Call 734-968-4715
One If By Land

Interested in learning more about us?
Contact Us
Legal Issues
The primary principle of our Republic is that the citizen is in charge and the citizen may seek redress in court for any injury to himself or his property, either by another citizen or by the government.

For many reasons, during the period from the creation of the Republic until now, the process of getting redress has been obscured and made more difficult.  But it is still possible.  All of the information on this website is here to help you get yourself educated so that you can pursue your own best interests and protect yourself and your property from harm.  If you need personal help, you can find that here too.

​We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, . . . 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.

Amendment VII
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.​

​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. 

Madison described four things we can do to resist federal power.
    1. Disquietude of the people. Throw a fit when the feds usurp power.

    2. Noncompliance. Refuse to co-operate with officers of the Union.

    3. Madison envisioned governors formally protesting federal actions.

    4. Legislative devices, which can often be added.

In making the list, Madison did NOT include federal lawsuits in federal courts.  He did NOT include "voting the bums out" either.​

                                                   This journey will not be quick. Lets get started​

                                                    UNDERSTANDING THE REAL PROBLEM- -
                                      Civil Action Jurisdiction v. Corporate Government Status

  Talking heads (self proclaimed Patriots) have always claimed that the multitude of problems that have existed and continue to exist in the Republic(s) today, stem from the fact that government entities whether they be Federal, State, County, or Local municipalities are operating as Corporations. Although in “form” this is true, the real “substantive” problem has occurred in the judiciaries, when both the Federal Judiciary and the several States altered the rules under which Plaintiffs and Defendants were now to operate- - the “Civil Action Jurisdiction” The Supreme Court of the United States by Order of December 20, 1937, pursuant to Section 2 of the Act of June 19, 1934, Chapter 651(48 S tat. 1064), as well as the Michigan Constitutions of 1908 and 1963, when they established the “civil action” jurisdiction, both “usurped” authority they did not possess to change the jurisdiction of the inferior courts from “at-law” and “equity”, to the “civil action” jurisdiction, thus removing the Constitutional jurisdiction of the “de jure” from the Citizens; and making that Act of 1934 and the Michigan Constitutions “null and void”, or to put it in the words of Chief Justice Nicholson that such “…public functionaries had any more powers under said act than if no act had been passed…” , as mentioned in Norton v Shelby County 118 US 425 (1886). Further mentioned in Norton, supra. by Justice Nicholson at page 

439- -  

“Upon the construction of the constitution and laws of a state, this court, as a general rule, follows the decisions of her highest court, unless they conflict with or impair the efficacy of some principle of the federal constitution, or of a federal statute, or a rule of commercial or general law. In these cases no principle of the federal constitution, or of any federal law, is invaded, and no rule of general or commercial law is disregarded”.

Further pp 442- - 

 An unconstitutional act is not a law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; it affords no protection; it creates no office; it is, in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed”. 

Also see: Norton, supra. at 443- -  

“The court said: 'Although they assumed the functions of judges and clerk, and attempted to act as such their acts in that character are totally null and void, unless they had been regularly appointed under and according to the constitution. A de facto court of appeals cannot exist under a written constitution which ordains one supreme court, and defines the qualification and duties of its judges, and prescribes the mode of appointing them… When there is a constitutional executive and legislature, there cannot be any other than a constitutional judiciary. Without a total revolution, there can be no such political solecism in Kentucky as a de facto court of appeals. There can be no such court while the constitution has life and power. There has been none such. There might be under our constitution, as there have been, de facto officers; but there never was, and never can be, under the present constitution, a de facto office.'”
                                                                                                                                                    (emphasis added)

During that same time period, in 1937, 2 common law Writs were abolished to aide in preventing challenges of the “civil action jurisdiction”, (Writ of error coram nobis, Writ of error coram vobis). 

Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425 (1886)
Mr. Norton believed he had purchased 29 bonds, of $1,000 each, from Shelby County, Tennessee and was demanding payment. The bonds were issued by Shelby County and authorized by the "county commissioners". The defendant, Shelby County, contends that the commissioners were not lawful officers of the county as there was no such office as county commissioners and therefore the bonds were issued without authority and are void. From the beginning, the administration of local government was lodged in a county court composed of "Justices of the Peace", elected in each district. Mr Norton said further that he believed if the Commissioners were not "de jure", they were "de facto" and he should be paid. The court said there was no "de jure" office of "Commissioners" created, therefore there could be no "de facto" office either. Holding for defendant.

                                " An unconstitutional act is not a law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties;  
                                 it affords no protection; it creates no office; it is, in legal contemplation,
                                 as inoperative as though it had never been passed." 

