Guess What the Supreme Court Has Ruled On???? U.S. SUPREME COURT AND OTHER HIGH COURT CITATIONS PROVING THAT NO LICENSE IS NECESSARY FOR NORMAL USE OF AN AUTOMOBILE ON COMMON WAYS

Guess What the Supreme Court Has Ruled On????

U.S. SUPREME COURT AND OTHER HIGH COURT CITATIONS PROVING THAT NO LICENSE IS NECESSARY FOR NORMAL USE OF AN AUTOMOBILE ON COMMON WAYS

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YmDv_V_LcHM

“The right of a citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, by horsedrawn carriage, wagon, or automobile, is not a mere privilege which may be permitted or prohibited at will, but a common right which he has under his right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Under this constitutional guaranty one may, therefore, under normal conditions, travel at his inclination along the public highways or in public places, and while conducting himself in an orderly and decent manner, neither interfering with nor disturbing another’s rights, he will be protected, not only in his person, but in his safe conduct.”   

Thompson v.Smith, 154 SE 579, 11 American Jurisprudence, Constitutional Law, section 329, page 1135 “The right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, in the ordinary course of life and business, is a common right which he has under the right to enjoy life and liberty, to acquire and possess property, and to pursue happiness and safety. It includes the right, in so doing, to use the ordinary and usual conveyances of the day, and under the existing modes of travel, includes the right to drive a horse drawn carriage or wagon thereon or to operate an automobile thereon, for the usual and ordinary purpose of life and business.” –
Thompson vs. Smith, supra.; Teche Lines vs. Danforth, Miss., 12 S.2d 784 “… the right of the citizen to drive on a public street with freedom from police interference… is a fundamental constitutional right” -White, 97 Cal.App.3d.141, 158 Cal.Rptr. 562, 566-67 (1979) “citizens have a right to drive upon the public streets of the District of Columbia or any other city absent a constitutionally sound reason for limiting their access.”

Caneisha Mills v. D.C. 2009 “The use of the automobile as a necessary adjunct to the earning of a livelihood in modern life requires us in the interest of realism to conclude that the RIGHT to use an automobile on the public highways partakes of the nature of a liberty within the meaning of the Constitutional guarantees. . .”

Berberian v. Lussier (1958) 139 A2d 869, 872, See also: Schecter v. Killingsworth, 380 P.2d 136, 140; 93 Ariz. 273 (1963). “The right to operate a motor vehicle [an automobile] upon the public streets and highways is not a mere privilege. It is a right of liberty, the enjoyment of which is protected by the guarantees of the federal and state constitutions.”

Adams v. City of Pocatello, 416 P.2d 46, 48; 91 Idaho 99 (1966). “A traveler has an equal right to employ an automobile as a means of transportation and to occupy the public highways with other vehicles in common use.”
Campbell v. Walker, 78 Atl. 601, 603, 2 Boyce (Del.) 41. “The owner of an automobile has the same right as the owner of other vehicles to use the highway,* * * A traveler on foot has the same right to the use of the public highways as an automobile or any other vehicle.”

Simeone v. Lindsay, 65 Atl. 778, 779; Hannigan v. Wright, 63 Atl. 234, 236. “The RIGHT of the citizen to DRIVE on the public street with freedom from police interference, unless he is engaged in suspicious conduct associated in some manner with criminality is a FUNDAMENTAL CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT which must be protected by the courts.” People v. Horton 14 Cal. App. 3rd 667 (1971) “The right to make use of an automobile as a vehicle of travel long the highways of the state, is no longer an open question. The owners thereof have the same rights in the roads and streets as the drivers of horses or those riding a bicycle or traveling in some other vehicle.”

House v. Cramer, 112 N.W. 3; 134 Iowa 374; Farnsworth v. Tampa Electric Co. 57 So. 233, 237, 62 Fla. 166. “The automobile may be used with safety to others users of the highway, and in its proper use upon the highways there is an equal right with the users of other vehicles properly upon the highways. The law recognizes such right of use upon general principles.
Brinkman v Pacholike, 84 N.E. 762, 764, 41 Ind. App. 662, 666. “The law does not denounce motor carriages, as such, on public ways. They have an equal right with other vehicles in common use to occupy the streets and roads. It is improper to say that the driver of the horse has rights in the roads superior to the driver of the automobile. Both have the right to use the easement.”

Indiana Springs Co. v. Brown, 165 Ind. 465, 468. U.S. Supreme Court says No License Necessary To Drive Automobile On Public Highways/Streets No License Is Necessary Copy and Share Freely YHVH.name 2 2 “A highway is a public way open and free to any one who has occasion to pass along it on foot or with any kind of vehicle.” Schlesinger v. City of Atlanta, 129 S.E. 861, 867, 161 Ga. 148, 159;

Holland v. Shackelford, 137 S.E. 2d 298, 304, 220 Ga. 104; Stavola v. Palmer, 73 A.2d 831, 838, 136 Conn. 670 “There can be no question of the right of automobile owners to occupy and use the public streets of cities, or highways in the rural districts.” Liebrecht v. Crandall, 126 N.W. 69, 110 Minn. 454, 456 “The word ‘automobile’ connotes a pleasure vehicle designed for the transportation of persons on highways.”

