Time: Tue Mar 25 23:14:20 1997
by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id SAA29388;
Tue, 25 Mar 1997 18:31:35 -0700 (MST)
by usr08.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id SAA02446;
Tue, 25 Mar 1997 18:31:23 -0700 (MST)
Date: Tue, 25 Mar 1997 23:07:06 -0800
To: (Recipient list suppressed)
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: SLS: Right to Travel (fwd)
<snip>
>
>This is just a sample of some of the research we have done. There are over
>200 case cites alone, that show travelling in an automobile is a "right",
>"inalienable right", "fundamental right", "constitutional right", etc. The
>majority of those cases state that a government cannot take a piece of
>personal property (car) and then cause you to have to have a license to
>operate it or turn that right into a "priviledge".
>
>What I show below are some of the other aspects of constitutional
>violations. Our plan is to send the below stated material to Michael Bowers
>for his rebuttal. We are keenly aware that this comprises only a FEW of the
>violations and we are also aware that the religious aspect does not affect
>everyone.
>
>
>>First and foremost, the General Assembly has NO AUTHORITY to pass
>>a law regarding fingerprinting. If there is such authority, please
>>state the Article, Section and Paragraph number. It also has NO
>>AUTHORITY to make laws repugnant to the Constitution of the United
>>States, nor laws inconsistent with the Georgia Constitution. Lack
>>of authority alone makes the fingerprint requirement
>>unconstitutional.
>>
>>Georgia Constitution, Article III, Section VI, Paragraph I. General
>>Powers.
>>
>>"The General Assembly shall have the power to make all laws not
>>inconsistent with this Constitution, and not repugnant to the
>>Constitution of the United States, which it shall deem necessary
>>and proper for the welfare of the state."
>>
>>Fingerprinting law abiding citizens has nothing to do with the
>>"welfare of the state".
>>
>>"An unconstitutional legislative enactment, though law in form, is
>>in fact not law at all. It confers no rights; it imposes no
>>duties; it affords no protection; it is in legal contemplation as
>>inoperative as though it had never been passed." Bonnett v.
>>Vallier, 116 N.W. 885, 136 Wis. 193 (1908); Norton v. Shelby
>>County, 118 U.S. 425, 442.
>>
>>"A constitution is not to be made to mean one thing at one time,
>>and another at some subsequent time when the circumstances may have
>>changed as perhaps to make a different rule in the case seem
>>desirable." Traveler's Ins. Co. v. Marshall, 76 S.W. (2d) 1007,
>>1011; 124 Texas 45.
>>
>>"The meaning which a constitutional provision had when adopted, it
>>has today; its intent does not change with time nor condition;
>>while it operates upon new subjects and changed conditions, it
>>operates with the same meaning and intent which it had when
>>formulated and adopted." Cooley's Constitutional Limitations (8th
>>Ed.) Vol. 1, page 123.
>>
>>"Motor vehicle" means every description of carriage or other
>>contrivance propelled or drawn by mechanical power and used for
>>commercial purposes on the highways in the transportation of
>>passengers, or passengers and property: "Used for commercial
>>purposes" means the carriage of persons or property for any fare,
>>fee, rate, charge or other consideration, or directly or indirectly
>>in connection with any business, or other undertaking intended for
>>profit." USCA Title 18, Section 31.
>>
>>Those of us travelling in automobiles are not driving "motor
>>vehicles" and should not even be licensed.
>>1. How can you make a license mandatory in the first place, except
>>through fraud, and secondly require fingerprints to obtain one?
>>2. Did we give up a constitutional "right" when we applied for and
>>signed our driver's license application or give up a "right" that
>>was then turned into a "privilege"?
>>
>>"Waiver of Constitutional guaranteed rights not only must be
>>voluntary, they must be knowingly, intelligently done with
>>sufficient awareness of the relevant circumstances and
>>consequences." Brady v. U.S. 397 U.S. 742 at 748.
>>
>>Georgia Constitution, Article 1, Section 1, Paragraph XIII.
>>Searches, Seizures and Warrants.
>>
>>"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses,
>>papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures
>>shall not be violated; and no warrant shall issue except upon
>>probable cause supported by oath or affirmation particularly
>>describing the place or places to be searched and the persons or
>>things to be seized.
>>
>>AND
>>
>>United States Constitution, Amendment IV
>>
>>"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses,
>>papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures,
>>shall not be violated, an no Warrants shall issue, but upon
>>probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly
>>describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to
>>be seized."
>>
>>
>>"This amendment protects people, not places, and more particularly,
>>it protects people from unreasonable government intrusions into
>>their legitimate expectations." U.S. v. Chadwick, Mass. 1977, 97
>>S.Ct. 2476, 433 U.S. 1, 53 L.Ed.2d 538, U.S. v. Kelley,
>>D.C.Okl.1975, 393 f.Supp. 755.
>>
>>"This amendment protects people, not places." Katz v. U.S.,
>>cal.1967, 88 S.Ct. 507, 389 U.S. 347, 19 L.Ed.2d 576, U.S. v.
>>Westerbann-Martinez, D.C.N.Y.1977, 435 F.Supp. 690; U.S. v.
>>Leonard, D.C.Ill. 1973, 363 F.Supp. 1348; People v. Christman,
>>1970, 307 N.Y.S.2d 545, 61 Misc.2d 1084; People v. Rosenthal, 1969,
>>299 N.Y.S.2d 960, 59 Misc.2d 565.
>>
>>"This amendment is to be liberally construed and all owe duty of
>>vigilance for its effective enforcement lest there shall be
>>impairment of rights for protection of which it was adopted." Ker
>>v. State of Cal., Cal.1963, 83 S.Ct. 1623, 374 U.S. 23, 10 L.Ed.2d
>>726; Wrightson v. U.S., 1955, 222 F.2d 556, 95 U.S.App.D.C. 390;
>>Catalanotte v. U.S., C.A.Mich.1953, 208 F.2d 264.
>>
>>"The protection of this amendment cannot be impaired by a
>>construction thought necessary to meet changing demands of law
>>enforcement." U.S. v. Kennedy, D.C.Colo.1946, 5 F.R.D. 310.
>>
>>"This amendment and Amends. 1 and 5 are related and safeguard not
>>only privacy and protection against self-incrimination but
>>conscience and human dignity and freedom of expression as well."
>>Stanford v. State of Tex., Tex.1965, 85 S.Ct. 506, 379 U.S. 476, 13
>>L.Ed.2d 431, rehearing denied 85 S.Ct. 879, 380 U.S. 926, 13
>>L.Ed.2d 813.
>>
>>"Every person enjoys some measure of protection against being
>>coerced into cooperating with law enforcement authorities by
>>governmental techniques of intimidation and harassment, whether
>>this protection derives from liberty interest protected by Amend.
>>5, privacy interest protected by this amendment and Amend.1, or
>>interest in procedural regularity protected by due process clause
>>of Amend. 5." Angola v. Civiletti, C.A.N.Y. 1981, 666 F.2d 1.
>>
>>"The security of one's privacy against arbitrary intrusion by the
>>police, which is at the core of this amendment, is basic to a free
>>society, and is therefore implicit in concept of ordered liberty
>>and as such enforceable against states through the due process
>>clause, and, were a state affirmatively to sanction such police
>>incursion into privacy, it would run counter to guaranty of Amend.
>>14." Stefanelli v. Minard, N.J.1951, 72 S.Ct. 118, 342 U.S. 117, 96
>>L.Ed. 138.
>>
>>"This amendment applies to all seizures of the person including
>>those consuming no more than a minute." People v. Spicer, 1984,
>>203 Cal.Rptr. 599, 157 C.A. 3d 213.
>>
>>"Detention by the government of persons for purpose of
>>fingerprinting is a 'search' within meaning of this amendment."
>>U.S. v. Thomann, C.A.N.H.1979, 609 F.2d 560 (Also refer to People
>>v. Spicer as shown above dealing with length of time of detention.
>>The presumption of detention is made because we are told we "must"
>>obtain a driver's license and we "must" "voluntarily" go to the
>>driver's license station ot obtain the license, which we allege is
>>done by threat, coercion and fraud. Otherwise, if we do not
>>submit, we fear the facing of arrest for "driving" without a
>>license.)
>>
>>United States Constitution, Amendment I
>>
>>"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of
>>religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging
>>the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people
>>peaceable to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress
>>of grievances."
>>
>>
>>Georgia Constitution, Article I, Section I, Paragraph III. Freedom
>>Of Conscience.
