

Thomas Jefferson
"A free people [claim] their rights as
derived
from the laws of nature, and not as the gift of their chief magistrate."
Thomas Jefferson: Rights of British America, 1774. ME 1:209,
Papers
1:134
"Natural rights [are] the objects for the protection of which society
is
formed and municipal laws established."
Thomas Jefferson to James Monroe, 1797. ME 9:422
Citizenship
Civil Rights Act
of April 9, 1866 (Granted "Civil Rights" to "Persons")
Constitution
for the United States
The
Annotated Constitution
The Roots
of
the Constitution
Reference
and Source Material re the Constitution
Declaration of
Independence
(Original caps)
Declaration of the
Rights
of Man and of the Citizen - Approved by the National Assembly of
France,
August 26, 1789 (Jefferson was heavily influenced by this document)
Documentary History of the
Bill
of Rights
Declaration
of Human Rights, December 1948
The Law - by
Frederick
Bastiat
Common
Sense,
by Thomas Paine
Give Me Liberty or Give
Me
Death, by Patrick Henry, March 23, 1775
Jefferson Quotes -
Inalienable Rights
The Writings
of
George Washington - from the Original Manuscript Sources
1745-1799
James
Madison Archives
Journals of the
Continental
Congress
Right of Private
Property - Executive Order D - 79 - 89 - Issued by Cal Governor
George Dukemejian
The Levellers
The Law of Nations or the Principles of Natural Law (1758) - Emmerich de Vattel
[3] The fact the restraint
on
Ms. Spicer's liberty was minimal does not make the restraint a
reasonable
one. The Fourth Amendment applies to all seizures of the person including
those consuming no more than a minute. (United States v.
Brignoni-Ponce,
supra, 422 U.S. at pp. 879-880 [45 L.Ed.2d at pp. 615-616].)
PEOPLE v. SPICER,
157
Cal.App.3d 213
[Crim. No. 45072. Court of
Appeals
of California, Second Appellate District, Division Seven. June 15,
1984.]
AN
ABRIDGEMENT OF THE LAW
OF NISI PRIUS
CALIFORNIA v. HODARI
D., 499 U.S. 621 (1991)
FLORIDA v. BOSTICK,
501 U.S. 429 (1991)
MICHIGAN DEPT. OF
STATE POLICE v. SITZ, 496
U.S.
444 (1990)
HORTON v. CALIFORNIA,
496 U.S. 128 (1990)
ALABAMA v. WHITE,
496
U.S. 325 (1990)
UNITED STATES v.
SOKOLOW,
490 U.S. 1 (1989)
UNITED STATES v.
HENSLEY,
469 U.S. 221 (1985)
MICHIGAN v. LONG,
463
U.S. 1032 (1983)
FLORIDA v. ROYER,
460
U.S. 491 (1983)
UNITED STATES v.
CORTEZ,
449 U.S. 411 (1981)
ROBBINS v. CALIFORNIA,
453 U.S. 420 (1981)
REID v. GEORGIA,
448
U.S. 438 (1980)
UNITED STATES v.
MENDENHALL,
446 U.S. 544 (1980)
DELAWARE v. PROUSE,
440 U.S. 648 (1979)
Brown
v. Texas, 443 U.S. 47 (1979)
SOUTH
DAKOTA v. OPPERMAN, 428 U.S. 364 (1976)
U.S.
v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U.S. 873, 878 (1975)
ALMEIDA-SANCHEZ
v.
UNITED STATES, 413 U.S. 266 (1973)
Davis v. Mississippi, 394 U.S. 721 (1969)
Terry
v. OHIO, 392 U.S. 1 (1968)
SIBRON
v. NEW YORK, 392 U.S. 40 (1968)
OLMSTEAD
v. U.S., 277 U.S. 438 (1928)
Hale
v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43 (1906)
Boyd
v. U.S., 116 U.S. 616 (1886)
United States Code
(USC)
Code of Federal
Regulations
(CFR)
Federal Rules
of
Evidence
American
Jurisprudence
2d (selected sections)
Robert's Rules of
Order
West's
Encyclopedia of American Law (127 megs)
"The United States and the State of
California
are two separate sovereignties, each dominant in its own sphere."
