|
Thomas B.
Ginter
Sovereign Citizen
Embassy of
Heaven
State of
Sui
Juris
Attorney Pro Se
State of
IN THE
(801)963-3500
_______________________________________________________________________
Corporation, (Unofficial)
DUE PROCESS AND EQUAL ROTECTION
A Racketeer Influenced Corrupt
PURSUANT TO
AMENDMENTS I, IV, V, VI
Organization,18 USC 1961-1965 VII, VIII,
IX, X, XIII, XIV, AND
COROLLARY
PROVISIONS OF
Accuser,
WITH MEMORANDUM OF LAW-
BRIEF
FREQUENT RECURRENCE TO
FUNDAMENTAL
PRINCIPLES IS
ESSENTIAL TO FREE GOVERNMENT
UTAH
CONSTITUTION ARTICLE I:27.
Thomas B.
Ginter, Jr.
Sovereign
Citizen
State of Heaven
Judge? Keith L. Stoney (Unofficial
Judge)
Accused.
UCA 76-8-203 A1 and 3
________________________________________________________________________
STATE OF
) ss.
County of
Demand for Proof of
Jurisdiction and Due Process of Law
.
The
falsely Accused, Thomas B, Ginter, appearing pro se (for
self) Sui
Juris (capable of managing one's own affairs) in the above entitled matter,
hereby challenges the jurisdiction, power and existence of this court and the
entire Justice Court system under the Constitution and laws of the State of Utah
and provisions stated in this paragraph, and hereby demands all of his rights,
privileges and immunities granted to him from God and recognized in the Magna
Carta, Mayflower Compact, Declaration of Rights of 1774 A.D., Declaration of
Independence, July 4, 1776 A.D., The Constitution of the United States of
America, the laws made in pursuance thereof, treaties made under the authority
of the United States, the Constitution of the State of Utah and laws made in
pursuance thereof, common law, and that most holy, just and pure law of our
Almighty Creator, Jesus Christ, the perfect law of liberty. Amen.
Demand to
be Fully Informed to Insure Accused Does Not
Unknowingly Waive Rights.
The
Accused demands that he be fully informed throughout the proceedings at any and
every time when he may be in jeopardy of waiving, without his knowledge or
consent, any right, privilege or immunity protected, secured and guaranteed to
Accused under any provision of the paragraph above. He demands that he be
warned, sua sponte, (on its own will or motion) whenever danger of waiver
becomes apparent to the duly elected or appointed and qualified magistrate
exercising the functions of a public office in the above entitled court or any
other court professing or claiming jurisdiction over the person of the accused,
the subject matter of this proceeding, or the property of the Accused, a 1988
Toyota, of which the Accused has been deprived by force of arms by the accuser's
agent Darren Mower.
The
Accused demands proof of jurisdiction of:
1. Mower, Darren, who under
the guise or disguise of a duly qualified peace officer of a political
subdivision of the State of Utah issued citation #U82776428 on October 13, 2004
A.D., to the Accused, and at the time and place of issuance of the said citation
did, without due process of law or equal protection of the law, deprive the
Accused, Thomas B. Ginter, Jr. of his right to travel and of his right to
personal property, i.e., a 1988 Model Toyota Corolla Deluxe, his sole means of
transportation used in his exercise of his unfettered right to travel upon the
highways of the United States of America and of the States therein, including
the highways in the State of Utah..
2.
Stoney, Keith L. who exercised or attempted to exercise, and continues to
exercise or attempt to exercise, the functions of a public office in violation
of UCA 1953, section 76-8-203 a3,
under the guise or disguise of an appointed Justice Court Judge in an
arraignment hearing in this matter December 13, 2004 A.D., and continuing to
this 23rd Day of February in the year of our Lord and Savior, 2005, and is
aiding and abetting the upholding of the deprivations of the Accused’s
unfettered right to travel and the means by which he exercises his right to
travel, i.e., a. 1988 Toyota Corolla Deluxe motor vehicle, shipped in interstate
commerce, and used by the Accused for personal and religious travel guaranteed,
protected and secured under Amendment I , of the Constitution of the United
States of America, made applicable to the States under Amendment
XIV.
3. Bunderson, Eric who is exercising or
attempting to exercise the functions of a public office in the guise or disguise
of a prosecuting attorney in the West Valley Justice Court for Accuser West
Valley City through and by Darren Mower, thereby depriving the Accused of his
right to travel and of his right to
property; the means to travel, i.e., a Toyota Corolla Deluxe being held contrary to law without due process of
law or equal protection of the laws and in violation of United States
racketeering statutes, 18 USC 1961-1965, inter alia, in conspiracy with Keith L.
