This is a update of the thread "The USDA wants to kill my sheep".
since I posted that thread the Minnesota board of animal health (BAH) and I corresponded by letter, in which I told them their Scrapie test results were full of errors. Scrapie is a fatal disease that all sheep that contract it will dye between the ages of 2 and 5 years of age, very little exceptions. First off the test was done so poorly that thee was admitting of switch ID ear tags and even changed the colour of the offending sheep. Also what the USDA did not know was that this offending sheep was 13 years old, impossible to have scrapie.
Since they would not listen to my objections to the report I inserted my inalienable rights, in which only some are mentioned in the constitution. This made matters worse, an agent called me July 5th and said if i don't give those sheep up for testing they (agents) were just going to come and take them while I was not home. Also since I was challenging their authority they we going to take all about 70. This was enough for me to move m sheep to an undisclosed location. The agents showed up on July 9th to inspect my sheep, I refused to let them on my property, i had a locked gate across my drive. After about a 3 hour stand off they forced their way onto my land without a warrant with a piece of paper stating they (agent) have the right to enter without a warrant. When they found no sheep i was sited for quarantine violation, 4 days late they arrested me for the violation. Since there had been an ongoing court battle in the criminal court. I produce several jurisdictional challenges to stop them from setting a plea date.
On Sept. 30 2015 two deputies walked onto my farm at 10;30 AM with an ex parte order of destruction of the 11 sheep for immediate testing. There was no way to stop them (criminals) so i left to go to the court house to challenge the Judge that granted the ex parte order. An ex parte is a court procedure where only one side is allowed, usually because of some history of violence from the other side (me). The judge, being the coward he is would not ear my side after filing paper work. I then went to the sheriff to try and make him understand the criminals are the State agents. After talking with the sheriff for twnty minutes the judge has the clerk of court call the sheriff and tell me he could not hear my side until i paid the counter plaintiff fee of $318. I paid within 30 minutes, but after paying the Judge was silent (extortion).
On thing most don't know about an ex parte is if the opposing side appears before the court, the ex parte is no longer legal all process must stop and Judge has a hearing with both sides present (intrinsic fraud).
Well they agents fearing I could some how stop them with a court action came onto property guns blazing and just shot the sheep on site. There were rumours around town for weeks that I was in a shoot out with the sheriff deputies(unlawful destruction of property).
Fast forward to today, in which the criminal prosecution is still going forward, plea date set for Dec. 22 2015. Tomorrow I will file a 18 page Jurisdictional challenge to the state to prove the State has standing, corpus delicti, cause of action for which relief can be granted, and about 10 other challenges.
I listed the challenge below, there is lots of case law that can be used for any thing.
To the extent necessary to decision and when presented, the reviewing court shall decide all relevant questions of law, interpret constitutional and statutory provisions, and determine the meaning or applicability of the terms of an agency action. The reviewing court shall—
(1) compel agency action unlawfully withheld or unreasonably delayed; and
(2) hold unlawful and set aside agency action, findings, and conclusions found to be—
(A) arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law;
(B) contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege, or immunity;
(C) in excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority, or limitations, or short of statutory right;
(D) without observance of procedure required by law;
(E) unsupported by substantial evidence in a case subject to sections 556 and 557 of this title or otherwise reviewed on the record of an agency hearing provided by statute; or
(F) unwarranted by the facts to the extent that the facts are subject to trial de novo by the reviewing court. In making the foregoing determinations, the court shall review the whole record or those parts of it cited by a party, and due account shall be taken of the rule of prejudicial error.
I defendant in error claim the State has violated each and every one of these listed A through E. In fact I will add a letter I mailed to Kris Petrini requesting due process of law, in Kris Petini's response fraud was committed. It is my right to read it into the record on Dec. 22 2015. Including the fraudulent supporting scrapie report for the Quarantine order I am accused of violating.
Also I require Mr. State of Minnesota come to court on Dec. 22, 2015 and prove I have injured him, as I have the right to face my accuser,
Under corpus delecti rules of procedure, the State must claim injury or provide the injured party, and must profess the following as defined in:
United States v. Bishop 412 US 346:
Sets the standard for criminal violation of Willful Intent
1. It must be proven that the defendant is the party.
2. It must be proven that the defendant had method or opportunity to do the thing.
3. It must be proven that the defendant did this with a Willful Intent.
Willfulness - “An evil motive or intent to avoid a know duty or task under a law, with a moral certainty.”
I ,defendant in error, make the claim the State of Minnesota can not be an injured party as this Court has previously claimed, in fact, does not have standing.
This is a direct Jurisdictional Challenge to the plaintiff to prove it has standing, to have standing one must be a living breathing person and suffered personal injury, acting in behalf of society for betterment is not allowed. Agents for the State can not claim injury, because he/she has not suffered personal injury. Confirmed in Warth v Seldin case below.
Warth v. Seldin 422 U.S. 490 (1975) Page 422 U. S. 499,In its constitutional dimension, standing imports justiciability: whether the plaintiff has made out a "case or controversy" between himself and the defendant within the meaning of Art. III. This is the threshold question in every federal case, determining the power of the court to entertain the suit. As an aspect of justiciability, the standing question is whether the plaintiff has "alleged such a personal stake in the outcome of the controversy" as to warrant his invocation of federal court jurisdiction and to justify exercise of the court's remedial powers onhis behalf. Baker v. Carr, 369 U. S. 186, 369 U. S. 24 (1962). [Footnote 9] The Art. III judicial power exists only to redress or otherwise to protect against injury to the complaining party, even though the court's judgment may benefit others collaterally. A federal court's jurisdiction therefore can be invoked only when the plaintiff himself has suffered "some threatened or actual injury resulting from the putatively illegal action. . . ." Linda R. S. v. Richard D., 410 U. S. 614, 410 U. S. 617 (1973). See Data Processing Service v. Camp, 397 U. S. 150, 397 U. S. 151-154 (1970).
“To have standing to bring claim, a person must have suffered some injury in fact as a result of the alleged actions.” Epland v. Meade Ins. Agency Associates, 564 N.W.2d 203, 208 (Minn. 1997).
