• "Spreading the ideas of freedom loving people on matters regarding high finance, politics, constructionist Constitution, and mental masturbation of all types"

U.S. SUPREME COURT SAYS NO LICENSE NECESSARY TO DRIVE AUTOMOBILE ON PUBLIC ROADS

Goldhedge

Moderator
Site Mgr
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
40,918
Likes
63,242
Location
Rocky Mountains
Always start with definitions in the beginning of the statutes definitions. For example ours said that it applies to "commercial drivers" in "vehicles" 26,000+ pounds!

however, if any definition at the beginning of the statute, violates the constitution, then it’s an unconstitutional definition and therefore void.

the definition itself might not be unconstitutional but the ignorance of it and violation of rights when it doesn't apply to us might be! If the rules say regulate commercial 18 wheelers, don't apply it to my f150!

all motor vehicle are commerce,,, an 18 wheeler is just one type of commerce,,, if you have a license plate, then you are commerce, for profit or hire.

(H) "Noncommercial motor vehicle" means any motor vehicle, including a farm truck as defined in section 4503.04 of the Revised Code, that is designed by the manufacturer to carry a load of no more than one ton and is used exclusively for purposes other than engaging in business for profit.

(I) "Bus" means any motor vehicle that has motor power and is designed and used for carrying more than nine passengers, except any motor vehicle that is designed and used for carrying not more than fifteen passengers in a ride sharing arrangement.

(J) "Commercial car" or "truck" means any motor vehicle that has motor power and is designed and used for carrying merchandise or freight, or that is used as a commercial tractor.

Is the notice if infraction for a violation under 4506? http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/4506

except the first one is trying to say any and all cars and trucks that are not for profit or commerce,,,, therefore this one can’t be enforced because the constitution forbids any regulation of non commercial cars or trucks... but the very term “motor vehicle” makes it commerce, even though it says non commercial, so they are attempting to pull a fast one.

it may appear so on the surface but it's part of a larger section that only cookies to commerce any way! Lol that's how they trick us!
 

Goldhedge

Moderator
Site Mgr
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
40,918
Likes
63,242
Location
Rocky Mountains
Yet the cop be "Jus doin ma job"....

Screen Shot 2018-11-24 at 4.43.23 PM.png
 

TAEZZAR

LADY JUSTICE ISNT BLIND, SHES JUST AFRAID TO WATCH
Midas Member
Midas Supporter
Joined
Apr 2, 2010
Messages
15,400
Likes
27,304
Location
ORYGUN

Goldhedge

Moderator
Site Mgr
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
40,918
Likes
63,242
Location
Rocky Mountains
GH, what book is that?
Blackstone's Commentaries

A series of lectures delivered by the English jurist Sir William Blackstone at Oxford in 1753 and published as Commentaries on the Laws of England in four volumes between 1765 and 1769,which systematized and clarified the amorphous body of English Law.

The Commentaries are the first attempt to state the entire corpus of the Common Law. They were acclaimed internationally and their precepts were applied to the study and Practice of Law in England and the United States. They exerted a tremendous influence on the American bar, both because of their intrinsic value and because they were the only treatises readily available during that period of U.S. history. The Commentaries were the primary reference tools for lawyers and judges until the nineteenth century because the appellate courts in America did not regularly submit their opinions for publication in bound volumes. Although there were court reporters, their records of decisions were incomplete and sporadic; and few attorneys could afford a comprehensive library.

Since the common law of England was incorporated into the legal systems of the colonies, Blackstone's summaries rendered the legal system accessible to the entire educated class of the colonies. Dissatisfaction with the common-law restrictions on Freedom of Speech and the press was an important aspect of the burgeoning resentment of English rule; and the knowledge and intellectual stimulation provided by Blackstone thereby played a role in causing the American Revolution. Blackstone's books, which were periodically updated by American editors, constituted a major source of law for approximately fifty years after the American Revolution.

The Commentaries are viewed as the most comprehensive summary of the entire body of English law ever compiled by a single author. Their clarity, sophistication, and formality have caused them to be highly regarded. While studying to be a lawyer, Abraham Lincoln reportedly read Blackstone by candlelight.

Blackstone did have detractors, however, most notably Thomas Jefferson and Jeremy Bentham,the English Utilitarian philosopher. Jefferson believed that Blackstone and his followers were"Tories" and that he was a negative influence on America in the sense that more attention needed to be devoted to "whiggism" or "republicanism." Bentham criticized Blackstone for his perception that English law needed no improvement and for his imprecise analysis of the historical and social factors underlying systems of justice.

Although the Commentaries might seem antiquated by current standards, Blackstone's work represented a tremendous advance in the study of law and played a significant role in the development of the American legal system.

West's Encyclopedia of American Law, edition 2. Copyright 2008 The Gale Group, Inc. All rights reserved.
 
Joined
Mar 21, 2015
Messages
214
Likes
13
Blackstone's Commentaries

A series of lectures delivered by the English jurist Sir William Blackstone at Oxford in 1753 and published as Commentaries on the Laws of England in four volumes between 1765 and 1769,which systematized and clarified the amorphous body of English Law.

The Commentaries are the first attempt to state the entire corpus of the Common Law. They were acclaimed internationally and their precepts were applied to the study and Practice of Law in England and the United States. They exerted a tremendous influence on the American bar, both because of their intrinsic value and because they were the only treatises readily available during that period of U.S. history. The Commentaries were the primary reference tools for lawyers and judges until the nineteenth century because the appellate courts in America did not regularly submit their opinions for publication in bound volumes. Although there were court reporters, their records of decisions were incomplete and sporadic; and few attorneys could afford a comprehensive library.

Since the common law of England was incorporated into the legal systems of the colonies, Blackstone's summaries rendered the legal system accessible to the entire educated class of the colonies. Dissatisfaction with the common-law restrictions on Freedom of Speech and the press was an important aspect of the burgeoning resentment of English rule; and the knowledge and intellectual stimulation provided by Blackstone thereby played a role in causing the American Revolution. Blackstone's books, which were periodically updated by American editors, constituted a major source of law for approximately fifty years after the American Revolution.

The Commentaries are viewed as the most comprehensive summary of the entire body of English law ever compiled by a single author. Their clarity, sophistication, and formality have caused them to be highly regarded. While studying to be a lawyer, Abraham Lincoln reportedly read Blackstone by candlelight.

Blackstone did have detractors, however, most notably Thomas Jefferson and Jeremy Bentham,the English Utilitarian philosopher. Jefferson believed that Blackstone and his followers were"Tories" and that he was a negative influence on America in the sense that more attention needed to be devoted to "whiggism" or "republicanism." Bentham criticized Blackstone for his perception that English law needed no improvement and for his imprecise analysis of the historical and social factors underlying systems of justice.

Although the Commentaries might seem antiquated by current standards, Blackstone's work represented a tremendous advance in the study of law and played a significant role in the development of the American legal system.

West's Encyclopedia of American Law, edition 2. Copyright 2008 The Gale Group, Inc. All rights reserved.
Goldhedge,

Whatever legal expertise Blackstone had CENTURIES AGO, in A FOREIGN COUNTRY, interpreting FOREIGN LAW, BEFORE THE UNITED STATES WAS EVEN FORMED, BEFORE A SINGLE WORD OF U.S. LAW WAS EVER WRITTEN, he had NO EXPERTISE in interpreting future U.S. LAW, writing future U.S. LAW or teaching U.S. LAW.

If you put the same amount of time, effort and energy into reading the actual written words of the REAL LAW ITSELF, instead of reading what someone else tells you the law is, YOU WOULD BE AN EXPERT LEGAL SCHOLAR BY NOW.

Why are you and other amateur legal theorists so opposed to reading the actual written words of the REAL LAW ITSELF with your own eyes?

Why is a middleman interpreter so important to amateur legal theorists?


Need the spin?
 
Joined
Mar 21, 2015
Messages
214
Likes
13
When our governing officials act to dismiss the right of due process and defraud us of honest justice in accordance with the law as mere semantics, when they exercise powers they don’t have and ignore constitutional and legal duties they actually bear, and when we let them get away with it, we have ceased to be our own rulers. Respondent refuses to allow ResHis/Her individual rights to be undermined and treaded upon in this manner, especially by those whose sworn duty it is to protect Respondent in their free exercise and enjoyment thereof.

“A trial court has no "discretion" in determining what the law is or applying the law to the facts. Thus, a clear failure by the trial court to analyze or apply the law correctly will constitute an abuse of discretion, and may result in appellate reversal by extraordinary writ. See Joachim v. Chambers, 815 S.W.2d 234, 240 (Tex. 1991) (trial court abused discretion by misinterpreting Code of Judicial Conduct); NCNB Texas National Bank v. Coker, 765 S.W.2d 398, 400 (Tex.1989) (trial court abused discretion by failing to apply proper legal standard to motion to disqualify counsel); Eanes ISD v. Logue, 712 S.W.2d 741, 742 (Tex.1986) (trial court abused discretion by erroneously finding constitutional violation).” Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 840 (Tex. 1992)

A. Standard of Review

An appellate court reviews a trial court's decision on a motion to dismiss a claim under section 74.351 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code for an abuse of discretion. See Jernigan v. Langley, 195 S.W.3d 91, 93 (Tex.2006) (per curiam) (discussing former article 4590i); Am. Transitional Care Ctrs. of Tex. v. Palacios, 46 S.W.3d 873, 875 (Tex.2001) (discussing former article 4590i). A trial court abuses its discretion if it acts in an arbitrary or unreasonable manner without reference to guiding rules or principles. See Gray v. CHCA Bayshore L.P., 189 S.W.3d 855, 858 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, no pet.) (discussing section 74.351) (citing see Garcia v. Martinez, 988 S.W.2d 219, 222 (Tex.1999)). When reviewing matters committed to the trial court's discretion, an appellate court may not substitute its judgment for that of the trial court. See Gray, 189 S.W.3d at 858 (citing Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 839 (Tex.1992)). A trial court does not abuse its discretion merely because it decides a discretionary matter differently than an appellate court would under similar circumstances. See Gray, 189 S.W.3d at 858 (citing see Downer v. Aquamarine Operators, Inc., 701 S.W.2d 238, 241-42 *445 (Tex.1985)). However, a trial court has no discretion in determining what the law is or in applying the law to the facts. See Walker, 827 S.W.2d at 840. A clear failure by the trial court to analyze or apply the law correctly will constitute an abuse of discretion. See id.” Cayton v. Moore, 224 S.W.3d 440, 445 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2007, no pet.

Respondent demands that the court take judicial notice that the Prosecution in the instant matter have failed or refused to respond and address any of the written pleadings Respondent has filed with this court. When opposing counsel fails to respond to written pleadings containing points and argument of law as submitted by the other party, then those points and arguments become conclusively established judicial admissions of fact requiring no further presentation of facts or evidence in support, and opposing counsel may not attempt to later argue that those facts are incorrect or inadmissible:

"Assertions of fact, not pled in the alternative, in the live pleadings of a party are regarded as formal judicial admissions. Any fact admitted is conclusively established in the case without the introduction of the pleadings or presentation of other evidence." Houston First Am. Sav. v. Musick, 650 S.W.2d 764, 767 (Tex.1983) citing Kirk v. Head, 137 Tex. 44, 152 S.W.2d 726 (1941); 1A R. Ray, Texas Law of Evidence, § 1144 (Texas Practice 3d ed. 1980).

"A judicial admission is a formal waiver of proof that dispenses with the production of evidence on an issue. Lee v. Lee, 43 S.W.3d 636, 641 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2001, no pet.). A judicially admitted fact is established as a matter of law, and the admitting party may not dispute it or introduce evidence contrary to it. Id.; Dutton v. Dutton, 18 S.W.3d 849, 853 (Tex.App.-Eastland 2000, pet. denied); Roosevelt v. Roosevelt, 699 S.W.2d 372, 374 (Tex.App.-El Paso 1985, writ dism'd). This rule is based on the public policy that it would be absurd and manifestly unjust to permit a party to recover after he has sworn himself out of court by a clear and unequivocal statement. U.S. Fid. & Guar. Co. v. Carr, 242 S.W.2d 224, 229 (Tex.Civ. App.-San Antonio 1951, writ ref'd); Lee, 43 S.W.3d at 641; Roosevelt, 699 S.W.2d at 374. Five conditions must have occurred for a party's admission to be conclusive against him: (1) the declaration relied upon must have been made in the course of a judicial proceeding; (2) the declaration was contrary to an essential fact embraced in the theory of recovery or defense asserted by the party; (3) the statement was deliberate, clear, and unequivocal; (4) giving conclusive effect to the declaration would not run contrary to public policy; and (5) the declaration related to a fact upon which a judgment for the opposing party was based. U.S. Fid. & Guar. Co., 242 S.W.2d at 229; Lee, 43 S.W.3d at 641-42." Peck v. Peck, 172 S.W.3d 26, 31 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2005, pet. denied);
Goldhedge,

This is just more irrelevant, Eddie Craig, cut-and-paste rubbish.

Did you actually like being duped by Eddie Craig in the "FORMER DEPUTY SHERIFF HOAX"?

Did that hoax not give you cause for concern about Eddie Craig's character and integrity as a teacher?

Do you really believe that it is a good idea to trust a proven CHARLATAN and FRAUD when it comes to the truth about the law?

Do you really believe it is a good idea to be a student of someone as ILLITERATE and INCOMPETENT as Eddie Craig who has gotten it wrong about everything including, "COMMERCE" and "DRIVER'S LICENSES", the non-existent "RIGHT TO DRIVE WITHOUT A DRIVER'S LICENSE", whether the TEXAS BAR ACT VIOLATES THE TEXAS CONSTITUTION" and everything else?

Are you kidding me?

Why does every amateur legal theorist have to have a middleman, interpreter, guru or messiah figure to tell them what the law is (rather than simply reading the actual written words of the law in the REAL law itself)?

Why do amateur legal theorists look everywhere for the law except in the law itself?

What's the deal?
 

michael59

heads up-butts down
Sr Site Supporter
Platinum Bling
Joined
Apr 1, 2014
Messages
10,203
Likes
6,393
Location
on the low side of corporate Oregon
s4t you are a douche bag. I do not know how else to put it. you are only good for one post and one post only and it is this post. While some people might think you are just OCD and most likely jittery too boot. It is apparent by your non comital to any thing else that you are on a mission of which you yourself have admitted to. Your mission is to fuk with all you can as far as it relates to what U perceive as law. Well BUTTCHEEKS you lose.

s4t you are a pest and a pestilence. You only exist to demigod your fiction as a god that you would poffer as residing in your bosom; as if you would know.

Bring your GOD forward and let it be questioned! Oh that's right! Your GOD has no voice or arms or....your god has noting. All you have are points of law as you call them and poster them as law. You do not even think that charters are law in fact you do not even know what charters are and you even think there are two arrests......SORRY EVERONS I thik is shit my panties on that one....DAMMM.

just go die somewhere as you carry no argument other that you are not male or female and are one of the ...one of the other things that must exist.
 

Goldhedge

Moderator
Site Mgr
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
40,918
Likes
63,242
Location
Rocky Mountains
Law vs. Color of Law
by Patrick Callahan

"Color" means "An appearance, semblance, or simulacrum, as distinguished from that which is real. A prima facia or apparent right. Hence, a deceptive appearance, a plausible, assumed exterior, concealing a lack of reality; a disguise or pretext. See also colorable." Black's Law Dictionary, 5th Edition, on page 240.

"Colorable" means "That which is in appearance only, and not in reality, what it purports to be, hence counterfeit feigned, having the appearance of truth." Windle v. Flinn, 196 Or. 654, 251 P.2d 136, 146.

"Color of Law" means "The appearance or semblance, without the substance, of legal right. Misuse of power, possessed by virtue of state law and made possible only because wrongdoer is clothed with authority of state is action taken under 'color of law.'" Atkins v. Lanning. D.C.Okl., 415 F. Supp. 186, 188.

If something is "color of law" then it is NOT law, it only looks like law. If you go to the website for the Office of Law Revision Counsel, you will see that most of the titles of the United States Code are "prima facia evidence of the laws of the United States".

"prima facia" means "At first sight; on the first appearance; on the face of it; so far as can be judged from the first disclosure; presumably; a fact presumed to be true unless disproved by some evidence to the contrary." State ex rel. Herbert v. Whims, 68 Ohio App. 39, 38 N.E.2d 596, 599, 22 O.O. 110. Black's Law Dictionary 5th Edition page 1071.

Prima facia and color of law both go hand in hand, because if a law is prima facia evidence of the laws of the United States, that means it is color of law, by definition. In other words the bureaucrat presumes that the law applies to you until you defeat their presumption.

If you read these prima facia, color of law statutes, you will find them using words like "person". I will use the color of law Title 26 USC as a typical way that they do it...

