Source: https://www.nationalwriterssyndicate.com/establishing-law-of-the-land-rights-2/
Timestamp: 2019-04-18 20:27:17+00:00

Document:
American Law is based from the Legislative standpoint of the Senatorial forums of past civilizations. The Judicial branch is from similar past forums and texts of those bodies. These forums borrowed largely from Pythagorean methods, the "Coups Juris Secondum,'' is one example.
The philosophy of the 'American Right,' is bound in a system where the premise of the philosophy is that the Constitution should provide a free republic, and liberal democracy. these are bound to the understanding of all its citizens, through the Constitution. This is supplemented by the "United States Code," and the "Corpus Juris Secondom," as a trust of the Judicial branch to preserve in writing the Law.
The Constitution is still the 'root' of all these texts, and must through declaration fuel them all. It provides the basis in different forms of mandates. Jon Roland, author of "Presumption of Nonauthority and Unremunerated Rights," explains how clues indicate mandates.
It is from the formulation of rights expressed as immunities or protections that the "Law of the Land" formula works. Establishing a right is based upon the duality of what rights can be given, and what can be denied. Declarations, restrictions, delegated powers, protections, and immunities are defined through the combination of official sources of describing the Law concerning these issues. A "Law of the Land" right is virtually triangulated with the 'right' with the relative sources in the full 'body' of the law. These sources are primarily the United States Code, (USC), and the Corpus Juris Secundum, (CJS), and the U.S. Constitution.
"The United States Code (U.S.C.) is a compilation and codification of the general and permanent federal law of the United States." (Wikipedia) Each State has an equivalent.
By Pythagorean design the trinity of the Executive, Judicial, and Legislative branches of the government can be made a tetrad of Executive, Judicial, Legislative, and Americans. This design is so if the 'government' fails to do its job in protecting the Constitution, the people can still retain power to enforce the mandates and protections. This means that a mutual nexus of power can be shared. This is to make sure all parties understand and perform their required duties.
A judge who violates the Constitution, is by law committing treason…a judge does not fully comply with the Constitution, then his orders are void, in re: Sawyer, 124 U.S. 200 (1888), he/she is without jurisdiction, & he/she has engaged in an act or acts of Treason. I've always contended that a Congressman, Indian Chiefs, all the way to a 'Road Kill Picker,' has a civic responsibility to alignment with Constitutional standards. The point of aligning both Constitutional mandates, and case law is to establish rights, which can be seen as 'Law of the Land' rights, that it would be treason for a judge to deny.
The basis for establishing a Law of the Land Right, is to establish a fact of Law. In other words a Law of the Land right is like a verification of the 'yardstick' measurement mentioned above. A Law of the Land Right, is a concrete, like 36 inches, and three feet, are a yard.
Several "Law of the Land" examples have been compiled below in order to establish both the fundamental Constitutional protections, and reveal the method of establishing a 'right' by using the method. My examples can be expanded , and other rights can be established with the following method.
1. Protection from laws that plunder life, liberty, and property, both individual and collective.
2. The right to security in your home, family, and papers.
3. The right of free speech, and free expression.
4. The right to be free from unreasonable searches.
5. The safety net of judicial warrant requirements, and habeas corpus.
6. The right of free assembly, and association.
7. The right to a trial by a jury of your peers in a system of due process.
8. Reasonable bail and recourse for false arrest, and the right to redress grievances.
9. Protection from cruel and unusual punishment.
10. The right to own private property over the right of the 'government' to 'steal' it.
1. Protection from Laws that Plunder Life, Liberty, and Property.
Article One, Section, Nine, and Ten of the United States Constitution states that "No Bill of Attainder, or Ex-Post Facto Law" shall be passed. Under the United States Code, Article One, Sections Nine, Clause Three.
The United States Code, Article One, Section Nine provides the legal cases and establishes the following declarative judgments. These are the cases of stare decisis for bills of attainder, used to define the term in the United States Code.
U.S. v. Lovett, (1946). Legislative acts, no matter what their form, that apply to either named individuals or easily ascertainable members of a group in such a way as to inflict punishment without a judicial trial, are bills of attainder under this clause.