Basso v. Utah Power & Light Co. 395 F 2d 906, 910
“Once challenged, jurisdiction cannot be assumed, it must be proved to exist.”
Main v Thiboutot, 100 S Ct. 2502(1980)“Jurisdiction can be challenged at any time,” and “Jurisdiction, once challenged, cannot be assumed and must be decided.”
Therefore since Fraud was committed, by withholding information, the plaintiff is
committing Fraud on the Court. The State of Minnesota is well aware of this information but has decided not to use in Court, for fear of my charge of fraud. Now since fraud has been uncovered this Court must either bless the fraud and be part of it and continue, or reject it by dismissing this case. Also the USDA was the author of the document (Scrapie report) by which the quarantine draws it's power and bases for authority.
I challenge the USDA authority being able to create this document, because it is a sub-corporation of the united States of America a Corporation formed in 1871. As mentioned above a corporation is not a living being and can not bring charges by which relief can be granted. Also the Federal Government is banned from operating within the Jurisdiction of the States according to the US Constitution Article 1 section 8: “To euxercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.”
The US Supreme Court supports the US Constitution in this fact:
Caha v. United States, 152 U.S. 211 (1894) “This statute is one of universal application within the territorial limits of the United States, and is not limited to those portions which are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the national government, such as the District of Columbia. Generally speaking, within any state of this union, the preservation of the peace and the protection of person and property are the functions of the state government, and are no part of the primary duty, at least, of the nation. The laws of Congress in respect to those matters do not extend into the territorial limits of the states, but have force only in the District of Columbia and other places that are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the national government.”
Therefore since the USDA only has authority in Washington D.C. it had absolutely no authority to present the Fraudulent document in the first place.
The definition of a Republican government listed below confirms Sovereignty is in the people and not the State. It states the people can exercise their sovereignty either directly or through their elected representatives, I choose to exercise my sovereignty directly.
REPUBLICAN GOVERNMENT. “One in which the powers of sovereignty are vested in the people and are exercised by the people, either directly, or through representatives chosen by the
people, to whom those powers are specially delegated. [In re Duncan, 139 U.S. 449, 11 S.Ct. 573, 35 L.Ed. 219; Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. (21 Wall.) 162, 22 L.Ed. 627. Black's Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, p. 626]“
The case following reveals that the people were under the jurisdiction of the King of England until England was defeated. After the Revolution the people became sovereigns because they took it from the King.
"...at the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people; and they are truly the sovereigns of the country, but they are sovereigns without subjects...with none to govern but themselves; the citizens of America are equal as fellow citizens, and as joint tenants in the sovereignty." CHISHOLM v. GEORGIA (US) 2 Dall 419, 454, 1 L Ed 440, 455 @DALL 1793 pp471-472
The following case declares I being Sovereign is not subject to man's law (Statutes). It also reveals a 13[SUP]th[/SUP] article of prohibition violation at the ending:
“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. And the law is the definition and limitation of power. It is, indeed, quite true that there must always be lodged somewhere, and in some person or body, the authority of final decision, and in many cases of mere administration, the responsibilityis purely political, no appeal lying except to the ultimate tribunal of the public judgment, exercised either in the pressure of opinion or by means of the suffrage. But the fundamental rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, considered as individual possessions, are secured by those maxims of constitutional law which are the monuments showing the victorious progress of the race in securing to men the blessings of civilization under the reign of just and equal laws, so that, in the famous language of the Massachusetts Bill of Rights, the government of the commonwealth "may be a government of laws, and not of men. For the very idea that one man 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 country where freedom prevails, as being the essence of slavery itself.” Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356, 1886
This case clearly says I am immune from prosecution, by the State, I must first consent:
Kawananokoa v. Polyblank 205 U.S. 349 (1907) Page 205 U. S. 353 “Some doubts have been expressed as to the source of the immunity of a sovereign power from suit without its own permission, but the answer has been public property since before the days of Hobbes. Leviathan, c. 26, 2. A sovereign is exempt from suit not because of any formal conception or obsolete theory, but on the logical and practical ground that there can be no legal right as against the authority that makes the law on which the right depends.”
There should be no question whether I am a sovereign man not subject to the laws of another man through laws of fiat listed in the cases above. The 3 cases above clearly state that a sovereign is law and not subject to law. Therefore the State must show on the record it is Sovereign and has absolute authority over the defendant. Since I have presented all Supreme Court cases to prove I am not subject to Minnesota Statutes, the State must prove it's Statutes have jurisdiction over the defendant.
From the conclusions above the State is in Excess of Statutory jurisdiction, in fact no jurisdiction whatever. The State must prove it has Statutory Jurisdiction as I have proven otherwise.
The State is guilty of violating the 13[SUP]th[/SUP] article of prohibition, in that the State assumes a Master Slave relationship between it and myself, also described in Yick wo v Hopkins above. The State has always made the claim it's agent can claim my property at anytime, and in fact has done so. Using an Ex parte court order like bandits, robbed me of my property, and when I appeared before the court within an hour fraud was committed by the resident Judge and all officers of the court. The fact an Ex parte has no authority once the opposing party appears before the court, made no difference. The resident Judge had no problem extorting a fee before hearing my side of the case, but refused once paid.
There is no question in my mind had I physically tried to stop the thieves I would have been shot. If I can go to anyones house and take their property at will, isn't that making them a slave? If I am not subject to it's Jurisdiction, then I surely am not subject to any of the State Statutes. As mentioned above the State of Minnesota is a corporation and since I have not signed any contract with the State of Minnesota, State never had a right to come to my property. Since the State claims, and has done so, that there agents can appear at any time without any appointment. I had no right to say no to them according to Statute 35, this is a usurpation of rights and is not allowed ( see 5 US section 706 above).
Scott v. Sandford 60 U.S. 393 (1856) Page 485 “Sovereignty, independence, and a perfect right of self-government, can signify nothing less than a superiority to and an exemption from all claims by any extraneous power, however expressly they may be asserted, and render all attempts to enforce such claims merely attempts at usurpation. Again, could such claims from extraneous sources be regarded as legitimate, the effort to resist or evade them, by protest or denial, would be as irregular and unmeaning as it would be futile. It could in no wise affect the question of superior right. For the position here combated, no respectable authority has been, and none it is thought can be, adduced. It is certainly irreconcilable with the doctrines already cited from the writers upon public law.”
