[Akira]

Greetings All....



PERFECTED COMMON LAW ARGUEMENT FOR NO LICENSES ! (and more)



This arguement was perfected by Carl Miller, a Counselor at Law for over 25 years. He won more than 99% of his cases using this arguement.



Know these arguements inside and out. Read the complete cases, the Judge may test you. Memorize the rhetoric, and practice before a mirror and friends. When in court, give your arguements as quickly as possible, as it will impress the judge. Also, make a point to have your costs written up in a proposed order for the Judge, already attached to your brief, it intimidates the heck out of the district attorney.



I have included the arguements here.... but for a much cleaner copy, goto the Downloads/Common Law section. The file/link is here.



For HIS Glory,

Akira





-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Your Constitution is an Iron Clad Contract, enforceable in a Court of Law.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------





YOUR HONOR:



I'm Xxxxxx Xxxxxxxxxxx, here before this honorable court.

I am an unenfranchised common law freeman. I live at the common law.



(Counselor at Law addon: "I'm not a participant in any tautine schemes,

of limited liability on a joint venture for profit with an insurable interest

requiring me to participate in these illegal corporate ponzi schemes." )



I'm just your average "Joe"...., Joe Blow from Kokomo, down on the street.

and I live, work, and travel at the common law. " )



(Counselor at Law / Right to Work addon: " A workman is worthy of his

hire, and I have a Right to Work and Contract MY Labor and MY skill

and MY Time of Life as I see FIT. Not as some 3rd party arbitrary

and coprecious BAR Association sees fit." )



I am standing as my own "a-counsel". I have appointed myself as my own

attorney and I am ready to procede in my administrative and procedural matters.



At this time , your honor, may it please the court, I motion for dismissal with

predjudice, for failure to state a cause of action for which relief can be granted.



(when the Judge asks "why"... give your arguements, as follows...)





U.S. Constitution, Article Six, Clause 2: (The Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution)

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 Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.





Marbury v. Madison : 5 US 137 (1803):

“No provision of the Constitution is designed to be without effect,” “Anything that is in conflict is null and void of law”, “Clearly, for a secondary law to come in conflict with the supreme Law was illogical, for certainly, the supreme Law would prevail over all other laws and certainly our forefathers had intended that the supreme Law would be the bases of all law and for any law to come in conflict would be null and void of law, it would bare no power to enforce, in would bare no obligation to obey, it would purport to settle as if it had never existed, for unconstitutionality would date from the enactment of such a law, not from the date so branded in an open court of law, no courts are bound to uphold it, and no Citizens are bound to obey it. It operates as a near nullity or a fiction of law.”



(If any statement, within any law, which is passed, is unconstitutional, the whole law is unconstitutional.)





Shapiro v. Thompson : 394 US 618 (1969):

"The constitutional right to travel from one State to another . . . has been firmly established and repeatedly recognized." United States v. Guest, 383 U.S. 745, 757. This constitutional right, which, of course, includes the right of "entering and abiding in any State in the Union," Truax v. Raich, 239 U.S. 33, 39, is not a mere conditional liberty subject to regulation and control under conventional (394 U.S. 618, 643) due process or equal protection standards. "The right to travel freely from State to State finds constitutional protection that is quite independent of the Fourteenth Amendment." United States v. Guest, supra, at 760, n. 17. As we made clear in Guest, it is a right broadly assertable against private interference as well as governmental action. Like the right of association, NAACP v. Alabama, 357 U.S. 449, it is a virtually unconditional personal right, guaranteed by the Constitution to us all. "



(Clearly establishes a right to travel.)





(Travel addon: "The State of Xxxxxxx arbitrarily and erroneously converted

my right into a priviledge, and issued a license and a fee for it." )





Mudook v. Penn. : 319 US 105 (1943):

“A state may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the Federal Constitution and that a flat license tax here involves restraints in advance the constitutional liberties of Press and Religion and inevitably tends to suppress their existence. That the ordinance is non-discriminatory and that is applies also to peddlers of wares and merchandise is immaterial. The liberties granted by the first amendment are and in a preferred position. Since the privilege in question is guaranteed by the Federal Constitution and exist independently of the states authority , the inquiry as to whether the state has given something for which it cannot ask a return, is irrelevant. No state may convert any secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it.”





