The year perhaps that the sleeping Giant will awaken
=======================================================
The Silver Lining to Infringement on Rights by Local Yocals
Doesn�t sound like much, does it? But, if you think that, you do not have any understanding of the precepts this nation was founded on. You see, this small city I live in has an ordinance called the �junk vehicle� law. Since I have cars parked in my yard that aren�t covered or with a license plate on one of them, they have been deemed �junk� and a hazard to other people. At least that is what must be surmised since only laws concerning public safety can be made against a citizen's private property.
I could have covered the the alleged defenders of public safety. I could have put them in my large shed and took up the room I need to pursue my hobby of re-doing cars and pick-ups. That is what most people would do. And, why would they do it? Why, for the simple reason they FEAR government and they FEAR courts. At least, that is what many have told me.
By telling me this, they told me the government controls the people, that the people are subservient to the government, not the government subservient to them. But, aren�t We, the People, the sovereigns in this nation? Don�t we control the government? Isn�t that what our founders intended?
In my hundreds of hours researching this one idea, volumes of information were read stating the people are sovereign, that it is the individuals in this nation who determine the course of this nation and not a few elected people who swear to uphold the Constitution and the rights secured through this document.
State statutes (for Missouri) were read and applicable portions of the constitutions of the united States of America and the State of Missouri were related to the statutes and, then, to the city ordinance. Dozens of cases were read supporting the sovereignty of the people.
The obligations of courts were read both in the documents and in rulings determining that courts must, that is MUST, uphold the constitutional and common law rights of the people of this nation.
The ordinance as written is null and void by completely ignoring the idea of liberty and the relation to private property to liberty. The two are inseparable and one virtually depends on the other in defining what this nation is all about. I could give cites concerning this (and will if any request them) but a bit a logic is all that is necessary.
If any level of government can dictate to you laws concerning your private property, what is there that it doesn�t control? Private property means that it is not under public control except if a hazard is presented. Just as an added note, in the case of the junk law here in a town I did love but am growing to despise, the autos would not be junk if licensed. Now I ask you - why would a license plate deem the autos to then be safe? Or, not 'junk'? Or, if covered, why would they then be safe?
At any rate, because the law is repugnant to the Constitution, it causes it to be a major issue, not a minor inconvenience. It has been a major inconvenience to me as it has tied up the last three weeks of my time. But, one must also look at the silver lining every cloud is supposed to have.
So, I have done so and found the Silver Lining, if one may call it that. It forced me to do a great deal of research in a short time (in terms of days) and to analyze what I read as related to my case and, indeed, to all cases. One interesting fact I have found is the four components there must be for a crime to exist. One component is there must be a 'victim', an injured party. Thus, no victimless "crime" is a crime except on the part of the government entity enforcing the void law
My biggest concern is that judges and all courts within the land, meaning the 50 States, are supposed to be under common law and make decisions based on the Constitution of the united States of America and whether or not one sovereign has violated or infringed upon the rights of another sovereign. That is what law is about, not all these arbitrarily determined laws made up by well meaning, but usually, officials ignorant of the jurisdictions established by the Constitution.
Quite possibly the most important axiom one can learn is that the only crime one can commit, the only law or ordinance one can violate, is based on the rights of one sovereign being infringed upon by another. However, when it comes to the statutes written by states and cities, one finds that the sovereign�s rights are infringed upon by the governments making and enforcing unconstitutional laws since they lack a victim. As such, the governments are committing crime after crime everytime they arrest or cite any cititzen based on an unconstitutional null and void law. They, the governments, infringe on rights and this is a crime against the individual.
It doesn�t matter how well-intentioned a law is - if it violates rights, it is null and void and must not be considered otherwise.
It doesn�t matter whether one, or a million or tens of millions, agrees or not with the statute or ordinance, government still hasn�t any power to punish or dictate to another how he may express his rights. Rights are not made by government, nor the Constitution.
Privileges are made by governments but not by the Constitution. Privileges always must include some form of an infringement on rights if applied to the sovereign who is exercising his rights and are, therefore, null and void when concerned with a citizen of the 50 States. It doesn�t matter whether it is a federal or state law. All are based on �color of law� in which those in government write and enforce laws in which there aren�t any victims.
For example, do you hurt any other person if you sit at home and smoke a joint? Or, as far as that goes, in public if you do nothing to harm another person? If you don�t harm another, all you are doing is expressing your right to introduce a drug to your body.
Government and its reporting agencies, the media, can state all they want that drugs cause crime and deaths and must be controlled. But, if that is the case, why is tobacco still legal since it kills between 450,000 to 600,000 Americans each year? Isn�t that a crime? Isn�t tobacco a killer?
Or, in the case of firearms. Since I have a few, what government has the power to tell me what or how many I may own? In fact, what power does the government have to tell me that when I buy a weapon, it must be registered with the government. Is that power along with other firearm regulation that is given in the Constitution? If not, then all gun laws are null and void.
Or, direct tax, whether it be on your earnings or your property? Since when does government have the power to directly tax either of these, to tax in any other form than indirect? If it isn�t in the Constitution, government doesn�t have the power to do so.
See, owning property is a right - you don�t have to pay anyone because you own property. Rights can�t be taxed, only privileges may. But, privileges are null and void in regards to citizens of the 50 States. There is not any action done on a private basis in the pursuit of happiness that can be controlled - only the results can, as in a citizen violating the rights of another.
For example, a citizen can start any business he wishes. It is not under control of government, and, hence, a privilege, and requires no permit slip of any kind. Doing so is only limited by one�s talent, desire, and finances. If it must be licensed, it means the government is controlling who may or may not start a business and does so only for the fee, not for any other reason.
But, by applying for the license, you submit that the government does have the power to control what you may or may not do. However, in the case of some types of businesses, toxic fumes may be given off or just fumes causing a strong, noxious odor. The fumes could affect the rights of others to breath clean air and, therefore, air standards could be established. Starting a business is a right but controls assuring the safety and rights of others could be legislated. But, is it lawful to do so?
Remember, there is no crime until the rights of one have been violated by another. If another does not file a complaint, then has his rights been violated? Does the government have the power to step in? Or is it exercising arbitrary rule?
What I am getting at is our rights are the self-evident rights given by our Creator and are not to be taken away, circumvented, or even slightly altered by others. Then if one citizen feels his rights have been infringed upon by another, it is his responsibility, not the state's or the feds' responsibility to sue for redress.
The Constitution secures the rights of the People from the control of government and establishes jurisdiction in matters of the powers the people have given government. And it does not give jurisdiction of any level of government, whether federal, or state, or any political subdivision of a state, over the rights of the individual.
So, for me, the deprivation of rights by the local government did have a Silver Lining, that being that I was forced to study extensively constitutional law and the statutes for the State of Missouri, along with dozens of court decisions, and several titles of the United States Code. A great deal of knowledge has been gained, knowledge I hope to convey to others or to induce them to research for themselves in the written word and not respond to hearsay anyone can gain from attorneys and the like.
When charges are filed against the officials, do I expect any action against them?
No!!
And, why not?
Because those in government protect those in government.
