Blogs by Brion Heru'El Ofrika Bey
Natural Peoples Rights
7/21/2010 7:43:55 PM
[ Flag as Inappropriate ]
As a young juris I have come across some case law in regards to traveling in or with a vehicle on the roadways that I think is important for all persons free and enslaved.
1. The Right to Travel; The Right to Mode of Conveyance; The Right to Locomotion are all Absolute Rights, and the Police can not make void the exercise of Rights. State v. Armstead, 60 s. 778, 779, and 781:
2. 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 Natural Beings cannot be deprived. Chicago Motor Coach v. Chicago 337 Illinois 200, 169 NE 22, ALR, Ligare v. Chicago 139 ILL. 46, 28 HE 934, Boone v. Clark 214 SW 607, 25 AM jur (1st), Highways, sec. 163:
3. The Right to Park or Travel is part of the Liberty of which the Natural Person, citizen cannot be deprived without “due process of law” under the 5th Amendment of the United States Constitution. Kent v. Dulles 357 US 116, 125:
4. The Right of a citizen to Travel upon the public highways and to transport one’s property thereon, either by carriage or automobile, is not a mere privilege, which a City may prohibit or permit at will, but a common Right, which he / she has under the Right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. Thompson v. Smith 154 SE 579:
5. State Police Power extends only to immediate threats to public safety, health, welfare, etc., Michigan v. Duke 266 US, 476 Led. At 449: which driving and speeding are not. California v. Farley Ced. Rpt. 89, 20 CA3rd 1032 (1971):
6. The state is prohibited from violating Substantive Rights. Owens v. City, 445 US 662 (1980); and it can not do by one power (eg. Police Power) that which is, for example, prohibited expressly to any other such power (eg. Taxation / Eminent Domain) as a matter of Law. US and UT v. Daniels, 22 p 159, nor indirectly that which is prohibited to it directly. Fairbanks v. US 181, US 283, 294, 300:
7. Traveling in an automobile on the public roads was not a threat to the public safety or health and constituted no hazard to the public, and such a traveler owed no other duty to the public (eg. the State); he / she and his / her auto, having equal right to and on the roadways / highways as horses and wagons, etc.; this same right is still Substantive Rule, in that speeding, running stop signs, traveling without license plates, or registration, are not threats to the public safety, and thus, are not arrestable offenses. Christy v. Elliot, 216 I 131, 74 HE 1035, LRA NS 1905—1910: California v, Farley 98 CED Rpt. 89, 20 CA 3d 1032 (1971).
8. Under the United States Republic’s Constitutional system of Government and upon the individuality and intelligence of the citizen, the State does not claim to control one’s conduct to others, leaving one the sole judge as to all that affects oneself. Mugler v. Kansas 1213 US 623, 659—60:
9. Where Rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule - making or legislation, which would abrogate them. Miranda v. Arizona 384 US 436, 125:
10. The claim and exercise of Constitutional Rights cannot be converted into a crime. Miller v. Kansas 230 F 2nd 486, 489:
11. For a crime to exist, there must be an injured party (Corpus Delicti). There can be no sanction or penalty imposed on one because of this Constitutional Right. Sherer v. Cullen 481 F. 945:
12. If any Tribunal (court) finds absence of proof of jurisdiction over a person and subject matter, the case must be dismissed. Louisville v. Motley 2111 US 149, 29S. CT 42. “The Accuser Bears the Burden of Proof Beyond a Reasonable Doubt”.
13. “Lack of Federal Jurisdiction can not be waived or overcome by agreement of parties”. Griffin v. Matthews, 310 F Supra 341, 342 (1969): and “Want of Jurisdiction may not be cured by consent of parties”. Industrial Addition Association v. C.I,R., 323 US 310, 313.
Whereas, In light of the foregoing Jurisprudence ‘Stare Decisis’ Supreme Court Decisions, Facts, and Law; and counter to the negative and ‘colorable’ social conditions instituted by State Persons of the Union States Society, there exists a blatant ‘WANT OF JURISDICTION’ on the part of the Union States Rights Republic (U.S.A.), its agents, personnel, contractors, and assigns. Axioms are legally in force under National and International Law attending these issues. And this Affiant (Natural Person - In Propria Persona) does not waive any rights; does not transfer power of attorney; and does not willingly consent to any public trial or hearing in any ‘colorable’ tribunal venue or non-Article III, unconstitutional jurisdiction. The Official Oaths, the Obligations, and the Fiduciary duties of all accusers and bound ‘claimants’ to National Law and Order; Civilization Principles fixed in Constitution Law, still stands! Definition and Truth still Rules. NON-COMPLIANCE is a Federal and International Law offence.
Post a Comment
More Blogs by Brion Heru'El Ofrika Bey
Natural Peoples Rights - Wednesday, July 21, 2010
Beings In Love - Wednesday, July 21, 2010
Describing Love - Wednesday, July 21, 2010
For Your Information - Friday, December 14, 2007