Law Notes for Your Protection

[RJWILSON6200]

I put this together to help people that have been ripped off by the system. This information is not generally known, but it is the TRUTH… “and the truth shall set you free,”[ JESUS ]

NOTES of LAW
“ ALL RIGHTS RESERVED “ Speak up! Don’t sign anything without attaching this to your signature!! The Law Enforcement system PRESUMES that YOU are a 14th amendment citizen.{ Look this up. google it!} THE UCC 1 –207, (1-308) Slams their presumption and now…. The CONSTITUTION is an enforceable contract…..IN YOUR FAVOR! …And the 7th amendment is the kingpin from which it swings! So Demand a 7th amendment JURY to try the FACTS!

These law notes will give you POWER, “Knowelege IS Power” and why do you need this power!? Ever been Ripped off by the System!? Excessive Fines?, Judgements against you for Paperwork crimes ? (Mistakes on a 1040) ect. Said the wrong things in front of people , who then twisted what you said into charges against you!? The Law enforcement system presumes that you are waving your rights, and then will procede against you with charges , getting testimony from you, whatever it takes to get your hard earned money from you. That’s the bottom line , they after money!, not Justice and Liberty for all! HOWEVER if you establish your position up front , you are standing on your rights! , Rights they cannot trespass on without dire consequenses to them selves ..and they know it! Below are court rulings in your favor , This is your POWER, its like ammunition, use it (them) aginst people or courts that come against you. These rulings will put the brakes on right now ! Memorize them ,Get them written into the record, file Affidavits with the Sheriffs office , court clerks , judges , have it notorized , record it!

Platsky v. CIA 953 F.2d. 25…The Court Ruled….
THE JUDGE IS GUARIADIAN of YOUR LIBERTYS!!…If you are forced to go to court tell the judge this, right up front, before ANYTHING else!

Cohen v. Virginia, 19 U.S. 264 (1821)
The Court Ruled ,That “THE FEDERIALIST PAPERS”are…. [Came from the primary objective of THE MAGNA CARTA … to protect the people from summary judgements, that is, you being ripped off…no due process]… THE EXACT RECORD of the intent of the lawmakers.
[Intent of the lawmaker IS the LAW!]

Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616 , 6 S. Ct. 524
The Courts Duty is to Protect You.

United States v. Breyer , 829 F. Supp. 773
The Constitution is to be interpetded in favor of YOU! …Because you are the designated Benificary

Trinsey v. Pagliaro D.C.Pa. 1964, 229 F. Supp. 647. "Statements of counsel in brief or in argument are not facts before the court . Statements of counsel, in their briefs or their arguments are not sufficient for a motion to dismiss or for summary judgment.
Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105 (1943) No State can convert a * Secured liberty!! … And force you to get a license and pay a fee.
*A Secured Liberty was made possible when the US GOVERNMENT signed the contract with we the people,” THE CONSTITUTION” and that peice of paper secures your libertys (RIGHTS)! AND The Government is SWORN to uphold your RIGHTS! The Sheriff, police officers, government officers and employees, Judges, The D.A.…… ALL that work for we the people are SWORN!!

Police Powers…are SUBJECT to the Constitution!!…
9th and 10th Amendments Lock them out! From adding laws to remove your rights! And this means Probable Cause…. They must have a WARRANT!…[4th amendment] and that also means they cannot take your paycheck without a WARRANT! note; The SHERIFF in your county has a DUTY to protect you above all else , and that means Anyone who attempts trespass!


Jurisdiction; If all 4 legs were (are) not there …the table falls down …in otherwords if a summary judgement against you did not have 4 legs, IT falls under the Law of VOIDS… ripped off by child support orders!..or… Scam!.. Ect.??? Get the record of the judgement aginst you, does it measure up?

Law of VOIDS…Subject Matter Jurisdiction…4 Legs of Jurisdiction are required for a summary judgement to be valid!! = [1] 2 people opposing, [2] SMJ = Fact Finding ( Where are the facts before this court as to the claim against me?) [3] Sworn witnesses… Affidavits! ……challenge them!, are they sworn!? [4] Witnesses!! Petition for removal of summary judgements against you that don’t have 4 legs …because THEY are VOID. THAT’S the LAW, I don’t care if it was from 10 years ago! Because the LAW of VOIDS does not have a statute of limitations!!!!

[theghost]

Originally Posted by RJWILSON6200

NOTES of LAW

“ ALL RIGHTS RESERVED “ Speak up! And don’t sign anything without attaching this to your signature!! The Law Enforcement system PRESUMES that YOU are a 14th amendment citizen. THE UCC 1 –207 (1-308) Slams their presumption and now….

