America has Lost all Liberty

Fact sheet on lost liberty.

U.S. Supreme Court, Aptheker v. Secretary of State 378 US 500 (1964):

"Free movement by the citizen is of course as dangerous to a tyrant as free expression of ideas or the right of assembly and it is therefore controlled in most countries in the interests of security. … That is why the ticketing of people and the use of identification papers are routine matters under totalitarian regimes, yet abhorrent in the United States. … Absent war, I see no way to keep a citizen from traveling within or without the country, unless there is power to detain him. … And no authority to detain exists except under extreme conditions, e. g., unless he has been convicted of a crime or unless there is probable cause for issuing a warrant of arrest by standards of the Fourth Amendment. This freedom of movement is the very essence of our free society, setting us apart. Like the right of assembly and the right of association, it often makes all other rights meaningful - knowing, studying, arguing, exploring, conversing, observing and even thinking. Once the right to travel is curtailed, all other rights suffer, …"

Did you waive your right to travel by getting a travel credential?

Government was created to secure the blessings of Liberty.

The right to liberty IS the right to travel.

Black’s Law Dictionary quotes Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Law:

US Supreme Court in Florida v. Bostick 501 US 429 quotes an Arizona Supreme Court case:

State ex rel. Ekstrom v. Justice Court, 136 Ariz. 1, 6, 663 P. 2d 992, 997 (1983) (concurring opinion) "The thought that an American can be compelled to `show his papers' before exercising his right to walk the streets, drive the highways or board the trains is repugnant to American institutions and ideals".

U.S. Supreme Court in Butcher's Union v. Crescent City 111 U.S. 746:

"The property which every man has in his own labor, as it is the original foundation of all other property, so it is the most sacred and inviolable. ... to hinder his employing this strength and dexterity in what manner he thinks proper without injury to his neighbor, is a plain violation of this most sacred property."

Did you lose your most sacred and inviolable right to your labor, thereby making your labor taxable?

Were you forced to pledge allegiance to the new government in order to get an ID (which is a work authorization permit pursuant to federal form I-9) or passport? The U.S. Supreme court, quoted below, says that loss of a job and loss of a passport are penalties affixed to a criminal act. Yet you are punished as a criminal until you are coerced to apply for these identification credentials.

Applying for a passport now presumes an oath of Allegiance (Title 22 CFR §6-212) even if you did not take an oath. Title 22 US Code section 212:

"No passport shall be granted or issued to or verified for any other persons than those owing allegiance, whether citizens or not, to the United States"

Oath of Allegiance is defined by Homeland Security in their Title 8, Code of Federal Regulatons, section 337 as a commitment to perform unlimited labor for the rest of your life:

"… I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God"

U.S. Supreme Court determined in Ullmann v. United States, 350 U.S. 422 (1956) that such punishments are for criminal acts

“The forfeiture of property on compelled testimony is no more abhorrent than the forfeiture of rights of citizenship. Any forfeiture of rights as a result of compelled testimony is at war with the Fifth Amendment. . . .
”the forfeiture of property was a penalty affixed to a criminal act. The loss of a job and the ineligibility for a passport are also penalties affixed to a criminal act.

Judicial Immunity was invented by lawyers to protect themselves. Every judge and state congressman and all state executive and state judicial officers must be bound to support the U.S. Constitution pursuant to Article Six. Yet they weaseled themselves out of their obligation. They overthrew your government.

Now that government has been overthrown, imagine living in a regime so repressive that:

· The Supreme Court determined in Briscoe v. Lahue 460 US 325 that police cannot be punished for giving perjured testimony that convicts the innocent.

· “Federal prosecutors were clearly entitled to immunity for initiating prosecution, whether or not charges were false, and whether or not prosecutors knew charges were false...” (Martinez v. Winner, 771 F2d 424)

· “Prosecutors may appeal to their immunity in the face of allegations of knowing use of perjured testimony and withholding of exculpatory information.” Glick v. Koenig 766 F.2d 265

· “Judicial immunity is not waived even though actions on part of judge were grievously erroneous or prompted by malice or corruption” (Patterson v. Aiken, 628 FSupp 1068)

· “Judge is immune from civil damage suits ... immunity extends even to malicious or corrupt acts.” (Bryant v. O’Connor, 671 FSupp 1279)

· “Absolute immunity shelters prosecutors even when they act maliciously, wantonly, or negligently.” (Rykers v. Alford, 832 F2d 895)

· “Judges will not be deprived of immunity for erroneous acts or even those actions performed maliciously or in excess of authority” Glick v. Koenig, 766 F.2d 265

· the Supreme Court in 1972 Mitchum v. Foster, 407 US 225, 242 ruled that a citizen injured by a government officer and seeking injunctive relief needed an act of Congress.

· people can still cancel the obligations of their contracts (bankruptcy), even though the Supreme Law of the Land says that NO state can impair the obligations of contracts.