And If They Do ............





Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham Al.: 373 US 262 (1962):

“If the state does convert your right into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it, you can ignore the license and a fee and engage the right with impunity.”





That Means You Can't Punish Me.........





United States v. Bishop 412 US 346 (1973):

Sets the standard for criminal violation of Willful Intent



1. It must be proven that you are the party.

2. It must be proven that you had the method or opportunity to do the thing.

3. It must be proven that you did this with a Willful Intent.



Willfulness - “An evil motive or intent to avoid a know duty or task under a law, with a moral certainty.”





I submit your Honor, I couldn't have done an evil task, because I was totally following the Constitution and the U.S. Supreme Court. I would submit that Prosecution Counsel's burden is to prove I did willfully and knowingly avoid a known duty or task under the law, namely, to get the license. And I would submit that, and specificly proclude that, he cannot perform his task.





Byars v. United States 273USR 28 (1927):

“Constitutional provisions, where the security of a person and property are to be liberally construed, and it is the duty of the courts to be watchful for the constitutional rights of the Citizen and against any stealth encroachment therein.





16Am Jur 2d., Sec. 97:

“Any constitutional provision intended to confer a benefit should be liberally construed in favor in the clearly intended and expressly designated beneficiary”





And I Am That Beneficiary !!!



WHEREFORE your Honor, I pray before this Honorable Court for your Just and Lawful relief. I ask that you dismiss this case with predjudice, for failure to state a cause of action for which relief can be granted, and I pray the court for my just relief for having to defend this badly frivilous and spurious case. I have a proposed order, which outlines my costs, in my brief, your Honor, may it please the court.



(now sit down, shut up and be humble ! )



-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



By removing Shapiro v. Thompson you have a arguement against ALL state issued licenses.



In theory, all rights should be defendable using the above arguement(s) as a "springboard".



For example: Access to your children after Article I courts gave you "visitation" or a Protection from Abuse Order



Use the right of travel arguement, plus:



Maxim of law: Government can only control what it creates. (The power which is derived cannot be greater than that from which it is derived.)



"God blessed me with my children. God alone may take them from me, unless you can lawfully show damages in an Article 3 common law court."



Hurtado v. California 110 US 516 (1884):

"The state cannot diminish rights of the people."



Watson v Memphis, 375 U.S. 526 (1964):

"Constitutional rights may not be denied simply because of hostility to their assertion and exercise. Vindication of conceded constitutional rights cannot be made dependent upon any theory that it is less expensive to deny them than to afford them."



Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US 436 at 491 (1966):

"Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them."



Miller v. US, 230 F 486 at 489 (1913):

"the claim and exercise of a constitutional right shall not be converted into a crime."



Wright v. Georgia 373 US 284 (1964):

"Failure to obey the command of a police officer constitutes a traditional form of breach of the peace. Obviously, however, one cannot be punished for failing to obey the command of an officer if the command itself is violative of the constitution."



Mulger v. Kansas 123 US 623 (1887):

"The courts..... are under a solemn duty, to look at the substance of things, whenever they enter upon the inquiry whether the legislature has transcended the limits of its authority. If, therefore, a statute purporting to have been enacted to protect the public health, the public morals, or the public safety, has no real or substantial relation to those objects, or is a palpable invasion of rights secured by the fundamental law, it is the duty of the courts to so adjudge, and thereby give effect to the constitution. "

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Hmm.... Can We Make This Work?



16Am Jur 2d., Sec. 97 says:

“Any constitutional provision intended to confer a benefit should be liberally construed in favor in the clearly intended and expressly designated beneficiary”



If the Constitution is to be liberally construed in MY favor, based on MY "plain english" interpretation of what the Constitution says, then..........



Pursuant to the Full Faith and Credit clause, Article 4, section 1 of the Constitution of the United States of America read in conjunction with the Constitution of Xxxxxxx, no member of the bar can sit as judge or magistrate of any court of record. Any member of the bar that sits or attempts to sit on this court of record is in contempt of this court.



I believe the "Titles of Nobelity Amendment" was our Founding Father's "hind sight" attempt to clarify Article 4 section 1 and to reemphasize the extreme importance of securing government from a clearly percieved external threat.





Anyway, you get the idea..............



If they give you a hard time about jurisdiction, use one or two of the court cites listed below in "additional Ammo" or use this approach to "move them" to a common law court. http://www.suijuris.net/main/suijuri...sit.php?lid=14



Make certain to get a copy of the Asset Forfeiture Manual at Sui Juris.net http://www.suijuris.net/main/suijuri...sit.php?lid=59



Now go kick their butts!



For HIS Glory,

Akira



-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



I have been individually endowed by Almighty God with certain unalienable Rights. That among these are the Right to:



1) Life

2) Own, Care For, Control, And Provide For My Own Body;

3) Reproduce;

4) Care For, Control, And Provide For My Own Children;

5) Liberty;

6) Defend All Rights Of Myself, My Family, And My Fellow Man;

7) Own, Possess, Move and Convey Property;

8) Pursue Happiness;

9) Privacy;

10) Worship God in my own way;

11) Free Speech, Teach, Publish and Assemble;

12) Keep and Bear Arms;

13) Cultivate, Possess, And Bestow All Fruits Of Nature And Of Nature’s God In Accordance With

The Will Of Almighty God As Recorded In Genesis Chapter One Verse Twenty Nine;

14) Contract;

15) Establish Commerce;

16) Free Enterprise;

17) Unimpeded Movement;

18) Own, Possess, Maintain And Operate A Means of Travel;

19) A Republican Form Of Government;

20) Be Presumed Innocent;

21) Assistance Of Counsel;

22) Due Process Of Law, Equal Protection of Law

23) Know The Nature And Cause Of Any Accusation Or Action Against Me And To Be Provided

With A Written Copy Thereof;

24) Confront All Accusers;

25) Trial By Jury In A Court Of Record According To The Rules Of The Common Law;

26) A Speedy Trial;

27) A Writ Of Habeas Corpus And All Other Common Law Rights;

28) Be Free From Standing Under Any And All Statutes, Codes, Ordinances, Or Rules Conflicting

with The Common Law;

29) Petition The Government For A Redress Of Grievances

30) Earn A Living;

31) Be Secure At All Times In The Exercise Of All My Rights, Unencumbered By Any Liens Or

Unlawful Trespass Of Any Kind.

32) Hunt and Fish

33) Practice Law

34) ?????????? ( contributions welcome )



-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



ADDITIONAL AMMO



Cohens v Virginia, 6 wheat (19 U.S.) 264, 404 (1821):

Chief Justice John Marshall said "We [public servants] have no more right to decline the jurisdiction which is given, than to usurp that which is not given. The one or the other would be treason to the constitution."



Ramsey v. Allegrie, 25 U.S. (12 Wheaton) 611, 631 (1827):

If the common law can try the cause and give full redress, that alone takes away the admiralty jurisdiction.



Hayburn's Case. 2 Dali.(2 U.S.) 409 (1792); Article #6 Clauses 2 and 3, U.S. Constitution:

"This Constitution is the supreme Law of the Land. All judicial officers of the united States are bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution."



U.S. v. Butler. 279 U.S. 116 (1929):

"The judicial branch has only one duty, to lay the Article of the Constitution which is involved beside the statute (rule or practice) which is challenged and to decide whether the latter squares with the former."



Boyd v. U.S., 116 U.S. 635 (1886):

"Constitutional provisions for the security of person and property should be liberally construed. It is the duty of the courts to be watchful of constitutional rights against any stealthy encroachments thereon."



Bary v. United States - 273 US 128 (1927):

“Then a constitution should receive a literal interpretation in favor of the Citizen, is especially true, with respect to those provisions which were designed to safeguard the liberty and security of the Citizen in regard to person and property.”



Emspak v. United States, 349 US 190 (1955):

"the courts must indulge every reasonable presumption against waiver of fundamental constitutional rights."



Edwards v. California 314 US 160 (1941):

Justice Douglas maintained that the privileges and immunities clause was the proper basis for the holding and further insisted that freedom of movement was a right of national citizenship binding upon the states and recognized as such by Crandall v. Nevada (73 US 35) before the 14th Amendment was ratified."



Kent v. Dulles, 357 U.S. 116,125 (1958):

The right to travel is a part of the "liberty" of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment. So much is conceded by the solicitor general. In Anglo Saxon law that right was emerging at least as early as Magna Carta.



Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U.S. 352 (1983):

you can not be charged with failure to identify, until you have been charged with a crime.



Norton v. Shelby County 118 USR 425 (1886):

“An unconstitutional act is not law. It confers no rights, it imposes no duties, it affords no protections, it creates no office. It is in legal contemplation as inoperative as though it has never been passed.”

“The court follows the decision of the highest court of the state, in construing the constitution and the laws of the state unless they conflict with or impair the efficacy of some principle of the Federal Constitution or of the Federal Statutes or rule of the commercial or general law. The decision of the state court’s in questions relating to the existence of its subordinate tribunals and eligibility in elections or appointment of their officers and the passage of its laws are conclusive upon Federal Courts. While acts of de facto incumbent of an office lawfully created by law. An existing or often held to be binding from reasons of public policy. The acts of the person assuming to fill and perform the duties of an office, which does not exist, can have no validity whatever in law.”



Miranda v. Arizona 384 US 436 (1966):

Where the Miranda warning the police gives at arrest, comes from. Refuse to say anything without a lawyer present. Do not ever sign a statement that you have been told of your rights. Keep your mouth shut!

“In the absence of other effective measures, the following procedures to safeguard the fifth amendment privileges must be observed. The person in custody must prior to interrogation be clearly informed that he has a right to remain silent and that anything he says will be used against him in a court of law. He must be clearly informed that he has a right to consult with a lawyer, to have a lawyer with him during interrogation and that if he is indigent, a lawyer will be appointed to represent him. If the individual indicates prior to and during questioning that he wishes to remain silent, the interrogation must cease. If he states that he wants an attorney, the questioning must cease until an attorney is present. Where an interrogation is conducted without the presence of an attorney and a statement is taken, a heavy burden rests on the government to demonstrate that the defendant knowingly and intelligently waived his constitutional consul right. Where the individual answers some questions during interrogation or cuts the interrogation, he has not waived his privilege and may invoke his right to remain silent thereafter. The warnings require that the waver needed our, in the absence of a fully effective equivalent perquisites to the admission or admissibility of any statement, inculpability or exculpability made by the defendant. The limitations on the interrogation presses required for the protection of the individual’s constitutional rights should not cause an undue interference the proper system of law enforcement as demonstrated by the procedures of the FBI and the safeguards afforded to other jurisdictions. In each of these cases the statements were obtained under circumstances that did not meet constitutional standards for protection of the privilege against self incrimination.”

“Where rights secured by the constitution are involved, there can be no rule or law making or legislation which would abrogate or abolish them.”





American Juris Prudence



25Am Jur 1st., Highways Sec. 163:

The use of the highways for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege, but a common and fundamental Right of which the public and the individual cannot be rightfully deprived." [emphasis added] Chicago Motor Coach vs. Chicago, 169 NE 22; Ligare vs. Chicago, 28 NE 934; Boon vs. Clark, 214 SSW 607; .



25Am Jur 1st., Highways Sec. 260:

"In the addition to the requirement that regulations governing the use of the highways must not be violative of constitutional guarantees, the prime essentials of such regulations are reasonableness, impartiality and definiteness or certainty."



25Am Jur 1st., Highways Sec. 717:

"The term "travel" and "traveler" are usually construed in their broad and general sense...

so as to include all those who rightfully use the highways with viatically (when being reimbursed for expenses) and who have the occasion to pass over them for the purpose of business, convenience or pleasure."



16Am Jur 2d., Const. Law Sec. 70:

"No public policy of a state can be allowed to override the positive guarantees of the U.S. Constitution."



16Am Jur 2d., Const. Law Sec. 81:

"Economic necessity cannot justify a disregard of Constitutional guarantee."



16Am Jur 2d., Const. Law Sec. 98:

“While an emergency can not create power and no emergency justifies the violation of any of the provisions of the United States Constitution or States Constitutions. Public emergency such as economic depression for especially liberal construction of constitutional powers and it has been declared that because of national emergency, it is the policy of the courts of times of national peril, so liberally to construed the special powers vested in the chief executive as to sustain an effectuate the purpose there of, and to that end also more liberally to construed the constituted division and classification of the powers of the coordinate branches of the government and in so far as may not be clearly inconsistent with the constitution.”

(No emergency has just cause to suppress the constitution.)



16Am Jur 2d., Const. Law Sec. 114:

“As to the construction, with reference to Common Law, an important cannon of construction is that constitutions must be construed to reference to the Common Law.” “ The Common Law, so permitted destruction of the abatement of nuisances by summary proceedings and is was never supposed that a constitutional provision was intended to interfere with this established principle and although there is no common law of the United States in a since of a national customary law as distinguished from the common law of England, adopted in the several states. In interpreting the Federal Constitution, recourse may still be had to the aid of the Common Law of England. It has been said that without reference to the common law, the language of the Federal Constitution could not be understood.”



16Am Jur 2d., Const. Law Sec. 117:

“Various facts of circumstances extrinsic to the constitution are often resorted to, by the courts, to aid them and determining its meaning, as previously noted however, such extrinsic aids may not be resorted to where the provision in the question is clear and unambiguous in such a case the courts must apply the terms of the constitution as written and they are not at liberty to search for meanings beyond the instrument.”



16Am Jur 2d., Const. Law Sec. 155:

“Since the constitution is intendant for the observance of the judiciary as well as other departments of government and the judges are sworn to support its provisions, the courts are not at liberty to overlook or disregard its commands or counteract evasions thereof, it is their duty in authorized proceedings to give full effect to the existing constitution and to obey all constitutional provisions irrespective of their opinion as to the wisdom or the desirability of such provisions and irrespective of the consequences, thus it is said that the courts should be in our alert to enforce the provisions of the United States Constitution and guard against their infringement by legislative fiat or otherwise in accordance with these basic principles, the rule is fixed that the duty in the proper case to declare a law unconstitutional cannot be declined and must be performed in accordance with the delivered judgment of the tribunal before which the validity of the enactment it is directly drawn into question. If the Constitution prescribes one rule and the statute the another in a different rule, it is the duty of the courts to declare that the Constitution and not the statute governs in cases before them for judgment.



16Am Jur 2d., Const. Law Sec. 177:

“Declaratory judgments actions have often been utilized to test the constitutionality of a statute in government practices. The Uniform Declaratory Judgment Act makes pacific provisions of the determination of construction or validity of statutes and municipal ordinance by declaratory judgment and is considered to furnish a particularly appropriate method for the determination of controversies relative to the construction and validity of the statute and of ordinances. The Federal Declaratory Judgment Act, although it does not mention declarations as to the construction or validity of the statutes, has been invoked frequently as a means of a saying of the constitutionality of Congressional Legislation. A plaintiff can have a declaratory judgment action on the constitutionality of either the Federal or State statute by a single Federal Judge so long as he does not ask to have the operation of the statute enjoined. A court may grant declaratory relief, unless there is a case of controversy before the court.”

“No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law”

(Demand a Declaratory Judgment)



16Am Jur 2d., Const. Law Sec. 255:

“In all instances, where the court exercise it’s power to invalidate legislation on constitutional grounds, the conflict of the statute, with the constitution must be irreconcilable. Thus a statute is not to be declared unconstitutional unless so inconsistent with the constitution that it cannot be enforced without a violation thereof. A clear incompatibility between law and the constitution must exist before the judiciary is justified holding the law unconstitutional. This principle is of course in line with the rule that doubts as the constitutionality should be resolved in favor of the constitutionality and the beneficiary.”



16Am Jur 2d., Const. Law Sec. 256:

“The general rule is that a unconstitutional statute, whether Federal or State, though having the form and name of law as in reality no law, but is wholly void and ineffective for any purpose since unconstitutionality dates from the enactment and not merrily from the date of the decision so braining it. An unconstitutional law in legal contemplation is as inoperative as if it never had been passed. Such a statute lives a question that is purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not ever been enacted. No repeal of an enactment is necessary, since an unconstitutional law is void. The general principles follows that it imposes no duty, converse no rights, creates no office, bestows no power of authority on anyone, affords no protection and justifies no acts performed under it. A contract which rests on a unconstitutional statute creates no obligation to be impaired by subsequent legislation. No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law. No courts are bound to enforce it. Persons convicted and fined under a statute subsequently held unconstitutional may recover the fines paid. A void act cannot be legally inconsistent with a valid one and an unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede an existing valid law. Indeed, in so far as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby. Since an unconstitutional statute cannot repeal, or in anyway effect an existing one, if a repealing statute is unconstitutional, the statute which it attempts to repeal, remains in full force and effect and where a statute in which it attempts to repeal remains in full force and effect and where a clause repealing a prior law is inserted in the act, which act is unconstitutional and void, the provision of the repeal of the prior law will usually fall with it and will not be permitted to operate as repealing such prior law. The general principle stated above applied to the constitution as well as the laws of the several states insofar as they are repugnant to the constitution and laws of the United States.”



16Am Jur 2d., Const. Law Sec. 257:

“The actual existence of a statute prior to determination, that it is unconstitutional is an operative fact and may have consequences which can not justify being ignored, when a statute which has been in effect for some time is declared unconstitutional, questions of rights claimed to have become vested of status of prior determinations deemed to have finality an acted upon accordingly and of public policy in the light of the nature, both of the statute and of it’s previous application demand examination. It has been said that in all inclusive statement of the principle of absolute retroactive inviolability cannot be justified. An unconstitutional statute is not necessarily a nullity it may have indeterminate consequences binding on the people.”



16Am Jur 2d., Const. Law Sec. 258:

“On the other hand it is clear that Congress cannot by authorization or ratification give the slightest effect to a state law or constitution which is in conflict with the Constitution of the United States.”



16Am Jur 2d., Const. Law Sec. 260:

“Although it is manifested that an unconstitutional provision in the statute is not cured because included in the same act with valid provisions and that there is no degrees of constitutionality.”



16 Am. Jur. 2d, Const. Law Sec. 543:

"No freeman shall be taken, or imprisoned, or disseised, or outlawed, or exiled, or any wise destroyed; nor shall we go upon him, nor send upon him, but by lawful judgement of his peers or by the law of the land."





MISC



Title 18 US Code Sec. 241 & Sec. 242:

“If upon conviction, you are subject to a $10,000.00 fine, ten years in jail, or both, and if theft results, life in prison.”



Title 18 sect 2381 - Capitol Felony Treason:

In the presents of two or more witnesses of the same overt act, or in a open court of law, if you fail to timely move to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States and honor your oath of office, you are subject to the charge of capital felony treason.



Title 42 US Code Sec. 1983, Sec. 1985, & Sec. 1986:

Clearly established the right to sue anyone who violates your constitutional rights. The Constitution guarantees: he who would unlawfully jeopardize your property loses property to you, and that's what justice is all about.



Forrester v. White, 484 U.S. at 227-229, 108 S.Ct. at 544-545; Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. at 380, 98 S.Ct. at 1106. Mireles v. Waco, 112 S.Ct. 286 at 288 (1991):

A Judge is not immune for tortious acts committed in a purely Administrative, non-judicial capacity.



Owen v. Independence 100 Vol. Supreme Court Reports. 13981982)

Main v. Thiboutot 100 Vol. Supreme Court Reports. 25021982)

“The right of action created by statute relating to deprivation under color of law, of a right secured by the constitution and the laws of the United States and comes claims which are based solely on statutory violations of Federal Law and applied to the claim that claimants had been deprived of their rights, in some capacity, to which they were entitled.”

“Officers of the court have no immunity when violating constitutional right, from liability”

(When any public servant violates your rights they do so at their own peril.)



“Judge, you are deemed to know the law and are sworn to uphold it. You can hardly claim that you acted in good faith for willful deformation of a law and you certainly cannot pled ignorance of the law, for that would make the law look stupid for a knowledgeable judge to claim ignorance of a law, when a Citizen on the street cannot claim ignorance of the law. Therefore, there is no judicial immunity.”