That no person . shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law

The Doctrine of Due Process of Law before the Civil War

Edward S. Corwin
Page 366 of 366-385

 http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/1324692

“That no person … shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.”

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=12186695331182794879&q=US+V+LEE,+106+US+PRPORTS+PG+196,+1882&hl=en&as_sdt=2,26

Lyders v. Lund32
F.2d 308, 308-09 (ND Cal. 1929

https://truthspress.wordpress.com/1856-2/

June 7,2012 call with Howard Griswold  http://www.talkshoe.com/talkshoe/web/talkCast.jsp?masterId=95099&cmd=tc

Supreme Court case law  Caha v. United States:
“The laws of congress do not apply within the territorial limits of the states but have force only within the national government.”

Point 022. Affiant has no record or evidence that any attorney can lawfully testify in brief or in oral argument before the court against Affiant, as per citations exhibited in EXHIBIT 022 – NOTICE OF ATTORNEYS NOT ALLOWED TO TESTIFY.
ADMIT – Libellees listed in this document admit to the truth and guilt of attorneys making accusations and testimony against Affiant.
EXHIBIT 022 – NOTICE OF ATTORNEYS NOT ALLOWED TO TESTIFY
It’s a VIOLATION of the 11th Amendment for a FOREIGN CITIZEN to INVOKE the JUDICIAL POWER of the State.Article XI.
The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.US citizens (FEDERAL CITIZENS) are FOREIGN to the several States and SUBJECTS of the FEDERAL UNITED STATES/STATE of NEW COLUMBIA/DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.
ATTORNIES are considered FOREIGN AGENTS under the FOREIGN AGENTS
REGISTRATION ACT (FARA) and are SUBJECTS of the BAR ASSOCIATION.
Government Is Foreclosed from Parity with Real People
– Supreme Court of the United States 1795
“Inasmuch as every government is an artificial person, an abstraction, and a creature of
the mind only, a government can interface only with other artificial persons. The imaginary,
having neither actuality nor substance, is foreclosed from creating and attaining parity
with the tangible. The legal manifestation of this is that no government, as well as any
law, agency, aspect, court, etc. can concern itself with anything other than corporate,
artificial persons and the contracts between them.”
S.C.R. 1795, Penhallow v. Doane’s Administraters (3 U.S. 54; 1 L.Ed. 57; 3 Dall. 54),
Supreme Court of the United States 1795 —–
And,
“An attorney for the plaintiff cannot admit evidence into the court. He is either an attorney or a witness”.
(Trinsey v. Pagliaro D.C.Pa. 1964, 229 F. Supp. 647)
This applies both with Federal Rules of Evidence and State Rules of Evidence…. there must be a competent first hand witness (a body). Their has to be a real person making the complaint and bringing evidence before the court. Corporations are paper and can’t testify.
Manifestly, [such statements] cannot be properly considered by us in the disposition of [a] case.” United States  v. Lovasco (06/09/77)  431 U.S. 783, 97 S. Ct. 2044, 52 L. Ed. 2d 752,
Under no possible view, however, of the findings we are considering can they be held to constitute a compliance with the statute, since they merely embody conflicting statements ofcounsel concerning the facts as they suppose them to be and their appreciation of the law which they deem applicable, there being, therefore, no attempt whatever to state the ultimate facts by a consideration of which we would be able to conclude whether or not the judgment was warranted.” Gonzales  v. Buist. (04/01/12) 224 U.S. 126, 56 L. Ed. 693, 32 S. Ct. 463.
“No instruction was asked, but, as we have said, the judge told the jury that they were to regard only the evidence admitted by him, not statements of counsel”Holt v. United States,(10/31/10) 218 U.S. 245, 54 L. Ed. 1021, 31 S. Ct. 2,
The prosecutor is not a witness; and he should not be permitted to add to the record either by subtle or gross improprieties. Those who have experienced the full thrust of the power of government when leveled against them know that the only protection the citizen has is in the requirement for a fair trial.” Donnelly v. Dechristoforo, 1974.SCT.41709 <http://www.versuslaw.com> ¶ 56; 416 U.S. 637 (1974) Mr. Justice Douglas, dissenting.
Care has been taken, however, in summoning witnesses to testify, to call no man whose character or whose word could be successfully impeached by any methods known to the law. And it is remarkable, we submit, that in a case of this magnitude, with every means and resource at their command, the complainants, after years of effort and search in near and in the most remote paths, and in every collateral by-way, now rest the charges of conspiracy and of gullibility against these witnesses, only upon the bare statements of counsel. The lives of all the witnesses are clean, their characters for truth and veracity un-assailed, and the evidence of any attempt to influence the memory or the impressions of any man called, cannot be successfully pointed out in this record.” Telephone Cases. Dolbear  v. American Bell Telephone Company, Molecular Telephone Company v. American Bell Telephone Company. American Bell Telephone Company v.. Molecular Telephone Company, Clay Commercial Telephone Company v. American Bell Telephone Company, People’s Telephone Company v. American Bell Telephone Company,  Overland Telephone Company v. American Bell Telephone Company,. (PART TWO OF THREE) (03/19/88) 126 U.S. 1, 31 L. Ed. 863, 8 S. Ct. 778.
Statements of counsel in brief or in argument are not sufficient for motion to dismiss or for summary judgment,” Trinsey v. PagliaroD. C. Pa. 1964, 229 F. Supp. 647.
Factual statements or documents appearing only in briefs shall not be deemed to be a part of the record in the case, unless specifically permitted by the Court” – Oklahoma Court Rules and Procedure, Federal local rule 7.1(h).
Trinsey v Pagliaro D.C.Pa. 1964, 229 F. Supp. 647. “Statements of counsel in brief or in argument are not facts before the court and are therefore insufficient for a motion to dismiss or for summary judgment.” Pro Per and pro se litigants should therefore always remember that the majority of the time, the motion to dismiss a case is only argued by the opposing attorneywho is not allowed to testify on the facts of the case, the motion to dismiss is never argued by the real party in interest.
“Where there are no depositions, admissions, or affidavits the court has no facts to rely on for a summary determination.” Trinsey v. Pagliaro, D.C. Pa. 1964, 229 F. Supp. 647.
Frunzar v. Allied Property and Casualty Ins. Co. (Iowa 1996)† 548 N.W.2d 880 Professional statements of litigants attorney are treated as affidavits, and attorney making statements may be cross-examined regarding substance of statement. [And, how many of those Ass-Holes have “first hand knowledge”? NONE!!!]Porter v. Porter (N.D. 1979 ) 274 N.W.2d 235 ñ The practice of an attorney filing an affidavit on behalf of his client asserting the status of that client is not approved, inasmuch as not only does the affidavit become hearsay, but it places the attorney in a position of witness thus compromising his role as advocate.Deyo v. Detroit Creamery Co (Mich 1932) 241 N.W.2d 244 ñ Statutes forbidding administering of oath by attorney’s in cases in which they may be engaged applies to affidavits as well.    “The laws of congress do not apply within the territorial limits of the states but have force only within the national government.”
____________________________________________________________________________________________


