First, most interest for this election are Basil Marceaux ran for governor , Moving of Tn. state line, jfk, cities are civil-
Who protect this flag? --Now tell me who protect the same flag with gold ? Two Nations Under God ? Right!
Welcome to: Freedmen's Bureau Commission Home Office Home of the first appointed u.s. Congresstional "Greatman"
So Speaking as a force Recon Marine civilian one of the best soldier of our nation is that everyone is forgetting why we have the right for the guns under the 2nd. It is not for hunting . It not for protection from other citizens! It is to protect us from our government when it is needed. If they have patriot missiles the citizens need one and should have one and so on. How can we protect our self against that element in the future if our government have assault rifles and we have swing shots read tab jfk on my site this was found at U.S. printing office
Must a public official listen to the Tn. Supreme Court?
Sponsored By: basilmarceaux : and republicaninarepublic.com
Our 3rd Ballad: Ballad of Thomas Jefferson
Our first politic ballard hear It now!
ASK BASIL A QUESTION
LISTEN TO THIS ABOVE BALLARDS THEN CLICK ON DEAD LETTER TAB==THEN CLICK ON TESTIMONIALS TO HEAR A POLITICAL SONG BY THE WIFE
First, Our attention to a republic form of government, the right to religious freedoms and all other constitutional rights warranted by the U.S. constitution to service my citizens that made us the leader in freedom. At basilmarceaux.com the citizens always comes first, and we constantly strive to exceed your expectations!
HIGHER COURT DEDISIONS
1.. Knowels v Iowa A supreme court ruling stopping traffic stop and no-one listen
2. Tennessee v Pucket: A supreme court ruling; Dui unconstitutional
3. Meaher v Mayor and Alterman 1 head 74,8 tenn 74 1858,
4. Chattanooga v Davis ruling 54s.w. 3d 248, 259 tenn. 2001 ,
5. City of Chattanooga v Myers 787 s.w. 2d 921, 922 tenn 1990
Can An District Attorney Be In A City Court In Tn.?
S T A T E O F T E N N E S S E EOFFICE OF THEATTORNEY GENERALPO BOX 20207NASHVILLE, TENNESSEE 37202May 17, 2007Opinion No. 07-73Prosecutorial discretion as to traffic offensesQUESTIONS1. To what extent does a prosecutor have discretion to enter into a plea bargain with a personaccused of violating a state traffic statute by accepting a guilty plea to a “non-point” state offense?2. To what extent does a prosecutor have discretion to enter into a plea bargain with a personaccused of violating a state traffic statute by accepting a guilty plea to a violation of a localordinance or regulation which is not subject to reporting or delivery of any forfeiture funds to thestate?3. To what extent does a prosecutor have discretion to enter into a plea bargain with a personaccused of violating either an original, independent municipal ordinance, or a municipal ordinancebased on, similar to, or derived from a state statute by accepting a guilty plea to a violation of a localordinance or regulation which is not subject to reporting or delivery of any forfeiture funds to thestate? 4. Does the response to the above change in regard to commercial drivers’ license operatorscharged while driving a commercial vehicle?5. Does the response to the above change in regard to commercial drivers’ license operatorscharged while driving a non-commercial vehicle?OPINIONS1. Pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 8-7-103(1), district attorneys in Tennessee are vested withgenerally unfettered discretion in the disposition of criminal cases involving violations of “statecriminal statutes.” As applied to questions 2 through 5, this includes any violations of state trafficlaws committed by commercial drivers, whether or not points are assessed for convictions, andwhether or not forfeitures are involved.2. Regarding questions 2 and 3, district attorneys generally have no statutory authority toprosecute violations of local ordinances, since such ordinances are promulgated by independentmunicipalities and are civil, not criminal, in nature. However, a statutory exception provides some
In 1964, the Tennessee Court of Appeals dealt a major blow to Article VI, Section 14 when, contrary to long-standing precedent, it announced that the clause did not apply to municipal ordinance violations. 3 For all practical purposes, the court's decision severely limited the clause, making its application almost obsolete. When the Tennessee Supreme Court reversed this holding in 2001 in City of Chattanooga v. Davis, 4 the Fifty-Dollar Fines Clause re-emerged from near obscurity to regain its position of prominence among Tennessee constitutional provisions. However, most city and county officials did not welcome this re- emergence because they had previously enjoyed increased revenues from fines in excess of fifty dollars for ordinance violations. In response to Davis, opponents of Article VI, Section 14 proposed a constitutional amendment to eliminate the fifty ...
