Supreme Court Decisions Which Support Our Freedoms UNALIENABLE defined: The state of a thing or right, which cannot

be sold. 2. Things, which are not in commerce, as public roads, are in their nature unalienable. Some things are unalienable, in consequence of particular provisions in the law forbidding their sale or transfer, as pensions granted by the government. The natural rights of life and liberty are unalienable. A Law Dictionary Adapted To The Constitution and Laws of the United States of America and of the Several States of the American Union by John Bouvier Revised Sixth Edition, 1856 One that goes really well with these is the one that tells how we must be a belligerent fighting the war against these unconstitutional courts (judges), that many times know good & well what our rights are, but do everything in their power to get us to acquiesce to their corporate bylaws (statutes, codes, rules, policy, etc) that have no power over us unless we give them permission (consent) to apply them to us... United States v. Johnson, 76 F. Supp. 538, 539 (D. Pa. 1947), Federal District Court Judge James Alger Fee ruled that; "The privilege against self-incrimination is neither accorded to the passive resistant, nor to the person who is ignorant of his rights, nor to one indifferent thereto. It is a FIGHTING clause. It's benefits can be retained only by sustained COMBAT. It cannot be claimed by attorney or solicitor. It is valid only when insisted upon by a BELLIGERENT claimant in person." McAlister vs. Henkel, 201 U.S. 90, 26 S.Ct. 385, 50 L.Ed. 671; Commonwealth vs. Shaw, 4 Cush. 594, 50 Am.Dec. 813; Orum vs. State, 38 Ohio App. 171, 175 N.E. 876. The one who is persuaded by honeyed words or moral suasion to testify or produce documents rather than make a last ditch stand, simply loses the protection. . . . He must refuse to answer or produce, and test the matter in contempt proceedings, or by habeas corpus." [Emphasis added.] FOLKLORE? A man who, appeared on a criminal charge. The judge asked him if his name was "John Doe" He replied; "My mother told me that John was my birth-given name and Doe the family name." This statement then cannot be used to certify the identity of the man for the man is not the "defendant," and it's hearsay. The judge looked at him a little funny, and asked, "How do you plead?" To which the man replied, "Judge, Sui Juris, In my private capacity as general executor known as John of the genealogy of Doe, Bailor for John Doe Bailee, want to know who is going to certify the charges to the court?" That is all he said, and after the judge haggled with the clueless prosecutor a while, he cut him loose. Probably because they could not certify his identity, as he declined to testify as to his identity. Here are some Supreme Court Decisions that you probably never heard of. Supreme Court Decisions to Support Our Freedoms The following court decisions are just a sampling of the many foundational principles upheld by the courts. They are randomly excerpted below to provide a reference point for further study. This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be

made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. Article VI, Clause 2., Constitution for the United States of America -- Notice that this says "Under the Authority of the United States." Congress cannot ratify a Treaty that violates the powers granted to them by the Constitution Where rights as secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which will abrogate them. Miranda v. Ariz., 384 U.S. 436 at 491 (1966). Congress has no power to enact laws that violate the provisions of the Constitution Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection and justifies no acts performed under it ;;; No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it. 16 Am Jur 2nd Section 177 We are under no obligation to obey an Unconstitutional Law. All laws, rules and practices which are repugnant to the Constitution are and void. Marbury v. Madison, 5th US (2 Cranch) 137, 180 Again, unconstitutional laws are and void. The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime. Miller v. U.S. 230 F 486 at 489 We cannot be charged with a crime for demanding our un-a-lien-able rights guaranteed by our Constitution. 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 incriminate 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. Among his rights are a refusal to incriminate himself, and the immunity of himself and his property from arrest or seizure except under a warrant of the law. He owes nothing to the public so long as he does not trespass upon their rights. Each of us has the power and the authority to conduct our business without interference from the State, or the Federal Government. A State [or the United States] may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the federal Constitution. Murdock v Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105 at 113 (1943) No government can impose a charge for our enjoyment of our un-a-lienable rights, as secured by our Constitution. There can be no limitation on the power of the people of the United States; Hauenstein v Lynharm, 100 US 483 (1879) We, the People, are the power behind each and every government that we

form. There is no such thing as power of inherent Sovereignty in the government of the United States. In this country sovereignty resides in the People, and Congress can exercise no power which they have not, by their Constitution entrusted to it; All else is withheld. Julliard v Greenman, 110 U.S. 421 No government has any inherent power to do anything beyond what powers are granted by the Constitution. A statute which either forbids or requires terms so vague that men and women of common necessarily guess at its meaning and differ violates the first essential of due process General Const. Co., 269 U.S. 385 Laws must be clear and easily understood or Obamacare. the doing of an act in intelligence must as to its application, of law. Connally v they are void. Consider

