Allen v. City of Portland, 73 F.3rd, 232 (9th Cir. 1995): By definition, probable cause 2697 to arrest can only exist in relation to criminal conduct; civil disputes cannot give rise to 2698 probable cause contract dispute cannot give rise to probable cause to arrest. Cities or 2699 counties CANNOT butt in on any civil dispute between neighbors, or presume there is 2700 any criminal activity related to ownership of livestock, fowl or other property. Civil 2701 disputes go through the DISTRICT ATTORNEY. If the city gets involved, it commits 2702 domestic terrorismAmerica Communicators Association v. Douds 339 U.S. 382, 442 Decided: It is not 2705 the function of our Government to keep citizens from falling into error; it is the function 2706 of the citizen to keep the government from falling into error. 2707 2708 Anderson v. Branen, 17 F.3d 552 (2d Cir.1994). “All law enforcement officials have an 2709 affirmative duty to intervene to protect the constitutional rights of citizens from 2710 infringement by other law enforcement officers in their presence. . . .” – 2711 2712 Argersinger v. Hamlin 407 US 25, 40 (1971). “(a) The controlling rule is that “absent a 2713 knowing and intelligent wavier, no person may be imprisoned for any offense... unless 2714 he was represented by counsel at his trial.” Alabama vs. 2715 Shelton 535 US 654. “...when a trial of a misdemeanor starts that no imprisonment may 2716 be imposed, even though local law permits it, unless the accused be represented by 2717 counsel.” 2718 2719 Baltimore Ohio Railroad Co. v. United States, 261 U.S. 592 (1923), is a US Supreme 2720 Court case on contract law. The Supreme Court held that an implied in fact contract 2721 exists as, “an agreement ... founded upon a meeting of minds, which, although not 2722 embodied in an express contract, is inferred, as a fact, from conduct of the parties 2723 showing, in the light of the surrounding circumstances, their tacit understanding.” 2724 2725 JONES v. CITY OF CHICAGO•856 F.2d 985, 992 (7th Cir. 1988). To be liable as a 2726 conspirator you must be a voluntary participant in a common venture, although you need 2727 not have agreed on the details of the conspiratorial scheme or even know who the other 2728 conspirators are. It is enough if you understand the general objectives of the scheme, 2729 accept them, and agree, either explicitly or implicitly, to do your part to further them. 2730 See, e.g., id. at 383-85; 2731 2732 Bell v. City of Milwaukee, 746 F 2d 1205; US Ct App 7th Cir WI, (1984). The Due 2733 Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment requires that severance in the parent-child 2734 relationship caused by the state occur only with rigorous protections for individual liberty 2735 interests at stake. 2736 The parent-child relationship is a liberty interest protected by the Due Process Clause of 2737 the 14th Amendment.Blyew v. United States 80 US 581, 598-99 (1871) “[I]t is a right, an inestimable right, 2740 that of invoking the penalties of law upon those who criminally or feloniously attack our 2741 persons or our property. Civil society has deprived us of the natural right of avenging 2742 ourselves, but it has preserved to us all the more jealously the right of bringing the 2743 offender to justice. By the common law of England, the injured party was the actual 2744 prosecutor of criminal offenses, although the proceeding was in the King’s name; but in 2745 felonies, which involved a forfeiture to the Crown of the criminal’s property, it was also 2746 the duty of the Crown officers to superintend the prosecution... To deprive a whole classof the community of this right, to refuse their evidence and their sworn complaints, is to 2748 brand them with a badge of slavery; is to expose them to wanton insults of fiendish 2749 assaults; is to leave their lives, their families, and their property unprotected by law. It 2750 gives unrestricted license and impunity to vindictive outlaws and felons to rush upon 2751 these helpless people and kill and slay them at will...” Bose Corp. v. Consumers Union of United States, Inc., 466 U.S. 485, 499 (1984), 2754 (quoting New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 284-286 (1964)). We have 2755 held that in cases raising First Amendment issues . . . an appellate court has an obligation 2756 to make an independent examination of the whole record in order to make sure that the 2757 judgment does not constitute a forbidden intrusion on the field of free expression. The 2758 Bar’s whole case rests on the fact of the statement, the time it was made, and petitioner’s 2759 own justifications. Full deference to these factual findings does not justify abdication of 2760 our responsibility to determine whether petitioner’s statements can be punished consistent 2761 with First Amendment standards. Rather, this Court is compelled to examine for [itself] 2762 the statements in issue and the circumstances under which they were made to see whether 2763 or not they do carry a threat of clear and present danger to the impartiality and good order 2764 of the courts or whether they are of a character which the principles of the First 2765 Amendment, as adopted by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, 2766 protect. Pennekamp v. Florida, 328 U.S. 331, 335 (1946). 