Re: Yung See Hee, 36 F. 437, (1888) Supports that the doctrine of pains and penalties as punishment without trial, is inclusive as a bill of attainder.
The following is a list of cases that may also be used as case law sources in bill of attainder actions.
See; Nixon v. Administrator of General Services, 433 U.S. 425, 468-84, (1977) This case reveals the use of eminent domain, when the Supreme Court ruled that Nixon had the right ownership of papers that were confiscated from his belongings. See also; McFarland v. American Sugar refining Co., 241, U.S. 79, 85-86, (1915) Note: This case deals with 'pains and penalties' as bills of attainder.) Losier v. Sherman, 157 Kan 153,138 p 2nd 272, 273. State v. Graves, 352 Mo. 1102, 182 S.W. 2nd 46, 54. United States v. Lovett, 328 U.S. 303, 315-16, (1946). Bennis v. Michigan, 517 U.S. 1163 (1996) Note: This is an asset forfeiture case where the accused lost the family car when the husband was caught soliciting a prostitute. Ex Parte Garland, 71 U.S. 333, 374 (1867). FORETICH v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, OFFICE OF THE MAYOR (12/16/03 – No. 02-5224) Congress violated the constitutional prohibition against bills of attainder by singling out plaintiff for legislative punishment. In enacting the Elizabeth Morgan Act, Congress determined that plaintiff is a criminal child abuser and singled him out for punishment on that basis, targeting him for application of the Act's unique child custody standard. Pierce v. Carskaden, 83 U.S. 234, 239, (1877).
The "Law of the Land" in the case of laws that plunder life, liberty, and property would suggest that a 'Bill of Attainder' is a law or legal device that outlaws people, suspends their civil liberties, confiscates their property, punishes or puts them to death without a trial. (Saunders, United States Commission on Civil Rights, case No. CC# 93-1-1037.) The passing of asset forfeiture laws, and other laws that plunder life, liberty and property, can be seen as a breach of the Ninth Amendment, ''The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.'' Before the ruling of the Court in Calero-Toledo, asset forfeiture did not exist in its current form.
The protection of home, 'family,' and papers is stated in the 4th Amendment: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
The Supreme Court decision Illinois v. Gates (1983) lowered the threshold of probable cause by ruling that a "substantial chance" or "fair probability" of criminal activity could establish probable cause. A better-than-even chance is not required.
The decision in Terry v. Ohio (1968) established seizures may be made in reasonable cause if the officer believes a crime has been committed or soon will be committed.
In United States v. Matlock, 415 U. S. 164 (1974), the Court announced the "co-occupant consent rule" which permits one resident to consent in the co-occupant's absence. The case established that an officer who makes a search with a reasonable belief that the search was consented to by a resident does not have to provide a probable cause for the search. However, in Georgia v. Randolph, 126 S. Ct. 1515 (2006) the Supreme Court ruled, when officers are presented with a situation wherein two parties, each having authority to grant consent to search premises they share, but one objects over the other’s consent, the ofﬁcers must adhere to the wishes of the non-consenting party.
New Jersey v. T. L. O. (1985) set a special precedent for searches of students at school. The Court ruled that school officials act as state officers when conducting searches, and do not require probable cause to search students' belongings, only reasonable suspicion.
The right to free speech and expression is in the 1st Amendment, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Federal Communications Commission v. Pacifica Foundation, 438 U.S. 726, 1978. George Carlin's monologue "filthy words" (listing the "seven dirty words" in a variety of contexts and colloquialisms ) because "vulgar," "offensive" and "shocking" was properly subject to time, place, and manner regulation and could be played only late at night when the possibility that children were listening was vastly reduced. The First Amendment protection available to broadcast media is the most limited because "of the uniquely pervasive presence that medium of expression occupies in the lives of our people. Broadcasts extend into the privacy of the home and it is impossible completely to avoid those that are patently offensive."
4. The Right to be Free from Unreasonable Searches, and Seizures.
Stopping a car at a roadblock is a seizure within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment, Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806, 809-10 (1996); Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz, 496 U.S. 444, 450 (1990).
