Case law and other citations of the natural man  
of interest to the Christ’s ekklesia


               
                   "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.” (bold added)

              First Amendment to the Bill of Rights of the United States Constitution 
              Effective December 15, 1791  


     The Constitution of the United States is the supreme or, “organic law” of the Land.  As such, all laws created under its authority secular must conform to its original intent and all judicial officers of the United States must fully abide by it.  And so the courts have declared... 

               "This Constitution is the supreme Law of the Land.  All judicial officers of the United States 
               are bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution.”    
               Hayburn's Case, 2 Dall (2 U.S.S.) 409, Article #6, Clause 2 and 3 U.S. Constitution; And, 

               "The judicial branch has only one duty; to lay the Article of the Constitution which is involved 
               beside the statute which is challenged and to decide whether the latter squares with the former".
               U.S. vs. Butler, 279 U.S. 116th Am. Jur. 2nd Sec. 177, 178, 210 and 547.    

     It should be understood that the Constitution is not the law of the Holy church of Jesus Christ, for it is written, “...neither shall ye walk in their ordinances. Ye shall therefore keep My statutes, and My judgments.” - Leviticus 18:3b & 5; and it is also written,“no servant can serve two masters” - Luke 16:13.  Thus the organic law of Christ’s ekklesia is the Holy Scriptures, the Word of God.  Unlike the laws of the natural man it is eternal, unchanging and its author is God Himself who is not a man and therefore cannot lie.  Conversely, the Constitution, as good as it may be, is of human origin and therefore subject to the limitations of those who in seculo created and now maintain it.  Just the same, it is the Law of the Land which all public officials in America must govern their conduct by and be ultimately held accountable to whenever they are found in violation of it.  That is why we, in our capacity as the church in Law, make reference to the Constitution and the various laws within its purview - not to invoke or plead them as a petitioner in court would do, but rather to hold them when necessary before the face of those renegade civil officials who so often tend to forget that they are duty bound to honor and enforce them.  

      Although there may be a fine line between these two distinctly different applications of the law, this critical distinction must be understood and carefully observed by the ambassador for Christ when executing Lawful process of the ekklesia.  In His all knowing wisdom and grace, God has moved the hand of man to establish laws which protect the church of His Son so long as she remains separate and faithful unto Him only.  Therefore, in like manner as any international ambassador is subject only to his own sovereign, so too are Christ’s ambassadors who have separated themselves unto Him and therefore cannot serve another.  For any ambassador to do otherwise would be an act of treason against his sovereign.   

     What we offer here on the following pages is but a mere sampling of that which comprises the entire body of law in American Jurisprudence that we have found so far to be relevant to the church.  Every day in this country laws are created, repealed and amended by the various legislatures and courts and, needless to say, it would be nearly impossible for anyone to keep track of this vast outpouring by themselves.  If you are aware of any laws that may be of interest to the Christ’s ekklesia, we invite you to share them with us.  As the Lord may lead, we will consider including them here with those we have already posted for the general learning and edification of His body.  


William Raymond: ambassador for the Christ    


          

 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *



Category A:  The Government cannot establish a church or a religion (See note below).

1a.  "The 'establishment of religion' of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from a church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion.  No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance."  
Everson v. Board of Education, 330 US 203.91, LEd 2nd 711  (bold added)

2a.  "Neither this court nor any branch of this government will consider the merits or fallacies of a religion, nor will the court compare the beliefs, dogmas, and practices of a newly organized religion with those of an older, more established religion, nor will the court praise or condemn a religion, however excellent or fanatical or preposterous it may seem.  Were the court to do so, it would impinge upon the guarantee of the First Amendment."   
Universal Life Church, Inc. v United States, 372 F. Supp. 770, 776 (E.D. Cal 1974)  (bold added)

(Note: Consistent with the arbitrary and capricious nature of the law, and in direct violation of the principle that “Neither a state nor Federal Government can set up a church”, the courts have create the 501 (c) (3) “church corporation” - a unique category of corporate entities which in reality constitutes what for all practical purposes can only be called by anybody with a brain in their head... the official state church!         


* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *


Category B:  Churches cannot be forced to incorporate.