2767 2768 Boyd v. United States 116 US 616 (1886). The court is to protect against the 2769 encroachment of unconstitutionality of a secured liberty. Justice Bradley, It may be that it 2770 is the obnoxious thing in its mildest form; but illegitimate and unconstitutional practices 2771 get their first footing in that way; namely, by silent approaches and slight deviations from 2772 legal modes of procedure. This can only be obviated by adhering to the rule that 2773 constitutional provisions for the security of persons and property should be liberally 2774 construed. A close and literal construction deprives them of half their efficacy, and leads 2775 to gradual depreciation of the right, as if it consisted more in sound than in substance. It 2776 is the duty of the Courts to be watchful for the Constitutional Rights of the Citizens, and 2777 against any stealthy encroachments thereon. Their motto should be Obsta Principiis. 2778 2779 Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) The government’s withholding of evidence that 2780 is material to the determination of either guilt or punishment of a criminal defendant 2781 violates the defendant’s constitutional right to due process. 2782 2783 Brady v. U.S., 397 U.S. 742, 748, (1970). Waivers of Constitutional Rights, not only 2784 must they be voluntary, they must be knowingly intelligent acts done with sufficient 2785 awareness of the relevant circumstances and likely consequences. 2786 2787 Brookfield Construction Co. v. Stewart A.K.A. Brookfield Construction Co., Inc., 2788 and Baylor Construction Corp., Appellants, v. J. George STEWART, Individually 2789 and as Architect of the Capitol, Appellee. 339 F.2d 753, 119 U.S. App. D.C. 254.Once a Government Official exceeds his Oath of Office, his employment contract or his 2791 jurisdiction, he no longer represents the government. Courts may not step in and either 2792 stay or compel executive action unless executive official was acting in excess of his 2793 statutory authority or transgressed a constitutional limitation, and mere fact that he might 2794 be acting erroneously or perhaps even tortuously does not vest courts with jurisdiction to 2795 act. Brown v. Texas 443 US 47 (1989). The accused must be properly identified; identified 2798 in such a fashion there is no room for mistaken identity. " The statute to detain 2799 appellant and require him to identify himself violated the Fourth Amendment because the 2800 officers lacked any reasonable suspicion to believe that appellant was engaged or had 2801 engaged in criminal conduct. Detaining appellant to require him to identify himself 2802 constituted a seizure of his person subject to the requirement of the Fourth Amendment 2803 that the seizure be reasonable. 2804 2805 Byars v. United States, 273 U.S. 28 (1927) The constitution is supposed to be 2806 enforced American Jurisprudence vol. 16, constitutional law section, sec. 97...”That a 2807 constitution should receive a liberal interpretation in favor of the citizen is especially true 2808 with respect to those provisions which were designed to safeguard the liberty and security 2809 of the citizen in regard to both person and property. In other words it’s supposed to be 2810 liberally enforced in favor of the citizen for the protections of their rights and property. 2811 Any constitutional provision intended to confer a benefit should be liberally construed in 2812 favor of the clearly intended and expressly designated beneficiary. 2813 2814 Buckley v. Fitzsimmons 509 U.S. 259, (91-7849) (1993), An arrest causes an injury 2815 whether or not it is prosecuted. 2816 2817 Burlington v. Josephson, 153 Fed.2d 372,276 (1946). Arrest is presumed to be false; 2818 officer has the burden of proof The only thing the plaintiff needs to plead and to prove is 2819 either 2820 (1) that the defendant made an arrest or imprisonment, or 2821 (2) that the defendant affirmatively instigated, encouraged, incited, or caused the arrest or 2822 imprisonment. 2823 2824 Clearfield Trust Co. v. United States 318 U.S. 363-371 (1943): Governments descend 2825 to the level of a mere private corporation, and take on the characteristics of a mere private 2826 citizen . . . where private corporate commercial paper [Federal Reserve Notes] and 2827 securities [checks] is concerned . . . For purposes of suit, such corporations and 2828 individuals are regarded as entities entirely separate from government. 2829 What the Clearfield Doctrine is saying is that when private commercial paper is used by 2830 corporate government, then government loses its sovereignty status and becomes no 2831 different than a mere private corporation. As such, government then becomes bound by the rules and laws that govern private 2833 corporations which means that if they intend to compel an individual to some specific 2834 performance based upon its corporate statutes or corporation rules, then the government, 2835 like any private corporation, must be the holder-in-due-course of a contract or other 2836 commercial agreement between it and the one upon who demands for specific 2837 performance are made. 2838 And further, the government must be willing to enter the contract or commercial 2839 agreement into evidence before trying to get the court to enforce its demands, called 2840 statutes. 