Currently 37+ topics/subjects, 9+ legal definitions. (Especially see #38 for instructions for non-lawyers in courts) ________________________
SUBJECTS/TOPICS(37+): …noting comment #s 45-109 are on comment-page-1, 110-380 on page-2, 381-505 on page-3, 511-582 on page-4 which starts with that Table of Contents Comment I need to edit more. *=”…NEED SOURCES FOR THIS…”)… FIRST A SHORT LIST WITH JUST TITLES AND LINKS, THEN AGAIN WITH BRIEF EXPLANATIONS, AND LINKS TO COMMENTS, ONE FOR EACH SUBJECT/TOPIC WITH LINKS AND QUOTES TO “SOURCES OF AUTHORITY” FOR EACH SUBJECT OF LAW HERE…
________________________________________________________________________ So I still need References for Ten(10) #’s here… 12,13,14,17,18,25,26,27,28,29 (if not more). ________________________________________________________________________
LEGAL DEFINITIONS(9): Misprision, probable, reasonable, conjecture, Defamation, exigent circumstances, Logical Fallacies, the common law, original jurisdiction.
___________________________ 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"!; "We the People" of "the United States of America", "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", to protect and maintain equal individual Human rights, and "A frequent recurrence to fundamental principles is essential to the security of individual rights, and the perpetuity of free government." “We the People of the United States… ordain and establish” “the supreme Law of the Land”, “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” (Preamble, U.S. Const.), and in Arizona’s Constitution, ONLY: “to protect and maintain individual rights”, and “A frequent recurrence to fundamental principles is essential to the security of individual rights and the perpetuity of free government.”! (Az. Const., Art.2, Sec.1&2) ‘any Thing’ more or less than ‘protect… individual rights’ violates the 1st Duty to the Constitution! The very purpose of "Government" and "Law" it to "secure the Blessings of Liberty" "In the interests of Justice"!
2) "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"!; FOR ALL 'searches and seizures', 'the supreme Law of the Land' REQUIRES 'probable' evidence I have caused some type of ‘harm’ to another human or their ‘equal’ ‘individual rights’, or it is a ‘color of law abuse’ and/or ‘deprivation of rights under color of law’, rights to privacy and security from ‘unreasonable searches and seizures’, because in the U.S. we need ONLY ‘state…true full name’ when stopped by police and ONLY when there IS ‘probable’ evidence enough to make a ‘reasonable and prudent’ person suspect the accused of a ‘crime’! “Police power exercised without probable cause is arbitrary. To say that the police … may detain them upon reasonable suspicion is to say, in reality, that the police may both accost and detain citizens at their whim.”, “To give the police greater power than a magistrate is to take a long step down the totalitarian path.”. “One has an undoubted right to resist an unlawful arrest, and courts will uphold the right of resistance in proper cases.”. “There is no war between the Constitution and common sense.” Warrantless Search and Seizure/arrest is 'Lawful' ONLY when: there ARE 'exigent' circumstances like is an 'imminent' 'clear and present danger' to protect from, or when the time to get a warrant would likely cause loss of evidence or suspect [Huff v. City of Burbank, 2011, 9th Cir. US App.Ct.] 11) "One has an undoubted right to resist an unlawful arrest, and courts will uphold the right of resistance in proper cases." [US v DiRe, (1948), US S.Ct.. Over-rules all State courts/legislation. No 'trend' in State courts can 'abrogate' this 'undoubted right' declared by the highest court.]
