Good evening, folks.
Good evening, folks. I want to thank you
for inviting me into your home tonight
to talk to you about an extremely
important issue to you.
I I basically
am here to talk about the United States
Constitution and our government and some
of the principles that uh
you need to understand most thoroughly
so that you can have an effective
opportunity to exercise your
constitutional rights. The whole purpose
of this is that you understand that
these these rights come from God, okay,
that they are God-inspired. God is the
one who who endowed us with these rights
and that this Constitution merely
uh
offers a legitimate program to protect
that all of us can have the rights
equally
and and as long as we respect our
neighbor and allow them also to have the
rights equally. The the the protections
are are are going to last forever as and
and the reality is that
we are going to get thoroughly into your
Constitution. We want you to find a
Constitution wherever you can and we are
going to basically take you step by step
through some of the most important parts
of this Constitution so that you can
better exercise your rights in a timely
fashion. Now, the facts are simple. If
you don't know your rights, you don't
have any rights and that's just the way
it is. And if you certainly couldn't
exercise those rights timely if you
don't know what they are. So, what's
going to happen is they're going to tell
you what your rights are and do you
think they're going to tell you in your
favor? Certainly not.
Now, we've come a long way to put this
program on to help you.
By the way, my name is Carl Miller. I
want to thank you again for inviting me
into your home. We're going to proceed
with vigor.
I should tell you a few things about me
that I'm a a prior service soldier. I
served three combat tours, Republic of
Vietnam.
I should tell you that I was a
participant in the top secret project
called Blue Book where the officers in
the jungle smelled a rat in the wood
pile and they decided to pull their
their top soldiers aside
and they come on over here. Let's come
on over here. We want to talk to you.
And they took their top soldiers in the
corner
and they started teaching them things
like duty, honor, country, pride in the
corps. They taught us history. They
taught us all kind of programming as far
as what's going on in our government.
They taught us the Constitution. We had
to be able to rattle the Constitution
off just like we would any manual of
arms.
And this all took place totally top
secret so that we wouldn't offend any
chains of command or any uh
presidential problems similar to what uh
happened between General MacArthur. And
the bottom line is uh this was taken
totally upon their own, shall we say,
careers to pull this thing off. And they
this happened all throughout a lot of
the military services in Vietnam. Marine
Corps, Air Force, Army. We all they all
pulled aside their best people and they
started putting everything in and
teaching us our Constitution. So, I'm
going to try and instill in you
that flame that was instilled in me over
25 years ago in which I have been I have
been transferring ever since. I have
been fighting tooth and nail to defend
the Constitution.
I have helped thousands and thousands
and thousands of other people do the
same.
I teach people how to be their own
counsel, to stand up in courts of law,
and be able to exercise their
constitutional rights in a timely and
effective manner.
And uh the good Lord willing, I'll be
able to keep doing that. So, why don't
we uh right now try and get into some
parts of the Constitution?
The most important thing that I can
teach you about this Constitution
is the importance of reading it.
You must read the Constitution and
understand what physically is involved.
You must know your rights and timely
assert them. That is your burden. If you
do not, then a legal term called laches
incurs is in full force. Laches is a
legal term which is defined as an as a
Laches is a species of action where in a
party of reasonable intelligence and
integrity having a right to take an
action as is prescribed by law and
having failed to timely do so loses our
right to proceed. So, what is actually
happening out there folks is that laches
is incurring because most people don't
read their constitution and know what's
involved. So, then you are left to being
told, "Well, that's what it means."
Okay, so you just got to do what you got
to do and you're told and and they're
going to tell you in favor of them.
They're not going to tell you in favor
of you.
So, it's better for you to read the book
and understand what's in it. It's not a
very big book. I I highly recommend the
book.
I you can get several versions. A lot of
times you contact your congressman. My
congressman Dominic Vincentini, a state
senator, supplied this one for me.
Uh John a libertarian candidate,
has supplied several also.
Uh some of these folks uh just check
with your local uh
congressman or state rep. Uh a lot of
times you can they'll just give you one.
If you cannot find one, go down to your
United States uh government building.
Here in the Detroit vicinity we it's
called the McNamara building on the
first floor.
And uh what we do then is we go into the
government printing office and usually
they're about a buck.
But I highly recommend you go get one. I
I don't leave home without mine. I
usually have three or four of them
someplace. And I hand them out also
myself. I give them out to whoever I I
think one of the most kindest things I
can do to a person is give them this
book and show them how it works.
This book is kind of like a genie in a
bottle.
If you know how to stroke this book, I'm
telling you the genie comes out and it
usually
with a force that that you will be
clearly recognized in any court in the
land.
Now, that doesn't mean it'll be easy.
You might have to work a little bit. But
basically there's an argument and it
comes like this.
If I violate your rights, you may or may
not know about it. If you know about it,
you may or may not be able to do
something about it. If you do have an
ability to do something about it, you
may or may not have the financial
wherewithal to to go to a finished
program.
If you do have the the financial
wherewithal, you may not have the
intestinal fortitude to go to a finished
program. So, most of the time your
governments and your your abusive
personalities in government or your
corporations
uh pretty much have carte blanche to to
injure you. Because in 99.9% of the
cases, nobody Most people will not
proceed. But every now and then you run
into that one hard nut, and he doesn't
quit or she doesn't quit till
the cows come home. And what happens is
that person will prevail. And those are
the people that are actually generating
better protections and better
constitutional rights for you. Those are
the ones that are going to the Supreme
Courts and the Courts of Appeals and
what have you that are pushing that are
spending their life funds to allow you
to have the benefit. But if you aren't
there to catch the benefit, then you you
the benefit is lost. So,
we're going to get right into the
Constitution. We're going to teach you
some things about it.
Pay attention cuz we're really doing
this out of an act of love for you. And
we're hoping to God you're going to pick
up on it and pay attention, okay? Now,
I'm going to put one Constitution down
here so the folks can see it. I will
open this up from time to time to
demonstrate things to you. I will
basically try and read out of another
Constitution
so that we can better show you some of
the things that are involved. Now, it's
important that you understand that this
Constitution is in writing.
It's important that you understand that
it is a legal document, okay?
That it was ratified
by all of the members
in a Congress together, right?
And that that document can be you can
get all the signatures on the document.
Okay? And it's important that you
understand
that there was an offer. Government
offered to govern. There was a
consideration. The citizens considered
how were going to be governed, and
government promised that they would
govern by constitution.
And there was an agreement. The citizens
agreed that if government promised there
would be
government by constitution, that they
would agree to allow the constitution to
into force. Now, there's a unique
situation here. It's very rare when you
find the party of the first part, which
is the congressman, officers of the
government, who are also parties of the
second part as representatives of we the
people of the republic. And when they
signed the document, they signed the
document as officers of government
agreeing to the constitution, and
simultaneously as officers of
representatives of the people
in the republican form of government.
And when they signed that document, that
constituted a ironclad contract in
writing enforceable in court of law
pursuant to the statute of frauds. Here
in the state of Michigan, that's 566.132
Michigan Compiled Laws Act, which
basically states anything in writing is
enforceable in a court of law pursuant
to the statute of frauds. Now, all we're
asking is that they enforce the
contract. We want them to enforce the
contract. In other words, if we read
something in here
and we got a good reason for why we
believe it's the way it is, then they
should honor that.
And they should honor it in favor of
you, the clearly intended and expressly
designated beneficiary, but I'll get
into that a little later.
The program that you should understand
especially
is Article 6 paragraph 2 of the
Constitution. This is called the
supremacy clause of the Constitution.
It's located at Article 6.
Everybody see that?
Paragraph 2, which is going to start
right here, and I'm going to read it to
you, okay?
And basically what it says is this this
Constitution
and the laws of the United States which
shall be made in pursuance thereof.
And the treaties made or which shall be
made
under the authority of the United States
shall be the supreme law of the land.
And the judges in every state shall be
bound thereby.
Anything
in the Constitution or laws of any state
to the contrary or not withstanding.
When they say not withstanding, that
means not withstanding in law. That
means that's a legal definition. Not
withstanding means not withstanding in
law.
Now, a very important case, Marbury
versus Madison, 5 US 137.
Pardon my reaching here.
Marbury versus Madison, 5 US 137.
It's recorded at
volume 5.
Right here. It's an 8 night 1803 case,
Marbury versus Madison. It's recorded in
volume 5, page 137.
Now, basically what this case states and
I'm telling you right now, if you want
to use a case to cite for any purpose in
court, you have to read the case. If you
haven't read the case, you haven't read
the case and formed a basis upon which a
logical determination in your mind
could have been reached to form an
opinion
as to why you should do what you're
going to do,
then the judge will throw your case out.
So, read your cases. Don't just quote
cases because they won't you won't win.
If the judge ever pins you down and
starts asking you some merits of the
case and you can't even understand what
the case is about, nine times out of 10,
he's just going to throw your case in in
the in the can. So, make sure you read
the case. This is one of the leading
cases
in the history of the United States of
America. The opinion of the court was
given by the honorable Judge John
Marshall, Chief Justice of the Supreme
Court. His opinion was anything
that is in conflict is null and void of
law. Clearly, he said that for a
secondary law to come in conflict with
the supreme law was illogical. For
certainly the supreme law would prevail
over all other law, and certainly our
forefathers had intended that the
supreme law would be the basis of all
law. And for any law to come in conflict
would be null and void of law. It would
bear no power to enforce, it would bear
no obligation to obey, it would report
to settle as if it 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 mere nullity or a fiction
of law, which means it doesn't exist in
law. Now, let me give you an example in
today's timing as to how effective this
is. This argument is so effective that
it literally nullifies the Brady Bill,
it nullifies the crime bill, it takes
away the right of the people to keep and
bear arms on these 19 weapons that turn
into 159 weapons.
It uh stops this 666 bill that just went
through that they're trying to take away
the Fourth Amendment.