Stoney, Darren Mower, the unofficial court clerk, West Valley City’s unofficial
mayor and treasurer, David E. Yocom, who unofficially exercises the functions of
public office in violation of 76-8-203, in conspiracy with Mark A. Shurtleff,
Christine M. Durham, Jon M. Huntsman, Jr., Edward T. Alter, Auston G. Johnson,
Olene Smith Walker, Gayle F. McKechnie, Michael O. Leavitt, Norman H. Bangerter
and the whole unofficial Utah Senate and House of Representatives, none of whom
have qualified to hold public office because they acted under unofficial laws
and unofficial Amendments to Utah’s Constitution unofficially attempted between
1973 and February 22, 2005
A.D. This has been done knowingly .
4. The person exercising or attempting
to exercise the functions of a public office as a court clerk in the
5. Any other person involved or who may
become involved in the exercise or attempted exercise of a public office in
these proceedings under the guise or disguise of holding any public office
.including, but not limit to, any legislative, executive or judicial office of
the State of Utah or any political subdivision thereof.
Accused Demands Proof of Oath of
Office Duly administered, Taken, Subscribed and Filed.
The Accused Demands proof that each
person exercising or attempting to exercise the functions of a public office in
these proceedings, or in any capacity relating to or affecting these
proceedings, has a valid oath of office duly filed with the public official duly
qualified as the official prescribed by law for filing oaths of office;, and
that each such person has been duly elected or duly appointed to such office;,
and under pains and penalty of perjury, has had the required oath of office duly
administered and duly subscribed by the person duly elected or duly appointed to
public office, and by the person duly qualified to administer such oaths of
office, showing both signatures on the oath of office..
Accused
Demands Proof f Persons Administering Oaths Were Duly Oath
Bound.
The
Accused demands that each person who has administered the oath of office to each
person participating in these proceedings was duly sworn and duly qualified to
administer such oath by producing their respective oath of office certificates,
duly subscribed and duly filed with the filing officer for the respective
jurisdictions in which they are exercising the functions of a public office.
These
demands for proving jurisdiction- in a court of competent jurisdiction over the
person of the Accused; the subject matter involved-the statutes or ordinances
limiting the Accused's liberty
right to travel, and his right to own and control property of which the Accused
has been deprived-a 1988 Toyota Corolla Deluxe; must me met before these
proceedings may go forward.
Proceeding
without formal proof of jurisdiction is a denial of due process of law. The
Constitutions to which we owe allegiance require that no person be denied due
process of law or equal protection of the laws. States are bound by
Amendment XIV.
Justice
Court System Is Not Established Pursuant To Constitutional
Law.
The
Justice Courts System claims authority under Article VIII Section 1 of the Utah
Constitution: [Judges
of courts not of record.] Judges of courts not of record shall be selected in a
manner, for a term, and with qualifications provided by statute. However, no
qualification may be imposed which requires judges of courts not of record to be
admitted to practice law. The number of judges of courts not of record shall be
provided by statute. [This provision
is unconstitutional and void. There have been no valid amendments to Utah's
Constitution since1973 A.D.] The Justice of the peace system is
official and is still in effect under the constitutional laws of the State of
Last
revised: Tuesday, December 21, 2004
Article
VIII, Section 16. [Public prosecutors.]
The Legislature shall provide for a
system of public prosecutors who shall have primary responsibility for the
prosecution of criminal actions brought in the name of the State of Utah and
shall perform such other duties as may be provided by statute. Public
prosecutors shall be elected in a manner provided by statute, and shall be
admitted to practice law in Utah. If a public prosecutor fails or refuses to
prosecute, the Supreme Court shall have power to appoint a prosecutor pro
tempore.
Title
78, Chapter 5, Sections 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 111, 113,
120, and 125, of the "unofficial"
Three
letters from the State Archives prove that the oaths of office of persons
elected to the
The
Accused in this matter hereby demands proof that oaths of office of senators
were filed with the secretary of state in the State of Utah before persons
claiming to be senators attempted to exercise the functions of the public office
of senator to change the state official with whom official oaths of state
officials were and are to be filed.
Furthermore the unofficial lieutenant governor's list of oaths of office
in the division of archives shows no oaths of office for any person elected to
the
Return
of Motor Vehicle Demanded With Damages Paid in Lawful Money
Included
Therefore,
the falsely Accused, hereby demands the immediate
return of said motor vehicle, without delay, and demands compensation for the
loss of time and expenses incurred in defending against this unjust usurpation
of power and the malicious prosecution of him in this unofficial case. Damages claimed exceed 7.67 trillion
dollars in gold and silver Coin of the United States, the estimated current
obligation of the Federal Reserve Banks and Board of Governors of the Federal
Reserve System and William Jefferson Clinton and George W. Bush and John F.