Supreme Court case says: Sovereignty abides in the People not gov. servants.“The sovereignty of a state does not reside in the persons who fill the different departments of its government, but in the People, from whom the government emanated; and they may change it at their discretion Sovereignty, then in this country, abides with the constituency, and not with the agent; and this remark is true, both in reference to the federal and state government.” Spooner v. McConnell[SUP]5[/SUP]
As mentioned in the case below the State has forced surrender of all rights were it comes to property rights of animal owner any time it sees fit and that is unconstitutional.
Frost & Frost Trucking Co. v. Railroad Comm'n 271 U.S. 583 (1926) Page 271 U. S. 594 “It would be a palpable incongruity to strike down an act of state legislation which, by words of express divestment, seeks to strip the citizen of rights guaranteed by the federal Constitution, but to uphold an act by which the same result is accomplished under the guise of a surrender of a right in exchange for a valuable privilege which the state threatens otherwise to withhold. It is not necessary to challenge the proposition that, as a general rule, the state, having power to deny a privilege altogether, may grant it upon such conditions as it sees fit to impose. But the power of the state in that respect is not unlimited, and one of the limitations is that it may not impose conditions which require the relinquishment of constitutional rights. If the state may compel the surrender of one constitutional right as a condition of its favor, it may, in like manner, compel a surrender of all. It is inconceivable that guaranties embedded in the Constitution of the United States may thus be manipulated out of existence.”
If I object to the State of Minnesota or any other authority, they have no right to my property (chattels) whether they show my property be infected with any disease.
There should be no question as who correctly has authority, and is right within the law and who is the criminal entity here. This is evident from the US Supreme Court case below.
Scott v. Sandford 60 U.S. 393 (1856) Page 451 “The powers of the Government and the rights of the citizen under it are positive and practical regulations plainly written down. The people of the United States have delegated to it certain enumerated powers and forbidden it to exercise others. It has no power over the person or property of a citizen but what the citizens of the United States have granted. And no laws or usages of other nations, or reasoning of statesmen or jurists upon the relations of master and
slave, can enlarge the powers of the Government or take from the citizens the rights they have reserved. And if the Constitution recognizes the right of property of the master in a slave, and makes no distinction between that description of property and other property owned by a citizen, no tribunal, acting under the authority of the United States, whether it be legislative, executive, or judicial, has a right to draw such a distinction or deny to it the benefit of the provisions and guarantees which have been provided for the protection of private property against the encroachments of the Government.”
The case cited above declares the state, courts, or any government has any authority whatever the case may be in the taking of property. The State agents had no authority to come between a man and his property.
Also if I have not contacted the State of Minnesota and asked for their help the State had no authority whatever. They could contact me in an advisory capacity only. I owed no such duty to the state to divulge any thing to them or open my property (land) to investigation. My rights as one of the people are inalienable and the State can not take any right they were not party to giving it. See Supreme Court Case below.
HALE v. HENKEL 201 U.S. 43 at 89 (1906)"The "individual" may stand upon "his Constitutional Rights" as a CITIZEN. He is entitled to carry on his "private" business in his own way. "His power to contract is unlimited." He owes no duty to the State or to his neighbors to divulge his business, or to open his doors to an investigation, so far as it may tend to incriminate him. He owes no duty to the State, since he receives nothing there from, beyond the protection of his life and property. "His rights" are such as "existed" by the Law of the Land (Common Law) "long antecedent" to the organization of the State", and can only be taken from him by "due process of law", and "in accordance with the Constitution." "He owes nothing" to the public so long as he does not trespass upon their rights."
As shown above the State is in Excess of Jurisdiction because of usurpation of inalienable rights the State can never acquire.
As indicated in the 9[SUP]th[/SUP] article of prohibition there are many more inalienable rights not mentioned in the Constitution. My right to have sheep without the interference of the State is one.
I have asserted my 1[SUP]st[/SUP] , 4[SUP]th[/SUP], 5[SUP]th[/SUP], 9[SUP]th[/SUP], 10[SUP]th[/SUP], and 13[SUP]th[/SUP] amendment rights many times but fell on deaf ears, now I choose to confront the State with these truths.
Before any plea, this Jurisdictional challenge must be meet in it's entirety and not just parts, I require an answer to each and every challenge and as to why these US Supreme court rulings do not apply since this court and State has ignored all in past.
According to the Supremacy Clause in article 6 of the US Constitution all are required to obey this Constitution in it's entirety. I must remind all that are employed by the State, you are a fiduciary to me and are required to protect my inalienable rights.
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United
States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
The Supreme Court supports this Supremacy clause in,
Marbury v. Madison : 5 US 137 (1803): “No provision of the Constitution is designed to be without effect,” “Anything that is in conflict is null and void of law”, “Clearly, for a secondary law to come in conflict with the supreme Law was illogical, for certainly, the supreme Law would prevail over all other laws and certainly our forefathers had intended that the supreme Law would be the bases of all law and for any law to come in conflict would be null and void of law, it would bare no power to enforce, it would bare no obligation to obey, it would purport to settle as if it had never existed, for unconstitutionality would date from the enactment of such a law, not from the date so branded in an open court of law, no courts are bound to uphold it, and no Citizens are bound to obey it. It operates as a near nullity or a fiction of law.”
If any statement, within any law, which is passed, is unconstitutional, the whole law is unconstitutional by Marbury v. Madison. Now this court has said correctly there is controversy in Statute 35 and if Statute 35 claims the right to kill my animals it is UNCONSTITUTIONAL, it denies me of due process! Also from Scott v. Sanford above no entity has the right to come between a sovereign man and his property, and this comes from the 4[SUP]th[/SUP] and 5[SUP]th[/SUP] articles of prohibition. This lists 3 different distinct proofs why Statute 35 is UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
“To presume that a sovereign forever waives the right to exercise one of its powers unless it expressly reserves the right to exercise that power in a commercial agreement turns the concept of sovereignty on its head. Merrion v. Jicarilla Apache Tribe; Amoco Production Company v. Jicarilla Apache Indian Tribe, 455 U.S. 130, 131, 102 S.Ct. 894, 71 L.Ed.2d 21 (1981)
since I posted that thread the Minnesota board of animal health (BAH) and I corresponded by letter, in which I told them their Scrapie test results were full of errors. Scrapie is a fatal disease that all sheep that contract it will dye between the ages of 2 and 5 years of age, very little exceptions. First off the test was done so poorly that thee was admitting of switch ID ear tags and even changed the colour of the offending sheep. Also what the USDA did not know was that this offending sheep was 13 years old, impossible to have scrapie.