"de jure" within accordance of the United States Constitution; by authority of the United States Constitution
"de facto"  without the authority of the United States Constitution
"usurpation"  in violation of ones oath of office, outside his/her delegated authority, outside of his/her "scope of employment".
"delegation"  authority past on to public functionaries by the Citizens who are sovereign in the Republic.
"ratification" authority reaffirmed by the Citizens.

Hale v Henkel, 201 U.S. 43 (1906)
Mr. Henkel formed a Grand Jury and subpoenaed Mr. Hale to bring in certain documents and testify about them.
Mr. Hale resisted because he did not want to incriminate himself.  He plead the Fifth Amendment"
Holding: Mr. Hale had to bring the documents and testify, as he was already protected from prosecution by the Grand Jury proceeding.

A more complete description of the Grand Jury function is contained in a lecture by Mr. Justice Wilson of this court in Pennsylvania:
"It has been alleged that grand juries are confined in their inquiries to the bills offered to them, to the crimes given them in charge, and to the evidence brought before them by the prosecutor.  But these conceptions are much too contracted.  They present a very imperfect and unsatisfactory view of the duty required from grand jurors and of the trust reposed in them.  They are not appointed for the prosecutor or for the court; they are appointed for the government and for the people; and for both the government and the people it is surely the concern that, on the one hand, all crimes, whether given or not given in charge, whether described or not described with professional skill, should receive the punishment which the law denounces; and that on the other hand, innocence, however strongly assailed by accusations drawn up in regular form, and by accusers, marshaled in legal array, should, on full investigation, be secure in that protection which the law engages that she shall enjoy inviolate."

"The oath of a grand juryman -- and his oath is the commission under which he acts -- assigns no limits, except those marked by diligence itself, to the course of his inquires.  Why then, should it be circumscribed by more contractual boundaries?  Shall diligent inquiry be enjoined?  Shall the means and opportunities of inquiry be prohibited or restrained?"

"If the grand jury, of their own knowledge or the knowledge of any of them, or from the examination of witnesses, know of any offense committed within the county for which no indictment is preferred to them, it is their duty either to inform the officer who prosecutes for the state of the nature of the offense, and desire that an indictment for it be laid before them, or, if they do not, or, if no such indictment be given them, it is their duty to give such information of it to the court, stating, without any particular form, the facts and circumstances which constitute the offense.  This is called a presentment."

                      "...we are of the opinion that there is a clear distinction in this particular between an
                      individual and a corporation, and that the latter has no right to refuse to submit its
                      books and papers for an examination at the suit of the State. The individual may stand 
                      upon his constitutional rights as a citizen. He is entitled to carry on his private business
                      in his own way. His power to contract is unlimited. He owes no duty to the State or to his
                      neighbors to divulge his business, or to open his doors to an investigation, so far as it
                      may tend to criminate him. He owes no such duty to the State, since he receives nothing 
                      therefrom beyond the protection of his life and property. His rights are such as existed by 
                      the law of the land long antecedent to the organization of the State, and can only be taken 
                      from him by due process of law, and in accordance with the Constitution. Among his rights
                      are a refusal to incriminate himself and the immunity of himself and his property from arrest 
                      or seizure except under a warrant of the law. He owes nothing to the public so long as he
                     does not trespass upon their rights.

                     Upon the other hand, the corporation is a creature of the State. It is presumed to be 
                     incorporated for the benefit of the public. It receives certain special privileges and
                     franchises, and holds them subject to the laws of the State and the limitations of its charter. 
                     Its powers are limited by law. It can make no contract not authorized by its charter. Its rights to..." 

Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244 (1901)
Mr. Downes is an importer and Mr. Bidwell is a collector of the port of New York.
Mr. Downes wishes to recover taxes collected by Mr. Bidwell on some oranges brought to New York from San Juan

In order to decide this case, the court had to review the entire process that resulted in the U.S. Constitution and its implications for states, territories and any other future acquisitions.  Reading this case is like taking a course in Constitutional Law.

Here are a few highlights.

                    "Mr. Justice Matthews, said: 'When we consider the nature and theory of our institutions 
                     of government, the principles upon which they are supposed to rest, and review the history
                     of their development, we are constrained to conclude that they do not mean to leave room 
                     for the play and action of purely personal and arbitrary power. 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. And the law is the definition and 
                     limitation of power.' 