Redding v. Los Angeles (1947),
81 C.A.2d 888, 185 P.2d 430.
“That there is a citizenship of the United States and citizenship
of a state,...”
Tashiro v. Jordan, 201 Cal. 236 (1927)
Thus in [13 Cal.3d 551] determining that California citizens are
entitled
to greater protection under the California Constitution against
unreasonable
searches and seizures than that required by the United States
Constitution,
we are embarking on no revolutionary course. Rather we are simply
reaffirming
a basic principle of federalism -- that the nation as a whole is
composed
of distinct geographical and political entities bound together by a
fundamental federal law but nonetheless independently responsible for
safeguarding the
rights of their citizens.
The ultimate confirmation of our conclusion occurred, finally, when the
people
adopted article I, section 24, of the California Constitution at the
November
1974 election, declaring that "Rights guaranteed by this Constitution
are
not dependent on those guaranteed by the United States Constitution."
People v. Brisendine, 13 Cal.3d 528
[Crim. No. 16520. Supreme Court of California. February 20, 1975.]
CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE
§
100.
(a) The sovereignty of the state resides in the people thereof, and all
writs
and processes shall issue in their name.
(b) The style of all
process
shall be "The People of the State of California," and all prosecutions
shall
be conducted in their name and by their authority.
§ 11120. It is the public
policy
of this state that public agencies exist to aid in the conduct of the
people's
business and the proceedings of public agencies be conducted openly so
that
the public may remain informed.
In enacting this article the Legislature finds and declares that it is
the
intent of the law that actions of state agencies be taken openly and
that
their deliberation be conducted openly.
The people of this state do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies
which
serve them. The people, in delegating authority, do not give their
public
servants the right to decide what is good for the people to know and
what
is not good for them to know. The people insist on remaining informed
so
that they may retain control over the instruments they have created.
This article shall be known and may be cited as the Bagley-Keene Open
Meeting
Act.
§ 54950 DECLARATION OF
LEGISLATIVE
PURPOSE. “In enacting this chapter, the
Legislature finds
and declares that the public commissions, boards and councils and the
other
public agencies in this State exist to aid in the conduct of the
people’s
business. It is the intent of the law that their actions be taken
openly
and that their deliberations be conducted openly.
The people of this State do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies
which
serve them. The people, in delegating authority, do not give their
public
servants the right to decide what is good for the people to know and
what
is not good for them to know. The people insist on remaining
informed
so that they may retain control over the instruments they have
created”.
"[T]he Legislature, either by amending
(section
1382) or otherwise, may not nullify a constitutional
provision."
Rost v. Municipal
Court
of Southern Judicial Dist., County of San Mateo (1960) 85
A.L.R.2d
974, 979 Headnote 5.
B. Constitution of
California
2. ['51] Restrictive and Enabling Provisions
(a) Restrictions on State Powers.
The
California Constitution, like other state constitutions, is generally a
restriction
upon the powers of the state.
Summary of California Law, vol 7,
Constitutional
Law, p. 9
Constitution of the State
of
California, 1849
Are you one of the
"People"
or a "Person"?
Although recognizing the authority of this court to construe the
California
Constitution to provide protection beyond that afforded by parallel
provisions
of the federal document, we nevertheless find the reasoning of Crews
persuasive
and consistent with past California decisions; we therefore adopt Crews
as
defining the rights of the parties under the California Constitution.
People v.
Teresinski,
30 Cal.3d 822
[Crim. No. 20497. Supreme Court of California. February 18, 1982.]
