Source: http://www.freedom-school.com/law/case-law-david.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 06:30:48+00:00

Document:
Escobedo v Illinois, 378 U.S. 478 (1964): Illegal search and seizure. Escobedo was arrested in connection with a murder and brought to the police station. He repeatedly asked to see his lawyer, but was never allowed out of the interrogation room. His lawyer even went so far as to come to the police station in search of him, but was denied access. Escobedo then confessed while under interrogation to firing the shot that killed the victim. As a result, he was soon convicted. Escobedo appealed to the Supreme Court and it overturned the conviction. The Court extended the "exclusionary rule" to illegal confessions and ruled that Escobedo's confession should not have been allowed in as evidence. The Court also defined the "Escobedo Rule" which holds that individuals have the right to an attorney when an "investigation is no longer a general inquiry...but has begun to focus on a particular suspect..." The ruling went on to detail that (Where) the suspect has been taken into custody...the suspect has requested...his lawyer, and the police have not...warned him of his right to remain silent, the accused has been denied...counsel in violation of the Sixth Amendment."
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) (111 pages); -- Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them.-- You have the right to remain silent; that is, do not answer any questions. Like: What is your name? Where do you live? What is Your Educational level? Where did you attend school? What is your SS number? Are you employed? Who is your employer? Are you married? Are you in insured? What is your religion? Do you have any scares? Did you see that stop sign? Everything you say, can and WILL be used against you.-- The only one to testify against you is yourself.
The Master asks the questions, the slave answers the questions. Bah! Also, answer a question with a question. Do not volunteer any information or into their jurisdiction.
George Bruch from the Virginia Beach police department responds to Professor James Duane's presentation on why innocent people should never talk to the police.
Miller v. United States, 230 F.2d 486 (5th Cir. 1956); "The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime." Evelyn Miller stood on her Fourth Amendment rights and refused to allow a U.S. Marshal into her home without a search warrant, federal prosecutors charged her with “obstruction of justice.” In reversing her conviction, the court noted that Miller “asserted a right which was hers, and which none could take away. That it . . . subjected the officers to the inconvenience of getting a lawful writ, neither detracts from this right nor subjects her to a crime for having asserted it.” Id. at 489-490.
Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105 (1943) "No State shall convert a liberty into a privilege, license it, and charge a fee therefore."
Adams v City of Pocatello, 416 P.2d 46, 48. "The right to operate a motor vehicle upon the public streets and highways is not a mere privilege, it is a right or liberty, the enjoyment of which is protected by the guarantees of the federal and state constitutions."
City of Chicago v Cullens, et al, 51 N.E. 907, 910, etc. (1906)"A license is a privilege granted by the state" and "cannot possibly exist with reference to something which is a right...to ride and drive over the streets". "If we allow the City of Chicago to require the licensing of horseless carriages, how long be the City of Chicago would want to require license to ride a horse or to walk upon the streets?"
Sherar v. Cullen, 481 F. 946: "There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of this exercise of constitutional rights."
SHUTTLESWORTH V. CITY OF BIRMINGHAM, 373 U. S. 262 (1963): "If the State converts a right (liberty) into a privilege, the citizen can ignore the license and fee and engage in the right (liberty) with impunity."
Davis v. Mississippi, 394 U.S. 721 (1969): Your photograph and fingerprints are your property. Do not give these away. Do not sign anything, you sign manual is your property; do not give it away. Especially, do not sign fingerprint cards or booking sheets (hotel registry). They are required to get your signature on the fingerprint card before they can fingerprint you. Going jail or prison is voluntary; you or your RE-present must sign the contracts. How many years of slavery are you willing to contract yourself into?
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE v. McLAUGHLIN, 500 U.S. 44 (1991): Brought Davis, supra, forward and added that unless they get one to voluntarily sign into their iron-bar hotel they must let one go within seventy-two hours unless they get a warrant or indictment. However, if they play the psychiatric evaluation bit, then they may hold their victim for 72 hours plus two days, or possibly longer; though, now under the [so-called] Patriot Act, they can hold anyone for seven days as a suspected terrorist. Who knows what else these morons will pull next. So, do not be surprised that once they have you, they may never let you go.
Samuel H. SHEPPARD, Petitioner, v. E. L. MAXWELL, Warden, 384 U.S. 333, 86 S.Ct. 1507, 16 L.Ed.2d 600, (June 6, 1996): Supreme Court ruled prejudicial publicity-- had made trial a carnival--.
Farette v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 807, 95 S. Ct. 2525, 2527, 45 L. Ed. 2d 562, 566 (1975): I can read, write, and speak America's English, that is all I need to know to defend Myself. Education, Military background, work background, etc. is none of the STATE's business. Remember one has the right to remain silent and everything that one says can and will be used against oneself, not for oneself. They can not arraign or sentence one if one is without representation. Defend ones self. Be ones self. NEVER Re-Present yourself. NEVER! Entrapment: "Pro Se" = Self Re-Presentation and temporary appointment to the State BAR. Beware! NEVER let the Black Robe Devil or their Jester ever refer to one as "Pro Se" or "Pro Per" or "Pro" anything. NEVER! Take EXCEPTION to the Devil's Utterances. Move to OBJECTION to the Jester's Utterance. Remember, Only, that which is on the record can be appealed. Get it in on the record. In the last paragraph of Farette (supra) the US Supreme court ruled that one who self-RE-Presents is a fool--.
Trezevant v. City of Tampa, 741 F.2d 336 (11th Cir. 1984): US Court of Appeal awarded $65,217.39/hour for false imprisonment.
Hafer v. Melo, 502 U.S. 21 (1991): The US Supreme Court ruled that public Officials (Judge are not exempt) who cause "Unauthorized Deprivations" lose their Eleventh Amendment Protection and are subject to suit for damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This Case before the US Court of Appeals is found at 912 F.2d 628. The key is negligence: acting in excess or without authority or jurisdiction or failing to act when required to do so. Also read Melo v. Hafer, 13 F.3d 736 (3d Cir. 1994).
If the government morons cry and plea sovereign immunity, then here are some other cases, which lay that nonsense to rest. Westfall v. Erwin, 484 US 292 (1988); Will v. Michigan State Police, 491 US 58 (1989); and Mitchum v. Foster, 407 US 225 (1972). The latter makes the bureaucRATS cringe. When coupled with PL 94-381 and Senate Report 94-204, 28 U.S.C. § 2284.
Griffin v. California, 380 U.S. 609 (1965) Eddie Dean Griffin had been accused of assaulting and murdering a female friend of his. To these charges, he plead not guilty. Griffin's counsel recommended that he not testify on the grounds that the prosecution's case was entirely circumstantial. During the trial, the prosecutor brought into evidence the fact that Griffin had been seen in the alley where the victim was found and had left it "cool as a cucumber". The main thrust of his closing statement, however, concerned the defendant's refusal to testify. The jury found Griffin guilty and sentenced him to death. Griffin appealed the case on the grounds that he was denied his Fifth Amendment right refrain from testifying as a defense. The Supreme Court found in his favor. They reasoned that by referring to the defendant's lack of testimony in front of the jury, the prosecution denied him his Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. The Court went on to say what the jury "may infer when the court solemnizes the silence of the accused into evidence against him is [dangerous]."
NOTICE: Not meant to be finished or complete.
Accuracy and applicability not guaranteed.
"Me, I am aware of _______ as found in _____________ and I do rely upon it."
NOTICE: Sir David is not affiliated with Freedom School.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 V. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 1983
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 2284
 v.