The CONSTITUTION is an enforceable contract…..IN YOUR FAVOR! …And the 7th amendment is the kingpin from which it swings! So Demand a 7th amendment JURY to try the FACTS!

Platsky v. CIA 953 F.2d. 25
THE JUDGE IS GURIADIAN of YOUR LIBERTYS!!…If you are forced to go to court tell the judge this, right up front, before ANYTHING else!

Cohen v. Virginia, 19 U.S. 264 (1821)
That “THE FEDERIALIST PAPERS” [came from the primary objective of THE MAGNA CARTA … to protect the people from summary judgements, that is, you being ripped off…no due process]…are THE EXACT RECORD of the intent of the lawmakers.
[Intent of the lawmaker IS the LAW!]

Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616 , 6 S. Ct. 524
The Courts Duty is to Protect You.

United States v. Breyer , 829 F. Supp. 773
The Constitution is to be interpetded in favor of YOU! …Because you are the designated Benificary

Trinsey v. Pagliaro D.C.Pa. 1964, 229 F. Supp. 647. "Statements of counsel in brief or in argument are not facts before the court . Statements of counsel, in their briefs or their arguments are not sufficient for a motion to dismiss or for summary judgment.

Police Powers…are SUBJECT to the Constitution!!
9th and 10th Amendments Lock them out! From adding to remove rights! And this means Probable Cause….They must have a WARRANT!…[4th amendment] note; The SHERIFF in your county has a DUTY to protect you above all else , and that means Anyone who attempts trespass!

Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105 (1943) No State can convert a Secured liberty!! And force you to get a license and pay a fee.

Jurisdiction if all 4 legs were not there …the table falls down …in otherwords if a summary judgement against you did not have 4 legs IT falls under the Law of VOIDS… ripped off by the child support orders! Scam!.. Ect.???

Law of VOIDS…Subject Matter Jurisdiction…4 Legs = [1] 2 people opposing, [2] SMJ = Fact Finding ( Where are the facts before this court as to the claim against me?) [3] Sworn witnesses… Affidavits! ……challenge them!, are they sworn!? [4] Witnesses!! Petition for removal of summary judgements against you that don’t have 4 legs …because THEY are VOID.

Couldn't DISagree with this post more. The only part I agree with is the importance of reserving your rights, the rest is crap, especially the parts about the police and the courts having a duty to protect you. Marc Stevens does a wonderful job of busting those myths in Adventures in Legal Land, with plenty of "case law" to back it up,.....not that "case law" means a damn thing to any of us. I have numerous instances of my own where my sheriff refused to protect me, let alone return a letter or a phone call, or meet with me. Sheriff's are are no longer protectors of the people, they are politicians. They absolutely do NOT have to protect you, and I can assure you, they won't.

[Shuftin]

Originally Posted by theghost

I have numerous instances of my own where my sheriff refused to protect me, let alone return a letter or a phone call, or meet with me. Sheriff's are are no longer protectors of the people, they are politicians. They absolutely do NOT have to protect you, and I can assure you, they won't.

People have no right to expect the police to protect them from crime. The police don’t even have to come when called. Depending on a police response means relying solely on the telephone as your defensive weapon. Too often citizens in trouble dial 911 . . . and DIE!

Americans increasingly believe, however, that all they need for protection is a telephone. Dial 911 and the police will come straight to the rescue.

Incredible as it may seem the courts have ruled that the police are not obligated to even respond to your calls for help, even in life threatening situations. Police do very little to prevent violent crime. They investigate crime after the fact.

Bowers v. DeVito, 686 F.2d 616 (7th Cir. 1982) (no federal constitutional requirement that police provide protection)

Calogrides v. Mobile, 475 So. 2d 560 (Ala. 1985); Cal Govt. Code 845 (no liability for failure to provide police protection)

Calogrides v. Mobile, 846 (no liability for failure to arrest or to retain arrested person in custody)

Davidson v. Westminster, 32 Cal.3d 197, 185, Cal. Rep. 252; 649 P.2d 894 (1982) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)

Stone v. State 106 Cal.App.3d 924, 165 Cal Rep. 339 (1980) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)

Morgan v. District of Columbia, 468 A.2d 1306 (D.C.App. 1983) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)

Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C.App 1981) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)

Sapp v. Tallahassee, 348 So.2d 363 (Fla. App. 1st Dist.), cert. denied 354 So.2d 985 (Fla. 1977); Ill. Rec. Stat. 4-102 (no liability for failure to provide police protection)

Keane v. Chicago, 98 Ill. App.2d 460, 240 N.E.2d 321 (1st Dist. 1968) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)

