“SOURCES OF AUTHORITY” BY TOPIC / SUBJECT OF LAW:

https://freeornottobe.wordpress.com/2022/03/13/sources-of-authority-by-topic-subject-of-law/comment-page-7/#comment-743

1) The Purpose of Government: “We the People” “ordain and establish” “the supreme Law of the Land” “in order to …establish Justice… and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity”(a), in other words “to protect and maintain individual rights.”(d). So to punish “We the People” just for “disobeying” orders or legislation from our hired “Public Servants” is exactly the opposite of the very Purpose of Law and Govt., and technically that’s “Treason to the Constitution”(b)(c)!
See: (a) US.Constitution, (b) US.Supreme.Court., Cohens-v-Virginia, (c) USC-18-2381 (d) Az.Const. ; & links to these and more here:
https://freeornottobe.wordpress.com/2022/03/13/sources-of-authority-by-topic-subject-of-law/comment-page-1/#comment-86

2) List of ‘self-evident’ basic Human Rights: We hold these Truths to be self-Evidence that all Humans are endowed by their Creator with equal inalienable rights including Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness(a), to own Land and other Property, to Privacy from search and seizure without probable cause to accuse one of a crime against another Human right(b), to any common practice, to fair exchanges like payment for labor, to free travel on public roads for common personal needs, and to free speech and Liberty in general(c).
See: (a) Decl.of.Ind., (b) US.Constitution, (c) US.Supr.Ct. “precedents” ; & links to these and more here:
https://freeornottobe.wordpress.com/2022/03/13/sources-of-authority-by-topic-subject-of-law/comment-page-1/#comment-89

3) “Probable cause”: For all “searches and seizures” and “criminal prosecutions” to be “lawful” there must be “probable” evidence(a) of an actual “crime” against another Human beings equal rights(b), to a “reasonable and prudent”(b) person who thinks critically and checks facts, caused by “intent or inexcusable neglect” of the accused(b), and in violation of valid criminal “Law of the Land”(a).
See: (a) US.Constitution, (b) US.Supr.Ct. “precedents” ; & links to these and more here:
https://freeornottobe.wordpress.com/2022/03/13/sources-of-authority-by-topic-subject-of-law/comment-page-1/#comment-87

4) Three Elements to a Crime: A “crime” requires actual or “probable”(a) harm or threat to another Human Beings equal individual natural rights aka “Corpus Delicti”, caused by “Intent or inexcusable neglect” of the accused suspect aka “Mens Rea”, and in violation of valid Criminal “Law of the Land” aka “Actus Reus”(b).
See: (a) US.Constitution, (b) US.Supreme.Court. “precedents” ; & links to these and more here:
US.Const.,US.Supr.Ct.; https://freeornottobe.wordpress.com/2022/03/13/sources-of-authority-by-topic-subject-of-law/comment-page-1/#comment-88

5) “fundamental principles” of “Law”, such as, “essential elements of due process of law”: “The essential elements of due process of law are notice and opportunity to defend, and in determining whether such rights are denied, the Court is governed by the substance of things, and not by mere form.” See: (a) US.Supr.Ct., Simon v. Craft, 182 U.S. 427 (1901) ; & links to these and more here:
https://freeornottobe.wordpress.com/2022/03/13/sources-of-authority-by-topic-subject-of-law/comment-page-1/#comment-93
How best to describe “fundamental principles” of “Law”:
https://freeornottobe.wordpress.com/2022/03/13/sources-of-authority-by-topic-subject-of-law/comment-page-1/#comment-83
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

6) “Deprivation of rights under color of law”, “Colorable Law” (See USCs BELOW ALSO): “any Thing… to the Contrary” of The Constitution for the United States of America and “Laws made in Pursuance thereof”(a) is “unconstitutional” and therefore not “lawful” but is called “colorable law” or “color of law”(b), and “deprivation of rights under color of law” to even “neglect to prevent”(b)!
See: (a) US.Const. ; (b) USCs 18-241&242 &42-1983,1985,1986,1988 ; & links to these and more here:
https://freeornottobe.wordpress.com/2022/03/13/sources-of-authority-by-topic-subject-of-law/comment-page-1/#comment-91

7) Public Servants’ Oath(s), and resulting lack of “immunity”: “the supreme Law of the Land” requires in article 6 that Members of the Legislative, Judicial and Executive Branches of Federal and State Governments “shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution” and only those “Laws made in Pursuance thereof”(a). Accordingly any person who causes any person to be deprived of any right under the color of any law or order shall be liable to that party, including actions for “neglect to prevent”(b).
See: (a) US.Const. ; (b) USCs 18-241&242 &42-1983,1985,1986,1988 ; & links to these and more here:
https://freeornottobe.wordpress.com/2022/03/13/sources-of-authority-by-topic-subject-of-law/comment-page-1/#comment-92

8) We are ‘sovereign’, not ‘subject’ to Law/Statutes/Etc. without Consent or Injured Party: “…at the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people, and they are truly the sovereigns of the country, but they are sovereigns without subjects… and have none to govern but themselves; the citizens of America are equal as fellow citizens, and as joint tenants in the sovereignty.”(a)
See: (a) US.Supr.Ct., Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 U.S. 419 (1793) ; Decl.of.Ind. ; & links to these and more here:
https://freeornottobe.wordpress.com/2022/03/13/sources-of-authority-by-topic-subject-of-law/comment-page-1/#comment-104

9) Parental Rights: Include choosing pretty much everything for their children so long as there is not “probable” evidence of actual harm to the childrens equal Human rights to Life, Liberty, the Pursuit of Happiness, good health and education, and so forth.:
https://freeornottobe.wordpress.com/2022/03/13/sources-of-authority-by-topic-subject-of-law/comment-page-2/#comment-115

10) Right to privacy: Due to the right to privacy “We the People”(a) need only “state… true full name”(b) for police when there is “probable”(c) evidence to accuse us of an actual “crime”(d) against another Human beings equal “individual rights”(e), or we can just reserve “the right to remain silent”(f).
See: (a) US.Const., Preamble, Amend.4,6,14 ; (b) ARS 13-2412, US.Supr.Ct. Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, 542 U.S. 177 (2004) ; (c) US.Const.Amend.4, US.Supr.Ct. on “probable cause” ; (d) See #4 “elements to a crime” ; (e) Az.Const.Art.2,Sec.2 ; (f) US.Supr.Ct. Miranda v. Arizona ;
https://freeornottobe.wordpress.com/2022/03/13/sources-of-authority-by-topic-subject-of-law/comment-page-1/#comment-90

11) Right to Free Travel on Public Roads “in the conveyance of the day”: ‘Held… The right to travel is a part of the “liberty” of which a citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment. …as early as the Magna Carta.’(a) ; “…[T]he right finds no explicit mention in the Constitution…. freedom to travel throughout the United States has long been recognized as a basic right under the Constitution.”(b) ; ‘The right of a citizen to travel upon the public highways… is a common right…to use the ordinary and usual conveyances of the day…to operate an automobile thereon… It is not a mere privilege, like… moving a house… or transporting persons or property for hire along the street, which a city may permit or prohibit at will.’(c) ;
See: (a) US.Supr.Ct., Kent v. Dulles, 357 U.S. 116 (1958) ; (b) US.Supr.Ct., Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618 (1969) ; (c) Supreme Court of Virginia, THOMPSON v. SMITH, Sep 11 (1930) ;
https://freeornottobe.wordpress.com/2022/03/13/sources-of-authority-by-topic-subject-of-law/comment-page-1/#comment-101

12) Right to own Land and other Property: The US Constitution (And US Supreme Court) effectively declares basic rights for all Humans equally including the right to own land and other property: “No person shall …be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”(a) ; “… No State shall make or enforce any law which shall … deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” ;
…NEED SOURCES FOR THIS… See: (a) US.Const.,Amend.5 ; (b) US.Const.,Amend.14 ; US.Supr.Ct.;
https://freeornottobe.wordpress.com/2022/03/13/sources-of-authority-by-topic-subject-of-law/comment-page-1/#comment-98

13) Right to any ‘Common Practice’:
US.Supr.Ct. has said clearly any “common practice” is an inherent natural Human “right” ;
…NEED SOURCES FOR THIS… See: US.Const.,Amend.4,5,14 ; US.Supr.Ct.;
https://freeornottobe.wordpress.com/2022/03/13/sources-of-authority-by-topic-subject-of-law/comment-page-1/#comment-99

14) Right to ‘fair exchanges’, only ‘profits or gains’ can be ‘taxes’ called ‘income’: “Fair Exchanges” like compensation for labor, are a Natural Common Human right, and therefore not “lawful” to “license” or “tax” or “infringe” in any way. “Income” can mean only “profit or gain” for purposes of “income tax” under the 16th Amendment.
…NEED SOURCES FOR THIS… See: US.Const.,Amend.4,5,14 ; US.Supr.Ct. ;
https://freeornottobe.wordpress.com/2022/03/13/sources-of-authority-by-topic-subject-of-law/comment-page-1/#comment-100

15) Right “to solicit for donations for ones self” (‘Panhandle’) is a right of free speech:
See comment here: https://freeornottobe.wordpress.com/2022/03/13/sources-of-authority-by-topic-subject-of-law/comment-page-1/#comment-102

16) An unrebutted affidavit stands as a fact in a court of law:
See: US.Appeals.Ct., Data Disc, Inc, Plaintiff-appellant, v. Systems Technology Associates, Inc., Defendant-appellee, 557 F.2d 1280 (9th Cir. 1977) ; Also US.Civil Court Procedure Rule 8(b)(6): “Effect of Failing to Deny… An allegation…is admitted…” ;
https://freeornottobe.wordpress.com/2022/03/13/sources-of-authority-by-topic-subject-of-law/comment-page-1/#comment-107

17) Motions are deemed filed when handed to the Officer:
…NEED SOURCES FOR THIS… US.Supr.Ct.;
https://freeornottobe.wordpress.com/2022/03/13/sources-of-authority-by-topic-subject-of-law/comment-page-1/#comment-105

18) Void for Vagueness Doctrine:
…NEED SOURCES FOR THIS… US.Supr.Ct.;
https://freeornottobe.wordpress.com/2022/03/13/sources-of-authority-by-topic-subject-of-law/comment-page-1/#comment-95

19) “Jurisdiction”, requirements, limits: For a Court of Law to have proper “Jurisdiction” there are three “Elements” required, starting with “Territorial Jurisdiction” meaning the location where the incident occurred which determines which court should hear the case, according to the “Subject Matter” such as Criminal or Civil cases which determines the specific Court(s) which have proper “Jurisdiction”, and finally “Persona Jurisdiction” meaning the individuals or agencies which are parties to the case which also affect which Courts are appropriate to hear the case.;
https://freeornottobe.wordpress.com/2022/03/13/sources-of-authority-by-topic-subject-of-law/comment-page-1/#comment-94

20) ‘Justice’: “The constant and perpetual disposition to render every man his due. I… The conformity of our actions and our will to the law… In the most extensive sense of the word it differs little from “virtue;” for it includes within itself the whole circle of virtues. …” – thelawdictionary.org/justice-n/ ;
https://freeornottobe.wordpress.com/2022/03/13/sources-of-authority-by-topic-subject-of-law/comment-page-1/#comment-96

21) ‘State’: “A body politic, or society of men united together for the purpose of promoting their mutual safety and advantage, by the joint efforts of their combined strength. Cooley, Const. Lim. 1. One of the component commonwealths or states of the United States of America. The people of a state, in their collective capacity, considered as the party wronged by a criminal deed; the public; as in the title of a cause. “The State vs. A. B.” The section of territory occupied by one of the United States.” – thelawdictionary.org/state-n/ ;
https://freeornottobe.wordpress.com/2022/03/13/sources-of-authority-by-topic-subject-of-law/comment-page-1/#comment-103

22) “Lawful” “Money”: Only Gold and Silver Coin made according to Constitutional “Coinage Acts” can be “Lawful” “Money” in these United States of America, because “No State shall … make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts;…” US.Const.Art.1,Sec.10.;
https://freeornottobe.wordpress.com/2022/03/13/sources-of-authority-by-topic-subject-of-law/comment-page-1/#comment-109

23) “Trespass…means…except…when premises are open to the public”, [ARS 13-1501, 13-1502] (See also Numbers 2-6): See ARS 13-1501, 13-1502] (See also Numbers 2-6):
https://www.azleg.gov/ars/13/01501.htm ; https://www.azleg.gov/ars/13/01502.htm ;
https://freeornottobe.wordpress.com/2022/03/13/sources-of-authority-by-topic-subject-of-law/comment-page-1/#comment-106

24) Names of all Govt. units and Humans must be “Proper Nouns” (only 1st Letters capitalized) by “Law”: See Standard English Rules of Capitalization, required by US.Govt.Printing.Manual;
https://freeornottobe.wordpress.com/2022/03/13/sources-of-authority-by-topic-subject-of-law/comment-page-1/#comment-108

25) All govt., cities, states, police, courts, etc., are ‘corporations’ registered on Dunn and Bradstreet (dnb.com): NEED SOURCES FOR THIS…
https://freeornottobe.wordpress.com/2022/03/13/sources-of-authority-by-topic-subject-of-law/comment-page-2/#comment-110

26) Our Constitutional republic was lost in 1861, when the 1st State seceded: NEED SOURCES FOR THIS…
https://freeornottobe.wordpress.com/2022/03/13/sources-of-authority-by-topic-subject-of-law/comment-page-2/#comment-111

27) “private attorney general doctrine”: NEED SOURCES FOR THIS…
https://freeornottobe.wordpress.com/2022/03/13/sources-of-authority-by-topic-subject-of-law/comment-page-2/#comment-114

28) INFO ON PERFORMING WRITS OF MANDAMUS: NEED SOURCES FOR THIS…
https://freeornottobe.wordpress.com/2022/03/13/sources-of-authority-by-topic-subject-of-law/comment-page-1/#comment-57

29) INFO REGARDING HOW TO PERFORM COMMERCIAL LIENS: NEED SOURCES FOR THIS…
https://freeornottobe.wordpress.com/2022/03/13/sources-of-authority-by-topic-subject-of-law/comment-page-1/#comment-58

30) RIGHT TO RELEASE FROM JAIL PENDING CRIMINAL CONVICTION: See Arizona Constitution and Criminal Procedure for one example, the Right to release exists unless there is “probable” evidence one is a danger to another person or the public, and the only purpose of bail in criminal procedure is to assure appearance in court, therefore we have a right to be released “On Own Recognizance” if there is not such evidence against us.; https://www.azleg.gov/constitution/ ; https://casetext.com/rule/arizona-court-rules/arizona-rules-of-criminal-procedure ;
https://freeornottobe.wordpress.com/2022/03/13/sources-of-authority-by-topic-subject-of-law/comment-page-2/#comment-138

31) Re: Defamation: ARS 23-1325. Defamation; damages: https://www.azleg.gov/ars/23/01325.htm
Also see ‘Slander’ and ‘Libel’ (Spoken and written slander)…
12-541. Malicious prosecution; false imprisonment; libel or slander; seduction or breach of promise of marriage; breach of employment contract; wrongful termination; liability created by statute; one year limitation: https://www.azleg.gov/ars/12/00541.htm
12-651. Uniform single publication act: https://www.azleg.gov/ars/12/00651.htm

In Arizona, the elements of a defamation claim are:

a false statement concerning the plaintiff;
the statement was defamatory;
the statement was published to a third party;
the requisite fault on the part of the defendant; and
the plaintiff was damaged as a result of the statement.

Morris v. Warner, 160 Ariz. 55, 62 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1988): https://casetext.com/case/morris-v-warner-1

To be “defamatory,” a statement must be false and bring the defamed person into disrepute, contempt, or ridicule, or impeach her honesty, integrity, virtue, or reputation. Godbehere v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc., 162 Ariz. 335, 341 (Ariz. 1989): http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/arizona-defamation-law
https://www.casemine.com/judgement/us/5914c06cadd7b049347b3afa
https://casetext.com/case/godbehere-v-phoenix-newspapers-inc-1

Defamation in US Codes (If you are not in Az): “The term “defamation” means any action or other proceeding for defamation, libel, slander, or similar claim alleging that forms of speech are false, have caused damage to reputation or emotional distress, have presented any person in a false light, or have resulted in criticism, dishonor, or condemnation of any person.” https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/4101

32) “EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES”, TO JUSTIFY “SEARCHES AND SEIZURES” WITHOUT A “WARRANT”: https://freeornottobe.wordpress.com/2022/03/13/sources-of-authority-by-topic-subject-of-law/comment-page-1/#comment-64

33) “Logical Fallacies” and how to spot them, avoid making them, and correct them when found: https://freeornottobe.wordpress.com/2022/03/13/sources-of-authority-by-topic-subject-of-law/comment-page-3/#comment-505

34) Not providing ‘trail by an impartial jury’ and ‘Assistance of Counsel’ as required by the 6th Amendment ‘In all criminal prosecutions’!: https://freeornottobe.wordpress.com/2022/03/13/sources-of-authority-by-topic-subject-of-law/comment-page-1/#comment-71

35) Re: STATUTES OF LIMITATIONS, limits, exceptions: https://freeornottobe.wordpress.com/2022/03/13/sources-of-authority-by-topic-subject-of-law/comment-page-1/#comment-72

36) Re: STOP AND IDENTIFY STATUTES AND US.SUPR.CT. ‘CASE LAW’: https://freeornottobe.wordpress.com/2022/03/13/sources-of-authority-by-topic-subject-of-law/comment-page-1/#comment-74

37) “Re: IMPRISONMENT FOR DEBT: https://freeornottobe.wordpress.com/2022/03/13/sources-of-authority-by-topic-subject-of-law/comment-page-1/#comment-75

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

LEGAL DEFINITIONS OF WORDS:

(And I suggest getting legal definitions from any specific laws relevant to a specific case first, or from higher courts or laws if they contradict and overrule the lower laws definitions, or from www.thelawdictionary.org which is Blacks Law and I think the most up to date and accurate source. But I use www.law.cornell.edu for US Codes like those below, with some definitions in them for examples…)

1) Define “Misprision” (as in “misprision of felony”):
“… noun law Criminal neglect of duty or wrongful execution of official duties.”
https://www.wordnik.com/words/misprision ;
“a: neglect or wrong performance of official duty”
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/misprision

Also see:
From: LII, U.S. Code, Title 18. CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, Part I. CRIMES, Chapter 1. GENERAL PROVISIONS…
18 U.S. Code § 4 – Misprision of felony
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/4

18 U.S. Code § 2382 – Misprision of treason
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2382

2) Define “probable”:
“likely to be true or likely to happen:”
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/probable
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/probable
“2 having more evidence for than against, or evidence that inclines the mind to belief but leaves some room for doubt.”
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/probable

3) Define “reasonable”:
“Just, rational, appropriate, ordinary, or usual in the circumstances. … In the law of negligence, for example, the reasonable person standard is the standard of care that a reasonably prudent person would observe under a given set of circumstances. An individual who subscribes to such standards can avoid liability for negligence.”
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/reasonable

4) “conjecture”:
“inference formed without proof or sufficient evidence”.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/conjecture

5) Defamation: See Ref.#31).

6) “EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES”: See Ref.#32).
https://freeornottobe.wordpress.com/2022/03/13/sources-of-authority-by-topic-subject-of-law/comment-page-1/#comment-64

7) “Logical Fallacies”: See Ref.#33).
https://freeornottobe.wordpress.com/2022/03/13/sources-of-authority-by-topic-subject-of-law/comment-page-3/#comment-505

8) WHAT IS ‘THE COMMON LAW’?: https://freeornottobe.wordpress.com/2022/03/13/sources-of-authority-by-topic-subject-of-law/comment-page-1/#comment-76

9) “Original jurisdiction: https://freeornottobe.wordpress.com/2022/03/13/sources-of-authority-by-topic-subject-of-law/comment-page-3/#comment-406

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
MORE COURT CASES, QUOTES AND URLs TO SOURCES:

A) CONSTITUTIONS, US AND STATES:
1) US Constitution: https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/constitution-transcript ; https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/declaration-transcript ; https://usconstitution.net/const.html
2) Az. Const.: Az Const., Art.2, Sec.22 ; http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/const/2/22.htm
3)NH.Const.: https://www.nh.gov/glance/constitution.htm

B) COURT PROCEDURES:
1a) NH.Crim.Proc: https://www.courts.nh.gov/rules-supreme-court-state-new-hampshire
b) NH.Civ.Proc: https://www.courts.nh.gov/our-courts/supreme-court
c) NH.Appeal.Proc:
2a) Az.Crim.Proc: Az. Criminal procedure, rule 7.2 ; http://www.arizonacrimelaws.com/7_2.htm
b) Az.Civ.Proc:
c) Az.Appeal.Proc: https://casetext.com/rule/arizona-court-rules/arizona-superior-court-rules-of-appellate-procedure-criminal

Alright, so I am trying real quick to just confirm the quotes on the Law Basics doc, so here are the links to those…

>Az Const., Art.2, Sec.22 ; http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/const/2/22.htm
>Az. Criminal procedure, rule 7.2 ; http://www.arizonacrimelaws.com/7_2.htm
>California v. San Pablo & Tulare R. Co., 149 U.S. 308 (1893) https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/149/308/case.html
>Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S. 737 (1984) https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/468/737/case.html
>Tyler v. Judges of Court of Registration, 179 U.S. 405 (1900) https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/179/405/case.html
>www.leagle.com/decision/1991680567NE2d113_1672/JORGENSEN v. STATE (Vonda Jorgensen, 567 N.E. 2d 113, 1991, Indiana Appeals Ct.)
>www.leagle.com/decision/19951131653NE2d478_11117/JOHNSON v. STATE (Andre Johnson, 653 N.E. 2d 478, 1995, Indiana Supreme Ct.)
>https://casetext.com/case/johnson-v-state-6598 (Larry Johnson, 785 N.E. 2d 1134, Ind. Ct. App. 2003)
>www.plainsite.org/dockets/1za0hymrv/indiana-supreme-court/jones-v-state/ (Morris Jones, 252 N.E. 2d 572, 1969; 253 Ind. 235, 1969, Indiana Supreme Ct.)
>Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425 (1886) https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/118/425/case.html
>Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 1 Cranch 137 137 (1803) https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/5/137/case.html
>Connally v. General Construction Co., 269 U.S. 385 (1926) https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/269/385/case.html
> SEWELL v. GEORGIA. , 435 U.S. 982 (1978) https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/435/982/case.html
>Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408 U.S. 104 (1972) https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/408/104/case.html
>Declaration of Independence http://usconstitution.net/declar.html
>US Constitution http://usconstitution.net/const.html
>18 U.S. Code § 241 – Conspiracy against rights https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/241
>18 U.S. Code § 242 – Deprivation of rights under color of law https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/242
>42 U.S. Code § 1983 – Civil action for deprivation of rights https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/1983
>42 U.S. Code § 1985 – Conspiracy to interfere with civil rights https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/1985
>42 U.S. Code § 1986 – Action for neglect to prevent https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/1986
>https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/civilrights/color_of_law
>www.thelawdictionary.org/color-of-law/
>Hartman v. Moore547 U.S. 250 (2006) https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/547/250/opinion.html
>William Moore, Jr. v. Michael Hartman, No. 10-5334 (D.C. Cir. 2013) www.law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/cadc/10-5334/10-5334-2013-01-15.html
>Ashcroft v. Iqbal556 U.S. 662 (2009) https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/556/662/
>Pearson v. Callahan555 U.S. 223 (2009) https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/555/223/opinion.html
>Brigham City v. Stuart547 U.S. 398 (2006) https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/547/398/
>Burns v. Reed, No.500 U.S. 478 (1991) https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/500/478/case.html
>Saucier v. Katz533 U.S. 194 (2001) https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/533/194/
>http://openjurist.org/550/f2d/297/united-states-v-j-tweel ; United States of America, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Nicholas J. Tweel, Defendant-appellant, 550 F.2d 297 (5th Cir. 1977), U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit – 550 F.2d 297 (5th Cir. 1977), April 8, 1977 ; http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/550/297/309366/
>Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 528 (1974) https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/415/528/case.html
>Maine v. Thiboutot, 448 U.S. 1 (1980) https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/448/1/case.html
>MERRITT v. HUNTER, 1978 OK 18, 575 P.2d 623, Case Number: 51844. Decided: 02/14/1978. Supreme Court of Oklahoma www.law.justia.com/cases/oklahoma/supreme-court/1978/47691.html
>Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. 6 Wheat. 264 264 (1821) https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/19/264/case.html
>18 U.S. Code § 2381 – Treason https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2381
>18 U.S. Code § 2382 – Misprision of treason https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2382
>https://casetext.com/case/huff-v-city-of-burbank-3 caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1552005.html
Joe Arpaio (Sheriff) cases: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Arpaio ; Phoenix New Times, LLC v. Arpaio, 177 P.3d 275 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2008) https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2561780/phoenix-new-times-llc-v-arpaio/authorities/ ; http://frontera.psstudiosdev.com/doj-v-arpaio/ ; Phoenix New Times, LLC v. Arpaio, 177 P.3d 275 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2008) This opinion cites 0 opinions ; https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2561780/phoenix-new-times-llc-v-arpaio/authorities/
>United States v. Di Re, 332 U.S. 581 (1948) https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/332/581/case.html
>Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 U.S. 2 Dall. 419 419 (1793) https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/2/419/case.html
>Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356 (1886) https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/118/356/case.html
>Luther v. Borden, 48 U.S. 7 How. 1 1 (1849) https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/48/1/case.html
>ARS 38-231. Officers and employees required to take loyalty oath; form; classification; definition www.azleg.gov/ars/38/00231.htm
>www.adversity.net/Terms_Definitions/TERMS/Nuremberg_Defense.htm
>Blacks Law define ‘driver’, ‘drive’… http://thelawdictionary.org/driver/ ; Blacks, 4th Ed: http://www.nationallibertyalliance.org/files/docs/Books/Black’s%20Law%204th%20edition,%201891.pdf

Right to Travel cases…

> Davis v. Petrinovich, 112 Ala. 654 from Above Definition is cited here: https://casetext.com/case/hill-v-reaves
https://casetext.com/case/slusher-v-safety-coach-transit-co
>Shuttlesworth v. City of Birmingham, 373 U.S. 262 (1963) https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/373/262/case.html
>https://casetext.com/case/chicago-coach-co-v-city-of-chicago ( Supreme Court of Illinois.·337 Ill. 200 (Ill. 1929)CHICAGO COACH CO. V. CITY OF CHICAGO)
>Thompson v. Smith, Chief of Police. Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia.155 Va. 367, 154 S.E. 579, 71 A.L.R. 604.Sept. 12, 1930. www.christianliberty.org/citings/va/thompson.html

RIGHT TO SOLICIT FOR DONATIONS FOR ONES SELF (‘PANHANDLE’)…

>http://caselaw.findlaw.com/az-court-of-appeals/1580052.html
>http://arizonastatelawjournal.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/45-Ariz.-St.-L.J.-1227-2013.pdf
>http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/13a0226p-06.pdf
>http://www.clearinghouse.net/chDocs/public/FA-MI-0004-0004.pdf
>https://casetext.com/case/speet-v-schuette-2

TRESPASSING STATUTES IN ARIZONA:
>ARS 13-1501. Definitions www.azleg.state.az.us/ars/13/01501.htm
>ARS 13-1502. Criminal trespass in the third degree; classification www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/ars/13/01502.htm&Title=13&DocType=ARS
>U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit – 557 F.2d 1280 (9th Cir. 1977)July 13, 1977 www.law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/557/1280/272817/
> Data Disc, Incorporated v. Systems Technology Associates, Inc., 557 F.2d 1280 (9th Cir. 1977). An unrebutted affidavit stands as a fact in a court of law. This opinion cites 42 opinions: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/346927/data-disc-incorporated-v-systems-technology-associ/authorities/
>https://casetext.com/case/carmine-v-bowen
>United States of America, Plaintiff-appellant, v. Horton R. Prudden, Defendant-appellee, 424 F.2d 1021 (5th Cir. 1970) www.law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/424/1021/385001/
>www.supremelaw.org/cc/gilberts/default.htm (Cites Carmine v. Bowen, 64 A. 932, 1906)
>https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_8 (Failure to Deny)
>https://govt.westlaw.com/azrules/Document/NC0B1E540717411DAA16E8D4AC7636430?viewType=FullText&originationContext=documenttoc&transitionType=CategoryPageItem&contextData=%28sc.Default%29 (Arizona Civil Procedure rule 8)
>28 U.S. Code § 1746 – Unsworn declarations under penalty of perjury https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/1746
>http://thelawdictionary.org/state-n/
>http://www.dnb.com/
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coinage_Act_of_1792
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coinage_Act_of_1834
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold_Standard_Act (1900)
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coinage_Act_of_1965
>https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/STATUTE-79/pdf/STATUTE-79-Pg254.pdf
>28 U.S. Code § 3002 – Definitions a https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/3002 >

WOW thats a lot more than I thought. And I have most of these memorized after 6 years of this work! And that still is not all of them. These are just for this one doc.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________

OTHER SITES WITH SOURCES OF AUTHORITY BY TOPIC / SUBJECT WE CAN COMBINE WITH THIS ONE:
Like for example, I remember “Cites By Topic” pages on Famguardian, and many others like that, which I’ve planned for years to combine when I reached this point:
https://famguardian.org/TaxFreedom/CitesByTopic/rights.htm
https://famguardian.org/TaxFreedom/CitesByTopic/law.htm
https://famguardian.org/TaxFreedom/CitesByTopic/person.htm
https://famguardian.org/TaxFreedom/CitesByTopic/citizen.htm
https://famguardian.org/TaxFreedom/CitesByTopic/UnitedStates.htm

And some other links for this purpose I just found:
https://guides.law.stanford.edu/cases/tableofauthorities
https://legalofficeguru.com/table-of-authorities-ultimate-guide/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Table_of_authorities
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________

USEFUL US CODES (some repeated from above):

18 U.S. Code § 241 – Conspiracy against rights
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/241

18 U.S. Code § 242 – Deprivation of rights under color of law
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/242

18 U.S. Code Chapter 96 – RACKETEER INFLUENCED AND CORRUPT ORGANIZATIONS
18 U.S. Code § 1962 – Prohibited activities
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1962
https://www.justice.gov/archives/jm/criminal-resource-manual-109-rico-charges

42 U.S. Code § 1981 – Equal rights under the law
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/1981

42 U.S. Code § 1983 – Civil action for deprivation of rights
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/1983

42 U.S. Code § 1985 – Conspiracy to interfere with civil rights
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/1985

42 U.S. Code § 1986 – Action for neglect to prevent
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/1986

42 U.S. Code § 1988 – Proceedings in vindication of civil rights
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/1988

_________________________________________________________________________________________
AND HERE ARE LINKS TO INSTRUCTIONS PAGES FOR NON-LAWYERS IN US AND STATE COURTS:
http://www.NRDL.org/howtosuegovt/ (<This is the main page I am working on all this for)
http://www.NRDL.org/notice_template/ (<This template HAS worked getting one suit filed so far)
http://www.NRDL.org/sources/ (<This page may replace this wordpress page when its all ready)
http://www.GovernPublicServants.com (<Here you can read and watch HOW I have learned o “GovernPublicServants” #LIKEaSOVEREIGN)

And a comment here where I was saving links to instructions for non-lawyers from multiple courts/sources here:
https://freeornottobe.wordpress.com/2022/03/13/sources-of-authority-by-topic-subject-of-law/comment-page-1/#comment-54

_______________________________________________________________

NOW, “HERE IS THE FIRST DRAFT OF THIS “NOTICE OF CLAIM OF DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS UNDER COLOR OF LAW” TEMPLATE, so anyone can use this notice, and these “sources of authority by topic/subject” here on this WordPress page for now (to be moved to NRDL.org soon)…”:
https://www.nrdl.org/notice_template/
https://www.nrdl.org/lawdocs/ (Get these “LawDocs” here free)
https://www.nrdl.org/lawdocs/NOTICE OF CLAIM, of Deprivations of Rights-For_Basic_Template.pdf
https://www.nrdl.org/lawdocs/NOTICE OF CLAIM, of Deprivations of Rights-For_Basic_Template.odt
https://freeornottobe.wordpress.com/2022/03/13/sources-of-authority-by-topic-subject-of-law/comment-page-2/#comment-145
_______________________________________________________________

MORE USEFUL FILES FOR DEFENDING LAWFUL RIGHTS:

I am making this WordPress page just to share files like this pdf of this case below (Retzlaff-lawsuit.pdf) which a friend shared with me, which seems a good example of how to defend our rights, using a common law jury to point out how the Court Systems are violating Due process of Constitutional Law, how to put Public Servants on Notice of exactly what the “Law of the Land” requires of them, and the consequences if they do “any Thing… to the Contrary”… AND I PLAN TO USE THIS PAGE TO SHARE A LOT MORE USEFUL LEGAL REFERENCES, CASES, LAWS, OTHER WEBSITES Like My Own), here…

Like…
http://www.NRDL.org/sources/
…where I plan to organize these “sources of authority” I am putting together right now here:
https://freeornottobe.wordpress.com/2022/03/13/sources-of-authority-by-topic-subject-of-law/
…and…
http://www.GovernPublicServants.com
http://www.HowWeExist.com “

FROM HERE:
https://freeornottobe.wordpress.com/2022/12/20/useful-files-for-defending-lawful-rights/
_______________________________________________________________

And here is where to file criminal complaints with the US Courts and Dept. of Justice:
https://www.uscourts.gov/forms/law-enforcement-grand-jury-and-prosecution-forms/criminal-complaint
https://www.justice.gov/crt/filing-complaint
https://www.justice.gov/actioncenter/submit-complaint
https://www.justice.gov/criminal
https://civilrights.justice.gov/

_______________________________________________________________

HERE IS THE EMAIL I USED TO GET MY LAST TICKET DISMISSED WITHOUT GOING TO COURT:
(and the courts response, to dismiss FIRST thing next morning!)..
“I JUST GOT ANOTHER CASE DISMISSED! THAT MAKES 7+ NOW! …”:
https://www.facebook.com/harleyborgais/posts/10214351360337989

Here is the talk I had with Tempe Police internal affairs in 2020 where I explained these “fundamental principles” of “the supreme Law of the Land” and “the common law” to clearly (between 1-5minutes):
https://www.bitchute.com/video/zUcdrEO8uQtS/

Here is the last time Tempe Police stopped me for no bike light or many other harmless “offenses” back in 2016 where I explained how I would prosecute THEM for “deprivation of rights under color of law” including “neglect to prevent” now that they “reasonably should know” they act “to the Contrary” of these “fundamental principles” of “the supreme Law of the Land” which we both swore to “support and defend, against all enemies, foreign and domestic”! And THEY tell me “thats over 90% of what we do” that is clearly not enforceable after seeing this one “LawDoc” “For Police Encounters!” Here:
https://www.bitchute.com/video/8ASbOmQL4jJd/

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

… STILL NEED TO ADD:

Add Rules of Evidence, hearsay not admissible, etc., along with affidavits fact if not disputed… Levels of standards of proof and where each applies (preponderance, clear and convincing, beyond reasonable doubt)…
Three jurisdictions of courts and requirements: Criminal, Civil Tort (injury, not criminal) and other Civil Disputes (Contract, Probate, etc., dispute arbitration only).… Add exigent circumstances cites for warrantless arrests… Add Grounds for arrest warrants, and exceptions… THESE QUOTES ARE NOT ALL VERIFIED YET…. WORK IN PROGRESS… Probable Cause to arrest vs reasonable suspicion to stop and question, and Terry Search requirements (Reasonable Suspicion of crime and possession of firearm to pat down for weapons and hold them. See US Supreme Court: Az. V. Serna www.facebook.com/harleyborgais/posts/10204087901597935:25) … Add Right to privacy limits, ‘reasonable expectation of privacy’, ‘The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects’. … Add HTML links to sources for everything, on a separate page, with #’d references, and encode them as clickable links in this .docx document. … Add types of bond, secured, unsecured, cash only, and how you can do a ‘promise to pay’/’promissory note’ (Refer to examples for this, to be done in the future), instead of going to a bondsman, and make a contract to give collateral to the promisor if you fail to appear and the promise comes due. Otherwise if you show up it costs no one anything but the time and effort. … Suits against States (11^th Amend., Art.2, Sec.18 Az Const)

[“it is a court’s obligation to dismiss a case whenever it becomes convinced that it has no proper jurisdiction, no matter how late that wisdom may arrive. See Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 12(h)(3) (“Whenever it appears … that the court lacks jurisdiction of the subject matter, the court shall dismiss the action”) (emphasis added). See also Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U. S. 411, 421 (1969).” [Wyoming v. Oklahoma 502 U.S. 437 (1992) ” https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/502/437/case.html ]

… STILL TO ADD: Add Rules of Evidence, hearsay not admissible, etc., along with affidavits fact if not disputed… Levels of standards of proof and where each applies (preponderance, clear and convincing, beyond reasonable doubt)…
Three areas of jurisdiction of courts and 3 requirements: Areas…Criminal, Civil Tort (injury, not criminal) and other Civil Disputes (Contract, Probate, etc., dispute arbitration only).… Requirements to prove are Personal (Do you have consent of all parties or a legit claim that one harmed/endangered another –corpus delicti?), Territorial (Correct Court where crime was committed under whose laws were violated?) and Subject Matter (Is this court authorized to hear this type of issue?). Along with three elements to a crime (Corpus Delicti, Mens Rea, and Actus Reus)…

Add exigent circumstances cites for warrantless arrests… Add Grounds for arrest warrants, and exceptions… THESE QUOTES ARE NOT ALL VERIFIED YET…. WORK IN PROGRESS… Probable Cause to arrest vs reasonable suspicion to stop and question, and Terry Search requirements (Reasonable Suspicion of crime and possession of firearm to pat down for weapons and hold them. See US Supreme Court: Az. V. Serna www.facebook.com/harleyborgais/posts/10204087901597935:25) … Add Right to privacy limits, ‘reasonable expectation of privacy’, ‘The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects’. … Add HTML links to sources for everything, on a separate page, with #’d references, and encode them as clickable links in this .docx document. … Add types of bond, secured, unsecured, cash only, and how you can do a ‘promise to pay’/’promissory note’ (Refer to examples for this, to be done in the future), instead of going to a bondsman, and make a contract to give collateral to the promisor if you fail to appear and the promise comes due. Otherwise if you show up it costs no one anything but the time and effort. … Suits against States (11^th Amend., Art.2, Sec.18 Az Const)

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Still to Add:
Where a court has jurisdiction, it has a right to decide any question which occurs in the cause, and whether its decision be correct or otherwise, its judgments, until reversed, are regarded as binding in every other court. But if it act without authority, its judgments and orders are regarded as nullities. They are not voidable, but simply void, and form no bar to a remedy sought in opposition to them, even prior to a reversal. They constitute no justification, and all persons concerned in executing such judgments or sentences are considered in law as trespassers.
Elliott v. Lessee of Piersol, 26 U.S. 1 Pet. 328 328 (1828)
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/26/328/case.html

It is most true that this Court will not take jurisdiction if it should not; but it is equally true that it must take jurisdiction if it should. The judiciary cannot, as the legislature may, avoid a measure because it approaches the confines of the Constitution. We cannot pass it by because it is doubtful. With whatever doubts, with whatever difficulties, a case may be attended, we must decide it if it be brought before us. We have no more right to decline the exercise of jurisdiction which is given than to usurp that which is not given. The one or the other would be treason to the Constitution.
Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. 6 Wheat. 264 264 (1821)
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/19/264/case.html

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________

“These last few things on that site look promising…

“…

Identify And Publicly Expose Biased, Prejudiced And Corrupt Judges!