NOTICE:
FindLaw.com offers free access to
California
Appellate and Supreme Court decisions dating to 1934, like the above
cases
People v. Spicer & People v. Teresinski
for example. This is a tremendous resource for those interested
in
all topics related to our rights. To review or download cases of
the
Appellate and Supreme Court of California simply click
here.
Constitution of the State of
California,
1849
Article I, Sec. 10.
The people shall have
the
right freely to assemble together,...
It is settled that the streets of a city belong to
the
people of a state and the use thereof is an inalienable right of every
citizen
of the state.
Whyte v. City of
Sacramento,
65 Cal. App. 534, 547, 224 Pac. 1008, 1013 (1924);
Escobedo v. State
Dept.
of Motor Vehicles, 222 Pac.2d 1, 5, 35 Cal.2d 870 (1950).
1.
LICENSES
(§ 5*) - CHAUFFEURS.
The occupation of a chauffeur is one
calling
for regulation and therefore permitting a regulatory license tax.
[Ed. Note. -For other cases, see
licenses, Cent. Dig §§4, 19; dec. Dig. § 5*]
2.
STATUTES
(§ 81*) - SPECIAL
LEGISLATION-CLASSIFICATION.
Dividing, as does St. 1913, p. 639, drivers
of
automobiles into two classes, one professional chauffeurs, and
requiring
them to obtain a license, and pay an annual fee of $2, the other
embracing
all others, who
are not required to secure a license or pay a license fee, is
sound
classification and not arbitrary, so as to constitute special
legislation.
Ex parte Stork (Feb. 24, 1914), 167 Cal. 294
WHO IS REQUIRED TO
HAVE A DRIVER LICENSE?
"As indicated by it title, the act was designed to impose a license tax
upon
those
engaged in the business of operating motor vehicles upon the public
highways
for the transportation of persons or property for compensation.
Section 1 defines certain words and phrases employed in the act.
The
term 'operator' is declared generally to include all persons, firms,
associations,
and corporations who operate motor vehicles upon any public highway in
the
state and thereby engage in the transportation of persons or property
for
hire or compensation. The term 'motor vehicles' is defined to
mean
and include all vehicles, automobiles, trucks, or trailers operated
upon
or over the public highways of this state whether the same be propelled
or
operated by steam or electricity or propelled or operated by combustion
of
gasoline, distillate, or other volatile and inflammable liquid fuels.
...
"Section 2 of the act provides: 'Each operator of a motor vehicle
within
this state who transports or desires to transport for compensation or
hire
persons or property upon or over any public highway within this state
shall
apply to and secure from the board of equalization of the State of
California
a license to operate each and all of the motor vehicles which such
operator
desires to operate or which such operator from time to time may
operate.'
It is provided in Section 7 that any operator using the public
highways
of the state for the transportation of persons or property for hire,
either
as a public or private carrier without first obtaining the license ...
is
guilty of a misdemeanor ..."
Bacon Service Corporation v. Huss (1926) 199 Cal. 21, 26 - 27.
“The activity licensed by state DMVs and in
connection
with which individuals must submit personal information to the DMV -
the
operation of motor vehicles - is itself integrally related to
interstate
commerce”.
Seth Waxman, Solicitor General
U.S. Department of Justice
BRIEF FOR THE PETITIONERS
Reno
v. Condon, No. 98-1464, decided January 12, 2000
Supreme Court of the United States
Title 18 UNITED STATES CODE Sec. 31
PART I - CRIMES
CHAPTER 2 - AIRCRAFT AND MOTOR VEHICLES
Sec. 31. Definitions
When used in this chapter the term -
''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, passengers and property, or property or
cargo;
California
Vehicle Code
15210
(p) (7) In the absence of a federal definition, existing
definitions
under this code shall apply.
California Public Utilities Code
208.
"Transportation of persons" includes every service in
connection with or incidental to the safety, comfort, or
convenience of the person transported and the receipt,
carriage, and delivery of such person and his baggage.
