“If you’ve relied on prior decisions of the Supreme Court you have a perfect defense for willfulness.”
U.S. v. Bishop, 412 U.S. 346

“Federal law & Supreme Court cases apply to state court cases.”
Howlett v. Rose, 496 U.S. 356 (1990)

"Jurisdiction, once challenged, cannot be assumed and must be decided."
Maine v. Thiboutot, 100 S. Ct. 250

Court Cites

"The innocent individual who is harmed by an abuse of governmental authority is assured that he will be compensated for his injury." Owens v. City of Independence, 100 S.Ct 1398 (1980)

" ...If one individual does not possess such a right over the conduct of another [Good and Lawful Christian Man], no number of individuals [in a deliberative body] can possess such a right. All combinations, therefore, to effect such an object, are injurious, not only to the individuals particularly oppressed, but to the public at large." People v. Fisher, 14 Wend.(N.Y.) 9, 28 Am.Dec. 501

"Non dat qui non habet---He gives nothing who has nothing." Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914),"Maxim" p.2149, [No legislative body or man can convey any authority or jurisdiction he does not possess over common Rights vested by God to another. Because legislative powers are limited, all powers derived from legislative acts are limited.]

"The claim and exercise of a Constitutional Right cannot be converted into a crime." Miller v. U.S.

Article 19 of the United Nations Human Rights Charter reads: "Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers."

"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)

"A plaintiff who seeks damages for violation of constitutional or statutory rights may overcome the defendant official's qualified immunity only by showing that those rights were clearly established at the time of the conduct at issue." Davis v. Scherer, 82 L.Ed.2d 139,151.

"No suit can be sustained against a state; but an unconstitutional law affords no justification to a state officer for an act injurious to an individual. The officer is not the state, and can set up no exemption under it, unless he act within the authority of law." Astrom v Hammond (1842), 2 Fed.Cas, 71, Fed.Cas.No. 596, 3 Mclean 107.

"No officer can acquire jurisdiction by deciding he has it. The officer, whether judicial or ministerial, decides at his own peril."Middleton v. Low (1866), 30 C. 596, citing Prosser v. Secor (1849), 5 Barb.(N.Y) 607, 608.

"Government may not prohibit or control the conduct of a person for reasons that infringe upon constitutionally guaranteed freedoms." Smith v. U.S., 502 F.2d 512 CA Tex (1974)

"The right of a citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon in the ordinary course of life and business is a common right which he has under his right to enjoy life and liberty, to acquire and possess property, and to pursue happiness and safety. It includes the right in so doing to use the ordinary and usual conveyances of the day; and under the existing modes of travel includes the right to drive a horse-drawn carriage or wagon thereon, or to operate an automobile thereon, for the usual and ordinary purposes of life and business. It is not a mere privilege, like the privilege of moving a house in the street, operating a business stand in the street, or transporting persons or property for hire along the street, which a city may permit or prohibit at will." Thompson vs. Smith, 154 S.E. 579 at 583.

"No statutory duty lies to apply for, or to possess a driver license for personal travel and transportation as defendant is not within the class of persons for whose benefit or protection the statute was enacted." Routh v. Quinn, 20 Cal 2d 488.

Courts also recognized that private travel is fundamental right: "The right to travel on the public highways is a constitutional right." Teche Lines v. Danforth, Miss. 12 So 2d 784, 787

"The right to travel is part of the 'liberty' that a citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law." Kent v. Dulles 357 U.S. 116; U.S. v. Laub 385 U.S. 475

"The use of the highways for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege, but a common and fundamental Right of which the public and the individual cannot be rightfully deprived." Chicago Motor Coach vs. Chicago, 169 NE 22; Ligare vs. Chicago, 28 NE 934; Boon vs. Clark, 214 SSW 607; 25 Am.Jur.(1st) Highways Sect. 163.

"The right of a citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, by horse-drawn carriage, wagon, or automobile is not a mere privilege which may be permitted or prohibited at will, but a common right which he has under his right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Slusher v. Safety Coach Transit Co., 229 Ky 731, 17 SW2d 1012.

"The claim and exercise of a constitutional Right cannot be converted into a crime." Miller vs. U.S., 230 F. 486, 489.

"The right to travel is part of the 'liberty' of which a citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment." Kent v. Dulles, 357 U.S. 116 (1958).

"Where activities or enjoyment, natural and often necessary to the well being of an American citizen, such as travel, are involved, we will construe narrowly all delegated powers that curtail or dilute them ... to repeat, we deal here with a constitutional right of the citizen," Edwards v. California, 314 U.S. 160 (1941)

The Belligerent Claimant

"The privilege against self-incrimination is neither accorded to the passive resistant, nor the person who is ignorant of his rights, nor to one indifferent thereto. It is a fighting clause. Its benefits can be retained only by sustained combat. It can not be retained by attorney or solicitor. It is valid only when insisted upon by a belligerent claimant in person. The one who is persuaded by honeyed words or moral suasion to testify or produce documents rather than make a last ditch stand, simply loses the protection. Once he testifies to part, he has waived his right and must on cross examination or otherwise, testify as to the whole transaction. He must refuse to answer or produce, and test the matter in contempt proceedings, or by habeas corpus."
District Judge James Alger Fee
United States v. Johnson, 76 F. Supp. 538 (at page 540)
District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania Feb. 26, 1947

NOTICE: Not meant to be finished or complete. Accuracy and applicability not guaranteed.

 Reading  Case Citations

Case law to use in court may be located  HERE   and    HERE

Cases supporting 'Rights and Liberties' located HERE

Cases supporting 'Right of Defense Against Unlawful Arrest' located HERE

Cases supporting 'no license' located HERE

Court Rulings Relating To Income Taxes located HERE

Read, learn, reference - "Me, I am aware of _______ as found in _____________ and I do rely upon it.".

“If you’ve relied on prior decisions of the Supreme Court you have a perfect defense for willfulness.”
U.S. v. Bishop, 412 U.S. 346

“Federal law & Supreme Court cases apply to state court cases.”
Howlett v. Rose, 496 U.S. 356 (1990)

"Jurisdiction, once challenged, cannot be assumed and must be decided."
Maine v. Thiboutot, 100 S. Ct. 250