“Decency security and liberty alike demand that government shall
be subjected to the same rules of conduct that are commands of
the citizen. In a government of laws, existence of the government
will be imperiled if it fails to observe the law scrupulously. Our
government is the potent, omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill,
it teaches the people by example. Crime is contagious. If
government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for the
law; it invites every man to become the law unto himself; it invites
anarchy… “ —Dissenting opinions of Supreme Court Justice
Louis Brandeis in the case of Olmstead v. United States (1928),
277 US 438, 485.
“No man in this country [including even the President] is so high
that he is above the law. No officer of the law may set that law at
defiance with impunity. All officers of the government, from the
highest to the lowest, are creatures of the law, and are bound to
obey it. It is the only supreme power in our system of government,
and every man who is accepting office participates in its functions
is only the more strongly bound to submit to that supremacy and
to obsrve the limitations it imposes upon the exercise of the
authority it gives.” United States v. Lee (1882), 105 US 196; 1 SCt
249.
“An officer who acts in violation of the Constitution ceases to
represent the government.” Brookfield Co. v. Stewart, 284 F.
Supp. 94.
“It is not the function of our government to keep the citizen from
falling into error; it is the function of the citizen to keep the
government from falling into error. American Communications Ass’
n v. Douds (1950), 339 US 382; 70 SCt 674.
“Next in importance to personal freedom is immunity from
suspicious and jealous [government] observation. Men my be
without restraints upon their liberty; they may pass to and from at
pleasure; but if their steps are tracked by spies and informers,
their words noted down for crimination, their associates watched
as conspirators, who shall say that they are free? Nothing is more
revolting . . . than the espionage which forms part of the
administration system of continental despotisms. It haunts men
like an evil genius, chills their gayety, restrains their wit, casts a
shadow over their friendships, and blights their domestic hearth.
The freedom of a country may be measured by the immunity from
this baleful agency.” . . . As a noted commentator has more
recently observed: “[O]ne of the central elements of the history of
liberty in Western societies since the days of the Greek city-state
has been the struggle to install limits on the power [to spy on]
private groups against their will. The whole network of American
constitutional rights . . . was established to curtail the ancient
surveillance claims of government authorities.” Westin, Privacy
and Freedom (1967) p. 57. Attorney General Opinion No. 84-901,
May 8, 1985, by John K. Van De Kamp.
“The terms ‘resident’ and ‘citizen’ [of one of the several state
Republics] are not the synonymous.” Prowd v. Gore (1922), 57 CA
458, 460; 207 P 490.
“Since, in common usage, the term person does not include
sovereign, statutes employing the phrase are ordinarily construed
to exclude it.” U.S. v. Fox, 94 US 31. [See also: U.S. v. Cooper, 312
US 600; U.S. v. General Motors, 2 FRD 528; U.S. v. United Mine
Workers, 330 US 258
“The people have succeeded to the rights of the king, the former
sovereign of this State. They are not, therefore, bound by general
words in statute restrictive of prerogative, without being expressly
named – e.g. Insolvent Law.” The People v. Herkimer, Gentleman,
one, & c. (1825) – 4 Cowen 345, N.Y. Lexas 80.
“The people are supreme, not the state.” Waring v. the Mayor of
Savanah, 60 Georgia at 93.
“…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 book and pages for an
examination at the suit of the State. The individual [private person]
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 here from,
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 law. He owes nothing to the public so long as he does
not trespass upon their rights. On the other hand, the corporation
is a creature of the State. It is presumed to be incorporated for the
benefit of the public. It receives certain special privileges and
franchises, and holds them subject to the laws of the State and
the limitations of its charter. Its rights to act as a corporation are
only preserved to it so long as it obeys the laws of its creation.
There is a reserved right in the legislature to investigate its
contracts and find whether it has exceeded its powers. It would be
a strange anomaly to hold that a State, having chartered a
corporation to make use of certain franchises, could not in the
exercise of its sovereignty inquire how those franchisees had
been employed, and whether they had been abused, and demand
the production of the corporate books and papers for that
purpose.” Hale v. Henkel (1906), 201 US 43, 74-75:
[The facts and principles so clearly articulated in this Supreme
Court case apply only to “sovereign” state Citizens and not to U.
