To be a Free People, we must understand, not only our Rights as given to us by God, but we must also understand to what extent and under what circumstances we may loose these Rights. Contrary to the philosophies and practices of tranny that pervade our "legal" and "judicial" system today, no court, no "government" agency, no other Man or Woman, nor any other group of Men or Women has any arbitrary Right to infringe upon our individual God-given Rights. No court may proceed with any actions, whether hearings or trial involving a Man or Woman endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights unless personal dominion and de jure jurisdiction over them is proved by the Plaintiffs and the court proceeding against them or unless you agree by contract that you are willingly, voluntarily, and knowingly, with full disclosure, agreeing to said jurisdiction and process.
Even then, there are limitations on the Rights that can be relinguished by the People. Once a Right is Given by God, it is a Right retained forever, being, not only an unalienable Right, but also a non-negotiable Right, meaning, if God has given it to me I cannot give it away or even allow it to be infringed by another Man or entity, ...except in the event that I myself have infringed upon the Life, Liberty and/or Property of another Man or Woman. If I commit such an infringement against another Man and it is proven, I then may have relinguished the Rights that God gave me. This is the foundation of Mosaic Law and the legal principle upon which this Nation was inspired into existence by Almighty God. Contrary to the teaching of some, God is not a Tyrant, but rather is, not only the founder of, but the number one practioner of, the concept of "free moral agency". The Creator of the Universe has two basic rules, 1) that we honor Him and 2) that we respect the Rights that he gave to other Men and Women.
Many people and especially many persons of "government" would have us believe that our various Constitutions, both National and of the "several states" grant us certain Rights. That is simply a presumption of ignorance in some cases and an outright lie in other cases. Our state and National Constitutions were never intended to grant, define, or limit the Rights of the People; these documents are for the purpose of putting "chains" on the government's power and ability to infringe upon those individual God-given unalienable and non-negotiable Rights. When viewed through this prism of "Truth", one's understanding will take on a meaning of the relationship between God, Man and "governments of Man". The Founders of this Nation understood and accepted these Axioms upon which they strove to found a new Nation within which Men would be free from the Tyranny of other Men. Most of us have either forgotten these Truths or have permitted others desiring power and control over our lives to convince us that there is some other way that must be followed. They lie.
The following is a condensed "Memorandum of Law" listing "Supreme Law of the Land" and legal cases/opinions showing evidence that no government entity has personal dominion and jurisdiction over your Life, Liberty, and Property, nor are the People bound or obligated to obey any such law, statute, rule, or regulation that would infringe upon their individual God-given Rights. In fact, it is our obligation to peacefully resist all such attempts by "the state"or by other persons to infringe upon our God-given Rights. If God cares for us enough to give us a Right, we should treasure that Right and be willing to claim and protect that Right at whatever the cost may be.
To Wit:
US Constitution, Article 6, Clause 2 (The Supremacy Clause):
"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."
Marbury v. Madison 5 US 137 (1803):
"No provision of the Constitution is designed to be without effect", "Anything that is in conflict is null and void of law", "Clearly, for a secondary law to come in conflict with the Supreme Law was illogical, for certainly, the supreme Law would prevail over all other laws and certainly our forefathers had intended that the supreme Law would be the bases of all law and for any law to come in conflict would be null and void of law, it would bare no power to enforce, in would bare no obligation to obey, it would purport to settle as if it had never existed, for unconstitutionality would date from the enactment of such a law, not from the date so branded in an open court of law, no courts are bound to uphold it, and no Citizens are bound to obey it. It operates as a near nullity or a fiction of law."
(If any statement, within any law, which is passed, is unconstitutional, the whole law is unconstitutional.)
Mudock v. Penn. 319 US 105 (1943):
"A state may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the Federal Constitution and that a flat license tax here involves restraints in advance the constitutional liberties of Press and Religion and inevitably tends to suppress their existence. That the ordinance is non-discriminatory and that is applies also to peddlers of wares and merchandise is immaterial. The liberties granted by the first amendment are in a preferred position. Since the privilege in question is guaranteed by the Federal Constitution and exists independently of the states authority, the inquiry as to whether the state has given something for which it cannot ask a return, is irrelevant. No state may convert any secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it."
Byars v. US 273 USR 28 (1927):
"Constitutional provisions, where the security of a person and property are to be liberally construed, and it is the duty of the courts to be watchful for the Constitutional rights of the Citizen and against any stealth encroachment therein."
Hurtado v. California 110 US 516 (1884):
"The state cannot diminish the rights of the people."
Watson v. Memphis, 375 US 526 (1964):
"Constitutional rights may not be denied simply because of hostility to their assertion and exercise. Vindication of conceded constitutional rights cannot be made dependent upon any theory that it is less expensive to deny them than to afford them."
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US 436 at 491 (1966):
"Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them."
Miller v. US, 230 F 486 (1913):
"The claim and exercise of a Constitutional right shall not be converted into a crime."
Wright v Georgia 373 US 284 (1964):
"…one cannot be punished for failing to obey the command of an officer if the command itself is violative of the Constitution."
Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham, Alabama: 373 US 262 (1962)
"If the state does convert your right into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it, you can ignore the license and a fee and engage the right with impunity."
Mulger v. Kansas 123 US 623 (1887):
"The courts …are under a solemn duty, to look at the substance of things, whenever they enter upon the inquiry whether the legislature has transcended the limits of its authority. If, therefore, a statute purporting to have been enacted to protect the public health, the public morals, or the public safety, has no real or substantial relation to those objects, or is a palpable invasion of rights secured by the fundamental law, it is the duty of the courts to so adjudge, and thereby give effect to the Constitution."
"The individual stands 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 investigation, so far as it may tend to incriminate him. He owes no duty to the state since he receives nothing therefrom beyond the protection of his property and life. His rights are such as exist by the law of the land that is long antecedent to the organization of the state, and can only be taken from him by due process of the law in accordance with the Constitution. He owes nothing to the public so long as he does not trespass upon their rights." --- United States Supreme Court, Hale vs. Hinkle 201 U.S. 43 at 74.
Since 1905, the case of Hale vs. Hinkle has been cited by the Supreme Court over 144 times and by the lower federal and state courts over 1,600 times. Hale vs. Hinckle has never been reversed . . .
[Emphasis is added on some of the above quoted text.]