Since they would not listen to my objections to the report I inserted my inalienable rights, in which only some are mentioned in the constitution. This made matters worse, an agent called me July 5th and said if i don't give those sheep up for testing they (agents) were just going to come and take them while I was not home. Also since I was challenging their authority they we going to take all about 70. This was enough for me to move m sheep to an undisclosed location. The agents showed up on July 9th to inspect my sheep, I refused to let them on my property, i had a locked gate across my drive. After about a 3 hour stand off they forced their way onto my land without a warrant with a piece of paper stating they (agent) have the right to enter without a warrant. When they found no sheep i was sited for quarantine violation, 4 days late they arrested me for the violation. Since there had been an ongoing court battle in the criminal court. I produce several jurisdictional challenges to stop them from setting a plea date.
On Sept. 30 2015 two deputies walked onto my farm at 10;30 AM with an ex parte order of destruction of the 11 sheep for immediate testing. There was no way to stop them (criminals) so i left to go to the court house to challenge the Judge that granted the ex parte order. An ex parte is a court procedure where only one side is allowed, usually because of some history of violence from the other side (me). The judge, being the coward he is would not ear my side after filing paper work. I then went to the sheriff to try and make him understand the criminals are the State agents. After talking with the sheriff for twnty minutes the judge has the clerk of court call the sheriff and tell me he could not hear my side until i paid the counter plaintiff fee of $318. I paid within 30 minutes, but after paying the Judge was silent (extortion).
On thing most don't know about an ex parte is if the opposing side appears before the court, the ex parte is no longer legal all process must stop and Judge has a hearing with both sides present (intrinsic fraud).
Well they agents fearing I could some how stop them with a court action came onto property guns blazing and just shot the sheep on site. There were rumours around town for weeks that I was in a shoot out with the sheriff deputies(unlawful destruction of property).
Fast forward to today, in which the criminal prosecution is still going forward, plea date set for Dec. 22 2015. Tomorrow I will file a 18 page Jurisdictional challenge to the state to prove the State has standing, corpus delicti, cause of action for which relief can be granted, and about 10 other challenges.
I listed the challenge below, there is lots of case law that can be used for any thing.
I, defendant in error, object, to the Conclusion of law, number 6, in that the Court claims jurisdiction over this case. This court or the plaintiff has not shown any facts that proves subject matter jurisdiction. I am stating the court not only does not have Subject matter jurisdiction but is in excess of jurisdiction. The court has correctly stated on page 9 that the State agents could not enter my property (land) without a warrant, but incorrect on the fact the State can bring criminal charges for not allowing access to property. The defendant in error has many times stated he is a sovereign and not subject to the whims of his fellow man's law (statutes). Defendant has presented many times supreme court cases that prove the fact he is not subject to statutes, but the court has consistently does not acknowledged these claims. In this Supreme court case following proves I am sovereign: Kawananokoa v. Polyblank 205 U.S. 349 (1907)Page 353 “A sovereign is exempt from suit not because of any formal conception or obsolete theory, but on the
Page 1 of 18
logical and practical ground that there can be no legal right as against the authority that makes the law on which the right depends.”
Another Supreme Court case on sovereign immunity: “The doctrine of Sovereign Immunity is one of the Common-Law immunities and defenses that are available to the Sovereign.” Yick Wo v. Hopkins[SUP]1[/SUP]
Therefore this is a direct Jurisdictional Challenge to the plaintiff to prove I, defendant in error, am not one of the people and therefore subject to State Jurisdiction. There is ample proof to the Contrary throughout this document. It is the plaintiff's burden to prove it has Jurisdiction in this matter. To claim I living in Minnesota the State does not give Jurisdiction, because I am being prosecuted by the corporation (State of Minnesota) in which I can not reside. To be part of this corporation I must be employed there.
Also the Court has not addressed the fact the defendant has consistently been denied due process of law. Therefore this is a direct Jurisdiction challenge the plaintiff must prove that it has not violated my due process of law. If the Defendant in error was given due process there would be no case before this court. It's because of the lies and fraud on the part of the plaintiff's agents is the reason we are here today.
In fact in one of my letters to Kris Petrini of the Minnesota Board of Animal Health (BAH) I have requested a hearing before a independent party. To have this hearing was my right under the due process clause of the 5[SUP]th[/SUP] article of prohibition of the US Constitution. There are two parts to the due process clause which are Procedural and substantive, BAH has violated both and therefore have no right to proceed in any criminal prosecution of the defendant in error.
Under the 1[SUP]st[/SUP] article of prohibition I have a right to redress of grievances, The State would not listen to any grievances just moved forward in the destruction of my property. A redress of grievances would be a discussion of the supporting document (srapie report) errors and what authority the State presumes Jurisdiction.
Since the State denied me of my rights listed in the 1[SUP]st[/SUP], 4[SUP]th[/SUP] and 5[SUP]th[/SUP] articles of prohibition the state is guilty of vindictive prosecution, because I can prove without any doubt the state has treated me different than another because I inserted my inalienable right in which only some are mentioned in the US Constitution. In fact under subpoena of this other person I will prove he was paid a much higher price for his sheep than I was offered. The State wanted to make an example of me so as to so all will never challenge the sovereignty of the State again.
Another Supreme Court case on sovereign immunity: “The doctrine of Sovereign Immunity is one of the Common-Law immunities and defenses that are available to the Sovereign.” Yick Wo v. Hopkins[SUP]1[/SUP]
Therefore this is a direct Jurisdictional Challenge to the plaintiff to prove I, defendant in error, am not one of the people and therefore subject to State Jurisdiction. There is ample proof to the Contrary throughout this document. It is the plaintiff's burden to prove it has Jurisdiction in this matter. To claim I living in Minnesota the State does not give Jurisdiction, because I am being prosecuted by the corporation (State of Minnesota) in which I can not reside. To be part of this corporation I must be employed there.