Kerry who have participated in the Racketeering enterprise with Accuser West
Valley City and others named herein.
George W. Bush, George H. W. Bush, Joseph Lieberman, and Howard Dean are
all members of Skull and Bones, a secret combination, the most influential
secret society in America, who now control with their affiliated secret
societies an excessive amount of the property acquired by criminal means in
violation of !8 USC 4, 8, 334, 371, 471, 472, 473, 891-894, 1341-1343,
1961-1965, 2381, 2382, 2383, 2384,2385 and 2386, among others, thereby
forfeiting their rights to life, liberty and property and the pursuit of
happiness.
West
Valley City, the false accuser, and Darren Mower, the unofficial policeman, and
Eric Bunderson,
the unofficial prosecutor, and the unofficial clerk, are all liable for the
damages imposed upon the Accused for the false prosecution in which the Accused
was threatened with the loss of his liberty for failure to attend the unofficial
court by means of an unlawful order in the form of a false citation directing
the Accused to appear in an unofficial court, the unofficial West Valley City
Municipal Justice Court, or be put in jail for failure to comply. This deprivation of rights goes much
further. The incident not only
caused the falsely accused in this case to be left without private means of
travel, but subjected him to incurring an extortionate extension of credit in
counterfeit notes or coins or credit not redeemable in gold and silver coin from
Harman's Towing ,
969-4749, 2923 S 3500
W, West Valley City, Utah or Kearns Towing, 2881 South 3600 West, West Valley
City, Utah 84119, phone )801) 886-9202, Detective Hold call (801) 9633293. This is part of a racketeering scheme to
defraud the Accused by attempting to make him use falsely made securities and
current coins of the United States and the Federal Reserve Banks issued through
the twelve Federal Reserve Banks and circulated in West Valley City, Salt Lake
County, the State of Utah, and throughout the United States of America and
elsewhere. It is an international
racketeering scheme that is operating without authority of law and in violation
of numerous provisions thereof, and in violation of the United States
Constitution and the Constitution of the State of
Federal
Felony Statutes Attached To Demand And Brief-Memorandum of
Law.
“No State shall…make any Thing but gold and silver Coin
a Tender in Payment of Debts;”
..
MEMORANDUM OF
LAW
AND OFFICIAL
NOTICE
State of
Office of the Governor
Lawrence Rey Topham,
Acting Governor
OFFICIAL NOTICE
OATH OF
OFFICE IS ESSENTIAL TO HOLDING PUBLIC OFFICE
FAILURE TO FILE
OATH OF OFFICE OR BOND
WITHIN TIME PRESCRIBED BY LAW
IS FATAL TO HOLDING
PUBLIC OFFICE;
THE OFFICE AUTOMATICALLY BECOMES VACANT;
LATE FILING IS
INEFFECTIVE;
EVERY UNOFFICIAL ACT IS VOID;
AND ANY SUBSEQUENT PROCEEDINGS
ARE VITIATED.
Persons
chosen for public office may be required by law to accept the office within a
specified time and to qualify by filing an oath, giving bond or doing whatever
else the law declares necessary to entitle them to assume the duties of the
office.
Applicable
statutes are controlling and may declare vacancy to exist if the person chosen
for the office fails to accept or qualify as required by law. Parker v.
Overman, 59
Failure
to comply with such provisions will absolutely forfeit the right to office.
Brannon v. Perky, 127
Office
is vacant by reason of failure to file a required oath. Boisvert v.
Failure
to timely file oath of office, in accordance with a statute so requiring,
neither notice nor judicial procedure is necessary; the office is automatically
vacant and may be filled as provided by law. Comins v.
Act
Declaring office vacant and to be filled as provided by law for failure to
qualify within 60 days after beginning of term is not unconstitutional and
applies to all officers enumerated and similarly situated. State Ex Rel. Stain v. Christensen,
84 U. 185, 25 P.2d 775.
Judges
of the Supreme Court subscribe to this oath when entering upon their duties as
justices thereof. Critchlow v. Monson, 102 U. 378, 131
P.2d 794.
