This “Police State”

13754324_1058553717565302_127199294357523236_n
I do not have a problem with police in general, I have a problem with a “police state”. It gives police the idea that it’s job is to “control” the people. That is not what the law says the “government” is here to do. That is not what the law says the police are here to do.
Mugler v. Kansas, 123 U.S. 623, 659-60. “Our system of government, based upon the individuality and intelligence of the Citizen, the state does not claim to control him, except as his conduct to others, leaving him the sole judge as to all that only affects himself.”
(see also Christy v. Elliot, 216 Ill. 31, 74 NE 1035; Cal v. Farley, 98 Cal. 09, 20 CA 3d 1032; Michigan Public Utilities Com. v. Duke, 266 US 576, 69, 449.) State police power extends only to immediate threats to public safety, health, and welfare.
The law also tells me when a officer steps outside of his constitutional authority that not only does not represent the government any more but he is a criminal representing himself or someone else much like the bloods or the crypts and this someone else is usually a city or county or state or federal fictitious entity who wants to criminally extort money or property or lock you up at the point of a gun and possibly a beat down as well to show you who the BOSS is.
“No agreement with a foreign nation and no treaty is free from the restraints of the Constitution. “ Reid v. Covert , 354 U.S. 1 (1957)
“Insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, (constitution) it is superseded thereby.” (16 Am Jur 2d 177, Late Am Jur 2d. 256)
“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.
“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)
“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).
” An officer who acts in violation of the constitution ceases to represent the government”. Brookfield Const. Co. v. Stewart, 284 F. Supp.94.
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).
Cooper v. Aaron, By Chief Justice Earl Warren
No state, legislator, executive or judicial officer can “War” against (or test the limitations of) the Constitution without violating their undertaking to support it (Breach of Oath/Contract, Treason??). The Constitution created a government dedicated to equal justice under law. The Fourteenth Amendment embodied and emphasized that ideal…no State shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. Our constitutional ideal of equal justice under law is thus made a living truth. (Book, Our Nation’s Archive © 1999 pg 701)
AM14.3/HO, IR No person shall hold office if he rebels against or violates the U.S. Constitution (treason).
AM14.3/RD Congress shall impeach anyone who rebels against or violates the U.S. 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” ~
Again there may be some good cops out there but I would not call a criminal cop a good cop and if you are enforcing commerce laws on the general public, which is what all statues and codes fall under then you are a criminal like it or not and your raising money for someone else’s agenda and not upholding the supreme law of the land over statues and codes. You are a criminal committing treason and fraud. That is not a police officer in my book or by the law that is not a criminal. You want to be law enforcement learn the damn law and enforce it in the proper manner. Same goes for crooked ass judges who retirement funds depend on traffic ticket fines and convictions. Your part of a racket and you know it. Commerce laws against those the government creates as in corporations and common law against the common man just trying to live free under the supreme law of the land.
Lets face facts here. The government is far from it’s constitutional authority to have most of the agencies it has. 90% or more of the government are unconstitutional unauthorized agencies making unconstitutional laws through delegated powers that can not be delegated and FORCING them at the point of a gun on the people. That is nothing but criminal gangs anyway you look at it.
“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).
“No agreement with a foreign nation and no treaty is free from the restraints of the Constitution. “ Reid v. Covert , 354 U.S. 1 (1957)
Butchers’ Union Co. v. Crescent City Co.,111 US 746 (1884).” Our rights cannot, by acts of Congress, be bartered away, given away or taken away.”
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;
“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).
Uniform Commercial Code at 1-103.6, which says:
The U.C.C. doesn’t acknowledge the sovereignty of the people or the Bill of Rights. It only deals with paper. U.C.C. §1-103.6 is your “recourse” from the U.C.C. into the Common Law and the Bill of Rights. It states that the Code (U.C.C.) must be in harmony with the Common Law, as follows:
The Code is complimentary to the Common Law, which remains in force , except where displaced by the code. A statute should be construed in harmony with the Common Law, unless there is a clear legislative intent to abrogate the Common Law
Hurtado v. United States, 410 US 578 (1973) “It is not every act, legislative in form, that is law. Law is something more than mere will exerted as an act of power…Arbitrary power, enforcing its edicts to the injury of the party and property of its subjects is not law.”

United States v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187 “Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their rights, due to ignorance.”

“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):
Norton v. Shelby County, 118 US 425 “Any unconstitutional act is not law, it confers no rights, it imposes no duties, it affords no protection, it creates no office, it is an illegal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed.”

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.

Before the organization of the state, you had the right to grow gardens and medicinal and herb gardens like our forefather did. You did not have to ask permission and license and permit everything you built or did on your own property. You did not have to ask the government and buy permits and licenses to fish or hunt or a million other things the government FORCES you to pay for today or get fined for and kidnapped and put in a cage.  All that is illegal for them to do and they become criminals when they do. They cease to represent the government all together and can never hold office again. That is what the supreme law of the land says.
We have a right to drive, no charge no rules no regulation except those afforded by common law, you have to hurt someone or their property to ave committed a crime you can be jailed or fined for.
Thompson v. Smith 154 SE 579. “The right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by a carriage or automobile, is not a mere privilege which a City may prohibit or permit at will, but a common right which he has under the right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of happiness.”
You can not unconstitutionally tax people out of their property and or steal it it is criminal!
Hodges v. U.S. , 203 US 1 (1942). “The right to the enjoyment of life and liberty and the right to acquire and possess property are fundamental rights of the citizens of the several states and are not dependent upon the Constitution of the United States or the federal government for their existence.”
You see when criminals take over a government and create a take down the nation and the constitution, experiment on, oppress and enslave the people, and have so called “law enforcement” for their hit men and judges to enforce their color of law. I just do not see that as good government, good police officer, good judge, good congressman, good senator, good mayor good sheriff, good tax commissioner, good anything. Just a bunch of criminals controlling good folks at the point of a gun
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