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

Public notice to 22000 on inalienable rights.

Expand Messages
  • Jerry
    To: undisclosed-recipients Put this notice in Shoppers Guide for Branch County Michigan which is delivered to 22000 homes in that county and surrounding area
    Message 1 of 2 , Oct 14, 2009
    • 0 Attachment
      To:
      undisclosed-recipients
      Put this notice in Shoppers Guide for Branch County Michigan which is delivered to 22000 homes in that county and surrounding area after Coldwater Police officer had my Private car taken without a warrant or my concent. Jerry James Stanton

      !!!LEGAL NOTICE!!!



      Pursuant to Branch County Public Record/Instrument no: 2009 07008 recorded October

      2, 2009.



      I, Jerry James Stanton of, care of 4340 South Allen Road, Allen, Michigan, am over the age of 21, a Sovereign Elector Freeman (Evert Romein v. General Motors Corporation, 462 N.W.2d 555, 436 Mich. 515 (1990) Brickley, J. (concurring) of the organic "The State of Michigan" (1835), with all Rights of Man secured pursuant to the constitutional concept of, and Right to, a Republican form of government limited by my UNALIENABLE Rights:



      Unalienable – A word denoting the condition of those things, the property in which cannot be lawfully transferred from one person to another. - Bouvier's Law Dictionary (emphasis added)



      inalienable - that which cannot be given away or taken away. (ref. Declaration of Independence) – World Book Encyclopedia Dictionary 1965



      unalienable - that which cannot be given away or taken away; inalienable. (ref. Declaration of Independence) - World Book Encyclopedia Dictionary 1965



      which must hold said Rights inviolate FOREVER (Northwest Ordinance (1787)) in perpetuum and beyond any reach of any vote of majority or legislature (West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624, 638 (1943)(Opinion, J. Jackson).





      In addition to the Default of Judge Brent R. Weigle of the 3-A District Court at the above Branch County Record, the present State has consistently recognized my Right, as well as the Right of all People of Michigan, to free, unencumbered, enjoyment of the Right to Passage on the Public Right of Way in Act 119 of 1980, § 207.211(h) and even to the year 2000 at Act of 403 of 2000 (204.1004 (k)) ,and the U.S. Supreme Court has recognized this Right of Free Passage on the Public Right of Way (Jones v. Cunnigham, 371 U.S. 236, 239-243 (1936)) when it recognized that needing permission (or license) from the state to operate a car on Public Roads was a restraint of Liberty, significant enough for triggering Habeas Corpus.



      Brent R. Weigle and the City of Coldwater were placed upon Public Notice of this fact by prior Publication in Hillsdale Daily News published in October of 2008) as well as the above said direct Notice challenging him to prove authority over antecedent Rights.



      Despite my Public Notice of the UNALIENABLE Right of myself, and all of THE PEOPLE of Michigan, to free enjoyment without fear and harassment, of their private use of the Public Right of Way, and the Courts of America showing that any and all Legislative and Executive actions of the State are barred, by constitutional limitation (See: West Virginia above), from penalizing or harassing me for my exercise of a precedent and/or inperpetuum Right, as set forth in the organic laws of the land (See Title 1 U.S.C. §1) which includes the Northwest Ordinance (1787): Harmen v. Foressenius, 380 U.S. 528, 540 (1965); Connolly v. Union Sewer Pipe Company, 184 U.S. 540, 558 (1902); McCullough v. Virginia, 19 S. Ct. 134, 172. U.S. 102 (1898); Miller v. United States, 230 F.2d 486, 490 (1956), the City of Coldwater, its Police Department, Officer David Crilly, and Judge Brent R. Weigle, all representing the Incorporated City of Coldwater and/or County of Branch, have conspired and acted to harass my free exercise of my Right including theft of property, violating my Right to not be Tried (United States v. Hollywood Motor Car Co., Inc., 458 U.S. 263, 102 S.Ct. 3081, 73 L.Ed.2d 754 (1982)) by holding a show trial which I cannot consent to (See: "Unalienable", above), and my Right to be Let Alone (Olmstead v. U.S., 277 U.S. 438, 478 (1928) (Opinion of J. Brandies) by now threatening my arrest, under color of law and a name of a legal fiction, for not complying with their lawless charade of justice to which none can consent and thereby create a precedent against the Rights of others.



      The above named individuals acting under color of law and without immunity are thereby in direct violation of their oaths of office to protect and defend the Constitutions of the United States of America and Michigan, whose sole purpose was for the protection and preservation of antecedent Rights of THE PEOPLE.