Filing
an oath of office after the time prescribed by law is not a compliance with the
law, confers no power to act as a public officer or in a public office and any
person who fails to file his oath of office within the time limits required by
law creates an ipso facto vacancy and such person's acts are void and vitiate
any subsequent proceedings. Parker v. Overman, 59
"All
officers made elective or appointive by this Constitution or by the laws made in
pursuance thereof, before entering upon the duties of their respective offices,
shall take and subscribe the following oath or affirmation; "I do solemnly swear
(or affirm) that I will support, obey and defend the Constitution of the United
States and the Constitution of this State, and that I will discharge the duties
of my office with fidelity.["]
(1)
A person is guilty of unofficial misconduct if he exercises or attempts to
exercise any of the functions of a public office when:
(a) He has not taken
and filed the required oath of office; or
(b) He has failed to execute and
file the required bond; or
(c) He has not been elected or appointed to
office; or
(d) He exercises any of the functions of his office after his
term has expired and the successor has been elected or appointed and has
qualified, or his office has been legally removed.
(e) He knowingly
withholds or retains from his successor in office or other person entitled to
the official seal or any records, papers, documents, or other writing
appertaining or belonging to his office or mutilates or destroys or takes away
the same.
(2) Unofficial misconduct is a class B misdemeanor.
Title
52 Chapter 01 Official Oaths and Bonds
Utah
Code Annotated, 1953, Section 52-1-2 [renumbered but unchanged from 65-0-2]
Whenever
state officers, officials or state institutions, or other persons are required
to give official bonds to the state, such bonds, unless otherwise provided,
shall be approved by the state board of examiners, and recorded by the secretary
of state in a book kept for that purpose. When so recorded the secretary of
state shall deliver the originals to the state treasurer, excepting the bond of
the state treasurer, and the treasurer shall become the legal custodian thereof,
but the bond of the state treasurer shall remain in the custody of the secretary
of state. The oaths of office of all state officials shall be filed with the
secretary of state. (C.L. 17 Sec. 4306.)
Title
52 Chapter 02 Failure to Qualify for Office
52-2-1.
Time in which to qualify -- Failure -- Office declared vacant.
Whenever
any person duly elected or appointed to any office of the state or any of its
political subdivisions, fails to qualify for such office within sixty days after
the date of beginning of the term of office for which he was elected or
appointed, such office shall thereupon become vacant and shall be filled as
provided by law. Whenever the bond of any officer of the state or of any of its
political subdivisions is canceled, revoked, annulled or otherwise becomes void
or of no effect, without another proper bond being given so that continuance of
bonded protection is afforded, the office of such officer shall thereupon become
vacant and shall be filled as provided by law. Any elected or appointed official
who has failed on the effective date of this act to qualify for the position to
which he was elected or appointed, shall be deemed to come within the provisions
of this act, and the office of such officer shall become vacant at the end of
forty days after the effective date of this act unless legal bond is given
before the expiration of such period, and such office shall be filled as
provided by law.
No
Change Since 1953
ONLY
FIVE PEOPLE HAVE FILED THE REQUIRED OATH OF OFFICE WITH THE SECRETARY OF STATE
IN THE STATE OF
NO UTAH SENATOR-ELECT HAS FILED THE REQUIRED OATH OF
OFFICE WITH THE SECRETARY OF STATE IN
NO UTAH LAWS OR CONSTITUTIONAL
AMENDMENTS HAVE BEEN ENACTED OR MADE SINCE 1974 A.D., WHEN THE UTAH
SENATORS-ELECT ALL FAILED TO FILE THE REQUIRED OATH OF OFFICE WITH THE SECRETARY
OF STATE, AND HAVE CONTINUED SUCH FAILURE UNTO THIS VERY DAY, NOVEMBER 4, 2003
A.D. OLENE SMITH
NEITHER THE REPUBLICAN NOR THE DEMOCRAT POLITICAL PARTIES HAVE
REGISTERED WITH THE SECRETARY OF STATE OF
THEREFORE,
GEORGE W. BUSH IS NOT THE DULY ELECTED PRESIDENT OF THE
NORMAN
H. BANGERTER, GORDON R. HALL, MICHAEL D. ZIMMERMAN, I. DANIEL STEWART, W. VAL
OVESON, TOM L. ALLEN, EDWARD T. ALTER, R. PAUL VAN DAM, MICHAEL O. LEAVITT,
OLENE S. WALKER, AUSTON G. JOHNSON, MARK A. SHURTLEFF AND ALL OF UTAH'S
UNOFFICIAL LEGISLATORS FROM 1974 THROUGH NOVEMBER 4, 2003 A.D., AND DAVID E.