You see, because they have no power to
pass a law that's in conflict with the
United States Constitution, and it's
automatically null and void of law from
its inception, not from the date you go
to court and brand it as
unconstitutional.
Now, I want to get that real clear.
A lot of people think that they got to
go to court and brand it
unconstitutional. I'm here to tell you
if you know your arguments and you can
show your arguments,
most of the time you will win.
Every now and then you run into a hard
nose, but I'll show you how to deal with
him, too. Okay? But for now, I want
everybody that's got a chance to go out
to learn your Constitution, your Article
6 Paragraph 2 of your Constitution. I
want you to
to pay attention to what's going on
here. Learn to read about this Marbury
versus Madison case.
I want to show you, pardon my reach
again,
this right here is an example of what is
called Shepard's Citations. Shepard's
Citations is a group of reporters that
go through and keep track of all the
court cases that have come before the
courts, especially the Supreme Court.
And they clarify before the court all of
the cases. Each one of these little
numbers here represents somebody hiring
a lawyer and going to the Supreme Court.
Every one of these. There's nine pages
of these folks.
Almost 200 years worth that goes against
this case, Marbury versus Madison.
And I want to tell you
this case is still supreme law of the
land. If it wasn't, you would see O's in
here where it was overturned, okay?
You don't see any O's.
There aren't any O's.
That means the case is standing. There'd
be an O in this column right next to
here. You don't see any O's because
there's no case that could come up
against this case. That's how strong
this case is, folks.
Now, this is nine pages. Each This is
two pages each.
There's nine pages of this. This
represents
if I was to to to try and teach you what
this represents, if I was building a
wall from here to the moon
out of bricks.
That's what that would mean in legal
terms.
Because that's how solid this case is.
So, it's very important that you
understand your Constitution is an
ironclad contract in writing enforceable
in the court of law. It's very important
that you understand Article 6 paragraph
2, the supremacy clause, which says the
Constitution and the laws in pursuance
thereof and the treaties made or which
shall be made under the authority of the
United States shall be the supreme law
of the land. The judges in every state
shall be bound thereby. Anything in
conflict or repugnancy is null and void
of law. It bears no power to enforce, no
obligation to obey. It purports to
settle as if it never existed.
Unconstitutionality dates from the
enactment. No courts are bound to uphold
it. No citizens are bound to obey it.
Now, that is one of the most important
lessons that I can teach you on the
Constitution so that you can understand
how strong this document is.
You see?
And when I go to the law library and I
hit some of these law libraries, it's
wall-to-wall books, folks. I mean, it's
like I take people down here and their
chin's on the ground. And then I tell
them there's three floors of this place
just like this, filled to the brim with
books and books. And did you know that
in every one of those cases, this little
book right here,
this one right here, folks,
controls every single book in that law
library. Every single one.
Every single book in that law library is
controlled by this little book. So, can
you understand how important it is for
you to know what's in this little book
so that you can effectively call on that
kind of a commanding knowledge?
Okay?
It is absolutely vital that you get a
hold of one of these books and start
learning it and don't let anybody take
away your constitutional rights.
You cannot You can't even give your
constitutional rights away. You have to
voluntarily acquiesce by signing a
document on a Miranda release form.
That's how hard it is to give away your
constitutional rights. We don't want you
to give away any of your rights. We want
you to know these rights backward,
forward, upside down, and all. We want
you to be able to rattle them off. Our
soldiers could do it.
And they did it with with a great love
in their heart and the pride and the and
the duty that they hold in their heart
and they swore on a sacred oath that
they defend the Constitution against all
enemies, foreign and domestic, and then
they perform their duties to the best of
their ability, so help them God, and by
God, they do.
Both in the service and out of the
service, okay?
We defend the Constitution to the death.
We never surrender. We are soldiers
above all.
And we love our country and our flag and
our Constitution. We are what the the
term is under the
the military code of conduct, I am an
American fighting soldier. I serve the
forces which guard my country and its
constitutional way of government. I am
prepared to give my life if necessary in
defense of that Constitution, and that's
exactly what we're going to do.
So, I want you to pay attention. A lot
of brave soldiers have died to pay for
this book
so that you could have the right. And
the least you could do for your own
self's sake is to learn what's in this
book and be able to argue effectively
what's in this book. You would be amazed
how many times you can win if you just
have this book and know what's in it.
Okay? Now, that we get that by, we're
going to go into some other arguments
here. We're going to try and show you
how to really effectively use this book,
okay?
Now that everybody's got that in hand.
The next thing we're going to start
teaching you is things like about the
Second Amendment.
The Second Amendment is one of the
biggies that everybody talks about today
and the one that gets railroaded
probably the most. The next is the
Fourth Amendment and the Fifth
Amendment, okay? But the Second
Amendment is one of the most vital
amendments here because our forefathers
had such an important understanding of
life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.
That was the First Amendment. That they
turned around and realized that without
the right to protect that first right,
they didn't have that right. So, the
Second Amendment, they they instituted
the right of the people to keep and
carry arms and that right shall not be
infringed.
Now, they started out by saying a
well-regulated militia being necessary
for the maintenance of a free state.
Okay?
Isn't that a true statement, folks? A
well-regulated militia is necessary for
the security of a free state. That's
just a true statement. So, is oranges
are orange. That's why they call them
oranges, okay? But that doesn't have any
legal precedents in theory.
The most important part about that
Second Amendment is it says that the
right of the people.
And the Supreme Court has ruled in
hundreds of cases that whenever it says
the right of the people, it means the
right each of every single citizen to
possess the right equally.
Now, a lot of guys like to hand out this
manila that "Well, that's a collective
right. You got to be a member of the
militia." That's all who done. You don't
have to be a member of the militia. You
all you have to do is be an American.
You have the right.
The right to keep and carry arms and
that right shall not be infringed. Now,
you will note after infringed, there is
no sub paragraph A, B, C, D, E, F, G
which would stipulate as to what would
be an acceptable infringement.
So, all infringement is
Now, who says so? You say so.
Do you see that? Does everybody see
that? You say so. Who are you? I'm an
American.
And I'm telling you you're infringing my
rights. You're stealing my rights. I I I
claim infringement. I claim
encroachment. I claim impingement. I
claim usurpation. I claim you're
stealing my right.
Cuz that's what they're doing.
And I ask them what is it you don't
understand about the word infringement
cuz that's exactly what it says when you
look in Black's Law Dictionary.
That's another thing I want to bring up.
When you want to talk to these people in
court,
you want to get a hold of one of these
books, right here.
It's called Black's Law Dictionary. You
would be absolutely amazed
what's in Black's Law Dictionary.
This is the exact words.
Excuse me a second, please, folks. This
is the exact words
that you need
to be able to definitively
define the word game problem that we are
having with these people today. They
like to keep changing the words.
Well, guess what? The words in this book
are the words that were written when we
were in the Constitution when it was
signed.
And the definitions that are in this
book are enforceable in a court of law.
You can bring this book into court and
pull it open and say, "This is the one,
Judge."
And they gots to listen.
And that's the way it is.
So, for sure, if you're going to be in
this,
go down to one of your bookstores, uh
whichever you may have in your area,
Barnes & Noble or
any one of the
dozens of decent bookstores,
and get a copy of Black's Law
Dictionary. You need that to be in this
because this is kind of like uh
defining the map of how to get from A to
B. You have to have this book to be able
to pull it out so that you can turn
around and tell them, "Hey,
don't trample my rights. I take a real
dim view of that.
Another good book you can pick up on the
Constitution is this
this American Constitution put out by
West Publishing Company.
This goes into a whole lot of
widened arguments as to your
Constitution. Now, after I'm finished
talking to you, you're going to have a
new concept of Constitution and how it
works.
You're going to understand that it's
what you say it is.
If you got an honest right, now I'll
give you a perfect example.
Now, the First Amendment basically talks
about the right of life, liberty, and
pursuit of happiness, right?
But isn't the right to work part of
right of life, liberty, and pursuit of
happiness? You got a right to work,
right?
Contract your labor, your skill, and
your time of life as you see fit, right?
So, that makes sense to you? That's a
First Amendment right. Another First
Amendment right would be the right to
travel freely and unencumbered.
See, no state can require you to have a
license to travel freely and
unencumbered, and we'll go into that and
show you how that is is taken care of,
okay?
The bottom line is you need to learn as
much as you absolutely possibly can in
the shortest possible time about your
Constitution because I'm telling you
right now, as we speak, they are trying
to curtail that Constitution and take
away rights that you have that have been
given to you from your forefathers.
There's only one thing that's going to
stop that. Well, maybe two. There's two
things. The first thing that's going to
stop that, if all of us get together,
get a hold of one of these books, and
start shaking it, and say, "Whoa,
horsey, we're not going to let you take
away that Constitution."
This is America. We got an American flag
on a pole out front.
Last time I checked, this is United
States of America. We got a Constitution
here, and you ain't touching that
Constitution.
So, you call up that Bill McCollum in
Washington, and you tell him, he's the
guy that sponsored that 666 bill to take
away the Fourth Amendment right to to
have a search warrant.
You get a hold of him, and I'll give you
his number later on in the speech here.
And you call that joker up, and you say,
"Sir, what is it you don't understand
about your oath of office? kind of like
you to leave the Constitution alone. As
a matter of fact, we'd like you to make
it stronger than it is, not take nothing
away from it. Period."
And we resent the hell out of you taking
an oath of office to protect the
Constitution,
and we put you in office, and the first
thing you do when you get in there is
try and scuttle the Constitution and
flush it down the toilet. We're not
going to put up with that stuff. We want
you to understand that real clearly.
The second way we can do it is if
necessary and proper our militias can
come together and decide to choke these
people that are giving aid and comfort
to the enemies of our country by
breaking down our laws that you have
broken the law of Title 18, United
States Code Section 2381, which says
that in the presence of two witnesses to
the same overt act or in an 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, and upon conviction you
will be taken by the posse to the
nearest busy intersection at high noon
hung by the neck until dead. The body to
remain in state until dusk as an example
to anyone who take their oath of office
lightly. You see, without that oath of
office, this Constitution is worthless.