(From
)
 
Joined
Mar 21, 2015
Messages
214
Likes
13
Goldhedge,

I swear, I have never seen anyone work as hard to intentionally avoid the law as you do. You literally look everywhere in the world for the law, except in the law itself. You must be exhausted! You never post anything that isn't written by the most deluded of the amateur legal theorists.

This post is so ignorant and delusional that it smells like something that Rod Class would write.

1. There are seven demands of discovery to demand of all lawyers.
RESPONSE: Unknown to this amateur, DISCOVERY is ONLY directed to the PARTIES and WITNESSES in the case, NOT THEIR LAWYERS. Lawyers are not "PARTIES" or "WINESSES" to the case, so they do not have any obligation to answer any question in discovery (including the amateur questions above). In criminal cases, the only discovery required of the state's attorney (or district attorney) is information that will lead the defense to the "WITNESSES" and to any physical evidence in the case. But, the state's attorney (or district attorney) himself/herself DOES NOT actually testify about anything in discovery. Sadly, this amateur does not know enough to even realize this.


2. Produce the legislative act that and its implementing regulations that precipitated this cause.
RESPONSE: Unknown to this amateur, "Discovery" is a tool TO DISCOVER RELEVANT "FACTS" OF A TYPE WITNESSED BY WINESSES (NOT TO "DISCOVER" THE "LAW"). (This is a distinction that Rod Class has always been unable to make. Take the Harold Stanley case, for example.). RELEVANT "FACTS" mean "FACTS" OF A TYPE WITNESSED BY WITNESSES that establish the "ELEMENTS" of a charge/claim or a "DEFENSE". Example: "The light was red", "I saw him crawl into the bedroom window", "He showed me a knife covered in blood", etc. Under the law, no party to discovery is ever obligated to answer any question about the LAW, including questions about the source of legal authority or other answers that call for a legal conclusion (because such are not "FACTS" OF A TYPE THAT CAN BE WITNESSED BY WITNESSES). In criminal cases, the statute violated is referred to in the charging document (indictment, information or complaint), NOT IN DISCOVERY. Contrary to this amateur's understanding, no party to discovery is obligated to teach 7th grade Civics in response to a discovery question about the law, the constitution or the government. But, this amateur does not know enough to even realize this. Note that this inquiry WILL NOT LEAD TO ADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE IN THE CASE (FACTS OF A TYPE THAT CAN BE WITNESSED BY WINTESSES THAT MIGHT ESTABLISH GUILT OR INNOCENCE).

3. Produce the legislative act that created the office of lawyer, attorney, counselor, esquire, give me the address of his office where I may get a license to practice law.
RESPONSE: Unknown to this amateur, the legislature did not create the office of lawyer, attorney, counselor or esquire. Unknown to this amateur, ONLY THE JUDICIAL BRANCH OF STATE GOVERNMENT HAS THE CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY TO DO THAT. (It was Rod Class' ignorance of this very legal reality that lead him to reach the mistaken conclusion that lawyers "have no authority" to practice law.). The name and address of the office where this amateur can get a license to practice law is the office of the Supreme Court of the state where he would like to practice law. But, this amateur does not know enough to even realize this. Note that this inquiry WILL NOT LEAD TO ADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE IN THE CASE (FACTS OF A TYPE THAT CAN BE WITNESSED BY WINTESSES THAT MIGHT ESTABLISH GUILT OR INNOCENCE).

4. Produce a copy of your oath of office as an officer of the court and where you filed it into the public record.
RESPONSE: Unknown to this amateur, the oath that lawyers make IS AN ORAL OATH (NOT A WRITTEN ONE), so that oral oath is not "filed" anywhere. Instead, it is WITNESSED in person by a JUDICIAL OFFICER OF THE STATE. But, this amateur does not know enough to even realize this. Note that this inquiry WILL NOT LEAD TO ADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE IN THE CASE (FACTS OF A TYPE THAT CAN BE WITNESSED BY WINTESSES THAT MIGHT ESTABLISH GUILT OR INNOCENCE).

5. Produce a contract signed by myself, proper name of the living soul, and you (name of the lawyer), in which I agreed to give up my Constitutional rights.
RESPONSE: Unknown to this amateur, no contract with you is required for "We the People" to have complete jurisdiction over you. Instead, the consent that "We the People" already have to hold you responsible for violating our law comes for "We the People" COLLECTIVELY, not from you INDIVIDUALLY. But, this amateur does not know enough to even realize this. Note that this inquiry WILL NOT LEAD TO ADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE IN THE CASE (FACTS OF A TYPE THAT CAN BE WITNESSED BY WINTESSES THAT MIGHT ESTABLISH GUILT OR INNOCENCE).

6. Give me your name address and phone number.
RESPONSE: See response to number 1 and 2 above.

7. Give me your bond number, your bonding company name, address and location.
RESPONSE: This has to be Rod Class rubbish. Few amateur legal theorists are as mentally ill and delusional as Rod Class. THERE IS NO BOND NUMBER, BECAUSE THERE IS NO BOND. THERE IS NO BONDING COMPANY NAME AND ADDRESS, BECAUSE THERE IS NO BOND. While lawyers in private practice may have malpractice insurance (to pay THEIR OWN CLIENTS for mistakes), NO PROSECUTOR, PUBLIC DEFENDER OR JUDGE HAS A BOND, BECAUSE ALL OF THEM ARE IMMUNE FROM CIVIL LIABILITY FOR ACTS CONNECTED WITH THEIR OFFICIAL DUTIES. SO, A BOND WOULD SERVE NO PURPOSE. SUCH A BOND COULD NEVER BE PAID OR COLLECTED ON. But, this amateur does not know enough to even realize this. Note that this inquiry WILL NOT LEAD TO ADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE IN THE CASE (FACTS OF A TYPE THAT CAN BE WITNESSED BY WINTESSES THAT MIGHT ESTABLISH GUILT OR INNOCENCE).

8. Send me an acknowledgement that you understand you have perjured your oath of office and are committing constructive treason against the Constitution for the united States of America and the United States of America.
RESPONSE: Under the law, no person is obligated to manufacture a document to produce in discovery, much less a false "acknowledgement" of imaginary wrongful acts that never occurred. But, this amateur does not know enough to even realize this. Note that this inquiry WILL NOT LEAD TO ADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE IN THE CASE (FACTS OF A TYPE THAT CAN BE WITNESSED BY WINTESSES THAT MIGHT ESTABLISH GUILT OR INNOCENCE).

Snoop
 
Last edited:

michael59

heads up-butts down
Sr Site Supporter
Platinum Bling
Joined
Apr 1, 2014
Messages
10,203
Likes
6,393
Location
on the low side of corporate Oregon
I swear, I have never seen anyone work as hard to intentionally avoid the law as you do.
wtf? what is wrong with you? The guy (NOT YOU) is giving you THE law and yet you reach around and feel for your buttmonkeys and just go with that?
RESPONSE: Under the law, no person is obligated to manufacture a document to produce in discovery, much less a false "acknowledgement" of imaginary wrongful acts that never occurred.
Here ya go muncher and you f stick wrote this in lipstick...ahahahah fuck me running this is funny. No person is obligated to manufacture....FUCK, and in discovery also...HAHA FUCK! GHEHAWDIES U are so just stuuuupid!

I think ,,...no I do not think as I am laughing way 2 much....fuck...hahahahah
 

michael59

heads up-butts down
Sr Site Supporter
Platinum Bling
Joined
Apr 1, 2014
Messages
10,203
Likes
6,393
Location
on the low side of corporate Oregon
K deekhead s4t....fuck I am still laughing K, stewpid...shity...fuck K, when discovery happens it is for existing documents not manu-fucking-factured….OH GHEEEHADIES here I go again.HAHAHAHAHAH
 

Goldhedge

Moderator
Site Mgr
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
40,918
Likes
63,242
Location
Rocky Mountains
I swear, I have never seen anyone work as hard to intentionally avoid the law as you do. You literally look everywhere in the world for the law, except in the law itself. You must be exhausted! You never post anything that isn't written by the most deluded of the amateur legal theorists.
Screen Shot 2018-11-27 at 10.08.21 AM.png
 

Goldhedge

Moderator
Site Mgr
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
40,918
Likes
63,242
Location
Rocky Mountains
It's crap like this that causes problems in the law.

Why? WHY does a government insist on breaking the law with RedLight cameras?

They are preying on people's ignorance of the law. They know full well that you can't cross examine a photograph in court. A photo is NOT evidence of a crime!

Tennessee lawmaker burns traffic camera ticket, urges to ignore them

State Rep. Andy Holt is urging Tennesseans to ignore traffic camera tickets and emphasizing his point by burning a citation in a video that apparently has received more than 325,000 Facebook views.

"What do you do if you get one? Throw it in the trash. Personally, I prefer to burn mine," says Holt, R-Dresden, in a lengthy news release issued in conjunction with posting the video on his Facebook page Wednesday, which shows him using a cigarette lighter to set the ticket aflame.
 

newmisty

Splodey-Headed
Midas Member
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
24,837
Likes
34,869
Location
Qmerica
Just came across this elsewhere and just had to place it here!
1543371250620.png
 

newmisty

Splodey-Headed
Midas Member
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
24,837
Likes
34,869
Location
Qmerica
Joined
Mar 21, 2015
Messages
214
Likes
13
wtf? what is wrong with you? The guy (NOT YOU) is giving you THE law and yet you reach around and feel for your buttmonkeys and just go with that?

Here ya go muncher and you f stick wrote this in lipstick...ahahahah fuck me running this is funny. No person is obligated to manufacture....FUCK, and in discovery also...HAHA FUCK! GHEHAWDIES U are so just stuuuupid!

I think ,,...no I do not think as I am laughing way 2 much....fuck...hahahahah
Michael59,

1. The guy (NOT YOU) is giving you THE law.
RESPONSE: Goldhedge posts what OTHERS tell him the law is (NOT links to the law itself). Goldhedge insists on obtaining his information about the law ONLY FROM MIDDLEMEN who tell him what the law is. Above in this thread, in several posts, Goldhedge posted dozens and dozens of claims of what OTHERS told him the law is. I looked these claims up in the actual written words of the law itself and I found PROOF that most of these claims about the law are ENTIRELY FAKE. Others are misunderstood. So, the danger in what Goldhedge does, is that he is unwitting spreading DISINFORMATION about the law that is manufactured by charlatans and losers. If Goldhedge went to the source of the law itself for his information, this could not occur. But, he will not. He desperately clings to the words of his MIDDLEMEN who lie to him and dupe him over and over again. Goldhedge simply REFUSES TO READ THE LAW ITSELF. Below is an example. It is comment number 134. Just look at the lies below.

[Goldhedge,

Thank you for your quotes and citations. You are correct in realizing that the one and only way to resolve a dispute about the correct status of the law is by reading the actual words of the real law itself (not amateur legal theories). You are one of only two people on this entire thread who realize that. For that, I applaud you.

The problem with cut and paste documents like the one you posted here (and which is posted on hundreds of other amateur legal theory websites) is that the quotes attributed to these cases are either entirely fabricated (entirely FAKE), partly fabricated (partly FAKE), taken entirely out of context and completely misunderstood. The purpose of such cut and paste documents like this one that you posted here is to trick the reader into believing something that is simply not true. See below.

1). Your claim: This is why 'snoop' gets lost in his argument. He's arguing a pear is an apple. He won't acknowledge that, while both are fruit, they are two entirely different things.
RESPONSE: Respectfully, this is not so. I am not lost in my argument. REAL law is REAL law and FAKE law is FAKE law. Respectfully, I do not get them confused. REAL law and FAKE law are two different (and opposite) things. Legal professionals / courts use one and amateurs / haters use the other.

THE "LAW" BELOW IS ENTIRELY FAKE.

2). Your cut and paste claim: The "American People" and "U.S. citizens" are two different things.
RESPONSE: Respectfully, this is not so. Note the glaring absence of a case that supports this amateur nonsense.
For the REAL law on this very subject, CLICK HERE.
Dred Scott v. Sandford (rev'd other grounds). https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3231372247892780026&q="Dred+Scott+v.+Sandford"+&hl=en&as_sdt=40006. In this case, the Chief Justice of The United States Supreme Court held that, "The words 'PEOPLE of the United States' and 'CITIZENS' [of the United States] ARE SYNOYMOUS TERMS, and MEAN THE SAME THING." (at the 24th paragraph at about 5% through the text). THUS, AS ALWAYS, THE REAL LAW AND AMATEUR LEGAL THEORIES ARE EXACTLY OPPOSITE AND BACKWARDS TO ONE ANOTHER.

THE "LAW" BELOW IS ENTIRELY FAKE.

3. Your cut and paste claim: A US citizen does not have any rights.
RESPONSE: Respectfully, this is not so. Note the glaring absence of a case that supports this amateur nonsense.

4. Your cut and paste claim: "...the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States do not necessarily include ALL [OF THE] RIGHTS protected by the first eight amendments to the Federal constitution against the powers of the Federal government." Maxwell v Dow, 20 S.C.R. 448, at pg 455;
RESPONSE: For the WHOLE quote, CLICK HERE. Maxwell v. Dow, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=17693509694446359639&q="Maxwell+v.+Dow"+&hl=en&as_sdt=40006. In this case, a convicted robber appealed his Utah state conviction by claiming that his rights under the federal "privileges and immunities" clause were violated BECAUSE: 1). he was charged by information and not by indictment; 2). the jury had only 8 members rather than 12 members; and that; 3) such violated his federal right to due process. But, the court disagreed and wrote, "[T]here are certain privileges or immunities POSSESSED BY A CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES, because of his [U.S.] CITIZENSHIP... [WHICH]... CANNOT BE ABRIDGED BY ANY ACTION OF THE STATES... . The privileges and immunities of CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES... ARE INDEED PROTECTED by it [the "privileges and immunities" clause]; and... [such]...privileges and immunities [ARE]... GRANTED OR SECURED BY THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES... . [A]mong the privileges or immunities of a CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES are the right of trial by jury in a state court for a state offence and the right to be exempt from any trial for an infamous crime, unless upon presentment by a grand jury." (at about 35% through the text). But, the court held that merely being charged by information rather than indictment and having a jury of 8 members rather than 12 members DID NOT VIOLATE the defendant's rights under the "privileges and immunities" clause of the U.S. Constitution. The court provided a list of other cases which had made similar rulings and wrote, "We have cited these [other] cases for the purpose of showing that the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States do not necessarily include ALL [OF THE] RIGHTS protected by the first eight amendments to the Federal Constitution... . (at about 50% through the text). TRANSLATION: The "privileges and immunities" clause of the fourteenth amendment protects U.S Citizens against abridgment BY THE STATES of all "privileges and immunities" that are within the meaning of that clause, BUT NOT AGAINST OTHER "PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITES" THAT ARE NOT WITHIN THE MEANING OF THAT CLAUSE. AND, SOME OF THE RIGHTS APPEARING IN THE FIRST EIGHT AMENDMENTS OF THE CONSTITUTION ARE NOT "PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES" WITHIN THE MEANING OF THAT CLAUSE. THAT DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE "PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES" CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT PROVIDES A U.S. CITIZEN WITH NO PROTECTION FROM STATE ABRIDGEMENT AT ALL. THUS, THIS CASE DOES NOT MEAN THAT A U.S. CITIZEN HAS "NO RIGHTS" AT ALL. NOTE THAT THIS CASE IS NOT ABOUT TWO ALLEGED CLASSES OF CITIZENSHIP. THIS CASE IS ABOUT TWO CLASSES OF "PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES".

5. Your cut and paste claim: The only absolute and unqualified right of a United States citizen is to residence within the territorial boundaries of the United States," US vs. Valentine 288 F. Supp. 957
RESPONSE: CLICK HERE. For the WHOLE quote and context, CLICK HERE. US v. Valentine. https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/288/957/1641873/. BACKGROUND: Puerto Rico is not a state. It is a U.S. territory. But, Puerto Rican citizens are nevertheless U.S. Citizens. FACTS: In this case, the United States indicted several Puerto Rican citizens for refusing to serve in the armed services of the United States. The Puerto Ricans raised several grounds for their refusing to serve, including that they were not represented in Congress and COULD NOT VOTE for the President. But, the court held that the absence of a RIGHT TO VOTE alone was not legal grounds for refusing to serve in the armed services of the United States, and wrote, "Defendants' [the Puerto Ricans'] error lies in assuming that THE RIGHT TO VOTE is an essential RIGHT OF [U.S] CITIZENSHIP. The proposition is beguiling, but it will not stand analysis." In trying to EMPHASIZE that the RIGHT TO VOTE is not necessarily an "ABSOLUTE" right of U.S. citizenship, the court admittedly makes the following OVERSTATEMENT, "The only absolute and unqualified right of [U.S.] citizenship is to residence within the territorial boundaries of the United States [not the RIGHT TO VOTE]... . The RIGHT TO VOTE is not... granted to [U.S.] citizens by the [U.S.] Constitution; to the contrary, the matter is left to the states... . [T]he Constitution does not make the franchise per se [meaning the RIGHT TO VOTE] a right of [U.S.] citizenship." Thus, in the context of the surrounding language, the quoted sentence simply means that the RIGHT TO VOTE is not an "ABSOLUTE" right of U.S. citizenship. THUS, THIS CASE DOES NOT MEAN THAT A U.S. CITIZEN HAS NO RIGHTS AT ALL.