About HeinOnline
 Blog Wiki Contact Us Log-in
26 Val. U. L. Rev. 367 (1991-1992)
Coherence of the Natural Law of Property, The ; Kmiec, Douglashandle is hein.journals/valur26 and id is 417 raw text is: THE COHERENCE OF THE NATURAL LAW OF<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />
PROPERTY<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />
DOUGLAS W. KMIEC*<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />
Property has played a central role in our republic, and it is fitting to<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />
examine that role on the occasion of the bicentennial of the Bill of Rights.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />
Ratified on December 15, 1791, the Fifth Amendment grandly proclaims that<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />
no person shall be deprived of life liberty, or property, without due process of<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />
law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />
compensation.' The drafter of this Amendment, James Madison, opined that:<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />
Government is instituted to protect property of every sort;... This being the<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />
end of government, that alone is a just government, which impartially secures<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />
to every man, whatever is his own.2 Against the proposition that the singular<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />
purpose of our government is the protection of property, there is the curiosity<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />
that the original constitution scarcely mentions the term.3 While at least two<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />
states demanded every other.provision that we know today as the Bill of Rights,<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />
not one requested the Taking Clause.' What explains this anomaly?<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />
The beginning of an answer, I suggest, can be found in Hamilton's<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />
observation that the true protection of men's rights are to be found not among<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />
old parchments, or musty records. They are written, as with a sun beam, in the<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />
whole volume of human nature, . . . and can never be erased or obscured.5<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />
This, of course, is natural law. In this, Hamilton was referencing what Cicero<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />
termed the highest reason, implanted in Nature, which commands those things<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />
which ought to be done and prohibits the reverse. The eminent Columbia legal<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />
historian, Edward Corwin documented that [it was during the Middle Ages.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />
. . that the conception of Natural Law as a code of human rights first took on<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />
real substance and importance.6 Natural law not only took on substance, but<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />
' Professor of Law, University of Notre Dame.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />
1. U.S. CONST. amend. V.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />
2. JAMES MADISON, PROPERTY (1792), reprinted in 14 PAPERS OF JAMES MADISON 266-68<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />
(emphasis in original).<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />
3. Property is mentioned in Article IV, Section 3, which provides that Congress shall have<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />
power to make all needful riles and regulations for property belonging to the United States.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />
4. EDWARD DUMBAULD, THE BILL OF RIGHTS AND WHAT IT MEANS TODAY 161-63 (1957)<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />
(outlining the amendments proposed by the states).<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />
5. 1 PAPERS OF ALEXANDER HAMILTON 122 (Harold C. Syreu ed., 1961) (emphasis in<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />
original).<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />
6. Edward Corwin, The Natural Law and Consduational Law, in 3 NATURAL LAW INSTITrrT<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />
PROCEEDINGS 47, 50 (1949) [hereinafter Corwin].</p><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />
<p>367</p><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />
<p>

