INSTRUCTIONS FOR USE OF THE NOTICE OF ACCEPTANCE OF CONSTITUTIONS AND OF OATH OF OFFICE

The following is information and instructions, not legal advice, for your use and not to
be given to the public servant along with the 'Notice". If you do not read these
instructions at least five times and fully comprehend the proper use of the
'Notice" then do not use it! Not wise to do something legal that you are not familiar
with.

Welcome to the world of fiction! The United States government and the state
government and all of their agencies and subdivisions such as the city, county,
boroughs and townships and banks are corporations. SEE, Corpus Juris Secundum (CJS)
heading for "government." All corporations are fictions or artificial persons created
under the authority of the law (SEE, Black's Law Dictionary, "corporations"), and all
such corporate fictions are established by a set of rules called by-laws. Public
(government) corporations use the term constitution as the name of their by-laws,
which are nothing more than an offer to the people of the forum the government
intends to use to govern. (Notice that their constitutions are generally amended
internally as opposed to genuine government constitutions which are externally
amended.) If you will recall the history of the formation of the United States
government, its by-laws, the Constitution and amendments thereto were offered to the
whole world, but only officially accepted and ratified by representatives of the state
corporation governments thus binding both corporate governments in a contract. The
American private sector, although included within the offer, were never given the offer
to officially vote for or against nor to make an official acceptance or rejection. Thus, no
contract involving private Americans as a party to the Constitution exists. A contract, in
the modern sense of the word, has been defined as an agreement containing a promise
enforceable in law. The term "agreement" implies that there are at least two parties
involved, since one party cannot agree to a proposition unless it is made to him by
another party. The term further implies that one party proposed a promise or offer to
which the other party agreed or accepted. Thus, an agreement is the result of an offer
by one party and an acceptance by the other patty which creates a binding contract.

A study of the law of contracts should be done by acquiring a copy of the law text book
called Farnsworth on Contracts, ©2004 by E. Allan Farnsworth, Third Edition, Aspen
Publishers, ISBN: 0-7355-4605-3 (Vol. 1). This book is the most comprehensive work on
the relation between the law of contracts and the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), but
for now, the important part is the explanation of offer and acceptance at Section 3.3 on
pages 112 and 113. It explains that the offeror may withdraw the offer anytime until
the one it is offered to formally accepts the offer and then and only then does it become
a binding contract. (Re-read this till you get it!) If you've been to court over any kind of
issue, you have already seen that the Constitution is non-existent. A judge will tell you
that Constitution doesn't mean anything in his/her court. The judge may even threaten
you with a charge of 'contempt of court' when you even mention the Constitution. A
Attorney/lawyer will tell you that they don't use the Constitution and the same is said
by tax collectors and police officers. Well, they are just withdrawing the offer to you [the
American private people] simply because you, we, the private sector, have never
formally "accepted" their offer. Whether the offer is the United States Constitution or
the Constitution of the state government corporation (a/k/a, "...this state") near where
we live our private lives. Nor has the private sector ever formally accepted the oath of
any government worker to uphold and defend the Constitution, which is required by the
law [their law] upon taking office. It appears to be a "MUST" that we formally accept the
constitutions as well as the oath of office of any public servant, i.e. government worker,
that we may be forced to do business within their official capacity.

To look at it in another way -- Consider that the public official is often referred to as
"Honorable", i.e.: the Honorable Judge Johne Doe. If one thinks about this for a moment
and considers that perhaps 'we' have been looking at this in a way that has not been to
our benefit. If one is referred to as being 'honorable' may it not mean that it is up to
someone (like you and me) to honor them and should we choose not to honor their offer
of contract then why should they honor us? When we choose to honor someone's
offering do we not become the customer? And, is not the customer, "King"?