2841 2842 County of Riverside v. McLaughin, 500 U.S. 44 (1991), was a United States Supreme 2843 Court case which involved the question of whether suspects arrested without a warrant 2844 (warrantless arrests) must be brought into court within a reasonable amount of time to 2845 determine if there is probable cause for holding the suspect in custody. The Supreme 2846 Court found that the County of Riverside’s practices in regards to warrantless arrests 2847 were unconstitutional and ruled that suspects who are arrested without a warrant must be 2848 given probable cause within 48 hours. “While physical presence of the arrestee may 2849 frequently serve the useful purpose of ascertaining the identity of the person arrested, 2850 presence is not constitutionally mandated. Our decision in the case at bar complies with 2851 our decision in Bernard, 699 F.2d at 1024, where we upheld a probable cause 2852 determination for warrantless arrestees by ex parte affidavit. The preliminary injunction 2853 entered in McLaughlin v. County of Riverside is AFFIRMED. 2854 2855 Carson v. Elrod, 411 F Supp 645, 649; DC E.D. VA (1976). No bond is more precious 2856 and none should be more zealously protected by the law as the bond between parent and 2857 child.” 2858 2859 Doe v. Irwin, 441 F Supp 1247; U.S. D.C. of Michigan, (1985). The rights of parents to 2860 the care, custody and nurture of their children is of such character that it cannot be denied 2861 without violating those fundamental principles of liberty and justice which lie at the base 2862 of all our civil and political institutions, and such right is a fundamental right protected by 2863 this amendment (First) and Amendments 5, 9, and 14. The several states have no greater 2864 power to restrain individual freedoms protected by the First Amendment than does the 2865 Congress of the United States. Wallace v. Jaffree, 105 S Ct 2479; 472 US 38, (1985). 2866 Loss of First Amendment Freedoms, for even minimal periods of time, unquestionably 2867 constitutes irreparable injury. Though First Amendment rights are not absolute, they may 2868 be curtailed only by interests of vital importance, the burden of proving which rests on 2869 their government. Elrod v. Burns, 96 S Ct 2673; 427 US 347, (1976). 2870 2871 Davis v. Mississippi, 394 U.S. 721 (1969). To make sure all are informed regarding the 2872 fact that my fingerprints are private property which cannot be taken over your objection 2873 without a valid court order. 2874 Donnelly v. Dechristoforo 416 US 637 (1974). The prosecutor is not a witness and 2876 should not be permitted to add to the record either by subtle or gross improprieties. Those 2877 who have witnessed the full thrust of the power of government when leveled against them 2878 know that the only protection the citizen has is in the requirement for a fair trial. 2879 2880 Downs v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244 (1901) It will be an evil day for American Liberty if the 2881 theory of a government outside supreme law finds lodgment in our constitutional 2882 jurisprudence. No higher duty rests upon this Court than to exert its full authority to 2883 prevent all violations of the principles of the Constitution. 2884 2885 Dred Scott vs. Sandford 60 US 393 (1857). Which states in pertinent part: “The State 2886 Citizen is immune from any and all government attacks and procedure absent contract.” 2887 as the Supreme Court has stated clearly, “...every man is independent of all laws, except 2888 those prescribed by nature. He is not bound by any institutions formed by his fellowmen 2889 without his consent.” “The words of the “people of the United States” and “citizens” are 2890 synonymous terms. They both describe the political body who, according to our republic 2891 institutions form the sovereignty, and who hold the power, and conduct the government 2892 through their representatives. They are what we familiarly call the sovereign people, and 2893 a constituent member of the sovereignty.” CRUDEN vs. NEALE, 2 N.C. 338 2 S.E. 70 2894 2895 Duncan v. Missouri, 152 U.S. 377, 382 (1894) Due process of law and the equal 2896 protection of the laws are secured if the laws operate on all alike, and do not subject the 2897 individual to an arbitrary exercise of the powers of government. 2898 2899 Estate of Macias v. Lopez, 42 F.Supp.2d 957 (N.D.Cal. 1999): Other district court 2900 began its analysis by setting forth the elements of a ß 1983 claim against an individual 2901 state actor as follows: [the plaintiff(s)] possessed a constitutional right of which [they 2902 were] deprived; the acts or omissions of the defendant were intentional; the defendant 2903 acted under color of law; and the acts or omissions of the defendant caused the 2904 constitutional deprivation. The court also stated that, to establish municipal liability, a 2905 plaintiff must show that: [the plaintiff] possessed a constitutional right of which [he/she] 2906 was deprived; the municipality had a policy or custom; this policy or custom amounts to 2907 deliberate indifference to [the plaintiffs’] constitutional right; and the policy or custom 2908 caused the constitutional deprivation. 