-American Mutual Liability Ins. Co., vs. Chaput, 60 A.2d 118, 120; 95 NH 200 Motor Vehicle: 18 USC Part 1 Chapter 2 section 31 definitions: “(6) Motor vehicle. – 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…” 10) The term “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. “A motor vehicle or automobile for hire is a motor vehicle, other than an automobile stage, used for the transportation of persons for which remuneration is received.”

-International Motor Transit Co. vs. Seattle, 251 P. 120 The term ‘motor vehicle’ is different and broader than the word ‘automobile.’”
-City of Dayton vs. DeBrosse, 23 NE.2d 647, 650; 62 Ohio App. 232 “Thus self-driven vehicles are classified according to the use to which they are put rather than according to the means by which they are propelled” – Ex Parte Hoffert, 148 NW 20 ”

The Supreme Court, in Arthur v. Morgan, 112 U.S. 495, 5 S.Ct. 241, 28 L.Ed. 825, held that carriages were properly classified as household effects, and we see no reason that automobiles should not be similarly disposed of.”
Hillhouse v United States, 152 F. 163, 164 (2nd Cir. 1907). “…a citizen has the right to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon…” State vs. Johnson, 243 P. 1073; Cummins vs. Homes, 155 P. 171; Packard vs. Banton, 44 S.Ct. 256; Hadfield vs. Lundin, 98 Wash 516, Willis vs. Buck, 263 P. l 982;

Barney vs. Board of Railroad Commissioners, 17 P.2d 82 “The use of the highways for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege, but a common and fundamental Right of which the public and the individual cannot be rightfully deprived.”

Chicago Motor Coach vs. Chicago, 169 NE 22; Ligare vs. Chicago, 28 NE 934; Boon vs. Clark, 214 SSW 607; 25 Am.Jur. (1st) Highways Sect.163 “the right of the Citizen to travel upon the highway and to transport his property thereon in the ordinary course of life and business… is the usual and ordinary right of the Citizen, a right common to all.” –

Ex Parte Dickey, (Dickey vs. Davis), 85 SE 781 “Every Citizen has an unalienable RIGHT to make use of the public highways of the state; every Citizen has full freedom to travel from place to place in the enjoyment of life and liberty.” People v. Nothaus, 147 Colo. 210. “No State government entity has the power to allow or deny passage on the highways, byways, nor waterways… transporting his vehicles and personal property for either recreation or business, but by being subject only to local regulation i.e., safety, caution, traffic lights, speed limits, etc. Travel is not a privilege requiring licensing, vehicle registration, or forced insurances.”

Chicago Coach Co. v. City of Chicago, 337 Ill. 200, 169 N.E. 22. “Traffic infractions are not a crime.” People v. Battle “Persons faced with an unconstitutional licensing law which purports to require a license as a prerequisite to exercise of right… may ignore the law and engage with impunity in exercise of such right.”

Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham 394 U.S. 147 (1969). U.S. Supreme Court says No License Necessary To Drive Automobile On Public Highways/Streets No License Is Necessary Copy and Share Freely YHVH.name 3 “The word ‘operator’ shall not include any person who solely transports his own property and who transports no persons or property for hire or compensation.”

Statutes at Large California Chapter 412 p.83 “Highways are for the use of the traveling public, and all have the right to use them in a reasonable and proper manner; the use thereof is an inalienable right of every citizen.”

Escobedo v. State 35 C2d 870 in 8 Cal Jur 3d p.27 “RIGHT — A legal RIGHT, a constitutional RIGHT means a RIGHT protected by the law, by the constitution, but government does not create the idea of RIGHT or original RIGHTS; it acknowledges them. . . “ Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, 1914, p. 2961. “Those who have the right to do something cannot be licensed for what they already have right to do as such license would be meaningless.”

City of Chicago v Collins 51 NE 907, 910. “A license means leave to do a thing which the licensor could prevent.” Blatz Brewing Co. v. Collins, 160 P.2d 37, 39; 69 Cal. A. 2d 639. “The object of a license is to confer a right or power, which does not exist without it.”

Payne v. Massey (19__) 196 SW 2nd 493, 145 Tex 273. “The court makes it clear that a license relates to qualifications to engage in profession, business, trade or calling; thus, when merely traveling without compensation or profit, outside of business enterprise or adventure with the corporate state, no license is required of the natural individual traveling for personal business, pleasure and transportation.”

Wingfield v. Fielder 2d Ca. 3d 213 (1972). “If [state] officials construe a vague statute unconstitutionally, the citizen may take them at their word, and act on the assumption that the statute is void.” –

Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham 394 U.S. 147 (1969). “With regard particularly to the U.S. Constitution, it is elementary that a Right secured or protected by that document cannot be overthrown or impaired by any state police authority.” Donnolly vs. Union Sewer Pipe Co., 184 US 540; Lafarier vs. Grand Trunk R.R. Co., 24 A. 848; O’Neil vs. Providence Amusement Co., 108 A. 887. “The right to travel (called the right of free ingress to other states, and egress from them) is so fundamental that it appears in the Articles of Confederation, which governed our society before the Constitution.”