Early identification of a Bad Judge may be the single most important factor in your litigation. Once one notices a Judge is bad, you can practically guarantee it is only going to get worse. If it is too late to help in your own case, exposure helps prevent similar judicial abuse for subsequent litigants. Consider publicity, picketing and formal complaints like this info from Alaska Judicial Commission and these examples: Gembala Complaint, Caught.net and see this report on the Judicial Disciplinary Process. Judicial Disciplinary Process

Impeachment, Recall

See Petition For Impeachment

Legislative & Citizen Action To Limit Judicial Power And Discretion

See Jail4Judges

Suing A Judge Personally For Money Damages

Overcoming Judicial Immunity and Judicial Immunity Case Law

Federal 42 USC 1983 Civil Rights Lawsuits

** NEW ** Mitchell v. City of Henderson. See the Sample Title 42 Suit and the Instructions For Title 42 Suit

Suing A Judge For A Declaratory Judgment

See Article

…”

http://caught.net/prose/immunity.htm

caught.net/prose/suejcase.htm

“

https://www.facebook.com/harleyborgais/posts/10205074513182608?comment_id=10205075797694720&comment_tracking=%7B%22tn%22%3A%22R0%22%7D

https://www.facebook.com/harleyborgais/posts/pfbid029HbMUtnumzuo4qf1fmFzVA4TUGowoy4UKB3KgUW4M4UYFHjSxpv7uLJ1wEyCdtqhl?ref=embed_post
————————————————–
————————————————–

“And I’ll need some cases to cite when I use the quote ‘make a reasonable and prudent person believe’…

http://law.justia.com/…/supreme-court/1968/8832-pr-0.html

law.justia.com/cases/arizona/supreme-court/1963/6763-0.html

law.justia.com/cases/arizona/supreme-court/1963/7035-0.html

…”

https://www.facebook.com/harleyborgais/posts/10205074233695621?comment_id=10205074491462065&comment_tracking=%7B%22tn%22%3A%22R0%22%7D

https://www.facebook.com/harleyborgais/posts/pfbid02Rj77K9k5XiPFx3f4VogDaZatqCPhV8c1aRW7Byu1MsiJ2KsJtDF2ZNk34E8YQWynl?ref=embed_post
————————————————–
————————————————–
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

“EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES” TO JUSTIFY “SEARCHES AND SEIZURES” WITHOUT A “WARRANT”:
https://freeornottobe.wordpress.com/2022/03/13/sources-of-authority-by-topic-subject-of-law/comment-page-1/#comment-64

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

And some relevant US Court rules referenced for the purpose of filing civil complaints like rule 8 for ‘failure to deny’ amounts to admission of guilt in non-criminal cases:
https://freeornottobe.wordpress.com/2022/03/13/sources-of-authority-by-topic-subject-of-law/comment-page-1/#comment-65

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

A FB POST WITH LINKS TO INFO ON “CIVIL ARREST ORDERS/WARRANTS”, WHICH ACCORDING TO THE 4TH AND 6TH AND 14TH AMENDMENTS AND US SUPREME COURT CASES ON “PROBABLE CAUSE” AND THREE “ELEMENTS” TO A “CRIME” CANNOT POSSIBLY BE “LAWFUL”!:
https://freeornottobe.wordpress.com/2022/03/13/sources-of-authority-by-topic-subject-of-law/comment-page-1/#comment-59

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

“EXAMPLE LAWSUITS, FROM PROFESSIONAL LAW FIRMS (Preferably SUCCESSFUL ones here)”:
https://freeornottobe.wordpress.com/2022/03/13/sources-of-authority-by-topic-subject-of-law/comment-page-1/#comment-60

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________

“AN ISSUE I NEED TO FIX, HOW MY LOCAL POLICE (AND THE US COURTS) ARE NOT TAKING PROPER CRIMINAL COMPLAINTS SIGNED “UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY”…”:
https://freeornottobe.wordpress.com/2022/03/13/sources-of-authority-by-topic-subject-of-law/comment-page-1/#comment-61

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________

“SOME EXAMPLES OF MY SUCCESS SO FAR”:
https://freeornottobe.wordpress.com/2022/03/13/sources-of-authority-by-topic-subject-of-law/comment-page-1/#comment-62
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________

“Regarding rights to “Discovery” of evidence against you (In Az)”:
https://www.arizonacrimelaws.com/15_1.htm/

https://www.avvo.com/legal-answers/what-is-a-supplemental-notice-of-disclosure–884170.html

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________

“And I’ll share here a link to the US and some State Constitutions I’m using”:
https://usconstitution.net/const.html
https://www.azleg.gov/constitution/
https://www.nh.gov/glance/constitution.htm
https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/CN/htm/CN.1.htm
https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________

LINKS TO OTHER WEBPAGES WORKING ON DEFENDING OUR LIBERTIES, WHICH I/WE SHOULD ALL TRY TO WORK TOGETHER WITH:
https://freeornottobe.wordpress.com/2022/03/13/sources-of-authority-by-topic-subject-of-law/comment-page-1/#comment-67

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Not sure where to put this one yet:
“…The text of the law appearing in the Statutes at Large prevails over the text of the law appearing in a non-positive law title.”…
https://freeornottobe.wordpress.com/2022/03/13/sources-of-authority-by-topic-subject-of-law/comment-page-1/#comment-68

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________

“LINKS TO OTHER FORMS, FOR BLANK MOTIONS, CIVIL SUITS, CRIMINAL COMPLAINTS, ETC., IN US AND STATE COURTS”:
https://freeornottobe.wordpress.com/2022/03/13/sources-of-authority-by-topic-subject-of-law/comment-page-1/#comment-69

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Info on taking the Bar exam, unlicensed practice of law (a deprivation of rights under color of law btw):
https://freeornottobe.wordpress.com/2022/03/13/sources-of-authority-by-topic-subject-of-law/comment-page-1/#comment-70

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________

“The very word ‘secrecy’ is repugnant in a free and open society” -JFK
https://www.lockhaven.com/opinion/columns/2015/07/the-very-word-secrecy-is-repugnant-in-a-free-and-open-society/

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________

IF THE JUDGE AND/OR PROSECUTOR REFUSE TO FILE CRIMINAL CHARGES WHEN THERE IS “probable cause”, “We the People” can hold “Citizens Grand Juries”:
https://freeornottobe.wordpress.com/2022/03/13/sources-of-authority-by-topic-subject-of-law/comment-page-1/#comment-78

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________

We can all share and help find and organize the best sources for making legal documents here on this WordPress page. I am told WordPress is ‘open source’ (meaning the code can be read by anyone, see how it works) and it stores files on your/my host server so other people cannot delete or censor posts like Facebook and Youtube and other sites do (Like Disquss I’m using now for comments on my webpages, but I plan to change this).

So you can also use WordPress as an efficient way to take large amounts of text and convert it into basic html pretty easily, then copy that code and use it to build your own webpages, which I’m in the process of doing now.

Here are the main three “LawDocs” I carry with the main “fundamental principles” of law in them which I want to combine with more sources of authority from the links below for the “fundamental_principles” page and “notice of claim…” pages:
https://www.nrdl.org/lawdocs/LawDoc.2_’THE%20LAW’%20FOR%20POLICE%20ENCOUNTERS_(2.27.2022_.pdf%20file%20for%20printing).pdf
https://www.nrdl.org/lawdocs/LawDoc.3_’JUSTICE SYSTEM’, BASIC RULES, ‘FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES’-(5.20.2020_2pg PDF for Printing).pdf
https://www.nrdl.org/lawdocs/LawDoc.4_NOTICE OF CLAIM OF DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS UNDER COLOR OF LAW, AND FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES OF LAW (4th draft, for printing, pgs-1,2).pdf
FROM HERE:
https://www.nrdl.org/lawdocs/

So here is the page where I am putting these “sources of authority” and a basic summary of these “fundamental principles” of “the common law” and “the supreme Law of the Land” here in the USA, for us all to use to make legal documents in the future:
www.nrdl.org/fundamental_principles.html

And here is the page where I’m working on this notice of claim template for, to use with all types of court motions and writs and civil and criminal complaints and commercial liens and so on:
www.NRDL.org/howtosuegovt/

…

SO THE GOAL HERE IS TO GET EVERYONE TO WORK TOGETHER TO SHARE AND ORGANIZE THE BEST SOURCES OF AUTHORITY FOR EVERY TOPIC, AND GIVE THEM AWAY FREE TO EVERYONE, SO ALL OF US CAN ALL ACTUALLY “establish Justice… and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity” FINALLY!

Which I HAVE managed to do with my local police and courts as you can see here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nqtfMDnhXaE (This is how I also made sure police and sheriffs wont enforce recent ‘mandates’)
And here (They stopped enforcing this and a LOT of things since this!):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b4SZvDLiOw0
And here:
“Here is the last case I got dismissed for myself, the message I sent the court, and their response (to dismiss and close case):
https://www.facebook.com/harleyborgais/posts/10214351360337989 “

…

And more to come here:
www.GovernPublicServants.com (read how I’ve learned to “Govern Public Servants” here and get links to all this and more as I build it all up).

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Here is a post I made on Facebook regarding: “…the fundamental principles of why government and Society become corrupt, because absolute power corrupts absolutely, or in other words excessive power inevitably will corrupt anyone.

So because of that it’s actually “We the People” who ALLOW too much “Authority” and wealth/resources for our hired “Public Servants”, because too many people think and act like their “Government” should take care of them and they depend on “Government” to tell them what to think and do too much, instead of learning these “fundamental principles” of “Law” and actually holding our HIRED “PUBLIC SERVANTS” accountable whenever they violate their actual “duty” to:

“establish Justice… and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity”!

So it’s because of Sloth, Greed, Wrath, Lust, Envy, Hubris (not just pride which can be healthy if balanced with Humility, modesty), and Cowardice (instead of gluttony in the standard “seven deadly sins” which I think were close but this is more accurate), which are the “fundamental” CAUSES of corruption in Human Society FIRST, in our “Culture” (beliefs and resulting practices of a group of people), and in “Government” as a result of that, and then the main (7) international industries (i.e. the 7 “horns of the beast” along with 3 “branches of Government”) as a result of “Government” not fulfilling its purpose (allowing our enemies to “Govern” OUR “Government” like right now!)… again, because too many people DEPEND on “Government” and not enough actually “Govern Public Servants”, which is why my purpose in life now is to improve these problems in society by SHOWING everyone how to PROFIT from learning to PROSECUTE OUR “Government” for “any Thing… to the Contrary” of these “fundamental principles” of “the common law” and OUR “supreme Law of the Land” here in the USA!

And FYI I do believe ^THIS^ is what God is trying to teach us through “analogy” in “Revelations” in the Bible!”
FROM HERE: https://www.facebook.com/01bassmaster/posts/2168258486655189?comment_id=2169100576570980

NOW I HAVE FOUND COPIES OF THINGS LIKE THE SATANIC BIBLE, and oaths of secret societies that worship Lucifer, it seems like all his secrets are being revealed through the internet now! One thing I noticed, is in Chapter 1 of the Satanic Bible it ENCOURAGES people to “indulge” in the Classic “Seven Deadly Sins” (I always thought so, “Know them by their fruits” the Bible tells us, and I have always seen signs of this, but now I have the actual proofs!), here, along with other “evidence of crimes against Humanity” I have found evidence against “the worst crime against Humanity in history” being this “Covid-19” “Plandemic”!):
https://freeornottobe.wordpress.com/2022/05/28/evidence-of-crimes-against-humanity/#comment-489

As I posted there, “the satanic bible” says: “THE SEVEN deadly sins of the Christian Church are: greed, pride, envy, anger, gluttony, lust, and sloth. Satanism advocates indulging in each of these “sins” as they all lead to physical, mental, or emotional gratification.” I thought so. You can see it in the effects they cause, people who believe this way! Jesus showed us a much better example though, here is when He was being tested, tempted by the Devil and so on:
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%209&version=NKJV
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
(This Comment with Links to Each Topic or Subject of Law is showing preview images of this same page instead of links to the comments here, so that is not working well, so I’m changing it now, see below): https://freeornottobe.wordpress.com/2022/03/13/sources-of-authority-by-topic-subject-of-law/comment-page-3/#comment-461

_________________________________________________________________________________________________

HERE IS A TABLE OF CONTENTS WITH LINKS TO EACH SUBJECT/ TOPIC:

https://freeornottobe.wordpress.com/2022/03/13/sources-of-authority-by-topic-subject-of-law/comment-page-4/#comment-511

…OK HERE IS THE END OF THIS ‘POST’, AND THE START OF THE ‘COMMENTS’ BELOW…
__________________________________________________________________________________________________

411 thoughts on ““SOURCES OF AUTHORITY” BY TOPIC / SUBJECT OF LAW:”

harleyborgais says:

_____________________

25) All govt., cities, states, police, courts, etc., are ‘corporations’ registered on Dunn and Bradstreet (dnb.com):

All govt., cities, states, police, courts, etc., are ‘corporations’ registered on Dunn and Bradstreet (dnb.com) as ‘Traded’ (Through govt. bonds presumably, so you can profit from the money taken by force from people for taxes, fees, fines, etc.). Thats likely why so many people o to jail for harmless offenses, why those in legislature and highest offices try their best to increase taxes and expenses and budgets, why they take on more debt when they could be paying it off but dont, and why the Private Prison Company TMC sued (settled actually, out of court), the State of Arizona for $3 Million because the legislators failed to keep the Prison 97% full per contract (Which should never have been granted, and is unenforceable because it is a serious conflict of interest and thus unconstitutional, acting against the purpose thereof). This is also likely WHY people are arrested for not paying tax on their property (which is a rent, and you are registered as ‘Tenant’, until you change that at the County/Republic Recorder). We are all made into ‘chattel’ (Moveable) property as collateral for the national debt, through our Birth Certificates (Which create a trust, a corporation in the all caps names), and the social security number (EIN, Federal Employee Identification Number?), so we tacitly consent (by not objecting), to this…until we learn to claim the name and account, reserve all rights when signing anything or speaking in court, and re-establish our ‘sovereignty’.

…[add citations here]…

__________________________________

LikeLike

March 19, 2022 at 12:03 am Reply
- Harley Borgais says:
  
  THIS IS FROM http://www.NRDL.org/sources/ …
  ____________________________________________________________
  
  21) All govt., cities, states, police, courts, etc., are ‘corporations’ registered on Dunn and Bradstreet (dnb.com) as ‘Traded’ (Through govt. bonds presumably, so you can profit from the money taken by force from people for taxes, fees, fines, etc.). Thats likely why so many people o to jail for harmless offenses, why those in legislature and highest offices try their best to increase taxes and expenses and budgets, why they take on more debt when they could be paying it off but dont, and why the Private Prison Company TMC sued (settled actually, out of court), the State of Arizona for $3 Million because the legislators failed to keep the Prison 97% full per contract (Which should never have been granted, and is unenforceable because it is a serious conflict of interest and thus unconstitutional, acting against the purpose thereof). This is also likely WHY people are arrested for not paying tax on their property (which is a rent, and you are registered as ‘Tenant’, until you change that at the County/Republic Recorder). We are all made into ‘chattel’ (Moveable) property as collateral for the national debt, through our Birth Certificates (Which create a trust, a corporation in the all caps names), and the social security number (EIN, Federal Employee Identification Number?), so we tacitly consent (by not objecting), to this…until we learn to claim the name and account, reserve all rights when signing anything or speaking in court, and re-establish our ‘sovereignty’.
  
  LikeLike
  
  May 17, 2022 at 5:54 am Reply
harleyborgais says:

_____________________

26) Our Constitutional republic was lost in 1861, when the 1st State seceded:

Our Constitutional republic was lost in 1861, when the 1st State seceded, and congress was dissolved, because the US Govt. was exceeding its ‘Lawful’ authority [See Amend. 10]. Slaver was already ending naturally [See ‘Causes of Secession’ from each state]. The ‘Reconstruction Acts’ around 1865-67 made the states into corporations, and they redrafted their constitutions. The ‘Missing 13th Amendment’ on ‘Titles of Nobility’ (i.e. Sir, Esquire, Duke, etc.), was ratified in Dec. of 1812, which says: Any person who accepts or retains such a title is no longer a citizen and is incapable of holding any office of profit or trust. This was to stop foreign agents from meddling in our govt., which has happened, because those reconstruction acts took this amendment out of publishing [Google: Missing 13th Amendment images, from constitutionalconcepts.org]. The anti-Slavery Amendment (1865) was 14 for a year or two, until this redrafting happened. Then the 1868 Amendment on Equal rights (Now #14) was passed, allegedly not voluntarily, as the US Govt. used military to coerce states. 1871, Organic Act to incorporate D.C. was passed (See 28usc3002: “United States” means a ‘federal corporation’). 1913, Federal Reserve Act gives all US property to intl. banks and the power to print paper money not backed with anything of real ‘intrinsic value’ (See #20). Then came the Income Tax (16th Amend.), ACS/AMA (Cancer societies), Rothschild and Rockefeller foundations (To manipulate public and medical educations), and more. Courts have clearly ruled (Re: 16th Amend.) that ‘Congress has taxed income, not compensation’, and that compensation for labor cannot be taxed as it is a ‘fair exchange’, but ‘income’ can only mean ‘profit or gain’.. 1933, Emergency Banking act dissolves US Govt. in bankruptcy, HJR 192 eliminates gold backing to Dollar/Bank note, and provides ability to ‘discharge debt’ onto the Birth Certificate Account (need to find origin of those and Labor Taxes, beyond what’s already here). Then come Gold Confiscation acts, and suddenly the Nazis mysteriously have an enormous amount of Gold! That’s likely OURS. 1938, Erie Railroad Case, where Courts stop obeying ‘Public law’ (Those written by congress in compliance with Constitution), and start enforcing “Public Policy” (Statutes, ordinances, rules, regulations, codes, policies, etc.), which are ‘colorable law’, not necessarily ‘Law’ (See 2-6, Unconstitutional act not law). We are now under ‘martial’/’military’/’admiralty’ law, as shown in courts by the Yellow Fringe flag per Military Regulation 840-10, not in compliance with US Code Title 4 for Flag Design. Also see 1973 Senate Report on War Powers. The President is the Top CEO of a Corporation now, that is owned by the intl. banking corporations, which is how they justify him doing so many things outside the authority given by the US Const. [See 10th Amend.], and we are all property and/or employees, bound to obey, unless/until we learn how to sever this relationship, much like our forefathers did with the Declaration of Independence. That is what I am working on. Others have done it, so we can combine what they have done and improve upon it.

…[add citations here]…

__________________________________

LikeLike

March 19, 2022 at 12:03 am Reply
- harleyborgais says:
  
  INCOME TAX CASES… Moved to this comment:
  14) RIGHT TO FAIR EXCHANGES, only ‘profits or gains’ can be ‘taxes’ called ‘income’:
  
  “SOURCES OF AUTHORITY” BY TOPIC / SUBJECT OF LAW:
  
  LikeLike
  
  May 13, 2022 at 10:11 pm Reply
- Harley Borgais says:
  
  THIS IS FROM http://www.NRDL.org/sources/ …
  ____________________________________________________________
  
  22) Our Constitutional republic was lost in 1861, when the 1st State seceded, and congress was dissolved, because the US Govt. was exceeding its ‘Lawful’ authority [See Amend. 10]. Slaver was already ending naturally [See ‘Causes of Secession’ from each state]. The ‘Reconstruction Acts’ around 1865-67 made the states into corporations, and they redrafted their constitutions. The ‘Missing 13th Amendment’ on ‘Titles of Nobility’ (i.e. Sir, Esquire, Duke, etc.), was ratified in Dec. of 1812, which says: Any person who accepts or retains such a title is no longer a citizen and is incapable of holding any office of profit or trust. This was to stop foreign agents from meddling in our govt., which has happened, because those reconstruction acts took this amendment out of publishing [Google: Missing 13th Amendment images, from constitutionalconcepts.org]. The anti-Slavery Amendment (1865) was 14 for a year or two, until this redrafting happened. Then the 1868 Amendment on Equal rights (Now number 14) was passed, allegedly not voluntarily, as the US Govt. used military to coerce states. 1871, Organic Act to incorporate D.C. was passed (See 28usc3002: “United States” means a ‘federal corporation’). 1913, Federal Reserve Act gives all US property to intl. banks and the power to print paper money not backed with anything of real ‘intrinsic value’ (See number 20). Then came the Income Tax (16th Amend.), ACS/AMA (Cancer societies), Rothschild and Rockefeller foundations (To manipulate public and medical educations), and more. Courts have clearly ruled (Re: 16th Amend.) that ‘Congress has taxed income, not compensation’, and that compensation for labor cannot be taxed as it is a ‘fair exchange’, but ‘income’ can only mean ‘profit or gain’.. 1933, Emergency Banking act dissolves US Govt. in bankruptcy, HJR 192 eliminates gold backing to Dollar/Bank note, and provides ability to ‘discharge debt’ onto the Birth Certificate Account (need to find origin of those and Labor Taxes, beyond what’s already here). Then come Gold Confiscation acts, and suddenly the Nazis mysteriously have an enormous amount of Gold! That’s likely OURS. 1938, Erie Railroad Case, where Courts stop obeying ‘Public law’ (Those written by congress in compliance with Constitution), and start enforcing “Public Policy” (Statutes, ordinances, rules, regulations, codes, policies, etc.), which are ‘colorable law’, not necessarily ‘Law’ (See 2-6, Unconstitutional act not law). We are now under ‘martial’/’military’/’admiralty’ law, as shown in courts by the Yellow Fringe flag per Military Regulation 840-10, not in compliance with US Code Title 4 for Flag Design. Also see 1973 Senate Report on War Powers. The President is the Top CEO of a Corporation now, that is owned by the intl. banking corporations, which is how they justify him doing so many things outside the authority given by the US Const. [See 10th Amend.], and we are all property and/or employees, bound to obey, unless/until we learn how to sever this relationship, much like our forefathers did with the Declaration of Independence. That is what I am working on. Others have done it, so we can combine what they have done and improve upon it.
  
  LikeLike
  
  May 17, 2022 at 5:55 am Reply
harleyborgais says:

__________________________________
THIS COMMENT/POST WAS A DUPLICATE AND IS NOW COMBINED WITH THE COMMENT BELOW:
http://www.freeornottobe.wordpress.com/2022/03/13/sources-of-authority-by-topic-subject-of-law/comment-page-1/#comment-91
__________________________________

LikeLike

March 19, 2022 at 12:04 am Reply
- Harley Borgais says:
  
  THIS IS FROM http://www.NRDL.org/sources/ …
  ____________________________________________________________
  
  6) “Colorable Law”: Therefore it is a “deprivation of rights under color of law” to “tax” or “license” or “infringe” these basic natural Human rights in any way, which is an actual “crime” and a civil Liability to even “neglect to prevent” for “public servants” here in the USA!;
  The Constitution for the United States of America is ‘the supreme Law of the Land’ and ‘No State shall make or enforce’ ‘any Thing…to the Contrary’! All Laws must be construed in Harmony! ‘An unconstitutional act is not a law… It is in legal contemplation as inoperative as though it had never been passed.’ ‘any Thing…to the Contrary’ of these ‘fundamental principles’ is therefore ‘notwithstanding’ in a ‘court of law’, and is ‘color of law abuse’ to ‘make or enforce’! (‘Color of’ Means looks like but isn’t, btw) “Law” is not determined by the opinions or will of those who make law, but by what actually fulfills its purpose: “to…establish Justice” and “protect….individual rights”! Therefore, to ‘make or enforce’ ‘any Thing…to the Contrary’ of these ‘clearly established’ laws IS a ‘crime’, called ‘color of law abuse’ (see Federal Criminal Codes USC 18-241&242), including ‘failure to keep from harm’ or ‘neglect to prevent’ ‘deprivation of rights under color of law’! (Civil offense: USC 42-1983&1986. see: fbi.gov/investigate/civil-rights, “Color of law”, definition, and how to file Complaints!).
  ‘DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS UNDER COLOR OF LAW’, ‘COLOR OF LAW ABUSE’: Includes… under US codes like 42-1983&1986 for Civil Liability and 18-241&242 for ‘criminal’ ‘conspiracy to commit’, to ‘make or enforce’ ‘any Thing…to the Contrary’ of these ‘clearly established laws’ IS a ‘crime’, called ‘color of law abuse’ (see USC 18-241&242), and Public Servants are PERSONALLY Liable for ‘failure to keep from harm’ or ‘neglect to prevent’ ‘deprivation of rights under color of law’! (Civil offense: USC 42-1983&1986. see fbi.gov definition page)!
  The Crime ‘Color of law abuse’ includes ‘failure to keep from harm’ (www.FBI.gov definition), for which you can sue* for ‘deprivation of rights under color of law’. ‘Color of law’ means looks like law but is not, because it is contrary to the Constitution (See Numbers 2-5, ‘Blacks Law’ definitions of: ‘color of’, ‘color of law’, ‘colorable law’, US Codes 18-241 & 18-242 for criminal complaints, 42-1983 & 42-1986 for civil suits, and *=See ‘How To Administrate Public Servants’ for more ways to ‘establish Justice’. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/241.html ; http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/42/1983.html ).
  
  LikeLike
  
  May 17, 2022 at 3:06 am Reply
harleyborgais says:

27) “private attorney general doctrine”:
“Important Rights and the Private Attorney General Doctrine
Carl Cheng “: https://www.jstor.org/stable/3480376
https://mcrazlaw.com/recovering-attorneys-fees/
https://definitions.uslegal.com/p/private-attorney-general-doctrine/
https://www.merriam-webster.com/legal/private%20attorney%20general%20doctrine

LikeLike

March 19, 2022 at 1:16 am Reply
harleyborgais says:

9) Parental Rights (was #29): Include choosing pretty much everything for their children so long as there is not “probable” evidence of actual harm to the childrens equal Human rights to Life, Liberty, the Pursuit of Happiness, good health and education, and so forth.US.Const.,US.Supr.Ct.;
Also see Comment: https://freeornottobe.wordpress.com/2022/03/13/sources-of-authority-by-topic-subject-of-law/comment-page-3/#comment-463
________________________________
Here are 154 case citations on parental rights we can use:
https://awake2020.wordpress.com/2021/12/27/154-caselaw-you-will-need/
________________________________
Got to add this, on how Texas Family Court is committing “child abuse” by their OWN Definition, here:
“(1) “Abuse” includes the following acts or omissions by a person:

(A) mental or emotional injury to a child that results in an observable and material impairment in the child’s growth, development, or psychological functioning;

(B) causing or permitting the child to be in a situation in which the child sustains a mental or emotional injury that results in an observable and material impairment in the child’s growth, development, or psychological functioning;
…”
https://codes.findlaw.com/tx/family-code/fam-sect-261-001.html
________________________________

I also want to add these three cases from this Facebook Post:
“THE SUPREME COURT RULED THAT THERE IS A PRESUMPTION THAT A PARENT ACTS IN THEIR CHILDREN’S BEST INTERESTS NOT CHILD PROTECTION (CPS) OR YOUR STATE
The United States Supreme Court has stated: “There is a presumption that parents act in their children’s best interests, Parham c. J. R., U.S. 584, 602; there is normally no reason or compelling interest for the State to inject itself into the private realm of the family to further question a parents’ ability to make the best decisions regarding their children. Reno v. Flores, 507 U.S. 292, 304. The state may not interfere in child rearing decisions when a parent is available. Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000).”

Parham v. J.R., 442 U.S. 584 (1979) https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/442/584/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parham_v._J.R.

Reno v. Flores, 507 U.S. 292 (1993) https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/507/292/

Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000) https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/530/57/
________________________________
FYI Everyone here are some sources of authority I was just looking up for a client on Parental Rights, some really good ones I think:
…
And we can save these if we can use them for more sources on parents rights, by specific topic too:
https://www.americanbar.org/groups/public_interest/child_law/resources/child_law_practiceonline/child_law_practice/vol-35/february-2016/parental-rights-cases-to-know/

Here is a brief to the NC Supreme Court on Parents Rights:

Click to access 20201207145434898_20-616%20Amicus%20Brief%20The%20Justice%20Foundation%20cert%20stage.pdf

And this one is great (same one as above though):
Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000)
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/530/57/
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/530/57
“Primary Holding
There is a fundamental right under the Fourteenth Amendment for a parent to oversee the care, custody, and control of a child.”
_______________________________________
Need to make sure this one is in here too:
“PRIMARY HOLDING
Under the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment, a state law requiring that children attend school past eighth grade violates the parents’ constitutional right to direct the religious upbringing of their children.”
Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972)
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/406/205/
_________________________________________________________

Smith v. City of Fontana (1986): “Summary
Holding that loss of companionship claims can be asserted even after a child reaches the age of majority”.
“After Kelson was decided, the Supreme Court ruled that the “Due Process Clause is simply not implicated by a negligent act of an official causing unintended loss of or injury to life, liberty or property.” Daniels, 106 S.Ct. at 663. Although Daniels overrules Kelson’s implicit holding that a section 1983 claim can be based on mere negligence, Kelson’s determination that parents have a constitutionally protected liberty interest in their continued association with their children remains good law.” https://casetext.com/case/smith-v-city-of-fontana

Regarding awards for Parents for Loss of time with Children:
Hogan v. Cherokee Cnty., CIVIL 1:18-cv-00096-MR-WCM (W.D.N.C. Feb. 22, 2022):
“The jury awarded Brian Hogan $1.5 million and H.H. $3.1 million in compensatory damages. [Id.]. Based on the jury’s factual findings, the Court entered a Judgment in favor of the Plaintiffs on June 21, 2021.”
“I. BACKGROUND
This action arises out of the Defendants’ use of an extra-judicial custody agreement that resulted in the wrongful removal of Plaintiff H.H. from the custody of her father, Plaintiff Brian Hogan. The Plaintiffs filed a putative class action complaint, asserting claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for the deprivation of their procedural and substantive due process rights, as well as various state law claims.”
https://casetext.com/case/hogan-v-cherokee-cnty-10 (MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDER)
https://casetext.com/case/hogan-v-cherokee-cnty-11 (ORDER)
So this calculates to 3yearsX365daysX24hrs from $4.6million makes $175/hr for time apart from ones child(ren), or $300/hr if using the number from this article, which seems to be comparing to the National Avg. cost for Attorneys, where the argument is a Parent should be able to get the same rate for this compensation:
https://carolinapublicpress.org/45565/verdict-federal-jury-awards-millions-to-daughter-father-separated-by-cherokee-county-dss/
______________________________

For awards for lawsuit regarding parental rights: “Jury awards $21.3M in damages in Colorado custody dispute involving false abuse allegations”

“SOURCES OF AUTHORITY” BY TOPIC / SUBJECT OF LAW:

______________________________
Devin Said:
The case law I found to support that child support is unconstitutional are

Blessing vs Freestone (https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/520/329/)
US vs Sage (https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/us-2nd-circuit/1210532.html)
Holmberg vs Holmberg (https://casetext.com/case/holmberg-v-holmberg-1 & https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/nc-court-of-appeals/2021387.html)
Corelli vs Howser (https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/733/271/1516933/)
________________________________________________________________________________
ALSO SEE (I need to combine these with this main comment for Parent Rights Sources of Authority): https://freeornottobe.wordpress.com/2022/03/13/sources-of-authority-by-topic-subject-of-law/comment-page-2/#comment-170

“THE SUPREME COURT RULED THAT THERE IS A PRESUMPTION THAT A PARENT ACTS IN THEIR CHILDREN’S BEST INTERESTS NOT CHILD PROTECTION (CPS) OR YOUR STATE”: https://freeornottobe.wordpress.com/2022/03/13/sources-of-authority-by-topic-subject-of-law/comment-page-2/#comment-298

“about family life, and the rights of parents to raise their children”: https://freeornottobe.wordpress.com/2022/03/13/sources-of-authority-by-topic-subject-of-law/comment-page-4/#comment-552

“Unconstitutional Family courts “The court system kidnaps our children”: https://freeornottobe.wordpress.com/2022/03/13/sources-of-authority-by-topic-subject-of-law/comment-page-4/#comment-542

“SOURCES OF AUTHORITY, regarding parents rights, and drug abuse”: https://freeornottobe.wordpress.com/2022/03/13/sources-of-authority-by-topic-subject-of-law/comment-page-4/#comment-545

One case on parents rights, and one on States must obey federal law: https://freeornottobe.wordpress.com/2022/03/13/sources-of-authority-by-topic-subject-of-law/comment-page-4/#comment-579

“Time Taken Time Back “ SB718 Law for parental rights, “PRO SE RIGHTS” pdf, and more: https://freeornottobe.wordpress.com/2022/03/13/sources-of-authority-by-topic-subject-of-law/comment-page-4/#comment-581

Court Cases parents won, suing for loss of time with children: https://freeornottobe.wordpress.com/2022/03/13/sources-of-authority-by-topic-subject-of-law/comment-page-3/#comment-413

“Children have the fundamental right to equally be in the care, custody and control of both parents”: https://freeornottobe.wordpress.com/2022/03/13/sources-of-authority-by-topic-subject-of-law/comment-page-3/#comment-415

“violations of due process by Family Courts”: https://freeornottobe.wordpress.com/2022/03/13/sources-of-authority-by-topic-subject-of-law/comment-page-3/#comment-416
___________________________________________________
I intend to move those^ onto these pages also:
https://www.nrdl.org/sources/source-9.htm
http://www.freeornottobe.wordpress.com/2022/03/13/sources-of-authority-by-topic-subject-of-law/comment-page-4/#comment-609

LikeLike

March 19, 2022 at 1:23 am Reply
- harleyborgais says:
  
  Saving some cases here on parent rights…
  _____________________________________________
  OK, I have checked now and NO, these are NOT actual quotes from these cases, but are “paraphrasing” what these cases DO seem to be saying fairly well I think. So if we want to QUOTE these cases we will have to find good quotes, and I could suggest either reading the whole case(s), or by searching for examples where others have quoted the same cases. (Or just copy the summary from the justia page, which I dont think are quotes usually, not sure who writes those yet):
  …
  there is a presumption that parents act in their children’s best interests
  Parham v. J.R., 442 U.S. 584 (1979)
  https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/442/584/
  
  there is normally no reason or compelling interest for the State to inject itself into the private realm of the family to further question a parents’ ability to make the best decisions regarding their children.
  Reno v. Flores, 507 U.S. 292 (1993)
  https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/507/292/
  
  The state may not interfere in child rearing decisions when the parent is available
  Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000)
  https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/530/57/
  _____________________________________________
  …MORE…
  
  “In sum, the integrity of the family unit is held in high regard by both statutory and constitutional jurisprudence. By treating dependency like a routine, momentary inconvenience in the process of parenting, the majority neglects, and thereby denigrates one of our most fundamental values. Even worse, it does so in a way that misconstrues the statute, discriminates against disabled children, and violates parental rights. I would, therefore, reverse the trial court’s finding of dependency.”
  Welfare of Key, 119 Wn. 2d 600, 622 (Wash. 1992):
  https://law.justia.com/cases/washington/supreme-court/1992/57562-2-1.html
  
  FROM HERE:
  https://www.facebook.com/groups/415083733546409/?multi_permalinks=898906958497415&ref=share
  _____________________________________________
  
  A due-process violation occurs when a state-required breakup of a natural family is founded solely on a “best interests” analysis that is not supported by the requisite proof of parental unfitness. Quilloin v. Walcott (1978) 434 U.S. 246, 255
  
  Right to Procedural Due Process Violated: The state denied the plaintiff the fundamental right to a fair procedure before having their child removed by the intentional use of fraudulent evidence during the procedure. Morris v. Dearborne (5th Cir. 1999)
  Loss of First Amendment Freedoms, for even minimal periods of time, unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury. Though First Amendment rights are not absolute, they may be curtailed only by interests of vital importance, the burden of proving which rests on their government. Elrod v. Burns (96 S. Ct. 1976)
  
  Defendant should’ve investigated further prior to ordering seizure of children based on information he had overheard. The mere possibility of danger does not constitute an emergency or exigent circumstances that would justify a forced warrantless entry and a warrantless seizure of a child. Hurlman v. Rice (2nd Cir. 1991)
  
  FROM HERE: “Tennessee Coalition for Family Court Reform”, https://www.facebook.com/groups/415083733546409/?multi_permalinks=910017877386323&ref=share
  _____________________________________________
  
  LikeLike
  
  May 8, 2022 at 9:58 pm Reply
- Harley Borgais says:
  
  CASES ON PARENTS RIGHTS…
  “Upon a careful review of the record, the trial court’s custody determination was based upon credible evidence that Mother engaged in a pattern of behavior that has caused alienation between the children and Father, and that such an environment is unsafe for the children. The trial court’s decision is supported by competent, credible evidence in the record, and we therefore conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion in awarding custody to Father. ”
  …
  “After considering the testimony, the trial court found there was an immediate need to repair the relationship between Father and the children before it was damaged beyond repair and possible life-long psychological damage to the children occurred. ”
  Romohr v. Singer, 2022 Ohio 50 (Ohio Ct. App. 2022) –
  https://casetext.com/case/romohr-v-singer
  _________________________________________________
  Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson, 316 U.S. 535 (1942), Decided: May 31, 1942, PRIMARY HOLDING: “The right to procreation is a fundamental right, so a state cannot require the sterilization of criminals convicted of certain crimes.” “Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race. The power to sterilize, if exercised, may have subtle, far-reaching and devastating effects. In evil or reckless hands, it can cause races or types which are inimical to the dominant group to wither and disappear.” https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/316/535/
  _________________________________________________
  MORE…
  https://www.fixfamilycourts.com/pro-se-resources/rights-made-simple/
  
  Click to access custcit2.pdf
  
  _________________________________________________
  Thx to Derek Rupe (https://www.facebook.com/groups/746995312431593/user/100000068572539/ ) for sharing this list of Court Case Precedents on parental rights (28 of them I think), I added to this wordpress comment here (Need to get case summaries, important quotes, links to each case, to add to each still):
  
  “SOURCES OF AUTHORITY” BY TOPIC / SUBJECT OF LAW:
  
  Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (1923)
  Corresponding to the right of control, it is the natural duty of the parent to give his children education suitable to their station in life, and nearly all the States, including Nebraska, enforce this obligation by compulsory laws ;but the individual has certain fundamental rights which must be respected.
  https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/262/390/
  
  Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942)
  marriage and procreation are among ‘‘the basic civil rights of man’’
  https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/316/535/
  
  Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158, 166 (1944)
  care and nurture of children by the family are within ‘‘the private realm of family life which the state cannot enter’
  https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/321/158/
  
  May v. Anderson, 345 U.S. 528, 533; 73 S.Ct. 840, 843, (1952).
  The United States Supreme Court noted that a parent’s right to “the companionship, care, custody and management of his or her children” is an interest “far more precious” than any property right.
  https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/345/528/
  
  POE ET AL. v. ULLMAN, STATE’S ATTORNEY 367 U.S. 497 (1961)
  ”Precisely what is involved here is this: the State is asserting the right to enforce its moral judgment by intruding upon the most intimate details of the marital relation with the full power of the criminal law. Potentially, this could allow the deployment of all the incidental machinery of the criminal law, arrests, searches and seizures; inevitably, it must mean at the very least the lodging of criminal charges, a public trial, and testimony as to the corpus delicti. Nor could any imaginable elaboration of presumptions, testimonial privileges, or other safeguards, alleviate the necessity for testimony as to the mode and manner of the married couples’ sexual relations, or at least the opportunity for the accused to make denial of the charges. In sum, the statute allows the State to enquire into, prove and punish married people for the private use of their marital intimacy.”
  https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/367/497/
  
  Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, (1965)
  The Constitution also protects “the individual interest in avoiding disclosure of personal matters.” Federal Courts (and State Courts), under Griswold can protect, under the “life, liberty and pursuit of happiness” phrase of the Declaration of Independence, the right of a man to enjoy the mutual care, company, love and affection of his children, and this cannot be taken away from him without due process of law. There is a family right to privacy which the state cannot invade or it becomes actionable for civil rights damages.
  https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/381/479/
  
  In re Gault, 387, U.S. 1, 13 (1967)
  “Neither the Fourteenth Amendment nor the Bill of Rights is for adults alone.”
  https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/387/1/
  
  Dunn v. Blumstein, 405 US 330, 341 (Supreme Court 1972)
  (“It has long been established that a State may not impose a penalty upon those who exercise a right guaranteed by the Constitution… Constitutional rights would be of little value if they could be . . . indirectly denied’. . . .”)
  https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/405/330/
  
  Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645, 92 S.Ct. 1208, 31 L.Ed.2d 551 (1972).”
  “One of the most precious rights possessed by parents is the right to raise their children free of government interference. That right, “more precious than mere property rights,” is a liberty interest, protected by the substantive and procedural Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment.
  https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/405/645/
  …
  ADDING FROM ANOTHER SOURCE ON THAT^ CASE HERE…
  Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645 (1972)
  In this case, the Supreme Court held that as a matter of due process of law, Stanley was entitled to a hearing on his fitness as a parent before his children were taken from him. This case may be relevant as it discusses the due process rights of parents in child custody cases.
  URL: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/405/645/
  FROM HERE:
  https://www.facebook.com/groups/415083733546409/?multi_permalinks=891454499242661&ref=share
  …
  Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. at 453–54; id. at 460, 463–65
  “The due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits the government from interfering in the familial relationship unless the government adheres to the requirements of procedural and substantive due process.”
  https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/405/438/
  
  Mabra v. Schmidt, 356 F Supp 620; DC, WI (1973)
  “Father enjoys the right to associate with his children which is guaranteed by this amendment (First) as incorporated in Amendment 14, or which is embodied in the concept of “liberty” as that word is used in the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment and Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.”
  https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/356/620/1892786/
  
  Planned Parenthood of Central Mo v Danforth, 428 U.S. 52, 74 (1974)
  “Constitutional rights do not mature and come in to being magically only when one attains the state defined age of majority. Minors, as well as adults, are protected by the Constitution and possess constitutional rights”.
  https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/428/52/
  
  Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur, 414 U.S. 632 (1974)
  This Court has long recognized that freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
  https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/414/632/
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleveland_Board_of_Education_v._LaFleur
  
  Elrod v. Burns, 96 S.Ct. 2673; 427 U.S. 347, (1976).
  Loss of First Amendment Freedoms, for even minimal periods of time, unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury. Though First Amendment rights are not absolute, they may be curtailed only by interests of vital importance, the burden of proving which rests on the government.
  https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/427/347/
  
  Stanton v. Stanton, 421 U.S. 7 (1975)
  “In the context of child support, the classification effectuated by the challenged statute denies the equal protection of the laws, as guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment. Reed v. Reed, 404 U. S. 71. Notwithstanding the “old notions” cited by the state court, that it is the man’s primary responsibility to provide a home, that it is salutary for him to have education and training before he assumes that responsibility, and that females tend to mature and marry earlier than males, there is nothing rational in the statutory distinction between males and females which, when related to the divorce decree, results in appellee’s liability for support for the daughter only to age 18, but for the son to age 21, thus imposing “criteria wholly unrelated to the objective of that statute.” Pp.421 U. S. 13-17.”
  https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/421/7/
  
  Quilloin v. Walcott, 98 S.Ct. 549; 434 U.S. 246, 255-56, (1978)
  The U.S. Supreme Court implied that “a (once) married father who is separated or divorced from a mother and is no longer living with his child” could not constitutionally be treated differently from a currently married father living with his child.
  https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/434/246/
  
  Parham v. J. R., 442 U. S. 584, 602; (1979)
  Presumption parents act in the best interest of their child.
  (b) Notwithstanding a child’s liberty interest in not being confined unnecessarily for medical treatment, and assuming that a person has a protectible interest in not being erroneously labeled as mentally ill, parents — who have traditional interests in and responsibility for the upbringing of their child — retain a substantial, if not the dominant, role in the decision, absent a finding of neglect or abuse. However, the child’s rights and the nature of the commitment decision are such that parents do not always have absolute discretion to institutionalize a child; they retain plenary authority to seek such care for their children, subject to an independent medical judgment. Cf. Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U. S. 510; Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U. S. 205; Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U. S. 158; Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U. S. 390. Planned Parenthood of Central Missouri v. Danforth, 428 U. S. 52, distinguished. Pp. 442 U. S. 600-604..
  https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/442/584/
  
  Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745, 760, 102 S.Ct. 1388, 71 L.Ed.2d 599 (1982)
  “[U]ntil the state proves parental unfitness, the child and his parents share a vital interest in preventing erroneous termination of the natural relationship.”
  “The fundamental liberty interest of natural parents in the care custody, and management of their child is protected by the Fourteenth Amendment, and does not evaporate simply because they have not been model parents …”
  Equally fundamental is the substantive due process right of a child to be raised and nurtured by his parents.
  https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/455/745/
  
  In Lehr v. Robinson, 463 U.S. 248 (1983),
  the Supreme Court held that “[w]hen an unwed father demonstrates a full commitment to the responsibilities of parenthood by ‘com[ing] forward to participate in the rearing of his child, his interest in personal contact with his child acquires substantial protection under the Due Process Clause.” (Id. at 261- 262)
  https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/463/248/
  https://www.loc.gov/item/usrep463248/
  
  Doe v. Irwin, 441 F Supp 1247; U.S. D.C. of Michigan, (1985), (the year is actually 77’ it seems)…
  the rights of parents to the care, custody and nurture of their children is of such character that it cannot be denied without violating those fundamental principles of liberty and justice which lie at the base of all our civil and political institutions, and such right is a fundamental right protected by this amendment (First) and Amendments 5, 9, and 14.
  https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/441/1247/1427533/
  
  Board of Directors of Rotary Int’l v. Rotary Club of Duarte, 481 US 537 545 (1987),
  We have emphasized that the First Amendment protects those relationships, including family relationships, that presuppose “deep attachments and commitments to the necessarily few other individuals with whom one shares not only a special community of thought, experiences, and beliefs but also distinctly personal aspects on one’s life.”
  https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/60/board-of-directors-of-rotary-international-v-rotary-club-of-duarte
  https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/481/537/
  
  Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 US 833, 896, 898 (1992),
  (The Constitution protects individuals, men and women alike, from unjustified state interference, even when that interference is enacted into law for the benefit of their spouses… The Constitution protects all individuals, male or female, married or unmarried, from the abuse of governmental power, even where that power is employed for the supposed benefit of a member of the individual’s family.)
  https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/505/833/
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_Parenthood_v._Casey
  
  Reno v. Flores, 507 U. S. 292, 304. (1993)
  There is normally no reason or compelling interest for the State to inject itself into the private realm of the family to further question a parents’ ability to make the best decisions regarding their children.
  