3) 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.; PROOF THERE MUST BE 'INJURY OR HARM' FOR 'REASONABLE CAUSE' TO ACCUSE YOU OF A 'CRIME'... 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. [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., [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. [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., [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. [supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/179/405/case.html ; supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/149/308/case.html] A ‘CRIME’ REQUIRES ALL 3 ‘ELEMENTS’: The U.S. Supreme Court REQUIRES ALL THREE ‘elements’ for a 'crime' to exist (& ‘Jurisdiction’ in a criminal court): 1) that 'INJURY OR HARM' to some other human or their ‘equal’ ‘individual rights’ (aka 'Corpus Delicti'), was more likely than not ('probable' cause’)… 2) CAUSED BY 'intent or inexcusable neglect' ('Mens Rea') of the accused suspect, AND… 3) Acts ‘to the Contrary’ of VALID (See 5) 'clearly established’ criminal ‘law' (aka 'Actus Reus' - Title 18 in US, 13 in Az Laws). To punish ONLY for disobeying orders or legislation from ‘The State’ is ’TREASON’, ‘to the Contrary’ of THE PURPOSE of ‘The supreme Law’, ‘to…establish Justice… and secure the Blessings of Liberty’, and is therefore ‘color of law abuse’ to ‘make or enforce’! AND, ‘‘…to decline the exercise of jurisdiction which is given [or] 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) supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/19/264/case.html …‘even with a confession’ a ‘conviction cannot be sustained’ without evidence ‘injury or harm’ (Loss, Threat, Endangerment, etc.) actually occurred! [US Supreme Court, California vs San Pablo and Tulare Railroad Co., Allen v Wright, Tyler v Judges of Court of Registration, and others on 'Corpus Delicti' Doctrine]. Without evidence I have threatened or harmed another Human, against their will and not in reasonable defense of myself or others (aka: "Corpus Delicti"[]), ANY ‘searches and seizures’ are ‘color of law abuse’!
4) LIST OF SELF EVIDENT BASIC HUMAN RIGHTS - Those basic Human rights include: the right to own land, to free travel on public roads, to fair exchanges like payment for labor, to common practices like law and medicine, and to privacy in general.;
5) 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". Limits to right to privacy, not in public view: “…officers are public officials carrying out public functions, and the First Amendment requires them to bear bystanders recording their actions.” Fields v. City of Philadelphia, 3d Cir. 2017); “no ‘reasonable expectation of privacy’ in Public”: US v. Jones, 2011; FLORIDA v. JARDINES, 2012; United States v. Knotts, 460 U.S. 276 (1983); MISSOURI v. MCNEELY, 2012 ] … Duty to "state... true full name" or "reserve the right to remain silent" when "probable cause" to accuse of a "crime": ARS 13-2412. Refusing to provide truthful name when lawfully detained: “A. It is unlawful for a person, after being advised that the person's refusal to answer is unlawful, to fail or refuse to state the person's true full name on request of a peace officer who has lawfully detained the person based on reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing or is about to commit a crime… but shall not be compelled to answer any other inquiry of a peace officer. …a class 2 misdemeanor.” [From: azleg.state.az.us/ars/13/02412.htm ]
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’. www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/241.html ; www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/42/1983.html ).
7) PUBLIC SERVANTS' OATH(S), AND RESULTING LACK OF "IMMUNITY": "to support and defend the Constitution" for the U.S. (and then State Const. for Officers of States)... IMMUNITY v. LIABILITY & DUTY: IMMUNITY v. LIABILITY & DUTY: PUBLIC SERVANTS ARE PERSONALLY LIABLE and ‘not entitled to immunity’, if they ‘make or enforce’ ‘any Thing’ they ‘reasonably should know’ is ‘to the Contrary’ of 'clearly established law' like these ‘fundamental principles’, aka ‘the supreme Law of the Land’, and EVEN FOR ‘NEGLECT TO PREVENT’ ‘deprivation of rights under color of law’! They ARE ‘immune’ to personal liability ONLY when acting ‘in good faith’ and performing ‘due diligence’ to the FIRST duty in the Oath: ‘support the Constitution’ for the United States of America (then of the State), above all else! 