Bill of Rights, The

HL Black – NYUL Rev., 1960 – HeinOnline
 The Fifth Amendment provides: No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise
infamous  in any criminal case to be a wit- ness against himself, nor be deprived of life  out due
process of lawnor shall private property be taken for public usewithout just compensation 

State constitutions and the protection of individual rights

WJ Brennan Jr – Harvard Law Review, 1977 – JSTOR
 constitutional provisions for the security of person and property should be liberally construed  an
accused in custody when shuffled through pre-indictment identifi- cation procedures, no matter
how  2406 (1976) (holding that in a Watson-like situation, police may pursue a suspect 

[CITATION] The 5th amendment today: three speeches

EN Griswold – 1955 – Harvard University Press

Higher Law Background of the Law of Eminent Domain, The

JAC Grant – Wis. L. Rev., 1930 – HeinOnline
 on the written constitution, which provided that “No part of a man’s property shall be taken  of 1790.0
That of Vermont likewise contained this requirement,”‘ but apparently no Vermont court  amended
Con- stitution of the United States, it is declared, ‘Private property shall not be 

On Property: An Essay

LS Underkuffler – Yale Lj, 1990 – HeinOnline
 made no rigid distinction between people and property Locke’s views exerted a powerful influence
on the Ameri- can Founders and on the early years of American  also men’s “Lives, Liberties and
Estates.”62 Locke defined property as that which “with– out a man’s own consent 

[PDF] The Doctrine of Due Process of Law Before the Civil War

ES Corwin – Harvard Law Review, 1911 – JSTOR
 them those of a “speculative jurist,” insisting that in a constitution which should contain no other
provisions  in this class of cases [retrospective laws] depends upon the view the court may take
of its  but only in those cases in which at the common law a private person, “taking the 

Embarrassing Second Amendment, The

S Levinson – Yale Lj, 1989 – HeinOnline
 IV. 4. “No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on
 when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject  8. “[Nlor
shall private property be taken for public usewithout just compensation.” US CONST. 

Coherence of the Natural Law of Property, The

D Kmiec – Val. UL Rev., 1991 – HeinOnline
 Ratified on December 15, 1791, the Fifth Amendment grandly proclaims that no person shall
“be deprived of life liberty, or propertywithout due process of lawnor shall private property be
taken for public use without just compensation.”1 The drafter of this Amendment, James 

The Origins and Original Significance of the Just Compensation Clause of the Fifth Amendment

WM Treanor – The Yale Law Journal, 1985 – JSTOR
 to say that every man who cannot find employment but who can find uncultivated land shall be
at  is taken for the use of the public” meant precisely that: Whether the man had developed that 
In no other state were residents faced with a challenge to property of similar magnitude. 