In common usage, the term `person does not include the sovereign, [and] statutes employing the phrase are ordinarily construed to exclude it. United States v. Cooper Corp., 312 U.S. 600, 604 (1941); accord, United States v. Mine Workers, 330 U.S. 258, 1947). Particularly is this true where the statute imposes a burden or limitation, as distinguished from conferring a benefit or advantage. United States v. Knight, 14 Pet. 301, 315 (1840). Wilson v Omaha Indian Tribe, 442 U.S. 653 (1979) The People together, are Sovereign People (freeborn spiritual beings), we are not to be referred to as "Persons." Failure to contest an assertion . . . is considered evidence of acquiescence . . .if it would have been natural under the circumstances to object to the assertion in question." US Supreme Court Mitchell v. United States - No. 97-7541 Argued December 9, 1998 If someone makes a legal, or lawful, claim and it is not disputed, then the assertion is construed to be true. Silence can only be equated with fraud when there is a legal or moral duty to speak, or when an inquiry left unanswered would be intentionally misleadingWe cannot condone this shocking conductIf that is the case we hope our message is clear. This sort of deception will not be tolerated and if this is routine it should be corrected immediately. US v Tweel, 550 F2d 297, 299-300 This goes along with the previous statement concerning silence... duty to speak. All codes, rules and regulations are applicable to the government authorities only, not human/Creators in accordance with Gods laws. All codes, rules and regulations are unconstitutional and lacking in due process Rodriques v Ray Donavan (U.S. Department of Labor), 769 F. 2d 1344, 1348 (1985) We, the People, created the governments and we did not give them the power to rule over us. Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many Citizens, because of their respect for what appears to be law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their rights due to ignorance. US v Minker, 350 US 179 at 187

This describes our current situation. Waivers of constitutional rights not only must be voluntary but must be knowing, intelligent acts done with sufficient awareness of the relevant circumstances and likely consequences. Brady v. U.S., 397 U.S. 749, 90 S. Ct. 1463, 1469 (1970): See also Fuentes v. Shevin, 407 U.S. 67 (1972); Brookhart v. Janis, 384 U.S. 6 (1966); Empsak v. U.S., 190 (1955); and, Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 58 (1938). We cannot be tricked into giving up our un-a-lien-able rights. This essentially voids most of the actions of Congress. The primary and general rule of statutory construction is that the intent of the lawmaker is to be found in the language he has used. He is presumed to know the meaning of the words and the rules of grammar. United States v. Goldenberg, 168 U.S. 95; The group who enacts the law must know what they have enacted. Congress is responsible for reading the bills before they are enacted. It is settled by a long line of recent decisions of this Court that an ordinance which, like this one, makes the peaceful enjoyment of freedoms which the Constitution guarantees contingent upon the uncontrolled will of an official - as by requiring a permit or license which may be granted or withheld in the discretion of such official is an unconstitutional censorship or prior restraint upon the enjoyment of those freedoms. Staub v. Baxley, 355 U.S. 313, 322 . And our decisions have made clear that a person faced with such an unconstitutional licensing law may ignore it and engage with impunity in the exercise of the right of free expression for which the law purports to require a license. Shuttlesworth v Birmingham (Alabama), 394 U.S. 147 (1969) Neither the State, nor the Federal Government, can require permits, or licenses. We, the People, have the right to pursue whatever business activity we desire without any interference from any of our governments. They were not granted any powers to regulate the activities of the Citizens. The following is what the Supreme Court had to say about the Declaration of Independence. The original words of the Declaration of Independence are in RED. We hold these truths to be self-evident that is, so plain that their truth is recognized upon their mere statement that all men are endowed not by edicts of emperors, or decrees of parliament, or acts of congress, but by their Creator with certain unalienable rights. that is, rights which cannot be bartered away, or given away, or taken away, except in punishment of crime and that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; and to secure these not grant them, but secure them governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. Among these unalienable rights, as proclaimed in that great document, is the right of men to pursue their happiness, by which is meant the right to pursue any lawful business or vocation, in any manner not inconsistent with the equal rights of others, which may increase their prosperity or develop their faculties, so as to give to them their highest enjoyment. The common business and callings of life, the ordinary trades and pursuits, which are innocuous in themselves, and have been followed in

all communities from time immemorial, must therefore be free in this country to all alike upon the same conditions. The right to pursue them, without let (Editors Note: To let is to grant a charter or contract to a person or group who has made a proposal) or hindrance, except that which is applied to all persons of the same age, sex, and condition, is a distinguishing privilege of citizens of the United States, and an essential element of that freedom which they claim as their birthright. Butchers Union Slaughterhouse and Livestock Company v. Crescent City Livestock Landing and Slaughterhouse Company Argued April 9-10, 1884 Decided May 5, 1884 U. S. Supreme Court 111 U. S. 746 Again, we are told that no government has the power, or the authority, to demand permits, licenses, charters, or other restrictive actions concerning our ability to pursue our happiness, i.e., any lawful business activity. The Supreme Court says that it is our birthright to be able to pursue whatever lawful business we want.