Religious Freedom - Asserting My Rights
On May 18th, 2023, I was pulled over for a routine traffic stop violation. Historically, I've always been very cooperative, and compliant...typically having friendly conversation with the police during nearly every encounter (which are few and far between). I don't hate the police, nor do I hate anybody; however in our currently escalating social justice warrior system...I felt it necessary to assert my rights more prominently prior to them being taken away by those that hate our country, hate our nation, and in general...hate people under the pretense that their actions are out of love and tolerance.
Back in the 90's; America endured Ruby Ridge (likewise Messianic Jews) as well as Waco; which made a lot of Christians take notice given the blatant violations of the 1st and 2nd amendment. Prior to 9/11, Bush was pushing for the Patriot Act, and after 9/11.,.he was able to push it through which alienated me from the Republican Party; but I still never affiliated myself with the Democrat Party. The only time in history I ever voted was for John Kerry in 2000 as I was an environmentalist (and still am to a degree), and I haven't voted since. I rely primarily on the 1st amendment "separation of church and state", and as such, I never saw the need to affiliate myself with the government nor politics as I've always seen all politicians as corrupt. I spent a few years at Cornell University (my ex girlfriends alma mater) while she was attending; neglecting my own education in process...however I did nearly complete a 2 year engineering degree. Prior to graduating high school; I had college credits in Calculus, History, Computer Information Systems, Psychology, and Sociology.
Noting a lot of conflict even while attending school with students not being able to pray, nor being able to have gatherings at school that were religious in nature...I was a bit concerned with how students were being taught to be subservient to an invisible authority which condemns them from being able to express themselves freely in a scholastic situation...despite the very principles of our constitution stating clearly that they have that right.
Given I've always adhered primarily to simple principles such as "love thy neighbor as thyself", and "do unto others as you'd have done unto you"...I never really got mixed up with the "wrong crowd". A crew I spent my late teenage early twenty years with considered themselves to be more "scientific"...however I read a good portion of the Bible myself at that point and understood the dynamic that the Bible is about being a Jew from front to back...however I didn't know there were others out there like me that understood the same principles (I didn't know Ruby Ridge was about Messianic Jews until a few years ago; long after I became one myself). My ex girlfriend, proclaiming evolution theory to be true without any scientific evidence to support her claims beyond conjecture, did eventually get me to "break" from my "religious" values after we broke up...to which I then became a Neo-Pythagorean (you may recognize the name from the Pythagorean theorem) The Pythagoreans were a secret society that didn't see a disparity between "science" and "religion"; and neither do I. Having a high aptitude which, if I applied myself, could have landed me potentially in Mensa...I was a vegetarian for a period of time and focused primarily on scientific aspirations...such as artificial intelligence.
During this time I had some issues that could be perceived as mental health related (PTSD as I see it now, as well as a bad diet from being a very poor vegetarian); I still didn't ever commit a crime with my worst "crime" being pirating software and music to which I was never "caught". Things happened, I read up more clearly on the Pythagoreans and found out that they worshipped the sun, utilized pentagrams to identify themselves, had concepts such as "the evil eye" (which stems from the Bible)...and I looked into a lot of symbolism used not only by them, but by other "ancient" cultures; noting that even the "Star of David" is actually a symbol of Baal. Around this time I began working at a job were a co-worker was actually a Messianic Jew, and based on our interactions...I became myself again...understanding and correlating a lot of what I uncovered as a Neo-Pythagorean, and correlating it to information I figured out for myself in my teenage years.
This brought light to a lot of things that the majority aren't aware of in modern society given the church I became affiliated with was a "black hebrew israelite" church. They shed some light on a lot of topics that nobody else was able to decipher, and things became much more abundantly clear. I could now substantiate that modern Christians aren't Christians at all (or as I was saying in my teenage years...organized religion is like organized crime), and understood why even Orthodox Jews aren't Jews.
I don't say any of that as a mode to hate anybody for anything, however I did get a lot of "hate" from family, co-workers, etc...just because I changed my dynamic...and now everybody seemed to be keen to try to demerit me and my position. Without lifting a finger to harm anybody; I've endured a lot as a Messianic Jew in the workplace where Messianic Jews are highly discriminated against (most companies will try to use lean manufacturing techniques to pressure those that are "religious" into not following the Holy Days as it would cause too much of a "hardship" on the company...despite being given many months in advance notice.)
So after having dealt with that level of peer pressure in the workplace for years; I started working in the Gig Economy where I could earn a living for myself without having to concern myself with requesting time off, and I had a few years of nearly absolute peace and solitude. I had my growing pains being self employed, but I managed. Then came COVID, and it became much more prominent once again how "religion" is being shunned by the very government whose duty it is to protect our rights and our freedoms. Others began to feel my pain, and feel the pressure from the government that weren't even religious in nature. It was during this time that I uncovered A LOT more truths that are undeniable, and given the prominent position of my particular state (New York) of trying to mitigate the religious freedom of its' citizens even prior to COVID (Andrew Cuomo months prior to COVID forced the Amish to vaccinate their children, or he would fine them and/or close their schools). This was a no bueno situation all over again, and now I was back in the game.
I researched what gave the state the authority to force people to vaccinate against their religious principles, and likewise why they were forced to use masks historically against their will. After watching all of the police brutality (but still supporting the police in general...just noting that there are some bad eggs); I saw too many police enforcing policy rather than the law and violating the rights of the people in general. I have police officers in my family, and a lot of my family don't like the fact that I don't "respect" anybody...the truth is the truth, and if the truth hurts feelings...I'm not the type to cower from telling people the truth. The concept, which likewise applies to this case with my own situation with police brutality, is "to have respect to persons is to commit sin." Having held the federal security clearance of High Security Public Trust where I likewise asserted my 1st amendment rights with the investigator that stated that I was "free"; I've always exercised my right freely with impunity.
So given the blatant attack on Christianity by the democrats, and noting history (as illustrated in other sections of this website); I felt it necessary to assert my rights in a more profound method by going up against secular culture no different than how secular culture has been invading the free exercise of the church. This wasn't an attack on the police in general; it was an assertion of my rights which the state (federal as well as each individual) have been attacking for many decades...long prior to me even being born. This isn't a matter of "bad police"...this is a matter of teaching the state some truth that it may not be familiar with to help eliminate the hate crimes that are going on in society currently, and hopefully bring about a peaceful solution to our current arguments between both party lines (which in my eyes are like 2 kids fighting in a sand box).
I have enough knowledge, as this website will illustrate, to debunk Modern Christians as not being Christian, and likewise Orthodox Jews as not being Jews. It's a facts over feelings dynamic, and the majority are prideful. Likewise I'll illustrate how both evolution theory as well as the Big Bang theory are riddled with conjecture, and aren't actually based in actual science. That said, that's 3 "religions" I can currently debunk...and eventually I'll get to the Ishmaelites aka Muslims...which likewise follow the vain traditions of men.
The purpose of the saints it to teach people how to love, for all have sinned and some short of the glory of YAH; however the majority follow the vain traditions of men, and as such...don't know what's truly going on in the world.
That all said; the free exercise aspect of the videos that were being asserted is "no other gods before me" (the police aren't deities). "to have respect to persons is to commit sin", "rebuking devils" (as anybody that chooses to disobey YAHWEH and his 10 commandments willfully are children of HaShatan aka "devils"), and preventing the police from trying to instill a secular mindset on the church. Just as with the Supreme Court Case of Marbury v Madison where it was asserted that anything that is repugnant to the constitution is automatically null and void, when it comes to the 10 commandments; anything that is repugnant is considered blasphemy. Given the situation caused no harm to person nor their property (hence no victim, no crime), and the only reason why I went through the stop sign was due to the sunset being in my eyes and not being able to properly see the sign...traffic RULES are there for a reason, and I do follow them diligently like the majority to the best of my ability...however I make mistakes (like the majority). I've likewise noticed the police making these same "blunders"...*cough* *cough*...so I think they're being a little pious and utilizing conjecture to deprive people of their rights...which is extortion.
That said, I agree with the "sovereign" citizens and the "state nationals" that have a similar argument; however as the church (the church being the people, not a place); I utilized my immunity under the constitution (my rights, which are unalienable) to hopefully teach the government that it's overreaching, and needs to take a step back; for the health, safety, welfare, and public good of the citizens...it's a matter of citizen safety. We are not subject to public servants, they are subject to us.
Below are the videos for quick access so you don't have to scroll through the site to find them, and beneath the videos will be all of the rights under the United States Constitution, New York State Constitution, as well as NYS Civil Rights code that were violated in this encounter. Keep in mind that to violate a single right of a citizen is a crime; which in New York State is penal code 195.00 (official misconduct); which is grounds for impeachment to which not even the governor of the state can pardon. I'll also be posting in full detail all of the penal code violations, as well as federal codes that were violated during this encounter...which shows well beyond a reasonable doubt that the actions of the police in this encounter were direct violations of my rights, and as such (if I were to press charges), they could be facing life imprisonment or even the death penalty...let alone the extremely large civil lawsuit the municipality could face for proceeding the way that they have to try to mitigate me representing myself "pro se"; which likewise is my right.
Back in the 90's; America endured Ruby Ridge (likewise Messianic Jews) as well as Waco; which made a lot of Christians take notice given the blatant violations of the 1st and 2nd amendment. Prior to 9/11, Bush was pushing for the Patriot Act, and after 9/11.,.he was able to push it through which alienated me from the Republican Party; but I still never affiliated myself with the Democrat Party. The only time in history I ever voted was for John Kerry in 2000 as I was an environmentalist (and still am to a degree), and I haven't voted since. I rely primarily on the 1st amendment "separation of church and state", and as such, I never saw the need to affiliate myself with the government nor politics as I've always seen all politicians as corrupt. I spent a few years at Cornell University (my ex girlfriends alma mater) while she was attending; neglecting my own education in process...however I did nearly complete a 2 year engineering degree. Prior to graduating high school; I had college credits in Calculus, History, Computer Information Systems, Psychology, and Sociology.
Noting a lot of conflict even while attending school with students not being able to pray, nor being able to have gatherings at school that were religious in nature...I was a bit concerned with how students were being taught to be subservient to an invisible authority which condemns them from being able to express themselves freely in a scholastic situation...despite the very principles of our constitution stating clearly that they have that right.
Given I've always adhered primarily to simple principles such as "love thy neighbor as thyself", and "do unto others as you'd have done unto you"...I never really got mixed up with the "wrong crowd". A crew I spent my late teenage early twenty years with considered themselves to be more "scientific"...however I read a good portion of the Bible myself at that point and understood the dynamic that the Bible is about being a Jew from front to back...however I didn't know there were others out there like me that understood the same principles (I didn't know Ruby Ridge was about Messianic Jews until a few years ago; long after I became one myself). My ex girlfriend, proclaiming evolution theory to be true without any scientific evidence to support her claims beyond conjecture, did eventually get me to "break" from my "religious" values after we broke up...to which I then became a Neo-Pythagorean (you may recognize the name from the Pythagorean theorem) The Pythagoreans were a secret society that didn't see a disparity between "science" and "religion"; and neither do I. Having a high aptitude which, if I applied myself, could have landed me potentially in Mensa...I was a vegetarian for a period of time and focused primarily on scientific aspirations...such as artificial intelligence.
During this time I had some issues that could be perceived as mental health related (PTSD as I see it now, as well as a bad diet from being a very poor vegetarian); I still didn't ever commit a crime with my worst "crime" being pirating software and music to which I was never "caught". Things happened, I read up more clearly on the Pythagoreans and found out that they worshipped the sun, utilized pentagrams to identify themselves, had concepts such as "the evil eye" (which stems from the Bible)...and I looked into a lot of symbolism used not only by them, but by other "ancient" cultures; noting that even the "Star of David" is actually a symbol of Baal. Around this time I began working at a job were a co-worker was actually a Messianic Jew, and based on our interactions...I became myself again...understanding and correlating a lot of what I uncovered as a Neo-Pythagorean, and correlating it to information I figured out for myself in my teenage years.
This brought light to a lot of things that the majority aren't aware of in modern society given the church I became affiliated with was a "black hebrew israelite" church. They shed some light on a lot of topics that nobody else was able to decipher, and things became much more abundantly clear. I could now substantiate that modern Christians aren't Christians at all (or as I was saying in my teenage years...organized religion is like organized crime), and understood why even Orthodox Jews aren't Jews.
I don't say any of that as a mode to hate anybody for anything, however I did get a lot of "hate" from family, co-workers, etc...just because I changed my dynamic...and now everybody seemed to be keen to try to demerit me and my position. Without lifting a finger to harm anybody; I've endured a lot as a Messianic Jew in the workplace where Messianic Jews are highly discriminated against (most companies will try to use lean manufacturing techniques to pressure those that are "religious" into not following the Holy Days as it would cause too much of a "hardship" on the company...despite being given many months in advance notice.)
So after having dealt with that level of peer pressure in the workplace for years; I started working in the Gig Economy where I could earn a living for myself without having to concern myself with requesting time off, and I had a few years of nearly absolute peace and solitude. I had my growing pains being self employed, but I managed. Then came COVID, and it became much more prominent once again how "religion" is being shunned by the very government whose duty it is to protect our rights and our freedoms. Others began to feel my pain, and feel the pressure from the government that weren't even religious in nature. It was during this time that I uncovered A LOT more truths that are undeniable, and given the prominent position of my particular state (New York) of trying to mitigate the religious freedom of its' citizens even prior to COVID (Andrew Cuomo months prior to COVID forced the Amish to vaccinate their children, or he would fine them and/or close their schools). This was a no bueno situation all over again, and now I was back in the game.
I researched what gave the state the authority to force people to vaccinate against their religious principles, and likewise why they were forced to use masks historically against their will. After watching all of the police brutality (but still supporting the police in general...just noting that there are some bad eggs); I saw too many police enforcing policy rather than the law and violating the rights of the people in general. I have police officers in my family, and a lot of my family don't like the fact that I don't "respect" anybody...the truth is the truth, and if the truth hurts feelings...I'm not the type to cower from telling people the truth. The concept, which likewise applies to this case with my own situation with police brutality, is "to have respect to persons is to commit sin." Having held the federal security clearance of High Security Public Trust where I likewise asserted my 1st amendment rights with the investigator that stated that I was "free"; I've always exercised my right freely with impunity.