That's why we have you take that oath of
office so that we know you will honor
this oath of office and that you will
keep our Constitution. We don't want
anybody taking our Constitution away.
And we're here to tell you right now,
don't do it.
We'll take a dim view of it.
We probably will charge you.
And we're not fooling around.
Okay?
Now, let's get into some other things in
the Constitution.
The bottom line here is
you have to know
to be able to exercise your
Constitution. The most important parts
about your Constitution are in your
first 10 amendments, okay?
Obviously, the right of the people
to keep and carry arms shall not be
infringed.
And that right shall not be infringed.
You must claim your right if you want to
have it.
You have to be willing to do that. And
if they are going to take your right,
then you have to be willing to challenge
them whatever it costs. Now,
the bottom line is any law that comes in
conflict with that, what do we talk
about in Article 6 paragraph 2?
If any law shall come in conflict with
this, the supreme law, what happens?
It's null and void of law. It bears no
power to enforce, no obligation to obey,
purports to settle as if it never
existed. Unconstitutionality dates from
the enactment of such a law, not from
any date so brand new in a court of law.
So, what happened to the Brady Bill,
folks? Canceled due to lack of interest.
Okay?
What happened to the crime bill with the
gun infringements?
If any portion of the bill be
unconstitutional, the whole bill is
unconstitutional.
Cuz why? Repugnancy. Okay?
It's repugnant to the United States
Constitution. It's null and void of law.
It bears no power to enforce, no
obligation to obey, purports to settle
as if it never existed. Which case said
so?
Marbury versus Madison, 5 US 137, 1803.
That's how important that case is.
That's why you got to go down to your
law library and read.
Okay?
So, Marbury versus Madison is extremely
important. It's important that you
should be able to read the case,
understand what they're talking about.
Now,
other cases that are involved are your
rights to due process, like under your
fourth and fifth and sixth amendments,
right? The right of the people to be
secure in their houses,
the right of the people to be secure in
their person, houses, papers, and
effects against unreasonable searches
and seizures shall not be violated, and
no warrant shall issue, but upon
probable cause, supported by oath or
affirmation, and particularly describing
the place to be searched and the person
or things to be seized. And obviously,
that one
imply
That would imply
That would imply that
he'd gone before a judge and said, "This
is the guy. He did it. This is the crime
that was done. And this is the evidence
we're looking for, judge, and we'd like
to get a warrant, and we're swearing on
everything we told you is the God's
truth." And then they can come over and
they can search till hell freezes over.
okay?
Does that sound logical to you? Now,
that's what Bill 666 is trying to throw
out. They don't want you to have that
right anymore. Now, it's important for
you to immediately jump to the 9th
Amendment.
What does the 9th Amendment say?
"Enumeration in this Constitution of
certain rights shall not be construed to
deny or disparage others retained by the
people." Now, basically what that means
in simplest of terms,
Congress has no authority to add on to
the Constitution in such a way that
would take away rights previously
guaranteed. What seems to be Mr.
McCollum's problem? Does he not read the
King's English?
Excuse me.
Simply spoken, he has no authority to
pass this 666 bill. The Congress had no
authority to pass this Brady bill.
They had no authority to pass this crime
bill because it clearly infringed on the
United States Constitution. I don't care
how noble the issue it was,
I don't care how learned they people
claim to be,
they weren't learned enough.
Because if they were learned, they would
have understood the 9th Amendment
forbids adding on to the Constitution by
any laws whatsoever that takes away
rights that are previously guaranteed.
Excuse me.
Now,
let's go on. Let's hit the 10th
Amendment.
"The powers not delegated to the United
States." What is that What are they
talking about here? "The powers not
delegated to the United States
by the Constitution,
nor prohibited by it
to the states,
are reserved to the states respectively
or to the people."
See, this is a limited contract.
This contract is designed to limit
government.
And when you get into your police
powers, you start understanding your
police powers. Almost you'll hear this
all the time. "Well, we have police
powers, broad and sweeping police
powers." You look up Black's Law
Dictionary and police powers, it says
the law of eminent domain of a state or
political subdivision who can enact laws
for the common good and welfare and to
curb crime, and in great big black
letters it says within constitutional
limitations. See the 10th Amendment.
Well, when they're talking about see the
10th Amendment, this is the 10th
Amendment they're talking about.
Now, do they have powers to take away
previous rights guaranteed under the
Constitution? The answer is obviously
no, they don't.
Obviously, the Ninth Amendment sets a
clear limit on that.
What is it these guys don't understand
about the Constitution?
They pass these Brady bills, they pass
these crime bills, they pass these 666
bills to take away your Fourth Amendment
right requiring a search warrant. What
is it that they don't understand about
the locks on the Constitution? Now, do
you see how wise our forefathers were?
They knew
They knew history, and they knew that
history repeats itself if people forget.
So, what they did is they set a standard
very importantly
toward the end of the contract that
clearly stipulated exactly
what limits would be there.
You see?
And it clearly stipulated that no powers
existed to take away rights that were
previously guaranteed. So, how therefore
is this being done?
I'll tell you how it's being done. Cuz
they wants to.
And they're not doing it my law.
Now, why are they getting away with it?
Cuz most of the people don't know any
better. And if you don't know your
rights and you don't timely assert them,
latches incurs.
Latches being a species of action where
the party of reason, with intelligence
and integrity having a right to take an
action as is prescribed by law, and
having failed to timely do so, loses all
right to proceed. So, by you
acquiescing, by not jumping up and
saying, "Hey,
hold the line, Chester. You ain't
touching that Fourth Amendment. You
aren't touching that Second Amendment.
We're not putting up with that stuff.
You took an oath of office, we're going
to hold you to it. If you violate that
oath of office, we're going to charge
you with capital felony treason under
Title 18, United States Code, Section
2381. What difference does it make if
they're in open rebellion against the
United States or if they're breaking
down the laws creating a rebellion?
Isn't that giving aid and comfort to the
enemies of our country? It most
certainly is, and it's called sedition,
treason by sedition.
Okay?
Now, we got to start countering these
guys and telling them, "Hey, what is it
you don't understand about the
Constitution and your oath of office?
We're going to clearly correct that in
the short order. And if you don't want
to fix it, we will remove you."
And that's our duty and our
responsibility. Now, when Benjamin
Franklin walked out of all of the
hearings to set up this Constitution, a
lady reporter walked up to him and asked
him,
"What is it we have now?"
And he turned to her and told her, "We
have a republic,
if we can keep it."
Obviously, the burden is on us to make
sure we keep it.
So, I'm asking you to get a hold of one
of these Constitutions, and let's plan
on keeping it.
All right. Now, let's get into some more
of the arguments on the Constitution.
Your Fifth Amendment. Let's pull up your
Fifth Amendment. No person shall be held
to answer for a capital or otherwise
infamous crime unless on a presentment
or indictment of a grand jury except in
cases arising in the land or naval
forces or in the militia when in actual
service in time of war
or public danger, nor shall any person
be subject to the same offense be twice
put in jeopardy. That's the double
jeopardy statute.
of life or limb, nor shall be compelled
in any crime criminal case to be a
witness against himself. That's the
self-incrimination defense. Nor be
deprived of life, liberty, or property
without due process of law. That's your
equal protection clause.
You have an equal right to all the all
of your rights under the law, and you
have a right to due process of law.
Matter of fact, if they don't give you
due process of law, Title 5, United
States Code, Section 556D
is clear and specific, and it says if
they deny you due process of the law,
all jurisdiction ceases automatically.
That's That's Title 5 United States Code
Section 556D,
also 557 and Section 706 of that code.
In other words, if they deny you due
process at any time and you can prove
it,
you can you can force a showdown and you
can turn around and say, "Well, they
might have had jurisdiction at one time,
Judge, but they lost it when they denied
me due process."
All right? Now,
the other parts are you cannot deny them
life, liberty, or property without due
process of law, nor shall private
property be taken for public use without
just compensation. You know, how many
times do you hear about that today? I
mean, it's incredible.
The Sixth Amendment is another important
one. All of them are important, but
there are more important ones, all
right? In all criminal prosecutions, the
accused shall enjoy the right to a
speedy and public trial by an impartial
jury of the state and district wherein
the crime shall have been committed,
which district shall have been
previously ascertained by law, and to be
informed of the nature and the cause of
the action and accusation, to be
confronted with the witnesses against
him. That's the right to confront your
accusers.
To have compulsory process for obtaining
witnesses in your favor. That's the
subpoena rights. And to have the
assistance of counsel for your defense,
or you can stand as your own counsel.
And I know they tell you that it's a
fool that stands as his own counsel, but
it's my argument that it's a fool that
doesn't.
Because I'll tell you why. You know your
case better than you better than
anybody.
How many times do you hear about gripes
between attorneys and the citizens? The
biggest gripe they have is, "Well, he
never said nothing about that." Or she
never said nothing about that. Well, she
didn't do this or she didn't do that.
Well, why? Because they don't know the
case as good as you do. You're the one
that knows your best case. The only
thing they know is how to apply the law.
So, all I've been telling you is learn
how to apply the law and your
constitutional rights, and then you
don't need to do that.
The only time you get into trouble is if
you run your mouth too much and you get
into self-incrimination.
So, obviously, you have to keep your
wits about you and watch your mouth.
But the bottom line is actually I
personally believe you're the best
person
to present the facts of your case cuz
you're the best person that knows all
the facts.
The only thing you knew how know how to
do is how to actually do it in a legal
and lawful manner that is recognized by
the legal community and that's really
not hard to learn. I can teach you,
believe me.
All right, the Seventh Amendment.
In suits at the common law where the
value in controversy shall exceed $20,
the right of trial by jury shall be
preserved. It's supposed to say shall
remain. And no fact tried by a jury
shall be otherwise re-examined in any
court of the United States because the
jury is the ultimate trier of fact
then according to the rules of the
common law. Mhm.