THE "LAW" BELOW IS ENTIRELY FAKE.

6). Your cut and paste quote: "Therefore, the U.S. citizens [citizens of the District of Columbia] residing in one of the states of the union, are classified as property and franchises of the federal government as an "individual entity. "Wheeling Steel Corp. v. Fox, 298 U.S. 193, 80 L.Ed. 1143, 56 S.Ct. 773.
RESPONSE: This quote is ENTIRELY FABRICATED. IT IS ENTIRELY FAKE. This quote (as a whole) does not appear anywhere in the case. Not only that, but no term or phrase contained within this FAKE quote appears within this case, including: "U.S. citizens", "District of Columbia", "residing in one of the states of the union", "are classified as property and franchises of", "the federal government", "as an individual entity". For the REAL language of this case, CLICK HERE. Wheeling Steel Corp. v. Fox, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=12239019745554918339&q="Wheeling+Steel+Corp.+v.++Fox"&hl=en&as_sdt=40006. In this case, a state assessed a property tax on property belonging to a corporation which did business (and had facilities) in several states. The dispute in the case centered around which state had the right to tax the corporation's property (the state where the corporation was incorporated, the state where its principal office was located or the states where its properties were located, etc.). The dispute also involved the question of whether certain property was even subject to the state property tax in the first place, like bank deposits in one state reflecting sales which took place in other states and like ships moving up and down the Ohio and Mississippi Rivers which did not have a fixed location in any one particular state, and so forth. THIS CASE HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH "U.S. CITIZENS" OR WHETHER THEY WERE "CLASSIFIED AS PROPERTY" AND "FRANCHISES OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT" AS AN "INDIVIDUAL ENTITY". TRANSLATION: THIS QUOTE IS 100% FAKE LAW!

THE "LAW" BELOW IS ENTIRELY FAKE.

7). Your cut and paste claim: “A “US Citizen” upon leaving the District of Columbia becomes involved in “interstate commerce”, as a “resident” does not have the common-law right to travel, of a Citizen of one of the several states.” Hendrick v. Maryland S.C. Reporter’s Rd. 610-625. (1914)
RESPONSE: This quote is ENTIRELY FAKE. This quote (as a whole) does not appear anywhere in the case. Not only that, but many of the terms or phrases contained within this FAKE quote do not even appear within this case either, including: "U.S. citizen", "upon leaving the District of Columbia becomes involved in interstate commerce", "a resident does not have a common law right to travel", "common law" and "right to travel". For the REAL language of this case, CLICK HERE. Hendrick v. Maryland, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=13681451034893205402&q=%22Hendrick+v.+Maryland%22&hl=en&as_sdt=40006. In this case, the Supreme Court Of The United States actually held that "... A STATE MAY rightfully prescribe ["pass"] uniform regulations necessary for public safety and order in respect to the operation upon its highways of ALL MOTOR VEHICLES- those moving in interstate commerce AS WELL AS OTHERS [NOT MOVING IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE]. And to this end it [THE STATE] MAY REQUIRE the registration of such vehicles and THE LICENSING OF THEIR DRIVERS... . This is but an exercise of THE POLICE POWER uniformly recognized AS BELONGING TO THE STATES [under the tenth amendment]... ." (in the 8th full paragraph at about 70% through the text). THUS, THIS CASE HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH "U.S. CITIZENSHIP", THE "COMMON LAW" OR THE "RIGHT TO TRAVEL". THIS "LAW" IS ENTIRELY FAKE.

THE "LAW" BELOW IS ENTIRELY FAKE.

8). Your cut and paste claim: A US citizen is a corporation.
RESPONSE: This is not so. Note the glaring absence of a case in support of this amateur nonsense. For the REAL law on this very subject, CLICK HERE: Kowalchik v. Brohl, Kowalchik v. Brohl https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=15082204100332672897&q="+person+is+not+a+corporation"&hl=en&as_sdt=40006. "A natural person is not a corporation, partnership, estate, or trust." (at paragraph actually numbered 35 at about 65% through the text). For the REAL law on this very subject, CLICK HERE. U.S. v. Powell. https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=16437654944590370256&q="you're+an+individual"+"you're+not+a+corporation"&hl=en&as_sdt=40006. In this case, the defendant, an amateur legal theorist, sought to avoid a criminal conviction and sentencing by asking the court to treat him as a "corporation". In this regard, the court wrote, "Mr. Powell... [the defendant, claimed that] he was not a criminal defendant BUT RATHER A CORPORATION... . But, the court ruled otherwise and held, 'YOU'RE AN INDIVIDUAL... . YOU'RE NOT A CORPORATION.'" (in the 6th paragraph at about 40% through the text). See this video.
(at 3:20-4:30 and at 10:40-11:15). In this video, the INDIVIDUAL is actually trying to get the court to accept the amateur legal theory that he has a "split personality" and that one of his personalities, among many, is a "CORPORATION". The INDIVIDUAL wanted the court to convict his "CORPORATION" personality, but not his INDIVIDUAL personality. But, the court refused and did not accept the INDIVIDUAL'S "split personality" defense and REFUSED TO TREAT HIM AS A "CORPORATION". Thus, contrary to the claims of amateur legal theorists, INDIVIDUALS ARE NOT CORPORATIONS AND THE LEGAL SYSTEM DOES NOT TREAT INDIVIDUALS AS CORPORATIONS. THUS, AS ALWAYS, THE REAL LAW AND AMATEUR LEGAL THEORIES ARE EXACTLY OPPOSITE AND BACKWARDS TO ONE ANOTHER. THIS CLAIM IS ENTIRELY FAKE!

THE QUOTE BELOW IS REAL, BUT EDITED SO AS TO LEAD THE READER TO REACH THE OPPOSITE CONSLUSION REACHED BY THE COURT.

9). Your cut and paste claim: "...it might be correctly said that there is no such thing as a citizen of the United States. ..... A citizen of any one of the States of the Union, is held to be, and called a citizen of the United States, although technically and abstractly there is no such thing." Ex Parte Frank Knowles, 5 Cal. Rep. 300
RESPONSE: For the WHOLE quote in this case, CLICK HERE. https://archive.org/stream/jstor-3301843/3301843_djvu.txt.
BACKGROUND: This case is almost a century and a half old. It arose after the formation of the confederacy at or about the time of the Civil War. FACTS: In this case, an alien in California sought to become a citizen of the United States and a dispute arose over whether such (becoming an American citizen) was governed by federal or state law. The state court held that becoming an American citizen was governed by state law, not by federal law and wrote in pertinent part, "In the eighth section of the first article of the Constitution, enumerating the powers of Congress, is the following separate clause: 'To establish an uniform rule of naturalization [becoming a United States citizen] and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcy throughout the United States.' BY METAPHYSICAL [CLICK HERE [https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/metaphysical] REFINEMENT, in examining the form of our government, it MIGHT BE correctly said that [standing alone] there is no such thing as a citizen of the United States [without ALSO being a citizen of an individual state of the United States]. But constant usage — arising from convenience, and perhaps necessity, and dating from the formation of the Confederacy — has given substantial existence to the idea which the term conveys. A CITIZEN OF ANY ONE OF THE STATES OF THE UNITED STATES, IS ... A CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES, although technically and abstractly [CLICK HERE. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/technically] there is no such thing [standing alone]. [Meaning that in order to be a United States citizen, you must be a citizen of an individual state or territory of the United States]. To conceive a CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES WHO IS NOT A CITIZEN OF ONE OF THE STATES, IS A TOTALLY FOREIGN IDEA, and inconsistent with the proper construction and common understanding of the expression as used in the Constitution, which must be deduced from its various other provisions. The object then to be attained, by the exercise of the power of naturalization [becoming a citizen of the United States], was TO MAKE [THEM] CITIZENS OF THE RESPECTIVE STATES." Translation: To make a person a citizen of the United States, simply make that person a citizen of any one of the individual states of the United States. THIS CASE DOES NOT MEAN THAT THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS AN AMERICAN CITIZEN AT ALL. IT SIMPLY MEANS THAT TO BE AN AMERICAN CITIZEN, A PERSON MUST BE A CITIZEN OF AN INDIVIDUAL STATE IN THE UNITED STATES (and I would add "OR a U.S territory like Puerto Rico or Washington, D.C.").

THE "LAW" BELOW IS ENTIRELY FAKE.

10). Your cut and paste claim: This [the notion that there is no such thing as a citizen of the United States] can also be confirmed in the definitions section of Title 5 USC, Title 26 USC, and Title 1 USC.
RESPONSE: This claim is ENTIRELY FAKE. That is why there is no subsection numbers provided (to make verification of this false claim all but impossible). For proof that this title provides no such "confirmation", CLICK HERE. Title 5 USC 8401: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/5/8401 (Be sure to read the very first words at the very top, "For the purposes of THIS CHAPTER [AND NOT FOR OTHER PURPOSES]". For proof that this title provides no such "confirmation", CLICK HERE. Title 26 USC 7701: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/7701. (Be sure to read the very first words at the very top, "For the purposes of THIS CHAPTER [AND NOT FOR OTHER PURPOSES]". For proof that this title provides no such "confirmation", CLICK HERE. Title 1 USC 1-8: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/1/chapter-1. Not only do these foregoing statutory definitions not apply to anything outside their statutory context, they also provide no support whatsoever for the proposition that "there is no such thing as a U.S. citizen" even if they did apply.

THE "LAW" BELOW IS ENTIRELY FAKE.

11. Your cut and paste claim: Therefore a US citizen is a piece of property.
RESPONSE: This claim is ENTIRELY FAKE. Note the glaring absence of a case that supports this amateur nonsense. For the REAL law on this subject, CLICK HERE. Maxwell v Garibay, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=9472680608280446965&q=+"person+is+not+property"&hl=en&as_sdt=40006. "As an initial matter, A PERSON IS NOT 'PROPERTY'... ." (in the 1st paragraph under "Discussion and Analysis" at about 50% through the text). For the REAL law on this subject, CLICK HERE. Equity Group, Ltd. v. Painewebber Inc., https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3362407562672372523&q=%22persons+are+not+property%22&hl=en&as_sdt=40006. In this case, the court wrote, "...PERSONS ARE NOT PROPERTY... ." (in the 11th paragraph at about 70% through the text). THUS, AS ALWAYS, THE REAL LAW AND AMATEUR LEGAL THEORIES ARE EXACTLY OPPOSITE AND BACKWARDS TO ONE ANOTHER.

12 (a). Your cut and paste claim: If you read any of those old court cases prior to the civil war where slavery was the issue, the debate was ALWAYS over property rights,
RESPONSE: Ironically, this was actually true UNTIL THE THIRTEENTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS MADE SLAVERY (and the ownership of a human being as "property") UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Since the THIRTEENTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS WERE RATIFIED, ALL PERSONS BORN OR NATURALIZED IN THE UNITED STATES ARE CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES AND CITIZENS OF THE STATE [OR TERRITORY] IN WHICH THEY RESIDE. CLICK HERE. https://www.britannica.com/topic/Fourteenth-Amendment. For the REAL law on this subject, CLICK HERE. Maxwell v Garibay, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=9472680608280446965&q=+"person+is+not+property"&hl=en&as_sdt=40006. "As an initial matter, A PERSON IS NOT 'PROPERTY'... ." (in the 1st paragraph under "Discussion and Analysis" at about 50% through the text). For the REAL law on this subject, CLICK HERE. Equity Group, Ltd. v. Painewebber Inc., https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3362407562672372523&q=%22persons+are+not+property%22&hl=en&as_sdt=40006. In this case, the court wrote, "...PERSONS ARE NOT PROPERTY... ." (in the 11th paragraph at about 70% through the text). THUS, AS ALWAYS, THE REAL LAW AND AMATEUR LEGAL THEORIES ARE EXACTLY OPPOSITE AND BACKWARDS TO ONE ANOTHER.

THE "LAW" BELOW IS ENTIRELY FAKE.

12(b). Your cut and paste claim: Therefore a US citizen is a piece of property.
RESPONSE: This claim is ENTIRELY FAKE. Note the glaring absence of a case that supports this amateur nonsense. For the REAL law on this subject, CLICK HERE. Maxwell v Garibay, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=9472680608280446965&q=+"person+is+not+property"&hl=en&as_sdt=40006. "As an initial matter, A PERSON IS NOT 'PROPERTY'... ." (in the 1st paragraph under "Discussion and Analysis" at about 50% through the text). For the REAL law on this subject, CLICK HERE. Equity Group, Ltd. v. Painewebber Inc., https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3362407562672372523&q=%22persons+are+not+property%22&hl=en&as_sdt=40006. In this case, the court wrote, "...PERSONS ARE NOT PROPERTY... ." (in the 11th paragraph at about 70% through the text). THUS, AS ALWAYS, THE REAL LAW AND AMATEUR LEGAL THEORIES ARE EXACTLY OPPOSITE AND BACKWARDS TO ONE ANOTHER.

THE QUOTE BELOW IS REAL, BUT EDITED SO AS TO LEAD THE READER TO REACH THE OPPOSITE CONSLUSION.

13. Your cut and paste claim: The Fourteenth Amendment defines what a US citizen is: "Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States,....."
RESPONSE: This is true, BUT INCOMPLETE. The WHOLE text of this section is:
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States AND [citizens] of the state [or territory] wherein they reside. (Note that this charlatan author conveniently edited these red words out of this quote TO MAKE IT LOOK LIKE U.S. CITIZENS AND STATE CITIZENS WERE TWO TO DIFFERENT THINGS WHEN SUCH IS NOT THE CASE.). No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. Thus, the fourteenth amendment was designed and intended TO PROTECT against abuse BY THE INDIVIDUAL STATES (not by the United States).

THE "LAW" BELOW IS ENTIRELY FAKE.

14). Your cut and paste claim: The so-called Fourteenth Amendment criminally converts US citizenship completely upside down from what the founding fathers intended.
RESPONSE: Note the glaring absence of a case that supports this amateur nonsense. Regardless, this claim is not so. The fourteenth amendment simply codified the common law (case law) that citizens of any state in the United States were also thereby citizens of the United States and it made former slaves (who were born or naturalized in the United States or in territories subject to its jurisdiction) citizens of BOTH the United States and citizens of the state in which they resided.

NOTE: THE AMATEUR WHO ORIGINALLY CITED THE CASE BELOW CASE DID NOT KNOW THE DEFINITION OF THE TERM, "CITIZENSHIP"

15). Your cut and paste claim: "The rights of the individuals are restricted only to the extent that they have been voluntarily surrendered by the "citizenship" to the agencies of government."
City of Dallas v Mitchell, 245 S.W. 944
RESPONSE: For the WHOLE text of his case, CLICK HERE. https://casetext.com/case/city-of-dallas-v-mitchell-1. In this case, a property owner sought a building permit from the city to build a store on his property. The city commission wrongfully denied the permit despite that the proposed building complied with every single requirement of law. The property owner sued. The court was outraged by the city's wrongful denial of the building permit and wrote, "The rights of the individual are not derived from governmental agencies, either municipal, state or federal, or even from the Constitution. They exist inherently in every man, by endowment of the Creator, and are merely reaffirmed in the Constitution, and restricted only to the extent that they have been voluntarily surrendered by the CITIZENSHIP [A PLURAL TERM REFERRING TO ALL OF THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE COLLECTIVELY] to the agencies of government [THROUGH THE ELECTION PROCESS]. This case does NOT mean the individual's rights are restricted only to the extent they have been surrendered BY THE INDIVIDUAL (because the INDIVIDUAL is not the same thing as the "CITIZENSHIP" OF THE STATE). THUS,THE PERSON WHO ORIGINALLY CITED THE CASE ABOVE DID NOT KNOW THE DEFINITION OF THE TERM, "CITIZENSHIP"

THE "LAW" BELOW IS ENTIRELY FAKE.