Also the Court has not addressed the fact the defendant has consistently been denied due process of law. Therefore this is a direct Jurisdiction challenge the plaintiff must prove that it has not violated my due process of law. If the Defendant in error was given due process there would be no case before this court. It's because of the lies and fraud on the part of the plaintiff's agents is the reason we are here today.
In fact in one of my letters to Kris Petrini of the Minnesota Board of Animal Health (BAH) I have requested a hearing before a independent party. To have this hearing was my right under the due process clause of the 5[SUP]th[/SUP] article of prohibition of the US Constitution. There are two parts to the due process clause which are Procedural and substantive, BAH has violated both and therefore have no right to proceed in any criminal prosecution of the defendant in error.
Under the 1[SUP]st[/SUP] article of prohibition I have a right to redress of grievances, The State would not listen to any grievances just moved forward in the destruction of my property. A redress of grievances would be a discussion of the supporting document (srapie report) errors and what authority the State presumes Jurisdiction.
Since the State denied me of my rights listed in the 1[SUP]st[/SUP], 4[SUP]th[/SUP] and 5[SUP]th[/SUP] articles of prohibition the state is guilty of vindictive prosecution, because I can prove without any doubt the state has treated me different than another because I inserted my inalienable right in which only some are mentioned in the US Constitution. In fact under subpoena of this other person I will prove he was paid a much higher price for his sheep than I was offered. The State wanted to make an example of me so as to so all will never challenge the sovereignty of the State again.
Page 2 of 18
SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION CHALLENGE
SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION CHALLENGE
In the code below the State is required to follow strict rules listed in 5 US code sections 556 and 557,which insures that rights listed in the 5[SUP]th[/SUP] article of prohibition is followed.
The State has never followed any thing required in the code, Therefore this court is required to determine if the State is in violation using the scope of review listed below.
5 U.S. Code § 706 - Scope of reviewThe State has never followed any thing required in the code, Therefore this court is required to determine if the State is in violation using the scope of review listed below.
To the extent necessary to decision and when presented, the reviewing court shall decide all relevant questions of law, interpret constitutional and statutory provisions, and determine the meaning or applicability of the terms of an agency action. The reviewing court shall—
(1) compel agency action unlawfully withheld or unreasonably delayed; and
(2) hold unlawful and set aside agency action, findings, and conclusions found to be—
(A) arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law;
(B) contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege, or immunity;
(C) in excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority, or limitations, or short of statutory right;
(D) without observance of procedure required by law;
(E) unsupported by substantial evidence in a case subject to sections 556 and 557 of this title or otherwise reviewed on the record of an agency hearing provided by statute; or
(F) unwarranted by the facts to the extent that the facts are subject to trial de novo by the reviewing court. In making the foregoing determinations, the court shall review the whole record or those parts of it cited by a party, and due account shall be taken of the rule of prejudicial error.
I defendant in error claim the State has violated each and every one of these listed A through E. In fact I will add a letter I mailed to Kris Petrini requesting due process of law, in Kris Petini's response fraud was committed. It is my right to read it into the record on Dec. 22 2015. Including the fraudulent supporting scrapie report for the Quarantine order I am accused of violating.
Also I require Mr. State of Minnesota come to court on Dec. 22, 2015 and prove I have injured him, as I have the right to face my accuser,
Under corpus delecti rules of procedure, the State must claim injury or provide the injured party, and must profess the following as defined in:
United States v. Bishop 412 US 346:
Sets the standard for criminal violation of Willful Intent
1. It must be proven that the defendant is the party.
2. It must be proven that the defendant had method or opportunity to do the thing.
3. It must be proven that the defendant did this with a Willful Intent.
This is a direct Jurisdictional Challenge to the plaintiff to prove it has standing, to have standing one must be a living breathing person and suffered personal injury, acting in behalf of society for betterment is not allowed. Agents for the State can not claim injury, because he/she has not suffered personal injury. Confirmed in Warth v Seldin case below.
Warth v. Seldin 422 U.S. 490 (1975) Page 422 U. S. 499,In its constitutional dimension, standing imports justiciability: whether the plaintiff has made out a "case or controversy" between himself and the defendant within the meaning of Art. III. This is the threshold question in every federal case, determining the power of the court to entertain the suit. As an aspect of justiciability, the standing question is whether the plaintiff has "alleged such a personal stake in the outcome of the controversy" as to warrant his invocation of federal court jurisdiction and to justify exercise of the court's remedial powers onhis behalf. Baker v. Carr, 369 U. S. 186, 369 U. S. 24 (1962). [Footnote 9] The Art. III judicial power exists only to redress or otherwise to protect against injury to the complaining party, even though the court's judgment may benefit others collaterally. A federal court's jurisdiction therefore can be invoked only when the plaintiff himself has suffered "some threatened or actual injury resulting from the putatively illegal action. . . ." Linda R. S. v. Richard D., 410 U. S. 614, 410 U. S. 617 (1973). See Data Processing Service v. Camp, 397 U. S. 150, 397 U. S. 151-154 (1970).
Apart from this minimum constitutional mandate, this Court has recognized other limits on the class of persons who may invoke the courts' decisional and remedial powers. First, the Court has held that when the asserted harm is a "generalized grievance" shared in substantially equal measure by all or a large class of citizens, that harm alone normally does not warrant exercise of jurisdiction. E.g., Schlesinger v. Reservists to Stop the War, supra; United States v. Richardson, supra; Ex parte Levitt, 302 U.S. 633, 634 (1937).
Second, even when the plaintiff has alleged injury sufficient to meet the "case or controversy" requirement, this Court has held that the plaintiff generally must assert his own legal rights and interests, and cannot rest his claim to relief on the legal rights or interests of third parties. E.g., Tileston v. Ullman,318 U. S. 44 (1943). See United States v. Raines,362 U. S. 17 (1960); Barrows v.