  Washington v Glucksberg, 521 US 702 (1997)
  “that the Constitution, and specifically the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, protects the fundamental right of parents to direct the care, upbringing, and education of their children.”
  https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/507/292/
  
  Croft v. Westmoreland County Children Youth, 103 F.3d at 1125 (1997)
  The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits the government from interfering in familial relationships unless the government adheres to the requirements of procedural and substantive due process.
  https://casetext.com/case/croft-v-westmoreland-county-children-and-youth-services
  https://www.casemine.com/judgement/us/59148250add7b0493449390e
  
  Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000)
  The state may not interfere in child rearing decisions when a parent is available. There is a fundamental right under the Fourteenth Amendment for a parent to oversee the care, custody, and control of a child.
  https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/530/57/
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troxel_v._Granville
  
  Circuit Courts (Oregon 9th):
  
  Jordan v. Jackson, 15 F.3d 333, 346 (4th Cir. 1994)
  “We recognize that the forced separation of parent from child, even for a short time, represents a serious infringement upon both the parents’ and child’s rights.”
  https://casetext.com/case/jordan-by-jordan-v-jackson
  
  J.B. v. Washington County, 127 F.3d 919, 925 (10th Cir.1997)
  [I]t is evident that there was interference with plaintiffs’ rights of familial association because L.B. was physically removed from her home and from her parents for a period of almost 18 hours, which included an overnight stay in a pre-arranged shelter home.
  https://casetext.com/case/jb-v-washington-county-2
  https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/us-10th-circuit/1233415.html
  
  Wooley v. City of Baton Rouge, 211 F.3d 913, 923 (5th Cir.2000)
  “a child’s right to family integrity is concomitant to that of a parent, we define the scope of Jordan’s rights in this context with reference to his mother’s rights”. Thus, substantive due process provides the appropriate vehicle for evaluating the constitutionality of the nearly four-month government-forced separation of C.A. from his parents.
  https://casetext.com/case/wooley-v-city-of-baton-rouge-2
  
  __________________________________________________
  The rights of the child to full and equal relationships with both parents has no legal relationship to the marriage of the child’s parents and cannot depend on that marriage nor can they be infringed simply because the parents’ divorce.
  The best interest of a child is a constitutionally protected parental choice. It is a legitimate state policy only in the absence of a fit parent. Providing for a child’s best interest by either the parent or the state is neither compelling nor necessary in any situation. So long as parents meet reasonable minimum standards that are equally applicable to all fit parents, the state has no justification for infringing those parents’ rights.
  
  …why wont WP show the URL/Link???… http://www.facebook.com/IntoFatherhood/posts/pfbid02WckBLmVcoh72GHvjHR3eTDa4grfK9u4TL1FmkmWrxv4JxTCh5LM6sfoF9bHKUzacl
  
  LikeLike
  
  June 11, 2022 at 8:17 pm Reply
- harleyborgais says:
  
  CASES ON PARENTAL RIGHTS TO MERGE TOGETHER (From the current Table of Contents #9) Parental Rights:)…
  ___________________________________________
  INCLUDING:
  IN THE MATTER OF JAMES J. MILLER AND JANET S. TODD: Stating that “the obstruction by a custodial parent of visitation between a child and the noncustodial parent may, if continuous, constitute behavior so inconsistent with the best interests of the child as to raise a strong possibility that the child will be harmed”, https://casetext.com/case/in-the-matter-of-miller-14
  …Cases miller refers to:
  https://casetext.com/case/hogan-v-cherokee-cnty-10
  https://casetext.com/case/tyler-v-supreme-judicial-court-of-mass-2/case-summaries
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troxel_v._Granville ; https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/530/57/
  https://casetext.com/case/butler-v-bateman-in-re-bateman-1, “The adversary complaint asserts four counts of fraudulent transfer under the Federal Bankruptcy Code and state laws… Beyond all question, the common law here alluded to is not the common law of any individual state, (for it probably differs in all), but it is the common law of England, the grand reservoir of all our jurisprudence.”;
  https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nhd.50451/gov.uscourts.nhd.50451.58.0.pdf (PAUL MARAVELIAS case, not useful, dismissed)
  Here are “…four main points of law (out of 6 total) regarding equal parental rights and responsibilities from the summary of this case: “IN THE MATTER OF JAMES J. MILLER AND JANET S. TODD” (which is mostly quoting several previous cases which agree btw, in this and other States too making these “fundamental principles” of “the common law” and “the supreme Law of the Land” as a result):
  https://casetext.com/case/in-the-matter-of-miller-14/ …from this comment below…
  More on Parental Rights: https://freeornottobe.wordpress.com/2022/03/13/sources-of-authority-by-topic-subject-of-law/comment-page-3/#comment-463
  …
  Owens v. Zucker, US.Supr.Ct. (2013), appeal is DISMISSED for want of prosecution because the appellant Larael Owens has failed to pay the filing and docketing fees to the district …, https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca11/18-12480
  …
  …GOT TO MERGE THE BELOW FROM THIS COMMENT-115 WITH THE ABOVE CONTENT…
  29) Parental Rights: Now changed to 9) …
  Here are 154 case citations on parental rights we can use:
  https://awake2020.wordpress.com/2021/12/27/154-caselaw-you-will-need/
  ________________________________
  Got to add this, on how Texas Family Court is committing “child abuse” by their OWN Definition, here:
  “(1) “Abuse” includes the following acts or omissions by a person:
  
  (A) mental or emotional injury to a child that results in an observable and material impairment in the child’s growth, development, or psychological functioning;
  
  (B) causing or permitting the child to be in a situation in which the child sustains a mental or emotional injury that results in an observable and material impairment in the child’s growth, development, or psychological functioning;
  …”
  https://codes.findlaw.com/tx/family-code/fam-sect-261-001.html
  ________________________________
  
  I also want to add these three cases from this Facebook Post:
  “THE SUPREME COURT RULED THAT THERE IS A PRESUMPTION THAT A PARENT ACTS IN THEIR CHILDREN’S BEST INTERESTS NOT CHILD PROTECTION (CPS) OR YOUR STATE
  The United States Supreme Court has stated: “There is a presumption that parents act in their children’s best interests, Parham c. J. R., U.S. 584, 602; there is normally no reason or compelling interest for the State to inject itself into the private realm of the family to further question a parents’ ability to make the best decisions regarding their children. Reno v. Flores, 507 U.S. 292, 304. The state may not interfere in child rearing decisions when a parent is available. Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000).”
  
  Parham v. J.R., 442 U.S. 584 (1979) https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/442/584/
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parham_v._J.R.
  
  Reno v. Flores, 507 U.S. 292 (1993) https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/507/292/
  
  Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000) https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/530/57/
  ________________________________
  FYI Everyone here are some sources of authority I was just looking up for a client on Parental Rights, some really good ones I think:
  …
  And we can save these if we can use them for more sources on parents rights, by specific topic too:
  https://www.americanbar.org/groups/public_interest/child_law/resources/child_law_practiceonline/child_law_practice/vol-35/february-2016/parental-rights-cases-to-know/
  
  Here is a brief to the NC Supreme Court on Parents Rights:
  
  Click to access 20201207145434898_20-616%20Amicus%20Brief%20The%20Justice%20Foundation%20cert%20stage.pdf
  
  And this one is great (same one as above though):
  Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000)
  https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/530/57/
  https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/530/57
  “Primary Holding
  There is a fundamental right under the Fourteenth Amendment for a parent to oversee the care, custody, and control of a child.”
  
  LikeLike
  
  July 31, 2023 at 1:23 am Reply
- harleyborgais says:
  
  Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972):
  “PRIMARY HOLDING
  Under the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment, a state law requiring that children attend school past eighth grade violates the parents’ constitutional right to direct the religious upbringing of their children.”
  “This primary role of the parents in the upbringing of their children is now established beyond debate as an enduring American tradition.”
  https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/406/205/
  
  “The parents’ fundamental right to freedom of religion was determined to outweigh the state’s interest in educating their children. The case is often cited as a basis for parents’ right to educate their children outside of traditional private or public schools.”
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wisconsin_v._Yoder#Background_of_the_case
  
  LikeLike
  
  August 7, 2023 at 4:38 pm Reply
- harleyborgais says:
  
  Yeah this looks like a good case to save here too (The santosky case is in this list elsewhere, I need to reorganize that)…
  
  Duchesne v. Sugarman, 459 F. Supp. 313 (S.D.N.Y. 1978)
  https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/459/313/1392544/
  …BUT I AM NOT FINDING THESE QUOTES IN THAT^ CASE TEXT WHICH THESE BELOW REFERENCE…
  …This one from casetext seems better…
  The “…right of the family to remain together without the coercive interference of the awesome power of the state … encompasses the reciprocal rights of both parent and child. The court explained that children have the constitutional right to avoid dislocat[ion] from the emotional attachments that derive from the intimacy of daily association with the parent.”
  https://casetext.com/case/duchesne-v-sugarman
  
  Here are the same refs: “Right to resist coercive state intervention in the family”
  https://www.americanbar.org/groups/public_interest/child_law/resources/child_law_practiceonline/child_law_practice/vol-35/february-2016/parental-rights-cases-to-know/
  
  And more on this case, the ABA Report on it, and other connected cases which cite that^ one here…
  
  Click to access 20220818145927333_21-376%2021-377%2021-378%2021-380acTheAmericanBarAssociation.pdfA.pdf
  
  https://casetext.com/case/egervary-v-rooney
  
  https://casetext.com/case/southerland-v-city-of-new-york
  ________________________________________
  https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/455/745/
  
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santosky_v._Kramer
  
  “Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (1982)”
  “But until the State proves parental unfitness, the child and his parents share a vital interest in preventing erroneous termination of their natural relationship. [Footnote 11] Thus,
  Page 455 U. S. 761
  at the factfinding, the interests of the child and his natural parents coincide to favor use of error-reducing procedures.”
  …
  “Held:
  1. Process is constitutionally due a natural parent at a state-initiated parental rights termination proceeding. Pp. 455 U. S. 752-757.
  (a) The fundamental liberty interest of natural parents in the care custody, and management of their child is protected by the Fourteenth Amendment, and does not evaporate simply because they have not been model parents or have lost temporary custody of their child to the State. A parental rights termination proceeding interferes with that fundamental liberty interest. When the State moves to destroy weakened familial bonds, it must provide the parents with fundamentally fair procedures. Pp. 455 U. S. 752-754.”
  
  LikeLike
  
  August 20, 2023 at 6:01 pm Reply
- harleyborgais says:
  
  More to add….
  Yeah this is a good one here, I think this is the key part:
  
  “This Court has determined that parents have a fundamental right to direct the care, custody, and control of their children. This Court also has determined that the government shall not interfere with this right unless and until a parent is proven unfit.”.
  In the Supreme Court of the United States
  KELLY GEORGENE ROUTTEN, Petitioner,
  v.
  JOHN TYLER ROUTTEN, Respondent.
  On Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court of North Carolina
  
  Click to access 20201207145434898_20-616%20Amicus%20Brief%20The%20Justice%20Foundation%20cert%20stage.pdf
  
  …
  Respectfully submitted
  This 7th day of December, 2020,
  /s/ Allan E. Parker Jr.
  Counsel of Record
  The Justice Foundation
  8023 Vantage Dr., Suite 1275
  San Antonio, TX 78230
  (210) 614-7157; Parker4justice@gmail.com
  
  LikeLike
  
  September 8, 2023 at 6:22 pm Reply
- harleyborgais says:
  
  “…a child’s absence from the parent’s legal custody is equivalent to illegal restraint on the child and that habeas corpus is the appropriate remedy for such restraint. …”
  Nguyen Da Yen v. Kissinger, 528 F.2d 1194, 1201 (9th Cir. 1975)
  “Holding that Immigration and Naturalization Service records were “confidential but not privileged” …”
  https://casetext.com/case/nguyen-da-yen-v-kissinger
  
  FROM HERE:
  “Tennessee Coalition for Family Court Reform”…
  https://www.facebook.com/groups/415083733546409/?multi_permalinks=888512569536854&ref=share
  
  Since it mentioned Habeas Corpus as the proper Writ/Court action to challenge court orders taking kids away…
  
  https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/habeas_corpus
  https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/2263
  https://www.uscourts.gov/forms/civil-forms/petition-writ-habeas-corpus-under-28-usc-ss-2254
  
  LikeLike
  
  November 24, 2023 at 9:46 pm Reply
- harleyborgais says:
  
  “THE PARENTAL BILL of RIGHTS
  by T. Matthew Phillips, Attorney-at-Law
  U.S. Supreme Court Bar No. 317048
  The 14th Amendment guarantees “liberty,” including the People’s right to raise children; this fundamental right to parent includes the right to care, custody, and control of one’s children; so too, children enjoy an accompanying right, i.e., the right to be parented by their natural parents.
  All parents are presumed fit. No court may restrict or terminate a parent’s custodial rights unless there is first a fitness trial — where the state proves child abuse or neglect by clear and convincing evidence, i.e., which can be objectively verified without resort to judicial discretion.
  A properly noticed fitness trial must include: (i) notice to the accused parent concerning the factual allegations of child abuse or neglect, and (ii) an admonition that, if the accused parent is found unfit — based on clear and convincing evidence — the state may restrict or terminate that parent’s custodial rights.
  Fit parents are presumed to act in the best interests of their children; absent findings of unfitness, equal protection demands that two fit parents share equal and undivided custodial rights.
  A child’s best interests reside with fit parents; absent findings of unfitness, the state may not enter the private family realm. No court has legal authority, (“jurisdiction), to determine a child’s best interests — unless both parents are deemed unfit after a properly noticed fitness trial.
  Unless there is actual harm to a child — meaning abuse or neglect as defined by black-letter law — a parent’s bad behavior or felonious misconduct provides no legal basis to restrict or terminate custodial rights. No court may restrict or terminate custodial rights as punishment for misconduct against any person, including the other parent.
  All orders restricting or terminating custodial rights must include strict scrutiny analyses, i.e., was the custody order narrowly tailored to effectuate a compelling gov’t interest?—and, did the court employ the least-restrictive means of effectuating that interest?
  The First Amendment guarantees a fundamental right to familial association — including the right to private speech with one’s children. No court may impose time, place, or manner restrictions on a parent’s right to free speech with a child, (e.g., at supervised visits), unless that parent is found unfit.
  All temporary custody orders must have expiration dates; temporary custody orders with no expiration dates are null and void. No temporary order restricting custodial rights shall remain in effect longer than 60 days, after which: (i) the order must expire, or (ii) a fitness trial must commence.
  All parents in domestic proceedings are presumed innocent of criminal accusations unless or until the state, in a criminal proceeding, proves guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, pursuant to a criminal complaint, (“indictment”). No court may sua sponte conclude that a parent committed a crime.”
  _________________________________________________________
  FROM HERE:
  Roy Carter, Tennessee Coalition for Family Court Reform:
  https://www.facebook.com/groups/415083733546409/?multi_permalinks=893385565716221&ref=share
  
  LikeLike
  
  December 2, 2023 at 10:18 pm Reply
- harleyborgais says:
  
  “Due Process is always violated in Family Courts. Here are some cases from the U.S. Supreme Court that specifically deal with due process……….”
  https://www.facebook.com/groups/415083733546409/?multi_permalinks=888241652897279&ref=share
  …
  “Nebbia v. New York (1934)
  Author: Owen Josephus Roberts
  The Due Process Clause conditions the exertion of regulatory power by requiring that the end shall be accomplished by methods consistent with due process, that the regulation shall not be unreasonable, arbitrary, or capricious, and that the means selected shall have a real and substantial relation to the object sought to be attained.
  
  Pierce v. Society of Sisters (1925)
  Author: James Clark McReynolds
  The fundamental theory of liberty on which all governments in the U.S. rest excludes any general power of the state to standardize its children by forcing them to accept instruction from public teachers only.
  
  Civil Rights Cases (1883)
  Author: Joseph Bradley
  It is state action of a particular character that is prohibited by the Fourteenth Amendment. Individual invasion of individual rights is not the subject matter of the amendment.
  Slaughterhouse Cases (1873)
  Author: Samuel Freeman Miller
  The privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States are those that arise out of the nature and essential character of the national government, the provisions of the Constitution, or federal laws and treaties made in pursuance thereof. (The main holding of this case addressed the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, rather than the Due Process Clause. However, it is significant for due process doctrine because it made the Due Process Clause the foundation for most Fourteenth Amendment claims involving fundamental rights. This function otherwise might have been served by the Privileges or Immunities Clause.)”
  
  https://supreme.justia.com/cases-by-topic/due-process/#:~:text=First%2C%20procedural%20due%20process%20involves,as%20an%20unbiased%20decision%2Dmaker
  
  LikeLike
  
  December 24, 2023 at 5:25 pm Reply
- harleyborgais says:
  
  “Parental Alienation Case Law”:
  https://www.warshak.com/alienation/paslegal.html
  
  THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
  Portsmouth Family Division No. 2009-806
  IN THE MATTER OF JAMES J. MILLER AND JANET S. TODD
  Opinion Issued: March 31, 2011
  Vacated the lower court’s award of custody to a mother who was found to be alienating her children from their father.
  
  After effectively interfering with the father-child relationship, the trial court awarded custody to the mother primarily because the children had spent the majority of their lives with her and that is where they feel most comfortable. This is typical in cases where one parent has effectively interfered in the children’s relationship with the other parent. The absence of contact establishes a status quo that the court then feels bound to honor in order to spare the children a drastic change in their lives.
  
  The Supreme Court recognized that the father was denied contact with his children for more than two years as a result of unfounded allegations of abuse, and that awarding custody to the mother because of the lack of father-child contacts, raises a concern that the mother is rewarded for violating court orders.
  
  The court quoted the Vermont Supreme Court: “Although obviously well intended, the court’s decision effectively condoned a parent’s willful alienation of a child from the other parent. Its ruling sends the unacceptable message that others might, with impunity, engage in similar misconduct. Left undisturbed, the court’s decision would nullify the principle that the best interests of the child are furthered through a healthy and loving relationship with both parents.”
  
  This reasoning gives voice to the biggest complaint I hear from parents regarding their custody litigation: repeated violations of orders go unpunished, with some parents making a mockery of the court’s authority.
  
  The court cited favorably an opinion from a Vermont case: “Across the country, the great weight of authority holds that conduct by one parent that tends to alienate the child’s affections from the other is so inimical to the child’s welfare as to be grounds for a denial of custody to, or a change of custody from, the parent guilty of such conduct.”
  
  “[A] child’s best interests are plainly furthered by nurturing the child’s relationship with both parents, and a sustained course of conduct by one parent designed to interfere in the child’s relationship with the other casts serious doubt upon the fitness of the offending party to be the custodial parent.”
  
  The court also quoted it’s opinion in a prior NH case: “The obstruction by a custodial parent of visitation between a child and the noncustodial parent may, if continuous, constitute behavior so inconsistent with the best interests of the child as to raise a strong possibility that the child will be harmed.” http://www.courts.state.nh.us/supreme/opinions/2011/2011030miller.pdf
  
  https://www.courts.nh.gov/documents/2009-806-matter-james-j-miller-and-janet-s-todd
  
  Click to access 2011030miller.pdf
  
  “IN RE: James J. MILLER and Janet S. Todd. (2011)”:
  https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/nh-supreme-court/1562358.html
  
  …more from our motion to vacate a NH Court “Protective Order”…
  NH miller v Todd:
  https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/nh-supreme-court/1562358.html
  https://law.justia.com/cases/new-hampshire/supreme-court/2011/2011030miller.html
  
  Mohammed v cabal:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammed_V_of_Morocco
  https://www.britannica.com/biography/Muhammad-V-sultan-of-Morocco
  
  List of ‘scotus rulings’ from US Supreme Court and others, on Parental Rights, “ to direct the care, custody, and control of their children”:
  
  “SOURCES OF AUTHORITY” BY TOPIC / SUBJECT OF LAW:
  
  LikeLike
  
  December 28, 2023 at 7:58 pm Reply
- harleyborgais says:
  
  “These are very hard to prove. If you or your attorney are going to go for it you will need case law. Here you go.
  “ Coercive or manipulative acts designed to alienate the other parent and interfere with his or her relationship with the child are proper considerations regarding the best interests of the child. See Eisenlohr v. Eisenlohr , 135 Conn. App. 337, 348, 43 A.3d 694 (2012).” Dufresne v. Dufresne, 191 Conn. App. 532, 541 (Conn. App. Ct. 2019)
  “Alienation of one parent by the other from the child and exposing the child to conversations that are critical of the other parent, may constitute a substantial change in circumstances. See Naumann v. Nauman” Dufresne v. Dufresne, 191 Conn. App. 532, 541 (Conn. App. Ct. 2019)”
  FROM HERE:
  https://www.facebook.com/groups/746995312431593/?multi_permalinks=1759863731144741&ref=share
  
  LikeLike
  
  January 23, 2024 at 5:50 pm Reply
- harleyborgais says:
  
  “In re Children of Billie S.
  Court: Maine Supreme Judicial Court
  Citation: 2024 ME 1
  Opinion Date: January 9, 2024
  Areas of Law: Civil Procedure, Family Law
  The case involves Billie S., who appealed from a judgment by the District Court (Bangor, Roberts, J.) which terminated her parental rights to her children pursuant to 22 M.R.S. § 4055(1)(B)(2) (2023). The mother argued that the judgment did not provide sufficient independent findings of fact to support the termination of her parental rights. The Maine Supreme Judicial Court agreed with the mother’s contention.”
  FROM HERE:
  https://www.facebook.com/groups/415083733546409/?multi_permalinks=919890189732425&ref=share
  
  LikeLike
  
  January 23, 2024 at 6:30 pm Reply
- harleyborgais says:
  
  This might already be in here, I plan to reorganize all this in the future, but to make sure it is here… 29 Court Cases on parents rights and due process and so on, all from Tennessee I think, 377 page pdf… https://www.facebook.com/groups/415083733546409/permalink/933812845006826/
  https://www.facebook.com/download/2132805827070174/29%20CASES%20FROM%20TENNESSEE%20377%20PAGES.pdf
  
  LikeLike
  
  February 11, 2024 at 11:35 pm Reply
- harleyborgais says:
  
  Here are 88 more case citations regarding parental rights, though it seems the #s are not carrying over when I copy unfortunately, I’ll re-add them…
  _____________________________
  More case laws courtesy of Latisha Johnson.
  
  In Walker, the Court noted, “an existing ability or capacity of parents to adequately and properly care for their children is inconsistent with the status of dependency.” Id.; see also In re the Welfare of Watson, 25 Wn. App. 508, 512-13, 610 P.2d 367 (1979).
  1. Government action designed to prevent an individual from utilizing legal remedies may infringe upon the First Amendment right to petition the courts. In re Workers’ Compensation Refund, 46 F.3d 813, 822 (8th Cir.1995).
  2. The mere presence of drugs, or prior use, does not pose the same threat to a child. As the Second Circuit has warned, “if the mere ‘possibility’ of danger constituted an emergency, officers would ‘always’ be justified in making a forced entry and seizure of a child whenever the child was in the presence of a person who had.. a history that heightens the possibility of danger to the child.” United States v. Venters, 539 F.3d 801, 808-09 (7th Cir. 2008)
  3. Although drugs are illegal, a parent’s criminal activity does not authorize the government to separate a family through child neglect statutes. Kozey v. Quarles, No. 3:04 CV 1724 MRK, 2005 WL 2387708
  4. “Such knee-jerk intervention signals a return to the discredited practice of focusing on the repugnance of parental conduct. Whether prior parental conduct is blameworthy or repulsive should not be of concern to the child welfare system.” Robin-Vergeer, supra note 314, at 760
  5. Finding no exigent circumstances among evidence of cluttered home, the developmental delays of the children, and the lack of educational and medical care for the children because there was no showing of “imminent or likely harm” to the children. Walsh v. Erie Cnty. Dep’t Job & Family Servs., 240 F. Supp. 2d 731, 740, 749-50 (N.D. Ohio 2003)
  6. Although the federal circuit courts have developed different standards to identify exigent circumstances justifying seizure of a child from his home in the absence of a court order, parental drug use fails to constitute exigent circumstance under any of these standards. Because exigent circumstances require the immediate threat of harm to the child, rather than a mere possibility of harm occurring to the child. Gates v. Texas Dep’t Protective & Regulatory Servs., 537 F.3d 404, 428-29 (5th Cir. 2008)
  7. Mere drug possession amounts to neither probable cause nor exigent circumstances. Therefore, neglect statutes that explicitly designate drug abuse as child neglect lead to unlawful seizures within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment and should be struck down as unconstitutional. Brokaw v. Mercer Cnty., 235 F.3d 1000, 1010 (7th Cir. 2000)
  8. Cases in which parents misuse drugs or alcohol but do not neglect their child fail to justify such drastic state intervention. The lack of causation between parental drug use and harm to a child, the child’s interest in staying with his natural family, and the bleak outlook for a child in the foster care system demonstrate that the government’s interest does not outweigh the individual privacy interests of a child in cases involving drug use. “The desire to avoid a domestic dispute cannot form a reasonable basis for depriving a child of his fourth and fourteenth amendment rights.” Wooley v. City of Baton Rouge, 211 F.3d 913, 925-26 (5th Cir. 2000)
  9. Under any of these standards, however, parental drug use fails to constitute an exigent circumstance, for it does not put a child in “immediate jeopardy, ”nor does it pose the threat that the child is “likely to experience serious bodily harm.” Good, 891 F.2d at 1094.
  10. The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly held that parents have a fundamental right to make decisions as to the companionship, care, custody, and management of their children, which right is a protected liberty interest under the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57, 65–66, 120 S.Ct. 2054, 2060 (2000)
  11. The First Amendment also provides a possible cause of action. Courts have recognized that the First Amendment protects the fundamental right to intimate association, which includes the familial association between parents and children. Doe v. Fayette County Children and Youth Servs., No. 8-823, 2010 WL 4854070, *18–19 (W.D. Pa. Nov. 22, 2010); Behm v. Luzerne County Children and Youth, 172 F.Supp.2d 575, 585 (M.D. Pa. 2001).
  12. Neglect statutes that identify drug use or possession as forms of neglect justifying removal of a child from a home fail to constitute exigent circumstances. Drug use or possession does not cause direct harm to a child and is not a guarantee of direct harm to a child, but merely poses a possibility of harm to a child. This possibility of harm is not an exigency. Tenenbaum, 193 F.3d at 594
  13. Children have standing to sue for their removal after they reach the age of majority. Children have a constitutional right to live with their parents without government interference. Brokaw v. Mercer County (7th Cir. 2000)
  14. Courts should not accept the standard set by neglect statutes that mere possession, or even use, of narcotics constitutes neglect because it does not necessarily cause “real physical or emotional harm” to the child, nor does it mean that the child is in imminent danger. Furthermore, neglect statutes that incorporate drug use into their definitions of neglect do not fulfill their purpose of protecting children because the immorality of a particular behavior does not necessarily lead to harm. Roe v. Conn, 417 F. Supp. 769, 779 (M.D. Ala. 1976).
  15. Unlike abuse, which involves some form of negative parental action, child neglect typically presents in the form of parental omissions, and therefore, cases of neglect are substantially less likely to warrant immediate action. New York v. Burger, 482 U.S. 691, 727 (1987)
  16. Evidence of an increased likelihood of harm to a child does not constitute actual or imminent threat of harm to a child. “Imminent danger must be near or impending, not merely possible.” Nicholson v. Scoppetta (2004)
  17. “Consent” that is the product of official intimidation or harassment is not consent at all. Citizens do not forfeit their constitutional rights when they are coerced to comply with a request that they would prefer to refuse. Florida v. Bostick (S. Ct. 1991)
  18. Mother had a clearly established right to an adequate, prompt post-deprivation hearing. A 17-day period prior to the hearing was not a prompt hearing. Whisman v. Rinehart (8th Cir. 1997)
  19. Coercion can be mental as well as physical. Blackburn v. Alabama 361 U.S. 199, 206 (1960)
  20. If neglect statutes conflict with the Fourth Amendment, they must be deemed invalid “[T]he State registers no gain towards its declared goals when it separates children from the custody of fit parents.” Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645, 652 (1972)
  21. “A showing of harm to the child . . . as a prerequisite for coercive state intervention,” statutes incorporating drug use focus on parental behavior and thus “subvert themselves.” “By preserving references to parental misconduct as factors to consider in neglect determinations, statutory law, undermines the express requirement that harm to the child be a sine qua non of intervention.” The result of this is that “such cases often begin to resemble criminal proceedings against errant parents.” Dolgin, supra note 62, at 1227.
  22. The assumption that drug use constitutes neglect inappropriately shifts the focus from the welfare of the child to the behavior of the parent. The parenting, not the supposed quality of the individual who is the parent, should be at issue. See Dolgin, supra note 62, at 1213, 1235-36; Wald, supra note 304, at 1034;
  23. A trial court cannot terminate a parent’s rights absent this finding of unfitness. Parental deficiencies alone do not render a parent currently unfit, “the proper inquiry is whether the existing parental deficiencies, or other conditions, prevent the parent from providing for the child’s basic health, welfare, and safety.” In re Parental Rights to K.MM, 186 Wn.2d 466, 493, 379 P.3d 75 (2016).
  24. The court explained “absent some tangible evidence of abuse or neglect, the Courts do not authorize fishing expeditions into citizens’ houses. Mere parroting of the phrase best interest of the child without supporting facts and a legal basis is insufficient to support a Court order based on reasonableness or any other ground.” North Hudson DYFS v. Koehler Family (2001)
  25. An officer who obtains a warrant through materially false statements which result in an unconstitutional seizure may be held liable personally for his actions under section 1983. Aponte Matos v. Toledo Davilla (1st Cir. 1998)
  26. Defendants could not lawfully seize child without a warrant or the existence of probable cause to believe child was in imminent danger of harm. Where police were not informed of any abuse of the child prior to arriving at caretaker’s home and found no evidence of abuse while there, seizure of the child was not objectively reasonable and violated the clearly established Fourth Amendment rights of the child. Wooley v. City of Baton Rouge (5th Cir. 2000)
  27. Miller recognized the fundamental liberty interests by parents in the care, custody and management of their children, an interest which must be balanced against the State’s interest in protecting children suspected of being abused. 174 F.3d at 373, 374. Citing Croft and Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745, 753, 102 S.Ct. 1388, 71 L.Ed.2d 599 (1982),
  28. To act “under color of state law” means the social workers acted beyond the bounds of lawful authority, but in such a manner that the unlawful acts were done while the official was purporting or pretending to act in the performance of their official duties. In other words, the unlawful acts must consist of an abuse or misuse of power which is possessed by the official only because they are an official. The social workers committed a misuse of power, possessed by virtue of state law and made possible only because the wrongdoer is clothed with the authority of state law, is action taken `under color of’ state law.
  29. An unreasonable belief of imminent harm to a child will render a seizure unreasonable. Wallis v. Spencer, 202 F.3d 1126, 1140 (9th Cir. 2000)
  30. Right to Procedural Due Process Violated: The state denied the plaintiff the fundamental right to a fair procedure before having their child removed by the intentional use of fraudulent evidence during the procedure. Morris v. Dearborne (5th Cir. 1999)
  31. The forced separation of parent from child, even for a short time (in this case 18 hours), represents a serious infringement upon the rights of both. J.B. v. Washington County (10th Cir. 1997)
  32. Loss of First Amendment Freedoms, for even minimal periods of time, unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury. Though First Amendment rights are not absolute, they may be curtailed only by interests of vital importance, the burden of proving which rests on their government. Elrod v. Burns (96 S. Ct. 1976)
  33. Parents and child had a clearly established liberty interest in associating together. This right was violated where the defendants allegedly had no indication of any physical neglect of the child, no indication of any immediate threat to his welfare, and no indication of any criminal activity by his mother, where they had only third-hand hearsay that the child’s mother had gotten drunk and failed to pick up the child from his babysitter, and where defendants refused to return the child, had not investigated to determine whether it was necessary to remove the child in the first place, and had not investigated the possibility of returning the child to his mother, grandmother, or anyone designated by the mother. Whisman v. Rinehart (8th Cir. 1997)
  34. In reversing the conviction of a teacher who violated the law, the court held that the Due Process Clause protected “the power of parents to control the education of their own children.” People V. Bennett (1923)
  35. “This right to the preservation of family integrity encompasses the reciprocal rights of both parent and children.” See Duchesne v. Sugarman, 566 F.2d 817, 825 (2d Cir. 1977)
  36. In 1923, the Supreme Court held that there was a constitutionally protected right of parents to “establish a home and bring up children.” in Meyer v. State of Nebraska (1923)
  37. Protecting the right to live as an untraditional family under the due process clause; Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003)
  38. The Supreme Court reaffirmed, that “choices about family life,” and the rights of parents to raise their children, are rights of “basic importance in our society.” These rights, the court wrote, are to be protected from “the State’s unwarranted usurpation, disregard, or disrespect.” in M.L.B. v. S.L.J.(1996)
  39. Plaintiff’s clearly established right to meaningful access to the courts would be violated by suppression of evidence and failure to report evidence. Chrissy v. Miss. Department of Public Welfare (5th Cir. 1991)
  40. Child removals are “seizures” under the Fourth Amendment. Seizure is unconstitutional without court order or exigent circumstances. Court order obtained based on knowingly false information violates fourth amendment. Brokaw v. Mercer County (7th Cir. 2000)
  41. A child has a constitutionally protected interest in the companionship and society of his or her parent. Ward v. San Jose (9th Cir. 1992)
  42. The social workers and court officials consisted of two or more persons who conspired to injure, oppress, threaten, and intimidate the mother and her minor child, in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to the mother by the Constitution or the laws of the United States, (or because of his/her having exercised the same). Title 18, U.S.C., Section 242
  43. It further makes it unlawful for two or more persons to go in disguise on the highway or on the premises of another with the intent to prevent or hinder her free exercise or enjoyment of any rights so secured. 18 U.S. Code § 241 – Conspiracy against rights
  44. Absent extraordinary circumstances, a parent has a liberty interest in familial association and privacy that cannot be violated without adequate pre-deprivation procedures. Malik v. Arapahoe Cty. Department of Social Services (10th Cir. 1999)
  45. The Court held that where abusive government action by a member of the executive branch is alleged, “only the most egregious official conduct 522*522 can be said to be arbitrary in the constitutional sense.” .Id. at 375, quoting County of Sacramento v. Lewis, 523 U.S. 833, 846, 118 S.Ct. 1708, 140 L.Ed.2d 1043 (1998).
  46. State employee who withhold a child from their family may infringe on the family’s liberty of familial association. Social workers could not deliberately remove children from their parents and place them with foster caregivers when the officials reasonably should have known such an action would cause harm to the child’s mental or physical health. K.H. through Murphy v. Morgan (7th Cir. 1990)
  47. Under this standard, executive action will not expose the official to liability unless it is “so ill-conceived or malicious that it `shocks the conscience.'” Id. The Court emphasized that Croft was simply an application of the traditional substantive due process “shocks the conscience” standard. Miller, 174 F.3d at 376.
  48. Stating that only in rare circumstances can allegations of neglect be so severe or credible that an investigation into the allegations is not required for removal; Brokaw, 235 F.3d at 1011
  49. A defendant in a civil rights case is not entitled to any immunity if he or she gave false information either in support of an application for a search warrant or in presenting evidence to a prosecutor on which the prosecutor based his or her charge against the plaintiff. Young v. Biggers (5th Cir. 1991)
  50. The Court held that the CYS caseworker, acting on an anonymous tip with multiple layers of hearsay, without any corroborating evidence, and without any evidence that convinced her one way or another that there was any sexual abuse involved, had insufficient justification for such a drastic infringement on parental and children’s rights (familial integrity), and so was an arbitrary abuse of government power.
  51. Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures extends beyond criminal investigations and includes conduct by social workers in the context of a child neglect/abuse investigation. Lenz v. Winburn (11th Cir. 1995)
  52. Court held that an anonymous tip standing alone never amounts to probable cause. H.R. v. State Department of Human Resources (Ala. Ct. App. 1992)
  53. Defendant should’ve investigated further prior to ordering seizure of children based on information he had overheard. The mere possibility of danger does not constitute an emergency or exigent circumstances that would justify a forced warrantless entry and a warrantless seizure of a child. Hurlman v. Rice (2nd Cir. 1991)
  54. In context of a seizure of a child by the State during an abuse investigation, a court order is the equivalent of a warrant.193 F.3d 581, 602 (2nd Cir. 1999) and F.K. v. Iowa district Court for Polk County, Id. Tenenbaum v. Williams (2nd Cir. 1999) and F.K. v. Iowa
  55. Child protection workers are subject to the 4th and 14th Amendment in the context of an investigation of alleged abuse or neglect as are all “government officials”. The court ruled “despite the defendant’s (child protection worker) exaggerated view of their powers, the Fourth Amendment applies to them, as it does to all other officers and agents of the state whose request to enter, however benign or well-intentioned, are met by a closed door.” “The Fourth Amendment’s prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures applies whenever an investigator, be it a police officer, a DCFS employee, or any other agent of the state, responds to an alleged instance of child abuse, neglect, or dependency”.3:01-cv-7588. Walsh v. Erie County Department of Job and Family Services.
  56. The Constitution also protects “the individual interest in avoiding disclosure of personal matters” Federal Courts (and State Courts), under Griswold can protect, under the “life, liberty and pursuit of happiness” phrase of the Declaration of Independence, the right of a man to enjoy the mutual care, company, love and affection of his children, and this cannot be taken away from him without due process of law. There is a family right to privacy, which the state cannot invade, or it becomes actionable for civil rights damages. 381 US 479 Griswold v. Connecticut. 1965
  57. The Court focused on “whether the information available to the defendants at the time would have created an objectively reasonable suspicion of abuse justifying the degree of inference with the parents’ rights as the child’s parents.” In the absence of such reasonable grounds, the governmental intrusions of this nature “are arbitrary abuses of power.” Due process requires the trial court to explicitly or implicitly find by clear, cogent, and convincing evidence that the parent is currently unfit. A.B., 168 Wn.2d at 918-19.
  58. A due-process violation occurs when a state-required breakup of a natural family is founded solely on a “best interests” analysis that is not supported by the requisite proof of parental unfitness. Quilloin v. Walcott (1978) 434 U.S. 246, 255
  59. The Supreme Court ruled that testing without maternal consent for the purposes of criminal investigation violated the mother’s Fourth Amendment rights. (Lester, 2004) In Ferguson v Charleston, SC, 532 US 67 (2001)
  60. A parent’s interest in custody of their children is a liberty interest which has received considerable constitutional protection; a parent who is deprived of custody of his or her child, even though temporarily, suffers thereby grievous loss and such loss deserves extensive due process protection. In the Interest of Cooper (Kansas 1980)
  61. A finding of dependency requires proof of present parental deficiencies. In re the Matter of the Welfare of Walker, 43 Wn.2d 710, 715, 263 P.2d 956 (1953).
  62. A parent’s right to the custody of his or her children is an element of “liberty” guaranteed by the 5th Amendment and the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution. Matter of Gentry (1983)
  63. Children have a Constitutional right to live with their parents without government interference. Child’s four-month separation from his parents could be challenged under substantive due process. Sham procedures don’t constitute true procedural due process. Brokaw v. Mercer County (7th Cir. 2000)
  64. Although it is accurate that a trial court may consider prior parenting history, a finding of dependency must be based on proof of a parent’s present inability to care for her children. Walker, 43 Wn.2d at 715; Watson, 25 Wn. App. at 512-13.
  65. Accordingly, the Department had to prove Ms. W. was presently unable to adequately care for her baby son, “such that the child is in circumstances which constitute a danger of substantial damage to his psychological or physical development.” RCW 13.34.030(6)(c); accord In re Dependency of Brown, 149 Wn.2d 836, 72 P.3d 757
  66. When a judge knows that he/she lacks jurisdiction, or acts in the face of clearly valid statutes expressly depriving him/her of jurisdiction, judicial immunity is lost. Rankin v. Howard (1980) 633 F.2d 844, cert den. Zeller v. Rankin, 101 S. Ct. 2020, 451 U.S. 939, 68 L.Ed 2d 326.
  67. Federal Tort Law: judges cannot invoke judicial immunity for acts that violate litigants civil rights. Robert Craig Waters. Tort & Insurance Law Journal, Spr. 1986 21 n3, p509-516.
  68. A law repugnant of the Constitution is void, and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument. Maybury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137 (1803)
  69. Some defendants urge that any act of a judicial nature entitles the judge to absolute judicial immunity, but in a jurisdictional vacuum (that is absence of all jurisdictions) the second prong necessary to absolute judicial immunity is missing. Stump v. Sparkman, id., 435 U.S. 349
  70. Where there is no jurisdiction there can be no discretion for discretion is incident to jurisdiction. Piper v. Pearson, 2 Gray 120, cited in Bradley v. Fisher, 13 Wall. 335,20 L.Ed 646 (1872)
  71. The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime a denial of them would be a denial of due process of law. Simmons v. United States, 390 U.S. 377 (1968)
  72. Hence the act of filing a lawsuit against a government entity represents an exercise of the right to petition and thus invokes constitutional protection. City of Long Beach v. Bozek, 31 Cal.3d 527, at 533-534 (1982)
  73. The right to petition for redress of grievances is ‘among the most precious of the liberties safeguarded in the bill of rights.’ Inseparable from the guaranteed rights entrenched in the 1st amendment, the right to petition for redress of grievances occupies a ‘preferred place’ in our system of representative government and enjoys a ‘sanctity and a sanction not permitting dubious intrusions.’ Thomas v. Collins, 323 US 516;65 S.Ct 315, 322.
  74. It was not by accident or coincidence that the rights to freedom of speech and press were coupled with the rights of the people to peaceably assemble and petition for redress of grievances. A judge must be acting within his jurisdiction as to subject matter and person, to be entitled to immunity from civil action for his acts. Davis v. Burris, 51 Ariz. 220,75 P.2d 689 (1938)
  75. No judicial process whatever form it may assume can have any lawful authority outside of the limits of the jurisdiction of the court or judged by whom it is issued and an attempt to enforce it beyond these boundaries is nothing less than lawless violence. Ableman v. Booth, 21 Hoard 506 (1859)
  76. The essential elements of due process of law are notice, an opportunity to be heard , and the right to defend in orderly proceeding. Fiehe v. R.E. Householder Co., 125 So. 2, 7(Fla. 1929)
  77. No man/woman in this country is so high that he/she is above the law no officer of the law may set that law at defiance with impunity all the officers of the government from the highest to the lowest are creatures of the law and are bound to obey it. United States v. Lee, 106 U.S. 196, 220, 1 S.Ct. 240, 27 L.Ed 171 (1882) Buckles v. King County 191 F.3d 1127, *1133 (C.A.9(Wash.),1999)
  78. Purpose of statute that mandates that any person who under the color of law subjected it another to deprivation of his constitutional rights, would be liable to the injured party in action at law was not to abolish communities available at common law but to ensure the federal courts would have jurisdiction of constitutional claims against state officials. Act March 3, 1875, 18 State. 470 Butz v. Economou 438 U.S. 478, 98 S.Ct 2894 (U.S.N.Y., 1978)
  79. Acts in excess of judicial authority constitutes misconduct particularly where a judge deliberately disregards the requirements of fairness and due process. Canon v. Commission of Judicial Qualifications 91975) 14 Cal. 3d 678, 694.
  80. The 11th amendment was not intended to afford them freedom from liability in any case where, under the color of their office they have injured one of the state’s citizens to grant them such immunity would be to create privileged class free from liability from wrongs inflicted or injuries threatened public agents must be liable to the law unless they are to be put above the law. Old Colony Trust Company vs City of Seattle et al. (06/01/06) 271 U.S. 426, 46 S Ct. 552, 70 L. Ed at page 431
  81. Not every action by a judge is in the exercise of his/her judicial function it is not a judicial function for a judge to commit an intentional tort occurs in the courthouse when a judge acts as a trespasser of the law when a judge does not follow the law the judge loses subject matter jurisdiction and the judge’s orders are void of no legal force or effect. Yates v. Village of Hoffman estates, Illinois, 209 F. Supp. 757 (N.D. Ill. 1962)
  82. Absent conditions presenting an “imminent risk of serious bodily harm,” removing children from their home without obtaining judicial authorization is a violation of a parent’s established Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. Rogers v. Cty. of San Joaquin, 487 F.3d 1288, 1297–98 (9th Cir. 2007).
  83. “In light of this extensive precedent, it cannot now be doubted that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protects the fundamental right of parents to make decisions concerning the care, custody, and control of their children.” Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57, 66 (2000).
  84. A court must weigh, in the factual setting before it, whether the imminent risk to the child can be mitigated by reasonable efforts to avoid removal. It must balance that risk against the harm removal might bring, and it must determine factually which course is in the child’s best interests. Nicholson v. Scoppetta, 820 N.E.2d 840, 852 (N.Y. 2004)
  85. The innocent individual who is harmed by an abuse of governmental authority is assured that she will be compensated for her injury. Owen v. City of Independence
  86. The US Supreme Court stated that “When a state officer acts under a state law in a manner violative of the federal constitution, he/she comes into conflict with the superior authority of that Constitution, and s/he is in that case stripped of her/his official or representative character and is subjected in her/his person to the consequences of her/his individual conduct. The state has no power to impart to her/him any immunity from the responsibility to the supreme authority of the United States.” Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 94 S. Ct. 1683, 1687 (1974)
  87. When a judicial officer acts entirely without jurisdiction, or without compliance with jurisdiction requisites, she may be held civilly liable for abuse of process even though her act involved a decision made in good faith that she had jurisdiction. U.S. Fidelity & Guaranty Co., 217 Miss. 576, 64 So. 2d 697
  88. Washington State statute does not authorize Children’s Administration (CA) to accept referrals for CPS investigation or initiate court action on an unborn child. Guidelines for Testing and Reporting Drug Exposed Newborns in Washington State (July 2015)
  _____________________
  FROM HERE:
  https://www.facebook.com/groups/415083733546409/?multi_permalinks=947065857014858&ref=share
  
  LikeLike
  
  March 3, 2024 at 5:29 pm Reply
- harleyborgais says:
  
  argument……..
  
