Are you looking for Solutions for America in Distress

You are in the right place to find out about what is really going on behind the scenes in the patriot movement in America, including solutions from Oathkeepers, Anna Von Reitz, Constitutional Sheriffs, Richard Mack, and many more people who are leading the charge to restore America to freedom and peace. Please search on the right for over 8400 articles.
You will find some conflicting views from some of these authors. You will also find that all the authors are deeply concerned about the future of America. What they write is their own opinion, just as what I write is my own. If you have an opinion on a particular article, please comment by clicking the title of the article and scrolling to the box at the bottom on that page. Please keep the discussion about the issues, and keep it civil. The administrator reserves the right to remove any comment for any reason by anyone. Use the golden rule; "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." Additionally we do not allow comments with advertising links in them for your products. When you post a comment, it is in the public domain. You have no copyright that can be enforced against any other individual who comments here! Do not attempt to copyright your comments. If that is not to your liking please do not comment. Any attempt to copyright a comment will be deleted. Copyright is a legal term that means the creator of original content. This does not include ideas. You are not an author of articles on this blog. Your comments are deemed donated to the public domain. They will be considered "fair use" on this blog. People donate to this blog because of what Anna writes and what Paul writes, not what the people commenting write. We are not using your comments. You are putting them in the public domain when you comment. What you write in the comments is your opinion only. This comment section is not a court of law. Do not attempt to publish any kind of "affidavit" in the comments. Any such attempt will also be summarily deleted. Comments containing foul language will be deleted no matter what is said in the comment.

Tuesday, November 24, 2015

Supreme Court decisions on Individual Sovereignty

HERE ARE THE U.S. SUPREME COURT CASES THAT PROVE YOU ARE SOVEREIGN, AND DON'T HAVE TO OBEY YOUR HIRED PUBLIC SERVANTS OR THEIR WRITTEN LEGISLATION (Unless you consent, or infringe on the equal rights of another)... [All verified sources, definite facts]...
1) To prove you ARE 'sovereign'... "at the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people, and they are truly the sovereigns of the country, but they are sovereigns without subjects... and have none to govern but themselves; the citizens of America are equal as fellow citizens, and as joint tenants in the sovereignty." Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 U.S. 419 (1793), U.S. Supreme Court.
[Verified Source: ]
2) "No one, we believe, has ever doubted the proposition, that, according to the institutions of this country, the sovereignty in every State resides in the people of the State, and that they may alter and change their form of government at their own pleasure." Luther v. Borden 48 U.S. 1 (1849), U.S. Supreme Court. [Verified Source: ]
2) What 'sovereign' means... "The people of this State, as the successors of its former sovereign,are entitled to all the rights which formerly belonged to the King by his prerogative. Through the medium of their Legislature they may exercise all the powers which previous to the Revolution could have been exercised either by the King alone, or by him in conjunction with his Parliament; subject only to those restrictions which have been imposed by the Constitution of this State or of the U.S." Lansing v. Smith, 21 D. 89., 4 Wendel 9, 1829, New York Court of Appeals. [Verified sources: WestLaw at ASU Law ; ]

3) Statutes don't apply to you... "[I]n common usage, the term 'person' does not include the sovereign, [and] statutes employing the phrase are ordinarily construed to exclude it." Wilson v. Omaha Indian Tribe, 442 U.S. 653 (1979), U.S. Supreme Court.
[Verified Source:…/442/653/case.html ]
4) "Sovereignty itself is, of course, not subject to law, for it is the author and source of law; but, in our system, while sovereign powers are delegated to the agencies of government, sovereignty itself remains with the people, by whom and for whom all government exists and acts. And the law is the definition and limitation of power." Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356 (1886), U.S. Supreme Court.
[Verified Source:…/118/356/case.html ]
A) "The "case or controversy" requirement of Art. III of the Constitution defines with respect to the Judicial Branch the idea of separation of powers on which the Federal Government is founded, and the Art. III doctrine of "standing" has a core constitutional component that a plaintiff must allege personal injury fairly traceable to the defendant's allegedly unlawful conduct and likely to be redressed by the requested relief." Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S. 737 (1984), U.S. Supreme Court. [Verified Source:…/468/737/case.html ]
B) 'Body of Evidence' of a 'Crime'... "Corpus delicti consists of a showing of 1) the occurrence of the specific kind of injury and 2) someone's criminal act as the cause of the injury." Johnson v. State, 653 N.E.2d 478, 479 (1995), Supreme Court of Indiana.
[Verified Source:…/19951131653NE2d478_11…/JOHNSON%20v.%20STATE ]
C) “the State must produce corroborating evidence of “corpus delecti,” showing that injury or harm constituting crime occurred and that injury or harm was caused by someone’s criminal activity.” Jorgensen v. State, 567 N.E.2d 113, 121 (1991), Court of Appeals of Indiana, 4th District. [Verified Source:…/1991680567NE2d113_1…/JORGENSEN%20v.%20STATE ]
D) “To establish the corpus delecti, independent evidence must be presented showing the occurrence of a specific kind of injury and that a criminal act was the cause of the injury.” Porter v. State, 391 N.E.2d 801, 808-809 (1979), Supreme Court of Indiana.
[Verified Source:…/19791192391NE2d801_111…/PORTER%20v.%20STATE ]
E) ALSO: ""the duty of this Court, as of every judicial tribunal, is limited to determining rights of persons or of property, which are actually controverted in the particular case before it." Tyler v. Judges of Court of Registration, 179 U.S. 405 (1900), and California v. San Pablo & Tulare R. Co., 149 U.S. 308 (1893), U.S. Supreme Court. [Verified Sources:…/179/405/case.html ;…/149/308/case.html ]
Is that sufficient to PROVE absolutely that YOU DO NOT have to obey ANY written legislation or your hired 'Public Servants' and are not 'subject'/'subordinate' to ANYTHING ANYONE tells you or ANY written 'colorable law', UNLESS you either Consent OR cause some sort of 'injury' (harm, loss, threat, infringement of any equal right, etc.) to some other Human Being against their will, and NOT when acting in REASONABLE (not excessive) defense of ones-self or others or another? (I.E. Boxing is a 'Right', not a 'Crime', for example, as it would be my right to settle a dispute with another man with 'fisticuffs', if we both CONSENTED, and I have seen a video where the cops actually DID respect this, and this did happen!). CAN ANYONE FIND ANY FLAW IN THIS ARGUMENT? Can anyone show ANY POSSIBLE WAY that ANY of our hired Public Servants' can 'Lawfully' ignore or over-rule ANY of this?
Per Art. 6 of the U.S. Constitution, Art.2, Sec.3 of the Az. Constitution, and the Oaths sworn by all Arizona 'Public Servants' per ARS 38-231(under any form of law: Constitutional, Equity, Common, Admiralty, Maritime, Commercial, Contract, or any other), these are binding upon ALL of them, and it is a crime to 'make or enforce' 'any Thing to the Contrary' (See Amend. 14, U.S. Const., and Art. 6)... ; ;
And when the cops try to say the "State" does not mean you and me... State, noun, means: "A body politic, or society of men united together for the purpose of promoting their mutual safety and advantage, by the joint efforts of their combined strength. Cooley, Const. Lim. 1. One of the component commonwealths or states of the United States of America. The people of a state, in their collective capacity, considered as the party wronged by a criminal deed; the public; as in the title of a cause. "The State vs. A. B." The section of territory occupied by one of the United States." [Blacks Law Dictionary, 2nd Edition,]

No comments:

Post a Comment

Place your comment. The moderator will review it after it is published. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason.