Constitutional Law 101 - Association, Religion and Speech - [1st Ammedment]

I. Congress shall make no law respecting establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

  1. Right to associate (1st)

  2. What, you say we have to be apart of it, it's Mandatory? Think again.
    The Right to associate also means the Right NOT to associate.
  3. Right to be left alone

  4. Olmstead v. United State, 277 U.S. 438, 478(1928) (Bradeis J., dissenting)
    Washington v. Harper, 494 U.S. 210 (1990)
  5. Freedom from compelled association (1st)

  6. Do you have to join? Do you have to Sign? Think again.
    You do have the unlimited ability to contract or NOT to contract, even those that make one into an indentured servant or slave which will not stand in any court of this land nor in the kingdom of God.

    Am.Jur.2d, Constitutional law, Section-546: Forced and Prohibited Associations
    Rutan v. Republican Party of Illinois, 497 U.S. 62 110 S.Ct. 2729, 111 L.Ed.2d 52, 5 I.E.R Cas. (BNA) 673 (1990)

    "Bear not the yoke with unbelievers. For what participation hath justice with injustice? Or what fellowship hath light with darkness?"

  7. Right to practice religion (1st)

  8. O'Lone v. Estate of Shabazz, 482 U.S. 342 (1987) ( for prisioners )
  9. Right as a group to obtain meaningful access to the courts (1st)

  10. Warnock v. Pecos County, Tex., 88 F3d 341 (5th Cir. 1996) Eleventh Ammendment does not protect state officials acting in their official capacities from claims for prospective relief when it is alleged that state officials acted in violation of federal law.
    Roberts v. United States Jaycees, 468 U.S. 609 (1984)
    In re Primus, 436 U.S. 412, 426 (1978)
    NAACP v. Button, 371 U.S. 415, at 429-430 (1963)

    Why do you think this is important? Don't we have access to the courts?
    Think about what I mentioned earlier in my Intro article, Would you not be trespassing without a lawyer? If you do not understand the difference between the court system as defined in the Constitution, and what you have put your 'X' on today, you will not understand the real impetus of this Right. What is old is new again - the drafters of the Constitution thought it wise to include here, what was done to them in the past. It is through the Constitutionally defined courts where you will get 'true' due process of law. What is that? It is a court where presumptions are not taken and ruled on as facts and requires that the litigant claim be heard by a fair and impartial fact finder. Presumptions are indicative of an Administrative jurisdiction. Why would most of 'the people' be presumed to be found in an Administrative jurisdiction when they enter court? It's not as though one of the Presidents has declared a national emergency or perhaps somewhere in the past, the nationial or rather federal governement went Bankrupt because of the mismanagement by the government itself and it is somehow in bankruptcy proceedings to creditors for sovereign debt or something, right?

    "The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun."

  11. Right to be free from compulsion by state to join a labor union involved in ideological activities

  12. Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, 431 U.S. 209, 236 (1977)
    Roberts v. United States Jaycees, 468 U.S. 609 (1984)
  13. Right to speak (1st)

  14. Howlett v. Rose, 496 U.S. 356 (1990) Federal Law and Supreme Court Cases apply to State Court Cases.
    Federal Rules Civil Procedure, Rule 17, 28 U.S.C.A. "Next Friend" A next friend is a person who represents someone who is unable to tend to his or her own interest"
    Thornburgh v Abbott, 490 U.S. 401, 407 (1989) ( for prisioners )
    Shware v. Board of Examiners, 353 U.S. 238, 239] (1957) - "A State cannot exclude a person from the practice of law...that contravene the Due Process or Equal Protection [352 U.S. 232, 239] Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment"
    Sims v. Ahrens, 271 S.W. 720 (1925) - "The practice of Law is an occupation of common right."
    Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105 (1943) "No state shall convert a liberty into a license and charge a fee therefore."
    Shuttlesworth v. City of Birmingham, Alabama, 373 U.S. 262 (1963) "If the state converts a right into a privilege, the citizen can ignore the license and fee and engage in the right with impunity."