YOCOM, E. NEAL GUNNARSON, AARON D. KENNARD AND ALL THEIR UNOFFICIAL DEPUTIES,
AND ALL OF THE UNOFFICIAL JUDGES ACTING UNDER UNOFFICIAL LAWS AND UNOFFICIAL
CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS HAVE ALL BUT COMPLETELY DESTROYED CONSTITUTIONAL
GOVERNMENT IN THE STATE OF UTAH, AND THEY NOW INTEND TO UPHOLD THE DESTRUCTION
OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION AND THE UTAH CONSTITUTION ON WEDNESDAY,
NOVEMBER 5, 2003 A.D., WITH THE UNOFFICIAL INNAUGURATION OF OLENE SMITH WALKER
AND HER UNOFFICIAL APPOINTEES.
IT
IS MY SWORN DUTY TO WARN THE PEOPLE OF UTAH AND THE UNITED STATES OF THIS
UNCONSTITUTIONAL CONDUCT BY MICHAEL O. LEAVITT, OLENE SMITH WALKER AND THEIR
REPUBLICAN AND DEMOCRAT ASSOCIATES WHO HAVE WORKED TO DESTROY OUR DIVINE
CONSTITUTION AND THE UTAH CONSTITUTION AND LAWS MADE PURSUANT THERETO, WHICH
THEY HAVE VIOLATED FOR THE LAST TWENTY NINE (29) YEARS BY FAILING TO FILE OATHS
OF OFFICE WITH THE SECRETARY OF STATE, AND FOR THE LAST FORTY (40) YEARS, BY
FINANCING THEIR UNOFFICIAL MISCONDUCT WITH COUNTERFEIT SECURITIES AND CURRENT
COIN OF THE UNITED STATES, AND THIS THEY HAVE DONE WITH THE FULL SUPPORT OF
PRESIDENT GORDON B. HINCKLEY, THE FIRST PRESIDENCY AND QUORUM OF TWELVE APOSTLES
OF THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS, BOTH IN THEIR PERSONAL AND
OFFICIAL CAPACITIES, BRINGING THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF UTAH AND THE UNITED
STATES OF AMERICA INTO BONDAGE AS THE GREATEST DEBTORS IN THE WORLD, 6.861
TRILLION FALSE DOLLARS, WITH WHICH THEY FINANCE THEIR CRIMINAL ACTIVITIES IN
SUPPORT OF EXTORTION, RACKETEERING AND REBELLION AGAINST THE CONSTITUTIONAL
GOVERNMENTS OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE STATE OF UTAH.
IT
IS TREASON AT THE HIGHEST LEVELS OF CHURCH AND STATE AND MEDIA.
"WHEREFORE,
THUS SAITH THE LORD GOD, WHO IS THE ALMIGHTY, EXCEPT YE REPENT, YE SHALL BE
SMITTEN EVEN UNTO DESTRUCTION. RETURN UNTO ME AND I WILL RETURN UNTO YOU, SAITH
THE LORD GOD, WHO IS THE ALMIGHTY. BUT IF YE WILL NOT REPENT, YE SHALL BE
SMITTEN EVEN UNTO DESTRUCTION." AMEN. [GIVEN:
IF
THOSE EXERCISING THE FUNCTIONS OF PUBLIC OFFICE IN THE STATE OF
IF
THE LEADERS AND PEOPLE IN THE STATE OF UTAH ARE NOT USING GOLD AND SILVER COIN
AS LAWFUL MONEY OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE ONLY LAWFUL TENDER IN PAYMENT OF
DEBTS, THEY ARE NOT UPHOLDING THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES, BUT ARE, IN
FACT, IN REBELLION AND THEY ARE UPHOLDING THE CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY TO DESTROY THE
CONSTITUTION AND CONSTITUTIONAL GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE
CONSTITUTIONAL GOVERNMENTS OF ALL OF THE STATES AND TERRITORIES AND POSSESSIONS
THEREOF, AND HAVE LOST THEIR RIGHT TO VOTE, OWN PROPERTY, BE ON AN OFFICIAL
BALLOT AND HOLD PUBLIC OFFICE UNDER THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES. ROSS
C. ANDERSON AND FRANK R. PIGNANELLI ARE TWO SUCH INDIVIDUALS WHO HAVE REBELLED,
FAILED TO QUALIFY TO VOTE, BE ON THE OFFICIAL BALLOT AND HOLD PUBLIC OFFICE IN
ALL
PUBLIC ELECTIONS IN THE STATE OF UTAH SCHEDULED FOR NOVEMBER 4, 2003 A.D.,
INCLUDING THE ELECTION FOR MAYOR OF SALT LAKE CITY, ARE, UNOFFICIAL,
UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND VOID, WHERE THE CANDIDATES AND THE UNOFFICIAL COUNTY CLERKS
AND CITY AND TOWN RECORDERS USE COUNTERFEIT SECURITIES AND CURRENT COINS OF THE
UNITED STATES TO ATTEMPT TO QUALIFY FOR THE UNOFFICIAL BALLOTS AND ELECTION TO
OFFICE OR TO PREPARE UNOFFICIAL BALLOTS FOR THE GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS. THE
NEWS PAPERS, RADIO AND TELEVISION STATIONS SUPPORT THE UNOFFICIAL ELECTIONS AND
ARE ALSO FINANCED WITH FALSE SECURITIES AND CURRENT COIN OF THE UNITED STATES,
AND THEY ARE ALL IN REBELLION AGAINST THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES.