The major reasoning behind the concept of a Notice of Acceptance of the Constitutions
and of Oath of Office is the protection afforded by the constitutions of the private
sector's personal liberty and private property. In the history of the world there has never
been a better form of government other than what the constitutions provide for us here
in North America. We might add that never throughout the history of the world has
there ever been such corruption of the purpose of a government by a small group of
greedy, self-serving people misusing the power of office as we have experienced here in
North America. Our private property has been taken by forced registration and
recordation into [corporate] government records, which casts upon the private sector
an onslaught of [corporate] government regulations and taxation. If the state
government or any of its political subdivisions caused to be registered or recorded
anyone's private property and then invokes its powers to regulate and tax the private
property of one of the private sector, such action is a violation of the due process
clause of the Fourteenth Amendment . . ."nor shall any state deprive any person of life,
liberty, or property, without due process of the law."

But wait -- we are a party to the alleged constitution(s) - are we? What is the purpose of
a [or any] constitution? Answer: to serve as a operations manual, operational
guidelines, binds for those who choose to be "Public Servants." Remember your
sovereign status - your consumer status - and unless [emphasis on "unless"] you have
opted into being subject to something the something doesn't have [legitimate] control
over you. "Contracts make the law - all law is contract." Consider the 13th Amendment.

And here is the secret decoding - it really doesn't matter what Constitution we're talking
about -- the question to whomever -AFTER- duly [look up, "duly"] accepting their alleged
constitution and oath ["to preserve, protect, and defend ... so help me God"] is: "Is
there something by or through your alleged Constitution that compels My
performance?" -- If yes, "...then please enter it into the record of this matter." If no,
"...then what am I doing here? Is there some manner of contract that is controlling?"
Can they show that you knowingly, willingly and voluntarily after full disclosure signed
on to something that bears the other party's signature as well? (See, jurisdiction.)

F.Y.I.: Any elected or appointed official or Attorney refusing to honor an acceptance of

their Oath is simply impersonating a public official and their alleged [Texas] Penal Code
37.11 Impersonating a Public Servant - 3rd degree felony. One can also see, 18 USC
Sec. 912, 01/03/95; EXPCITE: TITLE 18 - CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, PART I -
CRIMES, CHAPTER 43 - FALSE PERSONATION; HEAD: Sec. 912. Officer or employee of
the United States. STATUTE: Whoever falsely assumes or pretends to be an officer or
employee acting under the authority of the United States or any department, agency or
officer thereof, and acts as such, or in such pretended character demands or obtains
any money, paper, document, or thing of value, shall be fined under this title or
imprisoned not more than three years, or both. See this and this for more information.

But anywhere along the way during an offer and acceptance situation there can always
be a refusal and a refusal does not constitute a refusal for cause or a dishonor because
you can't dishonor an offer, you can only dishonor a demand.

You can't dishonor an offer. You may and you can choose to not honor an offer.

You can refuse an offer, but you can't dishonor it. However, you can dishonor a demand.
Once there's an offer and acceptance been made and then one of the parties demands
their consideration and you refuse to give it to them, now that's a dishonor.

You can refuse an offer and that's all you can do to it, or accept it. Now, if you accept it,
according to the law books, you assume the liability for having accepted the offer.
Whatever liability goes along with it, you've accepted it. One should decide whether or
not one wants to assume that liability. In some cases you may want to as it may be
beneficial to you. Remember that a constitution is a limiting, defining authority device.

(Now go back and re-read that a couple of times until you get just who it was written
for.)

- - - CHALLENGE IS NOT ARGUMENT - - -

- - SOVEREIGNS, employers, grantors, principals, MAKE DEMANDS - -

demands are MET or NOT MET

- SUBJECTS, employees, grantees, servants, MAKE REQUESTS -

requests can be either GRANTED or DENIED
Think about it -- (and see, flow chart)

...the issue of sovereignty is very powerful and anybody who is not using it,
is not using their most powerful tool.

The following is a quote from a book called,

THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES ITS SOURCES AND APPLICATION
by Thomas James Norton, (1941), America's Future, Inc., publisher:
"In the Fifth Amendment the Nation is forbidden to deprive any one 'of life, liberty or
property without due process of law'; and here the like command is issued by the
people to the State. In the beginning it was National power that was feared. Experience
later taught that the power of the State also may be tyrannical. Due process of law
means, said the Supreme Court in a late case (1908), that 'no change in ancient
procedure can be made which disregards those fundamental principles . . . which . . .
protect the citizen in his private right and guard him against the arbitrary action of the
government.'
Private property is taken, for public use in opening streets in cities, in constructing
railways and canals, in erecting public buildings, in laying out public parks, and for
kindred purposes. The owner cannot be deprived of his property for such purposes by
the State without due process of law, that is, without a full hearing and adequate
compensation."

Public versus Private

The next subject of importance is to learn to distinguish between public and private.
The term "public" (adj.) in common meaning is sometimes used to refer to the entire
population. In [the] strict legal sense the term "public" only applies to government
political and municipal corporations and to no one else. Found in Black's Law Dictionary
6th Edition, page 1195, defining "private" as affecting or belonging to private
individuals, as distinct from the public generally, not official; not clothed with office.
SEE, People v. Powell, 280 Mich. 699, 274 N. K 372, 373. In other words, if you are not
in, or of, any office or government such as public school teacher, administrator, bank
personnel at any level, police, fire officials or any type of city, county, state or federal
government worker, military, - in other words, subject to the US constitution, then and
only then are you a private citizen and a part of the private sector.

Conclusion
In regards to protecting oneself from "abusive" public servants: check out the [your]
State laws on "stalking" and "exploitation" as well as "neglect to protect" provisions in
State law [upholding and enforcing the law by parties under Oath of Office] as well
as Title 18 USC §1621 concerning the "neglect to protect" by persons under Oath,
and Title 42 USC § 1986, wherein a person having "knowledge of the law", "the power to
stop a wrong" and the "duty to prevent a wrong from being done" is liable for any
failure to act. Should they fail to prevent a wrong, having knowledge of the law, the
power to prevent, and the legal or moral duty to prevent the wrong, which causes
deprivations of your religious and/or civil rights or Liberties, suit can be brought for
violations.
"Our safety, our liberty, depends upon preserving the Constitution of the United States as our Fathers made it
inviolate. The people of the United States are the rightful masters of both Congress and the Courts, not to
overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution." --Abraham Lincoln
"Bind down the Public officials with the chains of the Constitution" ---Thomas
Jefferson
Thought: Jurisdiction can always be challenged on the grounds that the constitution
states that ALL matters in LAW and EQUITY must be conducted in an Article III court. If
this court is not an Article III court then the accused requests that the matter be
transferred to an Article III court or dismissed with prejudice.
Ask the judge if he has taken an oath to uphold and defend the constitution - he has to
say yes. If you ask the judge if he intends to conduct his duties in compliance with that
oath, what can he possibly say but yes? The judge knows if the court is an Article III
court, but he is hoping you will not understand this or how to force him to comply with
his oath of office.
 Constitutional Law Judicial Immunity Court Challenges
Additionally...
While People Sleep Cases concerning Constitutional Law
PRIETO BAIL BONDS v. STATE OF TEXAS, 994 S. W. 2d 316

Texas Ruling Still Good Law: No Oath, Decision Void

U.S. District Judge Lee Yeakel says that oath is " legally enforceable."

A Request for Texas Attorney General's Opinion

Texas Attorney General's Opinion

Statement and Oath of Office... You Don't Say, by Daniel Lee Schinzing

Actually used items - as examples - NOTICE: Examples applying to/in Texas only.
Copy of Notice delivery to Judge
Certified copy of Notice of constitution and oath acceptance - Judge
Certified copy of Notice of constitution and oath acceptance - County Attorney
Certified copy of Notice of constitution and oath acceptance - District Attorney

Fair Use Transcript - applies anywhere (Hint: print it and use it as is.)

Notice of constitution and oath acceptance ...

as was found in the Travis County Texas Recorder's files.
(The Travis county recorder recently took most county records off-line. See here for
details
She claimed for privacy reasons.)