1b.  “Distinction may be drawn between a religious corporation, which is but an inanimate person, a legal entity possessing none other than temporal powers, and a church or body of communicants or group gathered in a common membership for mutual support and edification in piety, worship and religious observances, or a society of individuals united for religious purposes at a definite place or places.  It is not necessary for the group or society to be incorporated to be entitled to the benefit of the classification of ‘religious society.’  There are, and always have been, many such bodies unincorporated.  In many instances a society exists without a corporation as its temporal status or representative.”  
Mordecai Ham Evangelistic Association v. Matthews, 300 Ky. 402, at 406; 189 S.W.2d 524, at 526, (1945). (bold added) 

2b.  "If it were otherwise, we would be back to the days when state governments insisted that religious organizations incorporate in accordance with state law if they wanted to enjoy the benefits made available by the state. E.g., Barnes v. First Parish of Falmouth, 6 Mass. 400 (1810).  Barnes attempted to force incorporation upon Baptists who believed that incorporation was unChristian surrender to the state.  Barnes was possible only in a jurisdiction that frankly recognized a church established by the state...  Such establishment, such forcing of an governmentally chosen form upon religious activity, is incompatible with the Religious Clauses."  
EEOC v. Townley, 859 F.2d 610, (1988). (bold added)

3b.  "The minister may be installed over some particular society, either incorporated or unincorporated."  
Ruggles v. Kirnball, 12 Mass. 337, 338  (bold added)

4b.  “We hold only that the church was not required to show that it was incorporated as a religious society or corporation under chapter 187, Stats., or otherwise, to establish that its property is exempt from taxation under Section 70.11(4)"...  
Waushara County v. Graf, 157 Wisconsin 2d 539; 461 N.W.2d 143, (1990) (bold added)

5b.  “A church or religious society may exist for all the purposes for which it was organized independently of any incorporation of the body under the statutes of the state; and, it is a matter of common knowledge that many do exist and are never incorporated.  For the promotion of religion and charity, they may subserve all the purposes of their organization, and, generally, need no incorporation except incidentally to further these objects.  They do not place themselves beyond the pale of the protection of the law as to properties, for the lack of incorporation.  It is the province of a court of equity to protect such organizations in what they hold...”  
Murphy v. Traylor,  292 Alabama 78;  289 So.2d 584, at 586, (1974). (bold added)

6b.  "... a church may simply hold itself out as tax exempt and receive the benefits of that status without applying for advance recognition from the IRS."  
Branch Ministries v. IRS, US District Court (No. 95cv00724) (2000). (bold added) 


* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *                                            


Category C:  Incorporation is voluntary.     

1c.  “We hold only that the church was not required to show that it was incorporated as a religious society or corporation under chapter 187, Stats., or otherwise, to establish that its property is exempt from taxation under Section 70.11(4)"...  
      "The same annotation at page 755 states: ‘Church’ and ‘Congregation.’  A church consists of those who are communicants, have made a public profession of religion and are united by a religious bond of common spiritual welfare.  It is the spiritual body, not the legal one.  But a religious society or congregation, under the statute, is a voluntary association of persons, generally but not necessarily in connection with the church proper, united for the purpose of having a common place of worship and to provide a proper teacher to instruct them in doctrines and duties, etc.  Thus, the legislature distinguished a church, as the spiritual body, from a religious society, incorporated under the statute, as the legal body of a voluntary association of persons united for religious purposes...”...
    “It is plain from these decisions that the court did not consider that the legislature, by offering to ecclesiastical bodies the advantages of incorporation, intended to impose corporate structure upon such bodies.  the property of unincorporated ecclesiastical bodies was commonly held in trust for the benefit of the members.”  
Waushara County v. Graf, 157 Wisconsin 2d 539; 461 N.W.2d 143, (1990)  (bold added) (italic in parentheses added)  

2c.  “The church - any church - has the absolute unfettered right to worship according to the dictates of their own consciences, so long as they do not trespass upon the rights of others.  Having elected to incorporate under the laws of the state, they should be required to conform to the consequences of their voluntary act.  Otherwise, it is only fair that all other businesses organized as ‘not for profit’ corporations be allowed to choose which portions of the law by which they will abide.” 
Gibson v. Munson,  (Arkansas) (bold added)

3c.  “It is the general holding of this Court that those organizations choosing to incorporate under the provisions of Chapter 273 must comply with the requirements of that law.  Specifically, we hold that the statute requires that written notice of meetings be given to members of the corporation and that bylaws must be adopted.”  
Hollins v. Edmonds,  616 S.W.2d 801,(1981). (bold added) 


 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *


Category D:  Government  must  protect  churches  who  choose  not  to  incorporate. 

