This is Mike's opinion of what's going on.
Statutes, Acts, Ordinances
and Codes ARE NOT LAWS
Statutes,acts,ordinances and codes ARE NOT laws, they are legislative “RULES” of a society. Legislative rules of a society are given force through law. Laws proceed rules.
Maxim of law:
Government can only control what it creates.The power which is derived cannot be greater than that from which it is derived.
Not Legal Advice
U.S. Constitution, Article Six, Clause 2:
(The Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution)
“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.
U.S. v. Butler. 279 U.S. 116 (1929):
“The judicial branch has only one duty, to lay the Article of the Constitution which is involved beside the statute (rule or practice) which is challenged and to decide whether the latter squares with the former.”
Norton v. Shelby County 118 USR 425 (1886):
“An unconstitutional act is not law. It confers no rights, it imposes no duties, it affords no protections, it creates no office. It is in legal contemplation as inoperative as though it has never been passed.”
“The court follows the decision of the highest court of the state, in construing the constitution and the laws of the state unless they conflict with or impair the efficacy of some principle of the Federal Constitution or of the Federal Statutes or rule of the commercial or general law. The decision of the state court’s in questions relating to the existence of its subordinate tribunals and eligibility in elections or appointment of their officers and the passage of its laws are conclusive upon Federal Courts. While acts of de facto incumbent of an office lawfully created by law. An existing or often held to be binding from reasons of public policy. The acts of the person assuming to fill and perform the duties of an office, which does not exist, can have no validity whatever in law.”
16Am Jur 2d., Const. Law Sec. 70:
“No public policy of a state can be allowed to override the positive guarantees of the U.S. Constitution.”
16Am Jur 2d., Const. Law Sec. 155:
“Since the constitution is intendant for the observance of the judiciary as well as other departments of government and the judges are sworn to support its provisions, the courts are not at liberty to overlook or disregard its commands or counteract evasions thereof, it is their duty in authorized proceedings to give full effect to the existing constitution and to obey all constitutional provisions irrespective of their opinion as to the wisdom or the desirability of such provisions and irrespective of the consequences, thus it is said that the courts should be in our alert to enforce the provisions of the United States Constitution and guard against their infringement by legislative fiat or otherwise in accordance with these basic principles, the rule is fixed that the duty in the proper case to declare a law unconstitutional cannot be declined and must be performed in accordance with the delivered judgment of the tribunal before which the validity of the enactment it is directly drawn into question. If the Constitution prescribes one rule and the statute another in a different rule, it is the duty of the courts to declare that the Constitution and not the statute governs in cases before them for judgment."
16Am Jur 2d., Const. Law Sec. 255:
“In all instances, where the court exercise it’s power to invalidate legislation on constitutional grounds, the conflict of the statute, with the constitution must be irreconcilable. Thus a statute is not to be declared unconstitutional unless so inconsistent with the constitution that it cannot be enforced without a violation thereof. A clear incompatibility between law and the constitution must exist before the judiciary is justified holding the law unconstitutional. This principle is of course in line with the rule that doubts as the constitutionality should be resolved in favor of the constitutionality and the beneficiary.”
16Am Jur 2d., Const. Law Sec. 257:
“The actual existence of a statute prior to determination, that it is unconstitutional is an operative fact and may have consequences which can not justify being ignored, when a statute which has been in effect for some time is declared unconstitutional, questions of rights claimed to have become vested of status of prior determinations deemed to have finality an acted upon accordingly and of public policy in the light of the nature, both of the statute and of it’s previous application demand examination. It has been said that in all inclusive statement of the principle of absolute retroactive inviolability cannot be justified. An unconstitutional statute is not necessarily a nullity it may have indeterminate consequences binding on the people.”
16Am Jur 2d., Const. Law Sec. 258:
“On the other hand it is clear that Congress cannot by authorization or ratification give the slightest effect to a state law or constitution which is in conflict with the Constitution of the United States.”
16Am Jur 2d., Const. Law Sec. 260:
“Although it is manifested that an unconstitutional provision in the statute is not cured because included in the same act with valid provisions and that there is no degrees of constitutionality.”
Owen v. Independence 100 Vol. Supreme Court Reports. 1398:(1982)
Main v. Thiboutot 100 Vol. Supreme Court Reports. 2502:(1982)
“The right of action created by statute relating to deprivation under color of law, of a right secured by the constitution and the laws of the United States and comes claims which are based solely on statutory violations of Federal Law and applied to the claim that claimants had been deprived of their rights, in some capacity, to which they were entitled.”
“Officers of the court have no immunity when violating constitutional right, from liability”
(When any public servant violates your rights they do so at their own peril.)
Title 18 sect 2381 – Capitol Felony Treason:
“In the presents of two or more witnesses of the same overt act, or in a open court of law, if you fail to timely move to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States and honor your oath of office, you are subject to the charge of capital felony treason.”
Title 18 US Code Sec. 241 & Sec. 242:
“If upon conviction, you are subject to a $10,000.00 fine, ten years in jail, or both, and if theft results, life in prison.”
Replies
Morton constitutionally I agree.
However, if a citizen or business wants to challenge an administrative rule or regulation it must be done in a Court. Hum laws are adjudicated not rules and codes. So, they have made them laws if the only remedy available is in a court room?
You have to remember though Magnus that the "court" is not the building, it is not the judge sitting on the bench, it is not the room, it is not you, it is not me. IT IS THE PAPERWORK. That is the "Court of Record". The papers you "file". They are powerful elements of law when written correctly. And the "court room" can be ANY assemblage of 12 jurors anywhere, anytime with anyone who is a "citizen". That is the "court".
I agree in principle for the most part. I have long thought that the Judge should be silent on the law in court as the Jury is to determine what is relevant and what are the true facts of the case.
Admissions of papers, news articles, and all items pertaining to the facts at hand even so slightly should be presented to the Jury. Case law Precedent has no place in Federal Courts as nowhere does the Constitution authorized the use of precedent to determine law.
The Founders knew that if courts were allowed to build lower court cases upon cases that the courts could then create laws without the legislature or the executive.
Judges in jury trials should be silent as to procedure and the law for that is the duty of the 12 citizens seated to JUDGE the merits and determine guilt or innocence. The task of dispensing justice was left to the citizens themselves.
In Oregon there are two types of state courts. There are the courts defined in Art 7 original [ the judicial branch ]. For these courts, the legislature provides the buildings but the constitution defines the courts. These are called 'constitutional' or common law courts'. These are the only courts that have the authority to hear a case involving a state-born white.
These were all unconstitutionally closed at the end of 1952. The courts we have now are Art 7 amended courts. If one reads Art 7 amended, it is misnamed and should be called Art 4 amended because it only applies to courts created by the state legislature, which is Art 4.
This is important because under original intent, only whites can be true citizens of a state and no state constitution grants to a state the power to subject their citizens to a mere legislative / admin / statutory court.
So, today, constitutionally speaking, all prosecutions of state born whites are constitutionally void. Welcome to communism.
Thank you so much for making this reader friendly.
As per the above regarding title 18: Point 1. From a constitutional standpoint, this would only apply to a 'citizen of the United States' / 14th subjects or a US National such as a Guam citizen.
Point 2. The current courts, state and fed are all legislative branch courts and therefore have no constitutional authority over a white person born in any of the 'several states'.
The judges of these courts are all claiming to be 14th subjects, placing them under title 18. So, when one of these judges allows a case to proceed in any of today's courts, they are committing treason in open court in front of two or more witnesses as per Title 18.
Interesting.
Thank You, we the governed love your articles.
I will try to send something every month. I get a monthly check.
One more thing. There was an article on the sovereignty of the man of the united States of America you had about two articles ago. I lost it. can you send it out again. Bless You and have a good and wonderful weekend.
More experimentation with the color scheme. The original was optimal for reading.
Gotta find one we can live with Bill. I'm still experimenting with different schemes. Feedback is always welcome.
Due to dizziness and vision problems I have problems reading and all but the best color schemes give me real problems. The original color scheme was optimal and it looked good.
- At least for me. Black on white or black on a lite tan or lite gray seems to be best since these are not 'busy colors' and are easy on the eyes. Black on most lite back grounds would probably be pretty good.
For citizens of the states who are suppose to be under the common law, a law stood along with a statement of authority and an enacting clause. The current state statutes are 'enacted' lump sum with one enacting clause. Technically they are all civil rules and laws.
Are they laws? Yes and no. They are enforced in legislative courts and not constitutional courts. If you are a state-only citizen, today meaning a state born white, constitutionally they do not apply to you because the courts they are enforced in have no constitutional authority over you. It is all treason.
If you are a 'citizen of the United States' [ 14th citizen ] or a US national such as a person born in Guam [ another form of fed subject ] even if white, you are under municipal law and they do have the full force of law behind them. This would also apply to whites born on any fed land, such as DC.
-
1
-
2
-
3
of 3 Next