      Judge Brent R. Weigle has admitted by DEFAULT that:



      A. his actions in this matter are criminal toward my Rights and the Rights of THE PEOPLE of Michigan;



      B. his actions constitute crimes under color of law that are punishable under Title 18 of the United States Criminal Code, as;



      C. he and the City of Coldwater Officials have willfully and intentionally disregarded the Organic Laws of the United States of America and the recognized Civil Rights of the all of THE PEOPLE of Michigan, including myself;



      D. as there can be no statute law that requires THE PEOPLE to seek or obtain State Permission to use the Public Right of Way;



      E. the Statutes of Michigan admit such use in paragraph D above is a RIGHT(M.C.L. 201.1004,Section 4 (k));



      F. there can be no authority given to any Court to penalize the exercise of any Right by a Sovereign Elector without a Criminal Complaint of actual damages to life, limb, property, or Right of another natural person (Butchers' Union Co. v. Crescent City Co., 111 U.S. 746, 756, 4 S.Ct. 652 (1884) Justice Field Concurring joined by JJ. Bradley, Harlan, and Woods) as authority of the State otherwise only extends to artificial creations of the state or activities lawfully regulated by the State (McCullough v. Maryland, 17 U.S. 316 (1819));



      G. due to the function of "Unalienable" no Sovereign can ever consent to any proceedings by any such court such as the District Court of Branch County where the Court is Incorporated for Profit and the Judge shares in fines therefore making him a biased jurist in violation of the Right to due process of law.



      NOTICE



      Now is the time for all good PEOPLE of Michigan to take back their unalienable Rights against the deceivers and twisters of Rights by Statutory enactments in direct rebellion against the law of the land as set forth by the U.S. Supreme Court (West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette; above), and take back their lives and the legacy of Freedom promised by fundamental law to them and their children.



      Any disturbance of myself or property for exercising my inalienable rights will be considered a criminal trespass.



      With Explicit Reservation of All of My Rights, and no expressed or implied waiver of any as the term UNALIENABLE makes such impossible. (U.C.C. 1-207)



      I am, _______________________

      Jerry James Stanton, only legal spelling and style of name and state

      Care of 4340 South Allen Road
      Allen Michigan Phone 517-869-2757
    • Mike
      Hello! Just wondering where you got this idea... (set forth in the organic laws of the land (See Title 1 U.S.C. §1) which includes the Northwest Ordinance
      Message 2 of 2 , Oct 14, 2009
      • 0 Attachment
        Hello!

        Just wondering where you got this idea... (set forth in the organic laws of the land (See Title >1 U.S.C. §1) which includes the Northwest Ordinance (1787)) based on what 1 USC 1 says...

        http://www.gpoaccess.gov/uscode/index.html

        From the U.S. Code Online via GPO Access
        [www.gpoaccess.gov]
        [Laws in effect as of January 3, 2007]
        [CITE: 1USC1]

        [Page 1-2]
         
                               TITLE 1--GENERAL PROVISIONS
         
                            CHAPTER 1--RULES OF CONSTRUCTION

         
        Sec. 1. Words denoting number, gender, and so forth

            In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, unless the
        context indicates otherwise--

        [[Page 2]]

                words importing the singular include and apply to several
            persons, parties, or things;
                words importing the plural include the singular;
                words importing the masculine gender include the feminine as
            well;
                words used in the present tense include the future as well as
            the present;
                the words ``insane'' and ``insane person'' and ``lunatic'' shall
            include every idiot, lunatic, insane person, and person non compos
            mentis;
                the words ``person'' and ``whoever'' include corporations,
            companies, associations, firms, partnerships, societies, and joint
            stock companies, as well as individuals;
                ``officer'' includes any person authorized by law to perform the
            duties of the office;
                ``signature'' or ``subscription'' includes a mark when the
            person making the same intended it as such;
                ``oath'' includes affirmation, and ``sworn'' includes affirmed;
                ``writing'' includes printing and typewriting and reproductions
            of visual symbols by photographing, multigraphing, mimeographing,
            manifolding, or otherwise.

        >SNIPPED
        >Despite my Public Notice of the UNALIENABLE Right of myself, and all of THE PEOPLE of >Michigan, to free enjoyment without fear and harassment, of their private use of the Public Right of Way, >and the Courts of America showing that any and all Legislative and Executive actions of the State are >barred, by constitutional limitation (See: West Virginia above), from penalizing or harassing me for my >exercise of a precedent and/or inperpetuum Right, as set forth in the organic laws of the land (See Title >1 U.S.C. §1) which includes the Northwest Ordinance (1787): Harmen v. Foressenius, 380 U.S. 528, >540 (1965); Connolly v. Union Sewer Pipe Company, 184 U.S. 540, 558 (1902); McCullough v. >Virginia, 19 S. Ct. 134, 172. U.S. 102 (1898); Miller v. United States, 230 F.2d 486, 490 (1956)...

        >SNIPPED

      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.