| The Private Attorney Generals Group |
Precedent Case Law
Mojo Note: It is important to remember that "precedent is not law". There are good precedents and there are bad ones. Don't rely on them to make your point in a case. They can simply add to your presented point of view but they can be turned on you as well. There are plenty of contradictory precedents out there because of poor judgment skills by the administrators of the ABA/IBA.
The key to knowing what is good precedent and what is bad is this. I ask myself, "is this in line with the intent of the De Jure Law?"
In the end "Case Law" IS NOT LAW. It is merely a contract of what happened between people other than you. It was THEIR CONTRACT. You have the right to contract as you will. You are De jure !
The PRESUMPTION used against you is that these "other contracts" is binding on you. Were you there? Did you sign a contract agreeing to the outcome? Was there "Full Disclosure" to you? Where is the Equal Consideration? If you say no to these few things, then you are missing the basic elements of a Valid Contract per Contract Maxims. And now you should know, "Maxims" are extremely important guide lines to a fair, uncorrupted court.
The key to knowing what is good precedent and what is bad is this. I ask myself, "is this in line with the intent of the De Jure Law?"
In the end "Case Law" IS NOT LAW. It is merely a contract of what happened between people other than you. It was THEIR CONTRACT. You have the right to contract as you will. You are De jure !
The PRESUMPTION used against you is that these "other contracts" is binding on you. Were you there? Did you sign a contract agreeing to the outcome? Was there "Full Disclosure" to you? Where is the Equal Consideration? If you say no to these few things, then you are missing the basic elements of a Valid Contract per Contract Maxims. And now you should know, "Maxims" are extremely important guide lines to a fair, uncorrupted court.
"Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them." Miranda v. Arizona, (1966) 384 US 436, 491.
"There should be no arbitrary deprivation of Life or Liberty..."
Barbour vs. Connolly, 113 US 27, 31; Yick Wo vs. Hopkins, 118 US 356.
"The claim and exercise of a constitutional [protected] right cannot be converted into a crime."
Miller v. US, 230 F 486, 489.
"There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of this exercise of constitutional rights."
Sherer v. Cullen, 481 F 946.
The U.S. Supreme Court states very plainly: "The state cannot diminish rights of the people."
Hurtado v. California (1884) 110 US 516,
"Statutes that violate the plain and obvious principles of common right and common reason are null and void."
Bennett v. Boggs, 1 Baldw 60
Barbour vs. Connolly, 113 US 27, 31; Yick Wo vs. Hopkins, 118 US 356.
"The claim and exercise of a constitutional [protected] right cannot be converted into a crime."
Miller v. US, 230 F 486, 489.
"There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of this exercise of constitutional rights."
Sherer v. Cullen, 481 F 946.
The U.S. Supreme Court states very plainly: "The state cannot diminish rights of the people."
Hurtado v. California (1884) 110 US 516,
"Statutes that violate the plain and obvious principles of common right and common reason are null and void."
Bennett v. Boggs, 1 Baldw 60
Due Process
"The essential elements of due process of law are...Notice and The Opportunity to defend."
Simon vs. Craft, 182 US 427.
One of the most famous and perhaps the most quoted definitions of due process of law, is that of Daniel Webster in his Dartmouth College Case (4 Wheat 518), in which he declared that by due process is meant "a law which hears before it condemns, which proceeds upon inquiry, and renders judgment only after trial."
(See also State vs. Strasburg, 110 P. 1020; Dennis vs. Moses, 52 P. 333.)
"The essential elements of due process of law are...Notice and The Opportunity to defend."
Simon vs. Craft, 182 US 427.
One of the most famous and perhaps the most quoted definitions of due process of law, is that of Daniel Webster in his Dartmouth College Case (4 Wheat 518), in which he declared that by due process is meant "a law which hears before it condemns, which proceeds upon inquiry, and renders judgment only after trial."
(See also State vs. Strasburg, 110 P. 1020; Dennis vs. Moses, 52 P. 333.)
Travel
"The right to travel is part of the Liberty of which a citizen cannot deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment. This Right was emerging as early as the Magna Carta."
Kent vs. Dulles, 357 US 116 (1958).
"...For while a citizen has the right to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, that right does not extend to the use of the highways...as a place for private gain. For the latter purpose, no person has a vested right to use the highways of this state, but it is a privilege...which the (state) may grant or withhold at its discretion..."
State v. Johnson, 245 P 1073.
"The right to travel is part of the Liberty of which a citizen cannot deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment. This Right was emerging as early as the Magna Carta."
Kent vs. Dulles, 357 US 116 (1958).
"...For while a citizen has the right to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, that right does not extend to the use of the highways...as a place for private gain. For the latter purpose, no person has a vested right to use the highways of this state, but it is a privilege...which the (state) may grant or withhold at its discretion..."
State v. Johnson, 245 P 1073.
1. The Constitution of the United States is the Supreme law of the land. -- Marbury V. Madison 5 U.S. 137
2. The right to travel is so basic that it shouldn’t even be questioned. -- Shapiro V. Thompson 394 U.S. 618
3. No state may convert a secure liberty into a privilege and then issue a license and a fee for it. -- Murdoch V. Pennsylvania 319 U.S. 106
4. I can ignore the license and engage in the right with impunity, that means you can’t punish me for it. -- Shuttlesworth V. Birmingham Alabama 373 U.S. 262
5. An unconstitutional act is not law. It confers no rights and poses no duties, affords no protections, and creates no office. It is in legal contemplation as inoperative though it had never been passed. -- Norton V. Shelby County 118 U.S. 425
6. Willfulness is an evil motive or intent to avoid a known duty or task under law with immoral certainty. I am using the constitution and supreme court cases so I am not using evil motives or intents. -- US V. Bishop 412 U.S. 346
7. It shall be interpreted in my favor because I am the clearly intended and expressly designated beneficiary for the protection of my rights and property. -- 16th Andrews prudent second section 97
8. Government Is Foreclosed from Parity with Real People. -- S.C.R. 1795, Penhallow v. Doane’s Administrators (3 U.S. 54; 1 L.Ed. 57; 3 Dall. 54 – Supreme Court of the United States 1795. [--Not the "United States Supreme Court" –ed.]
The legal manifestation, THAT IS SUPOSSE TO BE IN PLAY, is that no government, as well as any
law, agency, aspect, court, etc. can concern itself with anything other than corporate,
artificial persons and the contracts between them.”
Supreme Court of the United States 1795 [--Not the "United States Supreme Court" –ed.]
9. “Every man is independent of all laws, except those prescribed by nature. He is not bound by any institutions formed by his fellowmen without his consent” CRUDEN v. NEALE 2N.C. (1796) 2 SE 70
Key Cases in PDF
