A Letter to Your Governor
Feel free to copy, share or send. BW
Dear Gov Whoever:
Thought you might wanna know some really important stuff. It's a tad long but check this out. Pretty heavy. Really!
Betcha didn't know...
The Constitutions of the United States and the State of Michigan are the Supreme Law of the Land as a matter of Legal contemplation, [Marbury V. Madison (1803)]. Therefore, they cannot be suspended nor any part of them encroached upon under any circumstances, by anyone, at any time.
The provisions of your E.O. 2020-42 violate the Right of the people to assemble, to travel, and to conduct the business of their lives guaranteed by the 1st Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and Article 1 ss 3 of the Michigan Constitution.
Did you know: In the U.S. Supreme Court case, Murdock v. Pennsylvania, it was determined that, “No State can convert a secured Liberty into a privilege.”?
Oh - and the Supreme Court case, Shuttlesworth v. City of Birmingham, it was determined that if a State should attempt to convert a secured Liberty into a privilege, it is the duty of the people to ignore it and engage in the Right with impunity.Whoa!
It gets better! The U.S. Supreme Court case, Miller v. United States, 230 F 486, at 489: “The claim and exercise of a constitutional Right shall not be converted into a crime.” and
in SCOTUS case, Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. P618 it was determined that the Right to travel has long been recognized as a basic Right under the Constitution.
How about that!
And check this out: the U.S. Supreme Court case, Norton v. Shelby County, determined that 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 had never been passed. Huh!!
Wonder what that does to all those fines and tickets, ya think?
We're not done yet!
Here is U.S. Supreme Court case, Owen v. City of Independence, 445 U.S. 622 (1980) and Maine v. Thiboutot, 448 U.S. 1 (1980). It was determined that: Officers of the law are to be knowledgeable of the law. They cannot claim that they acted in good faith for willful deprivation of the law, and they certainly can’t claim ignorance of the law; no citizen can claim ignorance of the law. It makes the law look stupid if an officer of the law or an officer of government doesn’t know the law and abuses constitutionally protected Rights.
Did you know that??
And here's the Big One!
Title 18 U.S.C. § 242 Deprivation of Rights under the Color of Law: Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.
You can have your Legal Beagles check out all this jazz:
(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 696; Pub. L. 90–284, title I, § 103(b), Apr. 11, 1968, 82 Stat. 75; Pub. L. 100–690, title VII, § 7019, Nov. 18, 1988, 102 Stat. 4396; Pub. L. 103–322, title VI, § 60006(b), title XXXII, §§ 320103(b), 320201(b), title XXXIII, § 330016(1)(H), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 1970, 2109, 2113, 2147; Pub. L. 104–294, title VI, §§ 604(b)(14)(B), 607(a), Oct. 11, 1996, 110 Stat. 3507, 3511.)
WOW! Just WOW!
And for the Boys In Blue, here's one for you:
Be it known that any Officer or Agent engaged in the enforcement of unconstitutional provisions set forth in E.O. 2020-42 may be subject to criminal conviction under Title 18 U.S.C. §242.
Well? Now what, Gov? Your move...
X/O
BW
h/t David Chandler
Thought you might wanna know some really important stuff. It's a tad long but check this out. Pretty heavy. Really!
Betcha didn't know...
The Constitutions of the United States and the State of Michigan are the Supreme Law of the Land as a matter of Legal contemplation, [Marbury V. Madison (1803)]. Therefore, they cannot be suspended nor any part of them encroached upon under any circumstances, by anyone, at any time.
The provisions of your E.O. 2020-42 violate the Right of the people to assemble, to travel, and to conduct the business of their lives guaranteed by the 1st Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and Article 1 ss 3 of the Michigan Constitution.
Did you know: In the U.S. Supreme Court case, Murdock v. Pennsylvania, it was determined that, “No State can convert a secured Liberty into a privilege.”?
Oh - and the Supreme Court case, Shuttlesworth v. City of Birmingham, it was determined that if a State should attempt to convert a secured Liberty into a privilege, it is the duty of the people to ignore it and engage in the Right with impunity.Whoa!
It gets better! The U.S. Supreme Court case, Miller v. United States, 230 F 486, at 489: “The claim and exercise of a constitutional Right shall not be converted into a crime.” and
in SCOTUS case, Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. P618 it was determined that the Right to travel has long been recognized as a basic Right under the Constitution.
How about that!
And check this out: the U.S. Supreme Court case, Norton v. Shelby County, determined that 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 had never been passed. Huh!!
Wonder what that does to all those fines and tickets, ya think?
We're not done yet!
Here is U.S. Supreme Court case, Owen v. City of Independence, 445 U.S. 622 (1980) and Maine v. Thiboutot, 448 U.S. 1 (1980). It was determined that: Officers of the law are to be knowledgeable of the law. They cannot claim that they acted in good faith for willful deprivation of the law, and they certainly can’t claim ignorance of the law; no citizen can claim ignorance of the law. It makes the law look stupid if an officer of the law or an officer of government doesn’t know the law and abuses constitutionally protected Rights.
Did you know that??
And here's the Big One!
Title 18 U.S.C. § 242 Deprivation of Rights under the Color of Law: Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.
You can have your Legal Beagles check out all this jazz:
(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 696; Pub. L. 90–284, title I, § 103(b), Apr. 11, 1968, 82 Stat. 75; Pub. L. 100–690, title VII, § 7019, Nov. 18, 1988, 102 Stat. 4396; Pub. L. 103–322, title VI, § 60006(b), title XXXII, §§ 320103(b), 320201(b), title XXXIII, § 330016(1)(H), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 1970, 2109, 2113, 2147; Pub. L. 104–294, title VI, §§ 604(b)(14)(B), 607(a), Oct. 11, 1996, 110 Stat. 3507, 3511.)
WOW! Just WOW!
And for the Boys In Blue, here's one for you:
Be it known that any Officer or Agent engaged in the enforcement of unconstitutional provisions set forth in E.O. 2020-42 may be subject to criminal conviction under Title 18 U.S.C. §242.
Well? Now what, Gov? Your move...
X/O
BW
h/t David Chandler
Another AWESOME-Factually Dead-On Post Brian! Will be sharing this with a number of folks whom I believe will get something out of reading it.
ReplyDeleteThanks - hopefully you wall-papered Cuomo's office with this...
ReplyDelete