2909 Evans v. Newton 382 US 296 (1966), 86 and Marsh v. Alabama 326 US 501 (1946). 2910 When a private entity is engaged in or performs a government function they are subject to 2911 the laws of the Constitution. 2912 2913 Ex parte Milligan. 71 U.S. 2 (1866). Neither the legislature nor any executive or judicial 2914 officer may disregard the provisions of the constitution in case of emergency. Section 98 2915 therefore, ANYONE who declares the suspension of constitutionally guaranteed rights 2916 (to freely travel, peacefully assemble, make a living, freely worship, etc.) and or attempts 2917 to enforce such suspension with 50 independent, sovereign, continental United States ofAmerica is making war against our constitution(s) and therefore, we the people. They 2919 violate their constitutional oath and thus immediately forfeit their office and authority and 2920 their proclamation may be disregarded with impunity and that means ANOYONE, even 2921 the governor and President. 2922 Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975), was a case in which the Supreme Court of 2924 the United States held that criminal defendants have a constitutional right to refuse 2925 counsel and represent themselves in state criminal proceedings. 2926 2927 FHA v. Burr, 309 US 242 (1940). When governments enter the world of commerce, they 2928 are subject to the same burdens as any private firm or corporation. 2929 2930 Frost & Frost Trucking Company vs. Railroad Commission 271 U.S. 583 2931 (1926) [verified]. But the powers of the state in that respect is not unlimited, and one of 2932 the limitations is that it may not impose conditions which require the relinquishment of 2933 constitutional rights. If the state may compel the surrender of one constitutional right as a 2934 condition of its’ favor, it may, in like manner, compel a surrender of all. It is 2935 inconceivable that guarantees embedded in the Constitution of the United States may thus 2936 be manipulated out of existence. 2937 2938 Franz v. U.S., 707 F 2d 582, 595-599; US Ct App (1983). A parent’s right to the 2939 preservation of his relationship with his child derives from the fact that the parent’s 2940 achievement of a rich and rewarding life is likely to depend significantly on his ability to 2941 participate in the rearing of his children. A child’s corresponding right to protection from 2942 interference in the relationship derives from the psychic importance to him of being 2943 raised by a loving, responsible, reliable adult. 2944 2945 Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 US 479, (1965). The Constitution also protects “the 2946 individual interest in avoiding disclosure of personal matters.” Federal Courts (and State 2947 Courts), under Griswold can protect, under the “life, liberty and pursuit of happiness” 2948 phrase of the Declaration of Independence, the right of a man to enjoy the mutual care, 2949 company, love and affection of his children, and this cannot be taken away from him 2950 without due process of law. There is a family right to privacy which the state cannot 2951 invade or it becomes actionable for civil rights damages. 2952 2953 Gross v. State of Illinois, 312 F 2d 257; (1963). State Judges, as well as federal, have 2954 the responsibility to respect and protect persons from violations of federal constitutional 2955 rights. 2956 2957 In re: J.S. and C., 324 A 2d 90; supra 129 NJ Super, at 489. A parent’s right to care 2958 and companionship of his or her children are so fundamental, as to be guaranteed 2959 protection under the First, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States 2960 Constitution. In the Interest of Cooper, 621 P 2d 437; 5 Kansas App Div 2d 584, (1980). Parent’s 2963 interest in custody of their children is a liberty interest which has received considerable 2964 constitutional protection; a parent who is deprived of custody of his or her child, even 2965 though temporarily, suffers thereby grievous loss and such loss deserves extensive due 2966 process protection.) 2967 2968 Gerstein v. Pugh, 420 U.S. 103 (1975), this Court held that the Fourth Amendment 2969 requires a prompt judicial determination of probable cause as a prerequisite to an 2970 extended pretrial detention following a warrantless arrest. This case requires us to define 2971 what is “prompt” under Gerstein. In instances where it takes longer than 48-hours, “the 2972 burden shifts to the government to demonstrate the existence of a bona fide emergency or 2973 other extraordinary circumstance. . . . A jurisdiction that chooses to offer combined 2974 proceedings must do so as soon as is reasonably feasible, but in no event later than 48 2975 hours after arrest.” 