The most disgusting part is that it did not have to be this way if the people in this nation had stood up and defended their rights the first time government tried to deprive them through under color of law, those damnable �victimless� crimes.

At any rate, the writer thought that perhaps others would be interested in many of his findings, especially those concerning officials and prosecutors who have the responsibility of preventing unconstitutional acts against citizens. After all, there is the fact that all of the Constitution and its amendments pertaining to due process and securing the rights of citizens have been violated, along with state constitutional violations, and at least 20 state statutes.

First of all, let�s get this straight. Article III (Section 2), Article IV (Section 2, Clause I), Article VI (Clauses 2 and 3), and the 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, and 9th Amendments of the Constitution for the United States of America have the purpose of providing every citizen defense against oppressive measures by the government and to assure justice is by the people and law is that established by the Constitution.

When one then adds the 13th Amendment (prohibits involuntary servitude) and the 14th Amendment (assures all citizens are treated equally under the law), it is abundantly clear that treason is committed daily by multitudes of public officials. People are denied due process, are treated unequally before the law, tried in Admiralty/military courts, ruled over by despots known as judges, and other acts of treason.

There are a myriad of reasons to understand the facts imported by the Constitution and the Amendments which are part of it (Article V). As people have ignored their constitutional rights of due process, we have been increasingly subjected to other than justice in the courts. We have because of complacency, laziness, fear, ignorance, faith in attorneys (or lack of), and the belief justice will prevail, been gradually subjected to the tyranny of Admiralty/maritime law with common law (constitutional law) essentially denied.

For example, in my case of 114 violations based on an unconstitutional, and, therefore, null and void, ordinance, I was told I did not have the right to a trial by jury by the judge and the person impersonating a prosecuting attorney. I could not believe I did not have the right of a trial by jury since the 6th and 7th Amendments secure this right along with the 3rd Article of the Constitution.

So, after my first two summons were received, I poured through the state statutes hour after hour, day after day, trying to discover how any court could get by the Constitution. And, lo and behold, section 479.130 of the Revised Statutes of Missouri (RSMo), states specifically that any person charged with a city ordinance violation may demand a trial by jury and only waives the right by not demanding the right at least 5 days prior to the actual hearing. Funny, but this law supported the Constitution while the judge and fictitious prosecutor did not.

Not only does it state the power to demand a trial by jury, but Section 517.091 requires that the jury be composed of twelve qualified jurors unless both parties agree otherwise. Then, in the case of a municipal ordinance, Section 479.150 requires the municipality to pay the costs unless a person after demanding a trial by juror after a jury is selected then waives his right to a jury trial.

The latter is important because people the writer has talked to believe that it is the responsibility of the person demanding a jury trial to pay the costs. That may be the case in certain types of cases but not prosecution of city ordinance violations. After all, the Constitution doesn�t state the right of a trial by jury is available if the accused can afford it.

The writer will wager that any state has basically the same laws. The writer will also wager that prosecutors, judges, and attorneys will not tell of the rights as it is to their benefit not to. You see, courts, including those legal begals who make their livings from the plights of others (lawyers), do not want a jury as a jury has a power no court or attorney can overcome - the power of jury nullification.

A couple of concepts should be clear here. First, since a jury has the power to ignore any orders by the judge or prosecutor to convict, courts and the like fear them. The jurists may make a decision based on the law of the Constitution rather than on the written law as created by attorneys, prosecutors and judges. In fact, a jury can make a decision based on nothing more than gut feelings as to what is right and wrong.

Supporters of legal law (what has been made by man) believe jurists are too stupid and uninformed to make valid decisions. Judges and prosecutors fear jurists will let criminals go if they feel the accused actions were right even though a victimless crime law (or even a true crime with a victim) says his actions were wrong.

But, their goal of these officials is to convict even at the expense of deprivation of rights of those they prosecute, not to necessarily administer justice. To put this simply, these attackers against the rights of Man do not want constitutional law in the court rooms. It takes away their assumed power of their god-like, know-more-than-anyone-else attitude.

Besides this, it is well known there are many financial incentives for convicting since judges, prosecutors, and arresting officers share in the booty. Often, the booty is taken and split up without a person even being arrested, let alone convicted. One can find many horror stories concerning this, especially in property seizures done through the so-called "war on drugs".

Speaking of uninformed, neither the judge nor the prosecutor (more on the prosecutor below) knew of the law concerning the right to demand a trial by jury in a city ordinance case. The first time the writer went to court, the judge denied it but this was just an appearance before the court to set a hearing in the case of pleading not guilty.

At the time, the writer could have argued and possibly faced contempt of court charges. But, the writer also knew that he had until 5 days before the date the actual hearing was set to submit a formal demand for a trial by jury through a motion (also in RSMo Section 517.091). So, rather than risk the wrath of a thwarted judge during his first encounter, the writer filed the demand as required by statute seven days prior to his scheduled hearing date.

