• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Fascinating Trial quotes

Motofixxer

Regular Member
Joined
May 14, 2010
Messages
965
Location
Somewhere over the Rainbow
Here is a good one:

"Constitutional rights may not be infringed simply because the majority of the people choose that they be." Westbrook v. Mihaly 2 C3d 756

"Government may not prohibit or control the conduct of a person for reasons that infringe upon constitutionally guaranteed freedoms." Smith v. U.S. 502 F2d 512 CA Tex (1974)

"We find it intolerable that one constitutional right should have to be surrendered in order to assert another." Simmons v. US, 390 US 389 (1968)

"When any court violates the clean and unambiguous language of the constitution, a fraud is perpetrated and no one is bound to obey it." State v. Sutton 63 Minn 167, 65 NW 262, 30 LRA 630

"...good faith is not enough to constitute probable cause. That faith must be grounded on facts within knowledge of the...agent, which in the judgment of the court would make his faith reasonable." Director General v Kastenbaum, 263 U.S. 25.

"Constitutional rights may not be denied simply because of hostility to their assertion and exercise. Vindication of conceded constitutional rights cannot be made dependent upon any theory that it is less expensive to deny them than to afford them." Watson v Memphis, 375 U.S. 526.





Title 18 United States Code, Section 241, provides that... "any person who goes on the highway in disguise to prevent or hinder the free exercise and enjoyment of any right so secured by law...shall be fined not more than $10,000.00 or imprisoned not more than ten years or both."
Further, Title 18, United States Code, Section 242, provides for one or more persons who, under color of law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any inhabitant of any state, territory, or district to the deprivation of rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution, or laws of the United States... shall be fined not more than $1,000 or imprisoned not more than one year or both.
Title 18, United States Code, Section 242, with its color of law provision, gives a cause of action to apply Title 18, United States Code, Section 241, because Section 241 needs two persons in disguise and Section 242 provides the second person under color of law as the "QUASI SUMMONS" mentioned herein implies that a judge in the Municipal Court is acting in concert to commit an overt act of fraud and extortion for conversion.
Further, United States Code, Title 18, section 242 provides for one or more persons who, under color of law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any inhabitant of any state, territory, or district to the deprivation of rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States. . . shall be fined not more than $1,000 or imprisoned not more than one year or both.
Usually, it can be phrased something like:
"Demand is upon you to withdraw the invalid Notice #_____ within ten (10) days from receipt of this Notice and Demand or Action will commence in the United States District Court pursuant to Rule 7(a) and (c) of the criminal rules of procedure by the jurisdiction provided in Title 42, United States Code, sections 1983 and 1985; Title 28, U.S.C. sections 1331 and 1343 and others with Title 18, U.S.C., sections 241, 242, 872, 1621, 1622, and 1623 providing for the administration of the penalties."
 
Last edited:

MKEgal

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
4,383
Location
in front of my computer, WI
"We find it intolerable that one constitutional right should have to be surrendered in order to assert another."
Simmons v. US, 390 US 389 (1968)

So we can't be forced to leave our SD tools in the car while we go vote, or talk with our elected representatives, or worship, right?
 

amaixner

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 26, 2008
Messages
308
Location
Linn County, Iowa
"We find it intolerable that one constitutional right should have to be surrendered in order to assert another."
Simmons v. US, 390 US 389 (1968)

So we can't be forced to leave our SD tools in the car while we go vote, or talk with our elected representatives, or worship, right?

Except that according to the heller majority decision, the USSC hasn't yet ruled that the "bear" part of "keep and bear" fully extends to "sensitive places" which are as yet undefined.

If course, I personally agree with you, and the WI SC may take issue with a contradiction like this.
 
Top