16). Your cut and paste claim: "Civil rights under the 14th amendment are for Federal citizens and not State Citizens; Federal citizens, as parents, have no right to the custody of their infant children except subject to the paramount right of the State." Wadleigh v. Newhall, Circuit Court N. Dist. Cal., Mar 13, 1905
RESPONSE: This quote is ENTIRELY FABRICATED. IT IS ENTIRELY FAKE.
The case cited in support of the FAKE law (above) is over a century old. So, no link to the entire original case text is available. But, the following link below provides several quotes (none of which have any similarity to the subject of the FAKE quote above. For these quotes, CLICK HERE. https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?about=17177824883859360056&q="Wadleigh++v.+Newhall"&hl=en&as_sdt=40006. The following quotes indicate what this case is really about. A). "It has been held that in an action for divorce involving the parents of minor children the trial court must keep in mind that the right of the STATE, whose wards the infant children become, rises above and is superior to that of the parents." B). "The charge [the claim] that the statute violates the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States is hardly worthy of serious consideration." C). "[A California statute]... which authorizes proceedings for the appointment of guardians for the persons and estates of minor children having no guardian by will or deed, is a lawful exercise of the STATE'S power; and proceedings based thereon, by which parents are deprived of the custody of their children, do not give them a right of action [means "lawsuit"] against the persons instituting the …action. " D). "Courts before Meyer had generally been slow to extend Fourteenth Amendment PROTECTION to the parent's rights over the child." FACT: Every citizen of the United States is also a citizen of the individual state or territory in which he/she resides. This is called "DUAL CITIZENSHIP". CLICK HERE. https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=15343542124860317253&q="dual+citizenship"+state+"United+States"+"fourteenth+amendment"&hl=en&as_sdt=40006. "The 'privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States' concern THE DUAL CITIZENSHIP UNDER OUR FEDERAL SYSTEM." (in the 11th paragraph at about 35% through the text, Frankfurter concurring). Since this is so, every citizen of every state in the United States is also a citizen of the United States. Thus, the PROTECTIONS of the fourteenth amendment (against STATE abuse) apply to every STATE citizen. Thus, this case is NOT about "UNITED STATES" citizenship verses "STATE" citizenship (WHICH AMOUNTS TO THE SAME THING, except in the case of U.S territories like Puerto Rico and Washington, D.C.). FACT: the fourteenth amendment EXPANDS protections for the STATE citizen, not the other way around. THIS QUOTE IS ENTIRELY FAKE.

17(a). Your cut and paste claim: and “US citizens” can even murder their unborn children by committing the common law crime of infanticide,
RESPONSE: Every U.S. citizen is also a citizen of an individual state (or territory) of the United States citizen. So, state citizens (all of which are also U.S. citizens) can ALSO murder their unborn children by committing the alleged common law crime of infanticide too.

17(b).Your cut and paste claim: and because the unborn are NOT “persons”,
RESPONSE: This can be true. Regretfully, under much of the law, the unborn are "fetuses".

17(c). Your cut and paste claim: then they are by definition State Citizens,
RESPONSE: Then, by definition, they are ALSO United States citizens, because every citizen of any individual state in the United States is also a citizen of the United States. For proof, CLICK HERE. https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxiv

17(d). Your cut and paste claim: which means the BAR members (foreign agents of the Crown) in the so-called courts are engaged in genocide against the American sovereignty,
RESPONSE: Let me get this straight. When a baby is born and thereby becomes a State citizen (and therefore also a U.S. citizen under the fourteenth amendment), such means that Bar members (who do not perform abortions) are killing the American government's (the "SOVEREIGN'S") ability to govern (called its "SOVEREIGNTY")? Note that the author of this amateur legal theory does not know the definition of "SOVEREIGNTY". For the truth about the SOVEREIGN, CLICK HERE. Lozano v. Bank of America Loans, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=175996315291348583&q="is+not+a+sovereign"&hl=en&as_sdt=40006. In this case, the plaintiff (an amateur legal theorist) sued a lender and claimed to be "SOVEREIGN". But, the court ruled otherwise and held, "First, SHE [the plaintiff] IS NOT A "SOVEREIGN". A SOVEREIGN IS THE GOVERNMENT, OR THE LEADER OF A GOVERNMENT [a Monarch]. SHE [the plaintiff] IS NIETHER [a government or a leader of a government]." TRANSLATION: UNDER U.S. LAW, ONLY "A GOVERNMENT" CAN BE "SOVEREIGN". UNDER U.S. LAW, NO INDIVIDUAL CAN EVER BE "SOVEREIGN" ("A GOVERNMENT"). For the truth about the SOVEREIGN, CLICK HERE. Cooper v U.S., https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1788441780084038901&q="United+States+v.+Cooper+Corporation"+++&hl=en&scisbd=2&as_sdt=40006. In this case, the court held, "It is fundamental that THE UNITED STATES EXISTS AS A SOVEREIGN of delegated powers; DELEGATED TO IT BY THE "SOVEREIGNS" MAKING UP THE UNITED STATES, THE INDIVIDUAL STATES [not individual human beings]." (in the 3rd to last paragraph of this case). TRANSLATION: UNDER U.S. LAW, ONLY "A GOVERNMENT" CAN BE "SOVEREIGN". UNDER U.S. LAW, NO INDIVIDUAL CAN EVER BE "SOVEREIGN" ("A GOVERNMENT"). Thus, it is not the case that "BAR members (foreign agents of the Crown) in the so-called courts are engaged in genocide against American SOVEREIGNTY" (meaning the government's right to rule).

18). Your cut and paste claim: "The unborn are not included within the definition of "person" as used in the 14th Amendment." Roe v. Wade, US Supreme Court, 410 US 13, 35L. Ed. 2d 147, 1973.
RESPONSE: Correct. If a human being is born in any state of the United States, the fourteenth amendment provides that human being with United States citizenship, state citizenship and protection of the laws upon being born, but not before then.

THE QUOTE BELOW IS REAL, BUT EDITED SO AS TO LEAD THE READER TO REACH THE OPPOSITE CONSLUSION REACHED BY THE COURT.

19). Your cut and paste claim: “...it is evident that they [MEXICANS LIVING IN THE MEXICAN TERRITORIES CEDED TO THE UNITED STATES] have not the political rights which are vested in [the other] citizens of the States. They [MEXICANS] are not constituents of any community in which is vested any sovereign power of government. Their position partakes more of the character of subjects than of citizens. They [MEXICANS] are subject to the laws of the United States, but have no voice in its management. If they are allowed to make laws, the validity of these laws is derived from the sanction of a Government in which they are not represented. Mere citizenship they may have, but the political rights of citizens they cannot enjoy…” People v. De La Guerra,40 Cal. 311, 342 (A.D. 1870) [emphasis added]
RESPONSE: This case is almost a century and a half old. So, no link to this case is currently available to the entire text. But, we know what the case was actually about by reviewing the quotes in the following link. CLICK HERE. https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?about=5886807282023775403&q=+"People+v.+De+la+guerra"+&hl=en&as_sdt=40006. BACKGROUND: California and several other western states were once part of Mexico. This case was about the rights of Mexican citizens in the ceded territory during the transition from Mexico to the United States. In order to protect these Mexican citizens in the ceded territories during this transition, the United States and Mexico entered into the Treaty Of Guadalupe Hidalgo. This 1848 treaty effectively conferred United States citizenship upon all the Mexicans inhabitants of the ceded territory who did not, within a specified time, declare their intention to retain their Mexican citizenship, though they were not entitled to ALL the privileges of United States citizenship until the ceded territory was incorporated into a State of the United States. THUS, THE LIMITATION ON THE RIGHTS OF THESE MEXICANS [NOMINALLY ALSO U.S. CITIZENS] WAS TEMPORARY AND LASTED ONLY UNTIL THE CEDED TERRITORY ON WHICH THEY RESIDED WAS INCORPORATED INTO A STATE OF THE UNITED STATES. THIS CASE DOES NOT MEAN THAT ALL UNITED STATES CITIZENS HAVE LESS RIGHTS THAN STATE CITIZENS.

How This Case Has Been Cited
"It was no violation of the ninth article of the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo that the qualifications of electors [voters], as prescribed in the constitution of California, were such as to [temporarily] exclude some of the [Mexican] inhabitants from certain political rights [until the ceded territory they occupied was incorporated into a state of the United States]."

"holding that [The] Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo directly conferred [United States] citizenship rights [to persons of Mexican ancestry] and rejecting [the] claim that [a] person of Mexican ancestry in California was not [a] US citizen, and thus was ineligible to serve as [a] judge, because Congress failed to specifically afford [provide] citizenship [in that treaty]."

"The treaty of 1848 seems to have conferred [United States] citizenship upon all the inhabitants of the ceded territory [formerly Mexico] who did not, within a specified time, declare their intention to retain their Mexican citizenship, though it has been held that they were not entitled to all the privileges of citizens of the United States until the ceded territory was incorporated into a State."

TRANSLATION: THIS CASE DOES NOT MEAN THAT ALL UNITED STATES CITIZENS HAVE LESS RIGHTS THAN STATE CITIZENS.

20). Your cut and paste claim: “SUBJECT. SUBJECT may imply a state of subjection to a person, such as a monarch, without much sense of membership in a political community or sharing in political rights … It may on the other hand simply indicate membership in a political community with a personal sovereign [A MONARCH, LIKE KING OR QUEEN] to whom allegiance is owed.” Webster's Third New International Dictionary, MERRIAM-WEBSTER INC., Publishers 1986
RESPONSE: No response is required.

THE QUOTE BELOW IS REAL, BUT EDITED SO AS TO LEAD THE READER TO REACH THE OPPOSITE CONSLUSION REACHED BY THE COURT.

21). Your cut and paste claim: “[T]he term "citizen," in the United States, is analogous to the term "subject" in the common law.” State vs Manual 20 NC 122, 14 C.J.S. 4, p 430
RESPONSE: For the WHOLE quote, CLICK HERE: https://scholar.google.com/scholar_...+v.+City+Services&hl=en&as_sdt=40006&as_vis=1. This case actually reads, "It might be that some distinction exists in Italy between a 'citizen''and a 'subject." This observation is prompted by the fact that the framers of the Constitution employed the phrase 'between a State, or the citizens thereof, and foreign States, citizens or subjects.' It is to be remembered that the Colonials were 'subjects' until their independence was established. The word was doubtless opprobrious to them. They took the word 'citizen' from the Latin 'civis' which means 'freeman of a city.' [citations omitted). They recognized all aliens as 'citizens' or 'subjects.' The law of Italy is a question of fact and no proof has been offered by the defendant to establish whether there is a distinction between 'citizen' and 'subject.' Therefore, the decisions of our own courts must be applied. 'Subject and citizen are, in a degree, convertible terms as applied to natives, and though the term citizen seems to be appropriate to republican freemen, yet we are, equally with the inhabitants of all other countries, subjects, for we are equally bound by allegiance and subjection to the government and law of the land.' (citation omitted). 'The term `citizen,' as understood in our law, is precisely ANALOGOUS [CLICK HERE https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/analogous] to the term subject in the common law [when MONARCHS reigned supreme], AND THE CHANGE OF THE PHRASE [from "SUBJECT" to "CITIZEN"] has entirely resulted from the change of [THE TYPE OF] government. The SOVEREIGNTY has been transferred from one man [A KING/MONARCH] to the COLLECTIVE BODY OF THE PEOPLE [CALLED THE "STATE"] —and HE WHO BEFORE WAS A 'SUBJECT' OF A KING 'IS NOW A CITIZEN OF THE STATE.'" CLICK HERE http://www.duhaime.org/LegalDictionary/S/Sovereign.aspx; https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/...lish/sovereign]. THIS SIMPLY MEANS THAT SOVEREIGNTY (THE RIGHT TO RULE) HAS BEEN TRANSFERRED FROM ONE MAN (A KING/MONARCH) TO THE COLLECTIVE BODY OF THE PEOPLE AS A WHOLE (CALLED THE "STATE") —AND HE WHO BEFORE WAS A "SUBJECT" OF A KING "IS NOW A "CITIZEN" OF THE STATE (which is simply ALL OF THE PEOPLE of the jurisdiction COLLECTIVELY speaking with a single voice through their ELECTED representatives).'"

THE QUOTE BELOW IS REAL, BUT EDITED SO AS TO LEAD THE READER TO REACH THE OPPOSITE CONSLUSION REACHED BY THE COURT.

22). Your cut and paste claim: “In our opinion, it was not the intent of the legislature to restrict the operation of the
statute to those only who were subjects of the United States government ...”
Prowd v. Gore (1922) 57 Cal. App. 458, 459-461 [emphasis added]
RESPONSE: For the WHOLE quote, CLICK HERE: https://casetext.com/case/prowd-v-gore. In this case, a black man was denied a seat in a movie theater after having purchased a ticket that legally entitled him to a seat. The state had in force a statute that made it mandatory to treat all "CITIZENS" equally in terms of admission and seating to movie theaters, regardless of race. So, lawyers for the theater argued that while the black man had had established that he was a "RESIDENT" of the state, he had not established that he was a "CITIZEN" so as to be protected by the subject statute. The court responded to this silly argument by writing, "As employed [used] in [the applicable statute]... , the term "CITIZEN" is NOT USED in a restricted sense — that is, A CITIZEN OF A STATE OR CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES — but [IS USED] in the broad and unrestricted sense, implying that one is a RESIDENT of the state and as such entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of its courts to protect a right guaranteed to all, without reference to race or color, who reside within its jurisdiction. To hold otherwise would render the [subject] statute obnoxious to the FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION, UNDER WHICH A STATE MAY NOT 'DENY TO ANY PERSON [NOT CITIZEN] WITHIN ITS JURISDICTION EQUAL PROTECTION of THE LAWS.' In our opinion, it was not the intent of the legislature to restrict the operation of the [applicable] statute to those only who were subjects of the United States government and exclude therefrom unnaturalized residents of foreign birth, whether white or black. The evidence shows that plaintiff [the black man] was a RESIDENT of the state, which fact entitled him to maintain the action [file and continue the lawsuit against the theater owner]. Whether or not he was a CITIZEN of the United States, with all the rights implied by such term, is immaterial. THUS, THIS CASE DOES NOT MEAN THAT ALL CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES ARE "SUBJECTS" OF THE UNITED STATES. It simply means that "EVERY PERSON" is entitled to equal protection of he law. Thus, the fourteenth amendment EXPANDS the rights and protections of the individual, not the other way around.

THE QUOTE BELOW IS REAL, BUT EDITED SO AS TO LEAD THE READER TO REACH THE OPPOSITE CONSLUSION REACHED BY THE COURT.

23). Your cut and paste claim: “Upon the other hand, the 14th Amendment, upon the subject of citizenship, Declares only that "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States, and of the state wherein they
reside."
Here there is a limitation to persons born or naturalized in the United States, which is not extended to person born in any place "subject to their jurisdiction." Downes v. Bidwell (1900) 182 U.S. 244, 249-251, 45 L. Ed. 1088, 1092, [emphasis added]
RESPONSE: For the WHOLE quote, CLICK HERE: Downes v. Bidwell, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=9926302819023946834&q="Downes+v.+Bidwell"++&hl=en&as_sdt=40006. This case is over a century old. BACKGROUND: Puerto Rico is not a state. It is a territory of the United States. Nevertheless, the citizens of Puerto Rico are U.S. Citizens. FACTS: This case involved the question of whether goods shipped from Puerto Rico to New York were exempt from import duties (taxes). In attempting to explain the rights of Puerto Ricans as compared to other U.S. Citizens, the court wrote, "The Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution, prohibiting slavery and involuntary servitude 'within the United States, OR [this is the key word] in any place subject to their jurisdiction,' this [language] is also significant as showing that there may be places within the jurisdiction of the United States that are not part of the Union [like Puerto Rico]. [That is] [t]o say that the phraseology of this amendment was due to the fact that it was intended to prohibit slavery in the seceded States, under a possible interpretation [possible argument] that those States were no longer a part of the Union [and]... , if these States were not a part of the Union THEY WERE STILL SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE UNITED STATES [making slavery illegal in those states anyway]. On the other hand, the Fourteenth Amendment, upon the subject of citizenship, declares only that "all persons born or naturalized IN THE UNITED STATES, AND [this is the key word] SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION THEREOF, are CITIZENS of the United States, and of the STATE wherein they reside." Here [by using the word, "AND" in the fourteenth amendment] there is a limitation [ON U.S. CITIZENSHIP] to persons born or naturalized IN THE UNITED STATES which is NOT extended to persons born in any place [that is merely] 'SUBJECT TO [ITS]... JURISDICTION [like Puerto Rico]' [drawing a contrast between language in the thirteenth and the fourteenth amendment and referring to the word "OR" in the thirteenth amendment as compared to the word "AND" in the fourteenth amendment]. (in the 8th and 9th paragraph at about 5%through the text). THUS, THIS CASE DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT PLACES A "LIMITATION" ON THE "RIGHTS" OF UNITED STATES CITIZENS WHEN COMPARED TO STATE CITIZENS. INSTEAD, THIS CASE MEANS THAT THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT PLACES A "LIMITATION" ON "CITIZENSHIP" TO THOSE WHO WERE BORN OR NATURALIZED IN THE UNITED STATES "AND" WHO WERE SUBJECT THE JURISDICTION THEREOF WHILE THE THIRTEENTH AMENDMENT BANNED SLAVERY WITHIN THE UNITED STATES "OR" IN ANY PLACE SUBJECT TO ITS JURISDICTION (drawing a contrast between language in the thirteenth and the fourteenth amendment and referring to the word "OR" in the thirteenth amendment as compared to the word "AND" in the fourteenth amendment). Nothing more.