1d.  “A church or religious society may exist for all the purposes for which it was organized independently of any incorporation of the body under the statutes of the state; and, it is a matter of common knowledge that many do exist and are never incorporated.  For the promotion of religion and charity, they may subserve all the purposes of their organization, and, generally, need no incorporation except incidentally to further these objects.  They do not place themselves beyond the pale of the protection of the law as to properties, for the lack of incorporation.  It is the province of a court of equity to protect such organizations in what they hold...”  
Murphy v. Traylor,  292 Alabama 78;  289 So.2d 584, at 586, (1974). (bold added)


* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *


Category E:  The voluntary act of incorporation transfers the Lordship of Christ to the State.  

1e.  “The business of the church was conducted in a rather informal manner in accordance with its customs.  Although this kind of conduct might be suited to church tradition, it does not comply with the requirements of the statutes regarding nonprofit corporations.  As the trial judge phrased it -- once the church determined to enter the realm of Caesar by forming a corporation, it was required to abide by the rules of Caesar, or in this case, the statutes of the Commonwealth of Kentucky.” 

“It is within the province of the trial court to decide if a majority of the original board of directors has been validly constituted and has properly approved bylaws.  The members who instituted this action had the capacity to do so.  Willis, supra, contemplates that any active member of the corporation can seek relief in the courts from the directors’ refusal to hold a meeting...   

“It is the general holding of this Court that those organizations choosing to incorporate under the provisions of Chapter 273 must comply with the requirements of that law.  Specifically, we hold that the statute requires that written notice of meetings be given to members of the corporation and that bylaws must be adopted.”  
Hollins v. Edmonds,  616 S.W.2d 801,(1981). (bold added) 

2e.  “Appellants (the church) appeal on the basis that the circuit court had no authority over them because they are a recognized religious organization, a church.   On first reflection they appeared to be correct.  Upon a closer study of the complaint and the judgment we are of the opinion that this is not an improper interference by the government into a church or ecclesiastical, matter.  When the members of the church decided to incorporate their body under the laws of the state of Florida they submitted themselves to the jurisdiction of the state courts in all matters of a corporate nature, such as accounting for funds.”  
Matthews v. Adams, 13 Fla. Law W. 580; 520 So.2d 334, at 335, (1988)   

3e.  “In its nature an act of incorporation is not a contract between the corporate body and the individuals composing it.  It is a compact between the creating government on the one side and the created corporation on the other side.  The corporation can come to an end only by some act of the sovereign power by which it was established.  It can be extinguished under our laws only by the General Court acting within the appropriate scope of the legislative power, by the judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction, or by proceedings for surrender of charter or dissolution under some statute.”  
Syrian Antiochean St. George’s Orthodox Church v. Ghize,  258 Mass. 74, at 81; 154 N.E. 839, at 842, (1927). 

4e. "...We are of the opinion that there is a clear distinction in this particular between an individual and a corporation, and that the latter has no right to refuse to submit its books and papers for examination on the suit of the State.  The individual may stand upon his Constitutional Rights as a Citizen.  He is entitled to carry on his private business in his own way.  His power to contract is unlimited.  He owes no duty to the State or to his neighbors to divulge his business, or to open his doors to investigation, so far as it may tend to incriminate him.  He owes no such duty to the State, since he receives nothing therefrom, beyond the protection of his life, liberty, and property.  His Rights are such as the law of the land long antecedent to the organization of the state, and can only be taken from him by due process of law, and in accordance with the Constitution. Among his Rights are the refusal to incriminate himself, and the immunity of himself and his property from arrest or seizure except under warrant of law.  He owes nothing to the public so long as he does not trespass upon their rights. 
    "Upon the other hand, the corporation is a creature of the state.  It is presumed to be incorporated for the benefit of the public.  It receives certain special privileges and franchises, and holds them subject to the laws of the state and the limitations of its charter.  Its rights to act as a corporation are only preserved to it so long as it obeys the laws of its creation.  There is a reserved right in the legislature to investigate its contracts and find out whether it has exceeded its powers.  It would be a strange anomaly to hold that the State, having chartered a corporation to make use of certain franchises, could not in exercise of its sovereignty inquire how those franchises had been employed, and whether they had been abused, and demand the production of corporate books and papers for that purpose." 
Hale vs. Hinkel, 201 US 43, 74-75


* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *


Category F:  The church or ekklesia is the body of believers.