2976 2977 Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 U.S. 1 (1824). When a federal and state law are in conflict, the 2978 federal law is supreme.” Congress and New York had both passed laws regulating the 2979 steamboat industry. Gibbons had a federal permit for a steamboat business; Ogden had a 2980 state permit for the same waters. Siding with Gibbons, the Court said that, “In matters of 2981 interstate commerce, the “Supremacy Clause” tilts the balance of power in favor of 2982 federal legislation.” And went on to say; As men whose intentions require no 2983 concealment, generally employ the words which most directly and aptly express the ideas 2984 they intent to convey; the enlightened patriots who framed our constitution and the 2985 people who adopted it must be understood to have employed the words in their natural 2986 sense, and to have intended what they have said. 2987 2988 Giozza v. Tiernan, 148 U.S. 657, 662 (1893), Citations Omitted Undoubtedly it (the 2989 Fourteenth Amendment) forbids any arbitrary deprivation of life, liberty or property, and 2990 secures equal protection to all under like circumstances in the enjoyment of their rights... 2991 It is enough that there is no discrimination in favor of one as against another of the same 2992 class. ...And due process of law within the meaning of the [Fifth and Fourteenth] 2993 amendment is secured if the laws operate on all alike, and do not subject the individual to 2994 an arbitrary exercise of the powers of government. 2995 2996 Grindstaff v. State 214 TENN 58, 377S.W. 2d 921, 926; State v. Shedoudy 45 N.M. 2997 516, 1 18 P2d 280, 287. An act is said to be malum in se when it is inherently and 2998 essentially evil, that is, immoral in its’ nature, and injurious in its consequences, without 2999 any regard to the fact of its being noticed or punished by the law of the state. Such are 3000 most or all of the offenses cognizable at common law (without the denouncement of a 3001 statute); as murder, larceny etc. 3002 Hammond v. City of Gadsden, 493 So. 2d 1374 (Ala. 1986). Misrepresentations of a 3004 material fact made willfully to deceive, or recklessly without knowledge, and acted on by 3005 the opposite party, or if made by mistake and innocently and acted on by the opposite 3006 party, constitute legal fraud. Suppression of a material fact which the party is under an 3007 obligation to communicate constitutes legal fraud. The obligation to communicate may 3008 arise from the confidential relations of the parties or from the particular circumstances of 3009 the case. 3010 3011 Howlett v. Rose, 496 US 356 (1990). The Supremacy Clause forbids state courts to 3012 dissociate themselves from federal law because of disagreement with its content or a 3013 refusal to recognize the superior authority of its source. 3014 3015 Kelson v. Springfield, 767 F 2d 651; US Ct App 9th Cir, (1985). The U.S. Court of 3016 Appeals for the 9th Circuit (California) held that the parent-child relationship is a 3017 constitutionally protected liberty interest. (See; Declaration of Independence –life, liberty 3018 and the pursuit of happiness and the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution 3019 — No state can deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law 3020 nor deny any person the equal protection of the laws.) 3021 3022 Langton v. Maloney, 527 F Supp 538, D.C. Conn. (1981). The liberty interest of the 3023 family encompasses an interest in retaining custody of one’s children and, thus, a state 3024 may not interfere with a parent’s custodial rights absent due process protections. 3025 3026 Matter of Gentry, 369 NW 2d 889, MI App Div (1983). A parent’s right to the custody 3027 of his or her children is an element of “liberty” guaranteed by the 5th Amendment and the 3028 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution. 3029 3030 Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 US 390; 43 S Ct 625, (1923). Parent’s rights have been 3031 recognized as being “essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free man.” 3032 3033 Malloy v. Hogan, Sheriff, 378 U.S. 1 (1964). " All rights and safeguards contained 3034 in the first eight amendments to the federal Constitution are equally applicable. 3035 3036 Marshall v. Kansas City, Mo., 355 S.W.2d 877, 883 (1962). Police Power is subject to 3037 limitation of the federal and State constitutions, and especially to the requirement of due 3038 process. Police power is the exercise of the sovereign right of a government to promote 3039 order, safety, security, health, morals and general welfare within constitutional limits and 3040 is an essential attribute of government. 3041 3042 McNally v. U.S., 483 U.S. 350 (1987). 371-372, Quoting U.S. v Holzer, 816 F.2d. 304, 3043 307 (1987). Fraud in its elementary common law sense of deceit... includes the deliberate 3044 concealment of material information in a setting of fiduciary obligation. A public officialis a fiduciary toward the public,... and if he deliberately conceals material information 3046 from them he is guilty of fraud. Meyer v. Nebraska 262 US 390 (1923). Liberty denotes not merely freedom from bodily 3049 restraint, but also the right of the individual to contract, to engage in any of the common 3050 occupations of life, to acquire useful knowledge, to marry, establish a home and bring up 3051 children, to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience, and generally 3052 to enjoy those privileges long recognized.” 3053 3054 Miller v. United States 307 US 174 (1939). The claim and exercise of a constitutional 3055 right shall not be converted into a crime. 3056 3057 Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. 