So given the blatant attack on Christianity by the democrats, and noting history (as illustrated in other sections of this website); I felt it necessary to assert my rights in a more profound method by going up against secular culture no different than how secular culture has been invading the free exercise of the church. This wasn't an attack on the police in general; it was an assertion of my rights which the state (federal as well as each individual) have been attacking for many decades...long prior to me even being born. This isn't a matter of "bad police"...this is a matter of teaching the state some truth that it may not be familiar with to help eliminate the hate crimes that are going on in society currently, and hopefully bring about a peaceful solution to our current arguments between both party lines (which in my eyes are like 2 kids fighting in a sand box).
I have enough knowledge, as this website will illustrate, to debunk Modern Christians as not being Christian, and likewise Orthodox Jews as not being Jews. It's a facts over feelings dynamic, and the majority are prideful. Likewise I'll illustrate how both evolution theory as well as the Big Bang theory are riddled with conjecture, and aren't actually based in actual science. That said, that's 3 "religions" I can currently debunk...and eventually I'll get to the Ishmaelites aka Muslims...which likewise follow the vain traditions of men.
The purpose of the saints it to teach people how to love, for all have sinned and some short of the glory of YAH; however the majority follow the vain traditions of men, and as such...don't know what's truly going on in the world.
That all said; the free exercise aspect of the videos that were being asserted is "no other gods before me" (the police aren't deities). "to have respect to persons is to commit sin", "rebuking devils" (as anybody that chooses to disobey YAHWEH and his 10 commandments willfully are children of HaShatan aka "devils"), and preventing the police from trying to instill a secular mindset on the church. Just as with the Supreme Court Case of Marbury v Madison where it was asserted that anything that is repugnant to the constitution is automatically null and void, when it comes to the 10 commandments; anything that is repugnant is considered blasphemy. Given the situation caused no harm to person nor their property (hence no victim, no crime), and the only reason why I went through the stop sign was due to the sunset being in my eyes and not being able to properly see the sign...traffic RULES are there for a reason, and I do follow them diligently like the majority to the best of my ability...however I make mistakes (like the majority). I've likewise noticed the police making these same "blunders"...*cough* *cough*...so I think they're being a little pious and utilizing conjecture to deprive people of their rights...which is extortion.
That said, I agree with the "sovereign" citizens and the "state nationals" that have a similar argument; however as the church (the church being the people, not a place); I utilized my immunity under the constitution (my rights, which are unalienable) to hopefully teach the government that it's overreaching, and needs to take a step back; for the health, safety, welfare, and public good of the citizens...it's a matter of citizen safety. We are not subject to public servants, they are subject to us.
Below are the videos for quick access so you don't have to scroll through the site to find them, and beneath the videos will be all of the rights under the United States Constitution, New York State Constitution, as well as NYS Civil Rights code that were violated in this encounter. Keep in mind that to violate a single right of a citizen is a crime; which in New York State is penal code 195.00 (official misconduct); which is grounds for impeachment to which not even the governor of the state can pardon. I'll also be posting in full detail all of the penal code violations, as well as federal codes that were violated during this encounter...which shows well beyond a reasonable doubt that the actions of the police in this encounter were direct violations of my rights, and as such (if I were to press charges), they could be facing life imprisonment or even the death penalty...let alone the extremely large civil lawsuit the municipality could face for proceeding the way that they have to try to mitigate me representing myself "pro se"; which likewise is my right.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Article VI - Section 2 - Supremacy Clause - United States Constitution
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
My Commentary
Ok, so here’s the 1st amendment of the United States Constitution, as well as Article 1 Section 3 of the New York State Constitution in regards to the free exercise of religion, as well as freedom of speech. I asserted my 1st amendment rights as well as 9th and 10th amendment rights in the interaction with the police. Under the 1st amendment, congress can't pass a law that prohibits the free exercise (put into action, not just mere belief) of religion (indirectly or directly), and as such, the judicial nor the executive branch (police or judges) can enforce that law...as it's unconstitutional.
Under the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution, it's the Supreme Law of the Land...meaning anything that is repugnant to the constitution (such as the rights of the people which are unalienable) is automatically null and void. Under the Federalist Papers, it's clear that our founding fathers preferred a Republic over a Democracy; where the individual rights of the citizens supersedes any state or federal authority.
In this case, as a Messianic Jew; anybody that doesn't obey YAHWEH and his commandments are the children of HaShatan (that would include the police), and just as anything that is repugnant to the US Constitution is automatically null and void, anything that is repugnant to the 10 commandments is blasphemy. In this case, YAHWEH's laws are the Ultimate Law of the World; YAHWEH being the creator of everything.
So, ignoring their oath of office and calling me citing Marbury v Madison, the 1st amendment, the 9th amendment, as well as the 10th amendment (which gives the state any authority not designated to the federal government OR THE PEOPLE...which are rights are secured under the federal constitution), they basically tried to assert authority they were never given with their primary purpose being to server and protect the citizens by protecting their rights...any other law is secondary and can't violate the rights of the people.
So the initial argument was that the traffic infraction (which isn't a crime, as a crime requires intent as well as a victim, unless it's negligence which still requires a victim) was blasphemy (trying to instill a secular mentality on the church...where the church is the people, not a place). As such, I was also trying to assert my Christian name (Obadyah), to help emphasis other aspects of the free exercise (put into action) such as rebuking devils, speaking with authority, being fearless such as when they were threatening me with arrest for not complying to their illegal demands, having respect to persons is to commit sin (so the police requiring me to respect them is actually them trying to force me to commit sin), etc...
Now given I was falsely arrested despite calling 911 and providing my full legal name (as it's written on my drivers license....however my Christian name isn't found on my drivers license), as well as drivers license number (given I know that the police love to escalate the situation per plenty of TikTok and YouTube videos showing that when people try to assert their rights, they ignore their rights and escalate the situation into criminal activity to try to assert some level of dominance over the situation) knowing full well that case law substantiates that a drivers license isn't required to identify with the police (proving that they don't know the law); to which they continued to threaten me and falsely arrested me anyway which in turn violated Title 18 Section 241 - Conspiracy against rights, Title 18 Section 242 - deprivation of rights under the color of law (with false arrest being kidnapping which in turn is life imprisonment or the death penalty), Penal Code 195.00 - Official Misconduct (depriving a citizen of a benefit aka right) which is grounds for impeachment to which not even the governor of the state can pardon.
After the fact, when I asserted my rights with the DA (given I emailed the City Attorneys a plea offer and received no response, and hence filed a complaint with the Federal Division of Civil Rights on the police)...she tried to have me remanded under a 730 psych eval (unconstitutional as it violates due process of law where I'm to be presumed innocent until proven guilty, likewise again the 1st amendment where the state doesn't have the authority to begin with, and lastly...even under the NYS Constitution...it states quite clearly that I can't be deemed incompetent...proving that the DA doesn't know the law, nor "what a crime is" as she proclaimed I didn't know, let alone the "consequences" and "jail time" she could receive for violating the law (Title 18 Section 242 - deprivation of rights under the color of law with the attempt to remand me being attempted kidnapping with the penalty being up to life imprisonment or the death penalty)...likewise Title 18 Section 241 - Conspiracy against rights, Penal Code 195.00 - Official Misconduct, Title 18 Section 2381 - Treason, Title 18 Section 2382 - Misprision of treason which all likewise applies to the judge whom likewise violated his oath of office to both constitutions when he said he was obligated to remand me per her request (despite the constitutions stating otherwise, and in fact...proclaiming that his obligation is to the US Constitution meaning he likewise doesn't know the law...and yet practices the law). So yeah, fun times...I ignored the Court Order after I was illegally deemed incompetent by the forensic psychiatrists where I validated with facts that I was asserting my rights, and that I didn't commit a crime (even if I wasn't asserting the separation of church and state, I did identify, I intended to identify with my Christian name which isn't found on my drivers license, and given there wasn't any criminal negligence in the traffic infraction...the police likewise violated due process of law and my rights substantially with the false arrest etc...). The purpose of the psych evals was a coercive tactic to try to get me to concede to having the public defender REPRESENT me, and hence give me a plea offer to where I take accountability for the police abusing their power. The public defender stated "I think you have to give them your license" when I advised that I did identify, which was clear enough for me that he doesn't know case law, and wasn't going to defend my rights. So here's both the 1st Amendment as well as Article 1 Section 3 of the NYS Constitution which substantiates my position; allowing conscientious objections to the free exercise as long as the objections aren't licentious (depriving other people of their rights). I caused no injury to person, nor property...hence my actionis weren't licentious.
Under the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution, it's the Supreme Law of the Land...meaning anything that is repugnant to the constitution (such as the rights of the people which are unalienable) is automatically null and void. Under the Federalist Papers, it's clear that our founding fathers preferred a Republic over a Democracy; where the individual rights of the citizens supersedes any state or federal authority.
In this case, as a Messianic Jew; anybody that doesn't obey YAHWEH and his commandments are the children of HaShatan (that would include the police), and just as anything that is repugnant to the US Constitution is automatically null and void, anything that is repugnant to the 10 commandments is blasphemy. In this case, YAHWEH's laws are the Ultimate Law of the World; YAHWEH being the creator of everything.
So, ignoring their oath of office and calling me citing Marbury v Madison, the 1st amendment, the 9th amendment, as well as the 10th amendment (which gives the state any authority not designated to the federal government OR THE PEOPLE...which are rights are secured under the federal constitution), they basically tried to assert authority they were never given with their primary purpose being to server and protect the citizens by protecting their rights...any other law is secondary and can't violate the rights of the people.
So the initial argument was that the traffic infraction (which isn't a crime, as a crime requires intent as well as a victim, unless it's negligence which still requires a victim) was blasphemy (trying to instill a secular mentality on the church...where the church is the people, not a place). As such, I was also trying to assert my Christian name (Obadyah), to help emphasis other aspects of the free exercise (put into action) such as rebuking devils, speaking with authority, being fearless such as when they were threatening me with arrest for not complying to their illegal demands, having respect to persons is to commit sin (so the police requiring me to respect them is actually them trying to force me to commit sin), etc...
Now given I was falsely arrested despite calling 911 and providing my full legal name (as it's written on my drivers license....however my Christian name isn't found on my drivers license), as well as drivers license number (given I know that the police love to escalate the situation per plenty of TikTok and YouTube videos showing that when people try to assert their rights, they ignore their rights and escalate the situation into criminal activity to try to assert some level of dominance over the situation) knowing full well that case law substantiates that a drivers license isn't required to identify with the police (proving that they don't know the law); to which they continued to threaten me and falsely arrested me anyway which in turn violated Title 18 Section 241 - Conspiracy against rights, Title 18 Section 242 - deprivation of rights under the color of law (with false arrest being kidnapping which in turn is life imprisonment or the death penalty), Penal Code 195.00 - Official Misconduct (depriving a citizen of a benefit aka right) which is grounds for impeachment to which not even the governor of the state can pardon.
After the fact, when I asserted my rights with the DA (given I emailed the City Attorneys a plea offer and received no response, and hence filed a complaint with the Federal Division of Civil Rights on the police)...she tried to have me remanded under a 730 psych eval (unconstitutional as it violates due process of law where I'm to be presumed innocent until proven guilty, likewise again the 1st amendment where the state doesn't have the authority to begin with, and lastly...even under the NYS Constitution...it states quite clearly that I can't be deemed incompetent...proving that the DA doesn't know the law, nor "what a crime is" as she proclaimed I didn't know, let alone the "consequences" and "jail time" she could receive for violating the law (Title 18 Section 242 - deprivation of rights under the color of law with the attempt to remand me being attempted kidnapping with the penalty being up to life imprisonment or the death penalty)...likewise Title 18 Section 241 - Conspiracy against rights, Penal Code 195.00 - Official Misconduct, Title 18 Section 2381 - Treason, Title 18 Section 2382 - Misprision of treason which all likewise applies to the judge whom likewise violated his oath of office to both constitutions when he said he was obligated to remand me per her request (despite the constitutions stating otherwise, and in fact...proclaiming that his obligation is to the US Constitution meaning he likewise doesn't know the law...and yet practices the law). So yeah, fun times...I ignored the Court Order after I was illegally deemed incompetent by the forensic psychiatrists where I validated with facts that I was asserting my rights, and that I didn't commit a crime (even if I wasn't asserting the separation of church and state, I did identify, I intended to identify with my Christian name which isn't found on my drivers license, and given there wasn't any criminal negligence in the traffic infraction...the police likewise violated due process of law and my rights substantially with the false arrest etc...). The purpose of the psych evals was a coercive tactic to try to get me to concede to having the public defender REPRESENT me, and hence give me a plea offer to where I take accountability for the police abusing their power. The public defender stated "I think you have to give them your license" when I advised that I did identify, which was clear enough for me that he doesn't know case law, and wasn't going to defend my rights. So here's both the 1st Amendment as well as Article 1 Section 3 of the NYS Constitution which substantiates my position; allowing conscientious objections to the free exercise as long as the objections aren't licentious (depriving other people of their rights). I caused no injury to person, nor property...hence my actionis weren't licentious.
Amendment I (1791) - United States Constitution
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.
Article I - Section 3 - NYS Constitution
[Freedom of worship; religious liberty]
§3. The free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without discrimination or preference, shall forever be allowed in this state to all humankind; and no person shall be rendered incompetent to be a witness on account of his or her opinions on matters of religious belief; but the liberty of conscience hereby secured shall not be so construed as to excuse acts of licentiousness, or justify practices inconsistent with the peace or safety of this state. (Amended by vote of the people November 6, 2001.)