(Paul v. Virginia). “[T]he right to travel freely from State to State … is a right broadly assertable against private interference as well as governmental action. Like the right of association, it is a virtually unconditional personal right, guaranteed by the Constitution to us all.” (U.S. Supreme Court,
Shapiro v. Thompson). EDGERTON, Chief Judge: “Iron curtains have no place in a free world. …’Undoubtedly the right of locomotion, the right to remove from one place to another according to inclination, is an attribute of personal liberty, and the right, ordinarily, of free transit from or through the territory of any State is a right secured by the Constitution.’

Williams v. Fears, 179 U.S. 270, 274, 21 S.Ct. 128, 45 L.Ed. 186. “Our nation has thrived on the principle that, outside areas of plainly harmful conduct, every American is left to shape his own life as he thinks best, do what he pleases, go where he pleases.” Id., at 197.

Kent vs. Dulles see Vestal, Freedom of Movement, 41 Iowa L.Rev. 6, 13—14. “The validity of restrictions on the freedom of movement of particular individuals, both substantively and procedurally, is precisely the sort of matter that is the peculiar domain of the courts.” Comment, 61 Yale L.J. at page 187. “a person detained for an investigatory stop can be questioned but is “not obliged to answer, answers may not be compelled, and refusal to answer furnishes no basis for an arrest.”Justice White, Hiibel “Automobiles have the right to use the highways of the State on an equal footing with other vehicles.”

Cumberland Telephone. & Telegraph Co. v Yeiser 141 Kentucy 15. “Each citizen has the absolute right to choose for himself the mode of conveyance he desires, whether it be by wagon or carriage, by horse, motor or electric car, or by bicycle, or astride of a horse, subject to the sole condition that he will observe all those requirements that are known as the law of the road.”

Swift v City of Topeka, 43 U.S. Supreme Court says No License Necessary To Drive Automobile On Public Highways/Streets No License Is Necessary Copy and Share Freely YHVH.name 4 Kansas 671, 674. The Supreme Court said in U.S. v Mersky (1960) 361 U.S. 431: An administrative regulation, of course, is not a “statute.” A traveler on foot has the same right to use of the public highway as an automobile or any other vehicle.

Cecchi v. Lindsay, 75 Atl. 376, 377, 1 Boyce (Del.) 185. Automotive vehicles are lawful means of conveyance and have equal rights upon the streets with horses and carriages.

Chicago Coach Co. v. City of Chicago, 337 Ill. 200, 205; See also: Christy v. Elliot, 216 Ill. 31; Ward v. Meredith, 202 Ill. 66; Shinkle v. McCullough, 116 Ky. 960; Butler v. Cabe, 116 Ark. 26, 28-29. …automobiles are lawful vehicles and have equal rights on the highways with horses and carriages. Daily v. Maxwell, 133 S.W. 351, 354.

Matson v. Dawson, 178 N.W. 2d 588, 591. A farmer has the same right to the use of the highways of the state, whether on foot or in a motor vehicle, as any other citizen.

Draffin v. Massey, 92 S.E.2d 38, 42. Persons may lawfully ride in automobiles, as they may lawfully ride on bicycles. Doherty v. Ayer, 83 N.E. 677, 197 Mass. 241, 246;

Molway v. City of Chicago, 88 N.E. 485, 486, 239 Ill. 486; Smiley v. East St. Louis Ry. Co., 100 N.E. 157, 158. “A soldier’s personal automobile is part of his ‘household goods[.]’

U.S. v Bomar, C.A.5(Tex.), 8 F.3d 226, 235” 19A Words and Phrases – Permanent Edition (West) pocket part 94. “[I]t is a jury question whether … an automobile … is a motor vehicle[.]”

United States v Johnson, 718 F.2d 1317, 1324 (5th Cir. 1983). Other right to use an automobile cases: –

EDWARDS VS. CALIFORNIA, 314 U.S. 160 –

TWINING VS NEW JERSEY, 211 U.S. 78 – WILLIAMS VS. FEARS, 179 U.S. 270, AT 274 – CRANDALL VS. NEVADA, 6 WALL. 35, AT 43-44 – THE PASSENGER CASES, 7 HOWARD 287, AT 492 – U.S. VS. GUEST, 383 U.S. 745, AT 757-758 (1966) –

GRIFFIN VS. BRECKENRIDGE, 403 U.S. 88, AT 105-106 (1971) –

CALIFANO VS. TORRES, 435 U.S. 1, AT 4, note 6 –

SHAPIRO VS. THOMPSON, 394 U.S. 618 (1969) – CALIFANO VS.

AZNAVORIAN, 439 U.S. 170, AT 176 (1978) Look the above citations up in American Jurisprudence. Some citations may be paraphrased.