385 (1978). A warrant is a written order signed by a court 3058 authorizing a law-enforcement officer to conduct a search, seizure, or arrest. Searches, 3059 seizures, and arrests performed without a valid warrant are deemed presumptively 3060 invalid, and any evidence seized without a warrant will be suppressed unless a court finds 3061 that the search was reasonable under the circumstances. 3062 An application for a warrant must be supported by a sworn, detailed statement made by a 3063 law enforcement officer appearing before a neutral judge or magistrate. The Supreme 3064 Court has said that probable cause exists when the facts and circumstances within the 3065 police officer’s knowledge provide a reasonably trustworthy basis for a man of 3066 reasonable caution to believe that a criminal offense has been committed or is about to 3067 take place (see Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132 (1925). Probable cause can be 3068 established by out-of-court statements made by reliable police informants, even though 3069 those statements cannot be tested by the magistrate. However, probable cause will not lie 3070 where the only evidence of criminal activity is an officer's affirmation of suspicion 3071 or belief (see Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U.S. 108 [1964]). On the other hand, an officer’s 3072 subjective reason for making an arrest does not need to be the same criminal offense for 3073 which the facts indicate. (Devenpeck v. Alford, 543 U.S. 146 (2004). The magistrate 3074 before whom an officer applies for a warrant must be neutral and detached. This 3075 qualification means that the magistrate must be impartial and not a member of the 3076 competitive enterprise of law enforcement (see California v. Acevedo, 500 U.S. 565 3077 (1991). 3078 3079 Mobile v. Bolton, 446 US 55, 64 L Ed 2d 47, 100 S Ct 1490 (1979); see Shapiro v. 3080 Thompson, 394 US 618, 634, 638, 22 L Ed 2d 600, 89 S Ct 1322; et al. “It is of course 3081 true that a law which impinges upon a fundamental right explicitly or implicitly secured 3082 by the Constitution is presumptively unconstitutional.” 3083 3084 Morrison v. Coddington, 662 P. 2d. 155, 135 Ariz. 480 (1983): Fraud and deceit may 3085 arise from silence where there is a duty to speak the truth, as well as from speaking an 3086 untruth. In regard to courts of record: “If the court is not in the exercise of its general 3087 jurisdiction, but of some special statutory jurisdiction, it is as to such proceeding an 3088 inferior court, and not aided by presumption in favor of jurisdiction.” Mooney v. Holohan, 294 U.S. 103, 112 (U.S. 1935). It is a requirement that cannot be 3091 deemed to be satisfied by mere notice and hearing if a State has contrived a conviction 3092 through the pretense of a trial which in truth is but used as a means of depriving a 3093 defendant of liberty through a deliberate deception of court and jury by the presentation 3094 of testimony known to be perjured. Such a contrivance by a State to procure the 3095 conviction and imprisonment of a defendant is as inconsistent with the rudimentary 3096 demands of justice as is the obtaining of a like result by intimidation. 3097 3098 New York ex rel. Bank of Commerce v. Commissioner of Taxes for City and 3099 County of New York, 2 Black 620 (1863) Please take mandatory notice (Federal Rules 3100 of Evidence 201(d)) that the Plaintiff has a lawful right to proceed without cost, based 3101 upon the following law: The Supreme Court has ruled that a natural individual entitled to 3102 relief is entitled to free access to its judicial tribunals and public offices in every State in 3103 the Union (2 Black 620, see also Crandall v. Nevada, 6 Wall 35). Plaintiff should not be 3104 charged fees, or costs for the lawful and constitutional right to petition this court in this 3105 matter in which he is entitled to relief, as it appears that the filing fee rule was originally 3106 implemented for fictions and subjects of the State and should not be applied to the 3107 Plaintiff who is a natural individual and entitled to relief (Hale v. Henkel) (201 U.S. 43) 3108 3109 Olmstad v. United States, 277 U.S. 438 (1928) Crime is contagious. If the 3110 Government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to 3111 become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy." 3112 3113 Palmore v. Sidoti, 104 S Ct 1879; 466 US 429. Reality of private biases and possible 3114 injury they might inflict were impermissible considerations under the Equal Protection 3115 Clause of the 14th Amendment. 3116 3117 Pfizer v. Lord, 456 F.2d 532; cert denied 92 S Ct 2411; US Ct App MN, (1972). 3118 Judges must maintain a high standard of judicial performance with particular emphasis 3119 upon conducting litigation with scrupulous fairness and impartiality. 28 USCA § 2411; 3120 Parham v. J. R., 442 U. S. 584, 602 THE SUPREME COURT RULED THAT THERE IS 3121 A PRESUMPTION THAT A FIT PARENT ACTS IN THEIR CHILDREN’S BEST 3122 INTERESTS NOT CHILD PROTECTION (CPS) OR YOUR STATE. The United States 3123 Supreme Court has stated: There is a presumption that fit parents act in their children’s 3124 best interests, Parham v. J. R., 442 U. S. 584, 602; there is normally no reason or 3125 compelling interest for the State to inject itself into the private realm of the family to 3126 further question fit parents ability to make the best decisions regarding their children. 