von_Christendom
Nationalist Times Guru
Joined: 19 February 2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 157
|
| Posted: 06 April 2007 at 7:36am | IP Logged
|
|
|
UNLAWFUL "PATRIOT ACT" INVESTIGATIONS & PROTECTION REMEDIES
As we've been hearing so many cases being opened against the US DOJ in
regards to illegal infestations of normal law abiding citizens, such as
the wiretapping for data mining, etc. Not to mention all the Anti-War
protesters & other types being detained and interrogated by the
FBI. The FBI may have done all sorts of investigations only allowable
under the "Patriot Act". The thing is the Patriot Act is
unconstitutional and illegal.
The solutions are very easy as
far as filing a lawsuit against such officers for any injury &
damages inflicted by their violation. The law and many federal cases
have also decided that they can get a redress of grievances through
such unconstitutional injuries & damages which were thereby
inflicted:
"No suit can be sustained against a state; but an
unconstitutional law affords no justification to a state officer for an
act injurious to an individual. The officer is not the state, and can
set up no exemption under it, unless he act within
the authority of law." Astrom v Hammond (1842), 2 Fed.Cas, 71, Fed.Cas.No. 596, 3 Mclean 107.
"No
officer can acquire jurisdiction by deciding he has it. The officer,
whether judicial or ministerial, decides at his own peril."Middleton v.
Low (1866), 30 C. 596, citing Prosser v. Secor (1849), 5 Barb.(N.Y)
607, 608.
"The innocent individual who is harmed by an abuse of governmental authority
is assured that he will be compensated for his injury." Owens v. City of Independence,
100 S.Ct 1398 (1980)
" ...If one individual does not possess such a right over the conduct of another
[Good and Lawful Christian Man], no number of individuals [in a deliberative
body] can possess such a right. All combinations, therefore, to effect such an
object, are injurious, not only to the individuals particularly oppressed, but to the
public at large."People v. Fisher, 14 Wend.(N.Y.) 9, 28 Am.Dec. 501
"Non dat qui non habet---He gives nothing who has nothing."Bouvier's Law
Dictionary (1914),"Maxim,"p.2149, [No legislative body or man can convey any authority or
jurisdiction he does not possess over common Rights vested by God to another. Because legislative
powers are limited, all powers derived from legislative acts are limited.]
"The claim and exercise of a Constitutional Right cannot be converted into a crime." Miller v. U.S.
Article 19 of the United Nations Human Rights Charter reads: "Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression;
this
right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to
seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and
regardless of frontiers."
"Constitutional rights may not be infringed simply because the majority
of the people choose that they be." Westbrook v. Mihaly 2 C3d 756
"Government may not prohibit or control the conduct of a person for
reasons that infringe upon constitutionally guaranteed freedoms." Smith
v. U.S. 502 F2d 512 CA Tex (1974)
"There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of his
exercise of Constitutional rights." Sherar v. Cullen 481 F. 946
"Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no
rule-making or legislation which would abrogate them." U.S. Supreme
Court in Miranda v. Arizona 380 U.S. 436 (1966)
"A plaintiff who seeks damages for violation of constitutional or
statutory rights may overcome the defendant official's qualified
immunity only by showing that those rights were clearly established at
the time of the conduct at issue." Davis v. Scherer, 82 L.Ed.2d 139,151.
"An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties;
affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation, as
inoperative as though it had never been passed." -- Norton vs. Shelby County,
118, US 425 p. 442
"All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void." --
Marbury vs. Madison, 5 US 137, 174, 176 (1803)
"Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many Citizens because of respect for the law,
are cunningly coerced into waiving their rights due to ignorance." U.S. v. Minker, 350 U.S. 179, 187
"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 unconstitutionality dates from the time of it's enactment, and not
merely from the date of the decision so branding it. No one is bound to obey an
unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it." -- 16 Am Jur 2d, Sec. 177,
late 2d, Sec 256
"No agreement with a foreign nation can confer power on the Congress, or on
any other branch of government, which is free from the resraints of the
Constitution." Supreme Court in Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1 (1957)
"Invito
beneficium non datur- No one is obliged to accept a benefit against his
consent." Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914), "Maxim," p, 2140).[No
officer can compel any Good and Lawful Man to get a license, benefit,
or privilege in commerce.]
"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 investigation... He owes no 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 the law and in accordance with
the Constitution. He owes nothing to the public so long as he does not
trespass upon their rights." Hale v. Henkle 201 U.S. 43 at 74
"That the majority shall prevail is a rule
posterior
to the formation of government, and results from it. It is not a rule
binding upon mankind in their natural state. There, every man is
independent of all laws, except those prescribed by nature. He is not
bound by any institutions formed by his fellowmen without his consent."
CRUDEN v. NEALE, 2 N.C. 338 (1796) 2 S.E. 70. Emphasis added.