S. federal-franchised citizens or “persons” and “residents.”]
“We the People” [body politic of sovereign state Republic
Citizens, the official ruling power and authority in America] have
discharged any debt which may be said to exist or be owed to the
state/government. The governments are, however, indebted
continually to the people, because the people created the
government corporation and because we suffer its continued
existence. The continued debt owed to the people is discharged
only as it continues not to violate our private rights, and when
government fails in its duty to provide protection (discharge its
debt to the people), it is an abandonment of any and all power,
authority and vestige of ‘sovereignty’ which it possessed, and the
laws remain the same, the sovereignty reverting to the people
whence it came.” Down v. Bidwell (1901), 182 US 277
“An individual can be a Citizen of one of the several States
without being a citizen of the United States.” U.S. v. Anthony, 24
Fed. Cas. 829, 830.
“It is quite clear, then that there is a citizenship of the United
States [District of Columbia and its political subdivisions and
territories] and a citizenship of a state, which are distinct from
each other and which depend upon different characteristics or
circumstances of the individuals” . . . “Of the privileges and
immunities of the citizens of the United States and of the
privileges and immunities of the Citizens of the state, and what
they respectfully are, we will presently consider; but we wish to
state here that it is only the former [U.S./D.C. “democracy” citizens]
which are placed by this clause under the protection of the
federal constitution, and the latter [state Republic Citizens],
whatever they may be, are not intended to have any additional
protection by this paragraph of the amendment.” See: Slaughter-
House Cases, 16 Wall. 36, 72.
“This section contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two
sources only, birth and naturalization. The person declared to be
citizens are all persons born or naturalized in the United States,
‘and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.’ The evident meaning of
these last words is, not merely subject in some respect or degree
to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to
their political jurisdiction, and owing them direct and immediate
allegiance. And the words relate to the time of birth in the one
case, as they do to the time of naturalization in the other. Persons
not thus subject to the jurisdiction of the United States at the time
of birth cannot become so afterwards, except by being
naturalized, either individually, as by proceedings under the
naturalization acts, or collectively, as by the force of treaty by
which foreign territory is acquired.” US v. Wong Kim Ark (1898),
169 US 649; 18 SCt 456; 42 LEd 890
be subjected to the same rules of conduct that are commands of
the citizen. In a government of laws, existence of the government
will be imperiled if it fails to observe the law scrupulously. Our
government is the potent, omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill,
it teaches the people by example. Crime is contagious. If
government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for the
law; it invites every man to become the law unto himself; it invites
anarchy… “ —Dissenting opinions of Supreme Court Justice
Louis Brandeis in the case of Olmstead v. United States (1928),
277 US 438, 485.
“No man in this country [including even the President] is so high
that he is above the law. No officer of the law may set that law at
defiance with impunity. All officers of the government, from the
highest to the lowest, are creatures of the law, and are bound to
obey it. It is the only supreme power in our system of government,
and every man who is accepting office participates in its functions
is only the more strongly bound to submit to that supremacy and
to obsrve the limitations it imposes upon the exercise of the
authority it gives.” United States v. Lee (1882), 105 US 196; 1 SCt
249.
“An officer who acts in violation of the Constitution ceases to
represent the government.” Brookfield Co. v. Stewart, 284 F.
Supp. 94.
“It is not the function of our government to keep the citizen from
falling into error; it is the function of the citizen to keep the
government from falling into error. American Communications Ass’
n v. Douds (1950), 339 US 382; 70 SCt 674.
“Next in importance to personal freedom is immunity from
suspicious and jealous [government] observation. Men my be
without restraints upon their liberty; they may pass to and from at
pleasure; but if their steps are tracked by spies and informers,
their words noted down for crimination, their associates watched
as conspirators, who shall say that they are free? Nothing is more
revolting . . . than the espionage which forms part of the
administration system of continental despotisms. It haunts men
like an evil genius, chills their gayety, restrains their wit, casts a
shadow over their friendships, and blights their domestic hearth.
The freedom of a country may be measured by the immunity from
this baleful agency.” . . . As a noted commentator has more
recently observed: “[O]ne of the central elements of the history of
liberty in Western societies since the days of the Greek city-state
has been the struggle to install limits on the power [to spy on]
private groups against their will. The whole network of American
constitutional rights . . . was established to curtail the ancient
surveillance claims of government authorities.” Westin, Privacy
and Freedom (1967) p. 57. Attorney General Opinion No. 84-901,
May 8, 1985, by John K. Van De Kamp.
“The terms ‘resident’ and ‘citizen’ [of one of the several state
Republics] are not the synonymous.” Prowd v. Gore (1922), 57 CA
458, 460; 207 P 490.
“Since, in common usage, the term person does not include
sovereign, statutes employing the phrase are ordinarily construed
to exclude it.” U.S. v. Fox, 94 US 31. [See also: U.S. v. Cooper, 312
US 600; U.S. v. General Motors, 2 FRD 528; U.S. v. United Mine
Workers, 330 US 258
“The people have succeeded to the rights of the king, the former
sovereign of this State. They are not, therefore, bound by general
words in statute restrictive of prerogative, without being expressly
named – e.g. Insolvent Law.” The People v. Herkimer, Gentleman,
one, & c. (1825) – 4 Cowen 345, N.Y. Lexas 80.
“The people are supreme, not the state.” Waring v. the Mayor of
Savanah, 60 Georgia at 93.
“…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 book and pages for an
examination at the suit of the State. The individual [private person]
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 here from,
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 law. He owes nothing to the public so long as he does
not trespass upon their rights. On the other hand, the corporation
is a creature of the State. It is presumed to be incorporated for the
benefit of the public. It receives certain special privileges and
franchises, and holds them subject to the laws of the State and
the limitations of its charter. Its rights to act as a corporation are
only preserved to it so long as it obeys the laws of its creation.
There is a reserved right in the legislature to investigate its
contracts and find whether it has exceeded its powers. It would be
a strange anomaly to hold that a State, having chartered a
corporation to make use of certain franchises, could not in the
exercise of its sovereignty inquire how those franchisees had
been employed, and whether they had been abused, and demand
the production of the corporate books and papers for that
purpose.” Hale v. Henkel (1906), 201 US 43, 74-75:
[The facts and principles so clearly articulated in this Supreme
Court case apply only to “sovereign” state Citizens and not to U.
S. federal-franchised citizens or “persons” and “residents.”]
“We the People” [body politic of sovereign state Republic
Citizens, the official ruling power and authority in America] have
discharged any debt which may be said to exist or be owed to the
state/government. The governments are, however, indebted
continually to the people, because the people created the
government corporation and because we suffer its continued
existence. The continued debt owed to the people is discharged
only as it continues not to violate our private rights, and when
government fails in its duty to provide protection (discharge its
debt to the people), it is an abandonment of any and all power,
authority and vestige of ‘sovereignty’ which it possessed, and the
laws remain the same, the sovereignty reverting to the people
whence it came.” Down v. Bidwell (1901), 182 US 277
“An individual can be a Citizen of one of the several States
without being a citizen of the United States.” U.S. v. Anthony, 24
Fed. Cas. 829, 830.
“It is quite clear, then that there is a citizenship of the United
States [District of Columbia and its political subdivisions and
territories] and a citizenship of a state, which are distinct from
each other and which depend upon different characteristics or
circumstances of the individuals” . . . “Of the privileges and
immunities of the citizens of the United States and of the
privileges and immunities of the Citizens of the state, and what
they respectfully are, we will presently consider; but we wish to
state here that it is only the former [U.S./D.C. “democracy” citizens]
which are placed by this clause under the protection of the
federal constitution, and the latter [state Republic Citizens],
whatever they may be, are not intended to have any additional
protection by this paragraph of the amendment.” See: Slaughter-
House Cases, 16 Wall. 36, 72.
“This section contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two
sources only, birth and naturalization. The person declared to be
citizens are all persons born or naturalized in the United States,
‘and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.’ The evident meaning of
these last words is, not merely subject in some respect or degree
to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to
their political jurisdiction, and owing them direct and immediate
allegiance. And the words relate to the time of birth in the one
case, as they do to the time of naturalization in the other. Persons
not thus subject to the jurisdiction of the United States at the time
of birth cannot become so afterwards, except by being
naturalized, either individually, as by proceedings under the
naturalization acts, or collectively, as by the force of treaty by
which foreign territory is acquired.” US v. Wong Kim Ark (1898),
169 US 649; 18 SCt 456; 42 LEd 890
| Important Court Decisions You need to know about |
| FOR ONE OF THE BEST SONGS EXPOSING RAMPANT GOVERNMENT CRIME AND CORRUPTION...AND PROMOTING RON PAUL >>> CLICK HERE <<< This remarkable song says it like it is! |
| >>> CLICK HERE <<< |
<<<<<<<
CLICK
BANNER
<<<<<<<
CLICK
BANNER
<<<<<<<