ONLY
VOTES ON THE TRUE "OFFICIAL BALLOTS" OR "WRITE-IN VOTES" OF NON-REBELLING
CITIZENS FOR NON-REBELLING CANDIDATES ARE VALID. IN SALT LAKE CITY'S GENERAL
MUNICIPAL ELECTION, LAWRENCE REY TOPHAM IS THE ONLY CANDIDATE WHOSE NAME APPEARS
ON THE TRUE OFFICIAL ELECTION BALLOT, THEREFORE, A SINGLE VOTE FOR HIM IS
SUFFICIENT FOR VICTORY.
THIS
I TESTIFY, AS A WITNESS, AND, WITH THIS ULTIMATE WARNING, WHICH I GIVE IN THE
NAME OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, THE STATE OF UTAH, THE COUNTY OF SALT
LAKE, AND THE CITY OF SALT LAKE, AND IN THE MOST HOLY AND SACRED NAME OF JESUS
CHRIST, OUR CREATOR, OUR LORD, OUR REDEEMER, OUR BELOVED SAVIOR, OUR ELDER
BROTHER AND OUR FRIEND. AMEN.
The
above information was prepared by Lawrence Rey Topham, Secretary of State and
acting Governor of the State of Utah, on November 3rd and 4th, 2003 A.D., AS A
FORMAL PUBLIC WARNING IN DEFENSE OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF
AMERICA against all enemies, both foreign and domestic, WITH GOD, OUR FATHER IN
HEAVEN, AND JESUS CHRIST, AND THE HOLY GHOST AS MY WITNESSES.
Signed
and dated this 4th day of November 2003 A.D.
Lawrence
Rey Topham
Secretary of State and
Acting Governor of the
State of
BRIEF
The Right to
Travel
U.S. COURT
DECISIONS CONFIRM "DRIVING IS A RIGHT”
SPECIAL POLICE
OFFICER BULLETIN U.S. COURT DECISIONS CONFIRM, "DRIVING A MOTOR VEHICLE" IS A
CITIZENS RIGHT AND NOT A GOVERNMENT GRANTED PRIVILEGE.
For many years
Professionals within the criminal justice System have acted upon the belief that
traveling by motor vehicle upon the roadway was a privilege that was gained by a
citizen only after approval by their respective state government in the form of
the issuance of a permit or license to that Particular individual. Legislators, police officers and court
officials are becoming aware that there are now court decisions that prove the
fallacy of the legal opinion that" driving is a privilege and therefore requires
government approval, i.e. a license".
Some of these cases are:
Case # 1
- "Even the
legislature has no power to deny to a citizen the right to travel upon the
highway and transport his property in the ordinary course of his business or
pleasure, though this right may be regulated in accordance with the public
interest and convenience. -
Chicago Motor Coach v Chicago, 169 NE 22 ("Regulated" here means traffic
safety enforcement, stop lights, signs, etc. NOT a privilege that requires permission
i.e.- licensing, mandatory insurance, vehicle
registration, etc.)
Case # 2 -
"The right of the citizen to travel
upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by
carriage or by 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."- Thompson v Smith, 154 SE
579.
Case #3 -
It could not be
stated more conclusively that Citizens of the states have a right to travel,
without approval or restriction (license), and that this right is protected
under the U.S. Constitution.
Here are other court decisions that expound the same facts:
"The right to travel is a part of the
liberty of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under
the 5th Amendment." - Kent v Dulles, 357 U.S. 116, 125.
Case # 4
- "Undoubtedly
the right of locomotion, the right to remove from one place to another according
to inclination, is an attribute of personal liberty, and the right, ordinarily,
of free transit from or through the territory of any State is a right secured by
the l4th Amendment and by other provisions of the Constitution." - Schactman v Dulles, 96 App D.C. 287,
293.
FUNDAMENTAL
RIGHT As hard as it
is for those of us in Law enforcement to believe, there is no room for
speculation in these court decisions.
