The Driver's License was just the beginning. The Real ID Act is Fascism realized. No Thanks.

P.L. 109-13 – includes the Real ID Act of 2005
Tutun v. United States, 270 U.S. 568, 576-77 (1926)
Allen v. Graham, 446 P.2d 240, 243(1968)
Ex parte Knowles, 5 Cal. 300 (1855)
United States v. Babcock, 250 U.S. 328, 331 (1919)- These general rules are well settled: (1) That the United States, when it creates rights in individuals against itself, is under no obligation to provide a remedy through the courts.

42 U.S.C. §§§ 1981, 1982, 1988 – fictional “citizen of the United States” who would like to have the rights of a “white citizen.”

1878 Title XXIV of the Revised Statutes of greatly revered “Civil Rights” – Hoo -haa in 42 USC § 1988. Remembering that Title 13 is Judiciary and Title 70 is crimes and it is all for the greater good of “Vindication” – to remove from being suspect.

Welcome to the fascist, communist and totalitarian American Empire endorsed and supported by Millions of people in America.

Overview statement – Congress must always declare the fictitious status of whom they are enacting ACTS OF CONGRESS (laws of Congress are where Congress has plenary power in which Congress acts as both a national government and a state government – i.e. territories, District of Columbia, possessions, etc.), not Laws of the United States (Congress acts only as a “federal government” within the several States and the several States enact their own laws).

In the REAL ID Act of 2005, it is only for a “citizen of the United States” or national of the United States. Remembering that only a “citizen of the United States” can vote, sit on a jury, and only this status is required to pay the IRS for this fictitious status, required to obtain a Driver License, etc.

There are many aspects of this particular “Act of Congress” (“laws of Congress”) as it is not a Law of the United States. This will be covered later in my post on the “citizen of the United States.”

When Congress usurped and reconstructed the constitutional Republic there were several essential elements that are involved that must be eliminated. To create a fictitious government outside of the Constitution of the United States and the several States wherein the people of these United States did grant a limited delegation of government only. (Two governments – one under the Constitution and one outside of the Constitution – see Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244, 264(1901))
1. As the sovereign Power, our inalienable rights, is posited only in the people of these United States and it is not a grant from Congress, any legislature or anyone else to US, THEN, the solution is to create a fiction in law and grant it benefits and rights (not inalienable rights) that are totally under the control of the granter, i.e. Congress, i.e. 42 U.S.C. §§§ 1981, 1982, 1988, being the right to own property, sue, etc. This is no different from a parent granting to his children an allowance of money or privileges contingent upon your CONDUCT subject to change at the will of the parent at any time for no reason.

As held in Tutun v. United States, 270 U.S. 568, 576-77 (1926), to wit:

If the proceeding were not a case or controversy within the meaning of article 3, s 2, this delegation of power upon the courts would have been invalid. Hayburn’s Case, 2 Dall. 409, 1 L. Ed. 436; United States v. Ferreira, 13 How. 40, 14 L. Ed. 42; Muskrat v. United States, 31 S. Ct. 250, 219 U. S. 346, 55 L. Ed. 246. Whether a proceeding which results in a grant is a judicial one does not depend upon the nature of the thing granted, but upon the nature of the proceeding which Congress has provided for securing the grant. The United States may create rights in individuals against itself and provide only an administrative remedy. United States v. Babcock, 39 S. Ct. 464, 250 U. S. 328, 331, 63 L. Ed. 1011. It may provide a legal remedy, but make resort to the courts available *577 only after all administrative remedies have been exhausted. Compare New Orleans v. Paine, 13 S. Ct. 303, 147 U. S. 261, 37 L. Ed. 162; United States v. Sing Tuck, 24 S. Ct. 621, 194 U. S. 161, 48 L. Ed. 917; American Steel Foundries v. Robertson, 43 S. Ct. 541, 262 U. S. 209, 67 L. Ed. 953. It may give to the individual the option of either an administrative or a legal remedy. Compare Clyde v. United States, 13 Wall. 38, 20 L. Ed. 479; **427Chorpenning v. United States, 94 U. S. 397, 399, 24 L. Ed. 126. Or it may provide only a remedy. Compare Turner v. United States, 39 S. Ct. 109, 248 U. S. 354, 63 L. Ed. 291. Whenever the law provides a remedy enforceable in the courts according to the regular course of legal procedure, and that remedy is pursued, there arises a case within the meaning of the Constitution, whether the subject of the litigation be property or status. A petition for naturalization is clearly a proceeding of that character.

The petitioner’s claim is one arising under the Constitution and laws of the United States. The claim is presented to the court in such a form that the judicial power is capable of acting upon it. The proceeding is instituted and is conducted throughout according to the regular course of judicial procedure. The United States is always a possible adverse party.