§3. The free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without discrimination or preference, shall forever be allowed in this state to all humankind; and no person shall be rendered incompetent to be a witness on account of his or her opinions on matters of religious belief; but the liberty of conscience hereby secured shall not be so construed as to excuse acts of licentiousness, or justify practices inconsistent with the peace or safety of this state. (Amended by vote of the people November 6, 2001.)
Article I - Section 8 - NYS Constitution
[Freedom of speech and press; criminal prosecutions for libel]
§8. Every citizen may freely speak, write and publish his or her sentiments on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of that right; and no law shall be passed to restrain or abridge the liberty of speech or of the press. In all criminal prosecutions or indictments for libels, the truth may be given in evidence to the jury; and if it shall appear to the jury that the matter charged as libelous is true, and was published with good motives and for justifiable ends, the party shall be acquitted; and the jury shall have the right to determine
the law and the fact. (Amended by vote of the people November 6, 2001.)
§8. Every citizen may freely speak, write and publish his or her sentiments on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of that right; and no law shall be passed to restrain or abridge the liberty of speech or of the press. In all criminal prosecutions or indictments for libels, the truth may be given in evidence to the jury; and if it shall appear to the jury that the matter charged as libelous is true, and was published with good motives and for justifiable ends, the party shall be acquitted; and the jury shall have the right to determine
the law and the fact. (Amended by vote of the people November 6, 2001.)
My Commentary
Under the United States Constitution, it’s clear that congress can’t pass a law that prohibits the free exercise of religion; so if congress can’t pass a law that prohibits the free exercise of religion (directly or indirectly), then the executive nor the judicial has the authority to enforce that law given it’s considered unconstitutional. Have the courts ruled in favor of secular mentality historically? Yes, however their rulings are a violation of constitutional standards, and if the parties so injured by the bad illegal judgments were to appeal, or even charge the judges accordingly for official misconduct…we’d have change in our society.
Each state has their own constitution; which by definition is considered statutes and not laws as if they are repugnant to the United States Constitution, they are automatically null and void per one of our founding Supreme Court rulings in Marbury v Madison. Article VI Section 2 of the United States Constitution states clearly that it’s the supreme law of the land, and as such, anything that is repugnant is not a law (American Jurisprudence- Unconstitutional Acts).
Given I was asserting my rights under the federal constitution; I did proclaim my sovereignty to the police in asserting my rights as they are protected on the federal level, noting that they didn’t have the authority nor the jurisdiction. If I were inclined, I could have escalated the case to federal court under Rule 12; however I’m adamant on the lower level courts abiding by our rights (to which they are bound again under Article VI Section 2). Knowing that my rights are likewise protected under the New York State Constitution- Article 1 Section 3 as noted - I likewise knew that the case could be escalated to the New York State Supreme Court that deals with civil rights in the state.
The question, you may ask, is what particular aspect of the 1st amendment and likewise Article 1 Section 3 right was I directly asserting during a traffic stop? The answer is simple if you understand the dynamics of true Christianity.
1.). My name, as a prophet (part of the ministry per Ephesians 4:11), is to declare YAHWEH’s divinity globally. As such, my Christian name is Obadyah (which translates to “Servant of YAH” in Hebrew. This can also be considered a common law name as every person has the right to change their name under the common law without requiring it to be on a government issue ID as long as they use it consistently, and without intent to defraud per section 64-a(4) of the NYS Civil Rights code. So basically, my initial intent for the majority of the interaction was to identify with that Christian name; and citing me with failure to identify is false arrest as I was trying to identify, and in order for anything to be a crime; there has to be intent.
2.). Why is the name so important? By identifying with my Christian name, I could explain in detail how the police were violating my rights with the main principle of true Christianity being “breaking the chains” from a secular state. As such, given I caused no harm to person nor property; the police were unwittingly trying to instill a secular mentality on the church (the church being the people, not a place), which in turn is a violation of secular law in and of itself (blasphemy, prohibiting public worship etc…) as they are in essence acting like deities when the primary purpose of the government is to protect the rights of the people.
3.). Given to have respect to persons is to commit sin, by arguing with the church in their dynamic, they were demanding that I respect them; or in short, that I commit sin in favor of their vanity.
4.). Anybody that is disobedient to YAHWEH and his commandments (which would mean all police and public officials that enforce secular law) would be considered devils; favoring their vanity rather than being obedient to YAHWEH, and as such…rebuking devils applies.
There are a multitude of other dynamics that go along with the free exercise, such as my calling the LT incompetent basically when I declared that anybody that calls December the 12th month when it literally means the 10th aren't mentally sound. The concept with that statement is that the majority are locked into a group think mentality; either believing modern Christians are actually Christians, Orthodox aka Ashkenazi Jews are actually Jews, or a multitude of other dynamics such as believing in evolution theory or the Big Bang theory under the pretense that they've been justified scientifically, despite there being no literal evidence to support either case.
As indicated in the Video section of the site currently, and inevitably on other portions of the site; I will detail the fallacies of the perceptions of evolution theory as well as the Big Bang theory; which have a primary purpose of trying to establish "peace" between the Abrahamic faiths. In that exact sense, I likewise want peace, however I focus on truth rather than orchestrated fictions based on feelings. Currently I can debunk those 3 "religions" as I see them with literal, undeniable facts, and I'm still working on the Ishmaelites aka Muslims whom likewise follow the vain traditions of men.
You can argue that traffic statues (which aren’t laws) are there for public health and safety; as if you disobey them they can cause accidents, but the same argument could be applied to how people, by proclaiming their rights likewise under the 1st amendment (freedom from establishment) cause literal harm and injury to others based on their assertion of their rights.
if you refer to the NYS Executive Code for the law enforcement misconduct investigation office section 75(d) it states:
(d) The mission of the law enforcement misconduct investigative office shall be to review, study, audit and make recommendations relating to the operations, policies, programs and practices, including ongoing partnerships with other law enforcement agencies, of state and local law enforcement agencies with the goal of enhancing the effectiveness of law enforcement, increasing public safety, protecting civil liberties and civil rights, ensuring compliance with constitutional protections and local, state and federal laws, and increasing the public's confidence i`n law enforcement.
Likewise, under Section 290(2-3) of the executive code, it states:
2. It shall be deemed an exercise of the police power of the state for the protection of the public welfare, health and peace of the people of this state, and in fulfillment of the provisions of the constitution of this state concerning civil rights.
3. The legislature hereby finds and declares that the state has the responsibility to act to assure that every individual within this state is afforded an equal opportunity to enjoy a full and productive life and that the failure to provide such equal opportunity, whether because of discrimination, prejudice, intolerance or inadequate education, training, housing or health care not only threatens the rights and proper privileges of its inhabitants but menaces the institutions and foundation of a free democratic state and threatens the peace, order, health, safety and general welfare of the state and its inhabitants.
And then you have to take into consideration that by asserting my rights (freedom of exercise of religion), and ignoring those rights; they’re also criminal in regards to hate crimes. Or, as NYS Executive Code 837(4-c(a)) states:
4-c. (a) In cooperation with the chief administrator of the courts as well as any other public or private agency, including law enforcement agencies, collect, maintain, analyze and make public statistical and all other information and data with respect to the number of hate crimes reported to or investigated by the division of state police, and all other police or peace officers, the number of persons arrested for the commission of such crimes, the offense for which the person was arrested, the demographic data of the victim or victims of such crimes including, but not limited to, race, color, national origin, ancestry, gender, gender identity or expression, religion, religious practice, age, disability or sexual orientation of a person, the demographic data of the person or persons arrested for the commission of such crimes including, but not limited to, race, color, national origin, ancestry, gender, gender identity or expression, religion, religious practice, age, disability or sexual orientation of a person, the county within which the arrest was made and the accusatory instrument filed, the disposition of the accusatory instrument filed, including, but not limited to, as the case may be, dismissal, acquittal, the offense to which the defendant pled guilty, the offense the defendant was convicted of after trial, and the sentence imposed. Data collected shall be used for research or statistical purposes only and shall not contain information that may reveal the identity of any individual. The division shall include the statistics and other information required by this subdivision in an annual report submitted to the governor, the speaker of the assembly, the temporary president of the senate, the chair of the assembly codes committee, the chair of the senate codes committee, the attorney general and the chief administrative judge of the office of court administration. Such annual reports shall be a public record. (b) The division shall promulgate regulations related to the use and collection of a "hate crime demographic data form". The regulations shall address the appropriate methods and timing of collection of the demographic data included in paragraph (a) of this subdivision. The division shall consider the manner of collection which will be most conducive to respecting victims while collecting necessary information that will assist the state in providing adequate victim support services and additional programming to decrease the likelihood of such hate crimes occurring, and best practices for collection of the data. Information disclosed on the hate crime victim demographic data form or the hate crime defendant demographic data form shall be used only to assist the division in complying with paragraph (a) of this subdivision and shall not be used in any administrative or judicial proceeding.
Then there’s the hate crime task force as cited in NYS Executive Code section 216(2)(a):
2. (a) There shall be within the bureau of criminal investigation a hate crime task force. The superintendent shall assign to it such personnel as may be required for the purpose of preventing, investigating, and detecting hate crimes as defined in article four hundred eighty-five and sections 240.30 and 240.31 of the penal law. When at all possible, the task force members shall assist and support other law enforcement agencies in preventing, investigating, and detecting offenses committed due to a perception or belief regarding the race, color, national origin, ancestry, gender, religion, religious practice, age, disability or sexual orientation of a person.
Most of which covers my protections under the 1st amendment, as well as Article I Section 3 of the NYS Constitution; which were blatantly ignored in the interaction. Again, the main purpose of me asserting my rights in this interaction despite being "compliant" (or what could be considered complacent) is due to a multitude of factors primarily directed on the well known fact that the Democrats are prominently attacking the right of the people to exercise their faith, and utilizing conjecture to orchestrate their hate crimes under the pretense that the other party is riddled with hate.
I won't argue that some of the arguments made by the Democrats have merit, however their attacks are on the perceptions of what Christianity is, and their attacks are literally anti-semitic in nature given that they don't understand that the Bible from front to back is all about becoming a Jew; with the Torah being what YAHWEH requires Israel to follow, and lead by example...similar to how the Constitution is a limitation of the secular government over the people. This is why the church and the state are literally like oil and water; they don't mix. The state is here to protect the rights of the people, not to take away the rights under any pretense of authority.
Now, given my first amendment rights were violated, and I was arrested under false pretenses; likewise these other rights were violated in process.
Prior to my initial court appearance, I was openly contesting having to go at all (to put it into biblical terms, the state is calling me a "sinner" (that's what a sin is, is breaking YAHWEH's laws), and hence they are acting like a deity trying to punish me for exercising my rights. Given I believe whole heartedly in the complete separation of church and state; it's utilizing conjecture to have authority over the church when the government was never given that authority. Since I didn't know how to proceed with the argument, I filed a complaint with the Federal Division of Civil Rights in regards to having to even show up to court, to which I received an email response (I likewise mentioned the complete separation of church and state etc...as well as the problems with the police interaction) proclaiming interference with religious activities as well as hate crimes, however given the pending criminal procedure against me; they couldn't investigate themselves and advised me to contact the FBI. When I did show up to court, I advised the Public Defender (which I didn't even want to talk to) about Article VI Section 2, and he basically waived me away. When it was my turn to stand before the "judge", the Public Defender advised that I would be defending myself, I signed a few papers, gave my email address, and after court...was emailed "discovery" by the assistant DA and likewise sent an email that they were ready for trial. Given I had over a month to prepare as the initial appearance was on 6/22/23, I immediately emailed the DA back a long email about my first amendment immunity, my position as a "prophet" (proclaimer of the will of YAH...aka the 10 commandments...or per Ephesian 4:11...that I'm part of the ministry), as well as a word document attachment (which I had 2 copies in my position during the initial appearance, one for me, and one for the DA/Court) with all of the legal precedence for what transpired during the police interaction...only to not only not get a response from the assistant DA (whom should have dismissed the case in the interest of justice given to proceed any further would be a further violation of my rights), but to have the DA request a 730 psych eval for me asserting my free exercise (which, as noted in Article I Section 3 of the NYS Constitution is unconstitutional, as nobody can be deemed incompetent in regards to their beliefs); and I openly declared her discrimination in court and asserted the legal precedence she was provided...only to have the judge state that he was required to remand me as requested, however he wasn't going to...(which is attempted kidnapping). I promised I would go to the evaluations, however one other key note that was used is my assertion with the police that I could remove Joe Biden from office legally for the reason for the evaluation...and she also slandered me stating she didn't even think I knew what time it was, nor where I was as a means to justify her sentiment that I'm incompetent. The comment made during the police interaction was made after I had already called 911 to report their criminal activity (violating my rights), provided my full legal name as well as drivers license number, hung up after 911 advised that the LT was on his way, and then I said that to the LT when he likewise refused to listen to what I was saying, continued to threaten/coerce me into giving up my rights...so I made an indirect threat to push them back a little (which was justified given they were threatening me with arrest for asserting my rights). The argument I could make in regards to the comment being legal beyond just a 1st Amendment free speech and likewise Article I Section 8 NYS free speech protected activity is that the POTUS is not immune to criminal prosecutions while in office, and I did make a TikTok video (which I tweeted to him directly) charging him with treason due to the mask/vaccine mandates; which likewise violated the rights of the people.
Given the 730 is unconstitutional under the 1st amendment was well as Article I Section 3 of the NYS Constitution, they are automatically invalidated; however I went and I advised Brian Joseph of my position as a Messianic Jew, how I'm required to be strictly adherent to the 10 commandments, and likewise how the interaction with the police was a violation of Title 18 Section 242 - deprivation of rights under the color of law (which likewise applies to Public Health Care Workers). He obviously wasn't aware of the federal code, and proceeded anyway with asking questions...to which I asserted that I did call 911 and provided my identify...which nullifies the 730 criminal procedure as no crime was committed...to which he then states that going through a stop sign is a crime. I replied that I did my research, and validated that it wasn't a crime (a crime requires intent, and there was no intent, and it can't be criminal negligence given there is no victim).