3127 3128 Reno v. Flores, 507 U. S. 292, 304. The state may not interfere in child rearing 3129 decisions when a fit parent is available. Platsky v. C.I.A. United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit Nov 24, 1991, 3132 1953 F.2d 26 (2d Cir. 1991). Reversing district court for dismissing pro se complaint for lack of standing without explaining formalities of pleading and affording pro se plaintiff an opportunity to replead. Powell v. State of Texas, 392 U.S. 514 (1968). In order for a court to impose criminal penalties on an individual, it must be shown that he or she had committed done unlawful act (actus reus) or engaged in some prohibited cos of conduct together with some harmful intent or (mens rea). Randone v. Appellate Department, 5 Cal 3d 536, 550 (1971). Quoted therein from 401 US 378-379 “Due process requires at a minimum, that an individual be given a meaningful opportunity to be heard prior to being subjected by force of law to a significant deprivation of rights...” Regenold v. Baby Fold, Inc., 369 NE 2d 858; 68 Ill 2d 419, appeal dismissed 98 S. Ct. 3146 1598, 435 US 963, IL, (1977). Parent’s right to custody of child is a right 3147 encompassed within protection of this amendment which may not be interfered with 3148 under guise of protecting public interest by legislative action which is arbitrary or without 3149 reasonable relation to some purpose within competency of state to effect. 3150 3151 Rubinstein v. Collins, 20 F.3d 160, (1990). “Knowing failure to disclose material 3152 information necessary to prevent statement from being misleading, or making 3153 representation despite knowledge that it has no reasonable basis in fact, are actionable as 3154 fraud under law.” Santosky v. Kramer, 102 S Ct 1388; 455 US 745, (1982). Even when blood 3157 relationships are strained, parents retain vital interest in preventing irretrievable 3158 destruction of their family life; if anything, persons faced with forced dissolution of their 3159 parental rights have more critical need for procedural protections than do those resisting 3160 state intervention into ongoing family affairs. 3161 3162 Smith v. United States, 502, F.2d.512 (1974) Government may not prohibit or control 3163 the conduct of a person for reasons that infringe upon constitutionally guaranteed 3164 freedoms. 3165 3166 Stanley v. Illinois, 405 US 645, 651; 92 S Ct 1208, (1972). The Court stressed, “the 3167 parent-child relationship is an important interest that undeniably warrants deference and, 3168 absent a powerful countervailing interest, protection.” A parent’s interest in the 3169 companionship, care, custody and management of his or her children rises to a 3170 constitutionally secured right, given the centrality of family life as the focus for personal 3171 meaning and responsibility. 3172 State v. Mastrian, 171 N.W.2d 695 (1969); Butler v. State, 212 So.2d 577 (Miss 1968) 3174 (emphasis added ). Any arrest made without a warrant, if challenged by the defendant, is 3175 presumptively invalid...the burden is upon the state to justify it as authorized by statute, 3176 and as not violative of constitutional provisions. 3177 3178 State v. Paulick, 277 Minn. 140, 151 N.W.2d 596 (1967). No rubber-stamp signature; 3179 The United States Supreme Court ... stressed the need for individualized review to avoid 3180 the issuance of rubber stamp warrants. 3181 3182 State v. Robinson, 72 ATL. 2d 260 (1950). “An illegal arrest is an assault and battery. 3183 The person so attempted to be restrained of his liberty has the same right to use force in 3184 defending himself as he would in repelling any other assault and battery.” (State v. 3185 Sutton, 63 Minn. 147 65 NW 262 30 ALR 660. Also see (Watson v. Memphis, 375 US 3186 526; 10 L Ed 529; 83 S.Ct. 1314). When any court violates the clear and unambiguous 3187 language of the Constitution, a fraud is perpetrated and no one is bound to obey it.) 3188 3189 THOMPSON v. CLARK ET AL. Certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the 3190 second circuit Case No. 20–659. April 4, 2022. “At a time when the courts routinely 3191 shield police from accountability for misconduct, this ruling is at least an encouraging 3192 glimmer in the gloom,” said constitutional attorney John W. Whitehead, president of The 3193 Rutherford Institute and author of Battlefield America: The War on the American People. 3194 “For too long, Americans have been treated as if they have no rights at all when it comes 3195 to encounters with police. This is an overdue reminder that freedom is not secondary to 3196 security, and the rights of the citizenry are no less important than the authority of the government.” Trinsey v. Frank J. Pagliaro and Albert Foreman 229 F. Supp. 647 (1964). 3200 1. “Statements of counsel in brief or argument are not facts before the court and are 3201 therefore insufficient for a motion to dismiss or for summary judgment.” 3202 2. “An attorney for the Plaintiff cannot submit evidence into court. He is either an 3203 attorney or a witness.” 3204 3. “Where there are no depositions, admissions or affidavits the court has no facts to rely 3205 on for a summary determination.” 