What this case articulates is that if there is any grant from Congress, Congress controls the remedy to obtain the grant, i.e. benefit, to wit:
1. Legal remedy in the courts of the United States only after administrative remedies have been exhausted; or,
2. An administrative remedy denying your access to the courts of the United States; or,
3. An legal remedy in the courts of the United States; or,
4. Or only a remedy whatever degree that may be – complete or not; or,
5. No remedy however mistaken its exercise thereof, which is is another case held in Allen v. Graham, 446 P.2d 240, 243(1968) citing Babcock.

The Civil Rights Act of 1866 era and other in in Title XXIV is the source of the problem.
You can easily check on the Internet for other Laws of the United States and what you will find is there no requirement to be just a “citizen of the United States” in the laws of the United States prior to the Civil War. There are some acts that use these words, but back then in time, by reading cases you will quickly come to the understanding that is was used in lieu of citizens of the several States.
http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/amlaw/lwsl.html

And excellent case explaining that in reality there is no such thing as a citizen of the United States (Ex parte Knowles, 5 Cal. 300 (1855)) [read this case very, very carefully as there is great knowledge imparted therein] and there are no privileges granted to a citizen of the United States, but only to citizens of the several States. See Article IV section 2.

REAL ID Act of 2005
Starting on page 75 is tyranny in action.

Note the words “trier of fact” in section 8 USC §§ 1158, 1231 – this is a flunky employee making this determination concerning aliens. Wow!

8 USC ¶ 1252 – No court shall reverse a determination made by a trier of fact with respect to the availability of corroborating evidence ….

8 USC 1103- “(1) IN GENERAL.–Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall have the authority to waive all legal requirements such Secretary, in such Secretary’s sole discretion, determines necessary to ensure expeditious construction of the barriers and roads under this section. Any such decision by the Secretary shall be effective upon being published in the Federal Register.
[This purportedly is only for the borders and roads]

Also under 8 USC § 1103 – an interlocutory or final judgment or order of the district court may be reviewed only upon petition for a writ of certiorari. Another ruse as there is no remedy via the statutory “Writ of Certiorari” as jurisdiction
is not an issue for the Supreme Court nor is the merits.

Effect of denial of certiorari

A denial of certiorari normally carries no implication or inference. U.S. v. Kras, U.S.N.Y.1973, 93 S.Ct. 631, 409 U.S. 434, 34 L.Ed.2d 626.

Denial of writ of certiorari by Federal Supreme Court imports no expression of opinion upon merits of case but means only that there were not four members of the Court who thought the case should be heard. Brown v. Allen, U.S.N.C.1953, 73 S.Ct. 397, 344 U.S. 443, 97 L.Ed. 469, dissenting opinion 73 S.Ct. 437, 344 U.S. 443, 97 L.Ed. 469, rehearing denied 73 S.Ct. 827, 345 U.S. 946, 97 L.Ed. 1370.

The United States Supreme Court’s refusal of certiorari, though essential to exhaustion of state remedies as a prerequisite to applying to federal courts for habeas corpus, is without substantive significance in habeas corpus case. U.S. ex rel. Smith v. Baldi, U.S.Pa.1953, 73 S.Ct. 391, 344 U.S. 561, 97 L.Ed. 549.

Denial of a petition for writ of certiorari to review decision of Court of Appeals of Maryland reversing conviction of radio stations for contempt meant only that fewer than four members of Supreme Court thought that certiorari should be granted, and such denial carried with it no implication whatever regarding views of Supreme Court on merits of the case. State of Md. v. Baltimore Radio Show, U.S.Md.1950, 70 S.Ct. 252, 338 U.S. 912, 94 L.Ed. 562.

Denial of certiorari imports nothing as to merits of case; all it means is that, for whatever reason, there were not four members of Supreme Court who wished to consider issues presented for review. Howell v. Jones, C.A.5 (Tex.) 1975, 516 F.2d 53, rehearing denied 521 F.2d 815, certiorari denied 96 S.Ct. 1116, 424 U.S. 916, 47 L.Ed.2d 321, rehearing denied 96 S.Ct. 1687, 425 U.S. 945, 48 L.Ed.2d 189.

Denial of writ of certiorari imports no expression of opinion on merits of the case. Laborers’ Intern. Union of North America, Local No. 107 v. Kunco, Inc., C.A.8 (Ark.) 1973, 472 F.2d 456.

Denial of petition for writ of certiorari by United States Supreme Court carries no precedential weight whatever. Ahern v. Murphy, C.A.7 (Ill.) 1972, 457 F.2d 363.