“Time does not confirm a void act.” California Civil Code section 3539
"The Constitution is to be construed with respect to the law existing at the time
of it's adoption and as securing to the individual citizen the rights inherited by him
under English Law, and not with reference to new guarantees." --Mattox vs. U.S.,
156 US 237, 15 Sup Ct. 337, 39 L. Ed. 409
"It [U.S. Constitution] must be interpreted in the light of Common Law, the
principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the
Constitution. The language of the Constitution could not be understood without
reference to the Common Law." -- U.S. vs. Wong Kim, Ark, 169 US 649, 18 S. Ct. 456
"The Constitution is to be interpreted according to Common Law Rules." --
Schick vs. U.S., 195 US 65, 24 Sup. Ct. 826, 49 L. Ed. 99
"...a Statute will not be construed so as to overrule a principle of established
Common Law, unless it is made plain by the act that such a change in the
established law is intended." -- Starkey Construction Inc. vs. Elcon, Inc., 248 Ark 958, 978A,
457 SW 2nd 509, 7 U.C.C.RS 923
"The
'sovereignty' of the United States consists of the powers existing in
the people as a whole and the persons to whom they have delegated it,
and not as a separate personal entity, and as such it does not possess
the personal privileges of the sovereign of England; and the
government, being restrained by a written Constitution, cannot take
property without compensation, as can the English government by act of
king, lords, and Parliament." Filbin Corporation v. United States,
D.C.S.C., 266 F. 911, 914.
"In the United States, sovereignty
resides in the people who act through the organs established by the
Constitution. The Congress as the instrumentality of sovereignty is
endowed with certain powers to be exerted on behalf of the people in
the manner and with the effect the Constitution ordains. The Congress
cannot invoke the sovereign power of the people to override their will
as thus declared." Perry v U.S., 294 U.S. 330,353 (1935).
'When
the validity of an act of Congress is drawn in question, and even if a
serious doubt of constitutionality is raised, it is a cardinal
principle that this Court will first ascertain whether a construction
of the statute is fairly possible by which the question may be
avoided.' Crowell v. Benson, 285 US 22,62."
Title 42 USC, Section1983:
"Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation,
custom, or usage, of any State or territory, or the District of
Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the
United States, or other person within the jurisdiction thereof, to the
deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the
Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an
action at law, suit in equity or other proper proceedings for redress."
(Notice that this statute recognizes the fact that "statutes,
ordinances, and regulations" together with "custom", can be
unconstitutional and violate our rights. Where they do so, it is up to
us to challenge their jurisdiction over us. Failure to challenge
jurisdiction at the first instance of a rights violation can be fatal
to your case, and will be seen as an admission that the law in question
does indeed have lawful jurisdiction over you.)
"To
maintain an action under 42 USC 1983, it is not necessary to allege or
prove that the defendants intended to deprive plaintiff of his
Constitutional rights or that they acted willfully, purposefully, or in
a furtherance of a conspiracy. . . it is sufficient to establish that
the deprivation. . . was the natural consequences of defendants acting
under color of law. . . ." Ethridge v. Rhodos, DC Ohio 268 F Supp 83
(1967), Whirl v. Kern CA 5 Texas 407 F 2d 781 (1968)
Title 18
United States Code, Section 241, provides that... "any person who goes
on the highway in disguise to prevent or hinder the free exercise and
enjoyment of any right so secured by law...shall be fined not more than
$10,000.00 or imprisoned not more than ten years or both."
Further,
Title 18, United States Code, Section 242, provides for one or more
persons who, under color of law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or
custom, willfully subjects any inhabitant of any state, territory, or
district to the deprivation of rights, privileges, or immunities
secured by the Constitution, or laws of the United States... shall be
fined not more than $1,000 or imprisoned not more than one year or both.
Title
18, United States Code, Section 242, with its color of law provision,
gives a cause of action to apply Title 18, United States Code, Section
241, because Section 241 needs two persons in disguise and Section 242
provides the second person under color of law as the "QUASI SUMMONS"
mentioned herein implies that a judge in the Municipal Court is acting
in concert to commit an overt act of fraud and extortion for conversion.
Further,
United States Code, Title 18, section 242 provides for one or more
persons who, under color of law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or
custom, willfully subjects any inhabitant of any state, territory, or
district to the deprivation of rights, privileges, or immunities
secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States.
. . shall be fined not more than $1,000 or imprisoned not more than one
year or both.
BOTTOM LINE IN REGARDS TO THE PATRIOT ACT:
"An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties;
affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation, as
inoperative as though it had never been passed." -- Norton vs. Shelby County,
118, US 425 p. 442
"All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void." --
Marbury vs. Madison, 5 US 137, 174, 176 (1803)
Keep
records of any injury you have have sustained as well as witnesses of
their precise illegal actions that resulted in an injury.
source: http://christsassembly.com/watchman_reporters/index.php/topi c,338.new.html#new
|
Topic: UNLAWFUL "PATRIOT ACT" INVESTIGATIONS & P