Without Due Process-Unconstitutional Law in Oregon

HA Linde – Or. L. Rev., 1969 – HeinOnline
 V. But it would have made no sense to “limit” this government by a demand that it afford every
man “remedy in due course of law for injury done him in his  Section 18 reads : Private property
shall not be taken for public usenor the particular services of any man be demanded 

The Doctrine of Due Process of Law before the Civil War

Edward S. Corwin
Page 366 of 366-385

 http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/1324692

Items Citing this Item (back to top)

22 item(s) in JSTOR cite this item

  • John Harrison

    Vol. 83, No. 3 (Apr., 1997) pp. 493-558

  • David P. Currie

    Vol. 1989, (1989) pp. 333-372

  • Cass R. Sunstein

    Vol. 55, No. 4 (Autumn, 1988) pp. 1161-1179

  • David P. Currie

    Vol. 1986, (1986) pp. 19-40

  • Frank H. Easterbrook

    Vol. 1982, (1982) pp. 85-125

  • Loren P. Beth

    Vol. 41, No. 4 (Nov., 1979) pp. 1105-1124

  • Michael Les Benedict

    Vol. 1978, (1978) pp. 39-79

  • A. E. Dick Howard

    Vol. 62, No. 5 (Jun., 1976) pp. 873-944

  • Leonard G. Ratner

    Vol. 116, No. 6 (Apr., 1968) pp. 1048-1117

  • Stanley Morrison

    Vol. 2, No. 1 (Dec., 1949) pp. 140-173

  • James Thomas Connor

    Vol. 30, No. 3 (Jun., 1944) pp. 435-461

  • G. W. C. Ross

    Vol. 29, No. 8 (Jun., 1943) pp. 1028-1063

  • James Wm. Moore and J. Benson Saks

    Vol. 27, No. 3 (Jan., 1941) pp. 253-327

  • Eberhard P. Deutsch

    Vol. 25, No. 5 (Mar., 1939) pp. 507-527

  • Pendleton Howard

    Vol. 87, No. 3 (Jan., 1939) pp. 262-279

  • Thomas Raeburn White

    Vol. 83, No. 4 (Feb., 1935) pp. 425-441

  • Douglas B. Maggs

    Vol. 1, No. 5 (May, 1934) pp. 665-697

  • Pendleton Howard

    Vol. 81, No. 5 (Mar., 1933) pp. 505-558

  • Pendleton Howard

    Vol. 80, No. 4 (Feb., 1932) pp. 483-521

  • J. A. C. Grant

    Vol. 31, No. 1 (Jan., 1931) pp. 56-81

  • Edward S. Corwin

    Vol. 74, No. 7 (May, 1926) pp. 639-671

  • Thomas Reed Powell

    Vol. 74, No. 5 (Mar., 1926) pp. 423-451

    How To Deal With A Government Checkpoint

    Thursday, 12 July 2012 05:22 Mac Slavo

    This article was written by Mac Slavo and originally published at SHTFplan.com

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

    -The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution

    With local, state and DHS checkpoints randomly popping up all over America many of our citizens believe that we must comply with what more often than not amounts to unlawful requests and orders from law enforcement officials.

    While driving through California, Steven Anderson came upon three such checkpoints and he chose not to play ball with officers who asked him, among other things, to prove his citizenship, prove his identity and pull over for further inspection and questioning.

    When asked whether he was a citizen Anderson’s immediate response was, “that’s my business.” When advised that it was the officer’s job to ask the question, Anderson calmly responds by saying, “I don’t have to answer you, because I have rights as an American.” The law enforcement official courteously asks Mr. Anderson to do him a favor and pull over for further questioning, no doubt expecting Anderson to comply. But not today, as Anderson patently refuses to do so per his Fourth Amendment Constitutional protections. He subsequently makes his own request, saying to the officer, “no thanks, I’d like to just go on my way.”

    All of it was recorded on a digital camera in Anderson’s car and out of view of officers.

    What you’ll see below is a crash course in exercising your Constitutional rights when faced with the threat of detention, interrogation and random searches by Federal or local law enforcement officials. You won’t see this one in mainstream media, and it’s something they certainly don’t teach in college:

    Anderson: Is this Nazi Germany now, that I have to show my papers?

    Officer: It’s a simple yes or no. I need an answer or we can detain you until we figure out whether you’re a U.S. citizen.

    Anderson: Well, you know what’s more simple is the fact that my freedom is a little more important than you seem to think. Seting up checkpoints where people have to prove that they’re a citizen is not something that America is supposed to be about. So, I’m not sure if you understand that.

    Supervisor enters scene: Grunt

    Anderson: Grunt

    Supervisor: Just pull up over there (points to line of detained cars)

    Anderson: No, thank you… I want to go free on my way. Here I am just going about my own business and I don’t need to stop at a checkpoint to prove who I am because this is America. Correct me if I’m wrong – did I stumble into Mexico or is this still the United States?

    Supervisor: This is the United States.

    Anderson: Therefore, I should have the freedom to travel unmolested, because I’m in America here.

    (pause)

    Supervisor: Ok, go ahead and go.

    Score one for liberty and the US Constitution.

    It really is that simple.

    Sure, some officers will overstep their bounds in an attempt to intimidate and instill fear, but in this case cooler heads prevailed and the officer in charge understood that Mr. Anderson was on the right side of the law, and that their requests for him pulling over and showing identification at a random checkpoint were nothing more than requests, as no such mandate exists without probable cause that criminal activity is taking place.

    Mr. Anderson stood up for his rights – his own individual rights. To be free and to enjoy the liberties reserved and protected for the people by the Constitution of the United States it falls upon each of us, as individuals, to ensure the rule of law.

    On another day Mr. Anderson may have been detained, perhaps even arrested (unlawfully).

    But today in America freedom prevailed

    http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED175743.pdf

    http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/search/detailmini.jsp?_nfpb=true&_&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=ED175743&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=no&accno=ED175743

    trusts-layout-rev-2-1

    ED175743 I bet you knew FEDERAL RESERVE

    __________________________________________________________________________

    Do You Own Your Children?

    Quantcast

    Do you know who owns your child?
    This might seem like a strange question to most… but the answer is even stranger and more terrifying to comprehend.
    When a question like this is posed, we the people often look to our legislature and our constitution for the answers, as esoteric and interpretable as those answers may be. But without the rose-colored glasses, we can actually read with our own eyes what the answer to this question is from the eyes and opinion of our government.
    Before you can truly attain the answer to this question though, and comprehend how it applies to you and your children, you must first temporarily suspend your emotion, your idealism, and your beliefs. For when we refer to law, these things do not apply. And when it is a corporation that writes these laws, morals, ethics, and values go out the window.
    Anger though, for the purpose of the information you are about to receive, is permitted and requested…
    First of all, let’s clarify that what we are about to see is the opinion of the court system. Courts do not offer “judgment”, only “opinion”. The justices (not judges) of the “Supreme Court” as well offer nothing but opinion, which then becomes what the BAR association considers to be “Public Policy” or public opinion. The BAR copyrights these opinions then misleadingly calls it the “law”.
    The side effect of being a consenting citizen of the United States (corporation) is that these copyrighted codes are applied to you with what the U.S.CODE itself calls Prima Facie law (law which derives its authority from presumedconsent). Therefore, all branches of government technically operate under presumed law, meaning that the consent of the governed is automatically assumed in all legal matters and decisions based on court opinion.
    This, unfortunately, applies to all contracts made with or on behalf of the state…
    And one of those contracts is called a “Marriage License“.
    Yours and your spouses signature on that state-sanctioned and federally registered document signifies a consent-based contractbetween all three parties – you, your spouse, and the “State“.
    But don’t take my word for it… Let’s see what the court system offers in their opinion about this subject?
    First, lets visit an Illinois Appellate Court judgment from 1997:
    Appellate Court of Illinois, NO. 5-97-0108:
    Marriage is a civil contract to which there are three parties-the husband, the wife and the state.
     