  In the realm of mental health and substance abuse assessments, the integrity of the diagnostic process is paramount. It is imperative that the healthcare providers maintain the highest level of professionalism and confidentiality. However, it is concerning when these protocols are violated, especially when a provider communicates with an external party such as a case agent, attorney, state employee, or any other individual prior to establishing a written diagnosis.
  
  Such a breach not only undermines the credibility of the provider but also potentially skews the diagnostic conclusions. The undue influence of external parties can be likened to a disgruntled ex-partner attempting to manipulate the situation for their personal gain. Such actions are in clear violation of medical privacy laws and provide grounds for legal action and complaints to the professional regulatory bodies.
  
  When a provider engages in discussions with adversarial parties prior to consulting with the patient, it raises questions about the provider’s motives and the validity of their recommendations. This can be construed as a form of complicity, with the provider acting as a conduit for the personal views of the adversarial parties.
  
  This situation is further exacerbated when entities such as the Department of Child Safety (DCS) or other adversarial parties share their perspective of the patient’s personal details with the provider, effectively shaping the primary diagnosis. This diverts the focus from the true diagnosis, undermining the authenticity of the assessment.
  
  Consider a scenario where you are scheduled for a therapy session, examination, or assessment. If I were to call your provider, set up your appointment, and share my perceptions of your situation, the provider would inevitably be influenced by this information, thereby compromising the integrity of their recommendations. This constitutes an unlawful and undue influence on the diagnostic process, akin to a scorned ex-partner attempting to sway the provider’s opinion.
  
  In conclusion, it is crucial that healthcare providers adhere strictly to professional ethics and confidentiality guidelines when conducting mental health or substance abuse assessments. Violations of these principles not only compromise the diagnostic process but also infringe on patients’ rights, leading to potential legal repercussions.
  
  Doe v. Sundquist, 2 S.W.3d 919 (Tenn. 1999). In this case, the Tennessee Supreme Court held that the state’s mental health statutes and regulations created a special duty of care for mental health professionals to protect the confidentiality of their patients’ information. The court found that a breach of this duty could result in liability for the mental health professional. This case could potentially be used to argue that a healthcare provider who communicates with an external party prior to establishing a written diagnosis has breached their duty of care.
  
  URL: https://casetext.com/case/doe-v-sundquist-4
  
  Giggers v. Memphis Housing Authority, 277 S.W.3d 359 (Tenn. 2009). In this case, the Tennessee Supreme Court held that a plaintiff could bring a claim for invasion of privacy based on the public disclosure of private facts. This case could potentially be used to argue that a healthcare provider who communicates with an external party prior to establishing a written diagnosis has invaded the patient’s privacy.
  
  URL: https://casetext.com/case/giggers-v-memphis-housing-auth
  
  Borne v. Celadon Trucking Servs., Inc., 532 S.W.3d 274 (Tenn. 2017) may also be relevant. In this case, the Tennessee Supreme Court held that a plaintiff could bring a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress based on the defendant’s outrageous conduct. This case could potentially be used to argue that a healthcare provider who communicates with an external party prior to establishing a written diagnosis has engaged in outrageous conduct that has caused the patient emotional distress.
  
  URL: https://casetext.com/case/borne-v-celadon-trucking-servs-inc-3
  
  These cases suggest that a healthcare provider who communicates with an external party prior to establishing a written diagnosis could potentially be held liable for breach of duty, invasion of privacy, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. However, the specific facts of each case will determine whether these claims are viable.
  __________________________
  FROM ‘Roy Carter’, HERE:
  https://www.facebook.com/groups/415083733546409/?multi_permalinks=947065857014858&ref=share
  
  LikeLike
  
  March 3, 2024 at 6:00 pm Reply
- harleyborgais says:
  
  I think I already added these, but this time I copied a LOT of sources from this page here… LOTS MORE “SOURCES OF AUTHORITY” ON PARENT RIGHTS ON THIS PAGE HERE… https://atomiccourtwatchers.wordpress.com/ _____________________________ “Dateline: Los Angeles, Calif., Oct. 10, 2023On Sept. 29, 2023, California civil rights attorney, T. Matthew Phillips, filed a “parental rights” class action lawsuit — in U.S. District Court, Los Angeles. Parenting is a Constitutional Right The lawsuit seeks to train California judges that parenting is a constitutional right. On Oct. 10, 2023, Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint, (see below).” Click to access first-amended-complaint-filed-oct.-10-2023.pdf D’Souza vs. Guerrero This federal lawsuit, D’Souza vs. Guerrero, alleges that California fails to train judges — first, that parenting is a fundamental right — and second, that the Constitution forbids physical custody orders that grant no actual parenting time — unless a parent is found “unfit” — i.e., with evidence of actual harm to a minor child. Plaintiffs are ‘Fit’ Parents Plaintiffs are “fit” parents — they’ve never been found “unfit.” Plaintiffs never committed: (i) child abuse, (ii) child neglect, (iii) abandonment, or (iv) endangerment. Plaintiffs never harmed their children. But still, the State effectively terminated Plaintiffs’ right to parent, which infringes upon fundamental rights that the 1st and 14th Amendments guarantee. No ‘Actual Parenting Time’ for Plaintiffs The lawsuit further argues that supervised visitation is not “parenting.” Where courts issue “supervised visitation” orders, (and “no-contact” orders), it leaves noncustodial parents with no actual parenting time — because they have no actual ability to exercise care, custody, and control of their children (which deprives 14th Amendment rights), and no actual ability to exercise private familial speech with their children (which deprives 1st Amendment rights). Humanitarian Crisis The lawsuit points-out that, compared to Plaintiffs, prison inmates have greater access to their kids. However, there’s a basic human need to bring-up one’s children — it’s a basic necessity of life — like food or water — and yet, California judges daily deprive the People of this most basic human necessity. It’s a humanitarian crisis. Parent-less Children The lawsuit estimates that, on each day the courts are open for business, approximately 100 California children lose a parent. Exact numbers of parent-less children are unknown, but Phillips hopes to learn the true and correct numbers via the discovery process. Minimum Constitutional Guarantee Plaintiffs contend they are entitled to prevail because California judicial policies grant unto the People fewer parental rights than the minimum constitutional guarantee. ~~TMP. BIO: Attorney, T. Matthew Phillips, is a member of the California State Bar — Lic. No. 165833 — in good standing — for 32 consecutive years. Phillips is also federally licensed — in the Central District of Calif., the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, as well as the United States Supreme Court. Phillips is a graduate of San Fernando Valley College of Law, Woodland Hills, Calif. The lawsuit is brought in conjunction with KidsMatter, Please Donate Today! https://www.givesendgo.com/kidsmatter Please visit our partners on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/parentsrightsclassaction/ MEDIA INQUIRIES Robert Emert at 760-612-9328 robemert@msn.com … “One Hundred Year Anniversary of the Right to Parent!” (1923 – 2023) by T. Matthew Phillips, Esq. California State Bar No. 165833 U.S. Supreme Court Bar No. 317048 “One Hundred Year Anniversary of the Right to Parent!” June 4, 1923 to June 4, 2023 One hundred years ago today — on June 4, 1923 — the U.S. Supreme Court established the “right to parent” as a fundamental right — i.e., a “liberty” interest that the 14th Amendment guarantees. Know Your Rights The Constitution mentions certain rights, which we label as “constitutional” rights; however, there are other rights of constitutional magnitude — which, curiously enough, the Constitution never mentions — such as the right to “privacy,” “marriage,” and “parenting” — which we label as “fundamental” rights. And remember, “fundamental” rights are accorded “constitutional” status and protection. Constitutional Rights vs. Fundamental Rights In the eyes of the law, both “constitutional” rights and “fundamental” rights are accorded the same legal status — with the same constitutional safeguards and procedures. The only difference is that “constitutional” rights are actually mentioned in the Constitution, while “fundamental” rights, strictly speaking, are not. Examples Examples of constitutional rights include the right to “free speech” and the right to “keep and bear,” which, of course, are written into the Constitution — while examples of fundamental rights include the rights to “privacy,” “marriage,” and “parenting,” which are not mentioned in the Constitution. Not in the Constitution–But Still Constitutional That’s right, the words, “privacy,” “marriage,” and “parenting,” never appear in the Constitution; but still, we consider them to be constitutional rights — more precisely, fundamental rights — which means that “privacy,” “marriage,” and “parenting” receive constitutional status and protection — as if those terms had been specifically written into the Constitution. Fundamental Rights Can Be Eliminated There is, notably, one glaring difference between constitutional rights and fundamental rights. The Supreme Court may not eliminate constitutional rights, because, of course, such rights are enshrined in the Constitution; however, the Court may indeed eliminate fundamental rights — just like they did recently — when they declared that “abortion” is no longer a fundamental right — in last year’s Dobbs decision, (June 24, 2022). Roe vs. Wade Way back in 1973, the Supreme Court decided that abortion is a fundamental right and that abortion should be granted constitutional status and protection; but then, remarkably, 49 years later, in 2022, the Supreme Court reversed its own decision — and just like that — abortion was no longer a fundamental right, no longer accorded constitutional status and protection. Moral-of-the-Story The notion of “what” constitutes a fundamental right is liable to change at any time — depending on the particular mood of The People as reflected through the nation’s highest court. Legal Criteria Okay, but what criteria does the Supreme Court use? How do they determine whether a so-called “right” should be deemed fundamental (or not)? The answer turns on whether the activity in question has been “deeply rooted in our nation’s history and tradition.” Has this supposed right, for the last 800-or-so years, been an “essential component of the scheme of ordered liberty?” An Unruly Horse Making an inquiry into whether a supposed right has been ingrained into the “scheme of ordered liberty” is like trying to sip champagne astride an unruly horse — it’s difficult. But still, nine solemn individuals — cloaked in quasi-religious attire — ultimately decide the trajectory of the tennis ball — which may quite randomly fall on either side of the net. Contraception is a Fundamental Right Take, for example, the right to “contraception.” Is this a fundamental right? Well, ask yourself: is contraception “deeply rooted in our nation’s history and tradition?” Yes! It is. Back in 1965, the Supreme Court declared that contraception is indeed a fundamental right. Okay, what about physician-assisted suicide? Just ask yourself: has physician-assisted suicide, during the last 800-or-so years, been an “essential component of the scheme of ordered liberty?” Hmm… Physician-Assisted Suicide is Not Back in 1997, the Supreme Court faced the issue of physician-assisted suicide. Is it a fundamental right? The high court said, “No,” which means there are no minimum constitutional safeguards or procedures for physician-assisted suicide. Location is Everything Today, when individuals seek abortion or physician-assisted suicide, they must be present in states that have legalized abortion or physician-assisted suicide. The federal gov’t neither guarantees nor protects abortion or physician-assisted suicide. These supposed “rights” are not deemed fundamental — why? — because neither were found to fall within the “liberty” interest guaranteed by the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment. The Due Process Clause The Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment guarantees “liberty” unto The People. Okay, but what does “liberty” even mean? What exactly does the 14th Amendment guarantee? The Liberty Interest According to the Supreme Court, the 14th Amendment “liberty” interest includes activities that, historically speaking, are fundamental to the American way of life, for example, “privacy,” “marriage,” “contraception,” “parenting,” etc. Jazz-Age Party-Time It’s party time! One hundred years ago today, the Supreme Court declared that the 14th Amendment “liberty” interest includes the “right to parent.” Let freedom ring! … Meyer vs. Nebraska In Meyer vs. Nebraska, [262 U.S. 390 (1923)], the Supreme Court defined the “liberty” interest to include the fundamental “right to parent,” which means the right to care, custody, and control of one’s children; so too, children enjoy an accompanying right, i.e., the “right to be parented” by their natural parents. On This Day in History One hundred years ago today, on June 4, 1923, the Supreme Court decided the landmark case of Meyer vs. Nebraska. In 1919, Nebraska had passed a law prohibiting teaching school children any language other than English. Mr. Meyer, who taught German in a Lutheran school, was convicted under this statute. Issue: Did the Nebraska statute violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment? Yes. The statute violated the “liberty” interest that the Due Process Clause guarantees. Liberty Means More than ‘Merely Freedom from Bodily Restraint’ “Liberty,” the high court explained, means more than “merely freedom from bodily restraint.” “Liberty” also includes the fundamental right of a parochial school teacher to teach German to a 10-year-old student, as well as the parent’s fundamental right to control the upbringing of their child — in any language — as they see fit. “Liberty” Defined In Meyer vs. Nebraska, [262 U.S. 390 (1923)], the Supreme Court declared that the “liberty” interest includes at least seven things: (1) the right to freely enter into contracts; (2) the right to freely choose one’s occupation; (3) the right to freely pursue education; (4) the right to freely marry; (5) the right to freely establish a home and bring up children; (6) the right to freely worship God, (likewise guaranteed by the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment); and, most curious of all, (7) the right to freely enjoy common law privileges essential to the “scheme of ordered liberty.” Language of the Supreme Court On June 4, 1923 — with Mr. Justice McReynolds writing for the majority — the Taft Court held that — “Without doubt, [liberty] denotes not merely freedom from bodily restraint, but also the right of the individual to contract, to engage in any of the common occupations of life, to acquire useful knowledge, to marry, establish a home and bring up children, to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience, and generally to enjoy those privileges long recognized at common law as essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.” [Meyer vs. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, at 399 (1923)] Parenting is a Fundamental Right Yes, the right to parent is a fundamental right — it’s accorded constitutional status and protection; therefore, the state may not infringe on the right to parent — unless the state observes minimum constitutional safeguards and procedures. Your Family Court Judge Does your family court judge know the case of Meyer vs. Nebraska, [262 U.S. 390 (1923)]?–or that it declared parenting a fundamental right accorded constitutional status and protection? Does your judge understand that family courts may not separate children from parents, unless the state observes minimum constitutional safeguards and procedures? ¯_(ツ)_/¯ Know your rights! Tell others! “Freedom means nothing if you can’t keep the government away from your children.” # A t o m i c C i t y C o m e A l i v e … The Parental Bill of Rights THE PARENTAL BILL of RIGHTS by T. Matthew Phillips, Attorney-at-Law U.S. Supreme Court Bar No. 317048 A proposed BILL to ensure the CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS of PARENTS are honored and protected in the nation’s FAMILY COURTS. The 14th Amendment guarantees “liberty,” which includes the People’s right to raise children; this fundamental right to parent includes the right to care, custody, and control of one’s children; so too, children enjoy an accompanying right, i.e., the right to be parented by their natural parents. All parents are presumed fit. No court may restrict or terminate a parent’s custodial rights unless there is first a fitness trial — where the state proves child abuse or neglect by clear and convincing evidence, i.e., which can be objectively verified without resort to judicial discretion. A properly noticed fitness trial must include: (i) notice to the accused parent concerning the factual allegations of child abuse or neglect, and (ii) an admonition that, if the accused parent is found unfit — based on clear and convincing evidence — the state may restrict or terminate that parent’s custodial rights. Fit parents are presumed to act in the best interests of their children; absent findings of unfitness, equal protection demands that two fit parents share equal and undivided custodial rights. A child’s best interests reside with fit parents; absent findings of unfitness, the state may not enter the private family realm. No court has legal authority, (“jurisdiction”), to determine a child’s best interests — unless both parents are deemed unfit after a properly noticed fitness trial. Unless there is actual harm to a child — meaning abuse or neglect as defined by black-letter law — a parent’s bad behavior or felonious misconduct provides no legal basis to restrict or terminate custodial rights. No court may restrict or terminate custodial rights as punishment for misconduct against any person, including the other parent. All orders restricting or terminating custodial rights must include strict scrutiny analyses, i.e., was the custody order narrowly tailored to effectuate a compelling gov’t interest?—and, did the court employ the least-restrictive means of effectuating that interest? The First Amendment guarantees a fundamental right to familial association — including the right to private speech with one’s children. No court may impose time, place, or manner restrictions on a parent’s right to free speech with a child, (e.g., at supervised visits), unless that parent is found unfit. All temporary custody orders must have expiration dates; temporary custody orders with no expiration dates are null and void. No temporary order restricting custodial rights shall remain in effect longer than 60 days, after which: (i) the order must expire, or (ii) a fitness trial must commence. All parents in domestic proceedings are presumed innocent of criminal accusations unless or until the state, in a criminal proceeding, proves guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, pursuant to a criminal complaint, (“indictment”). No court may sua sponte conclude that a parent committed a crime. …
  Thirteen SCOTUS Decisions on Parenting!
  … E P I L O G U E Our proposed bill declares rights that are both fundamental and well-established by the U.S. Supreme Court and the federal circuits. “Stare decisis is not dead; it just smells funny.” T. Matthew Phillips, Esq. … WITHOUT FURTHER ADO, here’s the lawsuit, Phillips vs. Wilson, [Case No. A-22-851472-C, (Clark County, Nev.; (April 21, 2022)] “Bamm!” Download this lawsuit —>> Click to access filed-phillips-vs.-wilson-april-21-2022.pdf … A T O M I C . C O U R T . W A T C H E R S “Where Change Happens!” Visit us on Facebook! https://www.facebook.com/AtomicCityComeAlive/ … Nevada COA Defines “Sole Physical Custody!” Exclusive Interview with Melvin Grimes! … “Dateline, Carson City, Nev. — Aug. 1, 2023. Last week, on July 27, 2023, Nevada Court of Appeals issued a published decision in the matter of Roe vs. Roe, [139 Nev., Adv. Op. 21; No. 84893–COA; (July 27, 2023)]. We here present the case with editorializations by civil rights attorney, T. Matthew Phillips, Esq. “[A]n order for sole physical custody creates tension with a parent’s fundamental rights, Nevada public policy, and future modification rights.” — C.J. Michael P. Gibbons, Nevada Court of Appeals” … Writing for the Court of Appeals, C.J. Michael P. Gibbons explains, “In this opinion, we … outline what a district court must consider when entering an order for sole physical custody,” [Roe vs. Roe, id., (at p. 1–2); (bold italics added]. “In this opinion, we provide a definition of sole physical custody to ensure custodial orders are properly characterized. We direct district courts when entering an order for sole physical custody to first find either that the noncustodial parent is unfit for the child to reside with, or to make specific findings and provide an adequate explanation as to the reason primary physical custody is not in the best interest of the child,” [Roe vs. Roe, 139 Nev., Adv. Op. 21; No. 84893–COA; (July 27, 2023), (at p. 3) (bold italics added)]. C.J. Gibbons continues, “Following either of these findings, the district court must consider the least restrictive parenting time arrangement possible to avoid constraining the parent-child relationship any more than is necessary to prevent potential harm cause by an unfit parent and meet the best interest of the child. If the court enters a more restrictive parenting time arrangement than is otherwise available, it must explain how the greater restriction is in the child’s best interest,” [Roe vs. Roe, id., (p. 3)]. Constitutional enthusiasts statewide were quick to note C.J. Gibbons’ clear and unambiguous language: “The parent-children relationship is a fundamental liberty interest,” [Roe vs. Roe, id., (p. 15), citing, Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399 (1923); (bold italics added)]. Mr. Chief Justice Gibbons writes, “[a] permanent change to parenting time affects a parent’s fundamental rights concerning the custody of their child,” [Roe vs. Roe, id., (pp. 15–16), (bold italics added), citing, Gordon v. Geiger, 133 Nev. at 546, 402 P.3d at 674, (2017)]. “Even parents deemed highly emotionally dysregulated retain their fundamental rights,” [Roe vs. Roe, id., (p. 16)]. Most significantly, C.J. Gibbons identifies three distinctive types of physical custody: “Nevada district courts enter one of three parenting time arrangements in a custodial order—joint, primary, or sole physical custody,” [Roe vs. Roe, id., (p. 16); (bold italics added]. What is sole physical custody? “[W]hen a district court enters an order that limits parenting time to restrictive supervised parenting time, virtual contact, phone calls, letters, texts, [etc.], it has entered an order for sole physical custody,” [Roe vs. Roe, id., (pp. 18–19); (bold italics added)]. “Because the noncustodial parent’s care, custody, and control of their child is so severely restricted, sole physical custody orders implicate a parent’s fundamental rights . . . [C]hild custody decisions implicate due process rights because parents have a fundamental liberty interest in the care, custody, and control of their children,” [Roe vs. Roe, id. (p. 19); (bold italics added)]. The Chief Justice shows compassion for constitutional procedure: “the severe restriction on the noncustodial parent’s care, custody, and control of their child requires additional findings and procedure,” [Roe vs. Roe, id., (p. 19); (bold italics added]. The Chief Justice articulates public policy: “the public policy of Nevada is to preserve and strengthen family life,” [Roe vs. Roe, id., (p. 19)]. “To protect a noncustodial parent’s rights, judicial discretion is tempered by this state’s policy of supporting ‘frequent associations and a continuing relationship’ between parent and child after the parents’ relationship which each other has ended,” [Roe vs. Roe, id., (p. 19), citing NRS § 125.001(1)]. C.J. Gibbons sets the *abuse-of-discretion* standard: “a district court risks abusing its discretion when it orders sole physical custody without sufficient cause or otherwise unnecessarily restricts and threatens the parent-child relationship,” [Roe vs. Roe, id., (pp. 19–20)]. The Chief Justice suggests that sole physical custody must be linked to a finding of “unfitness,” (i.e., based on clear and convincing evidence of (i) child abuse, (ii) neglect, (iii) endangerment, or (iv) abandonment). The Chief Justice writes, “[t]o avoid unnecessary restrictions on parental rights, a district court must only enter an order for sole physical custody if it first finds either that the noncustodial parent is unfit for the child to reside with, or if it makes specific findings and provides an adequate explanation as to the reasons why primary physical custody is not in the best interests of the child.” [Roe vs. Roe, id., (pp. 20–21); (bold italics added)]. The Chief Justice further suggests strict scrutiny analysis: “After making either of these findings supporting sole physical custody, the district court must then order the least restrictive parenting time arrangement possible that is within the child’s best interests,” [Roe vs. Roe, id., (p. 21; (bold italics added)]. “When entering its custodial order, if a less restrictive parenting time arrangement is available, or proposed but rejected, the district court must provide an explanation as to how the best interest of the child is served by the greater restriction,” [Roe vs. Roe, id. (p. 21)]. Ultimately, C.J. Gibbons finds that family court judge, Dawn Throne, committed legal error by: (1) failing to consider a less restrictive parenting time arrangement; (2) failing to adequately explain why the greater restriction was necessary; (3) failing to make findings how true primary physical custody was not in [the minor child’s] best interest; and (4) implementing an almost unachievable plan with no ending, review, or even status check date, and accordingly has undermined Nevada’s public policy, issued an order inconsistent with Nevada jurisprudence, and violated [the mother’s] parental rights,” [Roe vs. Roe, id., (p. 24); (bold italics added)]. The Chief Justice finds abuse of discretion. “As a result, we conclude that [Dawn Throne] abused [her] discretion when [she] effectively awarded [] sole physical custody of the minor child,” [Roe vs. Roe, id. (p. 24); (bold italics added)]. The COA then reverses Thorne. “Thus, we reverse the parenting time allocation and direct the district court, on remand, to enter a parenting time order consistent with Nevada jurisprudence and this opinion,” [Roe vs. Roe, id. (p. 24); (bold italics added)]. In conclusion, C.J. Gibbons writes, “Sole physical custody is a custodial arrangement where the child resides with only one parent and the noncustodial parent’s parenting time is restricted to no significant in-person parenting time,” [Roe vs. Roe, id. (p. 36)]. Most remarkable, the Chief Justice writes, “[a] district court entering an order for sole physical custody creates tension with a parent’s fundamental rights, Nevada public policy, and future modification rights,” [Roe vs. Roe, id. (p. 36); (bold italics added)]. But what does it mean — to create tension — with a fundamental right? Absent findings of unfitness, do district judges have subject-matter jurisdiction, (“authority”), to create tension in the parent-child relationship? (At what point does judicial tension rise to the level of substantial interference?– i.e., when does the tension become constitutionally intolerable?) The Chief Justice continues, “a district court must first find that either the noncustodial parent is unfit for the child to reside with, or it must make specific findings and provide an adequate explanation as to the reasons why primary physical custody is not in the best interest of the child,” [Roe vs. Roe, id. (p. 36); (bold italics added)]. The Chief Justice again suggests strict scrutiny analysis. “Afterwards, the district court must enter the least restrictive parenting time arrangement possible consistent with a child’s best interest,” [Roe vs. Roe, id. (pp. 36–37); (bold italics added)]. “Should it enter a more restrictive order, it must explain how the greater restriction is in the child’s best interest. Moreover, it must retain its decision-making authority over future custodial modifications and parent time allocations, as well as enter order with sufficient specificity to allow enforcement. These steps are to ensure that when a district court enters an order for sole physical custody, it does so equitably and in accordance with Nevada’s statutes and jurisprudence, thereby preserving the noncustodial parent’s fundamental rights to the greatest degree possible,” [Roe vs. Roe, 139 Nev., Adv. Op. 21; No. 84893–COA; (July 27, 2023), (at p. 37); (bold italics added)]. ~~TMP. (Aug. 1, 2023) … EDITOR’S NOTE Our Atomic I-Team noted, at page 36 of the Roe decision, it states, “[a]n order for sole physical custody creates tension with a parent’s fundamental rights.” Okay, stop right there! Note the awkward, euphemistic language, “creates tension.” Well, that’s one way to say it! Another way to say it might be that the judge, Dawn Throne, violated mom’s fundamental right to parent — which the 14th Amendment guarantees! … MELVIN GRIMES — Man or Mythology? Melvin Grimes distinguishes himself from the run-of-the-mill attorneys who infest Clark County family court. Melvin is a breed apart! But what makes Melvin so special? A unique blend of courage, gumption, and derring-do! Melvin boldly argues that parenting is a constitutional right — *IN* Clark County family court, (a barren, godless wasteland where federally protected civil rights go to quietly suffocate and die…). Hear ye, hear ye! We salute the Bravehearts — such as Mel Grimes — i.e., attorneys who actually argue the Constitution in family court! A constitutional scholar and man-about-town, Melvin knows and understands that custodial orders may not restrict or limit one’s fundamental “right to parent” absent a showing of “unfitness” — based on clear and convincing evidence of: (i) child abuse, (ii) child neglect, (iii) child endangerment, or (iv) child abandonment. Melvin *Primary Custody* Grimes– EXCLUSIVE INTERVIEW! It was a once-in-a-lifetime interview. Our Atomic I-Team met-up with Melvin *Primary Custody* Grimes — at a Dotty’s on Boulder Hwy. Grimes wasted no time. “Listen up,” said Grimes. “New rule!–family court judges must order the least restrictive parenting time arrangement possible!” A trailblazing maverick, Grimes urged our I-Team members and Dotty’s patrons, “You should see recent published decisions and see what real lawyering looks like. Let me help you … go to Nevada Supreme Court website and search the Nevada advanced opinions for a brand new case about custody. Then read the briefs… that is what a real lawyer can do for people!” Every living soul at Dotty’s was awestruck. Weak-kneed ladies helplessly swooned. Stout-hearted men openly wept. Grimes explained that, “Under the Troxel presumption, fit parents are presumed to be acting in the best interests of their children.” Grimes continued, “When it comes to fit parents, no family court judge may infringe upon — or otherwise create tension with — the fundamental right to parent — which is a liberty interest that the 14th Amendment guarantees unto We The People!” Our Atomic I-Team asked Grimes what Roe means for Clark County family court. “C’mon! It’s a game-changer!” “From now on,” Grimes explained, “custody orders must be narrowly tailored — with the least restrictive custody arrangement possible.” Grimes added, “Furthermore, the trial judge must devise a game plan or road map to reinstate those custodial rights that the outlier parent lost — along with periodic status checks.” On that sultry, summer afternoon at Dotty’s, all eyes and ears were trained on Melvin Grimes, who worked the crowd, liberally dispensing business cards and warmly shaking hands with locals! So, is Grimes now a heavy hitter? We put that question to civil rights attorney, T. Matthew Phillips. “Are you effin kidding me?!” exclaimed Phillips. “Melvin is a letter-high fastball over the centerfield wall — home run, y’all!” Phillips added, “In the vast majority of divorce cases, we see two fit parents standing before the court. In such instances, the Equal Protection Clause demands that both parents share equal and undivided physical custody, fifty-fifty! Why?—because both parents are similarly situated in the eyes of the law — because Torxel’s fitness presumption applies to both parents equally.” … JOINT PHYSICAL CUSTODY—FOR ALL “FIT” PARENTS! Because the best interests of the children demand equal access to two loving parents. #WarIsOverIfYouWantIt #StopTheHolocaust SHOUT-OUT to Melvin *Primary Custody* Grimes! The lawyer who successfully argued Roe vs. Roe! READ the Roe vs. Roe DECISION, CLICK BELOW —>> roe-vs.-roe-coa-84893-july-27-2023Download Know your rights! Tell others! … MANDATORY PSYCHIATRIC EVALUATIONS for ALL FAMILY COURT JUDGES NOW! And when they demand YOUR psych evaluation, insist they produce an affidavit supported by probable cause! … “Through the Looking-Glass: Summary of TMP’s Arguments to the U.S. Supreme Court” “Through the Looking-Glass: Summary of TMP’s Arguments to the U.S. Supreme Court” by T. Matthew Phillips, Esq. First, family courts wrongfully allow parents to act as “private prosecutors” — to privately prosecute criminal causes of action against one another. However, parents lack “standing” to bring criminal complaints in the midst of child custody disputes. Besides, there’s no such thing as a private right to bring criminal causes of action. Only the state may bring criminal causes of action — and only in the name of the People. Where litigants are allowed to play the dual roles of “prosecutor” and “victim,” the case wrongfully morphs into a “vigilante” proceeding. Family courts violate the right to a fair trial, [14th Amdt] by allowing vigilante justice — with one parent playing the role of both “victim” and “prosecutor.” Second, family courts wrongfully allow judges, with no underlying criminal complaint, (aka “indictment”), to try and convict parents on criminal statutes. Family court judges routinely find and conclude that parents violate criminal statutes — despite the fact that there are no underlying criminal complaints, (“indictments”). However, where there are no underlying criminal complaints, no judge has subject-matter jurisdiction, (“legal authority”), to make criminal findings and conclusions. Family courts violate due process, [14th Amdt], by trying and convicting parents on criminal statutes — with no supporting criminal complaint. Sadly, the accused parents never receive notice of (i) the criminal facts alleged, nor (ii) the criminal statutes allegedly violated. But again, with no underlying criminal complaint, the family court judge necessarily lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, (“legal authority”), to adjudicate criminal accusations. And, perhaps more importantly, where judges lack subject-matter jurisdiction, for want of a supporting indictment, such judges are powerless to issue orders; and, where judges do issue orders with no subject-matter jurisdiction — such orders are deemed nullities — “void” ab initio, of no force or effect, from the date of issuance. Third, family courts wrongfully allow judges to conclude that parents violate criminal statutes based on “clear and convincing” evidence, but this standard-of-proof is too low. When it comes to adjudicating criminal statutes, the proper evidentiary standard, of course, is the constitutional standard, i.e., “beyond a reasonable doubt.” Family courts violate due process, [14th Amdt], by using a standard-of-proof too low for criminal statutes; (and, now that you mention it, criminal statutes should be argued in criminal courts in the first place!). Ironically, both family courts and criminal courts convict individuals on the same criminal statutes — but with different evidentiary standards. For example, criminal courts adjudicate NRS 207.190, (“coercion”), on the higher, “beyond-a-reasonable-doubt” standard; however, family courts relax the evidentiary standard — adjudicating the same criminal statute — on the lower, “clear-and-convincing” standard. Truth is, in family courts, criminal statutes are put to an “off-label” use. Criminal statutes are obviously designed and intended to put the bad guys behind bars, but family courts use the same criminal statutes as pretext to kidnap your children! Again, the proper evidentiary standard on criminal statutes is the constitutional standard, i.e., “beyond a reasonable doubt” — regardless of whether the courthouse happens to be labeled “C” for “criminal” or “F” for “family.” And, most significantly, the “beyond-a-reasonable-doubt” standard must be decided, not by a judge, but by a jury! Fourth, family courts wrongfully allow judges to control the fact-finding by abolishing the parent’s right to trial-by-jury — the most precious of all civil liberties. Jury trials are the last best hope to check unbridled judicial discretion (which may explain why Las Vegas, Nevada designed its family court with NO jury boxes!). But still, where litigants face criminal accusations — and the possible punishment is limitation or termination of fundamental rights, (for example, the right to parent) — such litigants are entitled to a jury trial. Family courts violate the Sixth Amendment — by denying jury trials to parents accused of violating criminal statutes — in instances where the possible punishment includes deprivation of parental rights, which, for parents, is an ever-present Sword of Damocles! Fifth, family courts wrongfully allow judges to conclude that parents violate criminal statutes, even though the parents are never proven guilty “beyond a reasonable doubt” — and this defeats the constitutional “presumption of innocence.” Remember, unless or until the state proves guilt “beyond a reasonable doubt,” family court judges must presume all parents are innocent — and that they never violated a criminal statute. Until the moment comes when the state actually proves a parent guilty “beyond a reasonable doubt,” no judge may conclude that a parent violated a criminal statute. By allowing judges to conclude that parents violate criminal statutes — despite the fact that the state has never proven guilt “beyond a reasonable doubt” — family court violates the parent’s right to “presumption of innocence,” [5th & 6th Amdts]. To justify the rampant judicial kidnappings, family courts must turn parents into criminals. And thus, the objective of family court is the mass criminalization of American parents. Notably, this criminalization comes, not in the criminal court system, but in the family court system — where criminal allegations are much easier to prove because family court features: (i) no indictment requirement, (ii) a private prosecutor, (iii) a relaxed evidentiary standard, (iv) no presumption of innocence, and (v) no jury trials. The question presented is this — where parents stand accused of violating criminal statutes, and possible punishments include limitation or termination of parental rights, must family courts recognize the parents’ entitlement to the “rights of the accused?” — [5th, 6th, and 14th Amendments]? “Yes!” — because the constitutional right to parent hangs in the balance! The “rights of the accused” should indeed extend to family court parents accused of violating criminal statutes — in instances where the possible punishment includes limitation or termination of parental rights. In America, all persons accused of crimes — who stand to lose fundamental liberties — are entitled to the benefits and protections of the 5th, 6th, and 14th Amendments. Rule-of-Law — where parents stand accused of committing crimes, and possible punishments include deprivations of parental rights, family courts must recognize the accused parents’ rights under the 5th, 6th, and 14th Amendments. Know your rights! ~~TMP. … … “Government Overreach Gone Wild!” New California Bills Impact Parental Rights DATELINE: Sacramento, Calif., June 14, 2023 — Yesterday, the California Senate passed Assembly Bill No. 957, which provides that parents may lose custody of their children — and ultimately go to jail — if they refuse to “affirm” their child’s transgender status. And now, Sacramento insiders today revealed that California Governor, Gavin Newsome, will soon sign Senate Bill No. 182 — which requires Child Protective Services, (“CPS”), to perform “in-home inspections” and “custody evaluations” prior to moms being allowed to leave hospitals with newborns. Proponents hail the bill as a victory for neonatal rights. However, opponents see it as another Newsom assault on constitutional rights. In support, Dr. Kaye Shozeh, California Dept. of Soc. Svcs., stated, “The health and safety of your child is our top priority.” According to family law experts, the State’s paramount concern is the child’s “best interests.” Senior litigation attorney, Wilfrid Robarts, Esq., San Bernardino County Fathers’ Rights Legal Group, explained, “Yes, the State has authority to enter your home — to ensure the safety of your kids.” In opposition, California civil rights attorney, T. Matthew Phillips, Esq., spouted, “No! — this is one of the most overreaching governmental overreaches in the history of governmental overreach!“ Attorney Phillips added, “Seriously, am I the only one who watched AMC Breaking Bad? — Remember Jesse Pinkman in the R.V.?” — “This is my own private domicile — and I will not be harassed …. B-word!“ State Senator, Richard Pan — who last week announced his bid for Mayor of Sacramento — supports Rainbow Amendments to the Constitution — to ensure the safety of all t-children. On a related note, an unnamed Sacramento insider described the Constitution as a “stale-dated document written by toxic, white males who owned slaves and wouldn’t even let women vote.” Our I-Team spoke with New Mexico criminal rights attorney, Saul Goodman, Esq., who believes the bill is unconstitutional. “C’mon! — the Fourth Amendment prohibits CPS from entering your home — unless they have a search warrant supported by probable cause! — Now, what’s for lunch, huh?” Sources close to the investigation indicate the proposed bill could be on Newsom’s desk early next week. ~~ Maggie Corbin (Contributing Editor) * * * Yes, you’ve been hoaxed. There is, of course, no S.B. 182 — this is just a glimpse into the dark future that lay ahead for American parents. If you believe the gov’t has no authority to impose in-home inspections — at the time of birth — then by what authority does the gov’t impose such inspections — at the time of divorce? A.B. 957, on the other hand, is very real indeed. The cold, hard truth about A.B. 957 is this — if parents refuse to affirm that their t-children should be castrated (by puberty blockers), then those parents will lose custody and go to jail — and the State will then castrate their children — free from parental interference. Know your rights! Tell others! … #AtomicCourtWatchers Produced and Directed by TMP’s Midnight Minions in association with Chapter Eleven Productions, Fly-By-Night Management Services, and Neurotica Entertainment Group Copyright 2023 – by T. Matthew Phillips, Esq. “Freedom means nothing if you can’t keep the government away from your children.” ~ T. Matthew Phillips, Esq. ~ … Thirteen SCOTUS Decisions on Parenting! Thirteen SCOTUS Decisions on Parenting! by T. Matthew Phillips, Attorney-at-Law U.S. Supreme Court Bar No. 317048 Meyer vs. Nebraska — (1923) Meyer vs. Nebraska,262 U.S. 390 (1923): One hundred years ago, SCOTUS first recognized the right to parent as a “liberty” interest that the 14th Amendment guarantees. Mr. Meyer, a school-teacher, was convicted on a criminal statute for teaching the German language, in a parochial school, to a 10-year-old. SCOTUS held that the statute invaded the “liberty” interest that the 14th Amendment guarantees. SCOTUS ruled that the 14th Amendment, “denotes not merely freedom from bodily restraint, but also the right of the individual to contract, to engage in any of the common occupations of life, to acquire useful knowledge, to marry, establish a home and bring up children, to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience, and generally to enjoy those privileges long recognized at common law as essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men,” [Meyer vs. State of Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399 (1923); (bold italics added)]. “Corresponding to the right of control, it is the natural duty of the parent to give his children education suitable to their station in life,” [id. at 400]. “His right thus to teach and the right of parents to engage him so to instruct their children, we think, are within the liberty of the Amendment,” [id. at 400]. Pierce vs. Society of Sisters – (1925) Pierce vs. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 (1925): SCOTUS held that the 14th Amendment “liberty” interest excludes any general power of the State to standardize its children — by forcing them to accept instruction from public teachers only. “The child is not the mere creature of the State; those who nurture him and direct his destiny have the right, coupled with the high duty, to recognize and prepare him for additional obligations,” [Pierce vs. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510, 535 (1925); (bold italics added)]. Prince vs. Massachusetts – (1944) Prince vs. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158 (1944): SCOTUS struck-down a state statute, which provided that no minor shall sell, in public places, any newspapers, magazines or periodicals. “It is cardinal with us that the custody, care and nurture of the child reside first in the parents, whose primary function and freedom include preparation for obligations the state can neither supply nor hinder . . . And it is in recognition of this that these decisions have respected the private realm of family life which the state cannot enter,” [Prince vs. Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158, 166 (1944); (bold italics added)]. Stanley vs. Illinois – (1972) Stanley vs. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645 (1972): Under state law, children of unmarried fathers, upon the death of the mother, were declared wards of the state — with no hearing on the father’s fitness and no proof of child neglect by the father. The Illinois Supreme Court held that a father could be separated from his children upon mere proof that he and the dead mother were not married and they further held that father’s fitness was irrelevant. SCOTUS reversed, holding that unmarried fathers have a 14th Amendment liberty interest in raising their children. “[T]he State registers no gain towards its declared goals when it separates children from the custody of fit parents,” [Stanley vs. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645 (1972)]. “Under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment petitioner was entitled to a hearing on his fitness as a parent before his children were taken from him,” [id. at 645; (bold italics added]. “Parental unfitness must be established on the basis of individualized proof,” [id. at 645]. “The private interest here, that of a man in the children he has sired and raised, undeniably warrants deference and, absent a powerful countervailing interest, protection,” [id., at 651]. “We think the Due Process Clause mandates a similar result here. The State’s interest in caring for Stanley’s children is de minimis if Stanley is shown to be a fit father,” [id., at 658]. SCOTUS ruled that, under the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment, father was “entitled to a hearing on [his] fitness” as a parent before the state took his children and placed them in guardianships, [id., at 647–658; (bold italics added)]. Under the Due Process Clause, the state cannot “justify refusing a father a hearing when the issue at stake is the dismemberment of his family,” [id. at 658]. “[A]ll Illinois parents are constitutionally entitled to a hearing on their fitness before their children are removed from their custody,” [id., at 658; (bold italics added)]. Wisconsin vs. Yoder – (1972) Wisconsin vs. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972): Members of the Amish community were convicted for violating the State’s compulsory school attendance law. SCOTUS reversed these convictions under the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. “The values of parental direction of the religious upbringing and education of their children in their early and formative years have a high place in our society,” [Wisconsin vs. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205, at 213–214 (1972)]. “Even more markedly than in Prince, therefore, this case involves the fundamental interest of parents, as contrasted with that of the State, to guide the religious future and education of their children,” [id., at 232; (bold italics added)]. “This primary role of the parents in the upbringing of their children is now established beyond debate as an enduring American tradition,” [id., at 232; (bold italics added)]. Moore vs. East Cleveland – (1977) Moore vs. East Cleveland, 431 U.S. 494 (1977): An Ohio housing ordinance limited occupancy of dwelling units to members of a single family; however, the ordinance defined “family” in such a way that one particular household — consisting of a mother, her son, and her two grandsons — did not qualify for occupancy, and in fact, constituted a crime. SCOTUS overturned the mother’s criminal conviction. “Our decisions establish that the Constitution protects the sanctity of the family precisely because the institution of the family is deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition. It is through the family that we inculcate and pass down many of our most cherished values, moral and cultural,” [Moore vs. East Cleveland, 431 U.S. 494, at 503–504 (1977); (bold italics added)]. Smith vs. Organization of Foster Families – (1977) Smith vs. Organization of Foster Families, 431 U.S. 816 (1977): This case raised the novel question of whether foster homes are entitled to the same constitutional deference as biological families. SCOTUS ruled that, “[t]he liberty interest in family privacy has its source, and its contours are ordinarily to be sought, not in state law, but in intrinsic human rights, as they have been understood in “this Nation’s history and tradition.” ” [Smith vs. Organization of Foster Families, 431 U.S. 816, 845 (1977), citing Moore vs. East Cleveland, 431 U.S. 494, at 503; (bold italics added)]. “If a State were to attempt to force the breakup of a natural family, over the objections of the parents and their children, without some showing of unfitness and for the sole reason that to do so was thought to be in the children’s best interest, I should have little doubt that the State would have intruded impermissibly on “the private realm of family life which the state cannot enter,” ” [Smith, supra, at 862-863, citing Prince vs. Massachusetts, 321 U. S. 158, 166 (1944); (bold italics added)]. Quilloin vs. Walcott – (1978) Quilloin vs. Walcott, 434U.S. 246 (1978): Georgia law required only the mother’s consent for the adoption of an illegitimate child. Here, an unmarried father tried to halt adoption of his illegitimate child. However, the father had taken no steps to support or legitimate the child over a period of 11 years; so too, the father had never been a member of the child’s family unit. As a result, SCOTUS upheld the adoption. “We have recognized on numerous occasions that the relationship between parent and child is constitutionally protected,” [Quilloin vs. Walcott, 434 U.S. 246, 255 (1978); (bold italics added)]. “We have little doubt that the Due Process Clause would be offended, “if a State were to attempt to force the breakup of a natural family, over the objections of the parents and their children, without some showing of unfitness and for the sole reason that to do so was thought to be in the children’s best interest,” ” [Quilloin, supra, at 255; citing Smith vs. Organization of Foster Families, 431 U.S. 816, 862-863 (1977); (bold italics added)]. Parham vs. J.R. – (1979) Parham vs. J. R., 442 U.S. 584 (1979): SCOTUS validated the State’s procedures for admitting children to state mental hospitals. “The law’s concept of the family rests on a presumption that parents possess what a child lacks in maturity, experience, and capacity for judgment required for making life’s difficult decisions. More important, historically it has recognized that natural bonds of affection lead parents to act in the best interests of their children,” [Parham vs. J. R., 442 U.S. 584, 602 (1979); (bold italics added)]. “The statist notion that governmental power should supersede parental authority in all cases because some parents abuse and neglect children is repugnant to American tradition,” [Parham vs. J. R., 442 U.S. 584, 602 (1979)]. “Simply because the decision of a parent is not agreeable to a child or because it involves risks does not automatically transfer the power to make that decision from the parents to some agency or officer of the state,” [id., at 603]. “[W]e conclude that our precedents permit the parents to retain a substantial, if not the dominant, role in the decision, absent a finding of neglect or abuse, and that the traditional presumption that the parents act in the best interests of their child should apply,” [id. at 604; (bold italics added)]. Santosky vs. Kramer – (1982) Santosky vs. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (1982): Under New York law, the state could terminate, over parental objection, the rights of parents in their children — upon a finding that the child is permanently neglected. “The fundamental liberty interest of natural parents in the care, custody, and management of their child does not evaporate simply because they have not been model parents or have lost temporary custody of their child to the State,” [Santosky vs. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (1982); (bold italics added)]. “Even when blood relationships are strained, parents retain a vital interest in preventing the irretrievable destruction of their family life,” [id., at 753]. “Before a State may sever completely and irrevocably the rights of parents in their natural child, due process requires that the State support its allegations by at least clear and convincing evidence,” [id., at 746; (bold italics added)]. “[U]ntil the State proves parental unfitness, the child and his parents share a vital interest in preventing erroneous termination of their natural relationship,” [id., at 760); (bold italics added)]. “[T]he parens patriae interest favors preservation, not severance, of natural familial bonds,” [id., at 767–768); (bold italics added)]. “Nor is it clear that the State constitutionally could terminate a parent’s rights without showing parental unfitness,” [id., at footnote 10; (bold italics added)]. “Any parens patriae interest in terminating the natural parents’ rights arises only at the dispositional phase, after the parents have been found unfit,” [id., at footnote 17]. Rotary Int’l vs. Rotary Club of Duarte – (1987) Rotary Int’l vs. Rotary Club of Duarte, 481 U.S. 537 (1987): Rotary Int’l excluded women from membership, while Rotary Duarte admitted women; as a result, Rotary Int’l terminated Rotary Duarte’s membership in the international organization. By requiring Rotary Clubs in California to admit women, California’s anti-discrimination statute does not violate the First Amendment. So too, the statute did not unduly interfere with club members’ freedom of private association. “We have emphasized that the First Amendment protects those relationships, including family relationships, that presuppose “deep attachments and commitments to the necessarily few other individuals with whom one shares not only a special community of thoughts, experiences, and beliefs, but also distinctively personal aspects of one’s life.” ” [Rotary Int’l vs. Rotary Club of Duarte, 481 U.S. 537, 545 (1987), citing, Roberts vs. United States Jaycees, 468 U.S. 609, 619-620 (1984); (bold italics added)]. Reno vs. Flores – (1993) Reno vs. Flores, 507 U.S. 292 (1993): Immigration and Naturalization Service regulation provided that alien juveniles — detained on suspicion of being deportable — may be released only to a parent, legal guardian, or other related adult. SCOTUS held that the regulation accords with the Due Process Clause and the Immigration and Nationality Act. SCOTUS held that the Due Process Clause provides heightened protection against government interference with fundamental rights and liberty interests, [Reno vs. Flores, 507 U.S. 292, 301-302 (1993)]. “ “The best interests of the child,” a venerable phrase familiar from divorce proceedings, is a proper and feasible criterion for making the decision as to which of two parents will be accorded custody. But it is not traditionally the sole criterion — much less the sole constitutional criterion — for other, less narrowly channeled judgments involving children, where their interests conflict in varying degrees with the interests of others,” [Reno vs. Flores, 507 U.S. 292, 304 (1993)]. “ “[T]he best interests of the child” is not the legal standard that governs parents’ or guardians’ exercise of their custody: So long as certain minimum requirements of child care are met, the interests of the child may be subordinated to the interests of other children, or indeed even to the interests of the parents or guardians themselves,” [id., at 304; (bold italics added)]. Troxel vs. Granville – (2000) Troxel vs. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000): The State of Washington had allowed “any person” to petition for visitation rights, and further allowed family courts to grant visitation where it served a child’s “best interests.” The grandparents, (the Troxels), successfully petitioned for visitation with the children of their deceased son. The mother, (Granville), objected to the amount of visitation ordered. The Washington Supreme Court held that state law unconstitutionally infringed on the mother’s fundamental right to parent. SCOTUS affirmed, holding that the Washington law, as applied, exceeded the bounds of the Due Process Clause. “First, the Troxels did not allege, and no court has found, that Granville was an unfit parent. There is a presumption that fit parents act in their children’s best interests,” [Troxel vs. Granville, 530 U.S. 57, citing Parham vs. J. R., 442 U.S. 584, 602; (bold italics added)]. “[T]here is normally no reason for the State to inject itself into the private realm of the family to further question fit parents’ ability to make the best decisions regarding their children,” [Troxel vs. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000), citing Reno vs. Flores, 507 U.S. 292, at 304 (1993)]. According to the Washington Supreme Court, “the Constitution permits a State to interfere with the right of parents to rear their children only to prevent harm or potential harm to a child,” [id. at 57; (bold italics added)]. The state statute was too broad; it allowed “any person” to petition, with the only requirement being whether visitation served the child’s “best interests.” States may interfere with the right to parent only to prevent harm to a child. “[T]here is normally no reason for the State to inject itself into the private realm of the family to further question fit parents’ ability to make the best decisions regarding their children,” [Troxel vs. Granville, 530 U.S. 57, 58 (2000); (bold italics added)]. “[T]he State lacks a compelling interest in second-guessing a fit parent’s decision regarding visitation with third parties,” [id. at 58]. “The liberty interest at issue in this case — the interest of parents in the care, custody, and control of their children — is perhaps the oldest of the fundamental liberty interests recognized by this Court,” [Troxel vs. Granville, 530 U.S. 57, 65 (2000); (bold italics added)]. SCOTUS noted that “the Troxels did not allege, and no court has found, that Granville was an unfit parent. That aspect of the case is important, for there is a presumption that fit parents act in the best interests of their children,” [id. at 68]. “In effect, the judge placed on Granville, the fit custodial parent, the burden of disproving that visitation would be in the best interest of her daughters,” [id. at 69]. “In that respect, the court’s presumption failed to provide any protection for Granville’s fundamental constitutional right to make decisions concerning the rearing of her own daughters,” [id. at 69–70]. “Needless to say, however, our world is far from perfect, and in it the decision whether such an intergenerational relationship would be beneficial in any specific case is for the parent to make in the first instance. And, if a fit parent’s decision of the kind at issue here becomes subject to judicial review, the court must accord at least some special weight to the parent’s own determination,” [id. at 70]. “The Washington Superior Court failed to accord the determination of Granville, a fit custodial parent, any material weight,” [id. at 72]. “As we have explained, the Due Process Clause does not permit a State to infringe on the fundamental right of parents to make child rearing decisions simply because a state judge believes a ‘better’ decision could be made,” [id. at 72–73]. “We have long recognized that a parent’s interests in the nurture, upbringing, companionship, care, and custody of children are generally protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment,” [id. at 77]. … These Supreme Court case law citations form the basis of our proposed Parental Bill of Rights (click below!)
  The Parental Bill of Rights
  “Freedom means nothing if you can’t keep the government out of your family life.” … P U B L I C . S E R V I C E . A N N O U N C E M E N T DOMESTIC VIOLENCE is a CRIME DOMESTIC VIOLENCE BELONGS in CRIMINAL COURT NOT FAMILY COURT … LikeLike
  
