A nice letter I wrote to 3 revenue generators for being assholes. Long, but worth a read. ha ha On two separate occasions, Oregon State Police have infringed on my unalienable constitutional rights to be secure in my person and papers as outlined in, not only the U.S. Constitution, but the Oregon Constitution as well; 4th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and Article I, Section IX of the Oregon Constitution respectively. The first case was on the fifth of November, 2013 by Officer Stinnett and Rushton. The second time I dont recall the date but it was by officer Brandon Smithers. They infringed on these rights even though they all took an oath to defend and support the Constitution, not pervert it with power-grabbing, revenue generating man-made legislation/statutes. I was cited for ORS 497.036 for [f]ail to allow inspection of angling gear/catch/license even after I invoked my Constitutional Rights. Here is a refresher course on the verbiage of these two Constitutional Rights written verbatim in their original text. The United States Constitution: Fourth Amendment: 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 . Oregon Constitution Article 1, Section 9: No law shall violate the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable search, or seizure; and no warrant shall issue but upon probable cause, supported by oath, or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the person or thing to be seized.– It is no secret that the right to be secure in your persons and papers parallel the right to liberty as outlined in the Declaration of Independence: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain UNalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness (emphasis added). The legal definition of unalienable according to Black Laws Dictionary (6th edition): : incapable of being alienated, that is, sold and transferred. You can not surrender, sell or transfer unalienable rights. They are a gift from the Creator (as outlined in the DoI) to the individual and cannot, under any circumstances, be surrendered or taken. All individuals have unalienable rights in the capacity of their citizenry, not the capacity of a government entity (employee). Is there a real threat that man-made laws, legislation and statutes infringe on basic, fundamental Constitutional rights? Some Justices of the supreme court tend to acknowledge this threat: Excerpts from: Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (2 Cranch) 137, 180 - ...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. - 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. - All law which are repugnant to the Constitution are VOID. Excerpts from: Boyd v. United, 116 U.S. 616 at 635 Justice Bradley: It may be that it is the obnoxious thing in its mildest form; but illegitimate and unconstitutional practices get their first footing in that way; namely, by silent approaches and slight deviations from legal modes of procedure. This can only be obviated by adhering to the rule that constitutional provisions for the security of persons and property should be liberally construed. A close and literal construction deprives them of half their efficacy, and leads to gradual depreciation of the right, as if it consisted more in sound than in substance. It is the duty of the Courts to be watchful for the Constitutional Rights of the Citizens, and against any stealthy encroachments thereon. Their motto should be Obsta Principiis. Obsta Principiis: Lat. Withstand beginnings; resist the first approaches or encroachments (Black Laws Dictionary 6th edition; Pg. 1077) Even the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution should (in theory) protect us from these arbitrary laws. ...No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the rights , privileges, or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property... Should the claim and exercise of a constitutional right be converted into a crime? NO! Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 426, 491; 86 S. Ct. 1603 Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them. Sherar v. Cullen, 481 F. 2d 946 (1973) There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of his exercise of constitutional rights. Simmons v. United States, 390 U.S. 377 (1968) The claim and exercise of a Constitution right cannot be converted into a crime. I really hope the offenders in this complaint read this and let it soak in and realize what threat they impose on a (once) free society. As my public servants, your job is to protect and respect my constitutional rights, not let the invoking of them anger you. Let us not forget that during the Nuremberg trials, just doing [their] job[s], or just following orders were deemed an invalid defense and/or excuse. Only bad ideas need to be forced upon peaceful people with guns, extortion and/or threats of imprisonment, not good ones. Respectfully,
Posted on: Sun, 28 Sep 2014 02:07:08 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015