    Van Koten v. Van Koten. 154 N.E. 146.
    Continued…
    …When two people decide to get married, they are required to first procure a license from the State. If they have children of this marriage, they are required by the State to submit their children to certain things, such as school attendance and vaccinations. Furthermore, if at some time in the future the couple decides the marriage is not working, they must petition the State for a divorce. Marriage is a three-party contract between the man, the woman, and the State
    Linneman v. Linneman, 1 Ill. App. 2d 48, 50, 116 N.E.2d 182, 183 (1953), citing Van Koten v. Van Koten, 323 Ill. 323, 326, 154 N.E. 146 (1926).
    The State represents the public interest in the institution of marriage.
     
    Linneman, 1 Ill. App. 2d at 50, 116 N.E.2d at 183 (1953).
    Continued…
    This public interest is what allows the State to intervene in certain situations to protect the interests of members of the family.   The State is like a silent partner in the family who is not active in the everyday running of the family but becomes active and exercises its power and authority only when necessary to protect some important interest of family life.   Taking all of this into consideration, the question no longer is whether the State has an interest or place in disputes such as the one at bar, but it becomes a question of timing and necessity.
     
    Also, this case law states…
    The state has a wide range of power for limiting parental freedom and authority in things affecting the child’s welfare… In fact, the entire familial relationship involves the State.
    Prince, 321 U.S. at 167, 64 S.Ct. at 442, 88 L.Ed. 645.
     
    Well now… the courts sure do seem to offer theopinion that your child is owned by the state!
    But heck, what should we the people (notPeople) expect?
    When such authority and jurisdiction is just arbitrarily handed over to a bunch of attorneys running around in black moo-moos with little wooden hammers yelling that they rule supreme in their houses of judicial worship simply because the state allows them to presume such authority and jurisdiction… I suppose those people who consent to this charade get just what they deserve – slavery through a bondage contract.
    But then, when the President of the country is also a lawyer, along with his wife, and for that mater more than half of all U.S. Presidents, 56/100 Senators, over 35% of Congressmen, both “speakers” of the house, and most of the State Governors in office today are all BAR attorneys/lawyers, I suppose we shouldn’t be at all surprised that the opinion of the BAR Association is the law of the land…
    Of course, the above opinion is not just some isolated case. This opinion is quite general in its purview, and quite common in its legal application. In fact, it is the very basis of the criminal racket we call the dreaded “Child Protective Services (CPS)”, which claims its overarching authority from the Federal “Health And Human Services (HHS)” as it legally kidnaps your children.
    So where else can we find such blatant power abused so absolutely?
    How about in the case of MEADOWS v. MEADOWS, (Aug 2008), in the “Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama”?
    “The primary control and custody of infants is with the government.”
     
    Tillman V. Roberts. 108 So. 62
     
    There is no wider area for the exercise of judicial discretion than that of providing for and protecting the best interests of children.
    Ex parte Handley, 460 So.2d 167 (Ala.1984).
     
    The court stands in the position of parens patria[e] of children.
    Ayers v. Kelley, 284 Ala. 321, 224 So.2d 673 (1969)․
     
    …we held that the best interest of the child took precedence over the parent’s right to travel.
    Everett, 660 So.2d at 601-02.
     
    In 1984, the Court of Appeals of Idaho ruled that the State had a ‘compelling governmental interest’ that justified restricting the residence of the custodial parent, holding that the best interests of a child had priority over the parent’s right to travel.
    Ziegler v. Ziegler, 107 Idaho 527, 691 P.2d 773 (Idaho App.1985) (citing Carlson v. Carlson, 8 Kan.App.2d 564, 661 P.2d 833 (1983)).
     
    **Note: The word “interest”, when it is used by the courts on behalf of “the state”, should be considered here to be defined in layman’s terms as themonetary interest in what the State considers one of its trade-able commodities. For to a for-profit government, people are considered legal “persons”, and their value is not in flesh and blood, but in labor and tax. Persons are the original form of legal tender. -Clint-
     
    Continued…
    “Parens patriae,” literally “parent of the country,” refers traditionally to role of state as sovereign and guardian of persons under legal disability.”
     
    Ex parte Bayliss, 550 So.2d 986, 988 n. 1 (Ala.1989) (quoting Black’s Law Dictionary 1003 (5th ed.1979)).
     