Secured Party Creditor's

 

For all Secured Party Creditor's who are in need of preamble identification cards, expressing your national liberties and United Nation Indigenous Rights as native to and upon our lands, let me assist you and those you love who are concerned about their rule of action also postliminy. 

How you identify yourself is very important, and your CORPORATE membership card determines jurisdiction. Your SCHOOL ID, STATE ID, DRIVERS LICENSE are all membership cards of corporation seeking jurisdiction over you, so understand your "Rule of Action".

I can use your custom design or if your are unsure allow me to assist you to create one. 

Limited time offer 2 ID Cards @ $45.00 plus 
$7.00 shipping and handling, 
special features are loaded on magnetic strip, 
for Moor info contact. 
Atun Pedi Neheh @ debtfreemoe@yahoo.com.

Notary Presentment/Judgment Enforcement & Recovery

Every day hundreds of courts award thousands of judicial judgments in civil cases throughout the nation. Some are small claim judgments for a few hundred dollars. Others are civil judgments amounting to hundreds of thousands of dollars. Only about twenty percent of these judgments are ever paid by the losing party. Eighty percent of all court awarded judgments go uncollected. If you have a judgment and need help to ENFORCE it allow me assist you to enforce and recover your JUDGMENT. I help with all types of JUDGMENTS. JUDICIAL JUDGMENTS, CHILD SUPPORT JUDGMENTS, NON-JUDICIAL JUDGMENTS and UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE JUDGMENTS

Notary Presentment Services.

Notary Presentment Services. The Colorado code [12-55-120 C.R.S.] allows Notary's to present and give notices of dishonor and protest notes and other negotiable instruments, but only in accord with specific UCC provisions. Title [12-55-110(1) (f); also, parts 1 (Negotiable Instruments) and 5 (Dishonor) of article 3 of title 4,C.R.S.] are Colorado Notary’s Powers, these laws are that which apply to notaries, powers of subpoena in Colorado, powers of summons, power to call depositions and issue protests and especially [12-55-110(1) (f); also, parts 1 (Negotiable Instruments) and 5 (Dishonor) of article 3 of title 4,C.R.S.] if presumed, I am forced, to conclude that any message to the public official, comprises ones confession of their intention to violate 18 USC 873 and 1503, 1510, 1519, 1509 and 1623, and to tamper with a witness pursuant to Section 1512. If you are in need of a great Notary that can perform negotiable presentments under Uniform Commercial Code please allow A. Coleman-El Notary Presentment Services ease the burden.

NOTARY ID CARDS

The 31st Congress of 1850 will say exactly the relationship involving the Notary, justice, and JP: “Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That in all cases in which under the laws of the United States, oaths, or affirmations, or acknowledgements may now be taken or made before any justice or justice of the peace of any State or Territory, such oaths or affirmations or acknowledgements may be hereafter also taken or made by or before any notary public duly appointed in State or Territory, and when certified under the hand and official seal of such notary, shall have the same force and effect as if taken or by or before such justice or justices of the peace”