1f.  "A church consists of those who are communicants, have made a public profession of religion and are united by a religious bond of common spiritual welfare.  It is the spiritual body, not the legal one.  ...Thus, the legislature distinguished a church, as the spiritual body.”  
Waushara County v. Graf, 157 Wisconsin 2d 539; 461 N.W.2d 143, (1990)  (bold added)


* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *


Category G:  The ekklesia is "hid with Christ in God" (Colossians 3:3) i.e. beyond the jurisdiction and reach of the secular government. 

1g.  “... where there is no incorporation, those who deal with the church must trust for the performance of civil obligations to the honor and good faith of the members.”
Methodist Church of Newark v. Clark, (41 Mich. 730, 737) 

2g. “it is a very difficult thing where a subject-matter of dispute, strictly and purely ecclesiastical in its character,--a matter over which the civil courts exercise no jurisdiction,--a matter which concerns theological controversy, church discipline, ecclesiastical government, or the conformity of the members of the church to the standard of morals required of them,--becomes the subject of its action. It may be said there, also, that no jurisdiction has been conferred on the tribunal to try the particular case before it ... “
Watson v. Jones, 13 Wall. 678 (1872)
See also, Love v. Sullivan, 155 N.Y. 83, at 99; 49 N.E. 667, at 671, (1966).   

Hoffman’s Ecclesiastical Law, 141, 145; Andrew’s Church Law, 4, 57; Humphrey’s Law of the Church, 2, 62.  


* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *


Category H:  Under the laws by which it is created, an incorporated church can only become “unincorporated” by the court.  (this does not mean that those who wish to "come out from among them" cannot simply walk away from “the corporation” allowing it to simply wither and die on the vine) 

1h.  “In its nature an act of incorporation is not a contract between the corporate body and the individuals composing it.  It is a compact between the creating government on the one side and the created corporation on the other side.  The corporation can come to an end only by some act of the sovereign power by which it was established.  It can be extinguished under our laws only by the General Court acting within the appropriate scope of the legislative power, by the judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction, or by proceedings for surrender of charter or dissolution under some statute.”  
Syrian Antiochean St. George’s Orthodox Church v. Ghize,  258 Mass. 74, at 81; 154 N.E. 839, at 842, (1927).  


                                                                 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *


Category I:  Incorporation cannot be used as a litmus test to determine what is a church.  

1i."The terms 'religion' or 'religious' in tax exemption laws should not include any reference to whether the beliefs involved are theistic or non theistic.  Religion simply includes: (1) a belief, not necessarily referring to supernatural powers; (2) a cult, involving a gregarious association openly expressing the belief; (3) a system of moral practice directly resulting from an adherence to the belief; and (4) an organization within the cult designed to observe the tenets of belief.  The content of the belief is of no moment."  
Fellowship of Humanity v. Alameda County, 153 Cal A. 2nd 673, 315 p. 2nd 394 (1957) 
    
2i.  "Religion is not confined to a sect or a ritual.  The symbols of a religion to one are anathema to another.  What one may regard as charity another may scorn as foolish waste.  And even education is today not free from divergence of view as to its validity."  
Unity School of Christianity, 4 B.T.A. 61, 70 (1926)


                                                                 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *


Category J:  Those attempting to regulate the ekklesia must prove they have a lawful right to do so. 

1j.  "No sanctions can be imposed absent proof of jurisdiction".  
Standard v Lavine, 415 U.S. 533 Note 3  

2j. "The law provides that once State and federal jurisdiction has been challenged, it must be proved."  
Main v Thiboutol, 100 S. Ct. 2502 (1980)   

3j.  “Once challenged, jurisdiction cannot be assumed to exist, but must be   
proved to exist.”  
Main v Thiboutol, 100 S. Ct. 2502 (1980)

4j.  "Once jurisdiction is challenged, it must be proved."  
Hagans v Lavine, 415 U.S. 533 Note 3. 
  
5j. "Where there is absence of proof of jurisdiction, all administrative and judicial proceedings are a nullity, and confer no right, offer no protection, and afford no justification, and may be rejected upon direct collateral           attack."  
Thompson v Tolmie, 2 Pet. 157, 7 L. Ed. 318.  Griffith v Frazier, 8 Cr. 9. 3  L. Ed. 471.    


 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Category K: Regarding the minister or pastor. 