    Brotherhood of Trainmen v. Virginia ex rel. Virginia State Bar, 377 U.S. 1 (1964)
    Gideon v. Wainwright 372 U.S. 335 (1963)
    Argersinger v. Hamlin, Sherif 407 U.S. 425 (1972) "Litigants may be assisted by unlicensed layman during judicial proceedings."
    Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972) "Allegations such as those asserted by petitioner, however inartfully pleaded, are sufficient....which we hold to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers."
    U.S. v. Johnson, 76 F. Supp. 538 - A lawyer cannot claim that you have rights.

    Why you must know when and where to assert your rights


    Did you know an attorney today cannot assert any of your natural rights on your behalf? He or she can only negotiate privileges under the juridiction their private law license or what is known as the BAR / Attorney License allows them. State supreme courts only issue certificates, and remember a certificate from the State is not a license, it only certifies a person has met conditions to practice law in courts as a member of the state judicial branch of government. The BAR card or known as the private law / Attorney License is in actuality not a license at all as the state BAR association is not a governmental entity. They are a non-governmental professional association or corporation and their private association law agreement makes it illegal for the lawyer holding it to assert any of your common law rights. This should make you pause and wonder, who do they work for? The hands that feed them of course, the current Court System and its marrige to the private corporation/association! Now, anyone can wonder if this is illegal or unlawful or is there some sort of monopoly as most government positions are filled with lawyers and for the sake of brevity, I'll tell you It truly is and it creates a conflict of interests where it curtails due process - but don't take it on my word, search it out for yourself, "continue to work out your salvation". and the questions one should really ask themselves is "How did they end up in that Administrative Court in the first place?", "Did you not read what you put your 'X' on - all the fine print of the U.S. codes that apply to Washington DC, all of the obfuscated definitions?", because statute or legislative law and codes are precisely defined by the definitions written in them, not by some school dictionary or something. In other words, they are not common definitions. "Are you sure you are not a 'Public Officer'?, Don't be concerned with 'gold fringes' on flags, that's not important right now. Perhaps you should ask what type of court you are in before you do any type of pleading, afterall it is a right to ask and the court has an obligation to tell you but, I'm not convinced the judges are holding true to their oaths to protect and defend the constitution for the united States of America and the national ( or native) citizens throughout all of the separate republic states of the Union nor the Federal Citizens of the District of Columbia defined in the U.S. Codes as U.S. or United States which one has to elect themselves???.

    "Woe to you, blind guides! You say, 'If anyone swears by the temple, it means nothing; but anyone who swears by the gold of the temple is bound by that oath.'

    Let's say you are in court for something penal in nature(*think in terms of profits here). The State or rather 'the current government' is normally attempting to bring charges against a Legal person but needs you(Grantor-777) to speak for the Legal Person(Trustee-6). Your lawyer and their lawyer(Trustee-60) is compensated and is bound to the court system who works for the State via the BAR relationship and the State or Judge(Executor-600) is passing the judgment or ruling(collecting the fees). Can you detect a conflict of interests? Not just a conflict with justice in the courtroom, but if you are one of the people of God a conflict between you and God? This situation was not always so in this nation. Should you demand the right to a Jury trial? Notice, I did not say it was lawful as there is a difference between legal and lawful. Lawful can be likened to the Natural Right given by Creator God allowing you to defend or protect the weak or heal the sick, not Barred by private laws and this by the way is a quality of Creator God which some people believe, they are actually ordered by God to carry out in his stead. Legal would be likened to not being able to speak or protect the weak, treat and heal the sick because you had signed an agreement with some man or gang or taken an oath that you would not do so and if you violated it, you could be penalized by loosing some privilege like a private license to practice law in the presence of the issueing defacto authority. You can also call this process sanctioning. If any agreement or contract does not meet your standards, it's best to change it and sign correctly or not to sign at all!