209. "Transportation of
property" includes every service in
connection with or incidental to the transportation of property,
including in particular its receipt, delivery, elevation, transfer,
switching, carriage, ventilation, refrigeration, icing, dunnage,
storage,
and handling, and the transmission of credit by expresscorporations.
Traffic/DMV Issues
BLASHFIELD'S
AUTOMOBILE LAW AND PRACTICE
(selected sections re "Classifcation")
Blashfield's
Automobile
Law And Practice (selected sections re "License")
California
Procedure
(Selected
Sections)
California Jurisprudence
(selected sections)
Codes of California
California Code Of
Judicial
Ethics
California Attorney General Opinions
California Code of Regulations


Police officers are members of the Executive
branch
of government. they are Executive officers
CONSTITUTION OF THE
STATE
OF CALIFORNIA, 1849
Article XI: Miscellaneous Provisions
Sec.
3.
Members of the legislature, and all officers, executive
and judicial, except such inferior officers as may be by law exempted, shall before
they
enter on the duties of their respective offices, take and
subscribe
the following oath or affirmation:
"I do solemnly
swear
(or affirm, as the case may be) that I will support
the
constitution of the United States,
and
the Constitution of the State of
California;
and that I will faithfully discharge the duties of the office of
------
according to the best of my ability."
"We thus require citizens to apprise
themselves
not only of statutory language but also of legislative history ... and
underlying
legislative purposes [citation]. [Citation.]" (Ibid.)
People v. Morse
(1993) 21 Cal.App.4th 259 , 25 Cal.Rptr.2d 816
[Nos. A058935, A060033. First Dist., Div. Three. Dec 22, 1993.]
"Everyone is presumed to know the law" (Boehm v. Spreckels, 183 Cal.
239,
245 [191 P. 5]), ..."
People ex rel.
Mosk
v. Lynam , 253 Cal.App.2d 959
[Civ. No. 31452. Second Dist., Div. One. Aug. 29, 1967.]

The "United States" is a Corporation
"A
citizen of the United States is
a citizen of the federal government ..."
Kitchens v. Steele,
112 F.Supp 383
(15)
“United States”
means -
(A) a
Federal corporation:
* United States Code, Title 28 - Judicial and
Judiciary
Procedure, §3002. Definitions, (15)(A), p. 564
* UNITED STATES
CODE,
TITLE 28, PART
VI,
CHAPTER 176, SUB
CHAPTER A, Sec. 3002.
Definitions
(15) ''United States'' means -
(A) a Federal corporation;
(B) an agency, department, commission, board, or other entity of the
United
States; or
(C) an instrumentality of the United States
(*
USC Title 26 is the location of the laws related to federal income tax.)
CALIFORNIA COMMERCIAL CODE
SECTION 9301- 9342
9307.
(h) The United States is located in the District of Columbia.
The
“Conspiracy Theory” of the Fourteenth Amendment, Yale Law
Journal 371 - 375
(1938)
The
privileges and immunities clause
of the Fourteenth Amendment protects very few rights because it neither
incorporates
any of the Bill of Rights nor protects all rights of individual
citizens.
See Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. (16 Wall.) 36, 21 L.Ed. 394
(1873).
Instead, this provision protects only those rights peculiar to being a
citizen
of the federal government; it does not
protect
those rights which relate to state citizenship.
Jones v. Temmer,
829
Fed. Supp. 1226 (1993)
U.S. Supreme Court
Opinions
- decisions since 1893, free to view and download
Supreme Court
Decisions re Distinctions Between state and US citizenship
Ninth
Circuit Opinions - free to view and download
Repositories for Source Material
The
Avalon
Project at the Yale Law School (this is an incredible collection)
LONANG Library
The
Constitution Society
Medieval
Legal
Sourcebook — Collection of documents and links at Fordham
University.
Primary
Source Documents Pertaining to Early American History The American Passport - 31.3 megs
e-mail Sir
Richard