Jamison v. Chicago, 48 Ill. App. 3d 567 (1st Dist. 1977) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)

Simpson's Food Fair v. Evansville, 272 N.E.2d 871 (Ind. App.) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)

Silver v. Minneapolis, 170 N.W.2d 206 (Minn. 1969) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)

Wuetrich V. Delia, 155 N.J. Super. 324, 326, 382, A.2d 929, 930 cert. denied 77 N.J. 486, 391 A.2d 500 (1978) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)

Chapman v. Philadelphia, 290 Pa. Super. 281, 434 A.2d 753 (Penn. 1981) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)

Morris v. Musser, 84 Pa. Cmwth. 170, 478 A.2d 937 (1984) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)

[theghost]

Shuftin, thanks for the citations, and helping to prove my point. I didn't have my Adventures in Legal Land handy. Just for the record, when I called upon the sheriff to protect me, I knew full well that he wouldn't, just wanted to establish evidence for future action(s).

[FreeFromContract]

Originally Posted by RJWILSON6200

NOTES of LAW

“ ALL RIGHTS RESERVED “ Speak up! And don’t sign anything without attaching this to your signature!! The Law Enforcement system PRESUMES that YOU are a 14th amendment citizen. THE UCC 1 –207 (1-308) Slams their presumption and now….

The CONSTITUTION is an enforceable contract…..IN YOUR FAVOR! …And the 7th amendment is the kingpin from which it swings! So Demand a 7th amendment JURY to try the FACTS!

Platsky v. CIA 953 F.2d. 25
THE JUDGE IS GURIADIAN of YOUR LIBERTYS!!…If you are forced to go to court tell the judge this, right up front, before ANYTHING else!

Cohen v. Virginia, 19 U.S. 264 (1821)
That “THE FEDERIALIST PAPERS” [came from the primary objective of THE MAGNA CARTA … to protect the people from summary judgements, that is, you being ripped off…no due process]…are THE EXACT RECORD of the intent of the lawmakers.
[Intent of the lawmaker IS the LAW!]

Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616 , 6 S. Ct. 524
The Courts Duty is to Protect You.

United States v. Breyer , 829 F. Supp. 773
The Constitution is to be interpetded in favor of YOU! …Because you are the designated Benificary

Trinsey v. Pagliaro D.C.Pa. 1964, 229 F. Supp. 647. "Statements of counsel in brief or in argument are not facts before the court . Statements of counsel, in their briefs or their arguments are not sufficient for a motion to dismiss or for summary judgment.

Police Powers…are SUBJECT to the Constitution!!
9th and 10th Amendments Lock them out! From adding to remove rights! And this means Probable Cause….They must have a WARRANT!…[4th amendment] note; The SHERIFF in your county has a DUTY to protect you above all else , and that means Anyone who attempts trespass!

Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105 (1943) No State can convert a Secured liberty!! And force you to get a license and pay a fee.

Jurisdiction if all 4 legs were not there …the table falls down …in otherwords if a summary judgement against you did not have 4 legs IT falls under the Law of VOIDS… ripped off by the child support orders! Scam!.. Ect.???

Law of VOIDS…Subject Matter Jurisdiction…4 Legs = [1] 2 people opposing, [2] SMJ = Fact Finding ( Where are the facts before this court as to the claim against me?) [3] Sworn witnesses… Affidavits! ……challenge them!, are they sworn!? [4] Witnesses!! Petition for removal of summary judgements against you that don’t have 4 legs …because THEY are VOID.

Nice collection of cites RJ, provided their intent is as you've paraphrased. Let me emphasize a couple with commentary:

Cohen v. Virginia, 19 U.S. 264 (1821)
That “THE FEDERIALIST PAPERS” [came from the primary objective of THE MAGNA CARTA … to protect the people from summary judgements, that is, you being ripped off…no due process]…are THE EXACT RECORD of the intent of the lawmakers.
[Intent of the lawmaker IS the LAW!

The founder's had very specific foundations in law (common law) and current events (they had just kicked the King's A$$) in debating the content of the constitution. There was heavy reliance in the common law as it stood at that time! Don't let some of the ghouls on this site pull one over on you. Most (all?) of the Constitutions of the 50 States have a clause concerning Common Law.

Don't let the ghouls tell you the common law is changing. It's NOT! It is was well established by Blackstone exactly what the common laws consisted. The boundaries and function of the common law was well defined at the time the Constitution was signed.

Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105 (1943) [No State can convert a Secured liberty!! And force you to get a license and pay a fee.]

