Rights, Protections and Common Law

An Introduction and clarifying response

i am taking a slight detour from the historical account of documents and our American founding to provide feedback on the topic that is finally creeping into the consciousness of more of mankind. That is the idea that government does not give us our rights.

Comment and question from SheThinksLiberty in a post at Bailiwick News.

SheThinksLiberty Feb 6

Thank you for these references. I'm having difficulty finding the quotes in any of the search results. Are those quotes from the actual cases you've cited?

The response is specifically to the Bailiwick post on “Wyoming State lawmakers standing up” by Katherine Watt. The comment i posted was strictly to assist in providing perspective on rights as there is some belief that making laws creates rights or protects them. Katherine who writes Bailiwick News does unbelievable work on the legal history and details leading up to our current state of oppressive federal encroachment on freedom.

• February 6, 2023 - Wyoming State lawmakers standing up

A similar post on current news was posted by Badlands Media where i added some commentary reinforcing the same consciousness. Their daily news brief covered the unconstitutional ruling on prohibiting pot users from owning guns.

• February 7, 2023 - Badlands News Brief - Satanic Idols, COVID Crimes & Twitter’s Sins - US Ban On Pot Users Owning Guns Ruled Unconstitutional

The Bailiwick discussion was on the premise that as many states as possible that can enact laws limiting federal agency overreach, the better. I do not disagree in general as this is a way for people to push and awaken against tyranny.

The important fact is no federal legal code, rule, act, or statute can stand if it is a trespass on your rights as a man or woman. Those rights, whatever you bring forward as your rights, cannot be diminished by another without your consent. This is true with the caveat that those rights you bring forward cannot cause harm to another of mankind without their consent. These same rights are what you bring forward and can be upheld by a trial-by-jury of those of mankind who can make any legal code, rule, act or statute null and void if it violates your rights as a man or woman or is violating the constitution as determined by the trial-by-jury.

Below were my comments for some case references for people to research to help shed some light on the long past rulings with many having occurred pre-Lincoln’s War. Many of these are Supreme Court rulings that show the dividing line in jurisdiction and a clarification on “rights”, and how it may relate to the Constitution(s).

Protections of the sovereign people (man or woman) clarified independent of any legislation:

• Cruden v. Neale, 2 N.C. 338 May Term, 1796 – United States Supreme Court (pre-civil war) “…every man is independent of all laws, except those prescribed by nature. He is not bound by any institutions formed by his fellowman without his consent.”

• Marbury v. Madison, 5th US (2 Cranch) 137, 174, 176, 1803: “All laws, rules and practices which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void.”*****

• Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US 436, 491: “Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them.”*****

• Hurtado v. People of the State of California, 110 US 516: “The state cannot diminish the rights of the people.”

• Davis v. Wechsler, 263 US 22, 24: “The assertion of federal rights [Bill of Rights], when plainly and reasonably made, is not to be defeated under the name of local practice.”*****

• Shere v. Cullen, 481 F 946: “There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of this exercise of constitutional rights.”

• Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 US 356, 370: “Sovereignty itself is, of course, not subject to law, for it is the author and source of law.”

• “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.” —supreme Court Decision, Woo Lee vs. Hopkins 118 U.S. 356

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

One of the readers noted they were having trouble finding some of the referenced information. I would suggest using this link to read the cases. Many of these rulings are part of the Statutes at Large that you can find hidden in the back of local libraries. Many are not in the federal case law register if it pertains to common law jurisdiction.

I proceeded to assist the reader with providing the specific text from one of the cases. This is my the response to the reader…

For the first example to reference: Marbury v. Madison, 5th US (2 Cranch) 137, 174, 176, 1803: “All laws, rules and practices which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void."

https://casetext.com/case/marbury-v-madison - Actual case opinion. I recommend reading the entire opinion. It covers many things including jurisdiction of congress, the supreme court, appellate courts, and government in its function and who is supreme (the people creating it - section 176 and 177). This jurisdiction is covered quite well in section 148 and then again much later in the opinion regarding the distinction of common law, maritime and admiralty law.

The first statement confirming constitutional restrictions from this opinion is as follows:

"Certainly all those who have framed written constitutions contemplate them as forming the fundamental and paramount law of the nation, and, consequently, the theory of every such government must be, that an act of the legislature, repugnant to the constitution, is void."

Further in the opinion and closing:

"Why does a judge swear to discharge his duties agreeably to the constitution of the United States, if that constitution forms no rule for his government? if it is closed upon him, and cannot be inspected by him?

If such be the real state of things, this is worse than solemn mockery. To prescribe, or, to take this oath, becomes equally a crime.

It is also not entirely unworthy of observation, that in declaring what shall be the supreme law of the land, the constitution itself is first mentioned; and not the laws of the United States generally, but those only which shall be made in pursuance of the constitution, have that rank.

Thus, the particular phraseology of the constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written constitutions, that a law repugnant to the constitution is void; and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument.

The rule must be discharged." (meaning the rule in conflict with this tenant)

In addition, early in the opinion, there is the distinct clarification of jurisdiction in the application of maritime and admiralty law in district courts. It is as follows:

"Congress, by a law passed at the very first session after the adoption of the constitution, vol. 1. p. 58. s. 13. have expressly given the supreme court the power of issuing writs of mandamus. The words are, "the supreme court shall also have appellate jurisdiction from the circuit courts, and courts of the several states, in the cases hereinafter specifically provided for; and shall have power to issue writs of prohibition to the district courts, when proceeding as courts of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction; and writs of mandamus, in cases warranted by the principles and usages of law, to any courts appointed, or persons holding office, under the authority of the United States."

This is an important distinction that maritime and admiralty law applies to the territorial and municipal government (DC and municipality) in the enumerated duties of the constitution because the respective courts are inherently for territorial and international commerce. These foreign courts (maritime and admiralty) are not what we are to use in local, county and state courts as these are for the people. Hence, the jurisdiction clarification. But, that has been abused through BAR attorneys and other foreign corporate legal fictions since about 1939.

My comment “since about 1939” was the actual case in 1938 titled Erie Railroad v. Tompkins. This was the first time the Supreme Court crept maritime and admiralty jurisdiction into Common Law courts without jurisdiction and made the decision that Common Law courts should not be applied to cases between states (theoretically treated as international law based on commerce). And the rest is history as the lines blurred. If you do a search for this case, you will find it referenced numerous times in other cases. Here is a good link for the case. The basic discussion was the federal government could have jurisdiction over a varied citizenship case that may apply to state law and subsequent common law as federal government does not have a general common law. The significance is the distinction of citizenship and the resultant jurisdiction. i will be covering this very specific distinction as the historical posts progress. However; the Marbury v. Madison case clearly defines the federal courts (specifically the Supreme Court in this example) can only have jurisdiction in cases that apply to maritime and admiralty jurisdiction. So, the question becomes, how does the federal government get more of the people into the federal jurisdiction, and hence, control more of the people? Encourage them to decide to become federal citizens and make states and counties and towns incorporated so the jurisdiction falls within maritime and admiralty jurisdiction through grants, funding programs, etc…

An excellent historical run-down on the encroachment of the federal government, licenses, registrations, certificates, and general the jurisdiction shift and how it occurred was documented by Anna von Reitz in her article #6. Since Anna has gone public with details of the historical record of our American government, there have been extensive efforts to discredit and apply controlled opposition. As with many cases, this alone demonstrates censorship to distract further exploration of historical facts.

However; you can clearly see in the Marbury v. Madison case, jurisdiction is limited. In the Erie Railroad vs Tompkins case, the States as separate nations (or converted corporations) and corporations in one State and a “person” in another State, creates a condition of federal maritime and admiralty jurisdiction. The logic is actually sound, things can take things to federal court. A man or woman can press claim of trespass against another man or woman in common law court.

My only suggestion: go do the research and prove the history wrong. Read a lot. Opinions do not count. The fast-search-click-bait-candy is too easy to believe in our instant gratification society, as a valid “fact-check”. It is always best to go to source documents and much older books to verify facts. Then it is necessary to read as much of the parallel history in order to properly see what we have not been taught. Events and changes in history do not happen in a silo of occurrences. Malcolm Gladwell wrote a very good book with examples describing how many small events actually make changes in history rather than one big moment. The book is called “The Tipping Point”. Worth reading in your spare time.

Painting by Thomas Charles Barfield

---