The American citizen does indeed have the inalienable right to use the
roadways unrestricted in any manner as long as they are not damaging or
violating property or rights of another.
Government, in
requiring the people to file for "drivers licenses, vehicle registrations,
mandatory insurance, and demanding they stop for vehicle inspections, DUI/DWI
roadblocks etc. without question, are "restricting", and therefore violating,
the Peoples common law right to travel.
Is this a new
legal interpretation on this subject of the right to travel? Apparently
not. The American Citizens
and Lawmen Association in conjunction with The U.S. Federal Law Research Center
are presently involved in studies in several areas involving questions on
constitutional law. One of the many
areas under review is the area of "Citizens right to travel." In an interview a
spokesmen stated: "Upon researching this subject over many months, substantial
case law has presented itself that completely substantiates the position that
the "right to travel unrestricted upon the nations highways" is and has always
been a fundamental right of every Citizen."
This means
that the "beliefs and opinions" our state legislators, the courts, and those of
as involved in the law enforcement profession have acted upon for years have
been in error. Researchers armed
with actual facts state that U.S. case law is overwhelming in determining that -
to restrict, in any fashion, the movement of the individual American in the free
exercise of their right to travel upon the roadways, (excluding "commerce" which
the state Legislatures are correct in regulating), is a serious breach of those
freedoms secured by the U.S.
Constitution, and most state Constitutions, i.e. - it is Unlawful.
THE REVELATION
THAT THE AMERICAN CITIZEN HAS ALWAYS HAD THE INALIENABLE RIGHT TO TRAVEL RAISES
PROFOUND QUESTIONS TO THOSE WHO ARE INVOLVED IN MAKING AND ENFORCING STATE
LAWS.
The first of
such questions may very well be - If the States have been enforcing laws that
are unconstitutional on their face, it would seem that there must be some way
that a state can legally put restrictions, such as - licensing requirements,
mandatory insurance, vehicle registration, vehicle inspections, D.W.I.
roadblocks, to name just a few, on a Citizens constitutionally protected
right. Is that not so?
For the answer
to this question let us look, once again, to the U.S. courts for a determination
on this very issue.
The case of
Hertado v. California, 110
"the assertion of federal rights, when plainly and reasonably
made, is not to be defeated under the name of local practice."- Davis v.
Wechsler, 263 U.S. 22,
24.
Would we not
say that these judicial decisions are straight to the point - that there is no
lawful method for government to put restrictions or limitations on rights
belonging to the people?
Other cases
are even more straight forward:
"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. (There is no question that a
citation/ticket issued by a police officer, for no drivers license, no current
vehicle registration, no vehicle insurance etc. which carries a fine or jail
time, is a penalty or sanction, and is indeed "converting a Right into a
crime".)
We could go
on, quoting court decision after court decision, however, In addition, the
Constitution itself answers our question- "Can a government legally put
restrictions on the rights of the American people at anytime, for any
reason"? (Such as in this
particular case - when the government believes it to be for the safety and
welfare of the people).
The answer is
found in ARTICLE SIX of the U.S.
Constitution:
"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, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to
the Contrary not withstanding".
(This tells us that the U.S.
Constitution is to be upheld over any state, county, or city laws that
are in opposition to it.)
In the same
Article it goes on to say just who it is within our governments that are bound
by this Supreme Law:
"The Senators
and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State
Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States
and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support
this Constitution;" - ART. 6,
We know that
Police officers, are a part of the Executive
branch. We are "Executive
Officers".
Article 6
above, is called the SUPREMACY CLAUSE, and it clearly states that, under every
circumstance, the above listed officials in these United States must hold this
documents tenets supreme over any other laws, regulations, or orders. Every U.
S. Police officer knows that
they have sworn an oath to the people of our nation that we will not only
protect their lives and property, but, that we will uphold, and protect their
freedoms and rights under the Supreme laws of this nation, - the U. S.
Constitution.
In this regard
then, we must agree that those within government that restrict a Citizens
rights, (such as restricting the peoples right to travel,) are acting in
violation of his or her oath of office and are actually committing a crime
against such Citizens. Here's an
interesting question. Is ignorance
of these laws an excuse for such acts by
officials?
If we are to
follow the "letter of the law (as we are sworn to do), this places officials
that involve themselves in such unlawful acts in a
unfavorable legal situation. For it
is a felony and federal crime to violate, or deprive citizens of their Constitutionally protected rights.
Our system of
law dictates the fact that there are only two ways to legally remove a right
belonging to the people. These are
- #1 - by lawfully amending the constitution, or #2 - by a person knowingly
waiving a particular right.