24). Your cut and paste claim: "The right of trial by jury in civil cases, guaranteed by the 7th Amendment (Walker v. Sauvinet, 92 U. S. 90), and the right to bear arms, guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment (Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252), have been distinctly held not to be privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States guaranteed by the 14th Amendment against abridgement by the states, and in effect the same decision was made in respect of the guarantee against prosecution, except by indictment of a grand jury, contained in the 5th Amendment (Hurtado v. California, 110 U. S. 516), and in respect of the right to be confronted with witnesses, contained in the 6th Amendment." West v. Louisiana, 194 U. S. 258.
RESPONSE: The forgoing semi quote actually comes from Twining v. New Jersey. For the WHOLE quote, CLICK HERE: https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=7311310850311513299&q="the+right+of+trial+by+jury+in+civil+cases,+guaranteed+by+the+seventh+amendment"&hl=en&as_sdt=40006. The case actually reads, "The right of trial by jury in civil cases, guaranteed by the Seventh Amendment (Walker v. Sauvinet, 92 U.S. 90), and the right to bear arms guaranteed by the Second Amendment (Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252), have been distinctly held not to be privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment against abridgment by the States, and in effect the same decision was made in respect of the guarantee against prosecution, except by indictment of a grand jury, contained in the Fifth Amendment (Hurtado v. California, 110 U.S. 516), and in respect of the right to be confronted with witnesses, contained in the Sixth Amendment. West v. Louisiana, 194 U.S. 258. In Maxwell v. Dow, supra, where the plaintiff in error had been convicted in a state court of a felony upon an information, and by a jury of eight persons, it was held that the indictment, made indispensable by the Fifth Amendment, and the trial by jury guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment, WERE NOT PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES OF CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES, AS THOSE WORDS WERE USED IN THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT. The discussion in that case ought not to be repeated. All the arguments for the other view were considered and answered, the authorities were examined and analyzed, and the decision rested upon the ground that this clause of the Fourteenth Amendment did not forbid the States to abridge the personal rights enumerated in the first eight Amendments, BECAUSE THOSE RIGHTS WERE NOT [PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES] WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE CLAUSE 'PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES OF CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES.'... . We conclude, therefore, that the exemption from compulsory self-incrimination IS NOT A PRIVILEGE OR IMMUNITY OF NATIONAL CITIZENSHIP GUARANTEED BY THIS CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT against abridgment by the States." TRANSLATION: The "privileges and immunities" clause of the fourteenth amendment protects UNITED STATES Citizens against abridgment BY THE STATES of all "privileges and immunities" that are within the meaning of that clause, BUT NOT AGAINST OTHER "PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITES" THAT ARE NOT WITHIN THE MEANING OF THAT CLAUSE. AND, SOME OF THE RIGHTS APPEARING IN THE FIRST EIGHT AMENDMENTS OF THE CONSTITUTION ARE NOT "PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES" WITHIN THE MEANING OF THAT CLAUSE. THAT DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE "PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES" CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT PROVIDES A UNITED STATES CITIZEN WITH NO PROTECTION FROM STATE ABRIDGEMENT OF ANY "PRIVILEGE AND IMMUNITY"AT ALL.

NOTE: The following few cut and paste partial quotes come from an ancient legal encyclopedia that is more than a century old, not directly from the law itself. To see this ancient legal encyclopedia, CLICK HERE . https://books.google.com/books?id=xqbuJXW0utcC&dq="rules+of+practice+may+be+altered+whenever+found+to+be"&source=gbs_navlinks_s.

THE QUOTE BELOW IS REAL, BUT EDITED SO AS TO LEAD THE READER TO REACH THE OPPOSITE CONSLUSION REACHED BY THE COURT.

25). Your cut and paste claim: "The technical niceties of the common law are not regarded. . . .", 1 R.C.L. 31, p. 422.
RESPONSE: For the WHOLE quote, CLICK HERE: Kelly v. State, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=12042195898940005215&q="the+technical+niceties+of+the+common+law"&hl=en&as_sdt=40006. This case involved a dispute over the value of "improvements" that tenants made to school land that they leased. The case actually says, "McCOWN, Justice, concurring in part, and dissenting in part. [In criticizing a poorly written statute, the judge wrote,] THE LEGISLATIVE DEFINITIONS OF "IMPROVEMENTS" ON SCHOOL LANDS [contained in the subject statute] have had little regard for the technical niceties of the common law OR ITS DEFINITIONS. [In writing the statute,] [t]he Legislature has made no distinctions between "crops," for example, and "land leveling," nor between "IMPROVEMENTS" which are severable from the land and those which become or are an actual part of the land itself and could never be severed. Translation: The subject statute should have provided a definition for the term, improvements". Nothing more. THUS, THIS CASE DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE LAW (OR THE COURTS) HAVE LITTLE REGARD FOR THE TECHNICAL NICETIES OF THE COMMON LAW. IT MEANS THAT THE LEGISLATIVE DEFINITIONS OF "IMPROVEMENTS" ON SCHOOL LANDS [contained in the subject statute] have had little regard for the technical niceties of the common law OR ITS DEFINITIONS. Notice how deceptive and manipulative this this carefully-edited quote actually is. This trickery speaks volumes about the character and integrity of the author of this document.

THE FOLLOWING FEW CASES WERE APPARENTLY CITED BECAUSE OF THEIR CONNECTION TO "ADMIRALTY" WHICH AMATEUR LEGAL THEORISTS MISTAKENLY BELIEVE SECTRETLY GOVERNS EVERY CASE IN THE ENTIRE WORLD.

26). Your cut and paste claim: "A jury does not figure, ordinarily, in the trial of an admiralty suit. . . the verdict of the jury merely advisory, and may be disregarded by the court." 1 R.C.L. 40, p. 432.
RESPONSE: For the whole quote, CLICK HERE: https://books.google.com/books?id=U3ZCAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA432&lpg=PA432&dq="a+jury+does+not+figure"&source=bl&ots=dYo4zJdna1&sig=BTRV_wYsHYpVNdQFPhhm81fEaFs&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiOnZ7DjqDeAhXHuVMKHQPuBk8Q6AEwAXoECAgQAQ#v=onepage&q="a jury does not figure"&f=false. "A jury does not figure, ordinarily, in the trial of an admiralty suit. . . the verdict of the jury merely advisory, and may be disregarded by the court. In difficult cases depending on nautical experience, the judge may call to his aid experienced masters of vessels, whose report must necessarily be of great assistance in the arrival of the correct conclusion." Translation: Matters of admiralty, maritime, navigation, shipping and vessels on he high seas are so complex that courts may disregard he findings of lay person juries and may even consult with outside experts in when such is necessary to "arrive [at] the correct conclusion." CONTRARY TO WHAT AMATEUR LEGAL THEORISTS MISTAKELY BELIEVE, THIS CASE DOES NOT DEPRIVE A CRIMINAL DEFENDANT TO A RIGHT TO TRIAL BY JURY IN A CRIMINAL CASE. THIS CASE APPLIES ONLY TO REAL ADMIRALTY CASES, NOT PRETEND ADMIRALTY CASES. THE CASE ABOVE WAS APPARENTLY CITED BECAUSE OF ITS CONNECTION TO "ADMIRALTY" WHICH AMATEUR LEGAL THEORISTS MISTAKENLY BELIEVE SECTRETLY GOVERNS EVERY CASE IN THE ENTIRE WORLD.

THE QUOTE BELOW IS REAL, BUT EDITED SO AS TO LEAD THE READER TO REACH THE OPPOSITE CONSLUSION REACHED BY THE COURT.

27). Your cut and paste claim: "[The] rules of practice may be altered whenever found to be inconvenient or likely to embarrass the business of the court." 1 R.C.L. 32, p. 423.
RESPONSE: For the WHOLE quote from this ancient legal encyclopedia, CLICK HERE. https://books.google.com/books?id=EvoUAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA423&lpg=PA423&dq="Rules+of+practice+may+be+altered+whenever+found+to+be+inconvenient"&source=bl&ots=mcRR6b3Ls7&sig=MwOmJ8pOlbZXCEvJnGC1iwrtbTU&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi7mO7ojK_eAhWui60KHaTiDZkQ6AEwAHoECAkQAQ#v=onepage&q="Rules of practice may be altered whenever found to be inconvenient"&f=false. The WHOLE quote from this ancient legal encyclopedia reads, "The Act of May 8th, 1792 [more than two centuries ago] and by the Act of August 23rd, 1842 [almost two centuries ago], Congress conferred upon the Supreme Court [the] power to make rules from time to time to govern PROCEEDINGS [not the outcomes] in ADMIRALTY [not other types of cases]. Pursuant to these acts, a code of rules was announced, the rules being little more than a recognition of the previous practice of the courts of ADMIRALTY in this country and in England. These rules [that Congress authorized the Supreme Court to make "from time to time"] may be altered whenever found to be inconvenient or likely to embarrass THE BUSINESS of the court [NOT THE COURT ITSELF].... ." This ancient encyclopdia cites The Steamer St. Lawrence as its source. For the WHOLE quote from the source case, CLICK HERE: https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=7217452950844649597&q=%22The+steamer+st.+lawrence%22+%27%271+black+522%27&hl=en&as_sdt=40006. In this case, the court wrote, "But in the rules then adopted, this rule as well as the others are explicitly adopted as 'a rule of practice,' and, consequently, liable to be altered from time to time, whenever it was found to be inconvenient, or likely to embarrass THE LEGITIMATE BUSINESS of the court [NOT THE COURT ITSELF]." THEN, THE COURT EXPLAINED WHAT IT MEANT BY "THE LEGITIMATE BUSINESS OF THE COURT. "And there could be no embarrassing difficulties in using the ordinary process in rem, of the civil law, if the State law gave the lien in general terms, without specific conditions or limitations inconsistent with the rules and principles which governed implied maritime liens; and whenever this was the case, the process to enforce it promoted the convenience and facilities of trade and navigation by the promptness of its proceedings." THUS, THIS CASE DOES NOT MEAN THAT ALL COURTS CAN CHANGE THEIR RULES OF PROCEDURE WHEN THEY THEMSELVES ARE "EMBARRASED". IT SIMPLY MEANS THAT HUNDREDS OF YEARS AGO "ADMIRALTY" COURTS (ONLY) COULD CHANGE THEIR RULES OF PROCEDURE "whenever they were found to be inconvenient, or likely to embarrass THE LEGITIMATE BUSINESS of the court [NOT THE COURT ITSELF]."

28). your cut and paste claim: "A court of admiralty. . . acts upon equitable principles." 1 R.C.L. 17, p. 416.
RESPONSE: The author of this document found this language here. CLICK HERE. https://books.google.com/books?id=U3ZCAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA416&lpg=PA416&dq="a+court+of+admiralty"+"acts+upon+equitable+principles"&source=bl&ots=dYo4zK4m6X&sig=ml0Ejzw6SShbAqaEOOOEChj8s10&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiFo7nakaDeAhXD41MKHSbfAUYQ6AEwAnoECAcQAQ#v=onepage&q="a court of admiralty" "acts upon equitable principles"&f=false.
RESPONSE: The link above cites as its source The Steamer Eclipse. For the WHOLE quote, CLICK HERE: https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=12575409069322592345&q=%22the+steamer+Eclipse%22+&hl=en&scisbd=2&as_sdt=40006. That case reads, "While the court of admiralty exercises its jurisdiction upon equitable principles, it has not the characteristic powers of a court of equity. It cannot entertain a bill or libel for specific performance, or to correct a mistake (citation omitted) or declare or enforce a trust or an equitable title (citations omitted) or exercise jurisdiction in matters of account merely (citations omitted) or decree the sale of a ship for an unpaid mortgage, or declare her [the ship] to be the property of the mortgagees and direct possession of her [the ship] to be given to them. (citation omitted). The jurisdiction [of a court of admiralty] embraces all maritime contracts, torts, injuries or offences, and it depends, in cases of contract, upon the nature of the contract, and is limited to contracts, claims and services PURELY MARITIME, and touching rights and duties appertaining to commerce and NAVIGATION. THE CASE ABOVE WAS APPARENTLY CITED BECAUSE OF ITS CONNECTION TO "ADMIRALTY" WHICH AMATEUR LEGAL THEORISTS MISTAKENLY BELIEVE SECTRETLY GOVERNS EVERY CASE IN THE ENTIRE WORLD.

29). Your cut and paste claim; "A libel of information [accusation] does not require all the technical precision of an indictment at common law. If the allegations describe the offense, it is all that is necessary; and if it is founded upon a statute, it is sufficient if it pursues the words of the law." The Emily v. The Caroline, 9 Wheat. 381
RESPONSE: No direct link to this case is available. But, the alleged quote appears to be entirely fake. CLICK HERE. https://books.google.com/books?id=Olo8AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA543&lpg=PA543&dq=%22the+emily+v.+the+caroline%22&source=bl&ots=WQqbcDzQSD&sig=IUBEu_Uzo3v-yQWyG4bdLX1YNzs&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi64PCalqDeAhUP11MKHVNeD0cQ6AEwAHoECAkQAQ#v=onepage&q=%22the%20emily%20v.%20the%20caroline%22&f=false. CLICK HERE. https://books.google.com/books?id=V6hLAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA543&lpg=PA543&dq="the+emily+v.+the+caroline"&source=bl&ots=0hXhN7XOby&sig=EAcllyTESHMrtBwfLjyv7cxbuyY&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi64PCalqDeAhUP11MKHVNeD0cQ6AEwAXoECAgQAQ#v=onepage&q="the emily v. the caroline"&f=false.
CLICK HERE. https://books.google.com/books?id=etUaAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA123&lpg=PA123&dq="the+emily+v.+the+caroline"&source=bl&ots=TTba1q1MHh&sig=9uy38gDZRhVZ5hYcwx6Iw7fKMOw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi64PCalqDeAhUP11MKHVNeD0cQ6AEwAnoECAcQAQ#v=onepage&q="the emily v. the caroline"&f=false. CLICK HERE. https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&scisbd=2&as_sdt=40006&q=+"9+wheat.+381"+Emily+Caroline&btnG=.

NOTE: This same ancient case is also cited in connection with several other imaginary holdings “…that there was a citizenship of the United States and a citizenship of the republic 50 several states, ... . " CLICK HERE AND SCROLL DOWN TO THE AMATEUR LEGAL THEORY WEBISTES NEAR THE BOTTOM. https://www.google.com/search?biw=1366&bih=651&ei=v_PQW8XHJMPHzwKmvoewBA&q=%22the+emily+v.+the+caroline%22+&oq=%22the+emily+v.+the+caroline%22+&gs_l=psy-ab.12...0.0..13...0.0..0.0.0.......0......gws-wiz.PpYG3PS3j0g.

30). Your cut and paste claim: "...that there was a citizenship of the United States and a citizenship of the states, which were distinct from each other, depending upon different characteristics and circumstances in the individual; that it was only privileges and immunities of the citizens of the United States that were placed by the amendment under the protection of the Federal Constitution, and that the privileges and immunities of a citizen of a state, whatever they might be, were not intended to have any additional protection by the paragraph in question, but they must rest for their security and protection where they have heretofore rested." Maxwell v Dow, 20 S.C.R. 448, at pg 451
RESPONSE: For the WHOLE quote, CLICK HERE: Maxwell v. Dow, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=17693509694446359639&q=%22Maxwell+v.+Dow%22+&hl=en&as_sdt=40006. This case is over a century old. FACTS: In this case, a convicted robber appealed his Utah state conviction by claiming that his rights under the federal "privileges and immunities" clause were violated BECAUSE: 1). he was charged by information and not by indictment; 2). the jury had only 8 members rather than 12 members; and that; 3) such violated his federal right to due process. The court responded by writing, "[T]here are certain privileges or immunities POSSESSED BY A CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES, because of his [U.S.] CITIZENSHIP... [WHICH]... CANNOT BE ABRIDGED BY ANY ACTION OF THE STATES. In order to limit the powers which it was feared might be claimed or exercised by the Federal Government, under the provisions of the Constitution as it was when adopted, the first ten amendments to that instrument were proposed to the legislatures of the several States by the first Congress on the 25th of September, 1789. They were intended as restraints and limitations upon the powers of the General Government, and were not intended to and did not have any effect upon the powers of the respective States. (at about 35% through the text).

