Marajuna Laws

Why is it that no one has challenged their authority to prohibit cannabis in the first place? Unconstitutional laws are Not Laws at all! They never had ANY constitutional Authority to make any laws banning it anyway. Why do you think they had to amend the constitution to put prohibition on a like subject, alcohol? Without the amendment they did not have authority. You will find no such amendment on pot or drugs. When people are locked up for pot they are locked up for a “not-law” they broke. The drug war is nothing more than a scam to put big bucks in peoples pockets up high and drive the industrial prison complex and to line government agencies pockets. They steal peoples property, There is not a crime they will not commit to make money for themselves and corporations that support them when they run yet again. Arrest them seize their property and asset and put them in prison where they truly belong. Hire workers who only sticks to the constitution as required by oath and law when they start the job. They know when they break their oath they are breaking the law. Also get rid of these Admiralty/maritime court and laws that should only apply to military and the waters and have common law courts on the land as described by the constitution. Admiralty/maritime law assumes you are guilty until you prove yourself innocent and that is not the intent of our forefather for the people of this country. If you go into a court room today and bring up real law and the constitution they will lock you up or just ignore it.

As I have posted many times congress can regulate commerce and tax the gains from it but they can not ban or legally put prohibition on pot or any other drug or arms or anything else without a constitutional amendment. To regulate does not mean prohibit. Constitutionally you can grow and smoke all the pot you want to. They can somewhat control the sale of it because their power is limited by the constitution. Most the law’s as they call them, like pot laws and traffic laws and almost anything you have to buy a license for are really statues, code, acts and regulations under the interstate and foreign commerce law. ANY laws, acts, statues, ordinances, or rules are null and void that run contrary to the constitution or violates any of your rights. If your not involved in interstate or foreign commerce you have broke no law. They apply them on you as if you are involved in interstate and or foreign commerce because it is a big money maker for them and “what the hell” the people don’t know any better. People need to tell their leaders you have no authority or power to tell us we cant have this type of arms or that type and you have no power to tell us what drugs we can use or what plants we can grow. Show me the law if you think you do and I will show you the highest law in the land telling you you do not have that authority.

Constitution Lecture 8: Commerce, Arms and the Meaning of “Regulate” (HD version)

All government officials and agencies, including all State legislatures, are bound by the Constitution and must NOT create any defacto laws which counter the Constitution:

“Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them.” – Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 491.

“The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime.” Miller v. U.S., 230 F 2d 486, 489.

“There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of this exercise of Constitutional rights.”- Sherar v. Cullen, 481 F. 945.

“This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof;… shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby… The Senators and Representatives and members of the State legislature, and all executive and judicial officers of the United States and the several States, shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.” The Constitution of the united States of America, Article VI, Cl 2, 3.

“The United States is entirely a creature of the Constitution. Its power and authority have no other source. It can only act in accordance with all the limitations imposed by the Constitution.” Reid v Covert 354 US l, 1957.

1983 Georgia Constitution SECTION II. Paragraph V.
~ What acts void. Legislative acts in violation of this Constitution or the Constitution of the United States are void, and the judiciary shall so declare them. ~

~ In Marbury v. Madison, the Supreme Court itself declared that “an act of the legislature, repugnant to the constitution, is void.” ~

~ No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.” — 16 American Jurisprudence, 2nd edition, Sec. 177; late 2nd edition, Sec. 256; ~

“The individual may stand upon his constitutional rights as a citizen. He is entitled to carry on his private business in his own way. His power to contract is unlimited. He owes no duty to the state or to his neighbors to divulge his business, or to open his doors to an investigation, so far as it may tend to criminate him. He owes no such duty to the state, since he receives nothing therefrom, beyond the protection of his life and property. His rights are such as existed by the law of the land long antecedent to the organization of the state, and can only be taken from him by due process of law, and in accordance with the Constitution. United States Supreme Court reminds us in Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43 (1906):

Think about what you could do before the state even existed. Georgia Washington Grew and smoked pot As did Thomas Jefferson. In many letters Georgia Washington said grow it everywhere. Some would argue he only grew hemp but his letters clearly indicate he grew both medical hemp he called toothache hemp which was medical grade hemp and regular hemp for paper. cloth and rope. If they would have thought it needed to be outlawed they would have put it in the constitution.

~ The Oath of office is a quid pro quo contract cf [U.S. Const. Art. 6, Clauses 2 and 3, Davis Vs. Lawyers Surety Corporation., 459 S.W. 2nd. 655, 657., Tex. Civ. App.] in which clerks, officials, or officers of the government pledge to perform (Support and uphold the United States and state Constitutions) in return for substance (wages, perks, benefits). Proponents are subjected to the penalties and remedies for Breach of Contract, Conspiracy cf [Title 18 U.S.C., Sections 241, 242]. Treason under the Constitution at Article 3, Section 3., and Intrinsic Fraud cf [Auerbach v Samuels, 10 Utah 2nd. 152, 349 P. 2nd. 1112,1114. Alleghany Corp v Kirby., D.C.N.Y. 218 F. Supp. 164, 183., and Keeton Packing Co. v State., 437 S.W. 20, 28]. Refusing to live by their oath places them in direct violation of their oath, in every case. Violating their oath is not just cause for immediate dismissal and removal from office, it is a federal crime. Federal law regulating oath of office by government officials is divided into four parts along with an executive order which further defines the law for purposes of enforcement. 5 U.S.C. 3331, provides the text of the actual oath of office members of Congress are required to take before assuming office. 5 U.S.C. 3333 requires members of Congress sign an affidavit that they have taken the oath of office required by 5 U.S.C. 3331 and have not or will not violate that oath of office during their tenure of office as defined by the third part of the law, 5 U.S.C. 7311 which explicitly makes it a federal criminal offense (and a violation of oath of office) for anyone employed in the United States Government (including members of Congress) to “advocate the overthrow of our constitutional form of government” ~