Is driving down the highway a right, or a privilege?IN: AUTO INSURANCE CLAIMS ANSWERS11May2010
Legislators, police officers, and court officials are becoming aware that there are court decisions that disprove the belief that driving is a privilege and therefore requires government approval in the form of a license. Presented here are some of these cases:CASE #1: “The use of the highway for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege, but a common fundamental right of which the public and individuals cannot rightfully be deprived.”Chicago Motor Coach v. Chicago, 169 NE 221.CASE #2: “
The right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit or permit at will, but a common law right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” Thompson v. Smith, 154 SE 579.It could not be stated more directly or conclusively that citizens of the states have a common law right to travel, without approval or restriction (license), and that this right is protected under the U.S Constitution.CASE #3: “The right to travel is a part of the liberty of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment.” Kent v. Dulles, 357 US 116, 125.CASE #4: “
The right to travel is a well-established common right that does not owe its existence to the federal government. It is recognized by the courts as a natural right.”Schactman v. Dulles 96 App DC 287, 225 F2d 938, at 941.As hard as it is for those of us in law enforcement to believe, there is no room for speculation in these court decisions. American citizens do indeed have the inalienable right to use the roadways unrestricted in any manner as long as they are not damaging or violating property or rights of others.Government — in requiring the people to obtain drivers licenses, and accepting vehicle inspections and DUI/DWI roadblocks without question — is restricting, and therefore violating, the people’s common law right to travel.Is this a new legal interpretation on this subject?Apparently not. This means that the beliefs and opinions our state legislators, the courts, and those in law enforcement have acted upon for years have been in error.
Researchers armed with actual facts state that case law is overwhelming in determining that to restrict the movement of the individual in the free exercise of his right to travel is a serious breach of those freedoms secured by the U.S. Constitution and most state constitutions.That means it is unlawful.The revelation that the American citizen has always had the inalienable right to travel raises profound questions for those who are involved in making and enforcing state laws.The first of such questions may very well be this: If the states have been enforcing laws that are unconstitutional on their face, it would seem that there must be some way that a state can legally put restrictions — such as licensing requirements, mandatory insurance, vehicle registration, vehicle inspections to name just a few — on a citizen’s constitutionally protected rights.
Is that so?For the answer, let us look, once again, to the U.S. courts for a determination of this very issue.In Hertado v. California, 110 US 516, the U.S Supreme Court states very plainly: “The state cannot diminish rights of the people.”And in Bennett v. Boggs, 1 Baldw 60, “Statutes that violate the plain and obvious principles of common right and common reason are null and void.”Would we not say that these judicial decisions are straight to the point– that there is no lawful method for government to put restrictions or limitations on rights belonging to the people?Other cases are even more straight forward:“The assertion of federal rights, when plainly and reasonably made, is not to be defeated under the name of local practice.”Davis v. Wechsler, 263 US 22, at 24.“Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them.”Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US 436, 491.“
The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime.”Miller v. US, 230 F 486, at 489.“There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of this exercise of constitutional rights.” Sherer v. Cullen, 481 F 946.We could go on, quoting court decision after court decision; however, the Constitution itself answers our question – Can a government legally put restrictions on the rights of the American people at anytime, for any reason?The answer is found in Article Six of the U.S. Constitution:“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof;…shall be the supreme Law of the Lgo go cant read