Now, we'll get into that common law
argument. There's a lot of heavy
arguments around that common law.
Basically, I don't want to overwhelm you
on the first time out of the shoot
because that's not hard to do, okay?
Now, the bottom law line of this
Constitution is it's all in writing.
It clearly represents a contract.
I'm asking you to learn your contract.
I'm asking you to learn the book.
Learn your contract. I mean, when you go
to some place to do some work on your
car, you read the document that comes
with it for the warranty, don't you?
Why? Cuz just in case something goes
wrong, you want to be able to
bring it back, right?
Well, I'm asking you to read the
warranty on your Constitution so that
you can understand the rights that you
have under that Constitution.
So that if you don't get it right, we
can bring it back. Does that make sense
to you? All right. Now, it's also
important that you understand
this Constitution is a very unique
document
and that this Constitution is supposed
to be enforced and I'm going to
teach you some things here right now.
This is a program. I don't I don't it's
coming out here.
This right here
is representation. I know it's kind of
hard to see here.
But basically what we're talking about
here is this comes from the books
that tell the judge
how
right here
and over here. This comes and tells the
judge
how the Constitution is to be
interpreted. This is from the Am
Jurisprudence volumes and this is volume
16.
You want the constitutional law section
right here.
Constitutional law
and you want section 97.
And when you start reading it, the most
important part about it, and I'll read
it, is
"Then a constitution should relieve
should receive a liberal 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 both person and property." Can
you see that? Can you all see that?
Is that coming out right here? Over
more. Okay. All right.
"To safeguard the liberty and security
of the citizen in regard to both person
and property." See note 31, Braze First
United States 273 US 28. And all of
these 40 Supreme Court cases hold that
axiom.
In other words, it's supposed to be
liberally enforced in favor of the
citizen for the protection of rights and
property. "Any constitutional provision
intended to confer a benefit should be
liberally construed in favor of the
clearly intended and expressly
designated beneficiary." 32.
And on 32, De Chameau versus Hospital of
the City of Albany. And all of these
cases.
Okay? Can you see that? All right. I'll
help you out here.
Okay. Is it in?
All right.
I'm just trying to tell you, you can go
look this up and you can better see it.
Can you see it clearly now? Okay.
All right. Now, let's do that over
again. "Any constitutional provision
intended to confer a benefit should be
liberally construed in favor of the
clearly intended and expressly
designated beneficiary. Similarly, a
provision intended
Similarly, a provision intended
to afford a remedy
to those who have just claims should
receive a beneficial construction for
the purpose of extending the remedy to
all
who might fairly come within the meaning
of the terms.
And that's Rider versus Fitchy of Ohio,
a Supreme Court case, okay?
And that's number 33.
Okay?
Now, this comes out of 16th Am
Jurisprudence. In other words, I have
this Constitution.
This Constitution is a contract in
writing enforceable in a court of law
pursuant to the statute of frauds. I'm
asking for specific performance, Your
Honor, in favor of me.
I am the beneficiary of the contract.
There's also a basic premise in contract
law, basic contract law 101 of any
first-year law student that says
the contract shall be enforced most
favorably in favor of the non-preparer.
And that's you.
You didn't prepare it.
Now, if you believe honestly that you
have a right
and you can timely bring that right
before a proper adjudicated authority
and you can clearly stipulate as to what
your right was, guess what? They gots to
listen. That's the way it is. That's the
way it's supposed to be.
And I'm telling you if you know your
rights and you timely assert those
rights, you have those rights.
But if you sit on your haunches and you
cry foul,
it's terrible. Somebody ought to do
something about that. Hey, be a
somebody. Do something about it. Don't
sit there telling me that somebody ought
to do something about that. Be a
somebody. You do something about it. You
honestly got an honest you go out
there and you take care of it.
Because that's what it takes to be an
American. That's what all That's what
it's all about. That's what being an
American is all about. That's what
separates you from the rest of the whole
world.
Because Americans, you don't trample on
their rights cuz they're going to come
get you.
You do not trample on their rights. They
won't put up with it. So, be an American
and don't put up with it. Stand up there
and be counted. Now, I want to read the
next argument there, which is argument
number 98,
which basically deals with the effect of
an emergency.
Argument 98.
Does everybody see that there? Get it
there? Pretty good? All right. Argument
98. While an emergency cannot create
power and no emergency justifies the
violation of any of the provisions of
the United States Constitution or state
constitutions,
public emergencies such as economic
depression,
all right?
Go over here to the next page.
What happened here? All right.
All right. Let's go.
For a specially liberal construction of
constitutional powers, and it has been
declared that because of national
exigency, it is the policy of the courts
in times of national peril so liberally
to construe the special powers vested in
the chief executive as to sustain and
effectuate the purpose thereof. And to
that end also more liberally to construe
the constituted division and
classification of the powers of the
coordinate branches of the government
and insofar as may not be clearly
inconsistent
with the Constitution, right? In other
words, it can't be in conflict with the
Constitution to vest extraordinary
powers in the chief executive. But, I'm
telling you, on the other hand, a
contention that a grave emergency such
as the depression should permit
construction of the constitutional
provisions which would meet the
emergency was rejected. In one case, the
court holding that neither the
legislature nor any executive or
judicial officer may disregard the
provisions of the Constitution in cases
of an emergency
where the plain and unequivocal terms of
the Constitution present to question of
construction as to departures in
emergency. So, not even an emergency
justifies
the taking away of constitutional
provisions. And I know you've heard
differently. I know you think, "Well,
they got an emergency. They just declare
an emergency and then they the president
issues an executive order." But let me
ask you, if it's a repugnant of
Constitution of the United States, is it
a law? No.
Who says so? We do. We're the people.
It's our country. It's our Constitution.
We're the ones that say you can't do
that. And we mean it. You better well
better listen.
All right. Now,
let's get into the next argument here.
Now, I hope I'm not boring you to tears
here, but it's kind of important that we
cover these basic things so that you can
understand.
As to the construction refer with
reference to the common law, an
important canon of construction is that
that constitutions must be construed
with reference to the common law.
That means the law of the little people
out there, not the corporations.
Okay?
Since it in most respects the federal
and state constitutions did not
repudiate, but cherish the established
common law, this fact has been taken
into consideration by the courts in
construing certain clauses in a state
constitution, such as the provision
securing the right to a jury trial.
Also, provisions in regard to crimes
have been interpreted with reference to
the common law rule that one
that one charged with a crime may be
convicted of a lesser offense
necessarily included in the crime
charged. In such cases, the courts of
the state always regard the language in
the common law sense. So, the common law
prevails.
Don't let anybody tell you this
admiralty law prevails because it only
prevails if you get sucked into it.
We're not going to let you do that.
We're going to teach you how to beat it.
The common law also permitted
destruction of the abatement of
nuisances
by summary proceedings. Traffic tickets,
folks.
That's what a traffic ticket does.
It is a writ of assistance, a bill of
attainder. It's unlawful in the United
States of America.
And it 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 the sense, who said so? Erie
Railroad versus Tompkins. Okay?
All right. 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 this common law, the language
of the federal Constitution could not be
understood.
So, the common law applies, folks.
And we're going to get into that common
law heavily in the advanced section, all
right?
Okay?
Now, let's get back into this. In
interpreting the federal Constitution,
adopted by the several states, all
right? The 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
United States Constitution would not be
understood. This is due to the fact that
this instrument and the plan of
government of the United States were
founded on the common law as established
in England at the time of the
revolution, okay? Therefore, it is the
general rule that the phrases in the
Bill of Rights taken from the common law
must be construed in reference to the
latter. Specifically, the United States
Supreme Court has taken that the common
law into consideration in construing the
Fourth Amendment, the Fifth Amendment
provisions relating All right? So, the
common law is extremely important that
we get it and we will cover that
thoroughly.
It's important to understand that most
of you out there are citizens at the
common law.
That only only those that understand the
differences in Admiralty and Maritime
Law, those that are corporations,
officers of corporations, those are
officers of government residing in the
District of Columbia, the 14th Amendment
duality of citizenship, which is talked
about in the case of Erie Railroad
versus Tompkins, which is a rather heavy
argument. And I will cover that
thoroughly with you so that you
understand where the traps and the
differences are. But for right now, I'm
trying to demonstrate to you
construction and programming so that you
can understand that this Constitution
right here is the supreme law of the
land. It is a contract in writing.
It is enforceable in favor of you in an
open court of law. You are the
beneficiary, okay? I want to give you
some basic law points on this Am Jur
Second argument. This is section 114 of
the 16th volume of Am Jur Second. I'm
going to give you a couple more of these
sites so that you can understand how
powerful a document this is, okay?
Let's go to the next section, which is
115, which is her uh
Let's see which one. 117. 117 is the
next serious section. They're all
serious.
By the way, I highly recommend you go
down to the law library.
Grab that 16th volume of Am Jur Second.
Start at section 1 and start paging
through to section 300. You will
absolutely be astounded.
We are now in 16th Am Jur Second,
section 117.
And I will read it to you. Basically,
various facts and circumstances
extrinsic to the Constitution are often
resorted to by the courts to aid them in
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.
Which that militia argument and that
collective law theory of the Second
Amendment is. They're They're
They're reaching far.
All right?
Clearly it says in the plain English,
the right of the people to keep and
carry arms shall not be infringed. Now,
what is it you don't understand about
the word infringed?
They're infringing.
The Brady Bill is infringement. 1968 Gun
Control Act, it's infringing.
All of these
the CCW acts of these states, they're
infringing.
Who says so? You do.
How shall a document be enforced in
favor of who? You.
When are you going to enforce it?
You're the one that is the the citizen.
All power is inherent in the people.
You're the one with the power. Enforce
your power. All right?
Does everybody understand that argument?
That's the magnificence. I'm bringing
the genie out. We're stroking the bottle
here.
And I'm going to bring the genie out
here in a second. You're going to
understand the magnificence of the power
of this book.