SECRET CANONS OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT

SECRET CANON 1 ATTORNEY GENERAL AND PUBLIC DEFENDER
1 Prosecutorial Discretion
1(A) We hold the prudent practice of "see, hear and speak no evil" essential as related to the office of the Attorney General [secretly called the "power structure's Mafia"]. Therefore:
• 1(A)(i) We hold the latitude we give the Public Defender's office compensates for any inequality of justice or prosecutorial misconduct and
• 1(A)(ii) We ignore the practice of overcharging by the Attorney General regardless of how many are forced into false admissions or plea bargains.
• 1(A)(iii) We hold overcharging can assist bar members with revenue enhancement and improves efficiency by reducing demands for jury trials and we shall not consider
o any guidelines stating otherwise or
o the devastation in the lives of those so affected.
• 1(A)(iv) Since it is the job of the Attorney General to "get" people, any means they use to do so is acceptable since they are the will and voice of the people.
• 1(A)(v) If the Attorney General's Office violates laws, rules or ethics while "getting" people then let the trial process sort it out. To hell with the following:
o those who can't afford effective counsel, a trial or those having a Public Defender and
o those who get a Judge skilled in the use of judicial discretion who covers up or ignores prosecutorial misconduct citing "judicial efficiency" and the "duty of the state."
• 1(A)(vi) Having a bold aggressive Attorney General is of greater benefit to Society than any possible damage to individual life and liberty.
1(B) Public Defender
• 1(B)(i) The importance we place on justice can always be measured by the amount of resources given the Public Defender in proportion to the amount of resources given the Attorney General.
• 1(B)(ii) Under staffing and under funding of the Public Defender:
o enhances Judicial efficiency and eases the court calendar by promoting plea bargains, suicides, breakdowns, despair, fleeing etc. and
o can give us more bang for our buck by turning the Public Defender into an extension of the Attorney General's office and
o can demonstrate effective use of the "good cop (Public Defender)" "bad cop (Attorney General)" scenario and
o can assist members of the bar with property acquisition and other revenue enhancements.
• 1(B)(iii) Any uncooperative Public Defender making an issue of judicial or prosecutorial misconduct or ethics violations shall be removed as quickly as possible.
SECRET CANON 2 JUDICIAL BEHAVIOR TOWARDS LITIGANTS
2(A) Confident Litigants
Any litigant appearing confident can be baffled by minutia or Judicially enhanced procedural criteria.
2(B) Judicial Dominance
Occasionally we encounter a litigant who doesn't know we are king. We hold the following tools effective in forcing a resistant litigant into submission:
• intimidation by any means
• condescending looks, gestures or comments
• expressing or instigating anger, outrage or shock
• obvious impatience
• rushing the proceedings
• frequent checks of the time
• cautionary glances toward the Bailiff
• appearing distressed or uncomfortable like one needing to go to the bathroom
• yelling the magic word "NEXT!"
• raising unrelated, irrelevant or confusing issues and
• loud bangs using the gavel.
2(C) The Need For Attorneys
We shall continue to stress the need to have an Attorney without addressing the fact the overwhelming majority of Americans can not afford them. This is effective in keeping the unresourceful and ineffective at bay.
2(D) The Ultimate Authority
Citizens must be continually led to believe that the Judiciary is the final or ultimate authority in our system of Government.
2(E) Practice Of Law Forbidden
We shall try as best we can to confuse clarifying issues with our inability to give advice. This makes us less apt to stick our foot in our mouth.
2(F) Sincerity Of The Judiciary
We shall never appear insincere when stating absurdities, untruths, mistruths or nonsense. We shall always act like the hearer is unknowledgeable, naive or unseasoned.
2(G) Judicial Fairness
We shall always remember when deciding the significance of an individual to consider money, connections, power, politics and the ability to get media attention in deciding how fair we need to be.
2(H) Judicial Response To Criticism
We forever hold the response to valid or invalid criticism should be indignance.
2(I) Judicial Efficiency
We hold instigating outrage, frustration, anger or other emotions in litigants can be an effective tool to rid ourselves of the unwanted litigant.
2(J) Judicial Handling Of The Ignorant
The client demanding Justice and the full respect of their rights shall be treated with pity and patience.
2(K) Judicial Authority
Due to the authoritative nature of black robes, we shall continue to resist their removal.
SECRET CANON 3 EXPERTS AND EXPERT TESTIMONY
3(A) Efficiency Of Experts
We hold one of the greatest innovations for eliminating ineffective and unresourceful litigants is the ever expanding use of expert testimony.
3(B) Evolution Of Experts
This innovation will reach maturity when we routinely use levels of experts on experts to testify on the validity and expertise of each expert.
SECRET CANON 4 JUDICIAL AND PROSECUTORIAL DISCRETION
4(A) Discretion Defined
We maintain judicial and prosecutorial discretion is doing whatever we damn well please within the judicially prudent guidelines we happen to be following at the time.
4(B) Review Of Discretionary Acts
We shall never promulgate awareness of the real legal issue regarding the use and review of judicial and prosecutorial discretion which is the process of reasoning used in the discretionary act's decision making process. We shall convert the process of reasoning argument into an argument regarding the validity of doing or not doing the discretionary act.
SECRET CANON 5 JUDICIAL OVERSIGHT
5(A) Oversight Immunity
The immunity of everyone overseeing the Judiciary must be maintained to prevent witch hunts and the overzealous from affecting the independence of the Judiciary. The Judiciary does not require the vulnerable or corrective oversight of the masses.
5(B) Judicial Objectivity
We shall always remember the real symbolic reason behind the woman with the blindfold and scale. Objectivity and independence means remaining as blind as possible to wrong doing committed by the Judiciary, members of the bar, and the resourceful and effective.
5(C) Judicial Self-Evaluation
To maintain the independence of the Judiciary, we hold each others rulings to be legally and factually correct regardless of the injustice that results, the facts or the law.
5(D) Judicial Opinions Of Judges
To insure effective oversight of the Judiciary, we shall never criticize each other regardless of the severity of the wrong or the injustice.
5(E) Trust Us, We're Judges
We hold self monitoring and absolute immunity as foolhardy, ineffective and unworkable for everyone except the Judiciary and judicial oversight committees.
5(F) Judicial Job Performance
To allows us to remain unconcerned about upsetting the status quo, we shall keep the public convinced their interference will negatively affect the independence of the Judiciary making Judges afraid to do their jobs.
5(G) The Judicial Mosaic Tablet
We shall forever speak of centuries of Judicial immunities as proof of Judicial immunities' necessity and effectiveness without ever mentioning Judicial wrongdoing has been around as long as Judges.
5(H) Delay = Denied
We hold admission of any Judicial wrongdoing delayed is admission of Judicial wrongdoing denied.
5(I) Complete And Through Review
We hold there is no judicial wrongdoing which can not be diminished by time, levels of hearings and precise dissection , categorization and delegation of related facts and responsibilities.