1k.  "Generally a duly ''ordained minister' is one who has followed a prescribed course of study of religious principles, has been consecrated to the service of living and teaching that religion through an ordination ceremony under the auspices of an established church, has been commissioned by that church as its minister in the service of GOD and generally is subject of control or discipline by a council of the church."  
Buttcali v. U.S.C.C.A., Tex.. 130F 2nd 127, 174
  
2k. "The minister may be installed over some particular society, either incorporated or unincorporated."  
Ruggles v. Kirnball, 12 Mass. 337, 338

Kibbe v. Antram, 4 Conn. 134, 139
(says that "ordination" of clergyman remains even after his separation from a church of which he once had charge – his spiritual authority continues although he is not settled over a particular congregation.) 


* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Category L:  Government presumes full and exclusive control over its “citizens” so-called. 

1l.  "This section contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two sources only: birth and naturalization.  The persons declared to be citizens are ‘all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,’ the evident meaning of there words is, not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction, and owing them direct and immediate allegiance”.
Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 (1884).

2l.  "A citizen of the United States owes his primary and highest allegiance to the general government and not to his particular state”.
Hammerstein v. Lyne, 200 F. 165 at 170.


* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Category M:  Nobody can be forced to do something they are not able to do. 

1m.  "Commitment for contempt until party pay over money not in his possession or control at time of instituting contempt proceedings, as shown by his uncontradicted affidavit, is void for want of jurisdiction, court having no power to imprison a person for contempt for neglecting or refusing to perform an act which he cannot perform.”  
Adams v. Haskell, 65 D. 517, 1 Rapalje's Digest (1760-1888) 784.


* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *


Category N:  Those married by the State are married to the State.

1n.  “The State makes itself a party to all marriages, in that it requires the marriage contract to be entered into before officers designated by itself, and with certain formalities which it has prescribed.” 
Dennis v. Dennis, 68 Conn. 186

 2n.  ”Marriage is a legal state of wedlock or union of two persons of opposite sex associated together as husband and wife for the purpose of establishing a family.” 
Hooks v. State, 197 So.2d 238 (Mississippi, 1967). 

 
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *


Category O:  Those claiming Constitutional Rights as a private person, in reality, have none.

1o.  "No private person has a right to complain by suit in court on the ground of a breach of the United States constitution; for, though the constitution is a compact, he is not a party to it."
Padelford, Fay & Co. v Mayor and Alderman of City of Savannah, 14 Ga. 438, 1854 WL 1492 (Ga., Jan Term 1854) (NO. 64)

2o.  "Human beings are called 'natural persons' to distinguish them from 'artificial' personas or corporations. To acquire the status of artificial or legal personality, the group seeking it must be incorporated, i.e., must obtain a formal state license. In modern civil law, while incorporation is necessary for some purposes, chiefly in commercial law, and group of persons, acting as a unit, may be treated as an artificial or legal person." 
Warren Co. v. Heister, 219 La. 763, 54 S.2d 12." Radin Law Dictionary (1955), page 249.
 
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

The State owns it’s citizens:
"There is a tax imposed, in 26 U.S.C. Sec. 1, on the income of `every individual.' No provision exists in the tax code exempting from taxation persons who, like Slater, characterize themselves as somehow standing apart from the American polity, and the defendant cites no authority supporting his position. Slater's protestations to the effect that he derives no benefit from the United States government have no bearing on his legal obligation to pay income taxes. (cites omitted) Unless the defendant can establish that he is NOT a citizen of the United States, the IRS possesses authority to attempt to determine his federal tax liability."
U.S. v Slater, 82-2 USTC 9571        

"Finally, we address Templeton's second argument in which she claims that she is not a 'person liable' or a 'taxpayer', as those terms are defined by the Internal Revenue Code and the relevant case law, and as a result that the provisions of section 6103 do not apply in her case. We agree with the district court that this claim is patently frivolous. As Templeton does NOT dispute that she is a citizen of the United States, and because the Code imposes an income tax on `every individual who is a citizen or resident of the United States,' 26 C.F.R. Sec. 1.1-(1) (a) (1985), it would clearly contradict the 'plain meaning' of the term to conclude that Congress did not intend that Templeton be considered a 'taxpayer' as the term is used throughout the Code."
Rachel Templeton v Internal Revenue Service, 86-1363 on appeal from 85 C 457.

"Whenever a corporation makes a contract it is the contract of the legal entity ...The only rights it can claim are the rights which are given to it in that charter, and not the rights which belong to its members as citizens of a state" 
Bank of Augusta v. Earle, 13 Pet. 586).