                     In the language of Judge Cooley: 'The Constitution itself never yields to treaty or enactment; 
                     it neither changes with time nor does it in theory bend to the force of circumstances. It may 
                     be amended according to its own permission; but while it stands it is 'a law for rulers and people, 
                     equally in war and in peace, and covers with the shield of its protection all classes of men, at
                     all times and under all circumstances.' Its principles cannot, therefore, be set aside in order to
                     meet the supposed necessities of great crises. 'No doctrine involving more pernicious consequences
                     was ever invented by the wit of man than that any of its provisions can be suspended during any
                     of the great exigencies of government." 

                     "The idea prevails with some-indeed, it found expression in agruments at the bar-that we have in
                       this country substantially or practically two national governments; one to be maintained under
                       the Constitution, with all its restrictions; the other to be maintained by Congress outside and
                       independently of that instrument, by exercising such powers as other nations of the earth are
                       accustomed to exercise. It is one thing to give such a latitudinarian construction to the 
                       Constitution as will bring the exercise of power by Congress, upon a particular occasion or
                       upon a particular subject, within its provisions. It is quite a different thing to say that Congress
                       may, if it so elects, proceed outside of the Constitution. The glory of our American system 
                       [182 U.S. 244, 381] of government is that it was created by a written constitution which protects
                       the people against the exercise of arbitrary, unlimited power, and the limits of which instrument
                       may not be passed by the government it created, or by any branch of it, or even by the people
                       who ordained it, except by amendment or change of its provisions. 'To what purpose,' Chief 
                       Justice Marshall said in Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch, 137, 176, 2 L. ed. 60, 73, 'are powers 
                       limited, and to what purpose is that limitation committed to writting, if these limits may, at any 
                       time, be passed by those intended to be restrained? The distinction between a government with 
                       limited and unlimited powers is abolished if those limits do not confine the persons on whom they
                       are imposed, and if acts prohibited and acts allowed are of equal obligation.'

                       The wise men who framed the Constitution, and the patriotic people who adopted it, were 
                       unwilling to depend for their safety upon what, in the opinion referred to, is described as 'certain
                       principles of natural justice inherent in Anglo-Saxon character, which need no expression in
                       constitutions or statutes to give them effect or to secure dependencies against legislation
                       manifestly hostile to their real interests.' They proceeded upon the theory-the wisdom of
                       which experience has vindicated- that the only safe guaranty against governmental oppression 
                       was to withhold or restrict the power to oppress. They well remembered that Anglo- Saxons 
                       across the ocean had attempted, in defiance of law and justice, to trample upon the rights of
                       Anglo-Saxons on this continent, and had sought, by military force, to establish a government 
                       that could at will destroy the privileges that inhere in liberty. They believed that the establishment
                       here of a government that could administer public affairs according to its will, unrestrained by any 
                       fundamental law and without regard to the inherent rights of freemen, would be ruinous to the 
                       liberties of the people by exposing them to the oppressions of arbitrary power. Hence, the
                       Constitution enumerates the powers which Congress and the other departments may exercise,
                       -leaving unimpaired, to the states or the People, the powers not delegated to the national
                        government nor prohibited to the states. That instrument so expressly declares in
                       [182 U.S. 244, 382] the 10th Article of Amendment. It will be an evil day for American liberty
                       if the theory of a government outside of the supreme law of the land finds lodgment in our
                       constitutional jurisprudence. No higher duty rests upon this court than to exert its full
                       authority to prevent all violation of the principles of the Constitution. 

                        By the express words of the Constitution, every Senator and Representative is bound, 
                        by oath or affirmation, to regard it as the supreme law of the land. When the constitutional
                        convention was in session there was much discussion as to the phraseology of the clause 
                        defining the supremacy of the Constitution, laws, and treaties of the United States. At one 
                        stage of the proceedings the convention adopted the following clause: 'This Constitution, 
                        and the laws of the United States made in pursuance thereof, and all the treaties made 
                        under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the several states 
                        and of their citizens and inhabitants, and the judges of the several states shall be bound 
                        thereby in their decisions, anything in the constitutions or laws of the several states to
                        the contrary notwithstanding

.                        But the framers of the Constitution saw the danger of such a provision, and put into that
                         instrument in place of the above clause the following: '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 the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution
                         or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.' Meigs's Growth of the Constitution, 284,
                         287. That the convention struck out the words 'the supreme law of the several states,' and
                         inserted 'the supreme law of the land,' is a fact of no little significance. The 'land' referred to 
                         manifestly embraced all the peoples and all the territory, whether within or without the states, 
                         over which the United States could exercise jurisdiction or authority." 

Listen to John and Ron on the law and smart meters at the Peter Santilli Show

​Listen to John and Ron on the law and smart meters a Luca Zanna Show

​   Remember that “when a man who is honestly mistaken learns the truth, he will either no longer be mistaken or he will cease to be honest”.