SECRET CANON 6 JUDICIAL THOUGHT AND LEGAL REASONING
6(A) Judicial Zen
• 6(A)(i) We hold the logic for our legal reasoning is embodied in the following statement which is understood only by the enlightened: "Because we open a window to the outside of this room does not mean we order, allow, permission or induce any air, dust, molecules, light waves, solar radiation, atoms, or any known or unknown wave or particulate matter from outside to enter this room and are not responsible if said events occur due to the contextual basis of our decisions."
• 6(A)(ii) We believe in the existence of the metaphysical "third eye." This enables us to selectively avoid looking out our other two eyes.
• 6(A)(iii) In the beginning was our word. Our word was with God, our word IS God.
• 6(A)(iv) To think is to be right.
• 6(A)(v) There is no issue that cannot be split into parts, and there is no part that can't be considered as the whole issue.
6(B) The Dangers Of Common Sense And Factual Integration
• 6(B)(i) The consideration of the end result our decision has when integrated with the "outside world" can lead to decisions based on "common sense" and must be avoided.
• 6(B)(ii) "Common Sense" lessens the highly specialized analytical and intelligent nature of the Judiciary creating the undesirable illusion we think like the masses.
• 6(B)(iii) "Common sense" must not be part of legal proceedings because it cannot be objectively verified.
• 6(B)(iv) Large scale factual integration with realities of the outside world can negatively affect the perfection of our written word.
6(C) Judicial Self Esteem
We endeavor to remain forever impressed with each other, our performance and our status irregardless of the availability or affordability of Justice.
6(D) Lip Service
We hold the consideration and realities of the quality or delivery of Justice should be given lip service faithfully.
6(E) The Third Person
We hold the "system" shall always be spoken of in the third person as if it operates independently from individuals.
6(F) Judicial Secret Mantra
We may think but not say, "I am the closest thing to God you will ever know."
6(G) Protection Of Status Quo
We shall remember "separate but equal" was around for 100 years. If we hadn't listened to the masses it might still be good law. Therefore we shall keep the shades drawn so reality won't affect or disturb the independence of our decision making process or the Status Quo.
6(H) The Written Word
We hold what looks good on paper must be good.
6(I) The Primary Concern
We shall never consider the end result of our decisions unless it could result in professional embarrassment, loss of status or media attention.
6(J) Public Ignorance
Arrogance is how Citizens define us when they are not fully aware of the nature or scope of our position.
6(K) Judicial Discretion
Judicial Discretion means we can do what we damn well please and is a great tool for denying appeals and judicial wrongdoing.
6(L) The Ultimate Truth
We irreversibly hold reality must conform to our decisions.
6(M) Judicial Precision
We shall forever work on perfecting the art of the polite, dignified, respectful, orderly administered and well twisted screw.
6(N) The Judicial Last Laugh
As related to the Judiciary, the term "over my dead body" is not a cliche but factually correct.
SECRET CANON 7 JURIES AND JURY TRIALS
7(A) Constitution Typo
We hold the right in the Constitution to jury trials in civil matters is a typo.
7(B) Evidence Seen By Jury
We hold the illusion of justice can be created by thoughtful selection of the evidence seen by the Jury.
7(C) Evolution Of Jury Trials
Except for criminal matters for the wealthy, we secretly maintain the elimination of jury trials and continue searching for ways to get that goddamn Constitution out of our way.
7(D) Jury Nullification
We shall remember to act outraged at any mention of the vulgar practice called Jury Nullification.
7(D)(i) Judicial View On Jury Nullification And Instruction
We hold the public does not have the intellectual sophistication to handle the power that comes with jury nullification. This power should only be in the hands of the Judiciary.
7(D)(ii) Jury Instruction
In our continuing efforts to protect the public we must continue to "persuade" juries, via involuntary neurological suppression, into believing:
• 7(D)(ii)(1) they can only do what we say and
• 7(D)(ii)(2) they are not allowed to vote their conscience and
• 7(D)(ii)(3) they should only vote regarding facts and judicially selected evidence, not facts and the law.
7(E) Jury Selection
We must continue to use the word "random selection" when describing the jury selection pool since "random selection" can mean a non specific selection of any group.
SECRET CANON 8 JUSTICE
8(A) The Value Of Justice
We forever hold Justice as the precious and proper administration of laws filtered by legal analysis and unaffected by the end result, even when the end result is the improper administration of laws.
8(B) The Privilege Of Justice
We hold Justice to be more of a privilege than a right. As a result, Justice should never be dispensed casually, freely or indiscriminately.
8(C) Appeals Insure Justice
We hold a denial of justice is an impossibility due to everyone's right of appeal. We hold this to be true irregardless of a litigant's time, money or resources.
8(D) Justice For All
We hold Justice is for all , but only after first deciding which standard of law we will apply, the "spirit of the law" or the "letter of the law" and after;
• 8(D)(i) the exact terminology and the exact questions are used to describe the injustice in the exact manner we require at the time and
• 8(D)(ii) said terminology is precisely used with other precise terminology in the exact manner we happen to be requiring at the time and
• 8(D)(iii) the exact form is used in the exact manner we happen to be requiring at the time and
• 8(D)(iv) said form is exactly prepared with other exactly prepared forms which we are requiring at the time and
• 8(D)(v) time requirements are exactly followed with respect to a host of issues that we happen to be requiring at the time and
• 8(D)(vi) all tools of eliminating litigants have been judiciously attempted such as overcharging, plea bargain, premature dismissals, expert testimony, res judicata,etc. and
• 8(D)(vii) we can't possibly find a way to use the great catch all "judicial discretion" to eliminate a litigant and
• 8D(viii) we have made litigants go through as many possible steps as we can conjure up irregardless of the litigant's time or financial resources and
• 8(D)(ix) any other judicially prudent, meticulous and painstaking attempt at finding a reason to avoid granting Justice unnecessarily.
8(E) Due Process Defined
First, decide how we want the case to go. Second, formulate a legal logic to support our decision. Third, manipulate, dissect or eliminate the facts and evidence to support our decision. Then the rubber stamp doctrine of "judicial discretion" will prevent most decisions from being overturned
SECRET CANON 9 LAW
9(A) The Nature Of Law
We hold the nature of the law similar to "silly putty". We may bend, stretch or reshape the law to say what fits our purpose.
9(B) The Flexibility Of Law
We hold the law is like the Bible, it can be made to say anything we want with enough quotes, viewpoints and cross references.
9(C) The Standards Of Law
The "letter of the law" and the "spirit of the law" are two different legal standards of Justice and the Law. We may choose the standard that suits our fancy.
9(D) The Equal Application Of Law
We hold the law must always be equally applied, depending on the circumstances and the litigant.
9(E) No One Above The Law
We hold no one is above the law. [Tee hee hee, wink wink]