This includes everyone working for the government who took a oath of office like police enforcing unconstitutional codes, statues, acts, ordinances and foreign and international treaties, and judges who also break their oaths enforcing them on the people to rob and steal for themselves and special agendas. Our government is corrupt from top to bottom. Under the organized crime act they are even guilty and fall under the definition of organized crime, and under the definition of terrorist as well. I would go one step further and say it would there for be against the law to give money to and fund such a organization or even do any type of business with them. The only reason I can see that they are not getting arrested is because criminals protect and serve their partners in crime. People need to wake up and start arresting all these people for violation of oath of office and replacing them with folks who will obey the rules of the constitution. How many times have you heard politicians say we are a democracy when the constitution plainly say’s we are a republic? Again they have all violated their oath of office.

Your Right of Defense Against Unlawful Arrest

Martin Luther King, Jr.’s comment in his famous letter from Birmingham Jail: “One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws.”

Declaration of Independence, “…whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government…,”

To disregard Constitutional law, and to violate the same, creates a sure liability upon the one involved:

“State officers may be held personally liable for damages based upon actions taken in their official capacities.” Hafer v. Melo, 502 U.S. 21 (1991).

“Anyone entering into an arrangement with the government takes the risk of having accurately ascertained that he who purports to act for the government stays within the bounds of his authority, even though the agent himself may be unaware of limitations upon his authority.” The United States Supreme Court, Federal Crop Ins. Corp, v. Merrill, 332 US 380-388 L1947)

“The individual may stand upon his constitutional rights as a citizen. He is entitled to carry on his private business in his own way. His power to contract is unlimited. He owes no duty to the state or to his neighbors to divulge his business, or to open his doors to an investigation, so far as it may tend to criminate him. He owes no such duty to the state, since he receives nothing therefrom, beyond the protection of his life and property. His rights are such as existed by the law of the land long antecedent to the organization of the state, and can only be taken from him by due process of law, and in accordance with the Constitution. United States Supreme Court reminds us in Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43 (1906):

“Citizens may resist unlawful arrest to the point of taking an arresting officer’s life if necessary.” Plummer v. State, 136 Ind. 306. This premise was upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States in the case: John Bad Elk v. U.S., 177 U.S. 529. The Court stated: “Where the officer is killed in the course of the disorder which naturally accompanies an attempted arrest that is resisted, the law looks with very different eyes upon the transaction, when the officer had the right to make the arrest, from what it does if the officer had no right. What may be murder in the first case might be nothing more than manslaughter in the other, or the facts might show that no offense had been committed.”

“An arrest made with a defective warrant, or one issued without affidavit, or one that fails to allege a crime is within jurisdiction, and one who is being arrested, may resist arrest and break away. lf the arresting officer is killed by one who is so resisting, the killing will be no more than an involuntary manslaughter.” Housh v. People, 75 111. 491; reaffirmed and quoted in State v. Leach, 7 Conn. 452; State v. Gleason, 32 Kan. 245; Ballard v. State, 43 Ohio 349; State v Rousseau, 241 P. 2d 447; State v. Spaulding, 34 Minn. 3621.

“When a person, being without fault, is in a place where he has a right to be, is violently assaulted, he may, without retreating, repel by force, and if, in the reasonable exercise of his right of self defense, his assailant is killed, he is justified.” Runyan v. State, 57 Ind. 80; Miller v. State, 74 Ind. 1.

“These principles apply as well to an officer attempting to make an arrest, who abuses his authority and transcends the bounds thereof by the use of unnecessary force and violence, as they do to a private individual who unlawfully uses such force and violence.” Jones v. State, 26 Tex. App. I; Beaverts v. State, 4 Tex. App. 1 75; Skidmore v. State, 43 Tex. 93, 903.

“An illegal arrest is an assault and battery. The person so attempted to be restrained of his liberty has the same right to use force in defending himself as he would in repelling any other assault and battery.” (State v. Robinson, 145 ME. 77, 72 ATL. 260).

“Each person has the right to resist an unlawful arrest. In such a case, the person attempting the arrest stands in the position of a wrongdoer and may be resisted by the use of force, as in self- defense.” (State v. Mobley, 240 N.C. 476, 83 S.E. 2d 100).

“One may come to the aid of another being unlawfully arrested, just as he may where one is being assaulted, molested, raped or kidnapped. Thus it is not an offense to liberate one from the unlawful custody of an officer, even though he may have submitted to such custody, without resistance.” (Adams v. State, 121 Ga. 16, 48 S.E. 910).

Now I am not telling people to go out and shoot police what I am telling you is there are laws that say it is your right when they are in the wrong and unconstitutionally trying to force their will on you. This does not mean our corrupt judges will uphold the law. We live in a corrupt judicial and political world.