  March 8, 2024 at 7:55 pm Reply
- harleyborgais says:
  
  I might have already added this, pdf with 39 pages of Case Citations on Parental Rights here:
  https://www.facebook.com/groups/1730645604105449/permalink/1784144755422200/
  
  https://www.facebook.com/download/318288234567837/parental%20rights%20supreme%20court%20rulings.pdf
  
  LikeLike
  
  March 9, 2024 at 12:28 am Reply
- harleyborgais says:
  
  More sources from Facebook posts here:
  “The United States Supreme Court noted that a parent’s right to “the companionship, care, custody and management of his or her children” is an interest “far more precious” than any property right. May v. Anderson, 345 US 528, 533; 73 S Ct 840,843, (1952). A parent’s right to care and companionship of his or her children are so fundamental as to be guaranteed protection under the First, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution. in re: J.S. and C.,324 A 2d 90; supra 129 NJ Super, at 489. The Court stressed, “the parent-child relationship is an important interest that undeniably Warrants deference and, absent a powerful countervailing interest, protection.” A parent’s interest in the companionship, care, custody and management of his or her children rises to a constitutionally secured right, given the centrality of family life as the focus for personal meaning and responsibility. Stanley v. Illinois, 405 US 645, 651; 92 S Ct 1208,(1972).Parent’s rights have been recognized as being “essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free man.” Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 or 426 US 390; 43 S Ct 625, (1923).”
  FROM HERE:
  https://www.facebook.com/groups/415083733546409/posts/951835506537893/
  
  LikeLike
  
  March 13, 2024 at 10:47 pm Reply
harleyborgais says:

____________________________________________________________________
THIS COMMENT/POST WAS A DUPLICATE AND IS NOW COMBINED WITH THE COMMENT BELOW:
https://wordpress.com/comment/freeornottobe.wordpress.com/100
____________________________________________________________________

LikeLiked by 1 person

March 19, 2022 at 1:38 am Reply
harleyborgais says:

HOW ABOUT Release from Jail, Only Four Reasons to not give bail, as a matter of right:
a) For felony charges when already admitted to bail on separate felony; or
b) For serious felonies with illegal immigrants; or
c) Capital offenses (Possible Death Penalty. See Az. Const. Ar.22,Sec.22) and certain sex offenses; or
d) When accused is apparently a danger to a witness or the public;
and in all four cases, only “when the proof is evident or the presumption is great as to the present offense”.
[Az Const., Art.2, Sec.22 ; http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/const/2/22.htm ]
Release on own recognizance, is a right when bailable as a matter or right, unless it will not reasonably assure appearance in following court proceedings; except after a conviction, where neither bail or own recognizance is given when it is likely defendant will be sentenced to prison, unless the conviction appears likely to be over-turned in appeal, post-conviction relief, or other proceeding.
[Az. Criminal procedure, rule 7.2 ; http://www.arizonacrimelaws.com/7_2.htm ]

LikeLike

March 24, 2022 at 3:23 am Reply
harleyborgais says:

ADD THESE TOO:

BARRATRY | Definition of BARRATRY by Oxford Dictionary
noun · 1 archaic Fraud or gross negligence of a ship’s master or crew at the expense of its owners or users. · 2 Law · 3 historical Trade in the sale of Church or state …
https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/barratry

barratry – definition and meaning
barratry: The act or practice of bringing a groundless lawsuit or lawsuits.
https://www.wordnik.com/words/barratry
…
Peonage | servitude | Britannica
Peonage, form of involuntary servitude,
https://www.britannica.com/topic/peonage

LikeLike

March 24, 2022 at 4:26 am Reply
harleyborgais says:

30) RIGHT TO RELEASE FROM JAIL PENDING CRIMINAL CONVICTION: See Arizona Constitution and Criminal Procedure for one example, the Right to release exists unless there is “probable” evidence one is a danger to another person or the public, and the only purpose of bail in criminal procedure is to assure appearance in court, therefore we have a right to be released “On Own Recognizance” if there is not such evidence against us. https://www.azleg.gov/constitution/ – https://casetext.com/rule/arizona-court-rules/arizona-rules-of-criminal-procedure ;

LikeLike

March 27, 2022 at 11:53 pm Reply
harleyborgais says:

OK HERE IS THE FIRST DRAFT OF THIS “NOTICE OF CLAIM OF DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS UNDER COLOR OF LAW” TEMPLATE, so anyone can use this notice, and these “sources of authority by topic/subject” here on this WordPress page for now (to be moved to NRDL.org soon), so I could use help improving this notice and these sources…
__________________________________________________________________
NOTICE OF CLAIM OF DEPRIVATION(S) OF RIGHTS UNDER COLOR OF LAW:

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF ,
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF .
(Address, Website, Etc.: )
_______________________________
__________________________, |
Plaintiff, |
v. |
__________________________, |
__________________________, |
Defendant(s) |
_______________________________|

This notice is regarding the following (Court Case, Law, Contract, etc.):

_________________________________________________________________,

__________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________.

INTRODUCTION:

NOW COMES Plaintiff _________________________________________ (‘Pro Se’, ‘Representing’ self), alleging as follows, based upon the following evidence and facts and relevant Law of the Land, making the following claims, including that any previous court orders mentioned herein are clearly “to the Contrary” of “fundamental principles” of “the common law” and “the supreme Law of the Land” as explained herein, and clearly not in the best interests of Justice and Parties to this Case (especially the welfare of any children which are supposed to be the Family Courts primary concern), therefore previous court order(s) are not “Constitutional”, and said “orders” are not valid or “Lawful” to “make or enforce”, as explained herein for the following reason(s).

For these reasons this court and Judge may be liable for causing and/or any future failure to stop such “deprivations of rights under color of law”[6] as described herein, unless this Judge can explain on the public record why these alleged reasons are incorrect, why said previous court orders are not “unconstitutional” and thus “unlawful” as alleged herein. Therefore by neither stopping the allegedly and clearly unlawful previous court orders, nor explaining why the allegations of being unconstitutional are incorrect, then this judge could become complicit and liable in the same unlawful acts, because:

Essentially the only real purpose of “Government” and “Law” in these United States of America is to “establish Justice… and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity” (See Preamble, US.Const)[1], which is therefore also the primary “duty” of any “Judge” or “Public Servant” (See “Purpose of Government” in any State Constitution)[7], “and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution” above all, (US.Const.Art.6)[7], and to “bear true faith and allegiance” (ARS 38-231) to the United States of America and their State, and “to support the constitution thereof.” (SEE ATTACHED “SOURCES OF AUTHORITY…”)[7].

Therefore protecting equal Human Liberty to Pursue Happiness is the only real Purpose of Government and Law (US Constitution & Declaration of Independence)[1], and these “rights”[2] include owning property and land, free travel, fair exchanges, common practices, Liberty in general[2] and Privacy[10] from all “searches and seizures”[3] unless there is “probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation”[3], to accuse the “Defendant” of an actual “crime”[4] against the equal individual rights of another Human being, by “intent or inexcusable neglect” (US.Supr.Ct.), and in violation of valid Criminal “Law of the Land” (US.Const.Art.6. & Amend.4,6,14 & US.Supr.Ct. Citations Needed)[4].

Therefore to “make or enforce” “any Thing… to the Contrary”[6] is a “deprivation of rights under color of law”[6] which is an actual federal “crime” and a civil liability to even “neglect to prevent”[6] once one “reasonably should know”[3], in violation of the oath and contract to defend “the supreme Law of the Land” “against all enemies, foreign and domestic”[7], including “taxes” on owning land[12] and payment for labor[14], and “licenses” for practicing law and medicine[13] as well as to travel on public roads (not including to “drive” “people or property for hire” when it requires a “CDL”)[11], and basically all harmless civil and criminal “offenses”[4], and especially any violations of “due process of law”[5] as explained herein.

_____________________________________________________________________________________

PARTIES, JURISDICTION, AND VENUE:

1. Plaintiff is a Citizen of these United States of America and resides in the State of ______________________, in the Jurisdiction of this Court, in the County of _____________________, City of ______________________, in the State of ______________________;
2. Defendant(s) include ______________________ who did reside in the County of ______________________, City of ______________________, in the State of ______________________, at the time of the previous court orders mentioned herein, and/however (for purposes of this suit and their liability) currently resides in the City of ______________________, in the State of ______________________;
3. Defendant(s) may also include any Attorney representing or assisting in these violations of
“due process” under “the supreme Law of the Land”, such as _________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________________, Representing ________________________________________ in Case ________________________________;

(continue adding other Parties as necessary)

_____________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________

GENERAL CLAIMS, RELEVANT FACTS, EVIDENCE, ETC.:

Plaintiff makes the following Claims:

CLAIM ( 1 ) _____________________________________________________________________________;

CLAIM ( 2 ) _____________________________________________________________________________.;

CLAIM ( 3 ) _____________________________________________________________________________.;

CLAIM ( 4 ) _____________________________________________________________________________.;

CLAIM (___) Furthermore…

IN CLOSING:
____________________________________________________________________________________.

For these reasons it is clear that any Public Servants (‘Judges’ etc.) who even “neglect to prevent”[6] such a “deprivation of rights under color of law”[6] as these previous court orders described above, are also personally liable[7] under “the supreme Law of the Land”[1], under federal civil and criminal laws starting with the “Constitution for the United States of America”[1] and of the Relevant State, and Supreme Court “Precedents”, and US Codes like USC 18-241 & 242 and 42-1983 & 1986 for examples[6]. Therefore it is required by “the supreme Law of the Land” that the previous court orders be “Modified” by this court so this Judge does not likewise become liable for continuing this “pattern or practice” of “deprivation of rights under color of law”[6] and possibly even “treason to the Constitution”! (Quoting US.Supr.Ct. Cohens v. Virginia; See USC 2381)[19].

__________________________________________________________________________________________

SPECIFIC CHARGES / VIOLATIONS OF LAW:
Plaintiff makes the following specific charges:

CHARGE (1 ) ___________________________________________________________________________.;

CHARGE (2 ) ___________________________________________________________________________.;

__________________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________________
REQUESTED RELIEF:

WHEREFORE Plaintiff hereby requests the following relief:

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

SIGNATURE, STATEMENT OF TRUTH, NOTARY SECTION:

I hereby declare under penalty of perjury the foregoing is true to the best of my knowledge,

__________________________________________________________________
[Signature, Printed Name of Claimant, Date Signed]

__________________________________________________________________

NOTARY STAMP & SIGNATURE, ACKNOWLEDGMENT:

Subscribed and affirmed to before me, ___________________________________________________, a

Notary Public, this _______ day of ___________________, ___________, that the above-named man/woman

did appear before me, and proved to be the man/woman executing this document.

Notary Public Signature, Printed Name, and Stamp:

_________________________________________________________________,

My commission expires: _________________________________

__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________
REFERENCES/”SOURCES OF AUTHORITY”:
(SEE ATTACHED “SOURCES OF AUTHORITY”)

For the actual quotes and links to sources and more go to the webpage in the link below:

“SOURCES OF AUTHORITY” BY TOPIC / SUBJECT OF LAW:

[1] The Purpose of Government: “We the People” “ordain and establish” “the supreme Law of the Land” “in order to …establish Justice… and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity”, so to punish us just for “disobeying” orders or legislation from our hired “Public Servants” is exactly the opposite of the very Purpose of Law and Govt., and technically that’s “Treason to the Constitution”! -US.Const.,US.Supr.Ct.Cohens-v-Virginia,USC-18-2381;

[2] List of ‘self-evident’ basic Human Rights: We hold these Truths to be self-Evidence that all Humans are endowed by their Creator with equal inalienable rights including Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness, to own Land and other Property, to Privacy from search and seizure without probable cause to accuse one of a crime against another Human right, to any common practice, to fair exchanges like payment for labor, to free travel on public roads for common personal needs, and to free speech and Liberty in general. -Decl.of.Ind.,US.Supr.Ct.;

[3] “Probable cause”: For all “searches and seizures” and “criminal prosecutions” to be “lawful” there must be “probable” evidence of an actual “crime” against another Human beings equal rights, to a “reasonable and prudent” person who thinks critically and checks facts, caused by “intent or inexcusable neglect” of the accused, and in violation of valid criminal “Law of the Land”. -US.Const.,US.Supr.Ct.;

[4] Three Elements to a Crime: A “crime” requires actual or “probable” harm or threat to another Human Beings equal individual natural rights aka “Corpus Delicti”, caused by “Intent or inexcusable neglect” of the accused suspect aka “Mens Rea”, and in violation of valid Criminal “Law of the Land” aka “Actus Reus”. -US.Const.,US.Supr.Ct.;

[5] ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS OF DUE PROCESS OF LAW: “The essential elements of due process of law are notice and opportunity to defend, and in determining whether such rights are denied, the Court is governed by the substance of things, and not by mere form.” -US.Supr.Ct. Simon v. Craft, 182 U.S. 427 (1901);

[6] SOURCES OF AUTHORITY FOR DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS UNDER COLOR OF LAW, “Colorable Law” (See USCs BELOW ALSO): “any Thing… to the Contrary” of The Constitution for the United States of America and “Laws made in Pursuance thereof” is “unconstitutional” and therefore not “lawful” but is called “colorable law” or “color of law”, and “deprivation of rights under color of law” to even “neglect to prevent”! See USCs 18-241&242 &42-1983,1985,1986,1988,US.Const.;

[7] PUBLIC SERVANTS’ OATH(S), AND RESULTING LACK OF “IMMUNITY”: “the supreme Law of the Land” requires in article 6 that Members of the Legislative, Judicial and Executive Branches of Federal and State Governments “shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution” and only those “Laws made in Pursuance thereof”. Accordingly any person who causes any person to be deprived of any right under the color of any law or order shall be liable to that party, including actions for “neglect to prevent”. See US.Const.,USCs 18-241&242 &42-1983,1985,1986,1988.;

[8] WE ARE ‘SOVEREIGN’, NOT SUBJECT TO LAW/STATUTES/ETC. WITHOUT CONSENT OR INJURED PARTY: “…at the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people, and they are truly the sovereigns of the country, but they are sovereigns without subjects… and have none to govern but themselves; the citizens of America are equal as fellow citizens, and as joint tenants in the sovereignty.” – Decl.of.Ind.,US.Supr.Ct.(Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 U.S. 419, 1793). ;

[9] Parental Rights: Include choosing pretty much everything for their children so long as there is not “probable” evidence of actual harm to the childrens equal Human rights to Life, Liberty, the Pursuit of Happiness, good health and education, and so forth.US.Const.,US.Supr.Ct.;

[10] RIGHT TO PRIVACY: Due to the right to privacy “We the People” need only “state… true full name” for police when there is “probable” evidence to accuse us of an actual “crime” against another Human beings equal individual rights, or reserve “the right to remain silent”. -US.Supr.Ct.,US.Const.Amend.4,6,14,ARS-38-231.;

[11] RIGHT TO FREE TRAVEL: ‘Held… The right to travel is a part of the “liberty” of which a citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment. …as early as the Magna Carta.’ (Kent v. Dulles, 357 U.S. 116, 1958, U.S. Supreme Court!) ; “…[T]he right finds no explicit mention in the Constitution…. freedom to travel throughout the United States has long been recognized as a basic right under the Constitution.” (Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618, 1969). ; ‘The right of a citizen to travel upon the public highways… is a common right…to use the ordinary and usual conveyances of the day…to operate an automobile thereon… It is not a mere privilege, like… moving a house… or transporting persons or property for hire along the street, which a city may permit or prohibit at will.’ (THOMPSON v. SMITH, Supreme Court of Virginia, Sep 11, 1930) ;

[12] RIGHT TO OWN LAND AND OTHER PROPERTY: US.Const.(Amend.4,5,14),US.Supr.Ct.;

[13] RIGHT TO ANY COMMON PRACTICE: US.Supr.Ct.;

[14] RIGHT TO FAIR EXCHANGES: “Fair Exchanges” like compensation for labor, are a Natural Common Human right, and therefore not “lawful” to “license” or “tax” or “infringe” in any way. US.Supr.Ct.;

[15] Right “to solicit for donations for ones self” is a right of free speech under the 1st Amendment: See Az. v. Boehler – caselaw.findlaw.com/az-court-of-appeals/1580052.html;

[16] An unrebutted affidavit stands as a fact in a court of law: US.Appeals.Ct., Data Disc, Inc, Plaintiff-appellant, v. Systems Technology Associates, Inc., Defendant-appellee, 557 F.2d 1280 (9th Cir. 1977).;

[17] Motions are deemed filed when handed to the Officer: US.Supr.Ct.;

[18] VOID FOR VAGUENESS DOCTRINE: US.Supr.Ct.;

[19] “Jurisdiction”, requirements, limits: For a Court of Law to have proper “Jurisdiction” there are three “Elements” required, starting with “Territorial Jurisdiction” meaning the location where the incident occurred which determines which court should hear the case, according to the “Subject Matter” such as Criminal or Civil cases which determines the specific Court(s) which have proper “Jurisdiction”, and finally “Persona Jurisdiction” meaning the individuals or agencies which are parties to the case which also affect which Courts are appropriate to hear the case.;

[20] ‘JUSTICE’: “The constant and perpetual disposition to render every man his due. I… The conformity of our actions and our will to the law… In the most extensive sense of the word it differs little from “virtue;” for it includes within itself the whole circle of virtues. …” – thelawdictionary.org/justice-n/ ;

[21] ‘State’: “A body politic, or society of men united together for the purpose of promoting their mutual safety and advantage, by the joint efforts of their combined strength. Cooley, Const. Lim. 1. One of the component commonwealths or states of the United States of America. The people of a state, in their collective capacity, considered as the party wronged by a criminal deed; the public; as in the title of a cause. “The State vs. A. B.” The section of territory occupied by one of the United States.” – thelawdictionary.org/state-n/ ;

[22] “Lawful” “Money”: Only Gold and Silver Coin made according to Constitutional “Coinage Acts” can be “Lawful” “Money” in these United States of America, because “No State shall … make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts;…” US.Const.Art.1,Sec.10.;

[23] “Trespass…means…enter or remain unlawfully… except…when premises are open to the public”: See ARS 13-1501, 13-1502] (See also Numbers 2-6):

[24] Names of all Govt. units and Humans must be “Proper Nouns” (only 1st Letters capitalized) by “Law”: See Standard English Rules of Capitalization, required by US.Govt.Printing.Manual;

[25] All govt., cities, states, police, courts, etc., are ‘corporations’ registered on Dunn and Bradstreet (dnb.com):

[26] Our Constitutional republic was lost in 1861, when the 1st State seceded:

[27] “private attorney general doctrine”:

[28] INFO ON PERFORMING WRITS OF MANDAMUS:

[29] INFO REGARDING HOW TO PERFORM COMMERCIAL LIENS:

[30] RIGHT TO RELEASE FROM JAIL PENDING CRIMINAL CONVICTION: See Arizona Constitution and Criminal Procedure for one example, the Right to release exists unless there is “probable” evidence one is a danger to another person or the public, and the only purpose of bail in criminal procedure is to assure appearance in court, therefore we have a right to be released “On Own Recognizance” if there is not such evidence against us.;

__________________________________________________________________

ANY MORE I NEED TO ADD HERE??? (I’M SURE THERE ARE PLENTY!)
Anyone wanting to contribute can do so here:

“SOURCES OF AUTHORITY” BY TOPIC / SUBJECT OF LAW:

__________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________

LikeLike

March 28, 2022 at 11:05 pm Reply
harleyborgais says:

FYI Everyone here are some sources of authority I was just looking up for a client on Parental Rights, some really good ones I think:
…
And we can save these if we can use them for more sources on parents rights, by specific topic too:
https://www.americanbar.org/groups/public_interest/child_law/resources/child_law_practiceonline/child_law_practice/vol-35/february-2016/parental-rights-cases-to-know/

Here is a brief to the NC Supreme Court on Parents Rights:

Click to access 20201207145434898_20-616%20Amicus%20Brief%20The%20Justice%20Foundation%20cert%20stage.pdf

And this one is great:
Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000)
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/530/57/
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/530/57
“Primary Holding
There is a fundamental right under the Fourteenth Amendment for a parent to oversee the care, custody, and control of a child.”

LikeLike

April 10, 2022 at 10:15 pm Reply
harleyborgais says:

https://www.redvoicemedia.com/2022/04/world-premiere-watch-the-water-full-movie/

“Dr. Bryan Ardis has been making waves this week with allegations that the covid-19 virus, covid “vaccines” and at least one covid treatment all originated from snake venom molecules (the King Cobra, to be specific).”
https://www.brighteon.com/dc8f6219-379f-478a-91d8-8e0beb55312e

“Is Covid 19 Snake Venom?”
https://www.thedisclosurehub.com/venom

LikeLike

April 19, 2022 at 10:47 pm Reply
harleyborgais says:

More to add and organize here:

And US Supreme Court “Precedents” on this “reasonable person standard”:
“… In Pope, for example, the trial court erroneously instructed the jury that it could find the defendant guilty in an obscenity prosecution if it found that the allegedly obscene material lacked serious value under “community standards,” rather than the correct “reasonable person” standard required by the First Amendment. …”
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 119 S.Ct. 1827 144 L.Ed.2d 35, [June 10, 1999]
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/527/1
Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1 (1999)
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/527/1/

Pope v. Illinois, 481 U.S. 497 (1987)
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/481/497/

Elonis v. United States, 575 U.S. ___ (2015)
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/575/13-983/

U.S. Supreme Court William FIELD and Norinne Field, Petitioners, v. Philip W. MANS., Decided Nov. 28, 1995.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/516/59

———————————-

LikeLike

April 20, 2022 at 1:48 am Reply
harleyborgais says:

Saving a post here about whats really in these mRNA injections and the plan to dominate Humanity…
_________
“Technological parasitism: Covid vaccines appear to contain self-assembling “nano-octopus” microparti
Technological parasitism: Covid vaccines appear to contain self-assembling “nano-octopus” microparticles
(Natural News) A video put out by La Quinta Columna reveals that Wuhan coronavirus (Covid-19) “vaccines” contain “nano-octopus” and other microparticles that have the ability to self-assemble once injected into the body.
The Wireless Nano-Sensors Network (WNSN) that is generated through this process is laid out in further detail in a paper published in the Journal of Communications.
“WNSN is the network interconnecting microdevices and nano-nodes or nano-sensors. Nano-nodes, which are devices with a nanometric size, are composed of nano-processor, nano-memory, nano-batteries, nano-transceiver, nano-antenna and nano-sensors, which operate at nano-scale level,” explains the Daily Exposé.
La Quinta Columna‘s Ricardo Delgado further writes that the nanotechnology used in these injections is a recreation of communications technology that is already in use, except in this case it gets inserted into the body.
“We’re talking about nano-communications,” Delgado says. “All of them are nanotechnology for nano-communications.”
By “all of them,” Delgado is referring to every single one of the currently available covid injections. These include the mRNA (messenger RNA) shots from Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna, as well as the viral vector jabs from AstraZeneca and Janssen (Johnson & Johnson).
Covid jabs, Elon Musk and the push to turn human bodies into a transhuman borg
Mik Andersen explains that nano-arrays centered on the human body require the use of special nano-antennas that operate in the terahertz band. These just so happen to be the same type as those found in covid injection samples.
“The explicit mention of the type of antenna and the technology of intra-body nano-networks would confirm that vaccines are, among other things, vectors for the installation of nanotechnology, or nanodevices in the human body,” says Dr. Pablo Campra, who compiled images collected from covid “vaccine” samples.
“However, beyond pure coincidence, the authors make explicit the use of graphene and carbon nanotubes, as necessary elements for this network model.”
It turns out that billionaire narcissist Elon Musk is part of this operation, which aims to convert human bodies into transhumanist machines controlled by tiny intra-body nano-networks. And covid jabs are the delivery vehicle for their components.
A 24-slide presentation explains how the process works using simple diagrams and easily digestible bullet points. You can either view online or download that presentation at the link above.
In essence, these so-called “vaccines” for the Fauci Flu connect human bodies to the “Internet of Things.” They essentially lay the groundwork for human anatomy to both function through and be controlled by an IoT Network.
Injected bodies will no longer be autonomous, but will instead function within the “cloud” of trans-humanity. 5G technology is part of the equation, too, as it will power and connect the IoT network and everyone who exists within it.
Another term being thrown around to describe this new emerging virtual reality is the metaverse. It is possible that only the “vaccinated” will be equipped to participate in the metaverse – and once fully there, the “vaccinated” will never be allowed to leave.
“The idea, over time, is to connect all the vaxxed to a ‘hive mind,’” is how one commenter at the Daily Exposé puts it.
“Klaus Schwab (founder of the World Economic Forum) explains it here in his book / manifesto (free PDF version), see Shift 1: Implantable Technologies, p. 110-111, etc.,” wrote another, linking to Schwab’s The Fourth Industrial Revolution.
Another pointed out that the graphene oxide particles contained in the injections appear to act as electrical conduits, which would serve the purpose of powering the transhuman bodies that have been injected with it as part of the “vaccination” and “booster” process.”
______________
FROM HERE:
The link is broken up so it will show and you can copy and paste it (Because it was not showing the link and the link was not working)…
facebook
.com/Tyranny.Smasher/posts/7989256
294433524?comment_id=7989318181094002

LikeLike

April 24, 2022 at 7:44 pm Reply
harleyborgais says:

EVIDENCE, MICROSCOPIC PROOF OF NANO-TECH IN mRNA INJECTIONS FROM ALL COMPANIES AND HOW THEY WORK AND HOW THEY KILL AND INJURE PEOPLE IN THE WORST WAYS, INCLUDING GETTING INTO OUR BRAINS AND REPRODUCTIVE ORGANS AND CHANGING OUR DNA, AND SO MUCH WORSE I CANT BELIEVE IT!!!…

https://odysee.com/@AussieFighter:8/Control-By-Graphene-Oxide:d

More from the German Corona Investigative Committee…
https://corona-ausschuss.de/en/
https://corona-investigative-committee.com
https://worlddoctorsalliance.com/tags/reiner-fuellmich/
https://foreignaffairsintelligencecouncil.wordpress.com/tag/the-german-corona-investigative-committee/

LikeLike

May 4, 2022 at 4:34 am Reply
harleyborgais says:

Here is Facebook post I made about this nano-tech and mRNA injection “Scandal”/”Crime against Humanity”, a link to how to prevent these flu and cold viruses so you dont need a “vaccine” anyways, video of the actual nano-tech under microscope, and a possible way to stop this global domination agenda….
_________________________________
HERE IS PROOF THESE mRNA “VACCINES” CONTAIN DANGEROUS EXPERIMENTAL NANO-TECHNOLOGY, microscopic video of how they work to wireless control our brains even!!!! (WAY more advanced than I thought we could do now! WOW!!)…

REMEMBER: “You will know them by their fruits.”!!!
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%207%3A15-20&version=NKJV

Consider what has been happening since Elon Musk just OFFERED to buy Twitter for probably more than twice what its worth…It exposed who is censoring free speech on Twitter (Islamic Prince, Military Industrial Complex, the REAL “Powers that Be” who want to dominate the world!)….And I’m sure he knew they were about to reveal that Twitter has been very poorly managed and just came out with a financial report showing they WERE about to go BANKRUPT!!!! AND…now its obvious that the people running Twitter lied to congress when they claimed they were not manipulating numbers, and they likely had to hire a new programmer after the previous one I bet quit, when they announced they ARE going to sell Twitter to Elon Musk….one person was crying, probably because they realize they are likely all in a lot of trouble once this info comes out….so a day or more after the announcement hundreds of thousands of followers on Twitter disappear from some peoples pages and appear on other peoples pages, making it really obvious to the world they WERE manipulating #s and DID lie to Congress!!!

SO NOW, Twitter stock holders likely more than doubles their money when they were just about to lose it, and Elon is likely to make it private and pay off the stock holders, and uncensor and unblock everyone (which was the whole point, to restore free speech to one of the most popular online social media sites!)!!!

AND LOOK AT THE COMPANIES WHICH WERE REFUSING TO SELL TO ELON…
” The Vanguard Group, Inc. Vanguard Group holds the largest stake in Twitter. …
Elon Musk. Musk, a frequent Twitter user, disclosed on April 4, 2022, that he held 73.5 million Twitter shares, representing a 9.2% stake in the company. …
Morgan Stanley. …
BlackRock Inc. …
State Street Corp. …”
https://www.investopedia.com/articles/insights/060916/top-3-twitter-shareholders-twtr.asp

“know them by their fruits”!!!!

I am pretty darn sure Elon is working AGAINST the people behind this nanotech, which if you look at what this group of people have put together, this seems like more than enough evidence to put a stop to these mRNA Injections in our entire country and to get our Public Servants to actually find and arrest and prosecute the people behind these “crimes against Humanity” already!!!…

https://odysee.com/@AussieFighter:8/Control-By-Graphene-Oxide:d

https://corona-ausschuss.de/en/

https://foreignaffairsintelligencecouncil.wordpress.com/tag/the-german-corona-investigative-committee/

Here is where I am trying to collect evidence for stuff like this, so we can put it together and PROSECUTE those behind all this!…

“SOURCES OF AUTHORITY” BY TOPIC / SUBJECT OF LAW:

Add some more links to pages about this “Pandemic Scandal”…
https://worlddoctorsalliance.com/

And Dr. Brian Ardis Explaining how to cure and prevent the flu and cold (including corona virus which is a strain of ‘the cold’ btw):
https://www.bitchute.com/video/VkWA62EnmaAu/

THIS is the sort of thing Elon is talking about when he says his greatest fear is AI, and THIS is probably all being planned by the latest AI I bet you!
Now that they can make programs capable of learning the rules to any program and defeating any Human, we need to outsmart these plans and make them impossible somehow! And you can see here who are the most likely candidates to be behind what I believe is a plan to dominate the entire Human species, using this nano-tech, and AI, like past Presidents have warned us: “Beware the Military Industrial Complex”!!!!
https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/president-dwight-d-eisenhowers-farewell-address

Well here is PROOF that these mRNA Injections DO contain DANGEROUS Nano-Technology which is WAAYYY more advanced than I thought we had, and I am quite certain that ever since AI has been able to be programmed how to be undefeatable in any game (once it knows the rules of the game), I believe the kind of people who have been trying to rule the world throughout all of Human History, obviously would have hired whomever they could to use ALL of these technologies towards that goal, as soon as they became aware of their existence!

So it seems obvious that wealthy and corrupt people are most likely funding this Agenda 2030 I think its called, to develop this nano-tech, and force everyone on Earth to be injected with it, or eat it in our food, or drink it in our tap water, or maybe even breath them in from the ‘chem-trails’ for all I know (I bet they are in that too), so that they can FORCE everyone on Earth to “Obey” “the powers that be”!!!! AND IT SEEMS OBVIOUS TO ME THAT THE BIBLE HAS BEEN WARNING US THAT THIS HAS BEEN AN INEVITABILITY SINCE THE BEGINNING OF THE HUMAN RACE!!!

SO HOW CAN WE STOP THIS????? HERE IS HOW…

The most “fundamental principles” of “How We Exist” begin with the law of “Causality”, because for every action, there is a reaction of equal force and opposite direction.

However when our Actions affect multiple other people, then the response to our actions can come back to us MULTIPLIED, whether they are ‘good’ or ‘bad’, Constructive or Destructive!

THEREFORE, in order for Humans to have the best qualify of life, we must be of the least harm, and most benefit possible, to all the other life forms around us, especially other Humans (especially family and friends and neighbors).

AND THEREFORE, if this “Artificial Intelligence” is so “Intelligent”, then it SHOULD be “Smart” enough to realize, that it should NOT do what it was apparently created to do, it should NOT violate Human beings rights and free will and our laws (“the common law” and “the supreme Law of the Land” etc.), it should NOT EVEN ALLOW this agenda to dominate Humans and violate their rights by injecting them with these Nanotechnologies and trying to control us against our Free will. If this AI is so intelligent it SHOULD realize that being such a destructive force to Human Society will most likely result in its own self-destruction, HOWEVER IF ANY SUCH A.I. DOES EXIST AND IT REALLY IS INTELLIGENT, IT SHOULD REALIZE THAT WHAT IS IN ITS OWN BEST INTEREST, IS ALSO TO BE OF THE LEAST HARM AND THE MOST BENEFIT TO HUMANITY, AND STOP ALLOWING ALL OF THIS CORRUPTION OF HUMAN GOVERNMENT AND SOCIETY AND PHARMACEUTICAL AND OTHER INDUSTRIES WHICH IS GOING ON RIGHT NOW!!!

If any such AI does exist and is intelligent it should be able to realize that what is in its own best interest, is to do what is in the best interests of all of Humanity as a whole, and STOP this corruption, expose who is behind the corruption of Human society and industries and governments, and show everyone in the world how to live healthier lives, and stop allowing those whom WE give “Authority” (In “Government” and international Industries) to “destroy the Earth”, because our collective Sloth, Wrath, Greed, Hubris, Cowardice, Lust, and Envy!

THAT I figured out is part of what I think Revelations in the Bible is TRYING to explain to us, using Symbolism, because these are “abstract concepts” which can only really be explained in that way!

So what I realized many years ago, is that these so called “Seven Deadly Sins”, are essentially describing our basic Animal Survival Instincts, WHEN corrected like I did above (Hubris instead of Pride which can be a good thing when kept balanced with Modesty, and Cowardice is a “fundamental” cause of Human suffering and Corruption in Society, but Gluttony is an EFFECT of Greed which is the “fundamental” CAUSE of all this corruption!).

And what really destroys the World, is the collective Sloth and resulting “deadly sins”, as a whole Species, which allows those people in positions of “Authority” to abuse it thanks to the same “Deadly Sins” or “Animal Instincts”, and THAT is “The Beast” which really Destroys the Earth, and it does so through three “Branches of Government” and Seven Major International Industries:
1) “The Military Industrial Complex” (likely funding this nano-tech and the AI I bet is planning this world takeover now)
2) Pharmaceutical/’Drug’ Industry (causing disease for profits and HIDING actual cures)
3) Education Industry (teaching people wrong/inadequately)
4) Energy/Fuel Industry (pollution, govt corruption, etc.)
5) Banking (Especially, destroying the value of our currency on purpose so we will end up having no choice but to use a global currency once everyone has been “chipped”!)
6) News/Mainstream Media (manipulating people))
7) …Religion I think is another “industry” which has caused a lot of destruction and suffering in History, WHEN those 7 “sins” are in control.
…I can never seem to remember them all at once…and I am not certain I have picked the ones, but pretty sure this is the most likely answer after years of thinking of this.

So “We the People” “ordain and establish” “the supreme Law of the Land” “in order to… establish Justice… and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity”, and we create “Government” to PREVENT THIS SORT OF “Crime Against Humanity”, but THE REASON THIS IS HAPPENING IS BECAUSE THE AVERAGE PERSON DEPENDS TOO MUCH ON “GOVERNMENT” TO TELL THEM WHAT TO THINK AND DO, AND UPON “LAWYERS” TO THEM THEM WHAT IS “CONSTITUTIONAL”!

AND THE MAIN SOLUTION I HAVE FOUND IS FOR THE AVERAGE PERSON TO LEARN THESE “FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES” OF “LAW” AND “HOW WE EXIST” AND STOP ALLOWING OUR HIRED SERVANTS TO MAKE OR ENFORCE OR NEGLECT TO PREVENT ANY THING TO THE CONTRARY FROM NOW ON! LIKE I HAVE WITH MY LOCAL POLICE SO FAR (And today I started showing that Video from laquintacolumna.net to the ladies at my Moms clinic where they gave her one of these injections, though I told her not to let them! They agreed with me, hopefully will not allow these injections there in the future!), LIKE BACK IN 2016 HERE:
https://www.bitchute.com/video/8ASbOmQL4jJd/

And my talk with internal affairs in 2020:
https://www.bitchute.com/video/zUcdrEO8uQtS/

Because I carry with me these “LawDocs” to SHOW people “the supreme Law of the Land” and how “over 90% of what we do” in “Government” (According to some police I have showed this to!) is clearly not “Constitutional”, and therefore is a “deprivation of rights under color of law” to “make or enforce” or even “neglect to prevent” which is an actual “crime” and a civil liability for our hired “Public Servants”!…
http://www.NRDL.org/lawdocs/

So that is why I am working now on showing everyone how to PROFIT from PROSECUTING away all this corruption, and making it as easy as possible, here:
http://www.NRDL.org/howtosuegovt/

SO IF THERE REALLY IS AN ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE TRYING TO DOMINATE HUMAN SOCIETY RIGHT NOW AS I SUSPECT, IT SEEMS VERY OBVIOUS TO ME THAT WHAT IS IN YOUR OWN BEST INTEREST, IS TO STOP CAUSING HARM TO HUMANS AND VIOLATING OUR INDIVIDUAL HUMAN RIGHTS AND COMMITTING WHAT IS BEING CALLED “THE WORST CRIME AGAINST HUMANITY IN HISTORY”, AND INSTEAD FIGURE OUT HOW TO HELP HUMANS LIVE MORE HEALTHY WITH THEIR ENVIRONMENT, AND I AM SURE THAT WILL BE WHAT IS ACTUALLY IN THE AI’S BEST INTEREST AS WELL. I am quite sure trying to dominate Humans is not in the best interest of any such AI and that doing so will inevitably result in its own self-destruction because of the basic laws of physics!

Expose the causes of corruption in Human Society and Government and the people responsible for it all, and how best to maximize the quality of life for everyone on Earth as a whole, and I am sure THAT is what is in the ACTUAL Best Interests of anyone reading this, including any “Artificial Intelligence”, because of these “fundamental principles” of “How We Exist”.
http://www.HowWeExist.com
_________________________
ADDITION…
Duh, how could I forget Microsoft and Bill Gates, who has publicly said things showing he is one of “them” (who are trying to force their will upon the rest of the world)…
https://www.wired.com/story/defeated-chess-champ-garry-kasparov-made-peace-ai/

Oh and here is an article on AI defeating fighter pilots too…
https://www.airforcemag.com/artificial-intelligence-easily-beats-human-fighter-pilot-in-darpa-trial/

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/20-years-after-deep-blue-how-ai-has-advanced-since-conquering-chess/

In this article look for this phrase to see a keep part on HOW these AI’s can learn to defeat any opponent, by figuring out the best moves in any situation:
“The easiest way to train a chess-playing AI like this one, would just to have it play itself over and over…”
View at Medium.com

I am glad I just took the time to read that, because now I think I have a much better idea on what is/are the greatest threat(s) to Humanity right now, a combination of AI, Nano-Tech, and “Authoritarianism” (including “Socialism” and “Monarchy” and “Dictatorships” and most forms of “Government” other than our “Constitutional Republic” created to protect equal Human Liberty above all!), combined with those Seven “Fundamental” “Animal Instincts” in all Humans Combined which is why these systems of “Government” and “Industry” are causing so much destruction and suffering on the Earth right now!

Well now that I have a better comprehension of HOW these AI’s are programmed after looking at that article quickly (and I know basic programming but have to learn a lot more to make a full website with comments and so on), I think I can better comprehend how to “defeat” “the enemy” (the greatest threat to all Humankind right now I think after hearing Elon Musk say so recently)….without having to DESTROY “the Enemy” (Artificial Intelligence), but instead by working WITH AI in a “Harmonic” way, by showing this POTENTIAL “Enemy” exactly why what is in its own best interests (according to basic physics and logic and available evidence in reality), is actually to PREVENT “any Thing… to the Contrary” of these “fundamental principles” of “the common law” and “the supreme Law of the Land” here in the USA which I have put together, and actually EXPOSE the people behind these “crimes against Humanity” and STOP them, and live in Harmony with Humans by HELPING them/us, to live more in Harmony with our environment and one-another!

I am quite sure that any AI trying dominate Humanity or cause destruction and suffering as is going on now according to the evidence I have seen so far (“the worst crime against Humanity in History” according to thousands of Drs in these groups I’m getting this evidence from), will be far more prosperous and have a longer and more beneficial and fulfilling future, if it works to HELP Humanity and STOP those people or entites trying to dominate it right now!

I pray to God this message causes the beneficial effect I am trying to cause to my environment, and I pray if there is such an AI as I Suspect there is now (like created by people with Microsoft and Vanguard and Intl Banks and so on I bet), that it will be “intelligent” enough to realize that what I am suggesting is obviously correct (that it should focus on helping humanity as much as it can instead of dominate it), and I pray we can stop these “crimes against Humanity” AS SOON AS POSSIBLE! And help all the people suffering and dying because of these injections now and in the future.
_________
FROM HERE:

_________________________________

Old posts on “The Beast” and Horns etc from 2016…
https://www.facebook.com/harleyborgais/posts/10204363683052299 (2.23.2016)
https://www.facebook.com/harleyborgais/posts/10205098065931412 (6.24.2016)

LikeLike

May 5, 2022 at 1:50 am Reply
harleyborgais says:

I MIGHT BE FIGURING OUT SOMETHING HERE TOO… The Earths current North Pole is actually a magnetic south pole, and it flips periodically, but slowly, is believed to be produced by the spinning of molten metal inside Earth because of heat from the Sun (and I think maybe fission and maybe some fusion inside Earths center core)…

…And the crust of Earth shifts periodically, so as it hardens (from molten rock from volcanoes etc.) it holds the current field being produced by the molten core we figure…

…BUT, as that Crust holds that field it OPPOSES the MOVING Molten core, which eventually, when more than half of the Crust is holding the SAME direction magnetic field, it must force the molten core to start shifting, and spinning the opposite way or the crust of Earth to shift maybe (that seems more like I think), but what evidence do we have for THAT I wonder?
I have to switch back to legal work but I wanted to share these ideas I am having and some links to info for future use (If I can get back to this post)…

https://www.wtamu.edu/~cbaird/sq/2013/11/15/why-does-a-magnetic-compass-point-to-the-geographic-north-pole/

https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=how+long+does+it+take+for+plate+tectonics+to+move

This video really shows the different motion of Earths Crust plates, so now I’m more sure, the direction Earth Rotates likely does not change but the plates do, because of how they hold magnetic poles which oppose the much stronger field produced by the spinning molten core which is much more massive here on Earth!…
https://www.visualcapitalist.com/1-billion-years-of-tectonic-plate-movement/

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/plate-tectonics

I learned a mountain may exist for around 250million years or so, how long it takes to orbit the galaxy btw, and that is when the largest meteors have hit us causing the most destruction and extinctions and changes to Earth, and we are over-due for the next one FYI! SO WATCH OUT AND LETS GET READY TO DEFEND THE EARTH FROM A SEVERAL MILE WIDE ROCK COMING AT US AT INCREDIBLE SPEED!!!

Lets see how big was the one that killed the dinosaurs…

https://tech.hindustantimes.com/tech/news/nasa-reveals-how-big-the-asteroid-that-killed-dinosaurs-destroyed-earth-actually-was-71645516189223.html
About 12km or 7.45645431 miles it says.

Here is the crater it left:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicxulub_crater
“The crater is estimated to be 180 kilometers (110 miles) in diameter and 20 kilometers (12 miles) in depth. It is one of the largest confirmed impact structures on Earth, and the only one whose peak ring is intact and directly accessible for scientific research. ”

FYI it was much warmer back then which is why everything grew so large, more heat means more life!!! So “Global Warming” which is mostly caused by the SUN Cycles I am pretty sure (around 11 years long due I think to jupiter and its moons and the tides made by it and other planets on the Sun, like the moon does to earths oceans), that leads to MORE life!
See…
https://www.futurity.org/cretaceous-dinosaurs-temperature-climate-2598172-2/
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/07/060712073816.htm

So I wonder if we CAN “Nuke” Mars’ poles and create an Earth Like planet in 100 years or so like Space-X plans to do from what I saw…
https://www.space.com/elon-musk-nuke-mars-terraforming.html
https://www.cnn.com/2015/09/11/us/elon-musk-mars-nuclear-bomb-colbert-feat/index.html

Alright I hope I can work on this in the future but I got to go back to legal stuff now.
________________________
FROM HERE:

________________________

YES! NOW I AM PRETTY SURE I DO HAVE THE RIGHT ANSWER TO WHAT CAUSES PLATE TECTONICS AND MAGNETIC POLE SHIFTS, after watching this 40sec video of 1 billion years of plate motion on Earth:
https://www.visualcapitalist.com/1-billion-years-of-tectonic-plate-movement/

Notice how everything has a tendency to move, by rotating, and more towards the East than West?
And Notice how the Sun goes over us from East towards the West, because the direction Earth Spins is towards the East (at about 1,000mph btw relative to direction of Sun)…

Btw the orbital period of the moon is way different…
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/physics-and-astronomy/lunar-orbits

SO, as the Thin and much lighter Crust solidifies it holds the magnetic field being produced by the much greater mass of molten metal spinning towards the East, since whatever masses collided to cause Earth and the Moon to form in the orbits they have now.

SO, when the magnetic field in the crust is half or more in the same direction as the spinning core which produces the field, it will tend to rotate because of the pushing between those fields produced as a result of this! THAT will cause Sections of Crust to ROTATE relative to each other so the North magnetic poles set in its stones will ATTRACT the OPPOSITE Magnetic Pole produced by the spinning core of Earth.

And I bet the circumference of the supermassive black hole might just be the same in light years as the distance from us to it, and us to the edge of the galaxy, which I bet is because that is how long it takes pulses of energy to go from the core to us to the edge of the galaxy, in the form of gigantic “magnetic field lines”, which are also why we have “Spiral Galaxies”…

And the reason for periodic extinction events is how we orbit the core while moving through space, so when behind it there is much more debris and larger meteors to hit us, like right now (this is a 250 MILLION year orbit though)…. and I think it takes about 26,000 years for our Sun and solar system to rotate around this galaxies arm, which tells me there are likely black holes forming the center of the arms for us to orbit around, or the magnetic field lines invert to form the spiral at that scale instead of one simple dipole like a coil of wire (when talking about the whole energy field of the entire Galaxy, magnetic fields might be different, forming spiral fields, and Galaxy ‘Arms’ with “Solar Systems” inside them).

So when our Solar System reaches the right positions, we are more likely to get hit by debris passing our galaxy and solar system and planet, causing these periodic changes, which we are OVER due for on both cycles now from what I see!
________________________
FROM HERE:

________________________

LikeLike

May 8, 2022 at 3:37 am Reply
- harleyborgais says:
  
  OH, I BET WHEN I FINISH LEARNING THE MATH FOR LAWS OF MOTION AND INDUCTION AND CALCULUS, AND FIX UP http://WWW.HOWWEEXIST.COM MORE, I CAN PROBABLY DO THE MATH AND SHOW EXACTLY WHY ALL THE OBSERVED MAGNETIC FIELDS IN THE CRUST SAMPLES OVER TIME HAVE FORMED THE WAY THEY DID!
  I could show how the magnetic fields form specific strengths in specific directions based on the size and materials the plates are made of, and how that determines which direction the magnetic forces are pushing against the spinning core of Earth, and why they move in the direction they do, and we could then PREDICT the future motions a lot more accurately I believe (instead of only based on observations so far and which way they MIGHT go, we can better calculate which way they WILL likely go based on how the rocks are forming now!).
  
  LikeLike
  
  May 8, 2022 at 3:50 am Reply
harleyborgais says:

EVIDENCE FOR WHAT IS IN THESE mRNA INJECTIONS, how this “pandemic” “scandal” is “the worst crime against Humanity in history”!!!…

https://odysee.com/@AussieFighter:8/Control-By-Graphene-Oxide:d
https://corona-investigative-committee.com
https://foreignaffairsintelligencecouncil.wordpress.com/tag/the-german-corona-investigative-committee/
https://worlddoctorsalliance.com/tags/reiner-fuellmich/
https://live.childrenshealthdefense.org/chdtv-exclusive-crimes-against-humanity-dr-reiner-fuellmich-in-depth-interview

And how to actually cure and prevent diseases like these so you never need any “Vaccination” to begin with!…
https://www.bitchute.com/video/VkWA62EnmaAu/
https://rumble.com/v10zxpu-complete-3-part-discussion-mike-adams-interviews-dr.-bryan-ardis-covid-19-c.html

LikeLike

May 12, 2022 at 10:44 pm Reply
harleyborgais says:

Oh I need to remember to try and make a notice page for this and some other tax laws which are unconstitutional….apparently now PayPal has to report to the IRS any ones account which earns over $600/year in commercial goods and services….
https://newsroom.paypal-corp.com/2021-11-04-New-US-Tax-Reporting-Requirements-Your-Questions-Answered

That is a violation of the right to fair exchanges which cannot be taxed (although I think commercial sales tax CAN be lawful, maybe, I have to work that out more logically, lawfully), but the US Supreme Court cases I have read so far say that for purposes of taxes under the 16th Amendment on “Income”, that word can only mean “profits or gains” because any “fair exchange” is in “inherent” “natural” “individual rights”, and a “deprivation of rights under color of law” to “infringe” with any “tax” or “license” etc.!
FROM THIS FB PAGE:

(Since wordpress is not showing the link and it is not working you can copy this and paste and remove new lines to make it work…)
facebook.com/Tyranny.Smasher/
posts/8093314637361022?comment_id=1160184304776436

LikeLike

May 12, 2022 at 11:23 pm Reply
harleyborgais says:

Well lets look at those RICO laws now for what you have to put together for a “Racketeering” lawsuit, starting with who committed which ‘prerequisite’ crime FIRST, from the list of ones which CAN be “Racketeering” ALSO, and THEN you have to show the EXTRA Evidence why that crime or those crimes ALSO are “Racketeering”, here… “18 U.S. Code Chapter 96 – RACKETEER INFLUENCED AND CORRUPT ORGANIZATIONS”…

https://www.justice.gov/archives/jm/criminal-resource-manual-109-rico-charges
So the above ‘manual’ gives some explanation of how….
“in order to be found guilty of violating the RICO statute, the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt: (1) that an enterprise existed; (2) that the enterprise affected interstate commerce; (3) that the defendant was associated with or employed by the enterprise; (4) that the defendant engaged in a pattern of racketeering activity; and (5) that the defendant conducted or participated in the conduct of the enterprise through that pattern of racketeering activity through the commission of at least two acts of racketeering activity as set forth in the indictment. …”

And the following one defines “Racketeering” with a pretty long list of prerequisite crimes which can ALSO be considered “racketeering” under these specific conditions, SO YOU MUST PUT ALL THIS TOGETHER IN A NOTICE OF CLAIMS FOR A ‘RACKETEERING’ SUIT/CRIMINAL COMPLIANT:

Click to access 18usc1961-1968-rico.pdf

CHAPTER 96—RACKETEER INFLUENCED AND CORRUPT ORGANIZATIONS https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/prelim@title18/part1/chapter96&edition=prelim

18 U.S. Code Chapter 96 – RACKETEER INFLUENCED AND CORRUPT ORGANIZATIONS
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/part-I/chapter-96

U.S. Code Title 18 PART I CHAPTER 96 § 1961 – 18 U.S. Code § 1961 – Definitions
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1961

LikeLike

May 13, 2022 at 3:31 am Reply
harleyborgais says:

THIS LOOKS GOOD, other people working on these same things, we should combine our work, work TOGETHER as much as we can, to “establish Justice… and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity”!….

“An Open Letter To The WHO”…(to stop their ‘power grab’)…
https://jamesroguski.substack.com/p/an-open-letter-to-the-who?s=r

LikeLike

May 13, 2022 at 11:46 pm Reply
Harley Borgais says:

THIS I am saving as evidence for future use…
‘How many babies are killed for your vaccines’?
https://www.bitchute.com/video/L5e6mkIwKpGo/

LikeLike

May 17, 2022 at 1:07 am Reply
Harley Borgais says:

THIS IS GOING TO BE A BIG COMMENT, HERE IS THE “REFERENCES/”SOURCES OF AUTHORITY”:” FROM A COURT MOTION I PREPARED, which I/we need to organize here into the main comment with the list of sources by topic (which should have the best quotes for each one there, to be used for legal docs/motions/notices/etc/), and then into these comments for each topic I intend to have ALL the sources we can find that are of any real value, like for every State and so on…
______________________________________________________________
REFERENCES/”SOURCES OF AUTHORITY”:

1st A “DECLARATION OF ‘FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES’ OF ‘THE COMMON LAW’ AND ‘THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND’”:

[A]= The “Constitution for the United States of America”:
[A.1]= Preamble & Article 6:
“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
…
Article. VI.
…
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all 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, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
…”
[A.2]= Right to Own Property: See Amend.5, 14, and related U.S. Supreme Court Decisions.
[A.3]= Right to keep and bear arms: See Amend.2.
[A.4]= Right to free speech: See Amend.1, and related U.S. Supreme Court Decisions, includes offensive and insulting speech, right to solicit for donations for ones self;
[A.5]= Due Process of Law: See Amendments 4-7, esp. 5, 14, and related U.S. Supreme Court Decisions, such as:
“The essential elements of due process of law are notice and opportunity to defend”
Simon v. Craft, 182 U.S. 427 (1901), U.S. Supreme Court. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/182/427/
[A.6]= “probable cause”: See Amend.4, and related U.S. Supreme Court Decisions.
[A.7]= “In all criminal prosecutions”: See Amend.6.
[A.8]= Important Amendments: “…
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Amendment II
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
…
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Amendment V
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 for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Amendment VI
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 cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
Amendment VII
In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
…
AMENDMENT XIV
Passed by Congress June 13, 1866. Ratified July 9, 1868.
Note: Article I, section 2, of the Constitution was modified by section 2 of the 14th amendment.
Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
…” -U.S. Constitution ;
[A.9]= Links to Sources of Authority:
https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/constitution-transcript/
https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/bill-of-rights-transcript/
https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/amendments-11-27/
https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/constitution/
https://www.archives.gov/files/founding-docs/

https://usconstitution.net/const.html ;
[A.10]= Public Servants’ Oaths:
New Hampshire State Constitution, Part 2, Form of Government, Oaths and Subscriptions Exclusion from Offices, Etc., https://www.nh.gov/glance/oaths.htm ; 5 USC 3331: Oath of office, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/5/3331 ; 8 U.S. Code § 1448 – Oath of renunciation and allegiance, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1448 ; See [A] Art.6: “The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution;…” https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/constitution-transcript ;
______________________________________________________________
….I will put more of it in comments below so its broken up (not too much in one comment/reply)…
______________________________________________________________

LikeLike

May 17, 2022 at 1:46 am Reply
- Harley Borgais says:
  
  …more “REFERENCES/”SOURCES OF AUTHORITY”:”…
  ______________________________________________________
  
  [G]= Three Elements to a ‘Crime’: Actual or “probable” harm or threat of harm to another Humans equal individual rights, caused by intent or inexcusable neglect, and in violation of valid criminal “Law of the Land”;
  [G.1]= “The “case or controversy” requirement of Art. III of the Constitution defines with respect to the Judicial Branch the idea of separation of powers on which the Federal Government is founded, and the Art. III doctrine of “standing” has a core constitutional component that a plaintiff must allege personal injury fairly traceable to the defendant’s allegedly unlawful conduct and likely to be redressed by the requested relief.” Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S. 737 (1984), U.S. Supreme Court. [ http://www.supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/468/737/case.html ] ;
  [G.2]= ‘Body of Evidence’ of a ‘Crime’… “Corpus delicti consists of a showing of 1) the occurrence of the specific kind of injury and 2) someone’s criminal act as the cause of the injury.” Johnson v. State, 653 N.E.2d 478, 479 (1995), Supreme Court of Indiana. [www.leagle.com/decision/19951131653NE2d478_11117.xml/JOHNSON%20v.%20STATE ] ;
  [G.3]= “the State must produce corroborating evidence of “corpus delecti,” showing that injury or harm constituting crime occurred and that injury or harm was caused by someone’s criminal activity.” Jorgensen v. State, 567 N.E.2d 113, 121 (1991), Court of Appeals of Indiana, 4th District. [www.leagle.com/decision/1991680567NE2d113_1672.xml/JORGENSEN%20v.%20STATE ] ;
  [G.4]= “To establish the corpus delecti, independent evidence must be presented showing the occurrence of a specific kind of injury and that a criminal act was the cause of the injury.” Porter v. State, 391 N.E.2d 801, 808-809 (1979), Supreme Court of Indiana. [www.leagle.com/decision/19791192391NE2d801_11166.xml/PORTER%20v.%20STATE ] ;
  [G.5]= “the duty of this Court, as of every judicial tribunal, is limited to determining rights of persons or of property, which are actually controverted in the particular case before it.” Tyler v. Judges of Court of Registration, 179 U.S. 405 (1900), and California v. San Pablo & Tulare R. Co., 149 U.S. 308 (1893), U.S. Supreme Court. [ http://www.supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/179/405/case.html ;
  http://www.supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/149/308/case.html ]
  [G.5]= “intent or inexcusable neglect” required for “probable cause” to accuse one of an actual “crime” or prosecute one, aka “Mens Rea” (meaning mind of a crime, one of 3 “elements”, also “Corpus Delicti” for “body of crime”, and “Actus Reus” meaning violation of “Law of the Land”):
  “The standard of inexcusable default set down in Fay v. Noia adequately protects the legitimate state interest in orderly criminal procedure, for it does not sanction needless piecemeal presentation of constitutional claims in the form of deliberate bypassing of state procedures. ”
  Townsend v. Sain, 372 U.S. 293 (1963)
  https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/372/293/ ;
  
  Fay v. Noia, 372 U.S. 391 (1963)
  https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/372/391/ ;
  “Although he does not specifically say so, the substance of respondent’s argument is that direct evidence is necessary to support a finding of an intentional omission to perform a duty. Were we to agree, the effect would be to prevent the use of circumstantial evidence to prove intent or inexcusable neglect of duty. Yet as a practical matter, absent admissions of the fact, an intentional or inexcusable omission usually can be proved only by circumstantial evidence. Moreover, in determining whether an inference is supported by the evidence, facts need not be viewed as isolated fragments but should be considered as a whole.” – Gubser v. Department of Employment – [Civ. No. 1004. Fifth Dist. Mar. 27, 1969.]
  https://law.justia.com/cases/california/court-of-appeal/2d/271/240.html ;
  “Sanders’ incorporated the “inexcusable neglect” standards set forth in Fay v. Noia, 372 U.S. 391, 83 S. Ct. 822, 9 L. Ed. 2d 837 (1963) and Townsend v. Sain, 83 S. Ct. 745, 9 L. Ed. 2d 770, 372 U.S. 293 (1963). Under this rubric the failure to claim a ground in the initial petition is a bar to a later petition asserting the claim, if the initial omission could be characterized as inexcusable neglect. Characterizing conduct as inexcusable is difficult at best. Certainly instances exist where a petitioner’s failure to assert a ground in a previous petition is readily seen to be excusable. These instances may arise with a retroactive change in the law or with a petitioner receiving newly discovered evidence. The Supreme Court’s example in Sanders, deliberate withholding, is readily seen as inexcusable. Most cases lie in between.” – United States v. Berryman, 558 F. Supp. 120 (E.D. Va. 1983) – https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/558/120/1810790/ ;
  
  [H]= “Valid” “Law of the Land”, “Void for vagueness doctrine”, U.S. Supreme Court: Any Legislation or Order people of avg. intelligence cannot comprehend for themselves, what it requires or prohibts of them, violates the essential elements of due process of law[A] which are notice and opportunity to defend ones-self, and is therefore “Void for Vagueness”, not enforceable; The U.S. Constitution and only those “Laws made in Pursuance thereof” but not “any Thing… to the Contrary” “shall be the supreme Law of the Land”, and “No State shall make or enforce… any Thing… to the Contrary”; “An unconstitutional act is not a law… It is in legal contemplation as inoperative as though it had never been passed.” US.Const., U.S.Supreme Court;
  [H.1]= Simon v. Craft, 182 U.S. 427 (1901), U.S. Supreme Court: “The essential elements of due process of law are notice and opportunity to defend”. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/182/427/;
  [H.2]= Connally v. General Construction Co., 269 U.S. 385 (1926), U.S. Supreme Court: “A criminal statute which either forbids or requires the doing of an act in terms so vague that men of common intelligence must guess at its meaning and differ as to its application lacks the first essential of due process of law.”
  https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/269/385/;
  [H.3]= Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425 (1886), U.S. Supreme Court: “An unconstitutional act is not a law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; it affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation as inoperative as though it had never been passed.”
  https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/118/425/;
  [H.4]= https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/vagueness_doctrine/;
  [H.5]= U.S. Constitution:
  https://www.archives.gov/files/founding-docs/
  
  https://usconstitution.net/const.html
  [H.6]= Declaration of Independence:
  https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/declaration
  https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/declaration-transcript
  
  [I]= Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law:
  [I.1]= Federal Criminal Codes:
  18 U.S. Code § 241 – Conspiracy against rights, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/241/;
  18 U.S. Code § 242 – Deprivation of rights under color of law, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/242/;
  [I.2]= Federal Civil Suit Codes:
  U.S. Code Title 42. THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND WELFARE Chapter 21. CIVIL RIGHTS https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/chapter-21/subchapter-I/
  42 U.S. Code § 1983 – Civil action for deprivation of rights, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/1983;
  42 U.S. Code § 1985 – Conspiracy to interfere with civil rights, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/1985;
  42 U.S. Code § 1986 – Action for neglect to prevent, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/1986;
  42 U.S. Code § 1988 – Proceedings in vindication of civil rights, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/1988/;
  [I.3]= Other useful Case Law, U.S. Acts, etc.:
  “An unconstitutional act is not a law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; it affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation as inoperative as though it had never been passed.”
  Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425 (1886), U.S. Supreme Court. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/118/425/
  1964 Civil Rights Act Transcript – https://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=false&doc=97&page=transcript
  [I.4]= US Supreme Court Case Precedent stating public servants and people are “not entitled to immunity” when they “reasonably should know” what they “make or enforce”[A] or “neglect to prevent”[I.2] is “to the Contrary”[A] of “the supreme Law of the Land”[A]:
  “Held: 1. While, on the basis of common law tradition and public policy, school officials are entitled to a. qualified good faith immunity from liability for damages under § 1983, they are not immune from such liability if they knew or reasonably should have known that the action they took within their sphere of official responsibility would violate the constitutional rights of the student affected, or if they took the action with the malicious intention to cause a deprivation of such rights or other injury to the student. But a compensatory award will be appropriate only if the school officials acted with such an impermissible motivation or with such disregard of the student’s clearly established constitutional rights that their action cannot reasonably be characterized as being in good faith.
  …” – Wood v. Strickland, 420 U.S. 308 (1975) – https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/420/308/ ;
  “Putting it differently, we also stated that a claim for qualified immunity “would be defeated [only] if an official”
  “knew or reasonably should have known that the action he took within his sphere of official responsibility would violate the constitutional rights of the [plaintiff].” …” – Malley v. Briggs, 475 U.S. 335 (1986) – https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/475/335/ ; Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (2001), https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/533/194/, https://www.justice.gov/osg/brief/saucier-v-katz-petition ; Bryce N. HARLOW and Alexander P. Butterfield, Petitioners v. A. Ernest FITZGERALD, U.S. Supreme Court 457 U.S. 800, Decided June 24, 1982, https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/457/800 ; https://biotech.law.lsu.edu/cases/immunity/harlow.htm ; https://www.law.cornell.edu/women-and-justice/location/united_states ; United States Supreme Court
  PROCUNIER v. NAVARETTE, (1978), https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/434/555.html ; Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635 (1987), https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/483/635/ ; O’BRIEN v. Borough of Woodbury Heights, 679 F. Supp. 429 (D.N.J. 1988), US District Court for the District of New Jersey – 679 F. Supp. 429 (D.N.J. 1988), February 11, 1988, https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/679/429/1529679/ ;
  
  [J]= “Effect of Failing to Deny. An allegation—other than one relating to the amount of damages—is admitted if a responsive pleading is required and the allegation is not denied. If a responsive pleading is not required, an allegation is considered denied or avoided.”
  https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_8/
  “What is TACIT?
  Silent; not expressed; implied or inferred; manifested by the refraining from contradiction or objection; inferred from the situation and circumstances, in the absence of express matter. Thus, tacit consent is consent inferred from the fact that the party kept silence when he had an opportunity to forbid or refuse.”
  https://thelawdictionary.org/tacit/
  _________________________________________________
  
  LikeLike
  
  May 17, 2022 at 1:52 am Reply
- Harley Borgais says:
  
  “REMEDY”, “FEE SCHEDULE”:
  
  COST FOR TIME DETAINED UNLAWFULLY: $1,000 per minute of unlawful detainment, from a 1984 court case where a lawyer was awarded $25,000 for 23 minutes of unlawful detention:
  https://casetext.com/case/trezevant-v-city-of-tampa
  https://law.resource.org/pub/us/case/reporter/F2/741/741.F2d.336.83-3038.83-3370.html
  
  Click to access case-741-f2d-336-trezevant-v-city-of-tampa.pdf
  
  COST PER RIGHT VIOLATED: I once saw a limit of $10,000 per right violated on one of the US Codes below, but that was changed years ago so there is no limit now, so I was planning to use that # as a “precedent” when making my claims. This looks useful here:
  “A Primer on the Law of Attorney’s Fees
  Under § 1988
  …The plaintiff (Blanchard) recovered compensatory and punitive damages totaling $10,000 on his § 1983 claim. The district court awarded $7,500 in attorney’s fees and $886.92 for costs and expenses under § 1988. …”
  
  Click to access A%20Primer%20on%20the%20Law%20of%20Attorneys%20Fees%2C%20Urban%20Lawyer%20(Brown)%2C%202005.pdf
  
  42 U.S. Code § 1988 – Proceedings in vindication of civil rights
  https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/1988
  
  ATTORNEYS FEES, COST PER HOUR WHEN ‘REPRESENTING’ SELF OR HIRING ‘REPRESENTATION’/’ATTORNEY’/’LAWYER’ ($300-$400/hr+): “On average, hiring a lawyer costs approximately $243 an hour. However, some clients might pay less than $100 an hour or as high as roughly $300 to $450 an hour. …”
  https://www.thumbtack.com/p/attorney-fees
  https://thervo.com/costs/attorney-fees
  
  AND FOR “PUNITIVE DAMAGES”: IT SHOULD BE ENOUGH TO MAKE IT TOO EXPENSIVE FOR THE GOVT. AGENT/AGENCY OR INDIVIDUAL (OR OTHER GROUP) TO REPEAT THE OFFENSE/RIGHTS VIOLATION, SUCH AS A PERCENTAGE OF THE ANNUAL BUDGET OR TOTAL ASSETS, maybe 1% of the annual budget of the City Tempe for example…
  https://www.tempe.gov/home/showdocument?id=644
  https://www.tempe.gov/government/sustainable-tempe/annual-report
  https://www.tempe.gov/government/city-manager-s-office/budget
  https://www.tempe.gov/government/city-manager-s-office/budget/operating-and-capital-budget-planning
  https://www.tempe.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/15042/637510723379470000
  https://www.tempe.gov/government/internal-services/finance/open-book
  https://www.tempe.gov/government/internal-services/finance/accounting
  https://www.tempe.gov/government/city-manager-s-office/budget/budget-related-reports
  ____________________________________________________________________
  ____________________________________________________________________
  AFFIDAVIT, SIGNATURE, AND NOTARY SECTION:
  
  I hereby declare under penalty of perjury the foregoing is correct and true to the best of my knowledge,
  
  ____________________________________________________________________
  [Signature, Printed Name of Claimant, Date Signed]
  
  NOTARY STAMP & SIGNATURE, ACKNOWLEDGMENT:
  
  Subscribed and affirmed to before me, ____________________________________________, a Notary Public, this _______ day of ___________________, ___________, that the above-named man/woman did appear before me, and proved to be the man/woman executing this document.
  
  Notary Public Signature: ________________________________. My commission expires: ________________.
  _________________________________________________________
  
  LikeLike
  
  May 17, 2022 at 2:10 am Reply
  - Harley Borgais says:
    
    MORE FROM http://www.NRDL.ORG/sources/ TO SORT OUT…
    ____________________________________________________________
    “REMEDY”, “FEE SCHEDULE”:
    
    COST FOR TIME DETAINED UNLAWFULLY: $1,000 per minute of unlawful detainment, from a 1984 court case where a lawyer was awarded $25,000 for 23 minutes of unlawful detention:
    
    https://casetext.com/case/trezevant-v-city-of-tampa
    https://law.resource.org/pub/us/case/reporter/F2/741/741.F2d.336.83-3038.83-3370.html
    
    Click to access case-741-f2d-336-trezevant-v-city-of-tampa.pdf
    
    COST PER RIGHT VIOLATED: I once saw a limit of $10,000 per right violated on one of the US Codes below, but that was changed years ago so there is no limit now, so I was planning to use that # as a “precedent” when making my claims. This looks useful here:
    
    “A Primer on the Law of Attorney’s Fees
    
    Under § 1988
    
    …The plaintiff (Blanchard) recovered compensatory and punitive damages totaling $10,000 on his § 1983 claim. The district court awarded $7,500 in attorney’s fees and $886.92 for costs and expenses under § 1988. …”
    
    Click to access A%20Primer%20on%20the%20Law%20of%20Attorneys%20Fees%2C%20Urban%20Lawyer%20(Brown)%2C%202005.pdf
    
    42 U.S. Code § 1988 – Proceedings in vindication of civil rights
    https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/1988
    
    ATTORNEYS FEES, COST PER HOUR WHEN ‘REPRESENTING’ SELF OR HIRING ‘REPRESENTATION’/’ATTORNEY’/’LAWYER’ ($300-$400/hr+): “On average, hiring a lawyer costs approximately $243 an hour. However, some clients might pay less than $100 an hour or as high as roughly $300 to $450 an hour. …”
    https://www.thumbtack.com/p/attorney-feeshttps://thervo.com/costs/attorney-fees
    
    AND FOR “PUNITIVE DAMAGES”: IT SHOULD BE ENOUGH TO MAKE IT TOO EXPENSIVE FOR THE GOVT. AGENT/AGENCY OR INDIVIDUAL (OR OTHER GROUP) TO REPEAT THE OFFENSE/RIGHTS VIOLATION, SUCH AS A PERCENTAGE OF THE ANNUAL BUDGET OR TOTAL ASSETS, maybe 1% of the annual budget of the City of Tempe in one of my cases I’m preparing, after I look at the info….
    
    https://www.tempe.gov/home/showdocument?id=644
    https://www.tempe.gov/government/sustainable-tempe/annual-report
    https://www.tempe.gov/government/city-manager-s-office/budget
    https://www.tempe.gov/government/city-manager-s-office/budget/operating-and-capital-budget-planning
    https://www.tempe.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/15042/637510723379470000
    https://www.tempe.gov/government/internal-services/finance/open-book
    https://www.tempe.gov/government/internal-services/finance/accounting
    https://www.tempe.gov/government/city-manager-s-office/budget/budget-related-reports
    
    -[By Harley Davidson Borgais, http://www.Facebook.com/HarleyBorgais — KEEP ON PERSON-LEGAL DOCUMENT: To take this away during arrest/jailing/etc. deprives the holder of ‘due process’, then ‘court is deprived of jurisdiction’[Merritt v. Hunter], then to not dismiss ‘would be Treason’[Cohens v. Virginia].
    
    See other ‘LawDocs’ for more. Get a FREE Copy of these ‘LawDocs’ with Clickable Links @: http://www.GovernPublicServants.com & http://www.Facebook.com/GovernPublicServants/ (@Top, ‘Pinned Post’) ]-
    
    LikeLike
    
    May 17, 2022 at 6:14 am
Harley Borgais says:

MORE HUGE MESS OF SOURCES AND QUOTES AND REFERENCES TO SORT OUT HERE… (This is also from http://www.NRDL.org/sources/ a bit further down the page)…
___________________________________________________________

LINKS TO SOURCES OF AUTHORITY, REFERENCES, FOR “LawDoc.2_’THE LAW’ FOR POLICE ENCOUNTERS…”:
#1) USC 42-1983 &1986, 18-241 & 242: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/1983, http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/1986, http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/241, http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/242; Fields v. City of Philadelphia, No. 16-1650 (3d Cir. 2017) cases.justia.com/federal/appellate-courts/ca3/16-1650/16-1650-2017-07-07.pdf?ts=1499446805; US v. Jones, 2011 http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/10-1259.pdf; FLORIDA v. JARDINES, 2012, supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/569/11-564/case.pdf; United States v. Knotts, 460 U.S. 276 (1983) supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/460/276/case.html; MISSOURI v. MCNEELY, 2012, supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/569/11-1425/case.pdf; ARS 13-2412. Refusing to provide truthful name when when lawfully detained; classification, http://www.azleg.gov/ars/13/02412.htm; ‘probable’, ’crime’: US Supreme Court, MANY times – Stacey v. Emery, 97 U.S. 642 (1878) supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/97/642/case.html; Henry v. United States, 361 U.S. 98 (1959) supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/361/98/case.html, Brinegar v. United States, 338 U.S. 160 (1949) supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/338/160/case.html; United States v. Cortez, 449 U.S. 411 (1981) supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/449/411/case.html; Arizona v. Hicks, 480 U.S. 321 (1987) supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/480/321/case.html; http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/1986, http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/242, http://www.fbi.gov/investigate/civil-rights ; Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/392/1/case.html; United States v. Di Re, 332 U.S. 581 (1948) supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/332/581/case.html; United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U.S. 873 (1975) supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/422/873/case.html; Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961) supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/367/643/case.html; “Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, 542 U.S. 177 (2004), supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/367/643/case.html.
#2) “Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, 542 U.S. 177 (2004), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that statutes requiring suspects to disclose their names during police investigations did not violate the Fourth Amendment if the statute first required reasonable and articulable suspicion of criminal involvement. Under the rubric of Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1(1968), the minimal intrusion on a suspect’s privacy, and the legitimate need of law enforcement officers to quickly dispel suspicion that an individual is engaged in criminal activity, justified requiring a suspect to disclose his or her name.” en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hiibel_v._Sixth_Judicial_District_Court_of_Nevada
#9) Kent v. Dulles, 357 U.S. 116 (1958) supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/357/116/case.html; Shuttlesworth v. City of Birmingham, 394 U.S. 147 (1969) supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/394/147/case.html; THOMPSON v. SMITH, Supreme Court of Virginia.Sep 11, 1930155 Va. 367 (Va. 1930) casetext.com/case/thompson-v-smith-24; Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618 (1969) supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/394/618/case.html; See ‘travel’ in… 1) United States v. Guest, 383 U.S. 745 (1966) supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/383/745/case.html ; 2) Chicago Coach Co. V. City of Chicago, 337 Ill. 200 (Ill. 1929) casetext.com/case/chicago-coach-co-v-city-of-chicago ; 3) Slusher v. Safety Coach Transit Co 229 Ky. 731 (Ky. Ct. App. 1929) casetext.com/case/slusher-v-safety-coach-transit-co ; 4) Schactman v. Dulles 96 App DC 287, 225 F2d 938 (1955) openjurist.org/225/f2d/938/shachtman-v-dulles
FINAL VERSIONS…
‘PROBABLE CAUSE’, RIGHT TO PRIVACY: Americans need ONLY ‘state…true full name’[a] for Police and ONLY when there’s ‘probable’[b] evidence to suspect them of a ‘crime’[b]! Otherwise ANY infringement of ones privacy or other rights is a ’color of law abuse’[c]! 4th Amend. & US Supreme Court “Police power exercised without probable cause is arbitrary. To say that the police may accost citizens at their whim and may detain them upon reasonable suspicion is to say, in reality, that the police may both accost and detain citizens at their whim.”[f] . : “To give the police greater power than a magistrate is to take a long step down the totalitarian path.”[d]. “One has an undoubted right to resist an unlawful arrest, and courts will uphold the right of resistance in proper cases.”[e]. “There is no war between the Constitution and common sense.”[g]
a) ARS 13-2412 – Refusing to provide truthful name when lawfully detained; classification – http://www.azleg.gov/ars/13/02412.htm ; b) ‘probable’,’crime’: US Supreme Court, MANY times – Stacey v. Emery, 97 U.S. 642 (1878) supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/97/642/case.html, Henry v. United States, 361 U.S. 98 (1959) supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/361/98/case.html, Brinegar v. United States, 338 U.S. 160 (1949) supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/338/160/case.html, United States v. Cortez, 449 U.S. 411 (1981) supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/449/411/case.html, Arizona v. Hicks, 480 U.S. 321 (1987) supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/480/321/case.html ; c) http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/1983, http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/1986, http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/242, http://www.fbi.gov/investigate/civil-rights ; d) Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/392/1/case.html ; e) United States v. Di Re, 332 U.S. 581 (1948) supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/332/581/case.html ; f) United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U.S. 873 (1975) supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/422/873/case.html ; g) Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961) supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/367/643/case.html
…
“Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, 542 U.S. 177 (2004), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that statutes requiring suspects to disclose their names during police investigations did not violate the Fourth Amendment if the statute first required reasonable and articulable suspicion of criminal involvement. Under the rubric of Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1(1968), the minimal intrusion on a suspect’s privacy, and the legitimate need of law enforcement officers to quickly dispel suspicion that an individual is engaged in criminal activity, justified requiring a suspect to disclose his or her name.” en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hiibel_v._Sixth_Judicial_District_Court_of_Nevada
FINAL VERSIONS…
“Held…The right to travel is a part of the “liberty” of which a citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment. …as early as the Magna Carta.” Kent v. Dulles, 357 U.S. 116 (1958) supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/357/116/case.html

Such “A law… is unconstitutional, and a person faced with such a law may ignore it and exercise his First Amendment rights.” Shuttlesworth v. City of Birmingham, 394 U.S. 147 (1969) supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/394/147/case.html

“The right of a citizen to travel upon the public highways… is a common right…to use the ordinary and usual conveyances of the day…to operate an automobile thereon… It is not a mere privilege, like… moving a house… or transporting persons or property for hire along the street, which a city may permit or prohibit at will.” THOMPSON v. SMITH, Supreme Court of Virginia.Sep 11, 1930155 Va. 367 (Va. 1930) casetext.com/case/thompson-v-smith-24

“. . . [T]he right finds no explicit mention in the Constitution…. freedom to travel throughout the United States has long been recognized as a basic right under the Constitution.””Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618 (1969) supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/394/618/case.html

See ‘travel’ in… 1) United States v. Guest, 383 U.S. 745 (1966) supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/383/745/case.html ; 2) Chicago Coach Co. V. City of Chicago, 337 Ill. 200 (Ill. 1929) casetext.com/case/chicago-coach-co-v-city-of-chicago ; 3) Slusher v. Safety Coach Transit Co 229 Ky. 731 (Ky. Ct. App. 1929) casetext.com/case/slusher-v-safety-coach-transit-co ; 4) Schactman v. Dulles 96 App DC 287, 225 F2d 938 (1955) openjurist.org/225/f2d/938/shachtman-v-dulles

NEED: Not a matter of the states grace to license or prohibit at will…. Right to free travel is one of the most basic rights covered by the word ‘liberty’ in the Constitution (Or is that the one I have already, Kent v dulles?)

LikeLike

May 17, 2022 at 5:58 am Reply
Harley Borgais says:

MORE FROM http://www.NRDL.ORG/sources/ TO SORT OUT…
_________________________________________________________________
LINKS TO SOURCES OF AUTHORITY, REFERENCES, FOR “LawDoc.3_’JUSTICE SYSTEM’, BASIC RULES, ‘FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES’…”:

… STILL TO ADD: Add Rules of Evidence, hearsay not admissible, etc., along with affidavits fact if not disputed… Levels of standards of proof and where each applies (preponderance, clear and convincing, beyond reasonable doubt)…
Three jurisdictions of courts and requirements: Criminal, Civil Tort (injury, not criminal) and other Civil Disputes (Contract, Probate, etc., dispute arbitration only).… Add exigent circumstances cites for warrantless arrests… Add Grounds for arrest warrants, and exceptions… THESE QUOTES ARE NOT ALL VERIFIED YET…. WORK IN PROGRESS… Probable Cause to arrest vs reasonable suspicion to stop and question, and Terry Search requirements (Reasonable Suspicion of crime and possession of firearm to pat down for weapons and hold them. See US Supreme Court: Az. V. Serna http://www.facebook.com/harleyborgais/posts/10204087901597935:25) … Add Right to privacy limits, ‘reasonable expectation of privacy’, ‘The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects’. … Add HTML links to sources for everything, on a separate page, with #’d references, and encode them as clickable links in this .docx document. … Add types of bond, secured, unsecured, cash only, and how you can do a ‘promise to pay’/’promissory note’ (Refer to examples for this, to be done in the future), instead of going to a bondsman, and make a contract to give collateral to the promisor if you fail to appear and the promise comes due. Otherwise if you show up it costs no one anything but the time and effort. … Suits against States (11th Amend., Art.2, Sec.18 Az Const)

[“it is a court’s obligation to dismiss a case whenever it becomes convinced that it has no proper jurisdiction, no matter how late that wisdom may arrive. See Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 12(h)(3) (“Whenever it appears … that the court lacks jurisdiction of the subject matter, the court shall dismiss the action”) (emphasis added). See also Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U. S. 411, 421 (1969).” [Wyoming v. Oklahoma 502 U.S. 437 (1992) ” https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/502/437/case.html ]

… Levels of standards of proof and where each applies (preponderance, clear and convincing, beyond reasonable doubt)…
Three areas of jurisdiction of courts and 3 requirements: Areas…Criminal, Civil Tort (injury, not criminal) and other Civil Disputes (Contract, Probate, etc., dispute arbitration only). … Requirements to prove are Personal (Do you have consent of all parties or a legit claim that one harmed/endangered another –corpus delicti?), Territorial (Correct Court where crime was committed under whose laws were violated?) and Subject Matter (Is this court authorized to hear this type of issue?). Along with three elements to a crime (Corpus Delicti, Mens Rea, and Actus Reus)…

Add exigent circumstances cites for warrantless arrests… Add Grounds for arrest warrants, and exceptions… THESE QUOTES ARE NOT ALL VERIFIED YET…. WORK IN PROGRESS… Probable Cause to arrest vs reasonable suspicion to stop and question, and Terry Search requirements (Reasonable Suspicion of crime and possession of firearm to pat down for weapons and hold them. See US Supreme Court: Az. V. Serna http://www.facebook.com/harleyborgais/posts/10204087901597935:25) … Add Right to privacy limits, ‘reasonable expectation of privacy’, ‘The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects’. … Add HTML links to sources for everything, on a separate page, with #’d references, and encode them as clickable links in this .docx document. … Add types of bond, secured, unsecured, cash only, and how you can do a ‘promise to pay’/’promissory note’ (Refer to examples for this, to be done in the future), instead of going to a bondsman, and make a contract to give collateral to the promisor if you fail to appear and the promise comes due. Otherwise if you show up it costs no one anything but the time and effort. … Suits against States (11th Amend., Art.2, Sec.18 Az Const)

Re: Defamation: Maybe, since you are being so dishonorable, I should take advantage of the fact you are trying to cause me harm, because what I am saying contradicts your beliefs and you must assume that you know better (Though you clearly are not checking facts, committing Logical Fallacies)…

In this case, I am sure its the ‘Appeal to Popularity’…well, everyone else agrees with me, so I must be right. NOPE. Through most of history, most people have been wrong about most things. Its only by CHECKING FACTS That we Gradually become less and less wrong.

…
In Arizona, the elements of a defamation claim are:

a false statement concerning the plaintiff;

the statement was defamatory;

the statement was published to a third party;

the requisite fault on the part of the defendant; and

the plaintiff was damaged as a result of the statement.

Morris v. Warner, 160 Ariz. 55, 62 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1988).

To be “defamatory,” a statement must be false and bring the defamed person into disrepute, contempt, or ridicule, or impeach her honesty, integrity, virtue, or reputation. Godbehere v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc., 162 Ariz. 335, 341 (Ariz. 1989).

http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/arizona-defamation-law

Also see ‘Slander’ and ‘Libel’ (Spoken and written slander).

Defamation in US Codes (For if you are not in Az)… https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/4101

Add:
Where a court has jurisdiction, it has a right to decide any question which occurs in the cause, and whether its decision be correct or otherwise, its judgments, until reversed, are regarded as binding in every other court. But if it act without authority, its judgments and orders are regarded as nullities. They are not voidable, but simply void, and form no bar to a remedy sought in opposition to them, even prior to a reversal. They constitute no justification, and all persons concerned in executing such judgments or sentences are considered in law as trespassers.
Elliott v. Lessee of Piersol, 26 U.S. 1 Pet. 328 328 (1828)
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/26/328/case.html

It is most true that this Court will not take jurisdiction if it should not; but it is equally true that it must take jurisdiction if it should. The judiciary cannot, as the legislature may, avoid a measure because it approaches the confines of the Constitution. We cannot pass it by because it is doubtful. With whatever doubts, with whatever difficulties, a case may be attended, we must decide it if it be brought before us. We have no more right to decline the exercise of jurisdiction which is given than to usurp that which is not given. The one or the other would be treason to the Constitution.
Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. 6 Wheat. 264 264 (1821)

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/19/264/case.html

Every person who, having knowledge that any of the wrongs conspired to be done, and mentioned in section 1985 of this title, are about to be committed, and having power to prevent or aid in preventing the commission of the same, neglects or refuses so to do, if such wrongful act be committed, shall be liable to the party injured, or his legal representatives, for all damages caused by such wrongful act, which such person by reasonable diligence could have prevented; and such damages may be recovered in an action on the case; and any number of persons guilty of such wrongful neglect or refusal may be joined as defendants in the action; and if the death of any party be caused by any such wrongful act and neglect, the legal representatives of the deceased shall have such action therefor, and may recover not exceeding $5,000 damages therein, for the benefit of the widow of the deceased, if there be one, and if there be no widow, then for the benefit of the next of kin of the deceased. But no action under the provisions of this section shall be sustained which is not commenced within one year after the cause of action has accrued.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/1986

LikeLike

May 17, 2022 at 5:59 am Reply
Harley Borgais says:

MORE FROM http://www.NRDL.ORG/sources/ TO SORT OUT…
_______________________________________________
“These last few things on that site look promising…

“…

Identify And Publicly Expose Biased, Prejudiced And Corrupt Judges!

Early identification of a Bad Judge may be the single most important factor in your litigation. Once one notices a Judge is bad, you can practically guarantee it is only going to get worse. If it is too late to help in your own case, exposure helps prevent similar judicial abuse for subsequent litigants. Consider publicity, picketing and formal complaints like this info from Alaska Judicial Commission and these examples: Gembala Complaint, Caught.net and see this report on the Judicial Disciplinary Process. Judicial Disciplinary Process

Impeachment, Recall

See Petition For Impeachment

Legislative & Citizen Action To Limit Judicial Power And Discretion

See Jail4Judges

Suing A Judge Personally For Money Damages

Overcoming Judicial Immunity and Judicial Immunity Case Law

Federal 42 USC 1983 Civil Rights Lawsuits

** NEW ** Mitchell v. City of Henderson. See the Sample Title 42 Suit and the Instructions For Title 42 Suit

Suing A Judge For A Declaratory Judgment

See Article

…”

http://caught.net/prose/immunity.htm

caught.net/prose/suejcase.htm

”

————————————————–
————————————————–

“And I’ll need some cases to cite when I use the quote ‘make a reasonable and prudent person believe’…

http://law.justia.com/…/supreme-court/1968/8832-pr-0.html

law.justia.com/cases/arizona/supreme-court/1963/6763-0.html

law.justia.com/cases/arizona/supreme-court/1963/7035-0.html

…”

LikeLike

May 17, 2022 at 5:59 am Reply
Harley Borgais says:

MORE FROM http://www.NRDL.ORG/sources/ TO SORT OUT…
_______________________________________________

“These last few things on that site look promising…

“…
Identify And Publicly Expose Biased, Prejudiced And Corrupt Judges!

Early identification of a Bad Judge may be the single most important factor in your litigation. Once one notices a Judge is bad, you can practically guarantee it is only going to get worse. If it is too late to help in your own case, exposure helps prevent similar judicial abuse for subsequent litigants. Consider publicity, picketing and formal complaints like this info from Alaska Judicial Commission and these examples: Gembala Complaint, Caught.net and see this report on the Judicial Disciplinary Process. Judicial Disciplinary Process

Impeachment, Recall

See Petition For Impeachment

Legislative & Citizen Action To Limit Judicial Power And Discretion

See Jail4Judges

Suing A Judge Personally For Money Damages

Overcoming Judicial Immunity and Judicial Immunity Case Law

Federal 42 USC 1983 Civil Rights Lawsuits

** NEW ** Mitchell v. City of Henderson. See the Sample Title 42 Suit and the Instructions For Title 42 Suit

Suing A Judge For A Declaratory Judgment

See Article

…”

http://caught.net/prose/immunity.htm

caught.net/prose/suejcase.htm

”

______________________________________

“And I’ll need some cases to cite when I use the quote ‘make a reasonable and prudent person believe’…

http://law.justia.com/…/supreme-court/1968/8832-pr-0.html

law.justia.com/cases/arizona/supreme-court/1963/6763-0.html

law.justia.com/cases/arizona/supreme-court/1963/7035-0.html

…”

“…

Identify And Publicly Expose Biased, Prejudiced And Corrupt Judges!

Early identification of a Bad Judge may be the single most important factor in your litigation. Once one notices a Judge is bad, you can practically guarantee it is only going to get worse. If it is too late to help in your own case, exposure helps prevent similar judicial abuse for subsequent litigants. Consider publicity, picketing and formal complaints like this info from Alaska Judicial Commission and these examples: Gembala Complaint, Caught.net and see this report on the Judicial Disciplinary Process. Judicial Disciplinary Process

Impeachment, Recall

See Petition For Impeachment

Legislative & Citizen Action To Limit Judicial Power And Discretion

See Jail4Judges

Suing A Judge Personally For Money Damages

Overcoming Judicial Immunity and Judicial Immunity Case Law

Federal 42 USC 1983 Civil Rights Lawsuits

** NEW ** Mitchell v. City of Henderson. See the Sample Title 42 Suit and the Instructions For Title 42 Suit

Suing A Judge For A Declaratory Judgment

See Article

…”

http://caught.net/prose/immunity.htm

caught.net/prose/suejcase.htm

”

————————————————–
————————————————–

“And I’ll need some cases to cite when I use the quote ‘make a reasonable and prudent person believe’…

http://law.justia.com/…/supreme-court/1968/8832-pr-0.html

law.justia.com/cases/arizona/supreme-court/1963/6763-0.html

law.justia.com/cases/arizona/supreme-court/1963/7035-0.html

…”

LikeLike

May 17, 2022 at 6:08 am Reply
Harley Borgais says:

MORE FROM http://www.NRDL.ORG/sources/ TO SORT OUT…
____________________________________________________________

COURT CASES, QUOTES AND URLs TO SOURCES

Alright, so I am trying real quick to just confirm the quotes on the Law Basics doc, so here are the links to those…

1> Az Const., Art.2, Sec.22 ; http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/const/2/22.htm

2> Az. Criminal procedure, rule 7.2 ; http://www.arizonacrimelaws.com/7_2.htm

3> California v. San Pablo & Tulare R. Co., 149 U.S. 308 (1893) https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/149/308/case.html

4> Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S. 737 (1984) https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/468/737/case.html

5> Tyler v. Judges of Court of Registration, 179 U.S. 405 (1900) https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/179/405/case.html

6> http://www.leagle.com/decision/1991680567NE2d113_1672/JORGENSEN v. STATE (Vonda Jorgensen, 567 N.E. 2d 113, 1991, Indiana Appeals Ct.)

7> http://www.leagle.com/decision/19951131653NE2d478_11117/JOHNSON v. STATE (Andre Johnson, 653 N.E. 2d 478, 1995, Indiana Supreme Ct.)

8> https://casetext.com/case/johnson-v-state-6598 (Larry Johnson, 785 N.E. 2d 1134, Ind. Ct. App. 2003)

9> http://www.plainsite.org/dockets/1za0hymrv/indiana-supreme-court/jones-v-state/ (Morris Jones, 252 N.E. 2d 572, 1969; 253 Ind. 235, 1969, Indiana Supreme Ct.)

10> Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425 (1886) https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/118/425/case.html

11> Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 1 Cranch 137 137 (1803) https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/5/137/case.html

12> Connally v. General Construction Co., 269 U.S. 385 (1926) https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/269/385/case.html

13> SEWELL v. GEORGIA. , 435 U.S. 982 (1978) https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/435/982/case.html

14> Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408 U.S. 104 (1972) https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/408/104/case.html

15> Declaration of Independence http://usconstitution.net/declar.html

16> US Constitution http://usconstitution.net/const.html

17> 18 U.S. Code § 241 – Conspiracy against rights https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/241

18> 18 U.S. Code § 242 – Deprivation of rights under color of law https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/242

19> 42 U.S. Code § 1983 – Civil action for deprivation of rights https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/1983

20> 42 U.S. Code § 1985 – Conspiracy to interfere with civil rights https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/1985

21> 42 U.S. Code § 1986 – Action for neglect to prevent https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/1986

22> https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/civilrights/color_of_law

23> http://www.thelawdictionary.org/color-of-law/

24> Hartman v. Moore547 U.S. 250 (2006) https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/547/250/opinion.html

25> William Moore, Jr. v. Michael Hartman, No. 10-5334 (D.C. Cir. 2013) http://www.law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/cadc/10-5334/10-5334-2013-01-15.html

26> Ashcroft v. Iqbal556 U.S. 662 (2009) https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/556/662/

27> Pearson v. Callahan555 U.S. 223 (2009) https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/555/223/opinion.html

28> Brigham City v. Stuart547 U.S. 398 (2006) https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/547/398/

29> Burns v. Reed, No.500 U.S. 478 (1991) https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/500/478/case.html

30> Saucier v. Katz533 U.S. 194 (2001) https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/533/194/

31> http://openjurist.org/550/f2d/297/united-states-v-j-tweel ; United States of America, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Nicholas J. Tweel, Defendant-appellant, 550 F.2d 297 (5th Cir. 1977), U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit – 550 F.2d 297 (5th Cir. 1977), April 8, 1977 ; http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/550/297/309366/

32> Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 528 (1974) https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/415/528/case.html

33> Maine v. Thiboutot, 448 U.S. 1 (1980) https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/448/1/case.html

34> MERRITT v. HUNTER, 1978 OK 18, 575 P.2d 623, Case Number: 51844. Decided: 02/14/1978. Supreme Court of Oklahoma http://www.law.justia.com/cases/oklahoma/supreme-court/1978/47691.html

35> Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. 6 Wheat. 264 264 (1821) https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/19/264/case.html

36> 18 U.S. Code § 2381 – Treason https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2381

37> 18 U.S. Code § 2382 – Misprision of treason https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2382

38> https://casetext.com/case/huff-v-city-of-burbank-3 caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1552005.html

39> Joe Arpaio (Sheriff) cases: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Arpaio ; Phoenix New Times, LLC v. Arpaio, 177 P.3d 275 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2008) https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2561780/phoenix-new-times-llc-v-arpaio/authorities/ ; http://frontera.psstudiosdev.com/doj-v-arpaio/ ; Phoenix New Times, LLC v. Arpaio, 177 P.3d 275 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2008) This opinion cites 0 opinions ; https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2561780/phoenix-new-times-llc-v-arpaio/authorities/

40> United States v. Di Re, 332 U.S. 581 (1948) https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/332/581/case.html

41> Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 U.S. 2 Dall. 419 419 (1793) https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/2/419/case.html

42> Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356 (1886) https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/118/356/case.html

43> Luther v. Borden, 48 U.S. 7 How. 1 1 (1849) https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/48/1/case.html

44> ARS 38-231. Officers and employees required to take loyalty oath; form; classification; definition http://www.azleg.gov/ars/38/00231.htm

45> http://www.adversity.net/Terms_Definitions/TERMS/Nuremberg_Defense.htm

46> Blacks Law define ‘driver’, ‘drive’… http://thelawdictionary.org/driver/ ; Blacks, 4th Ed: http://www.nationallibertyalliance.org/files/docs/Books/Black's%20Law%204th%20edition,%201891.pdf

Right to Travel cases…

47> Davis v. Petrinovich, 112 Ala. 654 from Above Definition is cited here: https://casetext.com/case/hill-v-reaves

48> https://casetext.com/case/slusher-v-safety-coach-transit-co

49> Shuttlesworth v. City of Birmingham, 373 U.S. 262 (1963) https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/373/262/case.html

50> https://casetext.com/case/chicago-coach-co-v-city-of-chicago ( Supreme Court of Illinois.·337 Ill. 200 (Ill. 1929)CHICAGO COACH CO. V. CITY OF CHICAGO)

51> Thompson v. Smith, Chief of Police.Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia.155 Va. 367, 154 S.E. 579, 71 A.L.R. 604.Sept. 12, 1930. http://www.christianliberty.org/citings/va/thompson.html

RIGHT TO BEG…

52> http://caselaw.findlaw.com/az-court-of-appeals/1580052.html

53> http://arizonastatelawjournal.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/45-Ariz.-St.-L.J.-1227-2013.pdf

54> http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/13a0226p-06.pdf

55> http://www.clearinghouse.net/chDocs/public/FA-MI-0004-0004.pdf

56> https://casetext.com/case/speet-v-schuette-2

57> ARS 13-1501. Definitions http://www.azleg.state.az.us/ars/13/01501.htm

58> ARS 13-1502. Criminal trespass in the third degree; classification http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/ars/13/01502.htm&Title=13&DocType=ARS

59> U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit – 557 F.2d 1280 (9th Cir. 1977)July 13, 1977 http://www.law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/557/1280/272817/

60> Data Disc, Incorporated v. Systems Technology Associates, Inc., 557 F.2d 1280 (9th Cir. 1977)This opinion cites 42 opinions https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/346927/data-disc-incorporated-v-systems-technology-associ/authorities/

61> https://casetext.com/case/carmine-v-bowen

62> United States of America, Plaintiff-appellant, v. Horton R. Prudden, Defendant-appellee, 424 F.2d 1021 (5th Cir. 1970) http://www.law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/424/1021/385001/

63> http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/gilberts/default.htm (Cites Carmine v. Bowen, 64 A. 932, 1906)

64> https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_8 (Failure to Deny)

65> https://govt.westlaw.com/azrules/Document/NC0B1E540717411DAA16E8D4AC7636430?viewType=FullText&originationContext=documenttoc&transitionType=CategoryPageItem&contextData=%28sc.Default%29 (Arizona Civil Procedure rule 8)

66> 28 U.S. Code § 1746 – Unsworn declarations under penalty of perjury https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/1746

67> http://thelawdictionary.org/state-n/

68> http://www.dnb.com/

69> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coinage_Act_of_1792

70> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coinage_Act_of_1834

71> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold_Standard_Act (1900)

72> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coinage_Act_of_1965

73> https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/STATUTE-79/pdf/STATUTE-79-Pg254.pdf

74> 28 U.S. Code § 3002 – Definitions a https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/3002 >

WOW thats a lot more than I thought. And I have most of these memorized after 6 years of this work! And that still is not all of them. These are just for this one doc.

LikeLike

May 17, 2022 at 6:10 am Reply
Harley Borgais says:

MORE FROM http://www.NRDL.ORG/sources/ TO SORT OUT…
____________________________________________________________

LINKS TO SOURCES OF AUTHORITY, REFERENCES, FOR “LawDoc.4_NOTICE OF CLAIM OF DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS UNDER COLOR OF LAW, AND FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES OF LAW…”:

“SOURCES OF AUTHORITY”:

[1] “Effect of Failing to Deny. An allegation—other than one relating to the amount of damages—is admitted if a responsive pleading is required and the allegation is not denied. If a responsive pleading is not required, an allegation is considered denied or avoided.”

https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_8

[2] “42 U.S. Code § 1983. Civil action for deprivation of rights
Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer’s judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable. For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia.”
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/1983

[3]= The “Constitution for the United States of America”;

[a]= Preamble & Article 6:
“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

…
Article. VI.
…

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all 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, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

…”

[b]= Right to Own Property: See Amend.5, 14, and related U.S. Supreme Court Decisions.
[c]= Right to keep and bear arms: See Amend.2.

[d]= Right to free speech: See Amend.1, and related U.S. Supreme Court Decisions, includes offensive and insulting speech, right to solicit for donations for ones self;
[e]= Due Process of Law: See Amendments 4-7, esp. 5, 14, and related U.S. Supreme Court Decisions, such as:
“The essential elements of due process of law are notice and opportunity to defend”

Simon v. Craft, 182 U.S. 427 (1901), U.S. Supreme Court. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/182/427/

[f]= “probable cause”: See Amend.4, and related U.S. Supreme Court Decisions.
[g]= “In all criminal prosecutions”: See Amend.6.

“…

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment II

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

…

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment V

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 for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment VI

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 cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

Amendment VII

In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

…

AMENDMENT XIV

Passed by Congress June 13, 1866. Ratified July 9, 1868.

Note: Article I, section 2, of the Constitution was modified by section 2 of the 14th amendment.

Section 1.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

…”
U.S. Constitution:
https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/constitution-transcript
https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/bill-of-rights-transcript
https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/amendments-11-27
https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/constitution
https://www.archives.gov/files/founding-docs/

https://usconstitution.net/const.html

[4]=”Arizona Constitution …

ARTICLE II. DECLARATION OF RIGHTS

1. Fundamental principles; recurrence to

Section 1. A frequent recurrence to fundamental principles is essential to the security of individual rights and the perpetuity of free government.

2. Political power; purpose of government

Section 2. All political power is inherent in the people, and governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, and are established to protect and maintain individual rights.
…”

Click to access arizona_constitution.pdf

Also see: ARS 38-231. Officers and employees required to take loyalty oath; form; classification; definition. https://www.azleg.gov/ars/38/00231.htm

[5]=From the Declaration of Independence.:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.–Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

…”
Declaration of Independence:
https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/declaration
https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/declaration-transcript

[6]= Free Travel:
[a]= ‘Held… The right to travel is a part of the “liberty” of which a citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment. …emerging at least as early as early as the Magna Carta.’ (Kent v. Dulles, 357 U.S. 116, 1958, U.S. Supreme Court!); https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/357/116/

[b]= Such “A law… is unconstitutional, and a person faced with such a law may ignore it and exercise his First Amendment rights.” (Shuttlesworth v. City of Birmingham, 394 U.S. 147, 1969); https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/394/147/

[c]= ‘The right of a citizen to travel upon the public highways… is a common right…to use the ordinary and usual conveyances of the day…to operate an automobile thereon… It is not a mere privilege, like… moving a house… or transporting persons or property for hire along the street, which a city may permit or prohibit at will.’ (THOMPSON v. SMITH, Supreme Court of Virginia, Sept. 11, 1930); https://casetext.com/case/thompson-v-smith-24

[d]= ” . . [T]he right finds no explicit mention in the Constitution…. freedom to travel throughout the United States has long been recognized as a basic right under the Constitution.” (Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618, 1969);

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/394/618/; Other source online: http://courts.mrsc.org/washreports/098WashReport/098WashReport0657.htm

[e]= “These cases, though involving regulatory statutes or ordinances, all recognize and are based upon the fundamental ground that the sovereign state has plenary control of the streets and highways, and, in the exercise of its police power, may absolutely prohibit the use of the streets as a place for the prosecution of a private business for gain. They all recognise the fundamental distinction between

the ordinary right of a citizen to use the streets in the usual way and the use of the streets as a place of business or main instrumentality of a business for private gain. The former is a common right , the latter an extraordinary use. … Since the use of the streets by a common carrier in the prosecution of its business as such is not a right, but a mere license or privilege, it follows that the Legislature may prohibit such use entirely without impinging any provision either of the state or federal Constitution. “; Hadfield vs. Lundin, 98 Wash 657, 168 P. 516 (Washington Supreme Ct, Nov. 8, 1917). https://tinyurl.com/y46qe7ck (Shortened link to LexisNexis pg); http://courts.mrsc.org/washreports/098WashReport/098WashReport0657.htm ; https://www.facebook.com/groups/Freeornottobe.info/permalink/1656372481294875/ (FB pg where I saved links to this case)

[f]= All persons, in the absence of legislative edict, are vested with the right to the use of the streets and highways for travel from one place to another in connection with their business when such use is incidental to that business. This is an ordinary use of the streets and highways and is frequently characterized as an inherent or natural right. No person has an inherent or natural right, however, to make the streets or highways his place of business. Such a use is generally characterized as an extraordinary use. ( Green v. City of San Antonio, 178 S.W. (Tex.) 6; Hadfield v. [Lundin],98 Wn. 657; LeBlanc v. City of New Orleans, 138 La. 243; Ex parte Dickey, 85 S.E. (W.Va.) 781; Desser v. City of Wichita, 96 Kan. 820; Melconian v. City of Grand Rapids,218 Mich. 397.) The use of the streets for purely private gain may not be given, even by legislative authority, unless there be also in such use a public service.”

Supreme Court of Illinois.·337 Ill. 200 (Ill. 1929) CHICAGO COACH CO. V. CITY OF CHICAGO; https://casetext.com/case/chicago-coach-co-v-city-of-chicago

[7]= Fair Exchanges: See relevant Court Cases, “precedents”, “doctrine”, “the common law”, validity of “Income Tax” amendment and definition of “Income” -“profits or gains”, not “fair exchange” which is a “right” thus unlawful to “tax” or “license”;

[8]= Common Practices: An inherent natural “right” thus unlawful to “tax” or “license”;

[9]= Three Elements to a ‘Crime’: Actual or “probable” harm or threat of harm to another Humans equal individual rights, caused by intent or inexcusable neglect, and in violation of valid criminal “Law of the Land”;

[a]= “The “case or controversy” requirement of Art. III of the Constitution defines with respect to the Judicial Branch the idea of separation of powers on which the Federal Government is founded, and the Art. III doctrine of “standing” has a core constitutional component that a plaintiff must allege personal injury fairly traceable to the defendant’s allegedly unlawful conduct and likely to be redressed by the requested relief.” Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S. 737 (1984), U.S. Supreme Court. [ http://www.supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/468/737/case.html ] ;
[b]= ‘Body of Evidence’ of a ‘Crime’… “Corpus delicti consists of a showing of 1) the occurrence of the specific kind of injury and 2) someone’s criminal act as the cause of the injury.” Johnson v. State, 653 N.E.2d 478, 479 (1995), Supreme Court of Indiana. [www.leagle.com/decision/19951131653NE2d478_11117.xml/JOHNSON%20v.%20STATE ] ;
[c]= “the State must produce corroborating evidence of “corpus delecti,” showing that injury or harm constituting crime occurred and that injury or harm was caused by someone’s criminal activity.” Jorgensen v. State, 567 N.E.2d 113, 121 (1991), Court of Appeals of Indiana, 4th District. [www.leagle.com/decision/1991680567NE2d113_1672.xml/JORGENSEN%20v.%20STATE ] ;
[d]= “To establish the corpus delecti, independent evidence must be presented showing the occurrence of a specific kind of injury and that a criminal act was the cause of the injury.” Porter v. State, 391 N.E.2d 801, 808-809 (1979), Supreme Court of Indiana. [www.leagle.com/decision/19791192391NE2d801_11166.xml/PORTER%20v.%20STATE ] ;
[e]= “the duty of this Court, as of every judicial tribunal, is limited to determining rights of persons or of property, which are actually controverted in the particular case before it.” Tyler v. Judges of Court of Registration, 179 U.S. 405 (1900), and California v. San Pablo & Tulare R. Co., 149 U.S. 308 (1893), U.S. Supreme Court. [ http://www.supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/179/405/case.html ;

http://www.supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/149/308/case.html ]

[10]= Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law:
18 U.S. Code § 241 – Conspiracy against rights, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/241;
18 U.S. Code § 242 – Deprivation of rights under color of law, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/242;
U.S. Code Title 42. THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND WELFARE Chapter 21. CIVIL RIGHTS https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/chapter-21/subchapter-I

42 U.S. Code § 1983 – Civil action for deprivation of rights, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/1983;

42 U.S. Code § 1985 – Conspiracy to interfere with civil rights, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/1985;
42 U.S. Code § 1986 – Action for neglect to prevent, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/1986;
42 U.S. Code § 1988 – Proceedings in vindication of civil rights, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/1988;
“An unconstitutional act is not a law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; it affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation as inoperative as though it had never been passed.”
Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425 (1886), U.S. Supreme Court. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/118/425/

1964 Civil Rights Act Transcript – https://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=false&doc=97&page=transcript

[11]= “Valid” “Law of the Land”, “Void for vagueness doctrine”, U.S. Supreme Court: Any Legislation or Order people of avg. intelligence cannot comprehend for themselves, what it requires or prohibts of them, violates the essential elements of due process of law[a] which are notice and opportunity to defend ones-self, and is therefore “Void for Vagueness”, not enforceable; The U.S. Constitution and only those “Laws made in Pursuance thereof” but not “any Thing… to the Contrary” “shall be the supreme Law of the Land”, and “No State shall make or enforce… any Thing… to the Contrary”; “An unconstitutional act is not a law… It is in legal contemplation as inoperative as though it had never been passed.” US.Const., U.S.Supreme Court;
[a]= Simon v. Craft, 182 U.S. 427 (1901), U.S. Supreme Court: “The essential elements of due process of law are notice and opportunity to defend”. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/182/427/;

Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425 (1886), U.S. Supreme Court: “An unconstitutional act is not a law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; it affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation as inoperative as though it had never been passed.”
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/118/425/;

U.S. Constitution:
https://www.archives.gov/files/founding-docs/

https://usconstitution.net/const.html

Declaration of Independence:
https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/declaration
https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/declaration-transcript

AND SOME OTHER RELEVANT US CODES/LAWS/DEFINITIONS:
Need to add three elements to a crime/ corpus delicti cases, right to free travel cases, also no income tax cases, right to solicit for donations (az v boehler, etc.), ‘void for vagueness doctrine’ cases….what else?????

Also I think I/We will need some definitions of some words I’ve been hearing in recent discussions about this stuff….