United States Supreme Court’s denial of certiorari did not make decision of Tennessee Supreme Court the law of the United States Supreme Court with respect to value of the case as a precedent, but the denial of certiorari signified that appellate review had been exhausted, that the parties had had their day in court, and that the case could be res judicata in a subsequent action. Deane Hill Country Club, Inc. v. City of Knoxville, C.A.6 (Tenn.) 1967, 379 F.2d 321, certiorari denied 88 S.Ct. 476, 389 U.S. 975, 19 L.Ed.2d 467.

Denial of certiorari by United States Supreme Court is not to be given effect of judgment on merits. Newsom v. Peyton, C.A.4 (Va.) 1965, 341 F.2d 904.

Denial of certiorari by Supreme Court of United States from judgment of state supreme court, did not establish correctness of judgment but served only to establish finality of judgment as between litigants. Dairy Distributors, Inc. v. Western Conference of Teamsters, C.A.10 (Utah) 1961, 294 F.2d 348, certiorari denied 82 S.Ct. 604, 368 U.S. 988, 7 L.Ed.2d 525.

Denial by United States Supreme Court of petition for writ of certiorari cannot be interpreted as an expression of the Supreme Court’s opinion on the merits. McLaurin v. Burnley, N.D.Miss.1967, 279 F.Supp. 220, affirmed 401 F.2d 773, certiorari denied 90 S.Ct. 2228, 399 U.S. 928, 26 L.Ed.2d 795.

Denial to state convict of certiorari by Supreme Court of the United States is not an adjudication as such but is a refusal of a rehearing and is indication that issues were twice considered. Williams v. State of S.C., D.C.S.C.1965, 237 F.Supp. 360, vacated 356 F.2d 432.

Denial of certiorari by United States Supreme Court after conviction by state court and affirmance by state Supreme Court is not an affirmance. State of Tenn. ex rel. Ford v. Morris, W.D.Tenn.1965, 236 F.Supp. 780.

Denial of certiorari by federal Supreme Court imported no expression of
opinion on merits of state supreme court decision. De La Salle Institute v. U.S., N.D.Cal.1961, 195 F.Supp. 891.

What a ruse as this is not even a true Writ of Certiorari. This is from the 1856 Bouviers Law Dictionary. Does this match the current Writ of Certiorari of today high jacked by Congress for the fictional government, remembering for those that have never filed into the Supreme Court of the United States – NONE of the RECORD is brought up, but you must regenerate all of any record that you choose to use and put it on special paper of a size of approximately 6 by 9 inches?

CERTIORARI, practice. To be certified of; to be informed of. This is the name of a writ issued from a superior court directed to one of inferior jurisdiction, commanding the latter to certify and return to the former, the record in the particular case. Bac. Ab. h. t.; 4 Vin. Ab. 330; Nels. Ab. h. t.; Dane’s Ab. Index, h. t.; 3 Penna. R. 24. A certiorari differs from a writ of error. There is a distinction also between a hab. corp. and a certiorari. The certiorari removes the cause; the hab. corp. only supersedes the proceedings in below. 2 Lord Ray. 1102.

2. By the common law, a supreme court has power to review the proceedings of all inferior tribunals, and to pass upon their jurisdiction and decisions on questions of law. But in general, the determination of such inferior courts on questions of fact are conclusive, and cannot be reversed on certiorari, unless some statute confers the power on such supreme court. 6 Wend. 564; 10 Pick. 358; 4 Halst. 209. When any error has occurred in the proceedings of the court below, different from the course of the common law, in any stage of the cause, either civil or criminal cases, the writ of certiorari is the only remedy to correct such error, unless some other statutory remedy has been given. 5 Binn. 27; 1 Gill & John. 196; 2 Mass. R. 245; 11 Mass. R. 466; 2 Virg. Cas. 270; 3 Halst. 123; 3 Pick. 194 4 Hayw. 100; 2 Greenl. 165; 8 Greenl. 293. A certiorari, for example, is the correct process to remove the proceedings of a court of sessions, or of county commissioners in laying out highways. 2 Binn. 250 2 Mass. 249; 7 Mass. 158; 8 Pick. 440 13 Pick. 195; 1 Overt. 131; 2 Overt. 109; 2 Pen. 1038; 8 Verm. 271 3 Ham. 383; 2 Caines, 179.

3. Sometimes the writ of certiorari is used as auxiliary process, in order to obtain a full return to some other process. When, for example, the record of an inferior court is brought before a superior court by appeal, writ of error, or other lawful mode, and there is a manifest defect, or a suggestion of diminution, a certiorari is awarded requiring a perfect transcript and all papers. 3 Dall. R. 413; 3 John. R. 23; 7 Cranch, R. 288; 2 South. R. 270, 551; 1 Blackf. R. 32; 9 Wheat. R. 526; 7 Halst. R. 85; 3 Dev. R. 117; 1 Dev. & Bat. 382; 11 Mass. 414; 2 Munf. R. 229; 2 Cowen, R. 38. Vide Bouv. Inst. Index, h. t.

