Source: http://www.notfooledbygovernment.com/Lost_Liberty.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 17:50:12+00:00

Document:
Fact sheet on lost liberty.
"Free movement by the citizen is of course as dangerous to a tyrant as free expression of ideas or the right of assembly and it is therefore controlled in most countries in the interests of security. … That is why the ticketing of people and the use of identification papers are routine matters under totalitarian regimes, yet abhorrent in the United States. … Absent war, I see no way to keep a citizen from traveling within or without the country, unless there is power to detain him. … And no authority to detain exists except under extreme conditions, e. g., unless he has been convicted of a crime or unless there is probable cause for issuing a warrant of arrest by standards of the Fourth Amendment. This freedom of movement is the very essence of our free society, setting us apart. Like the right of assembly and the right of association, it often makes all other rights meaningful - knowing, studying, arguing, exploring, conversing, observing and even thinking. Once the right to travel is curtailed, all other rights suffer, …"
Did you waive your right to travel by getting a travel credential?
Government was created to secure the blessings of Liberty.
The right to liberty IS the right to travel.
State ex rel. Ekstrom v. Justice Court, 136 Ariz. 1, 6, 663 P. 2d 992, 997 (1983) (concurring opinion) "The thought that an American can be compelled to `show his papers' before exercising his right to walk the streets, drive the highways or board the trains is repugnant to American institutions and ideals".
"The property which every man has in his own labor, as it is the original foundation of all other property, so it is the most sacred and inviolable. ... to hinder his employing this strength and dexterity in what manner he thinks proper without injury to his neighbor, is a plain violation of this most sacred property."
Did you lose your most sacred and inviolable right to your labor, thereby making your labor taxable?
Were you forced to pledge allegiance to the new government in order to get an ID (which is a work authorization permit pursuant to federal form I-9) or passport? The U.S. Supreme court, quoted below, says that loss of a job and loss of a passport are penalties affixed to a criminal act. Yet you are punished as a criminal until you are coerced to apply for these identification credentials.
"No passport shall be granted or issued to or verified for any other persons than those owing allegiance, whether citizens or not, to the United States"
"… I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God"
“The forfeiture of property on compelled testimony is no more abhorrent than the forfeiture of rights of citizenship. Any forfeiture of rights as a result of compelled testimony is at war with the Fifth Amendment. . . .
”the forfeiture of property was a penalty affixed to a criminal act. The loss of a job and the ineligibility for a passport are also penalties affixed to a criminal act.
Judicial Immunity was invented by lawyers to protect themselves. Every judge and state congressman and all state executive and state judicial officers must be bound to support the U.S. Constitution pursuant to Article Six. Yet they weaseled themselves out of their obligation. They overthrew your government.
· The Supreme Court determined in Briscoe v. Lahue 460 US 325 that police cannot be punished for giving perjured testimony that convicts the innocent.
· the Supreme Court in 1972 Mitchum v. Foster, 407 US 225, 242 ruled that a citizen injured by a government officer and seeking injunctive relief needed an act of Congress.
· people can still cancel the obligations of their contracts (bankruptcy), even though the Supreme Law of the Land says that NO state can impair the obligations of contracts.
· … with liberty and justice for all. Mr. H. B. Chadwick, at age 73, was finally released from 14 years in jail in Pennsylvania without ever being charged with a crime. A new judge finally agreed that he indeed did not know the testimony that previous judges were trying to force out of him.
· the payment of a tax NOT owed creates an obligation to make future payments.
· "The right of traffic or the transmission of property, as an absolute inalienable right, is one which has never existed since governments were instituted, and never can exist under government." Wynehamer v. NY, 13 N.Y. 378, 481.
· 100,000 children disappear every year in America, and the police are ordered to stop looking for them.
· The head of the Harvard Law School, Alan Dershowitz, testified in a Congressional Hearing that there is overwhelming evidence that police and prosecutors perjure themselves regularly in order to convict the innocent.