    Make conditional agreement with with your plaintiff quickly, while you are with him in the street, lest the plaintiff delivers you to the judge and the judge delivers you to the Tax Fee Collector and you fall into prison.

    Nevertheless, the constitution in the Sixth Ammendment guarantees that anyone can have and use a counsel of their choosing and he or she does not have to have any type of license, and they can advise you during any court procedings, but you are the only one who can claim and speak for your rights! It is the only way of obtaining 'due process of law', which is your Constitutionally protected common law rights. Now if you have agreed to be a Public Officer that is another matter even in the face of equal protection of law, mainly because of what you have placed your 'X' on and you find yourself in an Administrative jurisdiction, quasi tribunal where the constitution and God's law does not apply. Of course, you can choose to have(yield) a lawyer speak in your behalf, which would make you a ward of the State and they(600,60,6) will decide what is best for you. This means basically that you can't speak for yourself, you are a child, infant or a person of unsound mind. No matter what type of forum you are in, court, employment office, wherever, whatever, you should be on guard not to let any legalistic and lawless individual or collective strip you of your freedoms. What do you make of this excerpt from a 1947 court decision.

    "The privilege against self-incrimination [ Fith Ammendment ] is neither accorded to the passive restraint, nor the person who is ignorant of their rights, nor to one who is indifferent thereto. It is a fighting clause. Its benefits can be retained only by sustained combat. It cannot be claimed by an attorney or solicitor. It is only valid when insisted upon by a beligerent [Look this word up in old legal dictionaries] claimant in person" [ U.S. v Johnson, 76 F.Supp. 538(1947)] (Being that the courts are Military Admiralty, a child of God needs to separate themselves - the real living flesh and blood man/woman from the novation(persona) Then, any pursuit of the living man/woman is a War Crime under International Law, as they are pursuing NOT the ficticous 'War Name' persona)

  15. Right to Not speak or remain silent (1st)

  16. Wooley v. Maynard, 430 U.S. 705, 97 S.Ct. 1428, 51 L.Ed.2d 752 (1977)
    Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966)
    Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, 431 U.S. 209, 236 (1977)
    Malloy v. Hogan, 378 U.S. 1 (1964) (direct compulsion to testify )
    Griffin v. California, 380 U.S. 609, 613-614 (1965) ( indirect compulsion to testify prohibited )
    McCune v. Lile, 536 U.S. 24 (2002) ( 'we have contrued the text to prohibit not only direct orders to testify, but also indirect compulsion effected by comments on the defendant's refusal to take the stand' )

    And when he was accused of the chief priests and elders, he answered nothing. Then said Pilate unto him, Hearest thou not how many things they witness against thee? And he answered him to never a word; insomuch that the governor marveled greatly.

  17. Right of freedom from prior restraints on speech

  18. Southeastern Promotions Ltd. v. Conrad, 420 U.S. 546, 558-559 (1975)
  19. Right to remain anonymous when speaking

  20. Macintyre v. Ohio Elections Commision, 514 U.S. 334 (1995)
    Talley v. California, 362 U.S. 60 (1960)
  21. Right to not be penalized based on failure to testify

  22. Uniformed Sanitation Men Assn., Inc. v. Commissioner of Sanitation of City of New York, 392 U.S. 280, 284-285 (1968)
    Lefkowitz v. Turley, 414 U.S. 70, 77-79 (1973)
    Lefkowitz v. Cunningham, 431 U.S. 801, 804-806 (1977)
    McKune v. Lile, 536 U.S. 24, 35 (2002)
  23. Right to not be compelled to give testimony in a civil proceeding

  24. McCarthy v. Arndstein, 266 U.S. 34, 40 (1924)
  25. Right to demand grant of witness immunity prior to any testimony

  26. Kastigar v. United States, 406 U.S. 441, 446-447 (1972)

Defense and Self Defense, 2nd & 3rd Amendment Rights

Research perfomed from 'without the United States'. [ 28 U.S. Code Sec. 1746 ]




Peace be unto you. Thank you for visiting!