In the Slaughter-house cases, 16 Wall. 36, the subject of the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States, AS DISTINGUISHED FROM THOSE OF A PARTICULAR STATE, was treated by Mr. Justice Miller in delivering the opinion of the court. He stated that the argument in favor of the plaintiffs, claiming that the ordinance of the city of New Orleans was invalid, rested wholly on the assumption that the citizenship is the same and the privileges and immunities guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment are the same as to citizens of the United States and citizens of the several States. This he showed to be not well founded; that there was a citizenship of the United States and a citizenship of the States, which were distinct from each other, depending upon different characteristics and circumstances in the individual; that it was only privileges and immunities of the citizen of the United States that were placed by the amendment under the protection of the Federal Constitution, AND THAT PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITES OF A CITIZEN OF A STATE, whatever they might be, were not intended to have any additional protection by the paragraph in question [the "privileges and immunities" clause of the fourteenth amendment], but they must rest for their security and protection where they have heretofore rested [MEANING STATE LAW]. (at about 35% through the text). TRANSLATION: The "privileges and immunities" clause of the fourteenth amendment protects United States citizens against abridgment BY THE STATES of all "privileges and immunities" that are within the meaning of that clause, BUT IT DOES NOT PROTECT United States citizens AGAINST OTHER "PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITES" THAT ARE GOVERNED BY STATE LAW. The court held that merely being charged by information rather than indictment and having a jury of 8 members rather than 12 members DID NOT VIOLATE the defendant's rights under the "privileges and immunities" clause of the U.S. Constitution . THUS, THIS CASE DOES NOT MEAN THAT STATE CITIZENS ARE NOT UNITED STATES CITIZENS AND VICE VERSA. NOTE THAT THIS CASE IS NOT ABOUT TWO ALLEGED CLASSES OF CITIZENSHIP. THIS CASE IS ABOUT TWO CLASSES OF "PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES".

31). Your cut and paste claim: "...the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States do not necessarily include all the rights protected by the first eight amendments to the Federal constitution against the powers of the Federal government." Maxwell v Dow, 20 S.C.R. 448, at pg 455; — Timeline Photos
RESPONSE: This is a duplicate of number 4 (above) which is explained in number 4 (above).

32). Your cut and paste claim: There have always been 2 classes of citizens in America.
RESPONSE: This was only true until the thirteenth and fourteenth amendments were ratified.

33). Your cut and paste claim: The Constitution for the United States of America talks about 2 classes of citizens.
RESPONSE: That "talk" was amended (effectively repealed) by the thirteenth and fourteenth amendments.

34). Your cut and paste claim: Article IV, Section 2 Clause 1 says; "The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States."
RESPONSE: This is true. For that language CLICIK HERE. https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleiv. But, this does not mean that every "right" in the first eight amendments of the U.S. Constitution is a "privilege and immunity" within the meaning of that clause. Some "privileges and immunities" come from STATE law, not from the U.S. Constitution.

35). Your cut and paste claim: The courts have talked about the two classes of citizens as shown below.
"there is in our Political System, a government of each of the several states and a government of the United States Each is distinct from the other and has citizens of its own." . US vs. Cruikshank, 92 US 542,
RESPONSE: For the WHOLE quote, CLICK HERE: https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=9699370891451726349&q=%22US+v+Cruikshank%22+&hl=en&as_sdt=40006. This case is not about two classes of CITIZENS. Instead, it is about two classes of GOVERMENTS. The case reads, "We have in our political system A GOVERNMENT of the United States and A GOVERNMENT of each of the several States. Each one of these GOVERNMENTS is distinct from the others, and each has citizens of its own who owe it allegiance, and whose rights, within its jurisdiction, it must protect." Thus, this case is not about two classes of "CITIZENS". This case is about two classes of "GOVERMENTS" (federal and state).

36. Your cut and paste claim: The Fourteenth Amendment, "....creates or at least recognizes for the first time a citizenship of the United States, as distinct from that of the States."
Black's Law Dictionary, 5th Edition at pg 591;
RESPONSE: This is not so. And, dictionaries do not have the force of law and are not binding on any court in any jurisdiction at any time.

THIS QUOTE BELOW IS ENTIRELY FAKE. GOOGLE this FAKE phrase in quotes. Not a single case comes up.

37). Your cut and paste claim: "One may be a citizen of a State and yet not a citizen of the United States. Thomasson v State, 15 Ind. 449; Cory v Carter, 48 Ind. 327 (17 Am. R. 738); McCarthy v. Froelke, 63 Ind. 507; In Re Wehlitz, 16 Wis. 443."Mc Donel v State, 90 Ind. Rep. 320 at pg 323;
RESPONSE: Not only is the quote above ENTIRELY FAKE, it is also EXACTLY BACKWARDS AND OPPOSITE to the REAL law on this very subject. For the REAL law on this subject, CLICK HERE: https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=11409994194895910402&q=%22a+citizen+of+a+state+and+not+a+citizen+of+the+United+States%22&hl=en&as_sdt=40006. In this case, the court wrote, "Similarly, the court rejects Dr. Hansen's contentions that... he is a citizen of a state and not a citizen of the United States... . These arguments have no basis in the law." (in the second to last paragraph at about 95% through the text). THUS, AS ALWAYS, THE REAL LAW AND AMATEUR LEGAL THEORIES ARE EXACTLY OPPOSITE AND BACKWARDS TO ONE ANOTHER.

THE QUOTE BELOW IS REAL, BUT EDITED SO AS TO LEAD THE READER TO REACH THE OPPOSITE CONSLUSION REACHED BY THE COURT.

38). Your cut and paste claim: "Both before and after the 14th Amendment to the Federal Constitution it has not been necessary for a person to be a citizen of the U.S. in order to be a citizen of his State" Crosse v. Board of Supervisors, Baltimore, Md., 1966, 221 A. 2d 431 citing US Supreme Court Slaughter House Cases and U.S. v. Cruikshank 92 US 542, 549, 23 L. Ed 588 1875
RESPONSE: This is true. But, read closely. The devil is in the details. CLICK HERE: United State v. Hansen, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=15030024530808914170&q=%22Crosse+v.+Board+of+Supervisors%22&hl=en&as_sdt=40006. In this case, a man born in another country applied with the state to run for sheriff. Under state law, a person can not run for sheriff until they have been a state citizen for five years. The case reads, "The court below held and the [election] Board contends that the appellant [the man who applied to run for sheriff] did not become a citizen of Maryland... until he became a citizen of the United States, and is therefore ineligible to be Sheriff... because he was not a United States citizen at least five years preceding the election. We disagree. Both before and after the Fourteenth Amendment to the federal Constitution, it has not been necessary for a person to be a citizen of the United States in order to be a citizen of his state." TRANSLATION: Both before and after the fourteenth amendment to the federal Constitution, is has only been necessary for a person to be a citizen OF A STATE OF THE UNITED STATES in order to be a citizen OF THE UNITED STATES. THIS CASE DOES NOT MEAN THAT A PERSON CAN BE A CITIZEN OF A STATE OF THE UNITED STATES WITHOUT ALSO BEING A UNITED STATES CITIZEN.

THE QUOTE BELOW IS REAL, BUT EDITED SO AS TO LEAD THE READER TO REACH THE OPPOSITE CONSLUSION REACHED BY THE COURT.

39).Your cut and paste claim: "There are two classes of citizens, citizens of the United States and of the State. And one may be a citizen of the former without being a citizen of the latter" Gardina v. Board of Registers 48 So. 788, 169 Ala. 155 (1909)
RESPONSE: For the WHOLE quote, CLICK HERE. Gardina v. Board of Registrars, https://books.google.com/books?id=hcgKAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA155&lpg=PA155&dq="gardina+v.+board+of+registrars"&source=bl&ots=zQnleMVJqr&sig=H6msWQmxdUlWH88OH0VEKHvE7D4&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjw6-vj26zeAhVnhuAKHaT-DscQ6AEwAXoECAcQAQ#v=onepage&q="gardina v. board of registrars"&f=false. The case actually says, "There are, then, under our republican form of government, two classes of citizens, one of the United States and one of the state. One class of citizenship may exist in a person without he other, AS IN THE CASE OF A RESIDENT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA [or Puerto Rico]; BUT BOTH CLASSES USUALLY EXIST IN THE SAME PERSON [BECAUSE MOST PEOPLE LIVE IN "STATES" OF THE UNITED STATES AND NOT "TERRITORIES" OF THE UNITED STATES]." (in the final paragraph of this case at the very bottom). Notice how deceptive and manipulative this this carefully-edited quote is. This trickery speaks volumes about the character and integrity of the author of this document.

THIS QUOTE IS ENTITELY FAKE:

40). Your cut and paste claim: "Citizenship of the United States does not entitle citizens to privileges and immunities of Citizens of the State, since privileges of one are not the same as the other" Tashiro v. Jordan, 255 P. 545 California Supreme Court
RESPONSE: This quote is ENTIRELY FAKE. IT DOES NOT APPEAR ANYWHERE IN THIS CASEE. For proof of this fraud, CLICK HERE. Tashiro v. Jordan, https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/278/123.html

THIS CLAIM IS ENTIRELY FAKE AND FABRICATED:

41). Your cut and paste claim: The United States Supreme Court quite thoroughly expanded on the two classes
of citizenship
in the case Maxwell v Dow, 20 S.C.R. 448, where it said: "...that there was a citizenship of the United States and a citizenship of the states, which were distinct from each other, depending upon different characteristics and circumstances in the individual; that it was only privileges and immunities of the citizens of the United States that were placed by the amendment under the protection of the Federal Constitution, and that the privileges and immunities of a citizen of a state, whatever they might be, were not intended to have any additional protection by the paragraph in question, but they must rest for their security and protection where they have heretofore rested."Maxwell v Dow, 20 S.C.R. 448, at pg 451;
RESPONSE: Note the glaring absence of a case that supports this false claim. If this claim were actually true, then the author of this false claim would have provided a long list of Supreme Court cases showing proof that the Supreme Court had "quite thoroughly expanded on the [alleged] two classes of citizenship." But, this author did not do this. This is because The United States Supreme Court NEVER "thoroughly expanded on the [alleged] two classes of citizenship" in the Maxwell case. The Maxwell case was NOT about TWO ALLEGED CLASSES OF CITIZENSHIP. The Maxwell case was about TWO CLASSES OF "PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES". (The Maxwell case itself is already explained above.).

42). Your cut and paste claim: These two classes of citizenship continue to this day,
"Privileges and immunities clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protects only those rights peculiar to being a citizen of the federal government; it does not protect those rights which relate to state citizenship. 14,§ 1."
Jones v Temmer, 829 F.Supp. 1226 (D.Colo. 1993);
RESPONSE: First of all, this case was later vacated by 10th Circuit Court Of Appeals. For proof, CLICK HERE. https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3471263521112773139&q="Jones+v.+Temmer"+&hl=en&as_sdt=40006. Regardless in this case, certain FOREIGNERS who sought to open a new taxi cab service in Denver sued various government officials for enforcing state laws that made it difficult for new taxi cab services to enter the market place. The FOREIGNERS argued that the subject state laws violated their rights under the "privileges and immunities" clause and the "equal protection" clause of the fourteen amendment. In response, the court wrote, "By its terms, § 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment [the "privileges and immunities" clause] protects only 'persons born or naturalized in the United States.' By his own admission, PLAINTIFF EBONG IS NEITHER [A PERSON BORN IN THE UNITED STATES OR NATURALIZED IN THE UNITED STATES]... . The privileges and immunities clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protects very few rights because it neither incorporates any of the Bill of Rights nor protects all rights of individual citizens. See Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. (16 Wall.) 36, 21 L.Ed. 394 (1873). Instead, this provision protects ONLY PROTECTS THOSE RIGHTS PECULIAR TO BEING A CITIZEN OF [AND NOT A "FOREIGER " IN] THE [UNITED STATES]...; it does not protect those rights which relate to state citizenship [BECAUSE THOSE RIGHTS COME FROM THE STATES]. Id. TRANSLATION: The "privilege and immunities' clause of the fourteenth amendment ONLY PROTECTS "CITIZENS" OF THE UNITED STATES AND ONLY PROTECTS RIGHTS THAT COME FROM THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, NOT RIGHTS THAT COME FROM THE STATES. Our rights come from TWO DIFFERENT SOVEREIGNS at the same time, NOT ONE. Our rights come from BOTH the United States AND from the state of the United States in which we reside. The "privileges and immunities" clause of the fourteenth amendment DOES NOT PROTECT against abridgment BY THE STATES of those rights THAT COME FROM THE STATE. Instead, the "privileges and immunities" clause of the fourteenth amendment ONLY protects against abridgment BY THE STATES of all those "privileges and immunities" THAT COME FROM THE UNITED STATES. In order to enforce rights THAT COME FROM THE STATES, you must use STATE law, not FEDERAL law (of which the "privileges and immunities" clause is a part). Thus, this case does not mean that that fourteenth amendment does not protect citizens of THE STATE. To the contrary, it does. But, it ONLY protects against abridgement BY THE STATES of those rights THAT ACTUALLY COME FROM THE UNITED STATES, AND NOT THOSE RIGHTS THAT COME FROM THE STATES. NOTE THAT THIS CASE IS NOT ABOUT TWO ALLEGED CLASSES OF CITIZENS. THIS CASE IS ABOUT TWO CLASSES OF "PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES".

THIS "LAW" IS ENTIRELY FAKE AND FABRICATED:

NOTE THAT THE AMATEUR AUTHOR OF THIS DOCUMENT DOES NOT KNOW THAT "SOVEREIGNTY" IS A TERM THAT ONLY APPLIES TO "WE THE PEOPLE" COLLECTIVELY IN THE FORM OF THE GOVERNMENT OF "WE THE PEOPLE", NOT TO INDIVIDUALS

43). Your cut and paste claim: Because there are 2 classes of citizens, and also because of circumstances that will become known below, it is necessary to assert your sovereignty. In order to understand how and why you assert your sovereignty, we need to have some background knowledge.
RESPONSE: This amateur author mistakenly believes that a "SOVEREIGN" is an INDIVIDUAL and that the government of 'We the People" is the enemy of the "SOVEREIGN". But, this is exactly backwards. The "SOVEREIGN" is "We the People" COLLECTIVELY in the form of the government of "We the People". The INDIVIDUAL is not "SOVEREIGN" (a GOVERNMENT of "We the People"). Medvedieff v. City Services. CLICK HERE: https://scholar.google.com/scholar_...+v.+City+Services&hl=en&as_sdt=40006&as_vis=1. "The SOVEREIGNTY [the right to rule] has been transferred from one man [A KING/MONARCH] to the COLLECTIVE BODY OF THE PEOPLE [CALLED THE "STATE"] —and HE WHO BEFORE WAS A "SUBJECT" OF A KING "IS NOW A CITIZEN OF THE STATE.'" CLICK HERE. http://www.duhaime.org/LegalDictionary/S/Sovereign.aspx; https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/...lish/sovereign].

4). Your cut and paste claim: A state citizen is one of "We the People" found in the preamble to the constitution.
RESPONSE: This is true. But, it is also true that "We the People" as found in the preamble to the United States Constitution are United States Citizens as well (under the principle of "dual sovereignty"). FACT: Every citizen of the United States is also a citizen of the individual state or territory in which he/she resides. This is called "DUAL CITIZENSHIP". CLICK HERE. https://scholar.google.com/scholar_...es"+"fourteenth+amendment"&hl=en&as_sdt=40006.

THIS "LAW" IS ENTIRELY FAKE AND FABRICATED:

45). Your cut and paste claim: You can be in a state without being in the United States.
RESPONSE: Not so. You CANNOT be in a state IN THE UNITED STATES, without also being a citizen of the UNION OF STATES in which that state is itself a member.

THIS "LAW" IS ENTIRELY FAKE AND FABRICATED:

Your cut-and-paste claim: In fact, if you read their codes, the United States in the United States Code is the District of Columbia and the Territories. The Puerto Rico website even talks about it.
RESPONSE: Not so, the territorial jurisdiction of the United States includes all of the territory of every state in the union, plus all U.S territories (such as Washington, D.C., Puerto Rico, Guam, U.S Virgin Islands), plus all navigable inland waters, plus all U.S. coastal waters within 12 miles of U.S. shore. The FEDERAL statutes are only limited to certain smaller territories IF, AND ONLY IF, THE ACTUAL WORDS OF THE INDIVIDUAL STATUTE SAYS SO. Otherwise, the FEDERAL law applies to all STATE and FEDERAL territories WITHOUT LIMITATION.

46). What is a US citizen?
RESPONSE: A citizen of an individual state in the United States.

KNOWLEDGE IS POWER
RESPONSE: Yes, but knowledge of (and belief in) a falsehood IS A WEAKNESS.