· … with liberty and justice for all. Mr. H. B. Chadwick, at age 73, was finally released from 14 years in jail in Pennsylvania without ever being charged with a crime. A new judge finally agreed that he indeed did not know the testimony that previous judges were trying to force out of him.

Now imagine a system of slavery so diabolical that:

· "The ultimate ownership of all property is in the State: individual so-called 'ownership' is only by virtue of Government, i.e. law amounting to mere user; and use must be in accordance with law and subordinate to the necessities of the State" [Senate Document No. 43, 73^rd Congress 1^st Session, quoting Brown v. Welch]

· the payment of a tax NOT owed creates an obligation to make future payments.

· "The right of traffic or the transmission of property, as an absolute inalienable right, is one which has never existed since governments were instituted, and never can exist under government." Wynehamer v. NY, 13 N.Y. 378, 481.

· 100,000 children disappear every year in America, and the police are ordered to stop looking for them.

· Prosecutor may knowingly file charges against innocent persons for a crime that never occurred. Norton v. Liddell, 620 F2d 1375 (1980)

· Police cannot be punished for giving perjured testimony that convicts the innocent, according to The Supreme Court in Briscoe v. Lahue 460 US 325

· Prosecutor may knowingly use false testimony and suppress evidence according to The Supreme Court in Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 US 409 (1976)

· Prosecutor may knowingly offer perjured testimony. Jones v. Shankland, 800 F2d 1310 (1987)

· Prosecutor may suppress exculpatory evidence. Hanzel v. Gertatica 608 F2d 654

· Prosecutors are immune from lawsuit for conspiring with judges to determine the outcome of judicial proceedings. Ashelman v. Pope, 793 F2d 1072 (1986)

· prosecutor may violate civil rights in initiating prosecution and presenting cause. Supreme Court in Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 US 409 (1976)

· Prosecutor may file charges without any investigation. Myers v. Morris, 810 F.2d 1337 (1986)

· Prosecutor may file charges outside his jurisdiction. Myers v. Morris, 810 F.2d 1337 (1986)

· The head of the Harvard Law School, Alan Dershowitz, testified in a Congressional Hearing that there is overwhelming evidence that police and prosecutors perjure themselves regularly in order to convict the innocent.

· Immunity extends to all activities closely associated with litigation or potential litigation. Davis v. Grusemeyer, 996 F2d617

· 34% of condemned criminals on death row are there because of the testimony of informants who were rewarded for their testimony.

· “Judge is immune from civil damage suits ... immunity extends even to malicious or corrupt acts.” (Bryant v. O’Connor, 671 FSupp 1279)

· “Absolute immunity shelters prosecutors even when they act maliciously, wantonly, or negligently.” (Rykers v. Alford, 832 F2d 895)

·"The ultimate ownership of all property is in the State: individual so-called 'ownership' is only by virtue of Government, i.e. law amounting to mere user; and use must be in accordance with law and subordinate to the necessities of the State" [Senate Document No. 43, 73^rd Congress 1^st Session, quoting Brown v. Welch]

·The US Supreme Court in US v. Kozminski, 487 US 931, confirmed that it is perfectly lawful to hold slaves to unpaid forced labor.

· Children now belong to the State. We have gone from a nation where the right to raise children is a Constitutionally guaranteed liberty (Supreme Court in Meyers v. Nebraska, 262 US 390, at page 399) to "The primary control and custody of infants is with the government." Tillman v. Roberts 108 So. 62

· · “No polluted hand shall touch the pure fountain of justice” was once a maxim in American courts

· · Unclean hands shall never pollute the pure fountain of justice according to 1841 Supreme Court decision Groves v. Slaughter 40 US 449

Quote from Gaius Cornelius Tacitus, Roman Senator, circa 100 AD

“Corruptissima re publica plurimae leges.”
Translation: The more numerous the laws, the more corrupt the government. Annals of Tacitus, Book III, page 27.

The same thing happens today. Your Congress has passed so many laws that people don't know the difference between right and wrong.

JURY DUTY

Don’t get involved in the overthrow of your local government. Juries can judge the law as well as facts.

Trial by Government is a new concept in American jurisprudence. Trial by jury was not a trial by government until the early 1930s.

A TRIAL BY A JURY OF YOUR PEERS IS A TRIAL BY 12 PEOPLE WHO KNOW YOU and who can judge the law as well as the facts.

The writers of your Constitution had a strong distrust of government tyranny. A trial by a jury of your peers was intended to replace the inherently unfair trial by government. A trial by government does not fulfill the Fifth Amendment guarantee to due process of law. You have a right to a fair trial. Trial by government cannot be fair. Inquisition is trial by government.

