Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

19268Government Terrorist in action.

Expand Messages
  • Jerry Stanton
    Mar 23, 2013
    • 0 Attachment


       

      Government  Terrorist in action.
      Is the FBI, and Southern Poverty Institution,[ A Den of B.A.R ATTORNEYS] that make's the claim the sovereign people, that claim their unalienable rights, of these union States are terrorist and subject slaves to the Corporate FEDERAL and STATE governments and there pretend codes laws, without proof or evidence of their claim of such powers, to even make such an insane claim. 
       When did the people of these union States ever consent to being subjects of anyone's rule, that was repugnant to their unalienable rights guaranteed them, by the Declaration of Independence. 
       This is part of an affidavit I put before the Michigan Supreme Court, in 2006, that refused to follow their own court rules and refused to allow make the claim to be heard. I believe this is a preponderance of facts and evidence, that no reasonable sane man can deny.
       Which in turn would make the Federal Bureau of Investigation and Southern Poverty Institution now, actually the real terrorist and in a active plot to over throw the Government of the people of these union states and enslave its people in an entrapment of foreign laws and powers, outside of any authority given to them by the people.
      Written, 2006 to the Michigan Supreme Court .    
      5.      Tribunal Judge Michael A. Stimpson, in his Final Opinion and Judgment, does not show the Appellant that he, as a sovereign citizen of the state of Michigan, is subject to a property tax since the Appellant does not receive a benefit from, is employed by, or is a political holder of the state of Michigan.
       
      ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. 6
       
      Tribunal Judge, Michael A. Stimpson, referred to MCL 21.1.1, .2; in his opinion and quoted the following:  “A person or party asserting exemption from taxation under the laws of the State of Michigan must establish that the law unambiguously provides for an exemption and that he, she or it, without doubt or cavil, fall within the provisions affording such an exemption”.  Appellant asserts that he is not a “person” as stated by this MCL and this is supported by
       
      Church of Scientology v. U.S. Dept. of Justice (1979) 612 F.2d 417, 425.,
      “the word “person” in legal terminology is perceived as a general word which normally includes in its scope a variety of entities other than human beings.”  Appellant has stated and documented from the beginning that he is a natural and sovereign “citizen” of the state of Michigan and is a living and breathing human being.
       
       
      Will v. Michigan Dept. of State Police, 491 U.S. 58 (1989), at 72,
      “the word “persons” is ordinarily construed to exclude the sovereign;” 
       
      Wilson v. Omaha Tribe, 442 U.S. 653, 667 (1979),
      “The court invokes, first the “often-expressed understanding” that  “in common usage, the term ‘person’ does not include the sovereign, [and] statutes employing the [word] are ordinarily construed to exclude it.”
       
      United States v Cooper Corp., 312 U.S. 600, 604 (1941),
      “in common usage, the term ‘person’ does not include the sovereign, [and] statues employing the [word] are ordinarily construed to exclude it.”
       
      6.     Appellant alleges that there is a collection of palatable errors in this case, thereby violating his due process and constitutional rights under the law and brought fraud upon the court.
      ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. 7
       
      Marbury v. Madison, 5th U.S. (2 Cranch)  137,180
      “All laws, rules and practices which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void” 
       
      Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616, 635
       “It is the duty of the courts to be watchful for the Constitutional rights of the citizen and against any stealthy encroachments thereon” 
       
      The Constitution of the State of Michigan, Article I – Bill of Rights, Section 10, states in part: 
      “and in civil cases, in which personal liberty may be involved, the trial by jury shall not be refused.”  
       
      Black’s Law Dictionary, 7th Edition, liberty is defined as “1.  Freedom from arbitrary or undue external restraint, esp. by a government.” 
       
      US V. SCROGER, 98 F3d 1256 (10th Cir. 1996),
      “Government has burden of proving that nonconstitutional error was harmless.”
       
      Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 528, (1974),
      “The law requires proof of jurisdiction to appear on the record of the administrative agency and all administrative proceedings.”
       
      Louisville R.R. v. Motley, 211 U.S. 149, 29 S. Ct. 42, (1908),
      “If any tribunal finds absence of proof of jurisdiction over person and subject matter, the case must be dismissed”
       
      Merritt v. Hunter, C.A. Kansas 170 F2d 739.
      “Where a court failed to observe safeguards, it amounts to denial of due process of law, court is deprived of juris.”
       
      Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43 at 47 (1905),
      “This Sovereign individual paradigm is explained by the following U.S. Supreme Court case:  “The individual may stand upon his constitutional Rights as a citizen.  He is entitled to carry on his private business in his own way.  His power to contract is unlimited.  He owes no such duty [to submit his books and papers for an examination] to the State, since he receives nothing therefrom, beyond the protection of his life and property.  His Rights are such as existed by the law of the land [Common Law] long antecedent to the organization of the State, and can only be taken from him by due process of law, and in accordance with the Constitution.  Among his Rights are refusal to incriminate himself, the immunity of himself and his property from arrest or seizure except under a warrant of the law.  He owes nothing to the public so long as he does not trespass upon their Rights.” 
       
      Hale V. Henkel has been cited a total of 144 times since 1905 by the Supreme Court.  A fact more astounding is that since 1905, Hale V. Henkel has been cited by all the federal and state appellate court systems a total of over 1600 times and none of the various issues of this case has ever been overruled.
       
      HAINES V KERNER, 404 US 519, 30 LEd2d 652, 92 SCt 594 (1972),  
      “Pro se litigations pleadings are to be construed liberally and held to less stringent standard than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers; if court can reasonably read pleadings to state valid claim on which litigant could prevail, it should do so despite failure to cite proper legal authority, confusion of legal theories, poor syntax and sentence construction, or litigant’s unfamiliarity with pleading requirements.” 
       
      MIRANDA V. ARIZONA, 384 U.S. 436, 491 (1966),  
      “Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them.”
       
      SMITH V. ALLWRIGHT, 321 US 649, 644,
      “Constitutional rights would be of little value if they could be indirectly denied,” and
       
      GORMILLION V. LIGHTFOOT, 364 U.S. 339, 345,
      “or manipulated out of existence.”
       
       
      7.         Appellant states that he cannot be forced into a contract with any government corporation or state entity against his will, which forces him to give up his constitutional rights as the ruling by Judge Stimpson has done in this case
       
      ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. 8
       
      US V. GUTHRIE, 789 F3d 1243 (D.C. Cir. 1996),
      “For the government to punish a person because he had done what the law plainly allows him to do is a due process violation of the most basic sort.”
       
      Brady v U.S., 397 U.S. at 749, 90 S.Ct. 1463 at 1469 (1970)
      Fuentes v. Shevin, 407 U.S. 67 (1972);
      Brookhart v. Janis, 384 U.S. 6 (1966);
      Empask V. U.S., 349 U.S. 1990 (1955);
      Johnson V. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 58 (1938)
       
      “Waivers of constitutional rights not only must be voluntary but must be knowingly intelligent acts done with sufficient awareness of the relevant circumstances and likely consequences.”
       
      8.         Appellant states that his due process and constitutional rights were violated by the Michigan Court of Appeals when they denied his leave to appeal without citing any law or statute.
       
      ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. 9.
       
      United States Constitution, Bill of Rights, Article V – “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.”
       
      Constitution of the State of Michigan, Article I, §17 – “Nor be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law.”
       
       
      That due to the above, Appellant is seeking the relief as stated on the front of this document.
       
      Sworn to by:
       
       
      Jerry James Stanton,








    • Show all 3 messages in this topic