3206 3207 U.S. v Holzer, 816 F.2d. 304, 307 Fraud in its elementary common law sense of 3208 deceit... includes the deliberate concealment of material information in a setting of 3209 fiduciary obligation. A public official is a fiduciary toward the public... and if he 3210 deliberately conceals material information from them he is guilty of fraud. 3211 3212 US v. Kozminaki, 487 U. S. 931 (1988) “For purposes of criminal prosecution under § 3213 241 or § 1584, the term involuntary servitude; necessarily means a condition of servitude 3214 in which the victim is forced to work for the defendant by the use or threat of physical restraint or physical injury or by the use or threat of coercion through law or the legalprocess. This definition encompasses cases in which the defendant holds the victim in servitude by placing him or her in fear of such physical restraint or injury or legal coercion.” U.S. v. Lang 792 F.2d 1235 (4th Cir. 1986). The first issue this case raises, and the most 3221 significant, is whether an individual holding corporate documents in a 3222 representative capacity may assert a fifth amendment privilege against producing those 3223 documents in response to a subpoena. Circuits addressing the question have split over the 3224 answer. Some confusion exists in the wake of recent Supreme Court decisions on the 3225 relationship of the fifth amendment to business-related documents. 3226 Traditionally, the fifth amendment privilege could be claimed to shield production 3227 of private documents belonging to a natural person, Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 3228 616, 6 S.Ct. 524, 29 L.Ed. 746 (1886), but could not be claimed by an organized entity like a corporation, Hale v. Henkle, 201 U.S. 43, 26 S.Ct. 370, 50 L.Ed. 652 (1906). Corporate officials seeking to claim an individual fifth amendment privilege were denied protection because of the policy that a custodian should not be able to shield the collective entity (which has no fifth amendment privilege) from governmental scrutiny by asserting a personal right. United States v. White, 322 U.S. 694, 699, 64 S.Ct. 1248, 1251, 88 L.Ed. 1542 (1944); Wilson v. United States, 221 U.S. 361, 378-79, 31 S.Ct. 538, 543, 55 L.Ed. 771 (1911). Under this rule, custodians assume the rights, duties, and privileges of the artificial entity of which they are agents or officers and they are bound by its obligations. The official records and documents that are held by them in a representative rather than personal capacity cannot be the subject of the personal privilege against self-incrimination, even though production of the papers might tend to incriminate them personally. White, 322 U.S. at 699, 64 S.Ct. at 1251. US v. Minker, 350 US 179 at 187 (1956). Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many Citizens, because of their respect for the law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their rights due to ignorance. US v. Prudden 424 F.2d 1021 (1971). In each of the cases, the defendant was thrust into an unfamiliar atmosphere and run through menacing police interrogation procedures. The potentiality for compulsion is forcefully apparent, * * *. It is obvious that such an interrogation environment is created for no purpose other than to subjugate the individual to the will of his examiner. This atmosphere carries its own badge of intimidation. Prudden postulates that the search was unreasonable because his consent to examine the records was obtained by fraud, deceit and trickery. While we recognize that fraud, deceit or trickery in obtaining access to incriminating evidence can make an otherwise lawful search unreasonable, Prudden, as the moving party in the motion to suppress, did not sustain the burden that was his of demonstrating that fraud, deceit or trickery were present. U.S. v. Tweel, 550 F.2d 297, 299-300 (1977) "Silence can only be equated with fraud when there is a legal or moral duty to speak, or when an inquiry left unanswered would be intentionally misleading... We cannot condone this shocking conduct...If that is the case we hope our message is clear. This sort of deception will not be tolerated and if this is routine it should be corrected immediately. Warnock v. Pecos County, Texas, 88 F3d 341 (5th Cir. 1996) Eleventh Amendment does not protect state officials from claims for prospective relief when it is alleged that state officials acted in violation of federal law. Wise v. Bravo, 666 F.2d 1328, (1981). The rights of parents to parent-child relationships are recognized and upheld. Fantony v. Fantony, 122 A 2d 593, (1956); Yick Wo v Hopkins 118 U.S. 356 (1886) which states in pertinent part: “For the very idea that one may be compelled to hold his life or the means of living, or any material right essential to the enjoyment of life at the mere will of another, seems to be intolerable in any free country where freedom prevails, as being the essence of slavery itself.” And goes on to state: “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.”...The Congress cannot revoke the Sovereign power of the people to override their will as thus declared. Perry v. United States, 294 U.S. 330, 353 (1935). Law and court procedures that are “fair on their faces” but administered “with an evil eye or a heavy hand” was discriminatory and violates the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.