Escobedo v Illinois, 378 U.S. 478 (1964): Illegal search and
seizure. Escobedo was arrested in connection with a murder and brought
to the police station. He repeatedly asked to see his lawyer, but
was never allowed out of the interrogation room. His lawyer even
went so far as to come to the police station in search of him, but
was denied access. Escobedo then confessed while under interrogation
to firing the shot that killed the victim. As a result, he was soon
convicted. Escobedo appealed to the Supreme Court and it overturned
the conviction. The Court extended the "exclusionary rule" to illegal
confessions and ruled that Escobedo's confession should not have
been allowed in as evidence. The Court also defined the "Escobedo
Rule" which holds that individuals have the right to an attorney
when an "investigation is no longer a general inquiry...but has
begun to focus on a particular suspect..." The ruling went on to
detail that (Where) the suspect has been taken into custody...the
suspect has requested...his lawyer, and the police have not...warned
him of his right to remain silent, the accused has been denied...counsel
in violation of the Sixth Amendment."
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) (111 pages); -- Where
rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no
rule making or legislation which would abrogate them.-- You have
the right to remain silent; that is, do not answer any questions.
Like: What is your name? Where do you live? What is Your Educational
level? Where did you attend school? What is your SS number? Are
you employed? Who is your employer? Are you married? Are you in
insured? What is your religion? Do you have any scares? Did you
see that stop sign? Everything you say, can and WILL be used against
you.-- The only one to testify against you is yourself.
Master asks the questions, the slave answers the questions.
Bah! Also, answer a question with a question. Do not volunteer
any information or into their jurisdiction.
For further discussion view these VIDEOS:
James Duane from
Regent Law School
explains why innocent people should never talk to the police.
"Don't Talk to the Police"
by Professor James Duane
George Bruch from the
Virginia Beach police department responds to Professor James
Duane's presentation on why innocent people should never talk to
"Don't Talk to the Police" by Officer George Bruch
National Paralegal College
PUBLIC SERVANT QUESTIONNAIRE
When you look around the web, you´ll find
public servant questionnaire,
but not like this one. Its been converted to a single page so you
can get a multi-part NCR form made up at FedExOffice, Staples, Office
Depot, etc.. Keep some by the door to your house and in your glove
compartment to give to [any] law enforcement officers who want to
ask you questions. Before answering theirs, make them answer yours.
You´ll find supporting law in
5 U.S.C. 552a
Miller v. United
States, 230 F.2d 486 (5th Cir. 1956); "The claim and exercise
of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime." Evelyn
Miller stood on her Fourth Amendment rights and refused to allow
a U.S. Marshal into her home without a search warrant, federal prosecutors
charged her with “obstruction of justice.” In reversing her conviction,
the court noted that Miller “asserted a right which was hers, and
which none could take away. That it . . . subjected the officers
to the inconvenience of getting a lawful writ, neither detracts
from this right nor subjects her to a crime for having asserted
it.” Id. at 489-490.
Brief Of The Cato Institute As Amicus Curiae In Support Of Petitioner
Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105 (1943) "No State shall
convert a liberty into a privilege, license it, and charge a fee
Adams v City
of Pocatello, 416 P.2d 46, 48. "The right to operate a motor
vehicle upon the public streets and highways is not a mere privilege,
it is a right or liberty, the enjoyment of which is protected by
the guarantees of the federal and state constitutions."
City of Chicago
v Cullens, et al, 51 N.E. 907, 910, etc. (1906)"A license is
a privilege granted by the state" and "cannot possibly exist with
reference to something which is a right...to ride and drive over
the streets". "If we allow the City of Chicago to require the licensing
of horseless carriages, how long be the City of Chicago would want
to require license to ride a horse or to walk upon the streets?"
Sherar v. Cullen, 481 F. 946: "There can be no sanction
or penalty imposed upon one because of this exercise of constitutional
SHUTTLESWORTH V. CITY OF BIRMINGHAM, 373 U. S. 262 (1963): "If
the State converts a right (liberty) into a privilege, the citizen
can ignore the license and fee and engage in the right (liberty)
Davis v. Mississippi, 394 U.S. 721 (1969): Your photograph
and fingerprints are your property. Do not give these away.