>>
>>"Each person has the natural and inalienable right to worship God,
>>each according to the dictates of that person's own conscience; and
>>no human authority should, in any case, control or interfere with
>>such right of conscience."
>>
>>Thousands of persons, including many Senators and Representatives
>>are vehemently opposed to the act of mandatory fingerprinting to
>>receive a driver's license or state ID card, because of the
>>Biblical prophecies written in the Book of Revelations regarding
>>the "mark of the Beast" and receiving his "number" or "mark". The
>>prophecy further states that anyone receiving this number or mark
>>in their right hand or forehead will spend eternity in Hell and
>>also that no one will be able to buy or sell without this mark.
>>
>>The fingerprint law positively interferes with the right of
>>conscience in this case and it seeks to control, since one cannot
>>go to work without a car. If one can't go to work, one cannot earn
>>a living. Therefore, one will not be able to buy or sell without
>>their fingerprint being turned into a number, via a bar code and
>>placed on their driver's license. If one refuses to violate the
>>"dictates of that person's own conscience" and is refused a license
>>because of it, one of the most fundamental rights is violated.
>>
>>Coercion, in this case, is extremely relevant and strong, for if
>>one refuses to violate his conscience and does not obtain a
>>driver's license, one is subject to arrest and incarceration. In
>>other words, you are almost certain to be jailed at some time for
>>your religious beliefs. Additionally, Colonel Sid Miles has stated
>>that this is the "official" form of identification for the state
>>and it must be used for cashing checks, obtaining credit and
>>required to fly.
>>
>>This belief is so widespread, that it absolutely defies the
>>imagination of many Georgian's that the General Assembly has not
>>moved to repeal this law. It has been testified to in both public
>>hearings, is constantly brought up in rallies and town hall
>>meetings. It is believed that the majority of lawmakers are
>>Christians and are not ignorant of this prophecy.
>>
>>Books have even been written about this subject and were previous
>>to the state of Georgia passing this law. One book inparticular,
>>"Project L.U.C.I.D", even goes so far as to identify the exact
>>Polaroid licensing system that is currently in use.
>>
>>Although there is no case law regarding the receiving of "the mark
>>of the Beast", there is case law regarding religious beliefs in
>>general.
>>
>>
>>Georgia Constitution, Article I, Section I, Paragraph IV. Religious
>>Opinions; Freedom of Religion.
>>
>>"No inhabitant of this state shall be molested in person or
>>property or be prohibited from holding any public office or trust
>>on account of religious opinions; but the right of freedom of
>>religion shall not be so construed as to excuse acts of
>>licentiousness or justify practices inconsistent with the peace and
>>safety of the state."
>>
>>If you refuse to submit your fingerprint for your belief in the
>>above stated prophecy, and you are pulled over and charged with
>>driving with a now expired license, you will be molested in your
>>property. There are fines and the potential of jail time for this
>>offense. Fines remove your property. There is the potential for
>>molestation of your person is you are bodily searched during your
>>arrest. As far as practices being inconsistent with the peace and
>>safety of the state, not having a driver's license would not render
>>you an unsafe driver, nor would it cause anyone's safety to be at
>>risk.
>>
>>The people that believe in this prophecy, believe strongly. When
>>it comes down to defying the state or defying God, God will
>>assuredly win. For this reason, jail would be a better result than
>>Hell. These people absolutely cannot and will not allow themselves
>>to be compelled to do this. There are some that would literally
>>seek death before complying. Is that irrational? Only if you
>>don't believe the Bible is God's true word.
>>
>>"Before any state may restrict person's religious beliefs, it must
>>proffer some substantial interest it claims to possess which must
>>be protected even at cost of restriction of free exercise of
>>religion by its citizens; i.e., state must show that it is acting
>>to prevent grave and immediate danger to interests which state may
>>lawfully protect." Holmes v. Silver Cross Hospital of Joliet,
>>Ill., D.C.Ill. 1972, 340 F.Supp. 125.
>>
>>"There must be a clear justification in the necessities of national
>>or community life to warrant the overriding of religious scruples,
>>and, like the right of free speech, religious freedom is not to be
>>overborne by the 'police power', unless its exercise presents a
>>clear and certain danger to the community." West Virginia State
>>Board of Education v. Barnette, W.Va.1943, 63 S.Ct. 1178, 319 U.S.
>>624, 87 L.Ed. 1628.
>>
>>"If a particular law impedes 'religious' activity even indirectly,
>>it violates free exercise clause of this amendment, unless
>>impediment is justified by compelling state interest arising from
>>some substantial threat to public health, safety, peace or order,
>>and is the least restrictive means for protecting the compelling
>>state interest." Forest Hills Early Learning Center, Inc. v.
>>Lukhard, C.A.Va. 1984, 728 F.2d 230.
>>
>>"Protections of this amendment are extended not only to those whose
>>religious beliefs are held by organized religions but also to
>>individually held religious convictions." In re Marriage of Gove,
>>1977, 572 P.2d 458, 117 Ariz. 324.
>>
>>"Neither trappings of robes, nor temples of stone, nor a fixed
>>liturgy, nor an extensive literature or history is required to meet
>>the test of beliefs cognizant under this amendment as religious,
>>and one person's religious beliefs held for one day are
>>presumptively entitled to the same protection as views of millions
>>which have been shared for thousands of years." Stevens v. Berger,
>>D.C.N.Y. 1977, 428 F.Supp. 896.
>>
>>For some, possibly even yourself, it has not been understood why
>>there has been such a groundswell of determination to rid ourselves
>>of the fingerprint law. If you wonder why the amounts of people
>>keep growing at such an astronomical rate and why we cannot be
>>deterred in our fight to repeal this law, it is our belief that
>>giving in would be a death sentence.
>>
>>The Coalition to Repeal the Fingerprints Law have literally
>>screened thousands of telephone calls. It is true that some may
>>simply have the problem of privacy violations. However, they do
>>affirm that over 80% of their calls and those signing petitions are
>>doing so because of fear of "the mark of the Beast". Don't look
>>for case law on the subject, it won't exist. It only comes with
>>time. Never has this state had a system for generating numbers
>>from a person's own hand or body part. Before now, that was left
>>for items like cans of dog food.
>>
>>Can you now dare tell us that this does not violate any one of the
>>following?
>>
>>1. Does this prohibit the free exercise of our religion in obeying
>>God?
>>2. Do we no longer have the inalienable right to worship God and
>>obey Him according to the dictates of our own conscience?
>>3. Will the state violate our right to worship God and obey his
>>Word by controlling our right of conscience?
>>4. Will the state violate our right by to worship and obey God's
>>Word by interfering with our right of conscience?
>>5. Will the state violate our inalienable right of same and cause
>>us to be molested in our person or property because of our
>>religious beliefs?
>>6. Are we threatening public safety?
>>7. Are we threatening peace?
>>8. Is fingerprinting the least restrictive means for identifying
>>one shown to have driving skills?
>>9. Are we posing a substantial threat to public health?
>>
>>Georgia Constitution, Article I, Section I, Paragraph XXVIII.
>>
>>"The enumeration of rights herein contained as a part of this
>>Constitution shall not be construed to deny the people any inherent
>>rights which they may have hitherto enjoyed."
>>
>>1. Did we hitherto enjoy the right to obtain a license without
>>giving our fingerprint?
>>
>>2. Is there an enumeration of rights of the state to our
>>fingerprints that we cannot find in the Georgia Constitution?
>>
>>Georgia Constitution, Article I, Section II, Paragraph I.
>>
>>"All government, of right, originates with the people, is founded
>>upon their will only, and is instituted solely for the good of the
>>whole. Public officers are the trustees and servants of the people
>>and are at all times amenable to them."
>>
>>1. Was the fingerprint law founded upon the will of the people?
>>2. Did anyone plead for a new law to be passed, saying please
>>fingerprint us?
>>3. Where was the public outcry to be fingerprinted?
>>4. Are we now the servant and the government the master, with laws
>>originating with someone other than the people?
>>5. Did fingerprinting of Georgian's or even licensing for
>>automobiles originate with the will of the people?
>>6. If any of the above questions originated with the public
>>servants/trustees, then this law is unconstitutional for no other
>>reason, is it not?
<snip>
========================================================================
Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S. : Counselor at Law, federal witness
email: [address in tool bar] : Eudora Pro 3.0.1 on Intel 586 CPU
web site: http://www.supremelaw.com : library & law school registration
ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776 : this is free speech, at its best
Tucson, Arizona state : state zone, not the federal zone
Postal Zone 85719/tdc : USPS delays first class w/o this
========================================================================
Return to Table of Contents for
Supreme Law School: E-mail