· 34% of condemned criminals on death row are there because of the testimony of informants who were rewarded for their testimony.
·The US Supreme Court in US v. Kozminski, 487 US 931, confirmed that it is perfectly lawful to hold slaves to unpaid forced labor.
Translation: The more numerous the laws, the more corrupt the government. Annals of Tacitus, Book III, page 27.
The same thing happens today. Your Congress has passed so many laws that people don't know the difference between right and wrong.
Don’t get involved in the overthrow of your local government. Juries can judge the law as well as facts.
Trial by Government is a new concept in American jurisprudence. Trial by jury was not a trial by government until the early 1930s.
"It is presumed, that juries are the best judges of facts; it is, on the other hand, presumed that courts are the best judges of law. But still both objects are within your power of decision... ...you have a right to take it upon yourselves to judge of both, and to determine the law as well as the fact in controversy".
"By the bill of rights of England, a subject has a right to a trial by his peers. What is meant by his peers? Those who reside near him, his neighbors, and who are well acquainted with his character and situation in life."
"Where jurors can be acquainted with the characters of the parties and the witnesses -- where the whole cause can be brought within their knowledge and their view -- I know no mode of investigation equal to that by a trial by jury: they hear every thing that is alleged; they not only hear the words, but they see and mark the features of the countenance; they can judge of weight due to such testimony; and moreover, it is a cheap and expeditious manner of distributing justice. There is another advantage annexed to the trial by jury; the jurors may indeed return a mistaken or ill-founded verdict, but their errors cannot be systematical."
And again, in Elliot's Debates, Vol 2, page 110, Congressman Holmes from Massachusetts, assured us that cases would be heard in the local community where the jury of peers could form a judgment based on the character of the accused and the credibility of the witnesses.
That's right! Your Constitution was ratified on the reassurance, over and over again, that a jury of your peers would always be 12 people who know you.
Read that again. IF THE JURY MUST OBEY THE JUDGE'S INSTRUCTIONS ON THE LAW, THEN A TRIAL BY JURY WOULD BE USELESS.
That's right. Trial by jury would be useless. Imagine what life would be like a country where people must obey the judges' interpretation of the law.
Much of your law comes from the English system. The U.S. Supreme Court, in the same Sparf case at page 117 quotes Englishman John Milton in his book Defense of the People: " And hence it is that when a malefactor is asked at his arraignment, `How will you be tried?' he answers always, according to law and custom, `By God and my country, not by God and the King, or the King's Deputy [Judge].'"
· "... endeavoring to wrest from the jury their indisputable right to hear argument, and determine upon the question of law as well as the question of fact, ..."
· "... to the disgrace of the character of the American bench, in manifest violation of law and justice and in open contempt of the rights of juries, on which ultimately rest the liberty and safety of the American people."
That's right. The liberty and safety of the American people depend upon the jury's indisputable right to determine what the law is. Imagine what life would be like a country where people must obey the judge's interpretation of the law.
The jurors have the power to ignore the court's instructions and bring in a not guilty verdict contrary to the law and the facts. Horning v. District of Columbia, 254 U.S. 135 (1920).
But things changed. Juries now should not be told by the court that they have this power. United States v. Krzyske, 836 F.2d 1013, 1021 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 832; United States v. Avery, 717 F.2d 1020, 1027 (6th Cir.1983), cert. denied, 466 U.S. 905 (1984); United States v. Burkhart, 501 F.2d 993, 996-997 (6th Cir.1974), cert. denied, 420 U.S. 946 (1975).
We have lost our rights: Juries must now be told that it is their duty to accept and apply the law as given to them by the court. United States v. Avery, 717 F.2d 1020, 1027.
· And a book One Nation Under Arrest by Paul Rosenzweig explains why everything is now illegal.
· And a book Go Directly to Jail: The Criminalization of Almost Everything by Gene Healy.
· John Stossel essay Everything is Illegal.
· Alex Jones' video Fall of the Republic.

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