This is the roadblock to Shoonra's misguided efforts to illustrate that nobody has a right to travel in their own private automobile without a license. No matter how hard she tries to twist it, there was nowhere in the common law that provided for licensing of anyone (even those in transporting goods/merchandise in horse drawn carts or wagons in commerce) on the king's roads.

The common conveyance back then was on carts and wagons by horses, on horse and by foot and of course boat or canoe by water.

The common conveyances today are much different, but there can be no licensing requirement to travel in one's private capacity as illustrated by the above (and many other) cites (many of which are available on SJ).

[psholtz]

Originally Posted by theghost

Sheriff's are are no longer protectors of the people, they are politicians. They absolutely do NOT have to protect you, and I can assure you, they won't.

My understanding is that the word "sheriff" actually descends from "shire reeve"... a "reeve" being old English for "tax collector"..

In other words, the "sheriff" was the guy who went around collecting taxes in your little local shire.

Not exactly someone who's playing for your "team"..

[Tigron-X]

"Statements of counsel in brief or in argument are not facts before the court . Statements of counsel, in their briefs or their arguments are not sufficient for a motion to dismiss or for summary judgment. "

Is that a long winded way of saying opinions aren't facts?

[gldskr]

Originally Posted by RJ

NOTES of LAW
“ ALL RIGHTS RESERVED “ Speak up! Don’t sign anything without attaching this to your signature!! The Law Enforcement system PRESUMES that YOU are a 14th amendment citizen.{ Look this up. google it!} THE UCC 1 –207, (1-308) Slams their presumption and now…. The CONSTITUTION is an enforceable contract…..IN YOUR FAVOR! …And the 7th amendment is the kingpin from which it swings! So Demand a 7th amendment JURY to try the FACTS!

This is total BS. Writing "All Rights Reserved" will only reserve those rights that pertain to your entity and the black robe will do that anyway. It does nothing to reserve your unalienable rights because that would be an oxymoron. Unalienable rights don't need to be reserved, by definition they're unalienable, duh!

If the law enforcement system presumes you are a 14th amendment citizen, signing ARR only enhances their position and proves the jurisdiction.

The constitution, as a trust document between the USofA and the states, is enforcible in the de jure and de facto, but unless you are enforcing the right one, you may be dissapointed.

RJ, cut and paste won't cut it, you need to think for yourself.

gldskr

[robhalford88]

Originally Posted by FreeFromContract

This is the roadblock to Shoonra's misguided efforts to illustrate that nobody has a right to travel in their own private automobile without a license. No matter how hard she tries to twist it, there was nowhere in the common law that provided for licensing of anyone (even those in transporting goods/merchandise in horse drawn carts or wagons in commerce) on the king's roads.

The common conveyance back then was on carts and wagons by horses, on horse and by foot and of course boat or canoe by water.

The common conveyances today are much different, but there can be no licensing requirement to travel in one's private capacity as illustrated by the above (and many other) cites (many of which are available on SJ).

See, the deal is that we are all cotenants in common with the roads.
In theory, we own everything and the gov holds it in trust for us.
Why would we need the permission of the trustee to use our own property?

Originally Posted by psholtz

My understanding is that the word "sheriff" actually descends from "shire reeve"... a "reeve" being old English for "tax collector"..

In other words, the "sheriff" was the guy who went around collecting taxes in your little local shire.

Not exactly someone who's playing for your "team"..

The shire reeve was the direct representative of the king/queen in the county and was mainly concerned with taxes, as you said.
Remember the story of Robin of Locksley? AKA Robin Hood. Recall the shire reeve of that story, for that is what they were like.
If I recall correctly, the shire reeve is something introduced by the Normans.

[Shoonra]

Originally Posted by FreeFromContract

This is the roadblock to Shoonra's misguided efforts to illustrate that nobody has a right to travel in their own private automobile without a license. No matter how hard she tries to twist it, there was nowhere in the common law that provided for licensing of anyone (even those in transporting goods/merchandise in horse drawn carts or wagons in commerce) on the king's roads.

The common conveyance back then was on carts and wagons by horses, on horse and by foot and of course boat or canoe by water.

The right upheld in Murdock v. Pennsylvania was spreading relgious tracts door-to-door, not motoring on the public highways. The US Supreme Court has already upheld the authority and responsibility of the states for requiring drivers licenses for motoring on the public roads. The license isn't for having a car nor even being in the car, but for bringing that car onto the public roads where it would be in close proximity to other cars and to people.

But, yes, the law hasn't changed about going by foot on the public roads. You can still do that without a license. And as soon as you can quote Blackstone to me about people doing the same with internal combustion engines you might have a case.