Goldhedge,

The foregoing proves that you cannot rely on cut-and-paste rubbish from CHARLATAN MIDDLEMEN when it comes to accurate information about the law. Their agenda is to trick you into believing something that is simply not true.

The sole source of accurate information about the law is the actual written words of the law itself (of a type to which I have provided you with links above). It is your refusal to access that accurate information which perpetuates your ignorance of the law.

Empower yourself. Access the truth. Stop mindlessly parroting the claims of CHARLATAN MIDDLEMEN.

Snoop.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Mar 21, 2015
Messages
214
Likes
13
wtf? what is wrong with you? The guy (NOT YOU) is giving you THE law and yet you reach around and feel for your buttmonkeys and just go with that?

Here ya go muncher and you f stick wrote this in lipstick...ahahahah fuck me running this is funny. No person is obligated to manufacture....FUCK, and in discovery also...HAHA FUCK! GHEHAWDIES U are so just stuuuupid!

I think ,,...no I do not think as I am laughing way 2 much....fuck...hahahahah
Michael59,

Rod Class' amateur "request for production" was, "Send me an acknowledgement that you understand you have perjured your oath of office and are committing constructive treason against the Constitution for the united States of America and the United States of America."

QUESTION: Do you actually believe that a lawyer already has such a non-sense, FALSE "acknowledgement" sitting around in his files on the outside chance that Rod Class would ask for it in discovery in a suit against the lawyer's client? No. Not even you believe that.

SO, THIS WAS MY RESPONSE TO CLASS' REQUEST: Under the law, no person is obligated to manufacture a document to produce in discovery, much less a false "acknowledgement" of imaginary wrongful acts that never occurred. But, this amateur (Rod Class) does not know enough to even realize this. Note that this inquiry WILL NOT LEAD TO ADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE IN THE CASE (FACTS OF A TYPE THAT CAN BE WITNESSED BY WINTESSES THAT MIGHT ESTABLISH GUILT OR INNOCENCE).

YOUR COMMENT IN RESPONSE TO MY RESPONSE TO CLASS' REQUEST: NO PERSON IS OBLIGATED TO MANUFACTURE....FUCK, and in discovery also...HAHA FUCK! GHEHAWDIES U are so just stuuuupid!

RESPONSE:

a. Fadem v. Amercian States Preferred Insurance. CLICK HERE and scroll down to about 45% through the text.
https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=7869758779972472656&q="create+a+document"+"request+to+produce"&hl=en&as_sdt=40006. This case reads, "Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34 governs requests for production. The rule permits a party to "serve on any other party" a request to produce or allow inspection of documents or tangible items that are "in the responding party's possession, custody, or control." Fed.R.Civ.P. 34(a)(1). "A party, however, IS NOT REQUIRED TO CREATE a document where none exists." (citations omitted). (finding that a document request that would require the defendant to CREATE a roster of all employees who supervised the prison cage yard is not a proper request under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34(a)); (citation omitted) (ruling that defendant IS NOT REQUIRED TO CREATE a document in response to a request for production))."

b. Candler v. Mallot, CLICK HERE and scroll down to about 85% through the text.
https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=16660123183596111221&q="create+a+document"+"request+to+produce"&hl=en&as_sdt=40006. This case reads, "Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense ...." Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(1). Rule 34 empowers a party to serve on any other party a request to produce "any designated documents ... which are in the possession, custody or control of the party upon whom the request is served... .[But] A party IS NOT REQUIRED TO CREATE a document where none exists.

c. Kindred v. Bigot. CLICK HERE and scroll down to about 85% through the text. https://scholar.google.com/scholar_...does+not+have+to++create"+&hl=en&as_sdt=40006. This case reads, "Procedure 34 requires a party to produce documents that already exist and a party DOES NOT HAVE TO CREATE a document in response to a request for production."); (citation omitted) (holding that a party IS NOT REQUIRED TO CREATE a new document in response to a document request)."

d. Gallagher v. Department Of Corrections, CLICK HERE and scroll down to about 85% through the text. https://scholar.google.com/scholar_...to+prepare+new+documents"+&hl=en&as_sdt=40006.
This case reads, "First, the Court notes that defendants ARE NOT REQUIRED TO CREATE a document that does not exist. A party may serve on another party a request to produce any designated documents that are in the responding party's possession, custody, or control. (citation omitted). However, a party IS NOT REQUIRED TO PREPARE NEW DOCUMENTS solely for their own production. (citation omitted)."Therefore, Rule 34 only requires a party to produce documents that are ALREADY IN EXISTENCE.").


e. American General Life Insurance Co. v. Vistana Condominium Owner's Assn., CLICK HERE and scroll down to about 85% through the text. https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1360939783141524801&q="create+a+document"+"request+to+produce"&hl=en&as_sdt=40006. This case reads, "Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34 governs requests for production. The rule permits a party to "serve on any other party" a request to produce or allow inspection of documents or tangible items that are "in the responding party's possession, custody, or control."... . A party, however, IS NOT REQUIRED TO CREATE a document where none exists." (citations omitted). (finding that a document request WHICH WOULD REQUIRE THE DEFENDANT TO CREATE a roster of all employees who supervised the prison cage yard IS NOT A PROPER REQUEST under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34(a))).

f. Merriweather v. United parcel Service, CLICK HERE and scroll down to about 50% through the text. https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=16220080490157456159&q="create+a+document"+"request+to+produce"&hl=en&as_sdt=40006. This case reads, "Rule 34 requires a party to produce documents THAT ALREADY EXIST BUT DOES NOT REQUIRE A PARTY TO CREATE a document in response to a request for production." (citations omitted). ("It is well-settled that a responding party's obligations under Rule 34 DO NOT EXTEND TO NON-EXISTENT MATERIALS.").

YOUR COMMENT: NO PERSON IS OBLIGATED TO MANUFACTURE....FUCK, and in discovery also...HAHA FUCK! GHEHAWDIES U are so just stuuuupid!

Is there still some confusion about this simply rule of discovery?

Do you actually believe (with a straight face) that Rod Class' request for a non-existent FALSE "acknowledgement" was proper under this simple rule?

Snoop.
 
Last edited:

newmisty

Splodey-Headed
Midas Member
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
24,837
Likes
34,869
Location
Qmerica
Damn Mikey, now he's putting your words in bold red! Oy vey.
 

newmisty

Splodey-Headed
Midas Member
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
24,837
Likes
34,869
Location
Qmerica
Goldhedge,

This is more MIDDLEMAN RUBBISH. It does not contain a single word of the law.
His posted meme did not contain the word LAW.
 
Joined
Mar 21, 2015
Messages
214
Likes
13
It's crap like this that causes problems in the law.

Why? WHY does a government insist on breaking the law with RedLight cameras?

They are preying on people's ignorance of the law. They know full well that you can't cross examine a photograph in court. A photo is NOT evidence of a crime!

Tennessee lawmaker burns traffic camera ticket, urges to ignore them

State Rep. Andy Holt is urging Tennesseans to ignore traffic camera tickets and emphasizing his point by burning a citation in a video that apparently has received more than 325,000 Facebook views.

"What do you do if you get one? Throw it in the trash. Personally, I prefer to burn mine," says Holt, R-Dresden, in a lengthy news release issued in conjunction with posting the video on his Facebook page Wednesday, which shows him using a cigarette lighter to set the ticket aflame.
Goldhedge,

In my state, we used to win these cases because under the state rules of evidence, all photographs admitted into evidence had to be "authenticated". This means that sworn testimony was required to establish that the photo fairly and accurately portrayed the scene as it actually appeared at the time (weather, lighting, visual obstructions, like parked trucks, foliage, etc.). This rule effectively required an eye witness to the photograph or the actual photographer himself. Because no such photos were authenticated, we always won.

In response, the state legislature passed specific legislation to the effect that all such red light photos were admissible into evidence without authentication.

Here, is the legal strategy of the State of Tennessee. https://www.tn.gov/content/dam/tn/attorneygeneral/documents/ops/2010/op10-017.pdf

What's going on in Colorado?

Snoop
 

michael59

heads up-butts down
Sr Site Supporter
Platinum Bling
Joined
Apr 1, 2014
Messages
10,203
Likes
6,393
Location
on the low side of corporate Oregon
IDK newmisty I just don't know, I would read it but his rendition of discovery just tore me up...IDK if I can take that much humor any more. And, get this, I was actually going to read that whole post from the last to the first and yes that is the first thing I read. I mean it's not tuff to understand discovery you either have the documents or you don't but seriously one does not 'manufacture them' to render unto the court or the opposing party as manufacturing implies making something from scratch. Case in point: I manufactured a mileage journal to cheat on my tax's years ago and I got $4,000 back. I only did it once because it was too much work and I think I bruised my brain doing it. Now If I had a mileage journal I would not have needed to manufacture one to fit the different places I logged at as that would already be in the journal.

So I guess I am on s4t naughty list then as he is ......hahahah sorry busting a gut again......
 
Joined
Mar 21, 2015
Messages
214
Likes
13
Goldhedge,

I applaud you. You are improving. You are becoming smarter. More intelligent. More rational. More logical. More independent. More informed.

This time, you did not mindlessly parrot an amateur middleman who told you what the law was.

Congratulations.

This time you actually posted the actual written words of a statutory law itself.

But, there is still a problem.

The statute you cited contains no definitions of "color of law" or of "rights privileges and immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States".

This means you still do not know what this statute truly means.

You need those definitions FIRST.

Only THEN can you possibly understand what this statute actually means.

How would you go about finding out what "color of law" actually means?

How would you go about finding out what "rights privileges and immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States" actually means?

I can already tell you what a simple-minded, amateur legal theorist would do.

He would simply MAKE UP HIS OWN DEFINITIONS of these phrases SO THAT EVERY ACTION EVER TAKEN BY ANY LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER WOULD ALWAYS BE TAKEN UNDER "COLOR OF LAW" and ALWAYS IN VIOLATION OF "RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES SECURED OR PROTECTED BY THE CONSTITUTION OR LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES".

How am I doing so far?

But, you are no longer just a knee-jerk, simpleton, amateur legal theorist.

You are a thinker now.

You are a budding legal scholar now.

QUESTIONS:

1). How would you go about finding out what "color of law" actually means?

2). How would you go about finding out what "rights privileges and immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States" actually means?

Snoop
 

michael59

heads up-butts down
Sr Site Supporter
Platinum Bling
Joined
Apr 1, 2014
Messages
10,203
Likes
6,393
Location
on the low side of corporate Oregon
OH SHIT haha fuck You are funny you dolt. definitions in the statute its self? hahahaha

You know I could just highlight your words and hit reply but your words are not worth mentioning again.

You are little miss, little miss 'can't be wrong.'

edited to add and this might be a bit over board: Nice use of lipstick....

edited to add: Here is the thing s4t color of law is an ancient definition well of color of law, it is not and I repeat, it is not a definition that needs be defined. What YOU are implying is that because there are no (Oh do I dare say it,) what you are implying is because there are no definitions in the charter of the usa aka the constitution for the united states for America that it is not valid.....what a hoot you are.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Mar 21, 2015
Messages
214
Likes
13

Goldhedge,

Sadly, you are back to mindlessly parroting charlatans again.

1. YOUR MINDLESS PARROTING FROM ABOVE: "49 U.S.C. 31301 proof DOT not DMV has so-called authority on traffic violations"
RESPONSE: This is 49 U.S.C. 31301. CLICK HERE: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/49/31301#. WHAT WORDS IN THIS STATUTE PROVE THAT DOT NOT DMV HAS AUTHORITY OVER TRAFFIC VIOLATIONS?

2. YOUR MINDLESS PARROTING FROM ABOVE: "Police and Sheriffs are not agencies of the state. All traffic infractions must go through the department of transportation (federal)... these cops are debt collectors 15 U.S.C. 1692 (E) (1).
RESPONSE: This is 15 U.S.C. 1692. CLICK HERE: http://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=(title:15 section:1692 edition:prelim).
WHAT WORDS IN THIS STATUTE MEAN THAT "ALL TRAFFIC INFRACTIONS MUST GO THROUGH THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION"? WHAT WORDS IN THIS STATUTE MEAN THAT "THESE COPS ARE DEBT COLLECTORS"?

After actually clicking on the links above and actually reading these brief statutes, tell me, ARE THE WORDS THAT YOU MINDLESSLY PARROTED ABOVE ACTUALLY TRUE?

Snoop
 
Last edited:
Joined
Mar 21, 2015
Messages
214
Likes
13
Goldhedge,

Sadly, you are back to mindlessly parroting charlatans again.

1. YOUR MINDLESS PARROTING ABOVE: "49 U.S.C. 31301 proof DOT not DMV has so-called authority on traffic violations"
RESPONSE: This is 49 U.S.C. 31301. CLICK HERE: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/49/31301#. WHAT WORDS IN THIS STATUTE PROVE THAT DOT NOT DMV HAS AUTHORITY OVER TRAFFIC VIOLATIONS?

2. YOUR MINDLESS PARROTING ABOVE: "Police and Sheriffs are not agencies of the state. All traffic infractions must go through the department of transportation (federal)... these cops are debt collectors 15 U.S.C. 1692 (E) (1).
RESPONSE: This is 15 U.S.C. 1692. CLICK HERE: http://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=(title:15 section:1692 edition:prelim).
WHAT WORDS IN THIS STATUTE MEAN THAT "ALL TRAFFIC INFRACTIONS MUST GO THROUGH THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION"? WHAT WORDS IN THIS STATUTE MEAN THAT "THESE COPS ARE DEBT COLLECTORS"?

ARE THE WORDS THAT YOU PARROTED ABOVE ACTUALLY TRUE?

Snoop
Goldhedge,

Back to my questions farther above.

1. Is your being stopped and issued a traffic ticket a VIOLATION of your "rights privileges and immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States" actually means? How would you go about finding out?

2. Is your being required by the state to have a driver's license a VIOLATION of your "rights privileges and immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States" actually means? How would you go about finding out?

3. Is you being required by the state to register you car a VIOLATION of your"rights privileges and immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States" actually means? How would you go about finding out?

4. Is your being fined by the state for a traffic offense a VIOLATION of your rights privileges and immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States" actually means? How would you go about finding out?

5. Is your being subject the jurisdiction of the state while you are within its borders a VIOLATION of your "rights privileges and immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States" actually means? How would you go about finding out?

6. Is your being required to pay income taxes to the federal government a VIOLATION of your "rights privileges and immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States" actually means? How would you go about finding out?

Snoop
 
Last edited:

Goldhedge

Moderator
Site Mgr
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
40,918
Likes
63,242
Location
Rocky Mountains
This should work in all states, just have to find the relevant codes and statutes and replace them.

Respondent’s Special Appearance and Motion for Fair and Impartial Trial
 

Attachments

Joined
Mar 21, 2015
Messages
214
Likes
13
This should work in all states, just have to find the relevant codes and statutes and replace them.

Respondent’s Special Appearance and Motion for Fair and Impartial Trial
Goldhedge,

I see that you are back to posting more amateur rubbish from amateur legal theorist and proven charlatan, Eddie Craig (of the "FORMER DEPUTY SHERIFF HOAX").


Talk about the blind leading the blind. Sad.
 

arminius

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Midas Supporter
Joined
Jun 6, 2011
Messages
4,639
Likes
6,304
Location
right here right now
Actually, GH is right on. And Eddie Craig is right on about real law. Only you, with your bullshit vested self interest fake law, are blind to reality.
 
Last edited:

arminius

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Midas Supporter
Joined
Jun 6, 2011
Messages
4,639
Likes
6,304
Location
right here right now
CAUSE NO(s). ___________________

THE STATE OF TEXAS,§In the JUSTICE OF THE PEACE COURT
Plaintiff,§PRECINCT 4
v.§AUSTIN, TEXAS,
§TRAVIS COUNTY, Texas
Donald Richard McLeod,§
Respondent.§
§Date:____/____/________

RESPONDENT’S SPECIAL APPEARANCE MOTION
TO QUASH UNLAWFUL SUMMONS.
TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:

COMES NOW Donald Richard McLeod, pro se, the Respondent in this matter, who asserts as follows:

ASSERTION OF RIGHTS
Donald Richard McLeod (“Respondent”) asserts all his/her unalienable rights, privileges and immunities at Natural Law, Common Law and Maritime Law, and all his/her commercial rights relevant to this state.

SPECIAL APPEARANCE
Respondent asserts his/her special appearance, objecting to the court’s subject matter jurisdiction, personal jurisdiction, and venue.

OBJECTION TO NON-JUDICIAL DECISION-MAKING
Respondent objects to and does not consent to any assignment or any referral of this case, in any part, to any decision-maker other than a duly elected or properly appointed judicial officer exercising full authority of a municipal court judge and who has an active and current oath of office on file. Gonzalez v. United States, 553 U.S. 242 (12 May 2008) (“If the parties consent”) (construing 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)).