The State does not have standing, and can not sue or bring charges against anyone without an injured party because, the State of Minnesota is a Corporation according to Dun & Bradstreet. A corporation can never have standing according to the Supreme court because it has no Soul. The State of Minnesota being a Corporation is a figment of the mind, is not tangible.
Rundle v. Delaware & Raritan Canal Company 55 U.S. 80 (1852) “Sir Edward Coke has declared, that a corporation cannot commit treason, felony, or other crime; neither is it capable of suffering a traitor's or felon's punishment, for it is not liable to corporeal penalties -- that it can perform no personal duties, for it cannot take an oath for the due execution of an office; neither can it be arrested or committed to prison, for its existence being ideal, no man can arrest it; neither can it be excommunicated, for it has no soul."The jurisdiction of this Court being limited, so far as respects the character of the parties in this particular case, to controversies between citizens of different states, both parties must be citizens, to come within the description. That invisible, intangible, and artificial being, that mere legal entity, a corporation aggregate, is certainly not a citizen, and consequently cannot sue or be sued in the courts of the United States unless the rights of the members in this respect can be exercised in their corporate name. If the corporation be considered as a mere faculty, and not as a company of individuals who, in transacting their business, may use a legal name, they must be excluded from the courts of the Union."
“A cause of action[SUP]2[/SUP]” is a violation of a legal right.”Halliwill v. Mutual Service Ca. Ins. Co., 100 N.W.2d 817.
The above case begs the question whose legal right have I violated? He must be a real living man/ woman, not a corporation.
“To have standing to bring claim, a person must have suffered some injury in fact as a result of the alleged actions.” Epland v. Meade Ins. Agency Associates, 564 N.W.2d 203, 208 (Minn. 1997).
I require the State to show cause for which relieve can be granted by this court or this case must be dismissed. The State must prove on the record it is has Jurisdiction, standing, and the Corpus delicti. The case below bears this out.
Harris v. American Legion, 162 F. Supp. 700 (S.D. Ind. 1958) *711,*712"The function of the trial court in matters involving jurisdiction is rather carefully defined in McNutt, Governor of Indiana, et al. v. General Motors Acceptance Corp., 298 U.S. 178, at page 182, 56 S. Ct. 780, 785, 80 L. Ed. 1135, where the court, after declaring that it is the duty of the trial court, if it finds that jurisdiction does not exist, to proceed no further but to dismiss the suit, said: `* * * the party who seeks the exercise of jurisdiction in his favor * * * must allege in his pleading the facts essential to show jurisdiction. If he fails to make the necessary allegations he has no standing. If he does make them, an inquiry into the existence of jurisdiction is obviously for the purpose of determining whether the facts support his allegations. In the nature of things, the authorized inquiry is primarily directed to the one who claims that the power of the court should be exerted in his behalf. As he is seeking relief subject to this supervision, it follows that he must carry throughout the litigation the burden of showing that he is properly in court. * * * If his allegations of jurisdictional facts are challenged by his adversary in any appropriate manner, he must support them by competent proof.”
Once Jurisdiction is challenged it must be proved to exist. The answer to this Challenge must include all asserted wrongs professed the defendant in error has done. I always claimed the State never had authority to write the quarantine in the first place, because the State can not engage a sovereign man for reasons listed below. State must prove on the record it had the authority to write the quarantine.
“Once challenged, jurisdiction cannot be assumed, it must be proved to exist.”
Main v Thiboutot, 100 S Ct. 2502(1980)“Jurisdiction can be challenged at any time,” and “Jurisdiction, once challenged, cannot be assumed and must be decided.”
FRAUD ON THE COURT COMMITTED
In a the letter sent to Kris Petrini I demanded she show proof the sheep in question had
scrapie because they never provided any proof, just assumed jurisdiction. What I received was a Scrapie report (attached) that was full of errors. The first error was the
dates, they were changed, for what reason is still unknown. Then there are admissions by so errors were committed, in that, the scrapie tags were removed and switched and even the color of the offending sheep was changed. Then when one takes into account that there were 8 sheep in which 4 came from Paul Canik's flock of whom I purchased my sheep, and there were 4 other sheep of which came from sources unknown. Since errors were committed and no proof that the source of scrapie infection did not come from one of the other 4 other than Paul Canik's flock. Also all agents drawing samples were never named, this makes it impossible to question anyone to the validity of the report. This document is not first hand knowledge and can never be.
In the letter to demand they, BAH, show absolute proof that the scrapie infection came from Paul Canik's flock. I requested the names of the person purchasing Paul's sheep and the names of the other owners of the other 4 sheep. Also there was about 45 days in between the time Paul Canik sold the sheep and the time of slaughter.
The letter in response (mentioned above page 3) came from Diane Sutton of the USDA in which she claims they made errors and was sorry it happened, but the scrapie report was accurate. She could in no way explain why the scrapie tags were switched. She also said I had no right to know who purchased the sheep from Zumbrota livestock auction, or where the sheep had been for approximately 45 days before slaughter. She also said I had no right to ask the name of the owner of the other sheep or the breed of the other 4 sheep.
If any agent Federal or State withholds information they are guilty of fraud, because the agent is a fiduciary to the public. As a fiduciary must be ever watchful not to trample the rights of the public they are dealing with. As a fiduciary they were required to protect my rights the day they appeared at my property at 1905 highway south Tracy MN. I did assert my rights against a warrantless search as well as due pocess.
McNally v. United States 483 U.S. 350 (1987)"Fraud in its elementary common law sense of deceit -- and this is one of the meanings that fraud bears (Page 483 U. S. 372) in the statute, see United States v. Dial, 757 F.2d 163, 168 (7th Cir.1985) -- includes the deliberate concealment of material information in a setting of fiduciary obligation. A public official is a fiduciary toward the public, including, in the case of a judge, the litigants who appear before him, and if he deliberately conceals material information from them, he is guilty of fraud.”Therefore since Fraud was committed, by withholding information, the plaintiff is
I challenge the USDA authority being able to create this document, because it is a sub-corporation of the united States of America a Corporation formed in 1871. As mentioned above a corporation is not a living being and can not bring charges by which relief can be granted. Also the Federal Government is banned from operating within the Jurisdiction of the States according to the US Constitution Article 1 section 8: “To euxercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.”