So we proceed forward to the this section:

8 USC § 1182 – note that “individual capacity” is included, i.e. if your do something that the Fascist government does not like including weapons, etc (same section – read carefully of all items included – anyone can be included here) – your are under their statutory scheme for prosecution -page 81. Also included in terrorism is any two “individuals” organized or not.

Also important if the Secretary’s (includes homeland security Secretary) sole unreviewable discretion for certain parts – complicated here.

8 USC § 1252 – denial of Habeas Corpus (must be at War – eh?) – Note use of “statutory or non-statutory – hmmmm – two Habeas Corpus’ out there is seems – unbelievable. Of course you can file into the Court of Appeals (equity and admiralty) since 1911 in the Fascist fictional world (real Circuit Court of the United States still exists even after the 1911 Judicial Code)

49 USC 30301 – “State” is defined as “a State of the United States.” Congress did NOT establish a Law of the United States (under Article VI is the authority for only laws of the United States) for within any of the several States, so the simple solution which is always the case, Congress must supply the definition(s) of whom they are legislating for – THIS IS AN EXTREMELY IMPORTANT ESSENTIAL ELEMENT to prove that Congress is outside of their Constitutional Power. The Constitution of the United States ONLY has provision for the “several States” of the Union and none other – hence we define the fictional “State of the United States.”

49 USC 30301 – “a Federal agency” which has no executive, legislative or judicial Power arising under the Constitution is forcing upon an Individual to comply. It also mandates that you have accepted the benefit of the SSN, conclusively proving that you are not a citizen of one of the several States, but are a “citizen of the United States”, i.e. a fictional status in Law.

But the REAL CONCLUSIVE part of this “law of Congress” for the Fascist is that CONGRESS MUST IDENTIFY WHAT ENTITY THEY ARE LEGISLATING FOR. Hooo – haaa.

This is what I discovered by looking prior to the Civil War and after the Civil War on Laws of the United States and laws of Congress.

Congress must identity that it is strictly ONLY for a “citizen of the United States” or “national of the United States.” Either isn’t a citizen of the several States. I will be posting on this soon – just a lot to understand in this area for those starting a ground zero with the deer in the headlight stare.

This should be enough initially to scare the dolts of our Republic into action are to at least question the Fascist Empire – but who knows.

As for those that are seeking knowledge, there is hope.

What is the one sentence that could expose this complete treasonous act

This Act has no application to any of the citizens of the several States who are not “citizens of the United States.” This is as short as it can be.
Questions to the Congress.
1. Does this Act have application to “citizens of the several States” domiciled in the several States?
2. Please define what is a “citizen of the United States.”
3. Is it not true that a “citizen of the United States” is a grant under 42 USC §§§ 1981, 1982 and 1988?
4. Is it not true that Congress is mandating that I be a racist, i.e. to have rights like a “white citizen?”
5. Who or what is this “white citizen” in Title 42?

This is just for starters.

Later.

Ralph


The information provided in the lists of Winterrowd is the work product of Ralph Kermit Winterrowd 2nd with all rights reserved.
I am not an Attorney or Counsellor-at-law. The fundamental rights to distribute research material is claimed by Winterrowd as an American citizen, citizen of the United States of America, a citizen of one of the several States and “white citizen” due to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1982, 1988 Administrative State of 42 U.S.C. § 1981 et seq under the “laws of Congress” which are not “Laws of the United States.”
There are three lists that may be joined by the home page of http://www.jusbelli.com. There is a special e-mail list for $120 per year donation that includes attachments – contact me via e-mail to join. Requires a minimum of 5 meg. of e-mail storage by your server.
I have a talk show on Republic Broadcasting accessible by going to
http://republicbroadcasting.org/ Monday, Wednesday and Friday at 7-8 PM Central Time.
Ralph

Advertisements

One thought on “The Driver's License was just the beginning. The Real ID Act is Fascism realized. No Thanks.

  1. Dan says:

    Ralph, I read your entry, concentrating my focus on your view of citizenship. It appears we have a similar view on this subject. You use the term "citizen of the several states" as opposed to "citizen of the United States" in your entry. I noticed too your use of the phrase "a citizen of one of the several States" at the end of your entry. I think you, as well as others, will find the following works of mine, to be valuable on this issue:a) "The Effects of the Fourteenth Amendment on the Constitution of the United States"http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/view/86908b) "Citizen of the several States: Settled!"http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/view/109311c) "Privileges and Immunities of a Citizen of the several States"http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/view/81495d) "A Look At Corfield (On Citizenship"http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/view/93081Dan

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: