The Oath Of Office

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:

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 means everyone who takes a oath of office must uphold and support the constitution. This includes all judges who when they enforce a unconstitutional law in court, violate their oath of office. Upholding and supporting a unconstitutional law while under oath to uphold and support the constitution can only be seen as a clear violation of oath of office. This is also true of the police officer and puts his life in danger when trying to arrest someone for a law they see a unconstitutional. Since any unconstitutional law is null and void before the ink dries, when a police officer tries to enforce it he is out of his authority and trying to enforce his own will on others violating his oath of office and basically becoming a criminal a thug and could get him killed just like any other criminal. The judge may be a lot more protected in a court room but he is not immune to the law. As we see from the law above all of them have violated their oath of office in either voting for, writing, passing, enforcing and ignoring unconstitutional laws on the books. It does not matter who it is, The judge, The president, congress, some foreign nation or treaty, some agency or corporation, only congress has the authority to pass any laws. They must be read out loud on the separate occasions on three separate days and they have to be constitutional and can not in any way effect anyone’s rights.

“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.

Black’s law dictionary 4th edtion
ABROGATE. To annul, repeal, or destroy; to annul or repeal an order or rule issued by a subordinate authority; to repeal a former law by legislative act, or by usage.

“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.

Murdock v. Pennsylvania 319 US 105 No state shall convert a liberty into a privilege, license it, and attach a fee to it. “A state may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by Federal constitution. at 113, (1943).

Shuttlesworth v. City of Birmingham, 373 US 262 If a state converts a liberty into a privilege the citizen can engage in the right with impunity.

This means they are forbidden by law to charge you in anyway for a right or make it a crime in anyway to practice your rights.
“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.

Any laws created by government which are repugnant to the Constitution carry NO force of law and are VOID:

“The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void and ineffective for any purpose, since its unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment… In legal contemplation, it is as inoperative as if it had never been passed… Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no right, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection and justifies no acts performed under it… A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing law. Indeed insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, (the Constitution JTM) it is superseded thereby. No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.” Bonnett v. Vallier, 116 N.W. 885, 136 Wis. 193 (1908); NORTON v. SHELBY COUNTY, 118 U.S. 425 (1886). See also Bonnett v Vallier, 136 Wis 193, 200; 116 NW 885, 887 (1908); State ex rel Ballard v Goodland, 159 Wis 393, 395; 150 NW 488, 489 (1915); State ex rel Kleist v Donald, 164 Wis 545, 552-553; 160 NW 1067, 1070 (1917); State ex rel Martin v Zimmerman, 233 Wis 16, 21; 288 NW 454, 457 (1939); State ex rel Commissioners of Public Lands v Anderson, 56 Wis 2d 666, 672; 203 NW2d 84, 87 (1973); and Butzlaffer v Van Der Geest & Sons, Inc, Wis, 115 Wis 2d 539; 340 NW2d 742, 744-745 (1983).

Laws existed long before government did Here in America the government officials have to go by the law as well they can not just make up laws saying them or anyone else is exempt from laws made long before they existed.

Since a police officer and others take a oath of office to uphold and support the constitution they should be able to quote it forwards and backwards. You have to know it before you know if you are violating it. And if you are law enforcement you need to know the law and what is constitutional law and what is unconstitutional color of law in order not to violate your oath of office putting your job and very life on the line as well as becoming a criminal.

Does a person have a right to just jump in their car and go no tag no license no insurance? You may say no but the law and the constitution says he or she can. See https://slydog1960.wordpress.com/2015/03/13/the-right-to-travel/

Secrets Police Don’t Want You To Know

Does a person have the right to carry a gun anywhere and have you got any say so over it? You may say no but the law and the constitution says yes he or she can. https://slydog1960.wordpress.com/2015/03/01/does-anyone-even-have-constituional-authority-to-regulate-guns-and-arms/

Does a person have a right to smoke and grow all the pot they want to? Or Any other plant for any purpose? Again you may say no but the law and the constitution say yes he or she can. https://slydog1960.wordpress.com/2015/03/08/marajuna-laws/

Can you just build your home out of what you see fit on your own property the way you want to, no license no fees no permits? again you may say no but the law and the constitution say yes he or she can. In fact we have every right we had before a state or federal government was ever created.

“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):

Again what ever you had a right to do before the state was created you still have those rights and where rights are involved there can be no rule making no legislation you can not be charged for practicing them and they can not be converted into a crime.

As stated above; Shuttlesworth v. City of Birmingham, 373 US 262 If a state converts a liberty into a privilege the citizen can engage in the right with impunity.

Now for a view of why the police should know the difference and why it could put his or her life in danger.

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)

“[I]f the individual is no longer to be sovereign, if the police can pick him up whenever they do not like the cut of his jib, if they can ‘seize’ and ‘search’ him in their discretion, we enter a new regime.”—U.S. Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas, dissenting in Terry v. Ohio (1968)

“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).

“Story affirmed the right of self-defense by persons held illegally. In his own writings, he had admitted that ‘a situation could arise in which the checks-and-balances principle ceased to work and the various branches of government concurred in a gross usurpation.’ There would be no usual remedy by changing the law or passing an amendment to the Constitution, should the oppressed party be a minority. Story concluded, ‘If there be any remedy at all … it is a remedy never provided for by human institutions.’ That was the ‘ultimate right of all human beings in extreme cases to resist oppression, and to apply force against ruinous injustice.’” (From Mutiny on the Amistad by Howard Jones, Oxford University Press, 1987, an account of the reading of the decision in the case by Justice Joseph Story of the Supreme Court.

As for grounds for arrest: “The carrying of arms in a quiet, peaceable, and orderly manner, concealed on or about the person, is not a breach of the peace. Nor does such an act of itself, lead to a breach of the peace.” (Wharton’s Criminal and Civil Procedure, 12th Ed., Vol.2: Judy v. Lashley, 5 W. Va. 628, 41 S.E. 197).

You are also within your rights not to answer any questions without a lawyer present, and if possible, to demand a video recording be made of the entire encounter that you or your lawyer keep as evidence, so that federal prosecutors can’t get away with charging you with making false statements to a government investigator and testilying about what you said.

As we can see it would be in any government workers best interest to know both the constitutional laws and what is unconstitutional color of law that they are trying to shove down folks throat. As a practical matter one should try to avoid relying on the above in an actual confrontation with law enforcement agents, who are likely not to know or care about any of it. Some recent courts have refused to follow these principles, and grand juries, controlled by prosecutors, have refused to indict officers who killed innocent people claiming the subject “resisted” or “looked like he might have a gun”. Once dedicated to “protect and serve”, far too many law enforcement officers have become brutal, lawless occupying military forces.

What will the judges, the lawyers, the president, the congressmen, the police, The elite, the banks and corporations who have made such a mess out of society and robbed, killed and plundered the wealth and property of the people, what will they do when the angry mobs and the pitchforks come.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s