Fraud:

“Dismissal for fraud is appropriate where is can be demonstrated, clearly and convincingly, that a party has sentiently set in motion some unconscionable scheme calculated to interfere with the judicial system’s ability impartially to adjudicate a matter improperly influencing the trier of facts or unfairly hampering the presentation of the opposing parties claim or defense.”  
Gerhmann v. City of Orlando, 962 So. 2d. 1059, 1061 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007)

“Silence can be equated with fraud where there is a legal or moral duty to speak, or where an inquiry left unanswered would be intentionally misleading. . . We cannot condone this shocking behavior by the IRS. Our revenue system is based on the good faith of the taxpayer and the taxpayers should be able to expect the same from the government in its enforcement and collection activities."
U.S. v. Tweel, 550 F.2d 297, 299. 

See also: U.S. v. Prudden, 424 F.2d 1021, 1032. and Carmine v. Bowen, 64 A. 932.


Unconstitutional laws:

       "The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective of any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment and not merely from the time of the decision so banding it.  An  unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted. Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principal follows that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it. A contract which rests on an unconstitutional statute creates no obligation to be impaired by subsequent legislation. A void act cannot be legally inconsistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law. Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby. No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it."  
16 Am. Jr. 2nd page 177 16 Am.  Section 256  (bold added)

      "The judicial branch has only one duty; to lay the Article of the Constitution which is involved beside the statute which is challenged and to decide whether the latter squares with the former".  
U.S. vs. Butler, 279 U.S. 116th Am. Jur. 2nd Sec. 177, 178, 210 and 547  (bold added)

      "This Constitution is the supreme Law of the Land. All judicial officers of the United States are bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution."  
Hayburn's Case, 2 Dall (2 U.S.S.) 409, Article #6, Clause 2 and 3 U.S. Constitution.  (bold added)





Other cases of interest:

United States v. Seeger, 380 U.S. 163 (Supreme Court 1965)  

Here are a few court cases regarding so-called "privilege v. right" arguments on the issue of “driving” which are, effectually, irrelevant to those who “live and move and have their being in Christ” - Acts 17:28. 

Thompson vs. Smith, 154 SE 579  "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," 

Chicago Motor Coach vs. Chicago, 169 NE 221  "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," 

Schactman vs. Dulles, 96 App DC 287, 225 F2d 938, at 941  "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," 

Kent vs. Dulles, 357 US 116, 125  "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, " 

Miranda vs. Arizona, 384 US 436, 491  "Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them."

“Motor vehicle means every description or other contrivances propelled or drawn by mechanical power and used for commercial purposes on the highway in the transportation of passengers, or passengers and property.”
“Used for commercial purposes means the carriage of persons or property for any fare, fee, rate, charge or other considerations, or directly or indirectly in connection with any business, or other undertaking intended for profit.” Title 18, USC 31  

“One sovereign does not need to tell another sovereign that he/she is sovereign.  The sovereign is merely sovereign by his very existence.” The People are sovereign, not the governmental bodies that serve them. Kemper v. State, 138 Southwest 1025 (1911), page 1043, section 33.
 
“’Citizenship’ and ‘residence,’ as has often been declared by the courts, are not convertible terms.  Parker v. Overman 18 How. 141; Robertson v. Cease, 97 U.S. 648; Grace v. American Cent. Ins. Co., 109 U.S. 283; S.C. 3 Sup.Ct. Rep. 207; Prentiss v. Barton, 1 Brock. 389.  

Citizenship is a status or condition, and is the result of both act and [voluntary] intent.  An adult person cannot become a citizen of a state by simply intending to, nor does any one become such citizen by mere residence.  The residence and the intent must co-exist and correspond; and though, under ordinary circumstances, the former may be sufficient evidence of the latter, it is not conclusive, and the contrary may always be shown; and when the question of citizenship turns on the intention with which a person has resided in a particular state, his own testimony, under ordinary circumstances, is entitled to great weight on the point.”  Sharon v. Hill, 26 F.337 (1885)
 
 


As stated earlier, if you know of any additional laws that may be of interest 
to the Christ’s ekklesia, we invite you to share them with us.  

Thank you.


mailto:WilliamRaymond@thechurchatSalem.info?subject=Case%20lawmailto:WilliamRaymond@thechurchatSalem.info?subject=Case%20lawshapeimage_2_link_0shapeimage_2_link_1