OBJECTION TO USE OF PRIVATE LAW
Respondent objects to the use of unpublished cases. A cite to “WL” and “Lexis” is a reference to materials not publicly accessible. For such references even to begin to be meaningful, a full copy of the opinion for each “WL” or “Lexis” reference must be attached.

RESPONDENT CONTACT INFORMATION
Contact information for Respondent is as follows:
Mailing Address:
c/o 11922 S. I.H. 35.
Austin, Texas [78747]
Phone & Email Information:
Tel. 512-771-7944
Fax :None
Email eddie@ruleoflawradio.com

SUMMARY.
Respondent, being an adult male of sound mind and body, do hereby swear and depose under penalty of perjury that I have reason to believe and do believe that RAÚL A. GONZÁLEZ (“GONZÁLEZ”), while acting under color of law and his official administrative capacity as magistrate of the Justice of the Peace Court, Precinct 4 (“J.P. COURT”), of the county of Travis in the State of Texas, is guilty of multiple and ongoing acts constituting the crimes of SIMULATING LEGAL PROCESS, TAMPERING WITH GOVERNMENTAL RECORD, OFFICIAL OPPRESSION, and ABUSE OF OFFICIAL CAPACITY, pursuant respectively of Secs. 32.48, 37.10, 39.03, 39.02, Texas Penal Code.

The J.P. COURT is located at 4011 McKinney Falls Parkway, Suite 1200, Austin, Texas 78744.

CRIMINAL ALLEGATION OF SIMULATING LEGAL PROCESS.
Respondent is in receipt of a document purporting to have been issued from and by the J.P. COURT under the direct authority and supervision of GONZÁLEZ. This document states it was issued in relation to “Cause No. J4-CR-18-002127” for the alleged offense of “DRIVING WHILE LICENSE INVALID,” and contains language that states the document is both “an official summons to appear before the court” and also an “order,” hereinafter referred to singularly as “SUMMONS.” This SUMMONS purports to have been signed and dated by GONZÁLEZ on the “23rd day of April, 2018.”

Respondent has good reason to believe and does believe that Chapter 23 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure governs all aspects of how a court is to issue a proper and valid capias or summons in relation to all felony and misdemeanor criminal matters within the state of Texas, including, but limited to, the proper form, substance, service, and return that is required for a valid summons.

Respondent has good reason to believe and does believe that the SUMMONS received by Respondent does not comply with ALL of the mandatory provisions of Chapter 23 as required by law.

Respondent has good reason to believe and does believe that there is no statutory exception or alteration of the specific legal requirements for a properly issued and valid summons codified in Chapter 45 of Texas Code of Criminal Procedure

Respondent has good reason to believe and does believe that Art. 45.002, which reads in pertinent part, “If this chapter does not provide a rule of procedure governing any aspect of a case, the justice or judge shall apply the other general provisions of this code to the extent necessary to achieve the objectives of this chapter,” specifically requires the magistrate to comply with Chapter 23 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure in relation to the issuance of a proper and valid summons, as there is no article or provision in Chapter 45 that could be construed as operating separate and apart from the mandatory requirements of Chapter 23, making the SUMMONS issued by the J.P. COURT appear to be completely unsupported by any alternative authority found in law, thus, the SUMMONS is illegal and without lawful authority on its face.

Respondent has good reason to believe and does believe that the SUMMONS received by Respondent is not in the same form as a capias, which is a mandatory requirement under Art. 23.03, wherein it reads, in pertinent part, “(c) Summons. The summons shall be in the same form as the capias except that it shall summon the defendant to appear before the proper court at a stated time and place. The summons shall be served upon a defendant by delivering a copy to him personally, or by leaving it at his dwelling house or usual place of abode with some person of suitable age and discretion then residing therein or by mailing it to the defendant's last known address.”

Respondent has good reason to believe and does believe that a capias warrant, and thus, a proper summons, is valid only if it meets the following statutory requisites of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure:

Art. 23.02. ITS REQUISITES. A capias shall be held sufficient if it have the following requisites:
1. That it run in the name of "The State of Texas";
2. That it name the person whose arrest is ordered, or if unknown, describe him;
3. That it specify the offense of which the defendant is accused, and it appear thereby that he is accused of some offense against the penal laws of the State;
4. That it name the court to which and the time when it is returnable; and
5. That it be dated and attested officially by the authority issuing the same.
(Emphasis added).

Respondent has good reason to believe and does believe that the SUMMONS received by Respondent also does not comply with the requirements of Art. 23.03(d) of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, wherein it reads, in pertinent part, “(d) A summons issued to any person must clearly and prominently state in English and in Spanish the following:

"It is an offense for a person to intentionally influence or coerce a witness to testify falsely or to elude legal process. It is also a felony offense to harm or threaten to harm a witness or prospective witness in retaliation for or on account of the service of the person as a witness or to prevent or delay the person's service as a witness to a crime.".”

Respondent has good reason to believe and does believe that the SUMMONS received by Respondent also does not comply with the requirements of Art. 23.04 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, wherein it reads:

Art. 23.04. IN MISDEMEANOR CASE. In misdemeanor cases, the capias or summons shall issue from a court having jurisdiction of the case on the filing of an information or complaint. The summons shall be issued only upon request of the attorney representing the State and on the determination of probable cause by the judge, and shall follow the same form and procedure as in a felony case.
(Emphasis added).

Respondent has good reason to believe and does believe that the aforementioned requirements are mandatory, not discretionary, as the use of the term “shall” in each of these statutes creates a binding legal duty upon all Texas courts in general, and GONZÁLEZ specifically, pursuant the requirements of Chapter 311 of the Texas Government Code, wherein it reads, in pertinent part:

Sec. 311.016. "MAY," "SHALL," "MUST," ETC. The following constructions apply unless the context in which the word or phrase appears necessarily requires a different construction or unless a different construction is expressly provided by statute:

(2) "Shall" imposes a duty.

(Emphasis added).

Respondent has good reason to believe and does believe that, as the SUMMONS issued does not comply with the necessary provisions of law as required by Chapter 23, the SUMMONS is unlawful and illegal on its face, and without any valid authority in law, and is being unlawfully and illegally used by GONZÁLEZ under mere color of law and authority.

The SUMMONS clearly contains threatening and punitive language in all-capital letters stating that “FAILURE TO APPEAR WILL RESULT IN A WARRANT FOR YOUR ARREST AND DENIAL OF THE RENEWAL OF YOUR DRIVER’S LICENSE WITH AN ADDITIONAL ADMINISTRATIVE FEE PURSUANT TO TRANSPORTATION CODE SECTIONS 706.002 AND 706.006.”

Respondent further has good reason to believe and does believe that GONZÁLEZ, or the clerks of GONZÁLEZ’S court, engages in the issuance of such unlawful and illegal summons’ multiple times on almost every business day.

Respondent has good reason to believe and does believe that this combination of facts pertaining to the SUMMONS, and the offer of proof that provides a copy thereof, constitutes and provides sufficient evidence of the offense of SIMULATING LEGAL PROCESS under Sec. 32.48, Texas Penal Code.

CRIMINAL ALLEGATIONS OF
TAMPERING WITH GOVERNMENTAL RECORD,
OFFICIAL OPPRESSION and
ABUSE OF OFFICIAL CAPACITY.
Respondent has good reason to believe and does believe that GONZÁLEZ has never conducted any form of proper and valid probable cause determination in this matter as is required by Art. 23.04 and Chapter 16 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure.

Respondent has good reason to believe and does believe that the only judicial proceeding described by the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure for conducting a probable cause determination hearing is found in Chapter 16, and is called an “examining trial,” which Respondent has been denied out of hand, as is the policy of every Texas court in all misdemeanor cases based upon the false pretense that only those charged with felony crimes are entitled to a probable cause determination hearing by a neutral and detached magistrate.

Respondent has good reason to believe and does believe that the Texas Courts’ view that a probable cause determination hearing has to be requested by the accused individual in order to be had, rather than such a proceeding being an automatic and fundamental right and requirement of substantive and procedural due process, is not only a violation of Texas law in relation to criminal procedure, it is constitutionally unlawful and patently illegal on its face as a deprivation of rights under color of law, which is a violation of United States Code Title 18.

Furthermore, Respondent has good reason to believe and does believe that, under Arts. 2.11 and 16.17, which respectively reads in pertinent part, “EXAMINING COURT. When the magistrate sits for the purpose of inquiring into a criminal accusation against any person, this is called an examining court,” and “Failure of the judge to make or enter an order within 48 hours after the examining trial has been completed operates as a finding of no probable cause and the accused shall be discharged,”

Respondent has good reason to believe and does believe that Respondent has a fundamentally protected right to substantive and procedural due process, which entitles him to an examining trial for the making of individual determinations of probable cause relating to two specific issues of law, was the warrantless arrest effected upon Respondent lawful and legal as being supported by articulable facts establishing probable cause, and is there factual probable cause and sufficient evidence to support the allegations being made in the complaint so as to proceed to trial upon the merits.

Respondent has good reason to believe and does believe that a proper probable cause determination by a neutral and detached magistrate is a fundamental requirement and right of due process that is being patently ignored and abused by virtually every Texas court in virtually every misdemeanor and felony case. The Texas courts are actually knowingly and willfully facilitating the violation of Texas law and the due process rights of individuals by allowing prosecutors to seek indictments without first providing a proper probable cause determination via an examining trial, which is a direct violation of Art. 16.01 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, wherein it reads, in pertinent part, “The accused in any felony case shall have the right to an examining trial before indictment in the county having jurisdiction of the offense, whether he be in custody or on bail, at which time the magistrate at the hearing shall determine the amount or sufficiency of bail, if a bailable case.”

Respondent has good reason to believe and does believe that the SUMMONS bears a rubber-stamped signature of GONZÁLEZ, which, if true, leads Respondent to further have good reason to believe, and he does believe, that one or more clerks of the J.P. COURT are either impersonating GONZÁLEZ without his knowledge and consent, or, one or more clerks are acting under color of a delegated judicial authority that GONZÁLEZ knows to be unlawful and illegal by authorizing clerks of the J.P. COURT to sua sponte issue a summons to appear that does not comply with Chapter 23 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure while stamping GONZÁLEZ’S official signature on the illegal and fraudulent summons.

Respondent has good reason to believe and does believe that the SUMMONS actually ORDERS Respondent to waive his fundamentally protected due process rights by commanding that Respondent appear and discuss the facts relating to an alleged criminal offense with the very attorney prosecuting the alleged offense, regardless of whether or not Respondent has assistance of counsel. Respondent can find no lawful authority within the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure that invests a magistrate or judge, whether acting in his/her respective administrative or judicial capacity, with the authority to cause a summons to be issued for the purpose of requiring the Accused in a criminal matter to participate in a ‘conference’ with the prosecuting attorney specifically for the purpose of discussing the facts of the case, or for the purpose of the taking and entering of a plea before and by that attorney rather than before a proper judge, in open court, as is required by other law. Especially when the Accused individual is being compelled to appear and discuss the facts of the matter or enter a plea despite being without proper assistance of counsel or any prior probable cause determination.

Neither the arresting officer, GONZÁLEZ, nor the attorney before whom Respondent was commanded to appear, ever informed Respondent of his “Miranda” rights, nor was Respondent ever afforded a proper Art. 15.17 “magistration” proceeding, or a Chapter 16 probable cause determination hearing, prior to or during the ordered appearance.

Respondent has good reason to believe and does believe that the J.P. Court is allowing and facilitating the unlawful and illegal procession of this matter, and the matters of others similarly situated, based solely upon the naked and unsworn allegations made by the arresting officer or some clerk of the court, without any sworn statement of facts or consideration of Respondent’s right to a proper probable cause determination hearing upon those allegations ever having been afforded.

Respondent has good reason to believe and does believe that GONZÁLEZ has knowingly and willfully entered, or has knowingly and willfully allowed the clerks of the court to enter, false and misleading information into the court record alleging that the court has fully complied with the mandatory provisions of Art. 15.17 and Chapters 16 and 23 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure; that Respondent has been afforded and received a proper probable cause hearing and determination pursuant Chapter 16 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure; that a proper and lawful summons to appear was issued in the matter; and that both actions were properly completed at some previous point in the proceedings relating to the instant matter. All of which Respondent has good reason to believe and does believe constitutes a complete falsification of the facts relating to any such proceedings and the official court record as a whole, as Respondent has never been afforded an opportunity to engage in any such proceedings associated with any of these criminal procedure and due process requirements.

Respondent has good reason to believe and does believe that this combination of facts pertaining to the SUMMONS and other court records constitutes the offenses of TAMPERING WITH GOVERNMENTAL RECORD, OFFICIAL OPPRESSION and ABUSE OF OFFICIAL CAPACITY under Secs. 37.10, 39.03, 39.02 of the Texas Penal Code, respectively.

OFFER OF PROOF.
A copy of the SUMMONS received by Respondent is attached to this sworn statement as evidence of Respondent’s veracity in making these allegations of criminal conduct against GONZÁLEZ, as well as any potential criminal conduct perpetrated by the court clerks working in Precinct 4. All other relevant evidence can most likely be obtained directly from the official court adjudicatory and administrative records.

An emphasized copy of the criminal statutes upon which Respondent has relied for the purpose of making these criminal allegations against GONZÁLEZ are appended at the end of this sworn statement and verification.

RESPONDENT MOVES THE COURT.
Based upon the grounds herein stated, Respondent moves to quash the unlawful and illegal SUMMONS issued by GONZÁLEZ under color of law and authority emanating from the J.P. COURT.

Respondent further moves the court to fully discharge Respondent consistent with a finding of no probable cause under Art. 16.17 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and to dismiss all charges relating to this matter with prejudice consistent with GONZÁLEZ’S knowing and willful failure and refusal to provide Respondent with a proper probable cause determination hearing, the violation of Respondent’s fundamental right to substantive and procedural due process, and violations of state law under color of judicial authority that deprives the court of subject matter and in personam jurisdiction in the instant matter.



VERIFICATION
STATE OF TEXAS§
ssKNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS
COUNTY OF TRAVIS§
Before me, the undersigned Notary, personally appeared Donald Richard McLeod, the Respondent in this matter, who satisfied me as to his identity, and who, upon administration of oath or affirmation by me, declared and deposed as follows:

I am Donald Richard McLeod. I am at least 21 years of age, and I am competent to make this Motion to Dismiss. I have personal knowledge of these facts and attest under penalty of perjury the facts stated in this document are true and correct.

I assert all my unalienable rights, privileges and immunities at Natural Law, Common Law and Maritime Law, and all my respective commercial rights relevant to a place called “this state.”

The documents in the Appendix are true and correct copies of those documents, which copies I have kept in the regular course of this case.
Further, Respondent sayeth not.

/s/ Donald Richard McLeod
Donald Richard McLeod, Respondent and Respondent

Signed and sworn to before me on this the ________ day of _______________________________ (month) 20______ (year) for which witness my seal and signature.
Notary Signature: _____________________________________

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
By my signature below, I certify that on this the _______ day of ______________________, 20____, I have no idea who should be served with a true and correct copy of this document, because there is no competent charging instrument, much less one showing a name or address for service of such documents on the Plaintiff by the Respondent. In other words, no one has made any Appearance on the Plaintiff’s behalf. Therefore, it is delivered by hand in open court to whoever shows up on the Plaintiff’s behalf. If that is no one, then there is nothing served as of this date. I do hereby object to the lack of disclosure and notice as to the identity and contact information of opposing counsel.


/s/ Donald Richard McLeod
Donald Richard McLeod, Respondent


CAUSE NO(s). ______________________

THE STATE OF TEXAS,§In the JUSTICE OF THE PEACE COURT
Plaintiff,§PRECINCT 4
v.§Austin, Texas
§County of Travis, Texas
Donald Richard McLeod,§
Respondent.§
§Date:____/____/________
ORDER
ON THIS the ________ day of ________________, 20_____, came on to be heard the foregoing RESPONDENT’S SPECIAL APPEARANCE, and after consideration of
{CHOOSE APPROPRIATE STATEMENT}
______(A)the response, the Court hereby
______(B)the response, and the evidence on file, the Court hereby
______(C)the response, the evidence on file, and arguments of counsel, the Court hereby
______(D)the response, and arguments of counsel, the Court hereby
______(E)the response, and arguments of counsel, and after receiving evidence in open
court, the Court hereby
______DENIES the motion in full, to which Respondent excepted.
______GRANTS the motion to quash the unlawful and illegal SUMMONS in its entirety ______.
______GRANTS the motion to dismiss all charges (___) with prejudice / (___) without prejudice.
COMMENTS: _______________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
SIGNED on ____________________, 20____ ____________________________________________
PRESIDING JUDGE