Actually used relating items - examples - NOTICE: Examples applying to/in Texas
only.
1462 Notice of constitution and oath acceptance - Judge
1462 Judicial Notice regarding foreign flag.
1462 Motion to demand Court read all pleadings
1462 Motion to claim and exercise Constitutional Rights

Here is an idea to obtain a bit of evidence that one may use should one choose to use the Judicial Notice regarding
foreign flag. Visit your local U.S. Congressperson and inquire if he or she has copy of a booklet titled, "OUR
FLAG" for you. It is 9" X 6" in size with 48 pages and a red, white & blue cover. Ask you congressperson to sign
it for you. Now you have a very nice piece of evidence that you can introduce as an offer of proof to substantiate
the Judicial Notice. "Hey, My Congressman signed it - it must be valid." (You can also visit your Senator for the
same item.)

Stay tuned - more to come! Send us yours and we may post it.

On the federal level...

Oaths of Office for Federal Judges
Title 5 USC § 3331
Title 5 Government Organization and Employees
 Interesting side notes and related items...
WHO WANTS TO TAKE AN OATH?
BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY IS A "Specialty" dictionary.

List of Responses to Constitutional Rogue Officials

What is being shown here is actual used items -- not Intended to be Legal Advise

Interesting video for background information

On Treason: in 42 B.C. Cicero said,

"A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less
formidable, for he is known and he carries his banners openly. But the traitor moves among those within the gate freely, his sly
whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government Itself. For the traitor appears not traitor, he speaks in
the accents familiar to his victims and he wears their face and their garments, and he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the
hearts of all men.
He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of a city, he infects the body politic
So that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to be feared."

ality Areas
CE: The information on this page was brought to you by people who paid this website forward so that someone such as you migh
profit by having access to it. If you care to do so also please feel encouraged to KEEP THIS SITE GOING by making a donation tod
k you.

Freedom School is not affiliated with the links on this page - unless otherwise stated.

Freedom School information served for educational purposes only, no liability assumed for use.
The information you obtain at this site is not, nor is it intended to be, legal advice.
Freedom School does not consent to unlawful action. Freedom School advocates and encourages one and
all to adhere to, support and defend all law which is particularly applicable.

The noteworthy failure of the government or any alleged agency thereof to at any time rebut anything
appearing on this website constitutes a legal admission of the fidelity and accuracy of the materials
presented, which are offered in good faith and prepared as such by Freedom School and third parties
affiliated or otherwise. If the government wants to assert that any of the religious and/or political
statements that are not factual appearing on this website are in error, then they as the moving party
have the burden of proof, and they must responsively meet that burden of proof under the Administrative
Procedures Act 5 U.S.C. §556(d) and under the due process clauses found in the Fifth, Sixth, and Seventh
Amendments to the national Constitution BEFORE there will be response to any summons, questions, or
unsubstantiated and slanderous accusations. Attempts at calling presented claims "frivolous" without
specifically rebutting the particular claim, or claims, deemed "frivolous" will be in deed be "frivolous" and
prima facie evidence that shall be used accordingly. Hey guys, if anything on this site is found to be in
error a good faith effort will be made to correct it in timely fashion upon notification.
Constitutional Law
Cases concerning Constitutional Law

Your Constitution is an Iron Clad Contract, enforceable in a Court of Law

U.S. Constitution, Article Six, Clause 2:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance
thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the
United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and Judges in every State shall be
bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary
notwithstanding.
(The Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution)

U.S. Constitution, Bill of Rights, Article One:

Congress shall make no law respecting an 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.

U.S. Constitution, Bill of Rights, Article Two:

A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the
people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.

U.S. Constitution, Bill of Rights, Article Four:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,
against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated; and no Warrants
shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly
describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.

U.S. Constitution, Bill of Rights, Article Five:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous, crime, unless on
a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval
forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service, in time of War, or public danger; nor
shall any person be subject, for the same offense, to be twice put in jeopardy of life or
limb; nor shall be compelled, in any criminal case, to be a witness against himself; 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.

U.S. Constitution, Bill of Rights, Article Six:

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public
trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been
committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law; and to be
informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses
against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor; and to
have the assistance of Counsel for his defense.
U.S. Constitution, Bill of Rights, Article Seven:
In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the
right of trial by jury shall be preserved; and no fact, tried by a jury, shall be otherwise
re-examined in any Court of the United States than according to the rules of the
common law.