The US Supreme Court supports the US Constitution in this fact:
Caha v. United States, 152 U.S. 211 (1894) “This statute is one of universal application within the territorial limits of the United States, and is not limited to those portions which are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the national government, such as the District of Columbia. Generally speaking, within any state of this union, the preservation of the peace and the protection of person and property are the functions of the state government, and are no part of the primary duty, at least, of the nation. The laws of Congress in respect to those matters do not extend into the territorial limits of the states, but have force only in the District of Columbia and other places that are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the national government.”
Therefore since the USDA only has authority in Washington D.C. it had absolutely no authority to present the Fraudulent document in the first place.
EXCESS OF JURISDICTION CHALLENGE
The State has no Authority to even come to my property to request any thing of me because, I being one of the people mentioned in the preamble to the US Constitution, am a sovereign and not subject to the Jurisdiction of the State of Minnesota.
Scott v. Sandford 60 U.S. 393 (1856) Page 405 “The words "people of the United States" and "citizens" are synonymous terms, and mean the same thing. They both describe the political body who, according to our republican institutions, form the sovereignty and who hold the power and conduct the Government through their representatives. They are what we familiarly call the "sovereign people," and every citizen is one of this people, and a constituent member of this sovereignty.” The definition of a Republican government listed below confirms Sovereignty is in the people and not the State. It states the people can exercise their sovereignty either directly or through their elected representatives, I choose to exercise my sovereignty directly.
REPUBLICAN GOVERNMENT. “One in which the powers of sovereignty are vested in the people and are exercised by the people, either directly, or through representatives chosen by the
people, to whom those powers are specially delegated. [In re Duncan, 139 U.S. 449, 11 S.Ct. 573, 35 L.Ed. 219; Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. (21 Wall.) 162, 22 L.Ed. 627. Black's Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, p. 626]“
The case following reveals that the people were under the jurisdiction of the King of England until England was defeated. After the Revolution the people became sovereigns because they took it from the King.
"...at the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people; and they are truly the sovereigns of the country, but they are sovereigns without subjects...with none to govern but themselves; the citizens of America are equal as fellow citizens, and as joint tenants in the sovereignty." CHISHOLM v. GEORGIA (US) 2 Dall 419, 454, 1 L Ed 440, 455 @DALL 1793 pp471-472
The following case declares I being Sovereign is not subject to man's law (Statutes). It also reveals a 13[SUP]th[/SUP] article of prohibition violation at the ending:
“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. And the law is the definition and limitation of power. It is, indeed, quite true that there must always be lodged somewhere, and in some person or body, the authority of final decision, and in many cases of mere administration, the responsibilityis purely political, no appeal lying except to the ultimate tribunal of the public judgment, exercised either in the pressure of opinion or by means of the suffrage. But the fundamental rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, considered as individual possessions, are secured by those maxims of constitutional law which are the monuments showing the victorious progress of the race in securing to men the blessings of civilization under the reign of just and equal laws, so that, in the famous language of the Massachusetts Bill of Rights, the government of the commonwealth "may be a government of laws, and not of men. For the very idea that one man 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 country where freedom prevails, as being the essence of slavery itself.” Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356, 1886
This case clearly says I am immune from prosecution, by the State, I must first consent:
Kawananokoa v. Polyblank 205 U.S. 349 (1907) Page 205 U. S. 353 “Some doubts have been expressed as to the source of the immunity of a sovereign power from suit without its own permission, but the answer has been public property since before the days of Hobbes. Leviathan, c. 26, 2. A sovereign is exempt from suit not because of any formal conception or obsolete theory, but on the logical and practical ground that there can be no legal right as against the authority that makes the law on which the right depends.”
There should be no question whether I am a sovereign man not subject to the laws of another man through laws of fiat listed in the cases above. The 3 cases above clearly state that a sovereign is law and not subject to law. Therefore the State must show on the record it is Sovereign and has absolute authority over the defendant. Since I have presented all Supreme Court cases to prove I am not subject to Minnesota Statutes, the State must prove it's Statutes have jurisdiction over the defendant.
From the conclusions above the State is in Excess of Statutory jurisdiction, in fact no jurisdiction whatever. The State must prove it has Statutory Jurisdiction as I have proven otherwise.
The State is guilty of violating the 13[SUP]th[/SUP] article of prohibition, in that the State assumes a Master Slave relationship between it and myself, also described in Yick wo v Hopkins above. The State has always made the claim it's agent can claim my property at anytime, and in fact has done so. Using an Ex parte court order like bandits, robbed me of my property, and when I appeared before the court within an hour fraud was committed by the resident Judge and all officers of the court. The fact an Ex parte has no authority once the opposing party appears before the court, made no difference. The resident Judge had no problem extorting a fee before hearing my side of the case, but refused once paid.
BREACH OF DUTY AND TRUST
The Judge in this case has promised that the State would not take my property until this case was over, and had told the State not to steal my property (sheep). Judge Michele Detrich is in violation of her oath of office because telling the State not to take or kill my sheep, she created a trust (Contract). When Sheep were taken (stole) the Judge presiding over this case is in breach of duty[SUP]3[/SUP], and breach of trust[SUP]4[/SUP]. Since the Judge told the prosecutor, tell them (agents) not to do that ( referring to the taking of sheep), the prosecutor also is in breach of duty and trust,I require the Judge and prosecutor to remove yourselves from this case.PERJURY OF OATH OF OFFICE
Since you are a fiduciary and took an oath to protect and defend the US Constitution, you violated my rights by not protecting my property (sheep). You made a trust (contract) which you have violated as listed above. I am considered innocent until proven guilty, and therefore my property would be exempt from the taking until this case was over.
So far the State has committed fraud, violated inalienable rights, stole property, has made me a slave, in breach of duty, breach of trust, and perjury under oath of office, not because of the rule of law but because of the rule of the gun.
The Supreme court case below definitely says the sovereignty of a sovereign can not be questioned by any government. To challenge the sovereignty of a sovereign is a futile attempt on the part of the State.