In his second appearance, the writer found the municipal court clerk had not submitted any of his motions to the court and that the judge had either ignored the motions or never read them. The writer suspected this was occurring so he carried a copy of every motion previously submitted to court with him so he could present them to the judge in person.

Once again, the writer demanded a trial by jury and submitted the motion. The judge was totally unaware of any motions having been submitted by the writer and was, by his reaction, shocked that any person accused of a city ordinance violation had the right to demand a trial by jury.

Talk about ignorance of the law. But, it doesn�t get better - it gets far worse. Check your own state statutes and, ten to one, there is a similar statute protecting your Article III, 6th, and 7th Amendment rights secured by the Constitution.

Take the issuance of a summons. The writer would wager that nearly every summons has been issued illegally in regards to city ordinances. RSMo Section 506.130 states specifically that the summons be signed by the clerk, be under the seal of the court, and list the plaintiff�s attorney, if any. Of course, these requirements were not met on any summons issued to date to the writer.

The writer will be doing everything he can to make public the lack of knowledge and the unconstitutionality of city ordinance relating to private property. He is currently working on his complaint to the federal courts concerning violations of 42 U.S.C., Sections 1981, 1982, 1983, and 1985, which will be a suit of proportions large enough to get attention from the city officials, if not the media.

In filing my complaint with the federal court system, the writer intended on basing part of his action on the fact that the city attorney acting as the legal advisor to the city officials and then as prosecutor in his case created a case of conflicting interests. As advisor, the city attorney has had to have been the person advising the city officials on every letter and affidavit sent the city officials prior to, and after, the issuance of summons concerning alleged violations.

Then, acting as prosecutor, it would be his intent to assure conviction based on his advice. In fact, he would be harder pushed to convict in order to protect his own professional abilitites, regardless of what any law or the applicable constitutions might state, especially if he framed the ordinance (one of any city attorney�s duties). This just seemed logical.

Then, the writer got help in this matter. The writer has prayed for help on many occasions during his 16 month battle against tyranny. Once again, help seemed to jump out at him. As he searched for a statute concerning another point in his case, suddenly RSMo Section 98.340 caught his attention. As he read it, he thoughy of how many people had been fraudulently convicted of city ordinance violations in this one small city alone and how much in revenue has been generated for the city through extortion and other racketeering actions.

You see, this statute states a city attorney is prohibited from being the prosecutor in prosecutions of violations of municipal ordinances. Not saying it was divine help but the writer had spent hundreds of hours searching the statutes and never noticed the number and abbreviated title of this statute previously and, suddenly, it stood out like a sore thumb. Anyway, the writer gave proper thanks and is sure it was divine intervention.

Why is this important? The statute exists because of the potential of a city attorney acting as prosecutor to do exactly as the city attorney has in my case. In the last court appearance, the writer was given copies of 108 additional charges made by the city attorney posing as a prosecuting attorney. Think this doesn�t show the city attorney�s intent to get a prosecution regardless of constitutional law and in spite of over 40 pages of documentation through motions that the ordinance is null and void.

During the second court appearance, the judge already knew the prosecutor would be submitting a motion for a continuance so that he (the prosecutor) could investigate the possibility of amending the charges. The prosecutor knew the judge would approve his motion since the prosecutor gave the writer a copy of the additional charges - BEFORE the motion was handed to the judge and without any discussion. Collusion? Possibly. Convictable? Possibly.

What really tees this writer off is that every motion properly submitted by him has been to date ignored even though the law requries certain time requirements for the court to rule (ten days in the case of a motion to dismiss). But, the judge being merely notified (and, again, not made aware of the writer�s motions) was enough for the prosecutor to know the judge would approve his motion. Hence, my third trial date. And, all for an unconstitutional city ordinance.

Does this mean the judge and city attorney in his facade as prosecutor have conspired against the writer? That remains to be seen. It is possible, though, as we all well know of the agreements made between attorneys, prosecutors, and judges. The next court will possibly tell.

Many cities are managed by city managers which by one statute gives the power of enforcing city ordinances to the city manager. As a city official, the city manager is required to take and subscribe to an oath of office as are all government officials and agents thereof (Article VI, Clause 3 of the Constitution and RSMo Section 78.610).

Another statute, however, gives the power of enforcing the law only to the mayor, sort of the same lines as the president being the executive office with the duty of enforcing the laws. These are conflicting statutes. It has been resolved, theoretically, by a 1969 ruling in Missouri which concluded the responsibility for enforcing law given to a city manager is unconstitutional.

Anyway, get this. Prosecutors, city attorneys, and city managers in my community have not subscribed to an oath of office. The Constitution of the United States, the Constitution of the State of Missouri, and applicable statutes of the State of Missouri require each of these officials to subscribe to an oath of office and upholding the Constitution and, hence, the rights of all citizens. But, these officials have not done so.

Any official who has not subscribed finds his office vacated by law. Plus, any act taken is not valid since the official was never officially and legally allowed to begin any duties. Lord, what a hole of defeat these people should be in.

Never, ever forget the Oath of Office in which every government official and assistant is required to take and subscribe to. It is a contract to uphold the Constitution and to protect the rights of citizens. It is the basis for the fact that one then has legal recourse against any official not fulfilling his duties. Before he may even begin, though, he must agree to protect the constitutional rights of those the official or agent represents.

By signing to the oath, any city official not defending the rights of the citizens he represents may be sued by any individual (and possibly prosecuted) and does not have immunity under the �clean hands� doctrine as many believe. To assure knowledge of laws is made available to officials, inform them in writing with proper documentation and either hand deliver it (get a dated receipt) or have it delivered by certified mail.

Any actions against rights are done under color of law and 42 U.S.C., Section 1983 (deprivation of rights), comes into play. If any discussion between two or more officials result in additional actions against a citizen when based on an under color of law ordinance, the 42 U.S.C., Section 1985 (conspiracy to deprive one of his rights) can be the basis of a lawsuit or possibly prosecution of the officials involved. Although most officials do not know this, it is not a requirement for conspiracy for one person to even know the other person (Title 18).

In the case of the writer, it has been made quite clear to him that a conspiracy to deprive him of his rights, including due process of law, rights of private property, and others, has been going on. It has been done with malice and forethought and involves the city attorney, the city council (made aware of the situation and the unconstitutional aspects of any ordinance applied to private property by the writer), mayor, and city manager.

Now, do these People want the people to know the laws? Not likely as it takes away from their assumed power over people.

Do these people want the People to know that the only ordinances that may be made by city officials are those concerning public property, including streets, alleys, parks, and public buildings? If you had a Hitler complex, would you?

Do these people want the People to know that police powers are only those concerning traffic, parking, and public areas? Yes, you did read this right. Police do not have the responsibility of investigating crimes, responding to 911, and all the the other powers we relate to them. They are just peace officers with very limited power which is concerned primarily with traffic control and minimal peace keeping.

Do these people want the People to know they have a right to a trial by jury in any case, whether it is civil, criminal, or merely an infraction of a city ordinance? No, since the judge and others weren�t even aware of the right being supported by state statute.

Therefore, if any wish to start re-establishing common law as established through the blood of millions of people, then start demanding a trial by jury in every case, however minor it may seem. Gordon said that �If the issue is important enough for the government to prosecute, the issue is important enough for the individual to defend.�

The writer doesn�t know who Gordon is but he does know this is a very wise piece of advice that can be quite useful in correcting the injustices of the judicial system, and, hence, ridding ourselves of all unconstitutional laws.

The writer had decided to demand a jury trial since it would mean that 12 more people would become aware of laws applying to their private property. Plus, he believes for the most part that a citizen is part of the problem when he allows a admiralty-like court (just a judge) to determine his fate.

As alluded to, the decision made when waiving the right of a trial by jury is to essentially place one�s self in the position of being tried in an Admiralty/military court and not under common law established by the Constitution. The judge takes the place of the captain of a ship with plenary control over you. Somehow, that seems wrong to this writer and believe it has lent greatly to the injustices now being applied to citizens who have, in reality, committed no crime.

To restore common law and justice, it is imperative to demand common law and constitutionally secured rights. After 6000 years of common law and the rigthts of man being recognized, fought for, and documented, there is no way the Constitution is outdated except by those intent on perverting the God-given rights we all have. This is most easily began on the local level and can be done by any citizen standing up for himself and his fellow citizens.

City officials are nothing more than people elected to office with specified duties. None of these duties involve removing the rights of citizens of a community but, instead, to protect those rights against any and all infringements.

Control is simple. If any violate the rights of any citizen, then get them out of office. This may be done lawfully and legally through education and, at least on local levels, the vote.

Not that the writer is anything exceptional for taking action against his city despots as there are thousands defending their rights pro se, pro per, or sui juris (defending or speaking for themselves) but he is only one person. He just happens to be fed up with injustice and the ignorance he has found flowing through the various levels of government and in the judicial and law enforcement systems. All these entities were established to protect our rights and, by gosh, that is what they must be foreced to do.

These pro se People are doing it in tax courts, traffic courts, other federal courts, and municipal courts. Hopefully, this writer will fare as well. If not, important information will be gained that will be passed on.

Winning against tyranny entails the involvement of citizens in spite of believing they are only one and perceive themselves as powerless. The choice is simply whether one believes strongly enough in rights to stand up for them - or to bow down to those in position to enforce and create additional tyrannical laws.

Once again, we see that maintaining a Republic boils down to individual choice - to live as the master or to merely exist in servitude.