  in  contrast  to the
extinguishment  of debt.  However,  to discourage perpetual debt, always
offer  to pay debts  with unborrowed subtantive  money, and afford those
indebted the opportunity to do likewise.)
 
     We  at the  Judge Roger Sherman  Society have concluded  that if an
individual has sovereign status, he may simply BAR the state/legislative
courts-for-subjects  (see Art.1, sec.8,  cl.9 & Art.3,  sec.1, cl.1 U.S.
Constitution) from exercising the jurisdiction of THEIR courts ("COURT--
the  person and suit of  the sovereign"  Black's  Law dictionary 3rd Ed.
pg. 457) against another sovereign. They recognize that the law does not
give   them  jurisdiction  over  another   sovereign.    But  they  HAVE
jurisdiction over their subjects (those who signed in and showed a birth
certificate).

                                    *****

                                  End of FAQ

                                    *****

E-mail regarding these topics may be forwarded to

[email-masked]

and encrypted with the above public key if desired.

--