'Just Following orders' is not a defense for enforcing 'any Thing…to the Contrary’ of these ‘fundamental principles’, aka ‘the supreme Law of the Land’! That’s called ‘The Nuremberg Defense’ because THAT’S WHAT ALL THE NAZIS SAID TO DEFEND THEIR ‘WAR CRIMES’! They were executed! It’s not a valid defense! (FYI: ‘failure to deny’ allegations within a reasonable time and manner results in ‘tacit consent’ by ‘acquiescence’, loss of right to dispute in court: Rule 8 in U.S.&Az. Civil Court Procedures!) THAT’S BECAUSE PUBLIC SERVANTS MUST SWEAR AN OATH ‘to support the Constitution’ (Art.6, US.Const), and sign a contract: "Immunity" from personal liability DOES NOT apply when a public servant 'reasonably should have known' they were violating a 'clearly established law' like the Constitution and codes (See 6, and 2-5). [New Times vs. Maricopa/Arpaio, US District Ct., 2011; US Supreme Court, Hartman v Moore, Saucier v Katz, Burns v Reed, Ashcroft v Iqbal, Pearson v Callahan, Brigham v Stuart, etc.] The first ‘essentials of due process of law': Notice of legal duty and chance to defend ones self. [Simon v Craft, US v Tweel, Connally v General Construction Co., US S.Ct.] US CONSTITUTION ARTICLE 6: ALL Public Servants "shall be bound by oath or affirmation to support this Constitution [and only those]...Laws made in Pursuance thereof" NOT "any Thing... to the Contrary"! US ARMY OATH: to support and defend the Constitution for the United States [above all]... obey orders from officers...above me, according to the Uniform Code of Military Justice... ARS 38-231 for Arizona Public Servants oaths...same as military plus oath to Az.Const.: “I …name… do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution and laws of the State of Arizona, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same and defend them against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge the duties of the office of (name of office) according to the best of my ability, so help me God (or so I do affirm).“-(ARS 38-231) ; There is no ‘immunity’ when a ‘Public Servant’ ‘reasonably should know’ they were violating ‘clearly established law’, like the Constitution! New Times/Lacey v Maricopa/Arpaio (US Dist.Ct.2011); Hartman v Moore, Saucier v Katz, Burns v Reed, etc. (US Supreme Court). 14) Oaths, per 38-231 of Arizona Revised Statutes, and Art. 6, US Const., require one 'to support and defend' 'the Constitution for the United States and the State', 'against all enemies foreign and domestic', 'to the best of their ability'. One is in 'dishonor' if they violate this primary obligation or forget it, as its impossible to honor an obligation one cannot even remember. That 'vitiates'/dissolves the contract/agreement. Therefore, 'just following orders' (The 'Nuremberg Defense', used by the Nazis, who were hanged), is not a defense when violating the oath, and there is no protection of 'immunity' if acts were not 'in good faith' that they were in compliance with 'law', which they must perform 'due diligence' to be certain of, 'to the best of [ones] ability'.
ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS OF DUE PROCESS OF LAW: The FIRST 'essential elements of due process of law are notice and opportunity to defend' ones self (US.Supr.Ct.). That’s why causing 'injury or harm' by ‘intent or inexcusable neglect’ can only be 'crime' when there is ALSO a violation of 'clearly established [criminal] law'! (Title 18 in US and 13 in Az. Laws). AND that’s why public servants violate YOUR right to ‘due process’ by refusing to read this ‘LawDoc’! 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 ]
"Jurisdiction can be challenged at any time", then 'Court cannot proceed until proven', 'when jurisdiction appears to be lacking', 'court may ONLY dismiss' [Hagans v Lavine, Maine v Thiboutot, US S.Ct.]. "Denial of due process deprives court of jurisdiction" [Merritt v Hunter, US S.Ct.], and to take jurisdiction not given 'would be Treason to the Constitution' [Cohens v Virginia, US S.Ct.], for which one ‘shall suffer death, or no less than’ 5 years prison and $10,000 fine [18usc2381]. Failure to report evidence of Treason is a crime as well [18usc2382].
VOID FOR VAGUENESS DOCTRINE: Any order or legislation which people of average intelligence differ on the meaning of, or cannot understand (what it requires or prohibits), is ’not a law’ (it’s ‘void for vagueness’), BECAUSE it is ‘to the Contrary’ of ‘The essential elements of due process’, by failing to give adequate notice (U.S.Supr.Ct), and to ‘The Interests of Justice’, and thus to the very Purpose of ‘the supreme Law’ too! “The crime, and the elements constituting it, must be so clearly expressed that the ordinary person can intelligently choose, in advance, what course it is lawful for him to pursue.” “It is a basic principle of due process that an enactment… is void for vagueness if its prohibitions are not clearly defined.” Connally vs. General Construction Co., 269 U.S. 385 (1926) ; Sewell v. Georgia, 435 U.S. 982 (1978) ; Winters v. People of State of New York, 333 U.S. 507;68 S.Ct. 665 (1948); and cases cited herein [famguardian.org/TaxFreedom/CitesByTopic/voidforvagueness.htm ; caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/269/385.html ] "An unconstitutional act is not a law...it is...as inoperative as though it had never been passed", Norton v Shelby County (118 U.S. 425, 1886), US S.Ct.] ; 'an act of the Legislature repugnant to the Constitution is void', 'worse than solemn mockery'. [Marbury v Madison (5 U.S. 137, 1803), US S.Ct.]; Any Law is 'Void’ for ‘Vagueness' when people of avg. intelligence would differ on the meaning of it, its ‘uncertain’ or ‘vague’, and any which let non-legislative officers determine its meaning or application without specific guidelines set by legislators. [Connally v General Construction Co. (269 U.S. 385, 1926), Grayned v City of Rockford (408 U.S. 104, 1972), Sewell v Georgia (435 U.S. 982, 1978). All U.S. Supreme Court, aka ‘US S.Ct’] Without evidence of all three elements of a crime: Corpus Delicti/injury or harm, Mens Rea/Intent or inexcusable neglect as the cause, and Actus Reus/Violation of a written, valid, criminal, “Public Law” (Not ‘void for vagueness’ nor unconstitutional); ‘even with a confession’ a ‘conviction cannot be sustained’ without evidence ‘injury or harm’ (Loss, Threat, Endangerment, etc.) actually occurred (Corpus Delicti); [US Supreme Court, California vs San Pablo and Tulare Railroad Co., Allen v Wright, Tyler v Judges of Court of Registration, and others on 'Corpus Delicti' Doctrine].
‘JUSTICE’: The most ‘fundamental principle’ in ‘The Laws of Man’, “The Common Law”, means: Fairness, Equality, balance, and that’s the reason WHY it IS a ‘color of law abuse’ to ‘make or enforce’ ‘any Thing’ which would ‘infringe’ the ‘Liberty’, property or even privacy rights, of any Human being, without evidence they most likely caused actual harm or ‘probable’ endangerment to another Humans equal ‘individual rights’!(Pg1/2) …in other words… to punish humans for any harmless activity, PERIOD, is inevitably, inexorably, ‘Contrary’ to ‘The Interests of Justice’, thus the very purpose of 'the supreme Law of the Land'! (Such Court Cases must be ‘dismissed’ ‘In the Interest of Justice’ or public servants violate their duty to ‘protect and maintain individual rights.’ ONLY!). Anything more or less than ‘protect…individual rights’ [] is a ‘color of law abuse’ []!.
RIGHT TO PRIVACY:
RIGHT TO OWN LAND AND OTHER PROPERTY:
RIGHT TO ANY COMMON PRACTICE:
RIGHT TO FAIR EXCHANGES:
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!); 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); ‘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); ". . . [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). 15) The "right to free travel" is 'one of the most basic rights covered by the word Liberty in the Constitution', including travel in an automobile on public roads without a license, tag, permit, etc., UNLESS you use the roads for profit as a 'driver' (to transport people or property FOR HIRE: Blacks Law Dict.). [Slusher v Safety Coach, Shuttlesworth v Birmingham, Chicago v Chicago Motor Coach, Thompson v Smith, and 100 more]. 16) Right "to solicit for donations for ones self" is a right of free speech. [Az Appeals Court, Az v Boehler, 2011; US Dist. Ct., Speet/Sims v Schuette, 2012]
‘STATE’= You and me! When the cops try to say the "State" does not mean ‘Public’ property, you and me... State (noun) means: "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." [Blacks Law Dictionary, 2nd Edition, thelawdictionary.org/state-n/]
WE ARE ‘SOVEREIGN’, NOT SUBJECT TO LAW/STATUTES/ETC. WITHOUT CONSENT OR INJURED PARTY: A) "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." Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 U.S. 419 (1793), U.S. Supreme Court. [supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/2/419/case.html ] B) "No one, we believe, has ever doubted the proposition, that, according to the institutions of this country, the sovereignty in every State resides in the people of the State, and that they may alter and change their form of government at their own pleasure." Luther v. Borden 48 U.S. 1 (1849), U.S. Supreme Court. [ supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/48/1/case.html ] ; C) "Sovereignty itself is, of course, not subject to law, for it is the author and source of law; but, in our system, while sovereign powers are delegated to the agencies of government, sovereignty itself remains with the people, by whom and for whom all government exists and acts. And the law is the definition and limitation of power." Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356 (1886), U.S. Supreme Court. [supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/118/356/case.html] ; D) What 'sovereign' means... "The people of this State, as the successors of its former sovereign, are entitled to all the rights which formerly belonged to the King by his prerogative. Through the medium of their Legislature they may exercise all the powers which previous to the Revolution could have been exercised either by the King alone, or by him in conjunction with his Parliament; subject only to those restrictions which have been imposed by the Constitution of this State or of the U.S." Lansing v. Smith, 21 D. 89., 4 Wendel 9, 1829, New York Court of Appeals. [facebook.com/groups/FreedomFilesGroup/921073277915255/ ; 1215.org/lawnotes/lawnotes/sovreign.htm ] Statutes don't apply to you: "[I]n common usage, the term 'person' does not include the sovereign, [and] statutes employing the phrase are ordinarily construed to exclude it." Wilson v. Omaha Indian Tribe, 442 U.S. 653 (1979), U.S. Supreme Court. [supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/442/653/case.html ]
12) Motions are deemed filed when handed to the Officer. … Notice to agent is notice to principle and Vice Versa [Source Needed]. 13) "Since the revolution the people in every State are sovereign, and not subject to law, for they are the author and source of law...", "and have none to govern but themselves", unless they consent or there is evidence of a 'crime' (See 2, elements of a crime). [Yick Wo v Hopkins, Luther v Borden, Chisholm v Georgia, US S.Ct.]
17) "Trespass...means...except...when premises are open to the public", [ARS 13-1501, 13-1502] (See also Numbers 2-6).
18) An unrebutted affidavit stands as a fact in a court of law Data Disc Inc V. Systems Technology Associates Inc., US 9th Cir. Ct, 1977 ; "“Silence can only be equated with fraud where there is a legal or moral duty to speak, or where an inquiry left unanswered would be intentionally misleading. . .” U.S. v. Tweel, 550 F.2d 297, 299. See also U.S. v. Prudden, 424 F.2d 1021, 1032; Carmine v. Bowen, 64 A. 932., and Rule 8 of Civil Procedure, US and Az.. Unsworn statements like police reports, taking hearsay claims from another without signature under penalty of perjury (See 28usc1746), are not admissible as evidence, and cannot be considered a 'Fact' which a judge must consider before issuing an arrest warrant.
19) Names of all Govt. units and Humans must be "Proper Nouns" (only 1st Letters capitalized) by "Law" on all legal documents/official actions [US Govt. Printing Manual, Chap. 3 -Which over-rules all state laws and constitutions per art.6, US Const], [Also see Az Const., Art.28 on Official Actions in English, Art.22, Sec. 10 and 20 on Seals, Art.6, Sec. 25 on 'Style of Process' where names of parties are on court docs, and Art.1 which defines the boundaries of the State of Arizona]. And 'State' is defined in legal dictionaries as the land and 'the people, in their collective capacity...the public' [Blacks and Bouviers Law Dict.].
20) "Lawful" "Money"= ONLY 'gold and silver Coin' [US Const., Art.1, Sec. 8 and 10], at about one ounce pure silver or 1/50th ounce pure gold [Coinage Acts of 1792 and 1834], NOT "FEDERAL RESERVE NOTES" which are 'debt instruments', which we pay apparently 6% interest each year to use. Since there are 1.25 Trillion in circulation, thats $76 Billion a year we pay the private-owned Intl. banks, in Gold only. "They" are: Rothschild, Warburg, Isreal Moses Seaf, Lehman and Lazard Bros, Goldman and Sachs, Kuhn and Loeb, Rockefeller and Morgan banks, etc..
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'.