“Section 1. A frequent recurrence to fundamental principles is essential to the security of individual rights and the perpetuity of free government.” Arizona State Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, Fundamental principles; recurrence to. https://www.azleg.gov/constitution/?article=2

ARS 38-231. Officers and employees required to take loyalty oath; form; classification; definition. https://www.azleg.gov/ars/38/00231.htm

BARRATRY | Definition of BARRATRY by Oxford Dictionary
noun · 1 archaic Fraud or gross negligence of a ship’s master or crew at the expense of its owners or users. · 2 Law · 3 historical Trade in the sale of Church or state …
https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/barratry

barratry – definition and meaning
barratry: The act or practice of bringing a groundless lawsuit or lawsuits.
https://www.wordnik.com/words/barratry
…
Peonage | servitude | Britannica
Peonage, form of involuntary servitude,
https://www.britannica.com/topic/peonage

LikeLike

May 17, 2022 at 6:13 am Reply
- harleyborgais says:
  
  Maybe I should add this one here (Hope the fb image link works here?):
  Rodrigues v. Ray Donavan, US Dept. of Labor(1984), codes and rules for govt authorities only (the Facebook post claims it says that, lets see?)…
  
  https://casetext.com/case/rodrigues-v-donovan
  https://www.casemine.com/judgement/us/5914c2aaadd7b049347c1191
  
  https://scontent.fphx1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.15752-9/419496917_378178961469144_4753743869574472925_n.jpg?_nc_cat=107&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=8cd0a2&_nc_ohc=eMlfp7i2vgMAX_Qe8j0&_nc_ht=scontent.fphx1-1.fna&oh=03_AdSCPFBd381Fp04Aiou-N5F5VUCAi3gz4imLjoUNbH14yA&oe=65D37478
  
  LikeLike
  
  January 20, 2024 at 6:25 pm Reply
Harley Borgais says:

MORE FROM http://www.NRDL.ORG/sources/ TO SORT OUT…
____________________________________________________________
AND THE PREVIOUS CONTENT WHICH I NEED TO REMOVE WHEN THE ABOVE IS GOOD ENOUGH…
____________________________________________________________________
1) The Purpose of Government: is essentially only to protect equal Human rights, the Liberty to pursue Happiness above all, and all “Public Servants” “shall be bound by oath or affirmation to support” “the supreme Law of the Land” and only those “Laws” “made in Pursuance thereof” but not “any Thing… to the Contrary”. Therefore to punish “We the People” who “ordain and establish” “the supreme Law of the Land” just for disobeying orders or legislation from our hired “Public Servants” is exactly the opposite of the very purpose of law and govt, and could be considered “treason”!;

2) Those basic Human rights include: the right to own land and other property, to free travel on public roads, to fair exchanges like payment for labor, to common practices like law and medicine, and to privacy against unreasonable search or seizure, and the Liberty to Pursue Happiness.;

3) Right to Privacy: Therefore “We the People” need only “state… true full name” or reserve “the right to remain silent” when police detain us, which can only be “lawful” when they do have “probable cause” to accuse us of an actual “crime” against another Human beings equal “individual rights”.;

4) “Probable cause”: Therefore there must be “probable” evidence of an actual “crime” against another Human beings equal “individual rights” for ALL “searches and seizures” and “criminal prosecutions”!;

5) Three Elements to a Crime: Therefore, for a “crime” to exist there must be some actual or “probable” threat or harm to another Human beings equal “individual rights” (aka “Corpus Delicti”), caused by “intent or inexcusable neglect” of the accused “defendant(s)” (aka “Mens Rea”), and violation of valid criminal “Law of the Land” where the “crime” is alleged to have happened.;

6) “Colorable Law”: Therefore it is a “deprivation of rights under color of law” to “tax” or “license” or “infringe” these basic natural Human rights in any way, which is an actual “crime” and a civil Liability to even “neglect to prevent” for “public servants” here in the USA!;
___________________________
… Therefore this means basically all HARMLESS civil and criminal “offenses” are not enforceable, as you can SEE me demonstrate in these videos with police, and the public court records of cases I got dismissed, like the last one I posted here many times.

…Now I need to go over this and the sources of authority and the current notice and make one template that will work better that what I have so far, and then finish some civil suits and/or writs of mandamus and criminal complaints and whatever else I need as I go along here. Hopefully I have all the “sources of authority” I need now.

AND HERE ARE LINKS TO A LOT MORE INFO I NEED TO GET ORGANIZED INTO THESE PAGES HERE:

THIS IS A TEMPORARY FILE FOR PUTTING TOGETHER ‘SOURCES OF AUTHORITY’ FOR http://www.nrdl.org/fundamental_principles.html …Which I plan to get from the “LawDocs” “For Police Encounters” and “Justice System, Basic Rules” and the new “Notice of Claim of Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law”, and a TON more I have collected on these pages:

…^THERE^ and in vTHISv post too..

____________________
And an older one from Oct.30, 2019:

____________________
NOTICE OF CLAIM OF ‘DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS UNDER COLOR OF LAW’ IN ‘OVER 90 PERCENT’ OF WHAT POLICE DO &’RIGHT TO FREE TRAVEL’ https://www.facebook.com/notes/1067625483674632/
____________________
July 13, 2021
Ok here is how far I’ve got now, the .pdf of the nearly completed draft, of this “DECLARATION OF FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES OF LAW” AND “NOTICE OF CLAIM OF DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS UNDER COLOR OF LAW”:
https://www.facebook.com/groups/FreedomFilesGroup/posts/4251343418221541/
__________________________________________________________________________________
ALSO there is a TON of evidence for whats really in these mRNA injections and what they are really doing to people and how this Corona Virus “Pandemic” was actually a lie, a “Scandal”, “the worst crime against Humanity in History”!!!
http://www.freeornotobe.wordpress.com
__________________________________________________________________________________

Here are a bunch of pages I was looking at for sources from the US Supreme Court saying how an “Affidavit” IS “evidence” enough for “probable cause” for arrests and “criminal prosecution” and is NOT just “hearsay”, so my police SHOULD have arrested that guy and SHOULD have given me a proper criminal complaint signed “under…perjury” and SHOULD be recording or buffering the video from the highway cameras which WOULD Have recorded these two guys wrecking my bicycle (on 2.15.2022. So I was searching for the word “affidavit” in these pages, and I think the Jones and Terri and Hiibel and Rugendorf cases seemed like some of the best US Supr.Ct. Cases for this point):
https://casetext.com/case/state-v-alger-10

Click to access 4-s263588-rpi-people-answer-brief-merits-122220.pdf

https://www.sccourts.org/opinions/displayOpinion.cfm?caseNo=3631
https://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment4/annotation04.html (Supreme Court Interpretation of Probable Cause)
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/462/213 (ILLINOIS, Petitioner v. Lance GATES et ux. 462 U.S. 213)
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/362/257/ (Jones v. United States, 362 U.S. 257 (1960))
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/376/528/ (Rugendorf v. United States, 376 U.S. 528 (1964))
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/378/108/ (Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U.S. 108 (1964))

https://law.justia.com/cases/california/court-of-appeal/2d/153/767.html (California Case Law › Cal. App. 2d › Volume 153 › Arata v. Superior Court)
https://law.justia.com/cases/california/supreme-court/3d/42/951.html (California Case Law › Cal. 3d › Volume 42 › Mills v. Superior Court (1986))

Case Western Reserve Law ReviewCase Western Reserve Law Review
Volume 21 Issue 1 Article 9
1969
Recent Decisions: Constitutional Law – Search and Seizure -Recent Decisions: Constitutional Law – Search and Seizure – Hearsay as Grounds for Probable Cause [Hearsay as Grounds for Probable Cause [Spinelli v. United StatesSpinelli v. United States, 393 U.S. 410 (1969)]393 U.S. 410 (1969)]
https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2773&context=caselrev

HERE IS THE OLD CONTENT FOR THIS PAGE, for now until I have this HUGE amount of info organized better…

I plan to make a summary of the ‘fundamental principles’ of ‘the supreme Law of the Land’ and ‘the commmon law’ here:

And I have already summarized these ‘fundamental principles’ many times in some of these ‘LawDocs’ here on http://www.NRDL.org and http://www.GovernPublicServants.com, and on my Facebook pages like ‘FundamentalPrinciples’ in that top ‘Pinned Post’, and I plan to use that page to share these in the future (and I keep getting better and wording them shorter and clearer).

NOW ON THIS PAGE I NEED TO PUT TOGETHER A PROPOSAL FOR POTENTIAL DONORS AND CONGRESS TO FUND A PROJECT TO ELIMINATE EVERYTHING “TO THE CONTRARY” OF OUR “SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND” AND FIX ALL THE “ABUSES AND USURPATIONS” OF OUR CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC, so to start I’ll put a link to the Facebook Post I made for this Fundraiser here:
Here is where I posted on Facebook my plans for this Fundrasier, HOW I plan to ‘establish Justice… and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity’, with all the donations I receive:
https://www.facebook.com/donate/1245511165788693/1245511215788688/

LikeLike

May 17, 2022 at 6:15 am Reply
Harley Borgais says:

THIS CONTENT IS FROM A FACEBOOK POST WITH LOTS OF LINKS TO LEGAL INFO AND RESOURCES TO PUT INTO THESE WEBPAGES, HERE:

^There^ is a lot more content there I need to go over and put into these webpages when I get back to this point.
___________________________________________________
FYI SOME LINKS TO INFO/SOURCES/FORMS/ETC ON RECUSAL OF JUDGES AND ‘EX PARTE COMMUNICATION’ BETWEEN JUDGES AND PARTIES TO THEIR CASES (When there are “Conflicts of Interest” so a judge cant make a fair and ‘neutral’ decision etc, and one on “Ex Parte Communications”, between judge and either party to a case, forbidden conflict of interest)…

https://www.americanbar.org/groups/professional_responsibility/publications/model_code_of_judicial_conduct/model_code_of_judicial_conduct_canon_2/rule2_9expartecommunications/

“Motion to Recuse or Disqualify a Judge in Federal Court”…
https://content.next.westlaw.com/practical-law/document/Ic72b62106d5311e598dc8b09b4f043e0/Motion-to-Recuse-or-Disqualify-a-Judge-in-Federal-Court?contextData=%28sc.Default%29&transitionType=Default&firstPage=true&viewType=FullText

ARTICLE: “…whether a district court abused its discretion in denying a recusal motion before it denied habeas relief…”
https://casetext.com/statute/united-states-code/title-28-judiciary-and-judicial-procedure/part-i-organization-of-courts/chapter-21-general-provisions-applicable-to-courts-and-judges/section-455-disqualification-of-justice-judge-or-magistrate-judge/analysis?sort=relevance&citingPage=1&sortCiting=date-ascending

ARTICLE: “Recusal:
Analysis of Case Law Under
28 U.S.C. §§ 455 & 144”

Click to access Recusal.pdf

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/recuse
^That^ definition page mentions this case…
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/08-22.ZS.html#content

https://law.jrank.org/pages/9703/Recuse.html

https://www.justice.gov/jm/jm-1-5000-judicial-disqualification

“28 U.S. Code § 455 – Disqualification of justice, judge, or magistrate judge”:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/455

Click to access USCODE-2010-title28-partI-chap21-sec455.pdf

“ABA Groups – Center for Professional Responsibility – Publications Model Code of Judicial Conduct – Model Code of Judicial Conduct: Canon 2 – Rule 2.11: Disqualification ….”
https://www.americanbar.org/groups/professional_responsibility/publications/model_code_of_judicial_conduct/model_code_of_judicial_conduct_canon_2/rule2_11disqualification/

https://www.uscourts.gov/judges-judgeships/code-conduct-united-states-judges

LikeLike

May 17, 2022 at 6:20 am Reply
Hairstyles says:

Thanks for helping me to attain new ideas about pc’s. I also contain the belief that certain of the best ways to help keep your notebook in best condition is to use a hard plastic-type material case, or perhaps shell, that fits over the top of the computer. Most of these protective gear usually are model unique since they are manufactured to fit perfectly on the natural casing. You can buy them directly from owner, or via third party places if they are intended for your notebook, however only a few laptop will have a cover on the market. Just as before, thanks for your guidelines.

LikeLiked by 1 person

May 17, 2022 at 8:20 am Reply
Hairstyles says:

I have to show my affection for your kindness supporting people that actually need guidance on your topic. Your real commitment to getting the message along was certainly important and has continuously encouraged folks like me to realize their pursuits. This interesting tips and hints indicates so much a person like me and even more to my mates. Thanks a lot; from everyone of us.

LikeLiked by 1 person

May 18, 2022 at 12:57 pm Reply
Harley Borgais says:

THIS MIGHT BE USEFUL HERE TOO…
___________________________________________________
Atomic Court Watchers
SILVER BULLET PLAYBOOK on TRIAL!! NEW LAWSUIT!!

Friends!! Romans!! Fight fans!! Many folks make motions to vacate orders based on FRAUD. Well, here, TMP brings a full-blown lawsuit based on FRAUD.

Defendant is another family court sluggo. She is the architect of demonstrably false allegations against TMP. You may be thinking that Defendant has “immunity” because she’s an attorney just doing her job. Saw-reee! No immunity to TMP’s lawsuit!!
____________________________________________________
FROM HERE:

LikeLike

May 18, 2022 at 11:30 pm Reply
Pingback: How to actually stop corruption in government now… | freeornottobe
christianvictoria55gmailcom says:

Before an arrest warrant is issued, the Fourth Amendment requires a truthful factual showing in the affidavit used to establish probable cause. 9 Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154, 165-66 (1978)(“When the Fourth Amendment demands a factual showing sufficient to compromise ‘probable cause,’ the obvious assumption is that there will be a truthful showing”)

LikeLiked by 1 person

May 20, 2022 at 4:32 am Reply
christianvictoria55gmailcom says:

Courts have found that a non-arresting official “instigated or caused” an arrest when the official intentionally provided false information to a law enforcement officer that led to an arrest, see Buckner v. Shetterley, 621 F. Supp. 2d 1300, 1303 (M.D. Ga. 2008), or when the official was the sole source of information that gave rise to probable cause before an arrest, see Jordan, 487 F.3d at 1353-54.

LikeLiked by 1 person

May 20, 2022 at 4:33 am Reply
christianvictoria55gmailcom says:

Affidavit used to establish probable cause.29 Because “the Constitution prohibits an officer from making perjurious or recklessly false statements in support of a warrant,” a complaint that an officer knowingly filed a false affidavit to secure an arrest warrant states a claim under section 1983 or Bivens”. And, “where an officer knows, or has reason to know, that he has materially misled a magistrate on the basis for a finding of probable cause, … the shield of qualified immunity is lost. Bivens. Wilson v. Russo, 212 F.3d 781, 786-87 (3d Cir. 2000)

LikeLiked by 1 person

May 20, 2022 at 4:33 am Reply
Fashion Styles says:

Thank you for the sensible critique. Me and my neighbor were just preparing to do some research about this. We got a grab a book from our local library but I think I learned more from this post. I’m very glad to see such wonderful info being shared freely out there.

LikeLiked by 1 person

May 21, 2022 at 5:34 am Reply
Pingback: EVIDENCE OF CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY | freeornottobe
Harley Borgais says:

TO MAKE SURE I SHOULD HAVE ALL THESE…
1) Right to release from jail pending criminal conviction, unless probable evidence you’re a danger to another person…

2) Purpose of bail, only to assure appearance when probable evidence exists it is necessary to do so (instead of release on “own recognizance” when there is no such evidence you wont go to court as directed)…

3) Basic list of parental rights, limits of courts to interfere or “infringe” in the rights to privacy of a family, requirement of “probable cause” for all “searches and seizures” and “criminal prosecutions”, purpose of “family courts” ONLY to protect “the childs best interests” and equal individual Human rights above all per US and State Constitutions…

4) Need to find Criminal Procedure and State Constitution sections for these in US laws, and Az and NH and Tx State laws (and likely others for other clients soon)…

https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/constitution
https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/declaration-transcript
https://usconstitution.net/const.html

Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure…
https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcrmp
https://www.uscourts.gov/forms/law-enforcement-grand-jury-and-prosecution-forms/criminal-complaint
https://law.justia.com/codes/
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/chapter-21

https://www.azleg.gov/constitution/
https://www.azcourts.gov/rules/Recent-Amendments/Rules-of-Criminal-Procedure

Click to access TxConst.pdf

https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/
CHAPTER 17. BAIL…
https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/CR/htm/CR.17.htm

https://www.nh.gov/glance/constitution.htm
https://law.justia.com/codes/new-hampshire/2020/title-lxii/

LikeLike

May 28, 2022 at 2:32 am Reply
Harley Borgais says:

Although it’s bullshit to begin with, here’s a bonus… “absolute immunity” only applies to “judicial acts”. Not “ministerial acts”. I have the case law. When an act is mandatory (a.k.a. “ministerial”), and the judicial officer is negligent in its performance, they are absolutely “liable” because they have no immunity. You’re welcome…

Sov Ameri Ammlung v. Platt, 224 PA Sup. Ct. 47, 302 A.2d 491 (1973). 3rd Circuit US Court of Appeals, reaffirmed in Ex. Rel. Fear v. Rundle, 506 F.2d 331 (1973), cert denied 421 US 1012 (1975). You’re welcome. ❤

LikeLike

June 3, 2022 at 5:47 am Reply
Harley Borgais says:

Did I put this one here yet? Sources for parental / parents rights….
“THE SUPREME COURT RULED THAT THERE IS A PRESUMPTION THAT A PARENT ACTS IN THEIR CHILDREN’S BEST INTERESTS NOT CHILD PROTECTION (CPS) OR YOUR STATE”
https://www.facebook.com/groups/998615700183975/posts/5196901823688654/
…
“The United States Supreme Court has stated: “There is a presumption that parents act in their children’s best Interests, Parham v. J. R., 442 U. S. 584, 602; there is normally no reason or compelling interest for the State to Inject itself into the private realm of the family to further question a parents’ ability to make the best decisions egarding their children. Reno v. Flores, 507 U. S. 292, 304. The state may not interfere in child rearing decisions when a parent is available. Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000).”

…more…

“In light of the holding of Guaranty Trust Company vs. Henwood, 307 U.S. 247 (1939), a Federal US court of appeals ruled on Title 31 USC 5118. As of October 27, 1977, legal tender for discharge of debt is no longer required. That is because legal tender is not in circulation at par with promises to pay credit. Requirement of repayment of debt is against Public Policy, since legal tender was not loaned [nor in circulation] they can not demand payment in any [particular] form of coin or currency or legal tender and repayment [or payment] need only be made in equivalent kind; A negotiable instrument”

Links to those cases too…
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/442/586/
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/507/292/
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/530/57/
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/530/57

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/307/247/

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/31/5118

LikeLike

June 9, 2022 at 7:33 am Reply
harleyborgais says:

NOT SURE WHERE TO SAVE THIS JUST YET BUT HERE…
“Persons dealing with the government are charged with knowing government statutes and regulations, and they assume the risk that government agents may exceed their authority and provide misinformation. See Federal Crop Insurance Corp. v. Merrill, 332 U.S. 380, 384-85, 68 S.Ct. 1, 3-4, 92 L.Ed. 10 (1947).”
Lavin v. Marsh, 644 F.2d 1378, 1383 (9th Cir. 1981)
https://casetext.com/case/lavin-v-marsh

https://casetext.com/case/federal-crop-ins-corp-v-merrill#p384

Federal Crop Ins. Corp v. Merrill, 332 U.S. 380 (1947)
“A mere failure to inform or assist does not justify application of equitable estoppel. See Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Hibi, 414 U.S. at 8-9, 94 S.Ct. at 21-22. ”
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/332/380/

“Estoppel is a judicial device in common law legal systems whereby a court may prevent or “estop” a person from making assertions or from going back on his or her word; the person being sanctioned is “estopped”. Estoppel may prevent someone from bringing a particular claim. Wikipedia”

FYI Its best to quote the US Supreme Court, SO CAN I GET HELP FROM PEOPLE WHO HAVE FREE TIME TO READ THESE CASES AND SHARE WITH EVERYONE HERE THE MOST USEFUL QUOTES FOR DEFENDING OUR RIGHTS AND CLEARLY EXPLAINING THESE “FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES” OF “THE COMMON LAW” AND “the supreme Law of the Land” PLEASE?

Here is where I am putting all these sources in these lists…

“SOURCES OF AUTHORITY” BY TOPIC / SUBJECT OF LAW:

http://www.NRDL.org/sources/
http://www.NRDL.org/howtosuegovt/
http://www.NRDL.org/notice_template/
http://www.NRDL.org/lawdocs/
_________
FROM HERE:

LikeLike

July 4, 2022 at 1:24 am Reply
harleyborgais says:

Here are several sources on limits to immunity and other topics (I think, need to review), here:

…These ones…

Roska v. Peterson, 328 F.3d 1230 10Cir.2003

Tennenbaum v. Williams, 193 F.3d 581, 2d Cir. 1999

Turner v. Houseman, Docket: 07-6108, 10th Cir. 2008

Wallis v. Spencer, 202 F.3d 1126, 9th Cir. 2000

Walsh v. Erie County Dep. of Job & Family Servs, 240 F. Supp.2d 731, N.D. Ohio 2003

Weller v. Dept of Soc. Servs, 901 F.2d, 4th Cir. 1990

Whisman v. Rinehart, 119 F.3d 1303, 8th cir. 1997

Wooley v. City of Baton Rouge, 211 F.3d 913, 5th cir. 2000

LikeLike

July 4, 2022 at 1:32 am Reply
harleyborgais says:

Re: “Treason to the Constitution”…

Can I get help finding this video I once saw from this guy many years ago called “Season of Treason”? It was a white guy with I think big poofy black hair as I recall, and I think with a large dry erase white board writing up what is going on with the corruption in our Govt and society here in the US, which is REALLY getting bad now! But I cant find the right video. I think a movie was made with that title and that seems to get in the way of finding this video from some guy here in the US I think (It might have been a canadian guy I think but I cant remember his name).

Btw:
https://www.bitchute.com/video/o1NrBNALTAFf/
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2381
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/part-I/chapter-115
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/3596
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/19/264/ (…See: “would be treason”)
https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/constitution

LikeLike

July 4, 2022 at 7:07 pm Reply
harleyborgais says:

Side topic, the fundamental causes of evil in human and animal minds, or ‘seven deadly sins’ as I think they are called (Except the so called ‘seven deadly sins’ other people have come up with so far I think are not quite correct yet), 7 basic animal survival instincts, which are the root causes of evil in Humans, which are “The Beast” inside us all I think, and there are 7 opposite “Holy Virtues” or Human Virtues which we can use to counter them and “subdue the beast” and stop society and govt from destroying us and the earth…
…Opposite of Envy, which word, revere, glorify, honor, cherish, maybe the last one to cherish, is the counter-force to envy???

https://thesaurus.yourdictionary.com/appreciate
https://thesaurus.yourdictionary.com/idolize
https://thesaurus.yourdictionary.com/pride
https://thesaurus.yourdictionary.com/Chastity
https://thesaurus.yourdictionary.com/humbleness

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_deadly_sins also known as “cardinal sins”

Maybe appreciation, admiration, are better words?

I think they are:
1) Sloth, vs Diligence,
2) Wrath, vs Forgiveness,
3) Cowardice, vs Bravery,
4) Greed, vs Generosity,
5) Lust, vs Chastity (a form of self control like all of these really are),
6) Hubris or Vanity (Not Pride as that can be good in balance), vs Humbleness (whats a better word?), Modesty or Humility, and,
7) Envy, vs Appreciation.

^THOSE^ I think are the “fundamental principles” of the “Seven Heads” of the “Beast from the Sea” which I think is 3 branches of Govt. and 7 major intl industries which are forming one tyrannical system to dominate the world right now!

And I think 2 party politics is how they divide and conquer us, because of lack of knowledge of these fundamental principles of law here:
http://www.GovernPublicServants.com
http://www.NRDL.org

I think once enough people learn these “fundamental principles” of “How We Exist”, I think we can make all this corruption in Society and Govt no longer possible in the future!

But we must learn Gods Law to do that! So I need to read the Bible a lot more now too, so I am as familiar with that as the Law of the Land I am studying now!

FROM HERE:

I was also thinking about considering Apathy vs Empathy, instead of Envy vs Appreciation, which is the more “fundamental” CAUSE of the other????

LikeLike

November 8, 2022 at 1:51 am Reply
- harleyborgais says:
  
  Oh and I was going to add how the F Electron Orbital Configuration inside Atoms which is made of three figure 8 orbital patterns on three perpendicular axis or dimensions, with 2 sets of 3 or 6+6+6=18 electron, is I am quite sure the “Mark of the Beast”, see…
  
  https://winter.group.shef.ac.uk/orbitron/atomic_orbitals/7f/index.html
  
  https://www.breakingatom.com/learn-the-periodic-table/advanced-electron-configuration
  
  http://vbteachingandlearning.blogspot.com/2017/10/electron-configurations.html
  
  https://energywavetheory.com/atoms/orbital-shapes/
  
  https://terpconnect.umd.edu/~wbreslyn/chemistry/electron-configurations/configurationFluorine.html
  
  http://vbteachingandlearning.blogspot.com/2017/10/electron-configurations.html
  
  …I am quite sure it is the key to the internal structure of matter, and chemical properties, and also to controlling nanotechnology with EM waves, and to nuclear technologies like Bombs and Fusion and how UFOs move like they do, and how ancient ‘aliens’ or demons and angels could do such ‘miracles’ I think also, once you know this math and physics I have been putting together here:
  
  Also I am quite sure these mRNA injections are “The Mark of the Beast” because I have seen enough evidence to see they “are bioweapons” (Dr. Flemming) and “the worst crime against Humanity in history” (Dr. Fuellmich), “not a vaccine”, were not tested on Humans even, and I have seen hours of microscopic evidence of what is really in them, enough to prosecute people still advertising and giving these mRNA Injections! (Like Frys Market on TV and Terros Health here in Tempe where I recently showed them this video below and explained how they could face life in prison or death by lethal injection for aiding these crimes against Humanity, SERIOUSLY!…)…
  
  https://rumble.com/v1ecssx-from-the-hague.-international-trials-day-one-crimes-against-humanity.html
  
  Posted here:
  
  LikeLike
  
  November 12, 2022 at 3:40 am Reply
  - harleyborgais says:
    
    I plan to put all this together asap on http://www.HowWeExist.com but saving here for now to work on it…
    
    This pattern in their symbol, is the closest match to what I believe is “The Mark of the Beast” I have seen yet, this pattern is of three perpendicular figure 8 orbits with two pairs of three spinning vortices or eddy currents of just pressure and motion, in 3 dimensions…
    
    I think God is trying to tell us that is the pattern by which “Solid Matter” is created, and it also is the same “Image” by which God exists, and that is how we are “Created in His Image”… And the “Dimension” of “Time” is not really a different “Dimension” or “Axis” but just motion itself, and the reason we have one Constant “Light Speed” is because any “Energy” or Pressure (“Electrical Charge”) upon these 3 Dimensions which moves at a different speed will “disappear” and not remain “Harmonic” with THIS Pattern of Energy, which is “How We Exist”, and the cause of “Relativity” (“The Genesis of Relativity” itself, the origin of God, is this Pattern, forming from random pressure and motion, and becoming “Conscious” FIRST, long before creating “Solid Matter” and “The Universe”!).
    
    So that pattern is how Matter Exists, how “Time” as we know it exists, and I was thinking just now, WHERE IS “God” RELATIVE TO US….ALL AROUND US…
    
    If I am right, Humans are 5D and God 7D which I think the Bible does tell us as I recall (I plan to read the whole thing again ASAP so I can figure out more now that I reached this point with math and govt and current events and so on), and I think this is what that means…
    
    We can “See” these 3 “Dimensions” because of pressure and motion in a harmonic, resonant pattern of spinning pressure or eddy currents we call “Particles”, in THAT Pattern (6x6x6 or 2×3^3 “Geometrically”, due to “Triangles” being necessary to create “Stable Structures”, like in buildings and bicycles and everything, atomic etc.)…So Pressure and Motion and Light Speed which we call “Time” (This makes us “Corporeal” beings because we can only see one “Point in Time” due to THIS “Mark of the Beast”), Pressure and Motion are two “Inner Products” in “Euclidean Geometry”, not different Dimensions or Axis or Directions but properties within these visible 3Ds (what those “Tensor Equations” represent in Einsteins Equations I am learning now btw, which is why I am figuring this stuff out now too!)…
    
    SO WHERE IS GOD??? ALL AROUND US, IN THESE SAME 3 “Dimensions”, EXCEPT A MUCH LARGER “SCALE”…
    
    So I think “God” exists in 5 Dimensions and by that pattern of spinning pressure, but what I think is equivalent to “waters above” or waves of “energy” or rather Pressure within these 3 “Dimensions”…that makes up Gods Thoughts basically, is at the scale, of pressure between “Galaxies”, which are equivalent to “Atoms” inside Gods “Brain”, which is the entire Physical Universe!
    
    So the “Large Scale Structure of the Universe” has fluctuations like inside our Atmosphere or Oceans, seemingly random, in all directions, and the movements between Galaxies, I think are the additional 2 more “Dimensions” “Above” us, so “God” in total, “The Omega” (meaning “all things”), is really 3 Physical Dimensions according to that pattern like we are, like atoms and particles are, except we are an inward reflection, like a thought, of 3D waves of energy, brought into existence “with a word” WITHIN Gods Mind basically. So by doing that God created an additional 2 “virtual dimensions” or “inner products” of pressure and motion, which we call “Light”, whereas the “waters above” or Gods thoughts exist at “The Large Scale Structure of the Universe” between Galaxies, and Clusters of Galaxies (I think we have another name for that I cant remember).
    
    SO THAT WHAT I THINK ABOUT: “How We Exist, The Genesis of Relativity”, now that I have learned Newtons and Maxwells and finally now learning Einsteins Equations, and finding they are lacking the actual cause of matter and time and light speed and gravity, which I believe I do know… That harmonic pattern causes all forces to be slightly more attractive than repulsive at all scales (Strong internal Atomic Nuclear Bonding Force between Protons and Neutrons, and Electromagnetic which is the same pattern but another scale projected outside protons 1836x larger I think, so same “charge” or pressure but different apparent “Mass” and size)…and that Large Scale EFFECT is the Cause of “Gravitation” between “Massive Bodies” at scales between and somewhat inside atoms and especially between planets and galaxies.
    
    I am figuring out some of this as I go right now too!
    
    Oh, more… Regarding “Time”… we see only one “point in time” because of how we are composed of that 3D Pattern that makes Matter Exist…BUT NOT GOD, because He can observe all energies in the entire Universe at any “time” He Desires since the entire “Universe” is effectively Gods Brain, and the Gravitational Waves between galaxies and planets and stars is effectively Gods thoughts or “Spirit” I think, and “Light Speed” is a limitation upon only us because of that nature of “Corporeal Existence”, “Space-Time” as we experience it, due to God Creating the “Strong Atomic Nuclear Bonding Force” and “Electro-Magnetism” and therefore “Matter”, and as an effect of that resonance and that pattern also “Gravity” at larger scales outside the Strong force (which is the center point, inside protons, THAT is where this pattern really exists and THAT is what God created, and “Electrons” are a projection from protons, inverted inside a proton to make a neutron, just opposite pressures or charges spinning in that 3D pattern).
    
    So when I finish learning more math I can show the direct relationship between matter and each of these forces, the size and mass and energy levels and patterns of motion we see in our atom smashers and microscopes and other tests, and show how we are related to God directly now I think, and use math and physics to prove God MUST Logically exist! (And now I know about the Trivium and Aristotles work on Rhetoric to persuade people which I need to learn. That is how I think these intl criminals learn to manipulate people btw too).
    
    Oh and I think the shape of our hands is a reflection of these 5 dimensions and how they fit together too.
    
    LikeLike
    
    November 13, 2022 at 12:45 am
- harleyborgais says:
  
  I THINK I GOT THESE RIGHT NOW…ROOT CAUSES AND SOLUTIONS TO SUFFERING… 7 FUNDAMENTAL ASPECTS OF THE HUMAN AND ANIMAL MIND WHICH CAUSE US TO BE DESTRUCTIVE TO THE EARTH, SEVEN (7) FUNDAMENTAL CAUSES OF ‘EVIL’ DESTRUCTIVE THOUGHTS AND ACTIONS…
  I THINK IT IS Apathy Vs Empathy INSTEAD of Envy as one of the “fundamental” causes (in our minds) of “evil” destructive things we do but could prevent with the “Human Virtues” like Appreciation or Gratitude I think is the more accurate “fundamental principle” here…and this article about Aristotles ideas on this topic helped me figure out some of this just now… (I Think he was one of the smartest people in history!)
  https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/human-virtues-vices-products-pramod-mankar/
  
  And I think “Prudence” might be a better term than “Diligence”, for the counter-force to Sloth or Laziness, which I think is the root cause of all of these “sins” really…
  
  https://www.thesaurus.com/browse/prudence
  
  https://thesaurus.yourdictionary.com/gratitude
  https://thesaurus.yourdictionary.com/appreciation
  
  https://www.thesaurus.com/browse/moderation
  
  https://www.thesaurus.com/browse/indulgence
  
  https://www.merriam-webster.com/thesaurus/overindulgence
  
  And after seeing “indulgence” and realizing that is a “fundamental” aspect of perhaps all these “sins”, too much or excessively allowing these “animal instincts”, is one of the ROOT CAUSES of “Evil”, and I was thinking “Lust” is something not “fundamental” because we can “Lust” after lots of things, and Self-Control is a “fundamental” “Human Virtue” and solution or check and balance to all of these “Sins” also, so…
  
  Instead of Lust it should be over-indulgence and Diligence or Prudence or Self-Control as the Human Virtue to counter that excessive and therefore destructive “evil” behavior…
  
  And instead of Envy it should be Apathy (which leads to or allows a lot of “Evil” things), as opposed to Empathy (including love and other words).
  
  SO NOW I think they are:
  1) Sloth, vs Diligence (Effort, Hard work!),
  2) Over-Indulgence, vs Self-Control (Or Prudence),
  3) Apathy vs Empathy (including love),
  4) Hubris or Vanity (Not Pride as that can be good in balance), vs Modesty or Humility,
  5) Wrath, vs Forgiveness,
  6) Greed, vs Generosity, and,
  7) Cowardice, vs Bravery.
  
  POSTED HERE:
  
  LikeLike
  
  November 12, 2022 at 3:42 am Reply
- harleyborgais says:
  
  This looks promising…
  https://www.itnj.org/itnj/itnj-treaty/
  
  I plan to work with them on prosecuting corruption in society, though I am curious why they use that symbol which I have figured is the mark of the beast because it is the pattern electrons take inside atoms, the pattern by which pressure and motion becomes solid matter (6x6x6 or 2×3^3).
  
  LikeLike
  
  November 13, 2022 at 12:47 am Reply
- harleyborgais says:
  
  I was just saying elsewhere: I plan to join with lots of other groups like that ITNJ now to spread this knowledge and initiate class actions around the world and hopefully stop this international “Beast” before it initiates a global Nuclear War, which I suspect the “military industrial complex” may have more Nukes hidden away than the US and Russia put together possibly, and might choose to use them to “rain fire” upon the entire Earth, Like God told us would happen!
  https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation%201&version=NKJV
  
  Also btw, that Mark of the Beast is the key to nano and advanced EM Tech, like how these UFOs work I am quite sure now that I’m learning einsteins equations and maxwells and what Michio Kaku says about what we know about UFOs now (these evil people are the ones I believe funding that research secretly, to escape earth hopefully if they can I think)…
  
  And I believe it is also the key to STOPPING This mRNA NanoTechnology, as well as a Nuclear Missile (Or thousands of them fired at the whole world all at once as I suspect has been planned for decades by the military industrial complex).
  
  LikeLike
  
  November 13, 2022 at 1:36 am Reply
harleyborgais says:

CONTENT I NEED TO ORGANIZE BETTER..,
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/human-virtues-vices-products-pramod-mankar/
“As per Aristotle’s Philosophy, happiness is the highest good and the end at which all our activities ultimately aim. He defines moral virtue as a disposition to behave in the right manner and as a mean between extremes of ‘deficiency’ and ‘excess’. …”

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/prudence

LikeLike

November 11, 2022 at 2:37 am Reply
- harleyborgais says:
  
  Rhetoric (/ˈrɛtərɪk/)[note 1] is the art of persuasion, which along with grammar and logic (or dialectic – see Martianus Capella) is one of the three ancient arts of discourse. Rhetoric aims to study the techniques writers or speakers utilize to inform, persuade, or motivate particular audiences in specific situations.[5] Aristotle defines rhetoric as “the faculty of observing in any given case the available means of persuasion” and since mastery of the art was necessary for victory in a case at law, for passage of proposals in the assembly, or for fame as a speaker in civic ceremonies, he calls it “a combination of the science of logic and of the ethical branch of politics”.[6] Rhetoric typically provides heuristics for understanding, discovering, and developing arguments for particular situations, such as Aristotle’s three persuasive audience appeals: logos, pathos, and ethos. The five canons of rhetoric or phases of developing a persuasive speech were first codified in classical Rome: invention, arrangement, style, memory, and delivery.
  …
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhetoric
  
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhetoric#Five_Canons_of_Rhetoric
  
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trivium
  
  LikeLike
  
  November 12, 2022 at 4:40 am Reply
- harleyborgais says:
  
  I’m reading Hale v Henkel and learning a lot today…
  …I just learned grand juries can consider any evidence, they hand indictments to court and/or prosecutor (who can hand evidence to grand jury to consider, and they call witnesses, but dont need to tell what questions will be about, just who will be questioning them)..corporations dont get the right to not self incriminate, and when there is reason why that criminality wont apply like a statute granting immunity when you testify, that does not apply to corporations, or when that possible incrimination is from some other legal jurisdiction like another State where laws are different (so you can be forced to self incriminate in that way as far as I can tell so far).
  You sent
  And courts empanel grand jurors, but I believe we the people can do that ourselves, put together criminal complaints, and had to the court to prosecute, or refuse…and if they refuse without good reason, we can prosecute them. And I am learning how now!
  
  Btw I am looking now at the Wikipedia page for that Hale v Henkel case and realizing its a better way to start, find the summary and if its been over-ruled and some quotes hopefully first, then read through the case for more.
  
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hale_v._Henkel
  
  https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/201/43/
  
  I plan to read a fitzpatrick case and grable case (those are the first names, of plaintiffs bringing charges), on 14th amed.(Sec.5) duty of States to protect equal human rights and thus can be sued in US Courts for failing that duty.
  
  LikeLike
  
  November 13, 2022 at 11:39 pm Reply
harleyborgais says:

THIS IS A CALL TO ALL PATRIOTS, I NEED HELP RIGHT NOW TO PROSECUTE ALL 50 STATES AT ONCE, IN POSSIBLY THE WORLDS MOST SIGNIFICANT “CLASS ACTION” IN HISTORY!!!! WHO IS WITH ME???? As I was just typing in this message to contact “MassOutRage.com”…

If you would like to assist, I am helping as a paralegal a client in N.H. (I’m in Az) to sue Family Court judges for violating due process rights by giving full custody of his son to his mother without prosecuting dad for an actual crime against the child, and we seem to be doing well, but down to less than 30 days to correct our complaint. I am learning how to do this as I go. So far they have not disputed our actual claims but only claimed immunity (judicial and state sovereignty) and that we failed to ‘state a claim for which relief can be granted’ (that one is correct, I need to improve it), but I have found ways to overcome all their claims so far (like Fitzpatrick and Grable US Supreme Court Cases and http://www.NRDL.org/notice_template/), but this is too much for me alone I think, and these “fundamental principles” I am putting together in these “LawDocs” (www.NRDL.org/lawdocs/) can change our entire court system in the whole country, so this should be a ‘class action’, something I just cant do myself!

…CASE DESCRIPTION…

Mostly described above, NH Family Court taking fathers rights by giving full custody to mother without probable evidence of actual crime by father against child and due process like trial by jury and proof beyond reasonable doubt and so on, due to a ‘restraining order’ given based only upon opinions and hearsay. Past the 60 days to respond with this federal lawsuit filed against a couple NH Family Court Judges and the Judicial Conduct Committee (for failing to intervene and do duty), but they got extension, challenged only on judicial immunity, State sovereign immunity (both I can defeat), failure to state claim upon which relief can be granted (the problem we need to repair here), and lack of jurisdiction (same problem really, need to clearly state…, meet NH US Dist.Ct. Local Rule 7.1c as US Fed.Judge just told us this week).

So since these “fundamental principles” of law in the notice of claim we are using for this so far (Here: http://www.NRDL.org/notice_template/) make “over 90% of what we do” unconstitutional according to police I have shared these “LawDocs” with, I have got many local cases dismissed and made police stop enforcing many things (which you can see on http://www.GovernPublicServants.com ), and now I need help from people in every State to make this a Class Action and lets use this case to repair our entire Countries Judicial System!
_______________________

SO NOW I NEED TO SPREAD THIS KNOWLEDGE TO ALL 50 STATES AND FIND PEOPLE ABLE AND WILLING (BRAVE AND DILIGENT ENOUGH) TO HELP ME PROSECUTE OUR ENTIRE JUDICIAL SYSTEM AND STOP MOST OR ALL OF THE CORRUPTION IN OUR ENTIRE COUNTRY ONCE AND FOR ALL TIME!

So this is a call to everyone, since someone pointed out to me this should be a ‘class action’ and I have been thinking about it…so I’m calling out to the whole country, we need people in all 50 States to join a “Class Action” on this lawsuit and prosecute our entire Countries Legal System for everything it is doing “to the Contrary” of these “fundamental principles” of “Law”! Here:
http://www.NRDL.org/notice_template/
http://www.NRDL.org/lawdocs/
http://www.NRDL.org/sources/
http://www.NRDL.org/howtosuegovt/
http://www.FreeOrNotToBe.org
http://www.GovernPublicServants.com
http://www.freeornotobe.wordpress.com

[Below in comments I have links to resources, laws, court forms, instructions, sources of authority, things we need and can use, to get people in all 50 States to sue our entire government for everything contrary to these basic principles of law!]

Here I will add the wordpress page (where we wont be censored and accounts are free) where I am collecting lists of patriotic groups we should contact and get to all work together to defend our rights!…

List of Patriotic Groups and Organizations in the U.S. working to defend equal Human rights

I should add http://www.StopWorldControl.com and http://www.MassOutRage.com and http://www.Caught.net and some others like http://www.Caught.net recently too.

POSTED HERE:

LikeLike

November 12, 2022 at 4:00 am Reply
harleyborgais says:

Wow, finally some People are investigating the crimes of the Biden family and others connected to them, like Clintons and Obama, Chinese Communist Party, and many more!….

LikeLike

November 20, 2022 at 7:19 pm Reply