Supreme Court case says: Sovereignty abides in the People not gov. servants.“The sovereignty of a state does not reside in the persons who fill the different departments of its government, but in the People, from whom the government emanated; and they may change it at their discretion Sovereignty, then in this country, abides with the constituency, and not with the agent; and this remark is true, both in reference to the federal and state government.” Spooner v. McConnell[SUP]5[/SUP]
Page 12 of 18
People of all states are categorically sovereign.“It will be admitted on all hands that with the exception of the powers granted to the states and the federal government through the Constitutions, the people of the several states are unconditionally sovereign within their respective states.”Lansing v. Smith[SUP]6[/SUP]As mentioned in the case below the State has forced surrender of all rights were it comes to property rights of animal owner any time it sees fit and that is unconstitutional.
Frost & Frost Trucking Co. v. Railroad Comm'n 271 U.S. 583 (1926) Page 271 U. S. 594 “It would be a palpable incongruity to strike down an act of state legislation which, by words of express divestment, seeks to strip the citizen of rights guaranteed by the federal Constitution, but to uphold an act by which the same result is accomplished under the guise of a surrender of a right in exchange for a valuable privilege which the state threatens otherwise to withhold. It is not necessary to challenge the proposition that, as a general rule, the state, having power to deny a privilege altogether, may grant it upon such conditions as it sees fit to impose. But the power of the state in that respect is not unlimited, and one of the limitations is that it may not impose conditions which require the relinquishment of constitutional rights. If the state may compel the surrender of one constitutional right as a condition of its favor, it may, in like manner, compel a surrender of all. It is inconceivable that guaranties embedded in the Constitution of the United States may thus be manipulated out of existence.”
If I object to the State of Minnesota or any other authority, they have no right to my property (chattels) whether they show my property be infected with any disease.
There should be no question as who correctly has authority, and is right within the law and who is the criminal entity here. This is evident from the US Supreme Court case below.
Scott v. Sandford 60 U.S. 393 (1856) Page 451 “The powers of the Government and the rights of the citizen under it are positive and practical regulations plainly written down. The people of the United States have delegated to it certain enumerated powers and forbidden it to exercise others. It has no power over the person or property of a citizen but what the citizens of the United States have granted. And no laws or usages of other nations, or reasoning of statesmen or jurists upon the relations of master and
Page 13 of 18
The case cited above declares the state, courts, or any government has any authority whatever the case may be in the taking of property. The State agents had no authority to come between a man and his property.
Also if I have not contacted the State of Minnesota and asked for their help the State had no authority whatever. They could contact me in an advisory capacity only. I owed no such duty to the state to divulge any thing to them or open my property (land) to investigation. My rights as one of the people are inalienable and the State can not take any right they were not party to giving it. See Supreme Court Case below.
HALE v. HENKEL 201 U.S. 43 at 89 (1906)"The "individual" may stand upon "his Constitutional Rights" as a CITIZEN. He is entitled to carry on his "private" business in his own way. "His power to contract is unlimited." He owes no duty to the State or to his neighbors to divulge his business, or to open his doors to an investigation, so far as it may tend to incriminate him. He owes no duty to the State, since he receives nothing there from, beyond the protection of his life and property. "His rights" are such as "existed" by the Law of the Land (Common Law) "long antecedent" to the organization of the State", and can only be taken from him by "due process of law", and "in accordance with the Constitution." "He owes nothing" to the public so long as he does not trespass upon their rights."
As shown above the State is in Excess of Jurisdiction because of usurpation of inalienable rights the State can never acquire.
As indicated in the 9[SUP]th[/SUP] article of prohibition there are many more inalienable rights not mentioned in the Constitution. My right to have sheep without the interference of the State is one.
Page 14 of 18
My 10[SUP]th[/SUP] article of prohibition has been violated all throughout this document, because powers denied to the Federal and State Government fell onto the people. But the State saw fit to usurp these rights it was forbidden.I have asserted my 1[SUP]st[/SUP] , 4[SUP]th[/SUP], 5[SUP]th[/SUP], 9[SUP]th[/SUP], 10[SUP]th[/SUP], and 13[SUP]th[/SUP] amendment rights many times but fell on deaf ears, now I choose to confront the State with these truths.
Before any plea, this Jurisdictional challenge must be meet in it's entirety and not just parts, I require an answer to each and every challenge and as to why these US Supreme court rulings do not apply since this court and State has ignored all in past.
According to the Supremacy Clause in article 6 of the US Constitution all are required to obey this Constitution in it's entirety. I must remind all that are employed by the State, you are a fiduciary to me and are required to protect my inalienable rights.
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United
States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
The Supreme Court supports this Supremacy clause in,
Marbury v. Madison : 5 US 137 (1803): “No provision of the Constitution is designed to be without effect,” “Anything that is in conflict is null and void of law”, “Clearly, for a secondary law to come in conflict with the supreme Law was illogical, for certainly, the supreme Law would prevail over all other laws and certainly our forefathers had intended that the supreme Law would be the bases of all law and for any law to come in conflict would be null and void of law, it would bare no power to enforce, it would bare no obligation to obey, it would purport to settle as if it had never existed, for unconstitutionality would date from the enactment of such a law, not from the date so branded in an open court of law, no courts are bound to uphold it, and no Citizens are bound to obey it. It operates as a near nullity or a fiction of law.”
If any statement, within any law, which is passed, is unconstitutional, the whole law is unconstitutional by Marbury v. Madison. Now this court has said correctly there is controversy in Statute 35 and if Statute 35 claims the right to kill my animals it is UNCONSTITUTIONAL, it denies me of due process! Also from Scott v. Sanford above no entity has the right to come between a sovereign man and his property, and this comes from the 4[SUP]th[/SUP] and 5[SUP]th[/SUP] articles of prohibition. This lists 3 different distinct proofs why Statute 35 is UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
Page 15 of 18
In Marbury V. Madison if only one part of the Statute be unconstitutional the whole law is unconstitutional and must be null and void not from the first challenge in court but from when it was first enacted. “To presume that a sovereign forever waives the right to exercise one of its powers unless it expressly reserves the right to exercise that power in a commercial agreement turns the concept of sovereignty on its head. Merrion v. Jicarilla Apache Tribe; Amoco Production Company v. Jicarilla Apache Indian Tribe, 455 U.S. 130, 131, 102 S.Ct. 894, 71 L.Ed.2d 21 (1981)