You see, once you understand this is an
ironclad contract. Once you understand
that this is enforceable in a court of
law pursuant to the statute of frauds.
Once you understand you have a right to
claim specific performance on the
contract. Your honor, I'm demanding my
right to keep and carry arms. That right
shall not be infringed. I want specific
performance. I am the holder of the
contract. It's supposed to be enforced
in favor of me. I am the clearly
intended and especially designated
beneficiary, the citizen. I want the
thing protected in in favor of my right.
Does that make logical sense to you? Now
do you start to understand the power of
this document? Okay?
See, before you just thought it was a
bunch of writing in some in some
textbook that you had to take when you
took a civics class in high school in
the 11th grade.
See, I want you to understand that you
don't leave home without this. This is
more important than your credit card.
Okay?
Next, let's get into the next section.
I'm going to cover some more of these Am
Jur sections so that you can understand.
I want to get into section 155.
16th Am Jur 2nd section
Since the Constitution is intended for
the observance of the judiciary as well
as other departments of government, and
the judges are sworn to
to support its provisions. That means
sworn, as in oath law of a sworn.
The courts are not at liberty to
overlook or disregard
its commands or countenance 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 and
are 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 deliberate judgment of the tribunal
before which the validity of the
enactment is directly drawn into
question. If the Constitution prescribes
one rule and the statute another and 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.
Does everybody understand that?
He's They're telling the judge, "You got
to rule in favor of the Constitution."
And if you know your Constitution,
whose favor are they going to rule in?
Yours.
But you have to have enough hair on your
tail feather to walk in there and say,
"Hey, I'm an American."
And I have a constitutional right. That
right shall not be infringed and you're
infringing.
And I'm asking you not to do that cuz
it's not nice.
And I'm asking the judge to do his duty
under his sworn oath of office and
uphold the United States Constitution as
he swore he would under Article 11
paragraph 1 in this state, which says
that he shall swear to protect and
defend the Constitution from all
enemies, foreign and domestic, and he
will perform his duties to the best of
his ability, so help him God. Now,
let's get closer to so help him God.
Now, let's get into another one of
these. We got a load of them, folks, so
let's bear with me here.
16th Am. Jur. 2d section 177.
Declaratory judgments.
Declaratory judgment actions have often
been utilized to test the
constitutionality of a statute and
government practices. The Uniform
Declaratory Judgments Act makes specific
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
statutes
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 assaying 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. You
can't enjoin a constitutional right.
A court may grant declaratory relief
unless there is a case of controversy
before the court. That is, the dispute
must consist of specific adverse claims
based upon present rather than future or
speculative facts on which to base the
adjudication.
All right? Now, I'm trying to tell you
folks here, you have a right to demand a
declaratory judgment, which we are going
to do in several of our cases here.
And they got to declare. Is it
constitutional or isn't it
constitutional? If it's constitutional,
it has to be judged in favor of who?
You, the the citizen. Why? Cuz you're
the the beneficiary. It's supposed to be
enforced in favor of you, the
beneficiary, the citizen, for the
protection of rights and property. See,
Barrows vs. United States, 273 U.S. 28.
And the 40 Supreme Court cases that
support that mandate. Okay?
Now, let's get There's just a couple
more here. Bear with me. I know you're
probably bored to tears right now, but I
don't want you to do that. I want you to
pay attention.
Okay, we're at section 255.
16th Am Jur Sec 255.
In all instances where the court
exercises its power to invalidate
legislation on constitutional grounds,
the conflict of the statute with the
Constitution must be irreconcilable.
The Brady bill.
Irreconcilable. Huh?
In other words, the court is without
authority to declare a statute
unconstitutional unless it is in
positive or direct conflict with the
statute
or with the Constitution.
Thus, a statute is not to be declared
unconstitutional unless so inconsistent
with the Constitution that it cannot be
enforced without a violation thereof.
Because that would be violating the
Constitution. We can't have that. What
happened in Marbury vs. Madison, 5 U.S.
137? Same thing.
A clear incompatibility between law and
the Constitution must exist before the
judiciary is satisfied in holding a law
unconstitutional. This principle of is,
of course, in line with the rule that
doubts as to constitutionality should be
resolved in favor of the
constitutionality.
And the beneficiary, you, the citizen,
for the protection of your rights and
property.
Okay?
Does everybody pick up on that? Now,
let's let's shift to 256.
256, right here.
The general rule is that an
unconstitutional statute, whether
federal or state, 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 the enactment and
not merely from the date of the decision
so branding it.
Wouldn't it be interesting if 34 34
Where's 34?
There's 33. Where's 34? Here's 34.
There's 35. All right, here's 34. State
ex rel. versus Nguyen v. Greer. But I'll
tell you what, Marbury versus Madison
comes higher than that, okay?
All right, 34. Let's go over that again.
And ineffective for any purpose, since
the unconstitutionality dates from the
time of the enactment and not merely
from the date of the decision so
branding it. An unconstitutional law in
legal contemplation is as inoperative as
if it never had been passed. The Brady
Bill,
the crime bill,
1968 gun control bill, all these bills.
Such a statute leaves the question that
it purports to settle just as it would
be had the statute not ever been
enacted. Right?
Let's go on.
No repeal
No repeal of an enactment is necessary,
since an unconstitutional law is void.
The general principles follows that it
imposes no duties, confers no rights,
creates no office, bestows no power or
authority on anyone, affords no
protection, and justifies no acts
performed under it. A contract
Did everybody pick up on that keyword?
Contract. A contract which rests on an
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, the Constitution,
it is superseded thereby. Since an
unconstitutional statute cannot repeal
or in any way affect 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 clause Well, what did I say
there? It remains in full force and
effect. Is the Second Amendment in full
force and effect? You better believe it.
Okay?
And what is it they don't understand
about infringed? And where a statute
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. In other
words, the law stands always, the real
law, the Constitution. The general
principles stated above apply to the
constitutions as well as to the laws of
several states in so far as they are
repugnant
to the Constitution and the laws of the
United States. And let's see if 54 will
confirm.
Kuhn versus Berry, but I can tell you
Marbury versus Madison is higher than
that, but I'd be willing to bet you they
cited Marbury in that.
Moreover, a construction of a statute
a construction of a statute which brings
in conflict with a constitution will
nullify it as effectively as if it had
in its expressed terms been enacted in
conflict therewith. So,
anything passed in conflict with the
United States Constitution is clearly
unconstitutional. It doesn't take a
college professor graduating magnum
laude from Harvard to figure these
things out.
All you have to do is read. That's why
God gave you eyes now.
The actual existence Well, let's go to
257. 257, same book, 16th Am Jur
Prudence.
The actual existence of a statute prior
to determination that it is
unconstitutional is an in as is an
operative fact
and may have consequences which cannot
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 and acted upon accordingly
of prior determinations deemed to have
finality and acted upon accordingly and
of public policy in the light of the
nature both of the statute
and of its previous application demand
examination.
All right. It has been said that
an all-inclusive statement of the
principle of absolute retroactive
invalidity cannot be justified. I would
say it would be ex post facto.
An unconstitutional statute is not
necessarily a nullity. It may have
indeterminate consequences binding upon
the people, all right?
So, you have to pay attention to what's
going on.
Now, let's get a few more and we're out
of here.
Section 258, I'm just going to read the
important section here. 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.
Does that make sense to you?
In reality it would be what? A nullity.
Why? Cuz it's in conflict or repugnancy.
It'd be in violation of Marbury versus
Madison, all right? Now, are you
starting to see the gist of what's going
on here? There's just one more, I think,
and we're out of here.
All right. Section 260 of the same 16th
Am Jur Prudence.
Now, folks, head down to the law
library.
The books are usually green or red in
color. They're kind of thick.
Ask the librarian where Am Jur is
prudent second is stored. Run over
there, grab the 16 volume, start at
section one and just start paging
through to say at section 300. I'm
telling you, you won't believe it.
We're going to look at section 260.
Although it is manifest that an
unconstitutional provision in the
statute is not cured because included in
the same act with valid provisions and
that there are no degrees of
constitutionality.
In other words, it's either
constitutional or it's unconstitutional.
There's nothing like kind of like half
pregnant. There's no such thing, all
right?
So that an act is either constitutional
or it is unconstitutional, okay? So if
you got statute here and most of it's
constitutional and a part of it's
unconstitutional, guess what? It's all
unconstitutional.
So what we got here is a crime bill and
we got part of it is constitutional and
part of it's unconstitutional.
Obviously, they had no authority under
the second amendment to fool around with
the right of the people to keep and bear
arms.
They couldn't demand that the people not
possess certain firearms.
So this directly applies to this crime
bill.
Obviously, part of the bill is
constitutional and the other part is not
constitutional. So what is the end
result? The whole bill is
unconstitutional. Does everybody see
that?
Excuse me. Now I want you to start
looking at these things and I want you
to start hammering these guys and don't
let these guys pull this kind of stuff.
Hook them.
Over there in column, say uh
Hey Charlie, won't you step over here
for a minute? I want to check out
something here.
I mean, you would if they had your
wallet.
Wouldn't you?
Does that make sense to you?
Now we're going to get into a new unique
argument here.
For the last half hour, I've been trying
to hammer home the power of this book.
This book right here.
See?
I'm trying to hammer home the power of
this book to teach you that
this is the most valuable book in your
whole life.
If you know what's in this book, I am
telling you,
you are in full possession of your
American citizenship. If you don't know
what's in this book,
I am telling you,
you're going to be a slave, subject to
the whim of extrajudicial people
who want to tell you what to do, when to
do it, how to do it, and how high to
pack.
Now, my honest philosophy to you is, as
a kindness and a Christian to you, I
tell you, where in this book, just like
you would your
your rights? I love it when these guys
tell me I don't have any rights.
I say, "Well, if you believe that, let's
go to court.
And on the end of the day, we'll see who
owns who."
But, I'm going to tell you right now, if
you violate any of my constitutional
rights,
I will sue your socks off, and I will
attach everything you own, bank,
business, and home.
And I'm telling you, I'm the one your
mama warned you about, so you damn well
better listen.
Do not violate my rights, cuz I will
come after you, and I will take care of
business, and I will do what is
necessary and proper, and I will pull
every stop out, and I will go dig up
every nut, bolt, and screw, and when
it's done, you will find out you messed
with the wrong American, cuz this
American is not going to back down.
Okay?
Now, we're going to get into a real
special argument. Now, this argument has
taken almost 18 and 1/2 years to
develop, so I want you to pay attention.
Excuse me a second here. This argument
is a unique concept
that has been honed like a razor
to a very meticulous edge, so that you
can understand
what's going on.
Obviously, we have established clearly
that you have a constitutional right.
And obviously, we have established that
you are the beneficiary of the contract,
and we have established that the
Constitution is a contract in writing
enforceable in the court of law, and we
have established that you have a right
to claim specific performance on the
contract.
And we have established that it's
supposed to be interpreted in your
favor. So, if you got an honest
constitutional belief, they have to
listen.
Now, let's take that to the next step.
The next step is can a state arbitrarily
and erroneously convert your right into
a privilege and issue a license and a
fee for it.
Now, uh I don't know if you Can you see
this pretty clearly? This uh right here?
Pretty clear.
All right. Let's start start with here.
We're going to start walking down this
sheet. Okay?
Murdock versus Pennsylvania, US Supreme
Court.
Now, when you want to go into the law
library and you want to look up
something,
what you want to do is understand that
Supreme Court is Trump, okay?
That's the clearest way I can explain it
to you.
If you got a Supreme Court case that
trumps a a district court, that trumps a
court of appeals, that trumps a state
court, that trumps everything. So, you
want to deal with Supreme Court cases as
best you can.
Murdock versus Pennsylvania is a unique
case. It's recorded at 319 US 105.
That's the
319th volume of United States Supreme
Court reports
on page 105.
So, when you go to the law library, go
into US reports,
ask the little gal there or the little
guy that's behind the counter, "Where is
the United States Supreme Court
reports?" They'll tell you right where
it is. You grab volume 319, you turn to
page 105, and it'll give you the case of
Murdock versus Pennsylvania.
Murdock versus Pennsylvania is a real
unique case.
And I'm I'm I'm telling you to read the
case.
You get the case, the judge always likes
to see that you're ready.
And I'm going to submit basically the
case briefly. Basically, it is a
religious test case
wherein Jehovah's Witnesses in the in
the year of 1943 wanted their right to
be able to go and preach among the
public cuz that is their right to
evangelize, okay?
Pennsylvania in Pennsylvania
they wanted them to have a license to
solicit.
Okay? This is basically the crux of the
case.
Now, what happened was
uh this the Jehovah's Witness claimed
their First Amendment right of life,
liberty, and pursuit of happiness, the
right to worship and and uh exercise
their religion unencumbered, right?
And of course, that's one of the
mainstays that that founded this country
was the religious freedom.
Okay?
And basically, the points on the case
that are established are 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
involved restrains in advance the
constitutional liberties of press and
religion and inevitably tends to
suppress their existence. All right?
Let's pull that over there.
Everybody see that?
Okay?
All right? I'll start again. 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
involved restrains in advance the
constitutional liberties of the press
and religion and inevitably tends to
suppress the exercise thereof. That the
ordinance is non-discriminatory and that
it 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 a state's authority,
the inquiry as to whether the state has
given something for which it cannot ask
a return is irrelevant.
All right?
No state may convert a secured liberty
into a privilege and issue a license and
a fee for it. Now, a lot of people come
back to me and say, "Well, I'm not a
Jehovah's Witness, so that case doesn't
apply to me." I I you to reach.
I want you to understand we're not
talking about whether you're a Jehovah's
Witness here. What we're talking about
here is are you an American and do you
have rights?
What they are talking about here is that
these Jehovah's Witness people exercise
their rights timely. That they had a
right to worship and exercise and and
and worship their God and evangelize as
they chose and that the state came in
and arbitrarily converted that right
into a privilege and issued a license
and a fee for it. That is totally
unconstitutional. Now, we took that case
as a pioneering case
and we argued that case for all of your
constitutional rights.
All you need to do is keep in mind that
you are an American and you have
constitutional rights. Number one.
Number two, you have to keep in mind
what right? Can you pull a right out of
the Constitution?
If you can pull a right out of the
Constitution and I'll give you an
example. How about the right to travel
freely and unencumbered pursuant to
Shapiro versus Thompson and we'll get
into that. How about the right to keep
and bear arms, right? Does a state have
a right to require license and a fee for
the exercise of the right? And if they
do, can you ignore the license and the
fee? We'll get into that. Now, obviously
in this case, it's clearly established
and this is the premise of this case.
No state may convert a secured liberty
into a privilege,
issue a license and a fee for it
and require you to have that.
Otherwise, you committed a crime. That's
totally 100% unconstitutional. I want
that to get across real clear.
Now, let's jump to the next case. By the
way, Murdock is recorded at 319. That's
the 319 volume.
U.S. Reports page 105. We'll start the
case. All right? Go read the case
though. Make sure you read the case. I
don't want anybody to come up and tell
me they didn't read the case cuz I'm a
I'm going to get on you.
You're not following. That's failure to
follow instructions.
Okay? Now,
we're going to walk down the next step
of this case. We we took care of Murdock
here. Let's go to Shuttleworth versus
Birmingham, Alabama, which is recorded
at volume 373 in the same US reports.
You go to volume 373, turn to page 262.
When we go to Shuttleworth versus
Birmingham, Alabama,
this is another unique religious case,
okay?
In this case, six ministers
were accused, excuse me,
of inciting to riot and otherwise
created disturbance and disturbed the
peace, okay? They had a sit-down. This
case came down in 1962.
And what happened was they said they
needed to have a license to
to have a public uh
gathering, okay?
And what happened was it went to the
Supreme Court. The Supreme Court says,
"No, no, no, you don't need to have a
license for the exercise of a First
Amendment right to freely assemble."
Okay?
Right, basically the the gist of the
case is uh
the Negro ministers were convicted in
Alabama state court of aiding and
abetting in violation of criminal
trespass ordinance in Birmingham,
Alabama. The only evidence against them
was to the effect that they had incited
10 Negro students to engage in a
sit-down demonstration in a white lunch
counter. Actually, there were six
ministers, but only two got charged. As
a protest against the racial
segregation.
And they cite other cases. A lot of
times you can find other cases in these
cases. In Gober versus City of
Birmingham, Alabama, this court today
holds on the authority of Peterson
versus City of Greenville,
that the convictions of those 10
students for criminal trespass were
constitutionally invalid. Since those
convictions have been set aside, it
follows that these petitioners did not
incite or aid and abet any crime, and
that therefore the convictions of these
petitioners must be set aside. Now,
basically what they were claiming is
their constitutional right to freely
assemble. The cities was claiming that
they had to have a license to put on a
demonstration, which they didn't have,
and they were charging them with a
criminal trespass for not having a valid
license to freely assemble and or
protest, okay?
Now, the gist of this case
I want you to see the significance of
this case in view of the second of the
next the case we gave you before that.
Murdock versus Pennsylvania clearly
established that no state could convert
a secured liberty into a privilege and
issue a license and a fee for it. Does
everybody got that? Shuttleworth versus
Birmingham, Alabama said that 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 in the right with
impunity. That means they can't punish
you. They got to let you go.
All right? Does everybody see that? It's
very important that you understand first
your Constitution is the supreme law of
the land and that you have that right.
And that that right shall not be
infringed and is supposed to be enforced
in favor of you, the declaring tenant
and expressly designated beneficiary.
It's very important that you understand
that no state may convert that right
into a privilege and issue a license and
a fee for it. And if they do,
Shuttleworth versus Birmingham, Alabama
says you can ignore the license and
engage in the right with impunity. That
means they can't punish you.
Now, the next case is very important and
it's very important that you see the
argument.
Okay?
That's United States versus Bishop.
That's 412 volume 412 United States
reports. This is page 346.
We come down here.
United States versus Bishop is a very
unique case.
Basically, what Bishop does is it sets a
standard for what constitutes a criminal
violation in terms of willful intent,
okay?
Willfulness is is one of the major
elements that is required to be proven
in any criminal element. You have to
prove one that you're the party, two
that you had a method or an opportunity
to do the thing, and third that you did
so with a willful intent. Now, when we
get to willful intent, willful is
defined as an evil motive or intent to
avoid a known duty or task under the law
with a moral certainty.
Obviously, in the previous two cases,
you have decided that you have relied on
the United States Constitution.
And you have relied on decisions of the
United States Supreme Court.
So, could you have willfully done any
deed or crime? Obviously not. So, guess
what? This case stipulates that you have
a perfect defense to the element of
willfulness. All right? Since the burden
on the prosecution is to prove that you
did willfully and knowingly avoid a
known duty or task under the law with a
moral certainty, he cannot perform that
task, can he? Because it's obviously you
have a constitutional immunity to that.
The previous case, Shuttlesworth versus
Birmingham, Alabama, said they couldn't
even punish you.
The case before that said you didn't
need a license for the exercise of a
right. And the case before that said
your constitutional right is supreme
over any state law. So, if they pass the
law in violation of your Constitution,
the Constitution overwhelms the state
law. So, the law doesn't even exist in
law. Does everybody see that? Now, since
the prosecutor does not have a cause of
action for which relief can be granted,
Your Honor, may it please the court,
counsel is specifically precluded from
performing his major task. Therefore,
Your Honor, may it please the court, at
this time I would motion most graciously
for a dismissal with prejudice for
failure to state a cause of action for
which relief may be granted by this
honorable court. And I'd kind of like to
collect my costs and fees for having to
defend this patently frivolous and
spurious complaint, sir. May it please
the court.
Laughter will usually break out
thereafter, at which point the judge
usually turn to the prosecutor and say,
"Well, Mr. Prosecutor, what do you think
we ought do about this young fellow?"
And he'll say, "I'd go for the motion to
dismiss, Your Honor." And the judge will
turn to him and say, "That's a good
answer cuz I don't think you're ready
for this kid today."
And 40 attorneys will break out
laughing.
Okay? That's actually happened to me,
folks.
I'm telling you this argument is a
killer argument. It's good for every
single constitutional right you've got.
All you have to do is fill in the
blanks. What constitutional right? Prove
that you have the constitutional right.
Tell them the state doesn't have a right
to convert that right into a privilege.
Tell them that they can't even punish
you if they do. And then claim that the
prosecutor can't prove willfulness, so
you obviously didn't do no crime, and
then flip around and demand for your
dismissal, which is your right, and get
your costs and fees for having to defend
this frivolous case. May it please the
court, and I promise you you will be
amazed.
40 attorneys will jump up and say,
"Yeah."
They'll come up and shake your hand and
tell you that's one of the most
magnificent arguments they've ever
heard. They'll tell you you got
something like King Kong
for taking on the bar association or
whatever.
Now, I'm telling you these things have
personally happened to me. I can relate
the exact cases.
That goes for practicing law without a
license.
Obviously, you got a right to work. You
got a right to contract your your your
right to work
as you see fit, not as some arbitrary
and capricious bar association sees fit,
right? Doesn't that make sense to you?
You don't want to belong to the union,
that's your right. This is a This is a
right-to-work state, right?
The bottom line is this. They cannot
compel you to have a license or pay a
fee for the exercise of your right.
And if they do, you can ignore the
license and a fee and engage in the
right with impunity. That means they
can't punish you. And since you got a
perfect defense to the element of
willfulness, they cannot
punish you.
They have to dismiss. They do not have a
cause of action.
Now, this argument I'm telling you is
taking us over 18 years to develop in
the courts
and in law libraries over the years and
just kind of compiling and arguing cases
and doing this.
This argument is a killer argument.
They're Have yet Have they ever won
against us on this argument? Uh
nor could they in the United States of
America as long as the Constitution
stands.
I'm asking that you pay attention to
this argument and start utilizing it.
We'll show you some of the techniques
later in the second half, all right?
Now, the word willfully has the same
meaning, all right?
In controlling the voluntary intentional
violation of a known legal duty.
And the distinction between the statute
is found in the additional misconduct
that is essential to the violation of
the felony provision. If they can't
prove willfulness, they can't prove
nada. Okay? Does everybody got that?
Now, let's go to the next one.
Now that you've won and your rights have
been violated,
the next thing they will claim, "Well,
we acted in good faith." Or "Well, we
acted in good faith. We had a good faith
reliance that you broke the law."
Okay?
And that means you can't sue us.
That's a lie.
You see, since these two cases, Owen
versus City of Independence, which is
recorded at 100 volume, and you want to
look at Supreme Court Reports. Now,
that's a different reporter.
Supreme Court Reports will actually say
on the back of the reporter, "Supreme
Court Reports." It won't say US, it'll
say Supreme Court Reports. So, so that's
a different volume. It's a newer a newer
reporter. So, you want the 100th volume
and you want to look up Supreme Court
Reports and you want to turn to page
1398.
There is a
a also a counterpart case to this Owen
case, which is Memph- which is uh Maine
versus Thiboutot.
I'll give you the site for those.
Okay, I gave you Owen versus City of
Independence, so I'll give you Maine
versus Thiboutot. Maine versus Thiboutot
is recorded at
100 Supreme Court, that's 100th volume,
Supreme Court Reports,
page 2502.
Now, basically, the summation of what
these what the what these
basic arguments say, "Where plain
language of a statute supported by
consis- consistent judicial
interpretation is strong, it is not
necessary to look beyond the words of
the statute, right?"
Now,
what these are both civil rights cases.
The right of action created by statute
relating to deprivation under color of
law of state law of a right secured by
the Constitution and the laws of the
United States encompasses 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. Now, whenever this
happens, folks, you must understand
something.
And that goes for both Maine versus
Thiboutot and Owen versus City of
Independence. And I'll tell you the
brief synopsis on both these cases.
Owen was a police chief in a town of
Independence, Missouri.
And he got in a gripe with the city
council and they
indiscriminately fired him without just
cause.
Owen turned around and sued.
They claimed that they acted in good
faith.
The Supreme Court said, "Sir,
you are deemed to be officers of the
law. You are to advise us to the law.
You can hardly claim that you acted in
good faith for a willful deprivation of
the law and you certainly can't claim
ignorance of the law cuz a citizen out
here on a street can't claim ignorance
of the law and it makes the law look
stupid if an officer of the court or
some officer of government doesn't know
the law and then they go ahead and abuse
somebody's constitutional right." So, in
matters of constitutional rights, both
these cases uphold one point. And the
point they uphold is that whenever they
violate your constitutional rights, they
do so at their own peril. And it even
says that in Title 18 United States Code
Section 241 and 242. It says
that upon conviction, you're a subject
to a $10,000 fine, 10 years in jail, or
both, and if death results, life in
prison. They're telling you, "Don't
violate somebody's rights. Please, don't
do that." Title 42 United States Code
Sections 1983, 1985, and 1986 clearly
establish your right to sue anybody that
does that.
Now, they're going to claim you can't
sue them cuz they have judicial
immunity. Well, guess what? These two
cases remove judicial immunity. There is
no judicial immunity for violating
somebody's constitutional rights.
Judge, you are deemed to know the law
and sworn to uphold it. You can hardly
claim that you act in good faith or
willful deprivation of the law, and you
certainly can't plead ignorance of the
law, for that would make the law look
stupid for a not a knowledgeable judge
to claim ignorance of the law when a
citizen on the street can't claim
ignorance of the law. Therefore, there
is no judicial immunity. I want to get
that across. I don't know how many
attorneys come up to me all the time
telling me, "Well, they're immune."
because they acted in good faith.
They're just not reading their court
They're not reading their court reports
because if they'd read their court
reports, they would have known this case
has been on the books since 1982.
Both Both these cases came down in 1982.
So, I want you to pay attention to these
cases. When somebody tells you they can
violate your rights with with impunity,
you just kind of smile and say,
"Make my day."
Okay?
Now, the next case we want to talk about
is Bivens versus United States.
We We mentioned it previously earlier.
Bivens is recorded at 273 volume 273 US
Reports page 28. Okay? Now,
Bivens versus United States is a a
unique case. It's a search and seizure
case, but basically it sets
constitutional standards, which we had
talked about in the Am Jur sections.
In the Am Jur sections, okay? I
especially want to pay attention to note
number three here.
Constitutional provisions for 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 stealthy encroachment
therein. All right? When a federal
officer participates officially with a
state official in a search, so that in
substance and effect, it is their joint
operation, the legality of the search
and the use in evidence of the thing
seized is to be tested in federal
prosecutions
as it would be if the undertaking were
exclusively the federal agent. All
right?
The reality here is what they are
setting is the standards must be
liberally construed in favor of the
citizen. It's the duty of the court to
make sure that happens. So, now
you have a right to be wrong, you have a
right
to uh
enter your viable defenses that you
honestly think. No state can convert
that right into a privilege and issue a
license and a fee. If they do, you can
ignore the license and the fee.
They have must per They must prove the
burden of proof of willfulness, which
they cannot do.
If they do violate your rights, you do
have a right to sue them in Owens versus
City of Independence and Maine versus
Thiboutot. They have to give every
consideration to you, all right? And
that's the way it is. 1900 yesterday,
all right? The next case we want to talk
about is Boyd.
Boyd versus United States is recorded at
It's recorded at
uh 116 volume 116 United States Reports
page 616. So, everybody got that? Can
you see?
Bear with us, folks. We're really trying
to jam here for you.
Boyd versus United States 116 US page
616. The court is to protect against
encroachment of constitutionality or
secured liberty, all right?
Now,
it is equivalent to a compulsory
production of papers to make the
non-production of them a confession of
the allegations, which is is pretended
they will prove.
And a lot of times that happens in
federal cases.
They'll claim something, they won't
prove it. That's happened to me, believe
me. And then the fact that they've
claimed it makes it true, all right?
Now, the
Excuse me.
And then, of course, you have to prove a
negative, which is impossible.
All right? Now, the seizure or
compulsory production of a man's private
papers to be used in evidence against
him is equivalent to compelling him to
be a witness against himself in
violation of Fifth Amendment and in a
prosecution for a crime penalty or
forfeiture is equally within the
prohibition of the Fifth Amendment. See
that?
Now,
the bottom line here is
Boyd
protects against encroachment of
constitutionally secured liberties. It's
arguing the Fifth Amendment here, but
it's basically arguing against
encroachment, all right? So, that's one
you want to pay attention to when you're
coming especially to things on search
and seizure natures. Another good case
that you should know is your Miranda
versus Arizona. And folks, I'm going to
tell you something
and even I can learn something. Not that
I'm not much above you. I want to come
to you humbly in humility. I'm I'm
telling you I've read and I know and
there's a lot of things about the law
and I've been my own attorney for over
25 years and I kicked the tail out of
them. I'll be honest with you. But I
always can learn something and I'm not
stupid enough ever not to realize that.
The next thing I'm going to tell you is
probably one of the most important
things we're going to tell you today.
This is the Miranda versus Arizona
decision.
It's recorded at 384, volume 384 US,
that's US Reports page 436.
Now, this is a heavy-duty case.
Every American should know this case
backward and forward, upside down and
other. All right?
Miranda versus Arizona.
This is the one that says you got a
right to remain silent, you got a right
to an attorney, you got a right to have
your attorney present during
questioning. Anything you say can and
will be held against you in a court of
law. If you can't afford an attorney,
one will be appointed for you by the
court. Do you wish to make any statement
on your behalf? Do you understand the
rights that I have spoken to you?
As soon as they stop you, talk to you,
as soon as they start talking to you,
they are required to say that. If they
don't say that, they screwed up.
If they haul you into jail and they
don't tell you this, read it to you, and
then they want to make you sign a little
statement that you know your rights and
you knowingly waived them, please folks,
don't sign that statement.
Use your head for something other than
hat rack.
You are not signing that statement,
ever.
You are knowingly waiving your
constitutional rights.
Don't ever do that.
I mean, they don't make they don't make
it
that hard.
As soon as you hear those people start
talking it, you tell them right
effectively, I want to talk to an
attorney.
And I'm not saying nothing until I talk
to an attorney, especially if you're
talking to federal people, BATF.
These people will lie, cheat, steal.
They will do anything they can
to hammer you. Their whole purpose in
life is to hammer you. I don't want you
to think, "Oh, what nice guys. So, maybe
we can just work this out. Why don't we
just talk and maybe we can get things
worked out." You don't talk to these
people, folks. You're talking to
somebody who learned the hard way.
You do not talk to these people, ever. I
don't care if you think you're a nice
guy and you want to be courteous. I
don't think you think if you're going to
work it out. I don't think you think if
you're going to you're smarter than they
are and you can beat them. I'm telling
you you don't talk to them. Period. You
button that hatch.
An old uh wise uh
legal defense counsel told me one time,
he said, "The first rule is keep your
big mouth shut."
I said, "Okay, what's the second rule?"
"Keep your big mouth shut."
He said, "What's the third rule?" "Keep
your big mouth shut."
He said, "After you follow them three
rules, the rest is easy."
It's when you open your big mouth that
you get in trouble.
Not that you would do anything wrong
anyway, but they'll twist, lie, cheat,
and steal and make it into something you
didn't do, and before you know it, you
won't even recognize what's happened.
And I'm telling you it's happened to me.
So, I'm telling you as a friend. I'm not
telling you as a smart ass or anything
else. I'm telling you as a friend. Do
not talk to these people. They ain't
They do not have your best interest in
heart. And you may think, "Well, they're
the government and and they you know,
they're responsible and they mean well."
Well, they don't. They don't mean well.
They don't mean your well.
And they will jam you, believe me.
And if you're not real good at getting
out of it, you can you can be in a lot
of trouble. All right, now.
Let's look at this Miranda decision.
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 any court of law.
He must be clearly informed that he has
a right to consult with a lawyer.
And he to have a lawyer with him during
interrogation. Do that, please.
And that if he is indigent, a lawyer
will be appointed to represent him. All
right? If the individual indicates,
prior to enduring questioning, that he
wishes to remain silent, the
interrogation must cease.
If he states that he wants an attorney
to question him, 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
counsel right.
Don't test that theory.
But I'm telling you it works. I did it.
Where the individual answers some
questions during interrogation or
custody interrogation, he has not waived
his privilege, and may invoke his right
to remain silent thereafter.
The warnings required that the waiver
needed are, in the absence of a fully
effective equivalent prerequisite to the
admission or admissibility of any
statement, in culpability or
exculpability, made by the defendant.
The limitations on the interrogation
process required for the protection of
the individual's constitutional rights
should not cause
an undue interference with 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. Now,
this is the big one, folks. This is the
one they're talking about. Did you
properly Mirandize him? Was he
Mirandized? Was she Mirandized? If they
don't Mirandize you, they got to throw
the case out. Almost always.
It's very hard to go forward
with the case if their witnesses are
excludable from the presentation of the
case.
Now, I personally got lucky on this one,
folks.
And I thought I was really, really good.
And I am really, really good.
But you want to know something? I have a
different standard of equity and law,
and I treat everybody kindly, and I
basically give them courtesy, and I
basically try and be a regular Joe. What
happened?
It's okay. Just proceed.
A regular Joe, and I basically uh
tried to uh
basically just find out what the heck
was going on with this case.
I promise you I would never do that
again. I would dummy up like there's no
tomorrow. I wouldn't say nothing. Not
that I do anything wrong, but here's the
thing.
These people lied so bad. They put so
much trash in in the record. I was in
shock.
I couldn't believe that anybody would
deliberately do such a thing.
But they will.
So, I'm telling you as a friend, do not
talk to these people, especially BATF
people. They are not honorable people.
They don't hold They do not recognize
the honor you serve.
They are not honorable people. Their
whole is to hammer you into a position
of of ridiculousness.
So, I'm telling you, if they come in to
talk to you for whatever reason, I don't
care what, you dummy up. You don't say
nothing. You got me?
You hire an attorney. You get an
attorney there, and you don't talk till
the attorney tells you to.
And that's what I'm telling you as a
friend, okay?
That's Miranda versus Arizona. In others
four Miranda cases, is is the leading
case.
There is a Miranda warning case that
actually
locks down the the steps of the warning.
And then there's a Miranda interrogation
case, which which which locks out the
standards for
uh in-custody jail interrogations, okay?
Now,
a word to the wise should be sufficient,
and I shouldn't have to ever say nothing
about that again. Believe me, I learned
a valuable lesson.
You cannot assume that everybody is a
good guy. There are some bad ones out
there.
And I found them.
Now, the next case we're going to talk
about is Norton versus Shelby County,
recorded at 118 volume
United States Reports, page 425.
Basically, that says an unconstitutional
act is not law. It confers no rights, it
imposes no duties, affords no
protections, it creates no office. It is
in legal contemplation as in inoperative
as though it had never been passed,
okay?
And that's what this this case holds,
all right?
And now, I'm telling you you go read the
case.
Don't screw around.
The judge asks you questions about the
case, you better know about what it
says, all right?
Cuz if he thinks you didn't read it,
he's going to throw your case out.
A 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 effi- efficacy of some
principle of the federal Constitution or
of the federal statutes or a rule of the
commercial or general law.
The decision of the state courts on
questions relating to the existence of
its subordinate tribunals and the
eligibility and election or appointment
of their officers and the passage of its
laws are conclusive upon federal courts,
all right?
Now,
the most important some of the most
important thing is while acts of de
facto incumbent of an office lawfully
created by law and existing are often
held to be binding from reasons of
public policy. That's a very important
point, public policy. You want to watch
out for the terms public policy. It's
often confused with the state's right of
eminent domain of police powers. Police
powers and public policy are almost the
same thing except one's done without law
cuz we wants to and the other is done
because they're claiming a police
authority to do so, all right?
But when they're talking about 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.
Okay?
An unconstitutional act is not a law. It
confers no rights, it imposes no duties,
it affords no protection, it creates no
owls. It is in legal contemplation as
inoperative as though it had never been
passed, okay?
Does everybody get that?
Now this basic first portion of this
program
is designed clearly
to help you.
And if you take these basic cases on
this one page, you will have gone a long
way in getting your constitutional
rights back, okay?
Now we're asking you
to pay attention.
Learn your Constitution. We're going to
go into some heavier stuff through the
second portion of it.
But we want you to learn your
Constitution. This book here is a
citizen's rule book.
It also has jury instructions in it. It
also has a lot of important arguments in
it. Some of the important arguments in
it go along with what we've been talking
about, right?
All laws which are repugnant to the
Constitution are null and void, Marbury
versus Madison, 5 US 1 37. We already
argued that one. When rights secured by
the Constitution are involved, there can
be no rule or law making or legislation
which would abrogate or abolish them.
That's again Miranda versus Arizona. An
unconstitutional act is not law. It
confers no rights and imposes no duties,
affords no protection, it creates
no office, all right? That's Norton
versus Shelby County, which we just
talked about. 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, all
right?
16th Am Jur 2nd section 177 and also
256. Officers of the court have no
immunity when violating constitutional
rights from liability. That's on verse
City of Indianapolis and Maine versus
Thiboutot. No state shall convert
secured liberties and or privileges and
issue licenses and fees for them. That's
Crandall versus Pennsylvania.
If the state does convert liber- liberty
or privilege into a privilege a citizen
can engage in it with impunity. That's
Shuttleworth versus Birmingham, Alabama.
The court is to protect against any
encroachment of constitutionally secured
liberties. That's Boyd versus United
States. Constitutional rights must be
interpreted in favor of the citizen.
That's Brady versus United States. We
have covered all of these cases
thoroughly
so that you can see clearly.
All right? And we're trying to teach you
how to better effectively use your
Constitution, okay?
We're trying to get it down to
a serious program
where What do you want to do?
Open it up. All right.
All right?
And this this book here also brings out
all these court cases, all right? Notice
it's got Miranda versus Shelby County in
here. It's got Miranda versus Arizona.
It's got Madison five Marbury versus
Madison. It's got uh
The jury has the right to judge both the
law as well as the fact. John Jay, first
Chief Justice US Supreme Court. The jury
has the right to determine both the law
and the facts. Samuel Chase, US Supreme
Court Justice, 1796 singer.
You know All right, the jury has the
power to bring a verdict in the teeth of
both law and fact. Oliver Wendell
Holmes, US Supreme Court. The law itself
is on trial quite as much as the cause
which is to be decided.
Harlan F. Stone, 12th Chief Justice US
Supreme Court. The pages of history
shine on instances of the jury's
exercise of its prerogative to disregard
instructions of the judge. That's United
States versus Daugherty, 473 Fed 2nd
113.
All right? Now,
we're We're to wrap up this first part
here, basically.
We want We want you folks to
hopefully not be overwhelmed.
Take your time. Play the tape several
times. It'll It'll come to you. It's
really not that hard.
We want you to have a new reverence for
your Constitution.
We want you to know that a lot of brave
soldiers paid for it with their life.
Excuse me.
We want you to know that they died
miserably some of them.
And we want you to know that this is a
serious very serious thing here.
We want you to know that we love you,
America.
And we want you to know
we need your help.
We need your help.
We need your help to learn your
Constitution so you can better and
effectively
come forward, pick that book up, walk
out there, and shake that book, and say,
"Shaking it up, boss."
All right.
What's that?