SECRET CANON 10 ON AND OFF THE RECORD
10(A) Purpose Of Back Room Meetings
We will make ample use of back room meetings to keep litigants in the dark. They can not and should not see or understand the process of litigation.
10(B) Back Room Meetings Enhance Justice
• 10(B)(i) We hold injustice can not result from back room meetings because if wrongdoing occurs, clients can sue their Lawyers for malpractice.
• 10(B)(ii) To avoid complications, we avoid mentioning or considering the resources required for or the near impossibility of finding a lawyer to sue another lawyer.
10(C) Health Benefits Of Back Room Meetings
We hold the practice of moving to and from back room meetings can assist with circulation, constipation, rectal itch, gaseous emissions, breathing and caloric consumption.
10(D) Back Room Meetings Are Open Court
We shall go off the record as much as possible being careful to maintain the illusion of "open court."
10(E) The Unmentionable Contract
We prefer clients not be present in back room meetings while never mentioning we hold the client to whatever their lawyer agrees to in these meetings.
10(F) Accuracy Of Record
We resist new equipment that transcribes immediately. We prefer to have the option of making corrections to insure accuracy before the record is transcribed.
10(G) Consequences Of Clients At Back Room Meetings
We hold a client's presence at back room meetings can result in inappropriate evaluations of Judicial and Attorney conduct and expertise.