Some of the
confusion in our present system has arisen because many millions of people have
waived their right to travel "unrestricted" upon the roadways of the states and
opted into the jurisdiction of the state for various reasons. Those who have knowingly given up these
rights are now legally regulated by state law, the proper courts, and "sworn,
constitutionally empowered officers-of-the-law," and must acquire proper
permits, registrations, insurance, etc.
There are
basically two groups of people in this category:
#1 - Any
citizen that involves themselves in "commerce," (business for private gain),
upon the highways of the state.
Here is what
the courts have said about this:
"...For while
a citizen has the right to travel upon the public highways and to transport his
property thereon, that right does not extend to the use of the highways, either
in whole or in part, as a place for private gain. For the latter purpose no person has a
vested right to use the highways of the state, but is a privilege or license
which the legislature may grant or withhold at its discretion..." - State v
Johnson, 243 P. 1073, 1078.
Other U.S.
court cases that confirm and point out the difference between the "right" of the
citizen to travel and a government "privilege" are - Barney v Board of
Railroad Commissioners; State v City of Spokane, 186 P. 864; Ex
Parte Dickey (Dickey v Davis), 85 S.E. 781; Teche Lines v Danforth, 12 So.2d 784.
There are
numerous other court decisions that spell out the JURISDICTION issue in these
two distinctly different activities.
However, because of space restrictions we will leave it up to officers to
research it further for themselves.
(See last page for additional references).
#2 - The
second group of citizens that are legally under the jurisdiction of the state is
the individual citizen who has voluntarily and knowingly waived their right to
travel "unregulated and unrestricted" by requesting placement under such
jurisdiction through the acquisition of a state - drivers license, vehicle
registration, mandatory insurance, etc.
(In other words, "by contract
only".)
We should
remember what makes this "legal," and not a violation of the individuals common law right to travel "unrestricted" is that
they knowingly volunteer, freely, by contract, to waive their right. If they were forced, coerced or
unknowingly placed under the states powers, the courts have said it is a clear
violation of their rights.
This in itself
raises a very interesting question.
What percentage of the people in each state have filed, and received,
licenses, registrations, insurance etc. after erroneously being advised by their
government that it was mandatory?
Many of our
courts, attorneys and police officials are just becoming informed about this
important issue and the difference between "Privileges vs. Rights". We can assume that the majority of those
Americans carrying state licenses, vehicle registrations etc., have no knowledge
of the rights they waived in obeying laws such as these that the
OUR SWORN DUTY
An area of serious consideration for every police officer, is to understand that
the most important law in our land he has taken an oath to protect, defend, AND
ENFORCE, is not state laws, nor city or county ordinances, but, that law that
supersede all other laws in our nation, - the U.S. Constitution. If
laws in a particular police officer's state, or local
community are in conflict with the SUPREME LAW of our nation, there is no
question that the officer's duty is to "uphold the U.S.
Constitution."
What does this
mean to the "patrol officer" who will be the only sworn "Executive Officer" on
the scene, when knowledgeable Citizens raise serious objections over possession
of insurance, driver’s licenses and other restrictions? It definitely means these officers will
be faced with a hard decision.
(Most certainly if that decision affects state, city or county revenues,
such as the issuing of citations do.)
Example: If a
state legislator, judge or a superior tells a police officer to proceed and
enforce a contradictory, (illegal), state law rather than the Supreme Law of
this country, what is that "sworn officer" to do? Although we may not want to hear it,
there is but one right answer, - "the officer is duty bound to uphold his oath
of office" and obey the highest laws of the nation. THIS IS OUR SWORN DUTY AND IT'S THE
LAW!
Such a strong
honest stand taken by a police officer, upholding his or her oath of office,
takes moral strength of character.
It will, without question, "SEPARATE THE MEN FROM THE BOYS." Such honest
and straight forward decisions on behalf of a government official have often
caused pressure to be applied to force such officers to set aside, or compromise
their morals or convictions.
As a solace
for those brave souls in uniform that will stand up for law and justice, even
when it's unpopular, or uncomfortable to do so...let me
say this. In any legal stand-off
over a sworn official "violating" or "upholding" their oath of office, those
that would side with the "violation" should inevitable lose.
Our Founding
Fathers assured us, on many occasions, the following:
Defending our
freedoms in the face of people that would for "expedients sake," or behind the
guise, "for the safety and welfare of the masses," ignore peoples rights, would
forever demand sacrifice and vigilance from those that desired to remain
free. That sounds a little like -
"Freedom is not free!"
Every police
officer should keep the following
"THE CLAIM AND EXERCISE OF A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT CANNOT BE C