Do not sign anything, you sign manual is your property; do not give
it away. Especially, do not sign fingerprint cards or booking sheets
(hotel registry). They are required to get your signature on the
fingerprint card before they can fingerprint you. Going jail or
prison is voluntary; you or your RE-present must sign the contracts.
How many years of slavery are you willing to contract yourself into?
OF RIVERSIDE v. McLAUGHLIN, 500 U.S. 44 (1991): Brought Davis,
supra, forward and added that unless they get one to voluntarily
sign into their iron-bar hotel they must let one go within seventy-two
hours unless they get a warrant or indictment. However, if they
play the psychiatric evaluation bit, then they may hold their victim
for 72 hours plus two days, or possibly longer; though, now under
the [so-called] Patriot Act, they can hold anyone for seven days
as a suspected terrorist. Who knows what else these morons will
pull next. So, do not be surprised that once they have you, they
may never let you go.
Samuel H. SHEPPARD, Petitioner, v. E. L. MAXWELL, Warden, 384
U.S. 333, 86 S.Ct. 1507, 16 L.Ed.2d 600, (June 6, 1996): Supreme
Court ruled prejudicial publicity-- had made trial a carnival--.
Farette v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 807, 95 S. Ct. 2525, 2527,
45 L. Ed. 2d 562, 566 (1975): I can read, write, and speak America's
English, that is all I need to know to defend Myself. Education,
Military background, work background, etc. is none of the STATE's
business. Remember one has the right to remain silent and everything
that one says can and will be used against oneself, not for oneself.
They can not arraign or sentence one if one is without representation.
Defend ones self. Be ones self. NEVER Re-Present yourself. NEVER!
Entrapment: "Pro Se" = Self Re-Presentation and temporary appointment
to the State BAR. Beware! NEVER let the Black Robe Devil or their
Jester ever refer to one as "Pro Se" or "Pro Per" or "Pro" anything.
NEVER! Take EXCEPTION to the Devil's Utterances. Move to OBJECTION
to the Jester's Utterance. Remember, Only, that which is on the
record can be appealed. Get it in on the record. In the last
paragraph of Farette (supra) the US Supreme court ruled that one
who self-RE-Presents is a fool--.
Trezevant v. City of Tampa, 741 F.2d 336 (11th Cir. 1984): US
Court of Appeal awarded $65,217.39/hour for false imprisonment.
Hafer v. Melo, 502 U.S. 21 (1991): The US Supreme Court ruled
that public Officials (Judge are not exempt) who cause "Unauthorized
Deprivations" lose their Eleventh Amendment Protection and are subject
to suit for damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This Case before the
US Court of Appeals is found at 912 F.2d 628. The key is negligence:
acting in excess or without authority or jurisdiction or failing
to act when required to do so. Also read
Melo v. Hafer, 13 F.3d 736 (3d Cir. 1994).
If the government
morons cry and plea sovereign immunity, then here are some other
cases, which lay that nonsense to rest.
Westfall v. Erwin, 484 US 292 (1988);
Will v. Michigan State Police, 491 US 58 (1989); and
Mitchum v. Foster, 407 US 225 (1972). The latter makes the
bureaucRATS cringe. When coupled with
PL 94-381 and Senate Report
28 U.S.C. § 2284.
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
Griffin v. California, 380 U.S. 609 (1965) Eddie Dean Griffin
had been accused of assaulting and murdering a female friend of
his. To these charges, he plead not guilty. Griffin's counsel recommended
that he not testify on the grounds that the prosecution's case was
entirely circumstantial. During the trial, the prosecutor brought
into evidence the fact that Griffin had been seen in the alley where
the victim was found and had left it "cool as a cucumber". The main
thrust of his closing statement, however, concerned the defendant's
refusal to testify. The jury found Griffin guilty and sentenced
him to death. Griffin appealed the case on the grounds that he was
denied his Fifth Amendment right refrain from testifying as a defense.
The Supreme Court found in his favor. They reasoned that by referring
to the defendant's lack of testimony in front of the jury, the prosecution
denied him his Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. The Court
went on to say what the jury "may infer when the court solemnizes
the silence of the accused into evidence against him is [dangerous]."
Not meant to be finished or complete.
Accuracy and applicability
Case law to use
in court may be located
'Rights and Liberties' located
'Right of Defense Against Unlawful Arrest' located
'no license' located
Read, learn, reference:
"Me, I am aware of _______ as found in _____________
and I do rely upon it."