SECRET CANON 11 PRO SE'S, THE POOR AND INDIGENTS
11(A) The Protection Of The Public
11(A)(i) We hold the need to protect the public from the dangers of self representation far outweighs the fair impartial administration of Justice. To protect the public from the dangers of self representation we shall:
• 11(A)(i)(1) approach the Pro Se, poor or indigent's complaint from this objectively protective and compassionate position, "Is there anyway I can deny this petition?"
• 11(A)(i)(2) use Judicially prudent unbiased techniques to intimidate, frustrate, anger, nit pick, postpone, play with or in any other way rid ourselves of a Pro Se, poor or indigent litigant.
• 11(A)(i)(3) assist the Pro Se, poor or indigent in a resolution by bending or ignoring the rules on ex parte communications.
• 11(A)(i)(4) nurture an unfriendly environment in a dignified and polite manner.
• 11(A)(i)(5) minimize or ignore Judicial, Court or Attorney errors while magnifying any errors of the Pro Se, poor or indigent litigant.
• 11(A)(i)(6) politely move on to the next case before the Pro Se, poor or indigent is finished. This will assist eliminating them later with arguments such as Res Judicata.
11(B) Disposition Before Written Decisions
• 11(B)(i) It is best to be rid of a Pro Se, poor or indigent litigant before having to render a decision requiring written legal analysis.
• 11(B)(ii) If forced to render a written opinion on a Pro Se , poor or indigent case, we will stick to or switch to the arguments that validate our desired position.
• 11(B)(iii) In Pro Se poor or indigent cases, we prefer unpublished opinions. This makes it easier to perpetuate non sequiturs and pseudo-justice while maintaining the illusion of due process.
• 11(C)(iv) We hold "giving the dog a bone" occasionally is good practice and gives us some ammunition when our integrity is questioned.
11(C) The Superiority Of Bar Members
When dealing with a Pro Se, poor or indigent litigant, we shall always give credence to members of the Bar's arguments, regardless of how absurd or off point they are.
11(D) The Superiority Of The Status Quo
In cases involving the system, member of the bar or the status quo versus the Pro Se, poor or indigent litigant make sure the system, member of the bar or the status quo prevail regardless of how you must ignore or pervert the issues .
11(E) Irrebuttable Presumption Of Pro Se Ignorance
We hold the Pro Se, poor or indigent litigant does not or can not understand the complex issues of litigation.
11(F) Methods For Smart Alec Pro Se, Poor Or Indigent Litigants
If a Pro Se, poor or indigent does understand the issues we shall:
• 11(F)(i) repeatedly bait them to go off point or
• 11(F)(ii) convince them they don't understand or
• 11(F)(iii) diligently look for and focus on a point they don't understand clearly or
• 11(F)(iv) continue until they err, running with the error to make a touchdown.
11(G) Attitude Toward Naive Pro Se, poor or indigent Litigant
We shall always take a patient but condescending attitude with a Pro Se, poor or indigent litigant that is so naive as to demand and expect fair, impartial Justice and the law applied as written.
11(H) The Inability To Practice Law
Our inability to give legal advice or advocate is restricted to Pro Se, poor or indigent litigants, not members of the bar, the fictitious corporate person or the State.
11(I) The In Forma Pauparis Hearing
We hold when questioning a litigant attempting to file In Forma Pauparis regarding what they own to never reveal the legal definition of "own" is to have and hold title. This effectively eliminates the unresourceful and ineffective and our ass is covered.
11(J) The Judicial Nightmare
The nightmare of having the public believe they have a chance of receiving justice without a lawyer must be avoided at all costs. The Courts are best operated as a "members only" organization.
SECRET CANON 12 PUBLIC AND THE MEDIA
12(A) Appeasing The Public
• 12(A)(i) Exemplifying one case where the system worked can cover a multitude of sins.
• 12(A)(ii) Occasional written opinions regarding concern about justice for the poor are effective in perpetuating the myth that we are continually and aggressively working on this issue.
• 12(A)(iii) When all else fails, schedule future hearings.
12(B) Handling Of Liability
We hold where liability of the privileged, the system or the status quo is involved, admission of wrong doing or error causes more harm than good. However, occasionally throwing the dog a bone can cover a multitude of sins.
12(C) Objective Public Image Maintained
We will continue to resist equipment in legal proceedings that can record emotion, attitude or personality traits which can affect the course of proceedings.
12(D) High Profile Trials
High profile trials are an opportunity to show Americans the way the system should work. This is advantageous to the overwhelming majority of Americans who would never see it otherwise. This also minimizes complaints of the non-existence of an effective judicial system.
12(E) The Priority Of The Public Trust
We hold the public trust must be maintained regardless of how we have to lie, cheat or steal to maintain it.
12(F) Media Focus and Public Attention
We hold hearings on any judicial wrongdoing should never be conducted when media attention or public awareness is high.
12(G) Judicial Verbal Equivalents To The Finger
When dealing with the public and the media, we shall never forget the power of the statements,
• "You don't understand the intricacies and operations of law" and
• "It would be inappropriate for me to comment" and
• "Many times Judges have knowledge of details not known by the public."
SECRET CANON 13 RULES AND PROCEDURES
13(A) Value Of Justice
We hold Justice should always be fought for, never freely handed out.
13(B) The True Essence Of Procedure
We shall strive to find the breaking point in each individual.
13(C) Productivity
To create the illusion of productivity we shall forever hold Justice in front of litigants like a carrot on a stick.
13(D) Administration Of Justice
We hold the selective and selectively meticulous application and adherence to rules and procedure can be used to override the administration of Justice if the administration of Justice requires it.
13(E) The Obstacle Course Objective
We shall always remember the amount of Citizens we have to deal with is contingent on the number of hoops we require they go through.
13(F) Time Of The Essence
We shall remember time is on our side and the passage of time can create the illusion of thoroughness.
13(G) Due Process
We hold the term "due process" can imply the payment of money.

SECRET CANON 14 THE SUPREMACY OF THE CORPORATE PERSON
14(A) The Corporate Person v. The Individual
• 14(A)(i) The fictitious Corporate person shall be held in higher esteem than the individual.
• 14(B)(ii) We hold individuals are better represented by a corporate entity. This is more efficient and results in fewer demands for Rights or Justice.

SECRET CANON 15 LYING AND TRUTH TELLING
15(A) The Ethics Of Lying
• 15(A)(i) To maintain the ethical nature of legal proceedings, the word "lie" is considered vulgar as related to statements from the Judiciary or members of the bar.
• 15(A)(ii) We shall use terms like misspoke, spoken in error, inadvertent utterance, involuntary neurological transmission, spontaneous somnambulistic manifestation or some terminology denoting non deliberate intent when describing the statements in question.
• 15(A)(iii) We hold the near impossibility of the existence of the lie because objective reality can have countless varied creative interpretations and constructive descriptions. Calling another's view of objective reality a lie shows a lack of intelligence, creative viewpoints and critical thinking skills.
15(B) The Ethics Of Truth
15(B)(i) We hold truth is that which is least damaging to the status quo.