    “Pursuant to the parens patriae doctrine, ‘the primary control and custody of infants is with the government, to be delegated, as of course, to their natural guardians and protectors, so long as such guardians are suitable persons to exercise it.’ ”
     
    Ex parte Wright, 225 Ala. 220, 222, 142 So. 672, 674 (1932). See also Fletcher v. Preston, 226 Ala. 665, 148 So. 137 (1933); and Striplin v. Ware, 36 Ala. 87 (1860).
     
    “In other words, the state is the father and mother of the child and the natural parents are not entitled to custody, except upon the state’s beneficent recognition that natural parents presumably will be the best of its citizens to delegate its custodial powers… ‘The law devolves the custody of infant children upon their parents, not so much upon the ground of natural right in the latter, as because the interests of the children, and the good of the public, will, as a general rule, be thereby promoted.’ ”
     
    Chandler v. Whatley, 238 Ala. 206, 208, 189 So. 751, 753 (1939) (quoting Striplin v. Ware, 36 Ala. at 89) (‘ ’).
     
    Wait a minute, you say. This doesn’t sound very “constitutional” to me…
    Oh, you mean that mythical and more importantly interpretable (in court opinion) document that you believe gives you rights? Silly rabbits, tricks are for kids.
    In reality, everything that happens is in fact “constitutional” as long as the court (an attorney in a black moo-moo) says it is “constitutional” from within its (his/her) opinion.
    In the end, you have only one right. And that right is the right of non-consent. (Consent is the most important legal term that you can possibly ever comprehend.)
    But don’t take my word for it… here are a few more instances of “case law” which let you know that the constitution simply does not apply to you in the corporate world of commercial (copyrighted) code…
    But, indeed, no private person has a right to complain, by suit in court, on the ground of a breach of the Constitution. The Constitution it is true, is a compact, but he is not a party to it.
    Padelford, Fay & Co., vs. Mayor and Aldermen of the City of Savannah 14 Ga. 438, 520
     
    **Note: Remember, the word “person” refers to your veil of artificial person-hood; your STRAWMAN if you will. The court will never refer to you in the sense that you are a living, breathing, sentient being with god-given rights that cannot be taken away, but instead relies on your presumed consent as the physical representation of your fiction, your corporate self. “Person” is defined in U.S. CODE as an “individual, association, corporation, group…” etc. It is not defined as “people” unless those people are a group of “persons”, in which case, as in the constitution, the word “people” is capitalized (i.e. We, the People – referring to the men who signed the constitution, and whom were the only men for which that constitution held under “contract” with any authority. The constitution has no authority accept that for which the court passes judgment (opinion) upon. -Clint-
     
    “The people of the United States resident within any State are subject to two Governments: one State, and the other National; but there need be no conflict between the two. The powers which one possesses, the other does not. They are established for different purposes, and have separate jurisdictions. Together they make one whole, and furnish the people of the United States with a complete government, ample for the protection of all their rights at home and abroad. True, it may sometimes happen that a person is amenable to both jurisdictions for one and the same act… It is the natural consequence of a citizenship which owes allegiance to two sovereignties, and claims protection from both. The citizen cannot complain, because he has voluntarily submitted himself to such a form of government.
    The Supreme Court, 92 US 551: “U.S. v Cruikshank”
     
    Well, there you have it!
    Even as the Supreme Court – which has mistakenly translated the word “supreme” to mean that these seven appointed “justices” who pass “opinion” upon the masses of consenting “citizens” are more supreme than even God himself – these men and women; who are not voted into these positions of power in any way by the people, but instead are appointed by the President of the United States (corporation)… these self-imposed deities clearly state here that they are the law of the land, and that that “the natural consequence of citizenship” is for the people to be under their supreme opinion!
    Well I for one do not voluntarily submit to the opinions of these megalomaniacs any longer.
    And for the record, as a free man with God as my witness…
    I DO NOT CONSENT!!!
    .
    FYI… Stay tuned, subscribe, or do what ever you need to do to monitor future postings from my blog – for there are BIG things happening and lots of important information coming to you soon, free of charge, from yours truly and my band of merry men.
    Stay tuned…
    .
    Special thanks to Burt for all that he does to open my eyes. Please visit his YouTube page here:
    And keep this future website in your bookmarks, of which I very much plan to be a part of:
    .
    –Clint Richardson (realitybloger.wordpress.com)
    –Friday, December 16, 2011

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s