In 1794, the Supreme Court conducted a jury trial in the case of the State of Georgia v Brailsford in the first jury trial before the Supreme Court of the United States. In the jury instructions. Chief Justice John Jay told the jury:

"It is presumed, that juries are the best judges of facts; it is, on the other hand, presumed that courts are the best judges of law. But still both objects are within your power of decision... ...you have a right to take it upon yourselves to judge of both, and to determine the law as well as the fact in controversy".

The book Elliot's Debates On The Adoption Of The Constitution (Vol 3, page 579) quotes Patrick Henry as stating:

"By the bill of rights of England, a subject has a right to a trial by his peers. What is meant by his peers? Those who reside near him, his neighbors, and who are well acquainted with his character and situation in life."

Also in Elliot's Debates we can read (Vol 2, page 516) where another Founding Father, James Wilson, signer of the Declaration of Independence and later a Supreme Court Justice, reassured us that a jury of your peers would always be 12 people who know you:

"Where jurors can be acquainted with the characters of the parties and the witnesses -- where the whole cause can be brought within their knowledge and their view -- I know no mode of investigation equal to that by a trial by jury: they hear every thing that is alleged; they not only hear the words, but they see and mark the features of the countenance; they can judge of weight due to such testimony; and moreover, it is a cheap and expeditious manner of distributing justice. There is another advantage annexed to the trial by jury; the jurors may indeed return a mistaken or ill-founded verdict, but their errors cannot be systematical."

And again, in Elliot's Debates, Vol 2, page 110, Congressman Holmes from Massachusetts, assured us that cases would be heard in the local community where the jury of peers could form a judgment based on the character of the accused and the credibility of the witnesses.

That's right! Your Constitution was ratified on the reassurance, over and over again, that a jury of your peers would always be 12 people who know you.

In 1969 in US v. Moylan 417 F2d 1002 at page 1006:

"We recognize as appellants urge, the UNDISPUTED power of the jury to acquit, even if the verdict is contrary to the law as given by the judge and contrary to the evidence. ... the jury has the power to acquit and the courts must abide by that decision."

As recently as 1972, in the case U.S. v Dougherty, 473 F 2d 1113, 1139 the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia said that the jury has an "unreviewable and irreversible power... to acquit in disregard of the instructions on the law given by the trial judge.”

Here is further proof that a real trial (by jury) is not a trial by government: The Metropolitan News, a Los Angeles legal newspaper on October 25, 1973 quoted Hon. L. Thaxton Hanson, Justice Court of Appeals, State of California (ret.):

"In ancient times, the right to trial by jury was called `trial per pals' - that is, trial by country - or by the people, as distinguished from trial by government"

Lord Hale, 18th Century English Jurist was being quoted in the U.S. Supreme Court's case Sparf & Hansen v. U.S., 156 U.S. 51 at page 119 (1895):

"... if the judge's opinion in matter of law must rule the issue of fact submitted to the jury, the trial by jury would be useless."

Read that again. IF THE JURY MUST OBEY THE JUDGE'S INSTRUCTIONS ON THE LAW, THEN A TRIAL BY JURY WOULD BE USELESS.

That's right. Trial by jury would be useless. Imagine what life would be like a country where people must obey the judges' interpretation of the law.

Much of your law comes from the English system. The U.S. Supreme Court, in the same Sparf case at page 117 quotes Englishman John Milton in his book Defense of the People: " And hence it is that when a malefactor is asked at his arraignment, `How will you be tried?' he answers always, according to law and custom, `By God and my country, not by God and the King, or the King's Deputy [Judge].'"

In the impeachment Trial of US Supreme Court Justice Chase in 1805, your US Government fought for the right of the jury to judge the law as well as the facts. They impeached Justice Chase because he failed to tell a jury in a murder trial that they can judge the law. Supreme Court Justice Chase, a signer of the Declaration of Independence, was impeached for [Chase Transcript Article 1, section 2, clause 4]:

· "... endeavoring to wrest from the jury their indisputable right to hear argument, and determine upon the question of law as well as the question of fact, ..."

· "... to the disgrace of the character of the American bench, in manifest violation of law and justice and in open contempt of the rights of juries, on which ultimately rest the liberty and safety of the American people."

That's right. The liberty and safety of the American people depend upon the jury's indisputable right to determine what the law is. Imagine what life would be like a country where people must obey the judge's interpretation of the law.

The jurors have the power to ignore the court's instructions and bring in a not guilty verdict contrary to the law and the facts. Horning v. District of Columbia, 254 U.S. 135 (1920).

But things changed. Juries now should not be told by the court that they have this power. United States v. Krzyske, 836 F.2d 1013, 1021 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 832; United States v. Avery, 717 F.2d 1020, 1027 (6th Cir.1983), cert. denied, 466 U.S. 905 (1984); United States v. Burkhart, 501 F.2d 993, 996-997 (6th Cir.1974), cert. denied, 420 U.S. 946 (1975).

We have lost our rights: Juries must now be told that it is their duty to accept and apply the law as given to them by the court. United States v. Avery, 717 F.2d 1020, 1027.