The illegality of pretentious road stops has been upheld in cases like, United States v. Huguenin, 154 F.3d 547, 554-55 (6th Cir. 1998); United States v. Morales-Zamora, 974 F.2d 149 (10th Cir. 1992); Galberth v. United States, 590 A.2d 990 (D.C. 1991), and Wilson v. Commonwealth, 509 S.E.2d 540 (Va. App. 1999), which held them illegal, upon the final decision of Palmer v. Indianapolis.
Americans are protected by the 'Law of the Land' right from the abuse of unreasonable searches, and seizures under the Fourth Amendment in both their homes, private and public property.
Due process, meaning a fair and impartial process, is guaranteed by the Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments.
"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
The 14th Amendment states: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
2.) Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.
3.) No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
4.) The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
5.) The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
The reach of habeas corpus is currently being tested in the United States. Oral arguments on a consolidated Guantanamo bay detention camp detainee habeas corpus petition, Al Odah v. United States are being heard by the Supreme Court of the United States on December 5, 2007. (Ibid).
Americans are protected by the "Law of the Land" from unjust prosecution, without due process, habeas corpus, or any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of any citizen of the United States.
1. Intimate Associations. A fundamental element of personal liberty is the right to choose to enter into and maintain certain intimate human relationships. These intimate human relationships are known as "intimate associations." The paradigmatic "intimate association" is the family.
CIVIL RIGHTS CASES, 109 U.S. 3 (1883) See; U.S. v. Stanley. U.S, v. Ryan, U.S. v. Nichols, U.S. v. Singleton, ROBINSON and wife v. MEMPHIS & CHARLESTON R. CO. Note: The nexus formed by combining these cases make them as a group or as separate cases, all relative to showing 'stare decisis' in their context.
'Section 1. That all persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the accommodations, advantages, facilities, and privileges of inns, public conveyances on land or water, theaters, and other places of public amusement; subject only to the conditions and limitations established by law, and applicable alike to citizens of every race and color, regardless of any previous condition of servitude.
The 'Law of the Land" provides that every citizen be granted free and equal enjoyment of any of the accommodations, advantages, facilities, or privileges offered by the general public, within the limits of the established laws.
Trial by Jury, Original Jurisdiction, Jury Trials is protected under Article Three, Section 2., of the U. S. Constitution.
The United States government provides that complaints regarding violations of civil rights be addressed to the, Criminal Section, Civil Rights Division, U.S. Department of Justice, P.O. Box 66018, Washington, D.C. 20035-6018.
Torry Smith and Patricia Gray sued the City of Oakland and others on a civil rights violation theory, 42 U.S.C. 1983, claiming that the Oakland police violated their civil rights when they went into their home and falsely arrested him on charges that he had a rifle.
The Law of the Land provides that every citizen be protected from excessive bail, and shall be granted the right to redress grievances in a prescribed manner.
The 8th Amendment cites, "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."
In Furman v. Georgia (1972), Justice Brennan wrote, "There are, then, four principles by which we may determine whether a particular punishment is 'cruel and unusual'."
* The "essential predicate" is "that a punishment must not by its severity be degrading to human dignity," especially torture.
* "A severe punishment that is obviously inflicted in wholly arbitrary fashion."
* "A severe punishment that is clearly and totally rejected throughout society."
* "A severe punishment that is patently unnecessary."
The 'Law of the Land' provides that Americans shall be protected from torture, abuse mental and physical, and shall not be punished in excess for violations of the law, and shall be provided due process.
Americans have virtually been denied the right to own private property, above the right of the U.S. government to use civil, and criminal means to take it. By allowing the courts, and legislatures both in civil and criminal proceedings to take private property since the 'Calero-Toledo,' and 'Kelo' decisions, no Ninth Amendment consideration has been given to the 'right' of the American citizen to own and retain his private property.
Virtually all the provisions of the First Amendment of the Constitution can be put in the form of a "Law of the Land" right, along with many other mandates in the body of the Constitutional text. The above examples point out clearly that American law has deviated from providing 'protected rights.' In effect Congress, and every American steward of freedom who takes an 'Oath' to protect the Constitution, has failed in this duty.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.