U.S. Constitution, Bill of Rights, Article Eight:

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual
punishment inflicted.

U.S. Constitution, Bill of Rights, Article Nine:

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

U.S. Constitution, Bill of Rights, Article Ten:

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.
Laches:
"Doctrine of laches," is based upon maxim that equity aids the vigilant and not those
who slumber on their rights.
"neglect or omission to do what one should do as warrants presumption that one has
abandoned right or claim", Eldridge v. Idaho State Penitentiary, 54 Idaho 213, 30 P.2d
781, 784.
"A failure to do something which should be done or to claim or enforce a right at a
proper time", Hutchinson v. Kenney, C.C.A.N.C., 27 F.2d 254, 256.

Marbury v. Madison: 5 US 137 (1803):

"No provision of the Constitution is designed to be without effect," "Anything that is in
conflict is null and void of law", "Clearly, for a secondary law to come in conflict with the
supreme Law was illogical, for certainly, the supreme Law would prevail over all other
laws and certainly our forefathers had intended that the supreme Law would be the
bases of all law and for any law to come in conflict would be null and void of law, it
would bare no power to enforce, in would bare no obligation to obey, it would purport to
settle as if it had never existed, for unconstitutionality would date from the enactment
of such a law, not from the date so branded in an open court of law, no courts are
bound to uphold it, and no Citizens are bound to obey it. It operates as a near nullity or
a fiction of law."
If any statement, within any law, which is passed, is unconstitutional, the whole law is
unconstitutional by Marbury v. Madison.

Shephard's Citations:
A group of reporters that go through and keep track of all court cases that have come
before the courts, especially the Supreme Court and they clarify, before the court, all
the cases. All cases which have cited Marbury v. Madison case, to the Supreme Court
has not ever been over turned. See Shephard's Citation of Marbury v. Madison.

Title 5, US Code Sec. 556(d), Sec. 557, Sec.706:

Courts lose jurisdiction if they do not follow Due Process Law.

Title 18, US Code Sec.2381:

In the presents of two or more witnesses of the same overt act, or in a open court of
law, if you fail to timely move to protect and defend the Constitution of the United
States and honor your oath of office, you are subject to the charge of capital felony
treason.

American Jurisprudence Book 16: Constitution Law Section 16Am Jur 2d:

16Am Jur 2d., Sec. 97:

"Then a constitution should receive a literal interpretation in favor of the Citizen, is
especially true, with respect to those provisions which were designed to safeguard the
liberty and security of the Citizen in regard to person and property." Bary v. United
States - 273 US 128
"Any constitutional provision intended to confer a benefit should be liberally construed
in favor in the clearly intended and expressly designated beneficiary"
(You are the Beneficiary of the US Constitution)

16Am Jur 2d., Sec. 98:

"While an emergency can not create power and no emergency justifies the violation of
any of the provisions of the United States Constitution or States Constitutions. Public
emergency such as economic depression for especially liberal construction of
constitutional powers and it has been declared that because of national emergency, it is
the policy of the courts of times of national peril, so liberally to construed the special
powers vested in the chief executive as to sustain an effectuate the purpose there of,
and to that end also more liberally to construed the constituted division and
classification of the powers of the coordinate branches of the government and in so far
as may not be clearly inconsistent with the constitution."
(No emergency has just cause to suppress the constitution.)

16Am Jur 2d., Sec. 114:

"As to the construction, with reference to Common Law, an important cannon of
construction is that constitutions must be construed to reference to the Common Law."
"The Common Law, so permitted destruction of the abatement of nuisances by
summary proceedings and is was never supposed that a constitutional provision was
intended to interfere with this established principle and although there is no common
law of the United States in a since of a national customary law as distinguished from
the common law of England, adopted in the several states. In interpreting the Federal
Constitution, recourse may still be had to the aid of the Common Law of England. It has
been said that without reference to the common law, the language of the Federal
Constitution could not be understood."

16Am Jur 2d., Sec. 117:

"Various facts of circumstances extrinsic to the constitution are often resorted to, by the
courts, to aid them and determining its meaning, as previously noted however, such
extrinsic aids may not be resorted to where the provision in the question is clear and
unambiguous in such a case the courts must apply the terms of the constitution as
written and they are not at liberty to search for meanings beyond the instrument."

16Am Jur 2d., Sec. 155:

"Since the constitution is intendant for the observance of the judiciary as well as other
departments of government and the judges are sworn to support its provisions, the
courts are not at liberty to overlook or disregard its commands or counteract evasions
thereof, it is their duty in authorized proceedings to give full effect to the existing
constitution and to obey all constitutional provisions irrespective of their opinion as to
the wisdom or the desirability of such provisions and irrespective of the consequences,
thus it is said that the courts should be in our alert to enforce the provisions of the
United States Constitution and guard against their infringement by legislative fiat or
otherwise in accordance with these basic principles, the rule is fixed that the duty in the
proper case to declare a law unconstitutional cannot be declined and must be
performed in accordance with the delivered judgment of the tribunal before which the
validity of the enactment it is directly drawn into question. If the Constitution prescribes
one rule and the statute the another in a different rule, it is the duty of the courts to
declare that the Constitution and not the statute governs in cases before them for
judgment.

16Am Jur 2d., Sec. 177:

"Declaratory judgments actions have often been utilized to test the constitutionality of
a statute in government practices. The Uniform Declaratory Judgment Act makes pacific
provisions of the determination of construction or validity of statutes and municipal
ordinance by declaratory judgment and is considered to furnish a particularly
appropriate method for the determination of controversies relative to the construction
and validity of the statute and of ordinances. The Federal Declaratory Judgment Act,
although it does not mention declarations as to the construction or validity of the
statutes, has been invoked frequently as a means of a saying of the constitutionality of
Congressional Legislation. A plaintiff can have a declaratory judgment action on the
constitutionality of either the Federal or State statute by a single Federal Judge so long
as he does not ask to have the operation of the statute enjoined. A court may grant
declaratory relief, unless there is a case of controversy before the court."
"No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law"
(Demand a Declaratory Judgment)

16Am Jur 2d., Sec. 255:

"In all instances, where the court exercise it's power to invalidate legislation on
constitutional grounds, the conflict of the statute, with the constitution must be
irreconcilable. Thus a statute is not to be declared unconstitutional unless so
inconsistent with the constitution that it cannot be enforced without a violation thereof.
A clear incompatibility between law and the constitution must exist before the judiciary
is justified holding the law unconstitutional. This principle is of course in line with the
rule that doubts as the constitutionality should be resolved in favor of the
constitutionality and the beneficiary."

16Am Jur 2d., Sec. 256:

"The general rule is that a unconstitutional statute, whether Federal or State, though
having the form and name of law as in reality no law, but is wholly void and ineffective
for any purpose since unconstitutionality dates from the enactment and not merrily
from the date of the decision so braining it. An unconstitutional law in legal
contemplation is as inoperative as if it never had been passed. Such a statute lives a
question that is purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not ever been
enacted. No repeal of an enactment is necessary, since an unconstitutional law is void.
The general principles follows that it imposes no duty, converse no rights, creates no
office, bestows no power of authority on anyone, affords no protection and justifies no
acts performed under it. A contract which rests on a unconstitutional statute creates no
obligation to be impaired by subsequent legislation. No one is bound to obey an
unconstitutional law. No courts are bound to enforce it. Persons convicted and fined
under a statute subsequently held unconstitutional may recover the fines paid. A void
act cannot be legally inconsistent with a valid one and an unconstitutional law cannot
operate to supersede an existing valid law. Indeed, in so far as a statute runs counter to
the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby. Since an unconstitutional
statute cannot repeal, or in anyway effect an existing one, if a repealing statute is
unconstitutional, the statute which it attempts to repeal, remains in full force and effect
and where a statute in which it attempts to repeal remains in full force and effect and
where a clause repealing a prior law is inserted in the act, which act is unconstitutional
and void, the provision of the repeal of the prior law will usually fall with it and will not
be permitted to operate as repealing such prior law. The general principle stated above
applied to the constitution as well as the laws of the several states insofar as they are
repugnant to the constitution and laws of the United States."
16Am Jur 2d., Sec. 257:
"The actual existence of a statute prior to determination, that it is unconstitutional is an
operative fact and may have consequences which can not justify being ignored, when a
statute which has been in effect for some time is declared unconstitutional, questions of
rights claimed to have become vested of status of prior determinations deemed to have
finality an acted upon accordingly and of public policy in the light of the nature, both of
the statute and of it's previous application demand examination. It has been said that in
all inclusive statement of the principle of absolute retroactive inviolability cannot be
justified. An unconstitutional statute is not necessarily a nullity it may have
indeterminate consequences binding on the people."

16Am Jur 2d., Sec. 258:

"On the other hand it is clear that Congress cannot by authorization or ratification give
the slightest effect to a state law or constitution which is in conflict with the
Constitution of the United States."

16Am Jur 2d., Sec. 260:

"Although it is manifested that an unconstitutional provision in the statute is not cured
because included in the same act with valid provisions and that there is no degrees of
constitutionality."

Mudook v. Penn., 319 US 105:(1943)

"A state may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the Federal
Constitution and that a flat license tax here involves restraints in advance the
constitutional liberties of Press and Religion and inevitably tends to suppress their
existence. That the ordinance is non-discriminatory and that is applies also to peddlers
of wares and merchandise is immaterial. The liberties granted by the first amendment
are and in a preferred position. Since the privilege in question is guaranteed by the
Federal Constitution and exist independently of the states authority , the inquiry as to
whether the state has given something for which it cannot ask a return, is irrelevant.
No state may convert any secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee
for it"
Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham AL, 373 US 262:(1962)
"If the state does convert your right into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it,
you can ignore the license and a fee and engage the right with impunity."

United States v. Bishop, 412 US 346:

Sets the standard for criminal violation of Willful Intent
It must be proven that you are the party.
It must be proven that you had the method or opportunity to do the thing.
It must be proven that you did this with a Willful Intent.
Willfulness - "An evil motive or intent to avoid a know duty or task under a law, with a
moral certainty."
"Now since the prosecutor does not have a cause of action for which relief can be
granted, your Honor, may it please the court, Counsel is specifically precluded
performing his major task, therefore, your Honor, may it please the court, at this time, I
would Motion most graciously for a dismissal of Prejudice, for failure to state a cause of
action for which relief may be granted by this Honorable Court and I would like to
collect my cost and fees for having to defend this frivolous complaint, Sir, may it please
the court."

Owen v. Independence, 100 Vol. Supreme Court Reports. 1398:(1982)

Main v. Thiboutot, 100 VoL Supreme Court Reports. 2502:(1982)
"The right of action created by statute relating to deprivation under color of law, of a
right secured by the constitution and the laws of the United States and comes claims
which are based solely on statutory violations of Federal Law and applied to the claim
that claimants had been deprived of their rights, in some capacity, to which they were
entitled."
"Officers of the court have no immunity when violating constitutional right, from
liability" (When any public servant violates your rights they do so at their own peril.)

Title 18 US Code Sec. 241 & Sec. 242:

"If upon conviction, you are subject to a $10,000.00 fine, ten years in jail, or both, and if
theft results, life in prison."

Title 42 US Code Sec. 1983, Sec. 1985, & Sec. 1986:

Clearly established the right to sue anyone who violates your constitutional rights. The
Constitution guarantees: he who would unlawfully jeopardize your property loses
property to you, and that's what justice is all about.
"Judge, you are deemed to know the law and are sworn to uphold it. You can hardly
claim that you acted in good faith for willful deformation of a law and you certainly
cannot pled ignorance of the law, for that would make the law look stupid for a
knowledgeable judge to claim ignorance of a law, when a Citizen on the street cannot
claim ignorance of the law. Therefore, there is no judicial immunity."

Bryars v. United States 273USR 28:

"Constitutional provisions, where the security of a person and property are to be
liberally construed, and it is the duty of the courts to be watchful for the constitutional
rights of the Citizen and against any stealth encroachment therein. When a Federal
Officer participates officially with a state official in a search, so that in substance and
effect, it is their joint operation, the legality of the search and the use in evidence of the
things seized is to be tested in Federal prosecutions as it would be if the undertaking
were conclusively the Federal agent."

Boyd v. United States 116 USR 616:

"The Court is to protect against encroachment of constitutionality or secured liberty. It is
equivalent to a compulsory production of papers, to make the non - production of them
a confession of the allegations which is pretended they will prove. The seizure of
compensatory production of a man's private papers to be used in evidence against him
is equivalent to compelling him to be a witness against himself, violation of the fifth
amendment, and in a prosecution for a crime, penalty or forfeiture is equally within the
prohibition of the fifth amendment."

Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US 436:

Where the Miranda warning the police gives at arrest, comes from. Refuse to say
anything without a lawyer present. Do not ever sign a statement that you have been
told of your rights. Keep your mouth shut!
"In the absence of other effective measures, the following procedures to safeguard the
fifth amendment privileges must be observed. The person in custody must prior to
interrogation be clearly informed that he has a right to remain silent and that anything
he says will be used against him in a court of law. He must be clearly informed that he
has a right to consult with a lawyer, to have a lawyer with him during interrogation and
that if he is indigent, a lawyer will be appointed to represent him. If the individual
indicates prior to and during questioning that he wishes to remain silent, the
interrogation must cease. If he states that he wants an attorney, the questioning must
cease until an attorney is present. Where an interrogation is conducted without the
presence of an attorney and a statement is taken, a heavy burden rests on the
government to demonstrate that the defendant knowingly and intelligently waived his
constitutional consul right. Where the individual answers some questions during
interrogation or cuts the interrogation, he has not waived his privilege and may invoke
his right to remain silent thereafter. The warnings require that the waver needed our, in
the absence of a fully effective equivalent perquisites to the admission or admissibility
of any statement, inculpability or exculpability made by the defendant. The limitations
on the interrogation presses required for the protection of the individual's constitutional
rights should not cause an undue interference the proper system of law enforcement as
demonstrated by the procedures of the FBI and the safeguards afforded to other
jurisdictions. In each of these cases the statements were obtained under circumstances
that did not meet constitutional standards for protection of the privilege against self
incrimination." "Where rights secured by the constitution are involved, there can be no
rule or law making or legislation which would abrogate or abolish them."

Norton v. Shelby County 118 USR 425:

"An unconstitutional act is not law. It confers no rights, it imposes no duties, it affords
no protections, it creates no office. It is in legal contemplation as inoperative as though
it has never been passed."
"The court follows the decision of the highest court of the state, in construing the
constitution and the laws of the state unless they conflict with or impair the efficacy of
some principle of the Federal Constitution or of the Federal Statutes or rule of the
commercial or general law. The decision of the state court's in questions relating to the
existence of its subordinate tribunals and eligibility in elections or appointment of their
officers and the passage of its laws are conclusive upon Federal Courts. While acts of de
facto incumbent of an office lawfully created by law. An existing or often held to be
binding from reasons of public policy. The acts of the person assuming to fill and
perform the duties of an office, which does not exist, can have no validity whatever in
law."

U.S. (vs) Dougherty, 473 F2d 1113 at 1139

States: "The jury has an unreviewable and unreversible power...to acquit in disregard of
the instructions on the law given by the trial judge..."

U.S. (vs) Moylan, 417 F2d 1002 at 1006

States: "We recognize, as appellents urge, the undisputed power of the jury to acquit,
even if its verdict is contrary to the law as given by the judge."

TEXAS CONSTITUTION Article 1 Section 19 states: No citizen of this State shall be

deprived of life, liberty, property, privileges or immunities, or in any manner
disfranchised, except by the due course of the law of the land.
Texas State Law on Larceny & Extortion Section 31.01 (a): Creating or confirming by
words or conduct, a false impression of law or fact that is likely to affect the judgment
of another, in the transaction.