During the second psych eval with Melissa, I again asserted my free exercise right. In this case, I didn't mention the 911 call and she was stating that the DA was going to "destroy" me...(I don't recall her exact words, but basically stating I was guilty prior to due process). She, similar to Officer Flores, put me into the sovereign citizen dynamic; however my rights are clearly enumerated. I advised her of my intent to identify with my Christian name (which can't be found on my drivers license), which is my right under the 1st amendment as well as the NYS Civil Rights Code, not to mention that the intent to identify with my Christian name was to further assert my other rights under the 1st amendment, such as not recognizing their authority given they aren't YAHWEH, to have respect to persons is to commit sin, not allowing them to instill secular mentality on the church etc...as previously indicated. Melissa proceeded to ask questions about my mental health history, to which I did provide details that I didn't provide to Brian Jospeh (I'll mention my history in full detail near the bottom of this page, as to not to detract from the principle that I was asserting my rights, and my seeking assistance 1.5 decades ago has no bearing whatsoever in regards to me asserting my rights in this police interaction). Eventually I got her to swing back to it being about my rights, how I was freely exercising those rights (just the name aspect as she was pressed for time), and she eventually was apologizing to me for wasting my time. A lot of the questions she was asking are the same simplistic assertions liberals aka Democrats utilize to demerit anybody that has faith in anything other than them...trying to call me psychotic, bipolar, schizophrenic, sociopathic, uneducated, unteachable, etc...which is harassment...until I called her out that I didn't even want to be there and it was unconstitutional. I likewise cited American Jurisprudence under Unconstitutional Acts that the judge isn't bound to enforce an unconstitutional act, and that's what made her start asking relevant questions in regards to the belief and how it applied to the interaction; hence why she was apologizing for wasting my time near the end.
Despite all that, in both instances I validated that I asserted my rights, what I did wasn't a crime, and with Melissa, I even asserted that I had 3 binders full of the law, I have no criminal history, I have 2 binders full of case law, etc...during my next court appearance I was deemed incompetent under the 730 evaluations. I likewise told Melissa that I had the right to appeal all the way up to the Supreme Court of both the State, as well as United States, which made her very uncomfortable. Under the 730, given I was representing myself pro se, I'm entitled to receive a copy of the evaluations myself, as well as an opportunity to cross examine the government witnesses. I wasn't given the paperwork, nor the option to file a motion for a hearing...despite the Final Order stating clearly that I was provided with the evaluations and that no motion for a hearing was filed (I wasn't given the opportunity).
Now, given I knew that they were probably going to railroad me, I sent an email the day following my arrest to the court clerk advising that my rights were violated. She advised to file a complaint with the police or hire an attorney, and when it came to requesting their oaths of offices; I should obtain those from the City Attorney if I remember correctly. I emailed the City Attorney a plea offer on a Christian dynamic (a simple apology would be appreciated, but not required, and to buy the officers a meal) that wasn't responded to (do good to those that harm and persecute you). After not getting a response to the plea offer (the initial email if I remember right was my intent to actually charge them for their crimes, and then I followed up with the plea offer), I filed a complaint with the Federal Division of Civil Rights in regards to how my rights were violated, why I didn't want to even show up to court etc...as previously mentioned. When the assistant DA tried to remand me for the psych evals, I waited for the paperwork to show up in the mail (I emailed her and the court clerk that it was unconstitutional, so I was checking to see if they were still going to proceed), and then I advised that I received the psych eval paperwork, will go as I made a promise to the judge that I would go, that again it was unconstitutional, and likewise I filed a second complaint on the assistant DA in regards to her violating my rights under the color of law.
I had the evaluations, was deemed incompetent unconstitutionally, and emailed the court clerk not even 20 minutes after leaving the court room that I didn't receive the evaluation paperwork, and that I wanted a copy so I can take the case to the New York Supreme court (I never received a response). When I got home late that night, I filed a 3rd complaint to the Federal Division of Civil Rights (the first 2 complaints they advised to contact the FBI as they can't interfere with a criminal prosecution, but also asserted the fact that my religious activities were being violated, and hate crimes). Now that the case (charges) were dismissed under the 730; they should be able to investigate and I didn't receive a response back yet (to my knowledge). I likewise advised in the complaint how the criminal procedure in and of itself wasn't adhered to...I wasn't provided the evaluations nor the opportunity to make a motion for a hearing.
I've since received 2 attempts to deliver, what I perceive to be, the institutionalization paperwork (per the 730 dismissal, I can be evaluated for a period no longer than 90 days); however when I received the first notice that they attempted to deliver the package (which requires a signature), I noticed where it was coming from, and advised them as well as the court clerk again that it's unconstitutional, provided full details of my mental health history (such that it can't be used against me), advised of where exactly I was asserting my rights, advised how to proceed in taking any further action against me is a violation of Title 18 Section 242 with the kidnapping or attempt to kidnap being cause for life imprisonment or even the death penalty...and also penal code 195.00 (official misconduct) to which not even the governor can pardon. Basically I told them "if you want to deprive me of my rights, yours can be taken away too", and that not even a court order can violate my rights.
Each state has their own constitution; which by definition is considered statutes and not laws as if they are repugnant to the United States Constitution, they are automatically null and void per one of our founding Supreme Court rulings in Marbury v Madison. Article VI Section 2 of the United States Constitution states clearly that it’s the supreme law of the land, and as such, anything that is repugnant is not a law (American Jurisprudence- Unconstitutional Acts).
Given I was asserting my rights under the federal constitution; I did proclaim my sovereignty to the police in asserting my rights as they are protected on the federal level, noting that they didn’t have the authority nor the jurisdiction. If I were inclined, I could have escalated the case to federal court under Rule 12; however I’m adamant on the lower level courts abiding by our rights (to which they are bound again under Article VI Section 2). Knowing that my rights are likewise protected under the New York State Constitution- Article 1 Section 3 as noted - I likewise knew that the case could be escalated to the New York State Supreme Court that deals with civil rights in the state.
The question, you may ask, is what particular aspect of the 1st amendment and likewise Article 1 Section 3 right was I directly asserting during a traffic stop? The answer is simple if you understand the dynamics of true Christianity.
1.). My name, as a prophet (part of the ministry per Ephesians 4:11), is to declare YAHWEH’s divinity globally. As such, my Christian name is Obadyah (which translates to “Servant of YAH” in Hebrew. This can also be considered a common law name as every person has the right to change their name under the common law without requiring it to be on a government issue ID as long as they use it consistently, and without intent to defraud per section 64-a(4) of the NYS Civil Rights code. So basically, my initial intent for the majority of the interaction was to identify with that Christian name; and citing me with failure to identify is false arrest as I was trying to identify, and in order for anything to be a crime; there has to be intent.
2.). Why is the name so important? By identifying with my Christian name, I could explain in detail how the police were violating my rights with the main principle of true Christianity being “breaking the chains” from a secular state. As such, given I caused no harm to person nor property; the police were unwittingly trying to instill a secular mentality on the church (the church being the people, not a place), which in turn is a violation of secular law in and of itself (blasphemy, prohibiting public worship etc…) as they are in essence acting like deities when the primary purpose of the government is to protect the rights of the people.
3.). Given to have respect to persons is to commit sin, by arguing with the church in their dynamic, they were demanding that I respect them; or in short, that I commit sin in favor of their vanity.
4.). Anybody that is disobedient to YAHWEH and his commandments (which would mean all police and public officials that enforce secular law) would be considered devils; favoring their vanity rather than being obedient to YAHWEH, and as such…rebuking devils applies.
There are a multitude of other dynamics that go along with the free exercise, such as my calling the LT incompetent basically when I declared that anybody that calls December the 12th month when it literally means the 10th aren't mentally sound. The concept with that statement is that the majority are locked into a group think mentality; either believing modern Christians are actually Christians, Orthodox aka Ashkenazi Jews are actually Jews, or a multitude of other dynamics such as believing in evolution theory or the Big Bang theory under the pretense that they've been justified scientifically, despite there being no literal evidence to support either case.
As indicated in the Video section of the site currently, and inevitably on other portions of the site; I will detail the fallacies of the perceptions of evolution theory as well as the Big Bang theory; which have a primary purpose of trying to establish "peace" between the Abrahamic faiths. In that exact sense, I likewise want peace, however I focus on truth rather than orchestrated fictions based on feelings. Currently I can debunk those 3 "religions" as I see them with literal, undeniable facts, and I'm still working on the Ishmaelites aka Muslims whom likewise follow the vain traditions of men.
You can argue that traffic statues (which aren’t laws) are there for public health and safety; as if you disobey them they can cause accidents, but the same argument could be applied to how people, by proclaiming their rights likewise under the 1st amendment (freedom from establishment) cause literal harm and injury to others based on their assertion of their rights.
if you refer to the NYS Executive Code for the law enforcement misconduct investigation office section 75(d) it states:
(d) The mission of the law enforcement misconduct investigative office shall be to review, study, audit and make recommendations relating to the operations, policies, programs and practices, including ongoing partnerships with other law enforcement agencies, of state and local law enforcement agencies with the goal of enhancing the effectiveness of law enforcement, increasing public safety, protecting civil liberties and civil rights, ensuring compliance with constitutional protections and local, state and federal laws, and increasing the public's confidence i`n law enforcement.
Likewise, under Section 290(2-3) of the executive code, it states:
2. It shall be deemed an exercise of the police power of the state for the protection of the public welfare, health and peace of the people of this state, and in fulfillment of the provisions of the constitution of this state concerning civil rights.
3. The legislature hereby finds and declares that the state has the responsibility to act to assure that every individual within this state is afforded an equal opportunity to enjoy a full and productive life and that the failure to provide such equal opportunity, whether because of discrimination, prejudice, intolerance or inadequate education, training, housing or health care not only threatens the rights and proper privileges of its inhabitants but menaces the institutions and foundation of a free democratic state and threatens the peace, order, health, safety and general welfare of the state and its inhabitants.
And then you have to take into consideration that by asserting my rights (freedom of exercise of religion), and ignoring those rights; they’re also criminal in regards to hate crimes. Or, as NYS Executive Code 837(4-c(a)) states:
4-c. (a) In cooperation with the chief administrator of the courts as well as any other public or private agency, including law enforcement agencies, collect, maintain, analyze and make public statistical and all other information and data with respect to the number of hate crimes reported to or investigated by the division of state police, and all other police or peace officers, the number of persons arrested for the commission of such crimes, the offense for which the person was arrested, the demographic data of the victim or victims of such crimes including, but not limited to, race, color, national origin, ancestry, gender, gender identity or expression, religion, religious practice, age, disability or sexual orientation of a person, the demographic data of the person or persons arrested for the commission of such crimes including, but not limited to, race, color, national origin, ancestry, gender, gender identity or expression, religion, religious practice, age, disability or sexual orientation of a person, the county within which the arrest was made and the accusatory instrument filed, the disposition of the accusatory instrument filed, including, but not limited to, as the case may be, dismissal, acquittal, the offense to which the defendant pled guilty, the offense the defendant was convicted of after trial, and the sentence imposed. Data collected shall be used for research or statistical purposes only and shall not contain information that may reveal the identity of any individual. The division shall include the statistics and other information required by this subdivision in an annual report submitted to the governor, the speaker of the assembly, the temporary president of the senate, the chair of the assembly codes committee, the chair of the senate codes committee, the attorney general and the chief administrative judge of the office of court administration. Such annual reports shall be a public record. (b) The division shall promulgate regulations related to the use and collection of a "hate crime demographic data form". The regulations shall address the appropriate methods and timing of collection of the demographic data included in paragraph (a) of this subdivision. The division shall consider the manner of collection which will be most conducive to respecting victims while collecting necessary information that will assist the state in providing adequate victim support services and additional programming to decrease the likelihood of such hate crimes occurring, and best practices for collection of the data. Information disclosed on the hate crime victim demographic data form or the hate crime defendant demographic data form shall be used only to assist the division in complying with paragraph (a) of this subdivision and shall not be used in any administrative or judicial proceeding.
Then there’s the hate crime task force as cited in NYS Executive Code section 216(2)(a):
2. (a) There shall be within the bureau of criminal investigation a hate crime task force. The superintendent shall assign to it such personnel as may be required for the purpose of preventing, investigating, and detecting hate crimes as defined in article four hundred eighty-five and sections 240.30 and 240.31 of the penal law. When at all possible, the task force members shall assist and support other law enforcement agencies in preventing, investigating, and detecting offenses committed due to a perception or belief regarding the race, color, national origin, ancestry, gender, religion, religious practice, age, disability or sexual orientation of a person.
Most of which covers my protections under the 1st amendment, as well as Article I Section 3 of the NYS Constitution; which were blatantly ignored in the interaction. Again, the main purpose of me asserting my rights in this interaction despite being "compliant" (or what could be considered complacent) is due to a multitude of factors primarily directed on the well known fact that the Democrats are prominently attacking the right of the people to exercise their faith, and utilizing conjecture to orchestrate their hate crimes under the pretense that the other party is riddled with hate.
I won't argue that some of the arguments made by the Democrats have merit, however their attacks are on the perceptions of what Christianity is, and their attacks are literally anti-semitic in nature given that they don't understand that the Bible from front to back is all about becoming a Jew; with the Torah being what YAHWEH requires Israel to follow, and lead by example...similar to how the Constitution is a limitation of the secular government over the people. This is why the church and the state are literally like oil and water; they don't mix. The state is here to protect the rights of the people, not to take away the rights under any pretense of authority.
Now, given my first amendment rights were violated, and I was arrested under false pretenses; likewise these other rights were violated in process.
Prior to my initial court appearance, I was openly contesting having to go at all (to put it into biblical terms, the state is calling me a "sinner" (that's what a sin is, is breaking YAHWEH's laws), and hence they are acting like a deity trying to punish me for exercising my rights. Given I believe whole heartedly in the complete separation of church and state; it's utilizing conjecture to have authority over the church when the government was never given that authority. Since I didn't know how to proceed with the argument, I filed a complaint with the Federal Division of Civil Rights in regards to having to even show up to court, to which I received an email response (I likewise mentioned the complete separation of church and state etc...as well as the problems with the police interaction) proclaiming interference with religious activities as well as hate crimes, however given the pending criminal procedure against me; they couldn't investigate themselves and advised me to contact the FBI. When I did show up to court, I advised the Public Defender (which I didn't even want to talk to) about Article VI Section 2, and he basically waived me away. When it was my turn to stand before the "judge", the Public Defender advised that I would be defending myself, I signed a few papers, gave my email address, and after court...was emailed "discovery" by the assistant DA and likewise sent an email that they were ready for trial. Given I had over a month to prepare as the initial appearance was on 6/22/23, I immediately emailed the DA back a long email about my first amendment immunity, my position as a "prophet" (proclaimer of the will of YAH...aka the 10 commandments...or per Ephesian 4:11...that I'm part of the ministry), as well as a word document attachment (which I had 2 copies in my position during the initial appearance, one for me, and one for the DA/Court) with all of the legal precedence for what transpired during the police interaction...only to not only not get a response from the assistant DA (whom should have dismissed the case in the interest of justice given to proceed any further would be a further violation of my rights), but to have the DA request a 730 psych eval for me asserting my free exercise (which, as noted in Article I Section 3 of the NYS Constitution is unconstitutional, as nobody can be deemed incompetent in regards to their beliefs); and I openly declared her discrimination in court and asserted the legal precedence she was provided...only to have the judge state that he was required to remand me as requested, however he wasn't going to...(which is attempted kidnapping). I promised I would go to the evaluations, however one other key note that was used is my assertion with the police that I could remove Joe Biden from office legally for the reason for the evaluation...and she also slandered me stating she didn't even think I knew what time it was, nor where I was as a means to justify her sentiment that I'm incompetent. The comment made during the police interaction was made after I had already called 911 to report their criminal activity (violating my rights), provided my full legal name as well as drivers license number, hung up after 911 advised that the LT was on his way, and then I said that to the LT when he likewise refused to listen to what I was saying, continued to threaten/coerce me into giving up my rights...so I made an indirect threat to push them back a little (which was justified given they were threatening me with arrest for asserting my rights). The argument I could make in regards to the comment being legal beyond just a 1st Amendment free speech and likewise Article I Section 8 NYS free speech protected activity is that the POTUS is not immune to criminal prosecutions while in office, and I did make a TikTok video (which I tweeted to him directly) charging him with treason due to the mask/vaccine mandates; which likewise violated the rights of the people.
Given the 730 is unconstitutional under the 1st amendment was well as Article I Section 3 of the NYS Constitution, they are automatically invalidated; however I went and I advised Brian Joseph of my position as a Messianic Jew, how I'm required to be strictly adherent to the 10 commandments, and likewise how the interaction with the police was a violation of Title 18 Section 242 - deprivation of rights under the color of law (which likewise applies to Public Health Care Workers). He obviously wasn't aware of the federal code, and proceeded anyway with asking questions...to which I asserted that I did call 911 and provided my identify...which nullifies the 730 criminal procedure as no crime was committed...to which he then states that going through a stop sign is a crime. I replied that I did my research, and validated that it wasn't a crime (a crime requires intent, and there was no intent, and it can't be criminal negligence given there is no victim).
During the second psych eval with Melissa, I again asserted my free exercise right. In this case, I didn't mention the 911 call and she was stating that the DA was going to "destroy" me...(I don't recall her exact words, but basically stating I was guilty prior to due process). She, similar to Officer Flores, put me into the sovereign citizen dynamic; however my rights are clearly enumerated. I advised her of my intent to identify with my Christian name (which can't be found on my drivers license), which is my right under the 1st amendment as well as the NYS Civil Rights Code, not to mention that the intent to identify with my Christian name was to further assert my other rights under the 1st amendment, such as not recognizing their authority given they aren't YAHWEH, to have respect to persons is to commit sin, not allowing them to instill secular mentality on the church etc...as previously indicated. Melissa proceeded to ask questions about my mental health history, to which I did provide details that I didn't provide to Brian Jospeh (I'll mention my history in full detail near the bottom of this page, as to not to detract from the principle that I was asserting my rights, and my seeking assistance 1.5 decades ago has no bearing whatsoever in regards to me asserting my rights in this police interaction). Eventually I got her to swing back to it being about my rights, how I was freely exercising those rights (just the name aspect as she was pressed for time), and she eventually was apologizing to me for wasting my time. A lot of the questions she was asking are the same simplistic assertions liberals aka Democrats utilize to demerit anybody that has faith in anything other than them...trying to call me psychotic, bipolar, schizophrenic, sociopathic, uneducated, unteachable, etc...which is harassment...until I called her out that I didn't even want to be there and it was unconstitutional. I likewise cited American Jurisprudence under Unconstitutional Acts that the judge isn't bound to enforce an unconstitutional act, and that's what made her start asking relevant questions in regards to the belief and how it applied to the interaction; hence why she was apologizing for wasting my time near the end.
Despite all that, in both instances I validated that I asserted my rights, what I did wasn't a crime, and with Melissa, I even asserted that I had 3 binders full of the law, I have no criminal history, I have 2 binders full of case law, etc...during my next court appearance I was deemed incompetent under the 730 evaluations. I likewise told Melissa that I had the right to appeal all the way up to the Supreme Court of both the State, as well as United States, which made her very uncomfortable. Under the 730, given I was representing myself pro se, I'm entitled to receive a copy of the evaluations myself, as well as an opportunity to cross examine the government witnesses. I wasn't given the paperwork, nor the option to file a motion for a hearing...despite the Final Order stating clearly that I was provided with the evaluations and that no motion for a hearing was filed (I wasn't given the opportunity).
Now, given I knew that they were probably going to railroad me, I sent an email the day following my arrest to the court clerk advising that my rights were violated. She advised to file a complaint with the police or hire an attorney, and when it came to requesting their oaths of offices; I should obtain those from the City Attorney if I remember correctly. I emailed the City Attorney a plea offer on a Christian dynamic (a simple apology would be appreciated, but not required, and to buy the officers a meal) that wasn't responded to (do good to those that harm and persecute you). After not getting a response to the plea offer (the initial email if I remember right was my intent to actually charge them for their crimes, and then I followed up with the plea offer), I filed a complaint with the Federal Division of Civil Rights in regards to how my rights were violated, why I didn't want to even show up to court etc...as previously mentioned. When the assistant DA tried to remand me for the psych evals, I waited for the paperwork to show up in the mail (I emailed her and the court clerk that it was unconstitutional, so I was checking to see if they were still going to proceed), and then I advised that I received the psych eval paperwork, will go as I made a promise to the judge that I would go, that again it was unconstitutional, and likewise I filed a second complaint on the assistant DA in regards to her violating my rights under the color of law.
I had the evaluations, was deemed incompetent unconstitutionally, and emailed the court clerk not even 20 minutes after leaving the court room that I didn't receive the evaluation paperwork, and that I wanted a copy so I can take the case to the New York Supreme court (I never received a response). When I got home late that night, I filed a 3rd complaint to the Federal Division of Civil Rights (the first 2 complaints they advised to contact the FBI as they can't interfere with a criminal prosecution, but also asserted the fact that my religious activities were being violated, and hate crimes). Now that the case (charges) were dismissed under the 730; they should be able to investigate and I didn't receive a response back yet (to my knowledge). I likewise advised in the complaint how the criminal procedure in and of itself wasn't adhered to...I wasn't provided the evaluations nor the opportunity to make a motion for a hearing.
I've since received 2 attempts to deliver, what I perceive to be, the institutionalization paperwork (per the 730 dismissal, I can be evaluated for a period no longer than 90 days); however when I received the first notice that they attempted to deliver the package (which requires a signature), I noticed where it was coming from, and advised them as well as the court clerk again that it's unconstitutional, provided full details of my mental health history (such that it can't be used against me), advised of where exactly I was asserting my rights, advised how to proceed in taking any further action against me is a violation of Title 18 Section 242 with the kidnapping or attempt to kidnap being cause for life imprisonment or even the death penalty...and also penal code 195.00 (official misconduct) to which not even the governor can pardon. Basically I told them "if you want to deprive me of my rights, yours can be taken away too", and that not even a court order can violate my rights.
The 4th Amendment - United States Constitution
Amendment IV (1791)
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Article I - Section 12 - NYS Constitution
[Security against unreasonable searches, seizures and interceptions]
§12. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
The right of the people to be secure against unreasonable interception of telephone and telegraph communications shall not be violated, and ex parte orders or warrants shall issue only upon oath or affirmation that there is reasonable ground to believe that evidence of crime may be thus obtained, and identifying the particular means of communication, and particularly describing the person or persons whose communications are to be intercepted and the purpose thereof. (New. Adopted by Constitutional Convention of 1938 and approved by vote of the people November 8, 1938.)
§12. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
The right of the people to be secure against unreasonable interception of telephone and telegraph communications shall not be violated, and ex parte orders or warrants shall issue only upon oath or affirmation that there is reasonable ground to believe that evidence of crime may be thus obtained, and identifying the particular means of communication, and particularly describing the person or persons whose communications are to be intercepted and the purpose thereof. (New. Adopted by Constitutional Convention of 1938 and approved by vote of the people November 8, 1938.)
To explain the 4th amendment of the United States Constitution; one aspect I was also asserting is the principle that I should be secure in my persons, papers, and effects...and a traffic stop isn't justification to violate this principle. As such, this is another reason for me trying to assert my Christian name, as I own my drivers license, and it isn't required to be supplied to the police in any interaction (they just need a name and your date of birth to perform a search on your license, and I provided both my full legal name and drivers license number - one step better - to validate not only did I have a license, but again...I'm asserting my rights protected by both constitutions and under the free exercise clause; a traffic stop where there is no victim isn't criminal nor is it justification for a civil lawsuit from the state as that likewise is a deprivation of rights (extortion) under the color of law. The police had no reasonable articulable suspicion of a crime, and hence they didn't have probable cause for an arrest which included impounding the rental vehicle. There wasn't a warrant for my arrest, and likewise you can see in the videos that they never read me my Miranda rights. After I was arrested, I should have been brought to the local magistrate to plead my case (such as the wrongful arrest), however...I was booked and put in jail (false arrest/imprisonment) which further violated my next right...5th amendment.
The state statute that correlates to the United States Constitution in this case is Article I Section 12 of the NYS Constitution as indicated.
The state statute that correlates to the United States Constitution in this case is Article I Section 12 of the NYS Constitution as indicated.
5th Amendment - United States Constitution
Amendment V (1791)
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Article I - Section 6 - NYS Constitution
[Grand jury; protection of certain enumerated rights; duty of public officers to sign waiver of immunity and give testimony; penalty for refusal]
§6. No person shall be held to answer for a capital or otherwise infamous crime (except in cases of impeachment, and in cases of militia when in actual service, and the land, air and naval forces in time of war, or which this state may keep with the consent of congress in time of peace, and in cases of petit under the regulation of the legislature), unless on indictment of a grand jury, except that a person held for the action of a grand jury upon a charge for such an offense, other than one punishable by death or life imprisonment, with the consent of the district attorney, may waive indictment by a grand jury and consent to be prosecuted on an information filed by the district attorney; such waiver shall be evidenced by written instrument signed by the defendant in open court in the presence of his or her counsel. In any trial in any court whatever the party accused shall be allowed to appear and defend in person and with counsel as in civil actions and shall be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation and be confronted with the witnesses against him or her. No person shall be subject to be twice put in jeopardy for the same offense; nor shall he or she be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself or herself, providing, that any public officer who, upon being called before a grand jury to testify concerning the conduct of his or her present office or of any public office held by him or her within five years prior to such grand jury call to testify, or the performance of his or her official duties in any such present or prior offices, refuses to sign a waiver of immunity against subsequent criminal prosecution, or to answer any relevant question concerning such matters before such grand jury, shall by virtue of such refusal, be disqualified from holding any other public office or public employment for a period of five years from the date of such refusal to sign a waiver of immunity against subsequent prosecution, or to answer any relevant question concerning such matters before such grand jury, and shall be removed from his or her present office by the appropriate authority or shall forfeit his or her present office at the suit of the attorney-general.
The power of grand juries to inquire into the willful misconduct in office of public officers, and to find indictments or to direct the filing of informations in connection with such inquiries, shall never be suspended or impaired by law. No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law. (Amended by Constitutional Convention of 1938 and approved by vote of the people November 8, 1938; further amended by vote of the people November 8, 1949; November 3, 1959; November 6, 1973; November 6, 2001.)
§6. No person shall be held to answer for a capital or otherwise infamous crime (except in cases of impeachment, and in cases of militia when in actual service, and the land, air and naval forces in time of war, or which this state may keep with the consent of congress in time of peace, and in cases of petit under the regulation of the legislature), unless on indictment of a grand jury, except that a person held for the action of a grand jury upon a charge for such an offense, other than one punishable by death or life imprisonment, with the consent of the district attorney, may waive indictment by a grand jury and consent to be prosecuted on an information filed by the district attorney; such waiver shall be evidenced by written instrument signed by the defendant in open court in the presence of his or her counsel. In any trial in any court whatever the party accused shall be allowed to appear and defend in person and with counsel as in civil actions and shall be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation and be confronted with the witnesses against him or her. No person shall be subject to be twice put in jeopardy for the same offense; nor shall he or she be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself or herself, providing, that any public officer who, upon being called before a grand jury to testify concerning the conduct of his or her present office or of any public office held by him or her within five years prior to such grand jury call to testify, or the performance of his or her official duties in any such present or prior offices, refuses to sign a waiver of immunity against subsequent criminal prosecution, or to answer any relevant question concerning such matters before such grand jury, shall by virtue of such refusal, be disqualified from holding any other public office or public employment for a period of five years from the date of such refusal to sign a waiver of immunity against subsequent prosecution, or to answer any relevant question concerning such matters before such grand jury, and shall be removed from his or her present office by the appropriate authority or shall forfeit his or her present office at the suit of the attorney-general.
The power of grand juries to inquire into the willful misconduct in office of public officers, and to find indictments or to direct the filing of informations in connection with such inquiries, shall never be suspended or impaired by law. No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law. (Amended by Constitutional Convention of 1938 and approved by vote of the people November 8, 1938; further amended by vote of the people November 8, 1949; November 3, 1959; November 6, 1973; November 6, 2001.)
Now here is where the fun is, given my rights under the 5th amendment (US Constitution) which correlates to Article I - Section 6 of the NYS Constitution were violated. After the arrest, which was illegal to begin with given I did identify and was attempting to identify, I was "booked"...fingerprinted as well as photographed which is a violation of the 5th amendment (self incrimination prior to due process) as, if you read further, I'll provide the case law that validates it's a violation of due process. Likewise, as can be seen in the description of the videos on YouTube as well as the officer perjured his statement to justify the arrest.
Officer Kam's Perjured Statement from the Citation
On May 18th 2023 at 1800hrs | (J.Kam) was working on an aggressive driving program in a marked North Tonawanda Police car #20. | was parked on Abbington Place facing north monitoring the stop sign with Ruie Road. At approximately 1821 hours | observed a blue sedan traveling over the posted speed limit, approaching and passing through the intersection without stopping at the stop sign. | began to pull away from my parked location and activated my emergency lights as we headed west on Ruie Road. The vehicle bearing NY REG KAK1629 pulled over to the road without incident. As | approached the driver , a white male, | asked to see his driver's license and vehicle registration. | advised the driver | was stopping him for driving over the posted speed limit of 30mph and not coming to a complete stop at the stop sign. The driver refused to identify himself and began reciting constitutional laws that did not apply or were relevant to the traffic stop. | repeated the request to see his driver's license and registration, to which the driver refused and stated he did not have to as he is only traveling. | advised dispatch | had an uncooperative driver failing to identify himself and to send an additional unit. Officer Flores arrived on scene to assist me in ascertaining the driver's information. The driver continued refusing and stated he did not have to stay there. | advised he was detained and not free to leave. The driver then called 911 and stated to dispatch he was being stopped by the police and admitted to possibly running a stop sign that he did not see. | requested Lt. Swick to respond to the traffic stop, as the driver was unwilling to provide a photo ID or provide his name. Lt. Swick arrived on location and began speaking with the driver who was again reciting constitutional laws and other legal jargon that were irrelevant to the traffic stop. The driver states he had the authority to remove Joe Biden from office and that he did not have to identify himself to patrol on scene. Lt. Swick asked the driver if he was okay, and the driver responded “are you ok?". Lt. Swick told the driver he would be placed under arrest and removed from the vehicle for Obstruction Governmental Administration, by not identifying himself to law enforcement, following a lawful request. At that point the driver began rolling up his windows with Lt. Swick's hands still inside the vehicle. Lt. Swick advised him to turn the vehicle off and reached across from the passenger side door. Officer Benjamin, Officer Flores and | began to remove the driver from the vehicle, as he had pinned himself into the seat. Once out of the vehicle the driver was placed onto his stomach and handcuffed without incident. The driver was then placed into the back of Officer Flores patrol vehicle and transported to NTPD for booking. The residents at 1432 Ruie Road were witnesses to the entire incident. NARRATIVE The driver was ultimately identified as Richard Thomas Ewert according to his NYS driver's license. Richard was charged with Obstruction Governmental Administration, 1180a and 1172a. He was fingerprinted and released on an appearance ticket. Impound report completed as the vehicle belongs to Hertz, and was a road hazard. Hertz was contacted by LT Swick. Hertz stated they would like the car towed to United, and then the company would retrieve from Ironton Street."
Now, as can easily be seen in the videos; Officer Kam perjured his statement to justify the arrest which was done without probable cause; which is likewise a crime. He waived his immunity in the accusatory instrument when he made the statement under penalty of perjury, which is a class A misdemeanor. This likewise applies to the other officers involved whom, witnessing for themselves that I was asserting my rights and by not listening to me asserting my rights; committed further crimes against me which is a violation of Penal Code 195.00 - official misconduct and grounds for impeachment; let alone the subsequent other criminal charges that could be filed. Lt Swicks hands were not still inside the vehicle also, and the vehicle was a newer model rental with a push button start. When you initiate the automatic windows, they continue to go up by themselves, and he stuck his arms into the vehicle to unlock the doors and open the door after I already depressed the button to roll the windows up; putting himself in harms way (which you may even be able to see the shock in my face when he did as I was questioning why he would want to hurt himself.) Likewise I asserted that I could "legally remove Joe Biden from office" with Swick as an indirect threat given he wasn't listening to me asserting my rights (which is why I disconnected the 911 call as I was told he was on the way); as not even the president of the United States has legal authority to violate the rights of the people. This was ultimately used as a feeble control attempt by the assistant DA to force me to get a lawyer when I asserted my 1st amendment immunity to her in email form (later in the page) with a extremely long word document providing legal precedence for my assertion. When she cited me willfully to be evaluated under a 730 psych evaluation; demanding that I be remanded...that was likewise attempted kidnapping as under Article I Section 3...I can't be deemed incompetent, and my rights supersede state authority (NYS Civil Rights Code Section 2...Supreme Sovereignty in the people; no authority under any pretense can be exercised over the citizens of the state without consent of the people...otherwise known as our rights superseding state authority, aka my immunity from state prosecution. Basically, in psychological terms; they're deflecting their incompetence on me because they want to believe that they are justified and immune from breaking the law. A state statute can't be utilized to deprive a citizen of their rights, as the only justification to deprive a citizen of their rights is with due process of law. The request for a psych evaluation if also a violation against self incrimination, and further due process of law.
6th Amendment - United States Constitution
Amendment VI (1791)
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
Article I - Section 2 - NYS Constitution
[Trial by jury; how waived]
§2. Trial by jury in all cases in which it has heretofore been guaranteed by constitutional provision shall remain inviolate forever; but a jury trial may be waived by the parties in all civil cases in the manner to be prescribed by law. The legislature may provide, however, by law, that a verdict may be rendered by not less than five-sixths of the jury in any civil case. A jury trial may be waived by the defendant in all criminal cases, except those in which the crime charged may be punishable by death, by a written instrument signed by the defendant in person in open court before and with the approval of a judge or justice of a court having jurisdiction to try the offense. The legislature may enact laws, not inconsistent herewith, governing the form, content, manner and time of presentation of the instrument effectuating such waiver. (Amended by Constitutional Convention of 1938 and approved by vote of the people
November 8, 1938.)
§2. Trial by jury in all cases in which it has heretofore been guaranteed by constitutional provision shall remain inviolate forever; but a jury trial may be waived by the parties in all civil cases in the manner to be prescribed by law. The legislature may provide, however, by law, that a verdict may be rendered by not less than five-sixths of the jury in any civil case. A jury trial may be waived by the defendant in all criminal cases, except those in which the crime charged may be punishable by death, by a written instrument signed by the defendant in person in open court before and with the approval of a judge or justice of a court having jurisdiction to try the offense. The legislature may enact laws, not inconsistent herewith, governing the form, content, manner and time of presentation of the instrument effectuating such waiver. (Amended by Constitutional Convention of 1938 and approved by vote of the people
November 8, 1938.)
Now given that I was assessed under the 730 psych evals as being incompetent when I validated with both psychiatrists that I did, in fact, identify myself on the first evaluation advising of the 911 call where I provided my full legal name as well as drivers license number (to which he replied that going through a stop sign is a crime...which it isn't as a crime requires intent and an injured party.) In the second evaluation, I asserted my true intent (which is clearly evident with me asserting the 1st, 9th, and 10th amendment) that I was going to identify with my Christian name to further establish the separation of church and state as mentioned in the body cam footage. Given a traffic infraction isn't criminal unless there's negligence or intent...the 730 evaluations were automatically nullified as they are a part of criminal procedure; not civil procedure which is normal traffic court. As I'll mention later with the exact codes cited; this was a violation of both Title 18 Section 241 (Conspiracy against rights) as well as Title 18 Section 242 (deprivation of rights under the color of law)...both of which are handled by the FBI given it's a matter of domestic terrorism.
Because I'm not stupid, I did know what my rights were prior to the interaction, and acted in complete good faith that my rights couldn't be violated under any pretense; after I sent an email to the City Attorneys with a plea offer and it wasn't responded to, I waited a week and then filed a complaint with the Federal Division of Civil Rights asserting that exact principle (the complete separation of church and state); to which I received an email reply that it was an interference with religious activity and likewise a hate crime; however given the pending criminal prosecution; they couldn't investigate as it would interfere, but did advise to contact the FBI directly.
After the 730 was requested, and I basically promised the judge, Shawn, that I would go (and I'm a man of my word despite it being unconstitutional); I waited for the time/place to be mailed to me and then submitted a second complaint to the Federal Division of Civil Rights; receiving basically the same response (hate crimes etc...and to contact the FBI as they couldn't interfere with the pending criminal prosecution).
When I returned to court after the evaluations a few months after the initial appearance; I again asserted that I was going to represent myself pro se (which is the purpose of the evaluations as the DA wanted me to have a lawyer, and was coercing me into getting one)...the judge left the courtroom for some minutes turning off the clock and taking the bailiff with him, only to come back advising me that he spoke with the psychiatrists and was "concerned" with what they reported to him BY PHONE, and hence he was making his final order. Now, I knew that I was entitled to the evaluations myself being a pro se defendant, as well as an opportunity to cross examine the government witnesses if I were deemed incompetent; however I was never provided the evaluations (which the final order clearly states that I was provided with that information), and likewise it was noted that I didn't file a motion for a hearing (I wasn't given the opportunity to file for a hearing as the judge just asserted he was making his final order, didn't provide me with the evaluations, and didn't give me an opportunity to file a motion for the hearing). All of which violates my 6th amendment right to a jury trial, as I was technically convicted of a crime without due process. The charges themselves were dismissed under the 730, however the final order is requesting that I be institutionalized for a period no longer than 90 days.
I'm not an idiot, and I could see that they were trying to railroad me from the start (which is a violation of Title 18 Section 241 - Conspiracy against rights, as well as Title 18 Section 242...derivation of rights under the color of law), but I smiled on my way out of the courtroom as now, with the charges dismissed, the fed can investigate. Once outside in my vehicle, I confirmed that the final order stated that the evaluation paperwork was provided to me (which it wasn't), and as such...I emailed the court clerk requesting the paperwork (without response) so that I can escalate to the Supreme Court. I also requested that the order itself be vacated given it's unconstitutional, and my arrest record be expunged. Knowing that they think I'm probably a moron, I likewise filed a 3rd complaint with the Federal Division of Civil Rights, and as of yet haven't received a response (meaning they can probably now investigate given the criminal prosecution against me was dismissed). Keep in mind that under Title 18 Section...trying to institutionalize me is attempted kidnapping and they could be sentenced to life imprisonment for all of the laws they violated...but wait, there's more. This is just up to the 6th amendment, I'm going all the way to the 14th amendment.
Because I'm not stupid, I did know what my rights were prior to the interaction, and acted in complete good faith that my rights couldn't be violated under any pretense; after I sent an email to the City Attorneys with a plea offer and it wasn't responded to, I waited a week and then filed a complaint with the Federal Division of Civil Rights asserting that exact principle (the complete separation of church and state); to which I received an email reply that it was an interference with religious activity and likewise a hate crime; however given the pending criminal prosecution; they couldn't investigate as it would interfere, but did advise to contact the FBI directly.
After the 730 was requested, and I basically promised the judge, Shawn, that I would go (and I'm a man of my word despite it being unconstitutional); I waited for the time/place to be mailed to me and then submitted a second complaint to the Federal Division of Civil Rights; receiving basically the same response (hate crimes etc...and to contact the FBI as they couldn't interfere with the pending criminal prosecution).
When I returned to court after the evaluations a few months after the initial appearance; I again asserted that I was going to represent myself pro se (which is the purpose of the evaluations as the DA wanted me to have a lawyer, and was coercing me into getting one)...the judge left the courtroom for some minutes turning off the clock and taking the bailiff with him, only to come back advising me that he spoke with the psychiatrists and was "concerned" with what they reported to him BY PHONE, and hence he was making his final order. Now, I knew that I was entitled to the evaluations myself being a pro se defendant, as well as an opportunity to cross examine the government witnesses if I were deemed incompetent; however I was never provided the evaluations (which the final order clearly states that I was provided with that information), and likewise it was noted that I didn't file a motion for a hearing (I wasn't given the opportunity to file for a hearing as the judge just asserted he was making his final order, didn't provide me with the evaluations, and didn't give me an opportunity to file a motion for the hearing). All of which violates my 6th amendment right to a jury trial, as I was technically convicted of a crime without due process. The charges themselves were dismissed under the 730, however the final order is requesting that I be institutionalized for a period no longer than 90 days.
I'm not an idiot, and I could see that they were trying to railroad me from the start (which is a violation of Title 18 Section 241 - Conspiracy against rights, as well as Title 18 Section 242...derivation of rights under the color of law), but I smiled on my way out of the courtroom as now, with the charges dismissed, the fed can investigate. Once outside in my vehicle, I confirmed that the final order stated that the evaluation paperwork was provided to me (which it wasn't), and as such...I emailed the court clerk requesting the paperwork (without response) so that I can escalate to the Supreme Court. I also requested that the order itself be vacated given it's unconstitutional, and my arrest record be expunged. Knowing that they think I'm probably a moron, I likewise filed a 3rd complaint with the Federal Division of Civil Rights, and as of yet haven't received a response (meaning they can probably now investigate given the criminal prosecution against me was dismissed). Keep in mind that under Title 18 Section...trying to institutionalize me is attempted kidnapping and they could be sentenced to life imprisonment for all of the laws they violated...but wait, there's more. This is just up to the 6th amendment, I'm going all the way to the 14th amendment.
7th Amendment - United States Constitution
Amendment VII (1791)
In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
Article I - Section 13 - NYS Constitution
[Common law and acts of the colonial and state legislatures]
§14. Such parts of the common law, and of the acts of the legislature of the colony of New York, as together did form the law of the said colony, on the nineteenth day of April, one thousand seven hundred seventy-five, and the resolutions of the congress of the said colony, and of the convention of the State of New York, in force on the twentieth day of April, one thousand seven hundred seventy-seven, which have not since expired, or been repealed or altered; and such acts of the legislature of this state as are now in force, shall be and continue the law of this state, subject to such alterations as the legislature shall make concerning the same. But all such parts of the common law, and such of the said acts, or parts thereof, as are repugnant to this constitution, are hereby abrogated. (Formerly §16. Renumbered and amended by Constitutional Convention of 1938 and approved by vote of the people
November 8, 1938.)
§14. Such parts of the common law, and of the acts of the legislature of the colony of New York, as together did form the law of the said colony, on the nineteenth day of April, one thousand seven hundred seventy-five, and the resolutions of the congress of the said colony, and of the convention of the State of New York, in force on the twentieth day of April, one thousand seven hundred seventy-seven, which have not since expired, or been repealed or altered; and such acts of the legislature of this state as are now in force, shall be and continue the law of this state, subject to such alterations as the legislature shall make concerning the same. But all such parts of the common law, and such of the said acts, or parts thereof, as are repugnant to this constitution, are hereby abrogated. (Formerly §16. Renumbered and amended by Constitutional Convention of 1938 and approved by vote of the people
November 8, 1938.)
8th Amendment - United States Constitution
Amendment VIII (1791)
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
Article I - Section 5 - NYS Constitution
Bail; fines; punishments; detention of witnesses]
§5. Excessive bail shall not be required nor excessive fines imposed, nor shall cruel and unusual punishments be inflicted, nor shall witnesses be unreasonably detained.
§5. Excessive bail shall not be required nor excessive fines imposed, nor shall cruel and unusual punishments be inflicted, nor shall witnesses be unreasonably detained.
9th Amendment - United States Constitution
Amendment IX (1791)
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Article I - Section 1 - NYS Constitution
Rights, privileges and franchise secured; power of legislature to dispense with primary elections in certain cases]
Section 1. No member of this state shall be disfranchised[1], or deprived of any of the rights or privileges secured to any citizen thereof, unless by the law of the land, or the judgment of his or her peers, except that the legislature may provide that there shall be no primary election held to nominate candidates for public office or to elect persons to party positions for any political party or parties in any unit of representation of the state from which such candidates or persons are nominated or elected whenever there is no contest or contests for such nominations or election as may be prescribed by general law.
(Amended by vote of the people November 3, 1959; November 6, 2001.)[2]
Section 1. No member of this state shall be disfranchised[1], or deprived of any of the rights or privileges secured to any citizen thereof, unless by the law of the land, or the judgment of his or her peers, except that the legislature may provide that there shall be no primary election held to nominate candidates for public office or to elect persons to party positions for any political party or parties in any unit of representation of the state from which such candidates or persons are nominated or elected whenever there is no contest or contests for such nominations or election as may be prescribed by general law.
(Amended by vote of the people November 3, 1959; November 6, 2001.)[2]
10th Amendment - United States Constitution
Amendment X (1791)
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
11th Amendment - United States Constitution
Amendment XI (1795/1798)
The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.
The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.
13th Amendment - United States Constitution
Amendment XIII (1865)
Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
14th Amendment - United States Constitution
Amendment XIV (1868)
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.
Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.
Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
Article I - Section 11 - NYS Constitution
[Equal protection of laws; discrimination in civil rights prohibited]
§11. No person shall be denied the equal protection of the laws of this state or any subdivision thereof. No person shall, because of race, color, creed or religion, be subjected to any discrimination in his or her civil rights by any other person or by any firm, corporation, or institution, or by the state or any agency or subdivision of the state. (New. Adopted by Constitutional Convention of 1938 and approved by vote of the people November 8, 1938; amended by vote of the people November 6, 2001.)
§11. No person shall be denied the equal protection of the laws of this state or any subdivision thereof. No person shall, because of race, color, creed or religion, be subjected to any discrimination in his or her civil rights by any other person or by any firm, corporation, or institution, or by the state or any agency or subdivision of the state. (New. Adopted by Constitutional Convention of 1938 and approved by vote of the people November 8, 1938; amended by vote of the people November 6, 2001.)
Civil Rights Code - NYS
Article I
Section 2 - Supreme Sovereignty
§ 2. Supreme sovereignty in the people. No authority can, on any pretence whatsoever, be exercised over the citizens of this state, but such as is or shall be derived from and granted by the people of this state.
Section 6 - Militia Religious Exemption
§ 6. Exemption from military service. All such inhabitants of this state of any religious denomination whatever, as from scruples of conscience may be averse to bearing arms, are to be excused therefrom by paying to the state an equivalent in money; and the legislature is required to provide by law for the collection of such equivalent, to be estimated according to the expense, in time and money, of an ordinary able-bodied militiaman.
Section 8 - Search and Seizure
§ 8. Right of search and seizure. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated; and no warrants can issue but upon probable cause supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Section 10 - Impartial Justice, Speedy Trial, No rights denied
§ 10. Justice to be administered without favor and speedily. Neither justice nor right should be sold to any person, nor denied, nor deferred; and writs and process ought to be granted freely and without delay, to all persons requiring the same, on payment of the fees established by law.
Section 11 - No Unreasonable Fines
§ 11. Fines must be reasonable and imposed only for cause. No citizen of this state ought to be fined or amerced without reasonable cause, and such fine or amercement should always be proportioned to the nature of the offense.
Section 12 - Speedy, Public Trial
Rights of persons accused of crime. In all criminal prosecutions, the accused has a right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury, and is entitled to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him or her; and to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his or her favor. A noncitizen is not entitled to a jury, composed in part of noncitizens or strangers, in an action or special proceeding civil or criminal.
Article 2-A - Public Housing
Section 18-a - Police Power, Anti-Discrimination
§ 18-a. Findings and declarations of policy. 1. This article shall be deemed an exercise of the police powerof the state for the protection of the welfare, health and peace of the people of this state and the fulfillment and enforcement of the provisions of the constitution of this state concerning civil rights.
2. The practice of discrimination because of race, color, religion, national origin or ancestry in any publicly assisted housing accommodations is hereby declared to be against public policy.
2. The practice of discrimination because of race, color, religion, national origin or ancestry in any publicly assisted housing accommodations is hereby declared to be against public policy.
Article 3 - Privilege from Arrest
Section 23 - No Civil arrest without statutory provision
§ 23. No person to be arrested in civil proceedings without a statutory provision. A person shall not be arrested in a civil action or special proceeding, except as prescribed by statute. The writ of ne exeat is abolished.
Section 25 - Witnesses Exempt from Arrest
§ 25. Witness exempt from arrest. A person duly and in good faith subpoenaed or ordered to attend, for the purpose of being examined, in a case where his attendance may lawfully be enforced by attachment or by commitment, is privileged from arrest in a civil action or special proceeding, while going to, remaining at, and returning from, the place where he is required to attend. An arrest, made contrary to the provisions of this section, is absolutely void and is a contempt of the court, if any, from which the subpoena was issued, or by which the witness was directed to attend.
Article 6 - Name Change
Section 64(4) - Common Law right to change name
4. Nothing in this article shall be construed to abrogate or alter the common law right of every person, whether married or single, to retain his or her name or to assume a new one so long as the new name is used consistently and without intent to defraud.
Article 7 - Miscellaneous Rights and Immunities
Section 70 - Vexatious Suits
§ 70. Vexatious suits. If a person vexatiously or maliciously, in the name of another but without the latter's consent, or in the name of an unknown person, commences or continues, or causes to be commenced or continued, an action or special proceeding, in a court, of record or not of record, or a special proceeding before a judge or a justice of the peace; or takes, or causes to be taken, any proceeding, in the course of an action or special proceeding in such a court, or before such an officer, either before or after judgment or other final determination; an action to recover damages therefor may be maintained against him by the adverse party to the action or special proceeding; and a like action may be maintained by the person, if any, whose name was thus used. He is also guilty of a misdemeanor, punishable by imprisonment not exceeding six months.
United States Code - USC
Title 5 - Government Organization & Employees
Section 3331 - Oath of Office
§3331. Oath of office
An individual, except the President, elected or appointed to an office of honor or profit in the civil service or uniformed services, shall take the following oath: "I, AB, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God." This section does not affect other oaths required by law.
(Pub. L. 89–554, Sept. 6, 1966, 80 Stat. 424.)
HISTORICAL AND REVISION NOTES
Derivation
U.S. Code
Revised Statutes and Statutes at Large
5 U.S.C. 16.
R.S. §1757.
May 13, 1884, ch. 46, §§2, 3, 23 Stat.
22.
All but the quoted language in R.S. §1757 is omitted as obsolete since R.S. §1757 was originally an alternative oath to the oath prescribed in R.S. §1756 which oath was repealed by the Act of May 13, 1884, ch. 46, §2, 23 Stat. 22. The words "An individual, except the President, . . . in the civil service or uniformed services" are substituted for "any person . . . either in the civil, military, or naval service, except the President of the United States". The second sentence of former section 16 is changed to read, "This section does not affect other oaths required by law.".
Standard changes are made to conform with the definitions applicable and the style of this title as outlined in the preface to the report.
An individual, except the President, elected or appointed to an office of honor or profit in the civil service or uniformed services, shall take the following oath: "I, AB, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God." This section does not affect other oaths required by law.
(Pub. L. 89–554, Sept. 6, 1966, 80 Stat. 424.)
HISTORICAL AND REVISION NOTES
Derivation
U.S. Code
Revised Statutes and Statutes at Large
5 U.S.C. 16.
R.S. §1757.
May 13, 1884, ch. 46, §§2, 3, 23 Stat.
22.
All but the quoted language in R.S. §1757 is omitted as obsolete since R.S. §1757 was originally an alternative oath to the oath prescribed in R.S. §1756 which oath was repealed by the Act of May 13, 1884, ch. 46, §2, 23 Stat. 22. The words "An individual, except the President, . . . in the civil service or uniformed services" are substituted for "any person . . . either in the civil, military, or naval service, except the President of the United States". The second sentence of former section 16 is changed to read, "This section does not affect other oaths required by law.".
Standard changes are made to conform with the definitions applicable and the style of this title as outlined in the preface to the report.
Title 18
Section 241
§241. Conspiracy against rights
If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same; or
If two or more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the premises of another, with intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege so secured--
They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.
(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 696; Pub. L. 90–284, title I, §103(a), Apr. 11, 1968, 82 Stat. 75;
Pub. L. 100–690, title VII, §7018(a), (b)(1), Nov. 18, 1988, 102 Stat. 4396; Pub. L. 103–322, title
VI, §60006(a), title XXXII, §§320103(a), 320201(a), title XXXIII, §330016(1)(L), Sept. 13, 1994,
108 Stat. 1970, 2109, 2113, 2147; Pub. L. 104–294, title VI, §§604(b)(14)(A), 607(a), Oct. 11, 1996, 110 Stat. 3507, 3511.)
HISTORICAL AND REVISION NOTES
Based on title 18, U.S.C., 1940 ed., §51 (Mar. 4, 1909, ch. 321, §19, 35 Stat. 1092).
Clause making conspirator ineligible to hold office was omitted as incongruous because it attaches ineligibility to hold office to a person who may be a private citizen and who was convicted of conspiracy to violate a specific statute. There seems to be no reason for imposing such a penalty in the case of one individual crime, in view of the fact that other crimes do not carry such a severe consequence. The experience of the Department of Justice is that this unusual penalty has been an obstacle to successful prosecutions for violations of the act.
Mandatory punishment provision was rephrased in the alternative. Minor changes in phraseology were made.
EDITORIAL NOTES
AMENDMENTS
1996—Pub. L. 104–294, §607(a), substituted "any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District" for "any State, Territory, or District" in first par.
Pub. L. 104–294, §604(b)(14)(A), repealed Pub. L. 103–322, §320103(a)(1). See 1994 Amendment note below.
1994—Pub. L. 103–322, §330016(1)(L), substituted "They shall be fined under this title" for "They shall be fined not more than $10,000" in third par.
Pub. L. 103–322, §320201(a), substituted "person in any State" for "inhabitant of any State" in first par.
Pub. L. 103–322, §320103(a)(2)–(4), in third par., substituted "results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both" for "results, they shall be subject to imprisonment for any term of years or for life".
Pub. L. 103–322, §320103(a)(1), which provided for amendment identical to Pub. L. 103–322, §330016(1)(L), above, was repealed by Pub. L. 104–294, §604(b)(14)(A).
Pub. L. 103–322, §60006(a), substituted ", or may be sentenced to death." for period at end of third par.
1988—Pub. L. 100–690 struck out "of citizens" after "rights" in section catchline and substituted "inhabitant of any State, Territory, or District" for "citizen" in text.
1968—Pub. L. 90–284 increased limitation on fines from $5,000 to $10,000 and provided for imprisonment for any term of years or for life when death results.
STATUTORY NOTES AND RELATED SUBSIDIARIES
EFFECTIVE DATE OF 1996 AMENDMENT
Amendment by section 604(b)(14)(A) of Pub. L. 104–294 effective Sept. 13, 1994, see section 604(d) of Pub. L. 104–294, set out as a note under section 13 of this title.
SHORT TITLE OF 1996 AMENDMENT
Pub. L. 104–155, §1, July 3, 1996, 110 Stat. 1392, provided that: "This Act [amending section 247 of this title and section 10602 of Title 42, The Public Health and Welfare, enacting provisions set out as a note under section 247 of this title, and amending provisions set out as a note under section 534 of Title 28, Judiciary and Judicial Procedure] may be cited as the 'Church Arson Prevention Act of 1996'."
If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same; or
If two or more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the premises of another, with intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege so secured--
They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.
(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 696; Pub. L. 90–284, title I, §103(a), Apr. 11, 1968, 82 Stat. 75;
Pub. L. 100–690, title VII, §7018(a), (b)(1), Nov. 18, 1988, 102 Stat. 4396; Pub. L. 103–322, title
VI, §60006(a), title XXXII, §§320103(a), 320201(a), title XXXIII, §330016(1)(L), Sept. 13, 1994,
108 Stat. 1970, 2109, 2113, 2147; Pub. L. 104–294, title VI, §§604(b)(14)(A), 607(a), Oct. 11, 1996, 110 Stat. 3507, 3511.)
HISTORICAL AND REVISION NOTES
Based on title 18, U.S.C., 1940 ed., §51 (Mar. 4, 1909, ch. 321, §19, 35 Stat. 1092).
Clause making conspirator ineligible to hold office was omitted as incongruous because it attaches ineligibility to hold office to a person who may be a private citizen and who was convicted of conspiracy to violate a specific statute. There seems to be no reason for imposing such a penalty in the case of one individual crime, in view of the fact that other crimes do not carry such a severe consequence. The experience of the Department of Justice is that this unusual penalty has been an obstacle to successful prosecutions for violations of the act.
Mandatory punishment provision was rephrased in the alternative. Minor changes in phraseology were made.
EDITORIAL NOTES
AMENDMENTS
1996—Pub. L. 104–294, §607(a), substituted "any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District" for "any State, Territory, or District" in first par.
Pub. L. 104–294, §604(b)(14)(A), repealed Pub. L. 103–322, §320103(a)(1). See 1994 Amendment note below.
1994—Pub. L. 103–322, §330016(1)(L), substituted "They shall be fined under this title" for "They shall be fined not more than $10,000" in third par.
Pub. L. 103–322, §320201(a), substituted "person in any State" for "inhabitant of any State" in first par.
Pub. L. 103–322, §320103(a)(2)–(4), in third par., substituted "results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both" for "results, they shall be subject to imprisonment for any term of years or for life".
Pub. L. 103–322, §320103(a)(1), which provided for amendment identical to Pub. L. 103–322, §330016(1)(L), above, was repealed by Pub. L. 104–294, §604(b)(14)(A).
Pub. L. 103–322, §60006(a), substituted ", or may be sentenced to death." for period at end of third par.
1988—Pub. L. 100–690 struck out "of citizens" after "rights" in section catchline and substituted "inhabitant of any State, Territory, or District" for "citizen" in text.
1968—Pub. L. 90–284 increased limitation on fines from $5,000 to $10,000 and provided for imprisonment for any term of years or for life when death results.
STATUTORY NOTES AND RELATED SUBSIDIARIES
EFFECTIVE DATE OF 1996 AMENDMENT
Amendment by section 604(b)(14)(A) of Pub. L. 104–294 effective Sept. 13, 1994, see section 604(d) of Pub. L. 104–294, set out as a note under section 13 of this title.
SHORT TITLE OF 1996 AMENDMENT
Pub. L. 104–155, §1, July 3, 1996, 110 Stat. 1392, provided that: "This Act [amending section 247 of this title and section 10602 of Title 42, The Public Health and Welfare, enacting provisions set out as a note under section 247 of this title, and amending provisions set out as a note under section 534 of Title 28, Judiciary and Judicial Procedure] may be cited as the 'Church Arson Prevention Act of 1996'."
Section 242
§242. Deprivation of rights under color of law
Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.
(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 696; Pub. L. 90–284, title I, §103(b), Apr. 11, 1968, 82 Stat. 75;
Pub. L. 100–690, title VII, §7019, Nov. 18, 1988, 102 Stat. 4396; Pub. L. 103–322, title VI,
§60006(b), title XXXII, §§320103(b), 320201(b), title XXXIII, §330016(1)(H), Sept. 13, 1994, 108
Stat. 1970, 2109, 2113, 2147; Pub. L. 104–294, title VI, §§604(b)(14)(B), 607(a), Oct. 11, 1996, 110 Stat. 3507, 3511.)
HISTORICAL AND REVISION NOTES
Based on title 18, U.S.C., 1940 ed., §52 (Mar. 4, 1909, ch. 321, §20, 35 Stat. 1092).
Reference to persons causing or procuring was omitted as unnecessary in view of definition of "principal" in section 2 of this title.
A minor change was made in phraseology.
EDITORIAL NOTES
AMENDMENTS
1996—Pub. L. 104–294, §607(a), substituted "any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District" for "any State, Territory, or District".
Pub. L. 104–294, §604(b)(14)(B), repealed Pub. L. 103–322, §320103(b)(1). See 1994 Amendment note below.
1994—Pub. L. 103–322, §330016(1)(H), substituted "shall be fined under this title" for "shall be fined not more than $1,000" after "citizens,".
Pub. L. 103–322, §320201(b), substituted "any person in any State" for "any inhabitant of any State" and "on account of such person" for "on account of such inhabitant".
Pub. L. 103–322, §320103(b)(2)–(5), substituted "bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both" for "bodily injury results shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results shall be subject to imprisonment for any term of years or for life".
Pub. L. 103–322, §320103(b)(1), which provided for amendment identical to Pub. L. 103–322, §330016(1)(H), above, was repealed by Pub. L. 104–294, §604(b)(14)(B).
Pub. L. 103–322, §60006(b), inserted before period at end ", or may be sentenced to death".
1988—Pub. L. 100–690 inserted "and if bodily injury results shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both;" after "or both;".
1968—Pub. L. 90–284 provided for imprisonment for any term of years or for life when death results.
STATUTORY NOTES AND RELATED SUBSIDIARIES
EFFECTIVE DATE OF 1996 AMENDMENT
Amendment by section 604(b)(14)(B) of Pub. L. 104–294 effective Sept. 13, 1994, see section 604(d) of Pub. L. 104–294, set out as a note under section 13 of this title.
Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.
(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 696; Pub. L. 90–284, title I, §103(b), Apr. 11, 1968, 82 Stat. 75;
Pub. L. 100–690, title VII, §7019, Nov. 18, 1988, 102 Stat. 4396; Pub. L. 103–322, title VI,
§60006(b), title XXXII, §§320103(b), 320201(b), title XXXIII, §330016(1)(H), Sept. 13, 1994, 108
Stat. 1970, 2109, 2113, 2147; Pub. L. 104–294, title VI, §§604(b)(14)(B), 607(a), Oct. 11, 1996, 110 Stat. 3507, 3511.)
HISTORICAL AND REVISION NOTES
Based on title 18, U.S.C., 1940 ed., §52 (Mar. 4, 1909, ch. 321, §20, 35 Stat. 1092).
Reference to persons causing or procuring was omitted as unnecessary in view of definition of "principal" in section 2 of this title.
A minor change was made in phraseology.
EDITORIAL NOTES
AMENDMENTS
1996—Pub. L. 104–294, §607(a), substituted "any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District" for "any State, Territory, or District".
Pub. L. 104–294, §604(b)(14)(B), repealed Pub. L. 103–322, §320103(b)(1). See 1994 Amendment note below.
1994—Pub. L. 103–322, §330016(1)(H), substituted "shall be fined under this title" for "shall be fined not more than $1,000" after "citizens,".
Pub. L. 103–322, §320201(b), substituted "any person in any State" for "any inhabitant of any State" and "on account of such person" for "on account of such inhabitant".
Pub. L. 103–322, §320103(b)(2)–(5), substituted "bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both" for "bodily injury results shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results shall be subject to imprisonment for any term of years or for life".
Pub. L. 103–322, §320103(b)(1), which provided for amendment identical to Pub. L. 103–322, §330016(1)(H), above, was repealed by Pub. L. 104–294, §604(b)(14)(B).
Pub. L. 103–322, §60006(b), inserted before period at end ", or may be sentenced to death".
1988—Pub. L. 100–690 inserted "and if bodily injury results shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both;" after "or both;".
1968—Pub. L. 90–284 provided for imprisonment for any term of years or for life when death results.
STATUTORY NOTES AND RELATED SUBSIDIARIES
EFFECTIVE DATE OF 1996 AMENDMENT
Amendment by section 604(b)(14)(B) of Pub. L. 104–294 effective Sept. 13, 1994, see section 604(d) of Pub. L. 104–294, set out as a note under section 13 of this title.
Section 912
§912. Officer or employee of the United States
Whoever falsely assumes or pretends to be an officer or employee acting under the authority of the United States or any department, agency or officer thereof, and acts as such, or in such pretended character demands or obtains any money, paper, document, or thing of value, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 742; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, §330016(1)(H), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2147.)
HISTORICAL AND REVISION NOTES
Based on title 18, U.S.C., 1940 ed., §§76 and 123 (Mar. 4, 1909, ch. 321, §§32 and 66, 35 Stat. 1095, 1100; Feb. 28, 1938, ch. 37, 52 Stat. 82).
Section consolidates sections 76 and 123 of title 18, U.S.C., 1940 ed. The effect of this consolidation was to increase the punishment for revenue officers from $500 to $1,000 and from 2 years to 3 years, and to rephrase in the alternative the mandatory punishment provision.
This section now applies the same punishment to all officers and agents of the United States found guilty of false personation.
Words "agency or" were inserted to eliminate any possible ambiguity as to scope of section. (See definitive section 6 of this title.) Other words referring to "authority of any corporation owned or controlled by the United States" were omitted for the same reason. (See Pierce v. U.S., 1941, 62 S. Ct. 237, 314 U.S. 306, 86 L.
Ed. 226.)
The words "with the intent to defraud the United States or any person", contained in said section 76 of title 18, U.S.C., 1940 ed., were omitted as meaningless in view of United States v. Lapowich, 63 S. Ct. 914. Changes were made in phraseology.
EDITORIAL NOTES
AMENDMENTS
1994—Pub. L. 103–322 substituted "fined under this title" for "fined not more than $1,000".
Whoever falsely assumes or pretends to be an officer or employee acting under the authority of the United States or any department, agency or officer thereof, and acts as such, or in such pretended character demands or obtains any money, paper, document, or thing of value, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 742; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, §330016(1)(H), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2147.)
HISTORICAL AND REVISION NOTES
Based on title 18, U.S.C., 1940 ed., §§76 and 123 (Mar. 4, 1909, ch. 321, §§32 and 66, 35 Stat. 1095, 1100; Feb. 28, 1938, ch. 37, 52 Stat. 82).
Section consolidates sections 76 and 123 of title 18, U.S.C., 1940 ed. The effect of this consolidation was to increase the punishment for revenue officers from $500 to $1,000 and from 2 years to 3 years, and to rephrase in the alternative the mandatory punishment provision.
This section now applies the same punishment to all officers and agents of the United States found guilty of false personation.
Words "agency or" were inserted to eliminate any possible ambiguity as to scope of section. (See definitive section 6 of this title.) Other words referring to "authority of any corporation owned or controlled by the United States" were omitted for the same reason. (See Pierce v. U.S., 1941, 62 S. Ct. 237, 314 U.S. 306, 86 L.
Ed. 226.)
The words "with the intent to defraud the United States or any person", contained in said section 76 of title 18, U.S.C., 1940 ed., were omitted as meaningless in view of United States v. Lapowich, 63 S. Ct. 914. Changes were made in phraseology.
EDITORIAL NOTES
AMENDMENTS
1994—Pub. L. 103–322 substituted "fined under this title" for "fined not more than $1,000".
Section 913
§913. Impersonator making arrest or search
Whoever falsely represents himself to be an officer, agent, or employee of the United States, and in such assumed character arrests or detains any person or in any manner searches the person, buildings, or other property of any person, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 742; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, §330016(1)(H), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2147.)
HISTORICAL AND REVISION NOTES
Based on title 18, U.S.C., 1940 ed., §77a (Aug. 27, 1935, ch. 740, §201, 49 Stat. 877).
Words "shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor" were omitted. (See definitive section 1 of this title.) Words "and upon conviction thereof" preceding "shall be" were omitted as surplusage since punishment cannot be imposed until conviction is secured.
Maximum imprisonment provision was changed from 1 year to 3 years so as to be consistent with sections 911 and 912 of this title, the latter having also been changed to 3 years. There is no sound reason why a uniform punishment should not be prescribed for the offenses defined in these three sections. Changes were made in phraseology.
EDITORIAL NOTES
AMENDMENTS
1994—Pub. L. 103–322 substituted "fined under this title" for "fined not more than $1,000".
Whoever falsely represents himself to be an officer, agent, or employee of the United States, and in such assumed character arrests or detains any person or in any manner searches the person, buildings, or other property of any person, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 742; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, §330016(1)(H), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2147.)
HISTORICAL AND REVISION NOTES
Based on title 18, U.S.C., 1940 ed., §77a (Aug. 27, 1935, ch. 740, §201, 49 Stat. 877).
Words "shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor" were omitted. (See definitive section 1 of this title.) Words "and upon conviction thereof" preceding "shall be" were omitted as surplusage since punishment cannot be imposed until conviction is secured.
Maximum imprisonment provision was changed from 1 year to 3 years so as to be consistent with sections 911 and 912 of this title, the latter having also been changed to 3 years. There is no sound reason why a uniform punishment should not be prescribed for the offenses defined in these three sections. Changes were made in phraseology.
EDITORIAL NOTES
AMENDMENTS
1994—Pub. L. 103–322 substituted "fined under this title" for "fined not more than $1,000".
Section 2381 - Treason
§2381. Treason
Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.
(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 807; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, §330016(2)(J), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2148.)
HISTORICAL AND REVISION NOTES
Based on title 18, U.S.C., 1940 ed., §§1, 2 (Mar. 4, 1909, ch. 321, §§1, 2, 35 Stat. 1088).
Section consolidates sections 1 and 2 of title 18, U.S.C., 1940 ed.
The language referring to collection of the fine was omitted as obsolete and repugnant to the more humane policy of modern law which does not impose criminal consequences on the innocent.
The words "every person so convicted of treason" were omitted as redundant. Minor change was made in phraseology.
EDITORIAL NOTES
AMENDMENTS
1994—Pub. L. 103–322 inserted "under this title but" before "not less than $10,000".
Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.
(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 807; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, §330016(2)(J), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2148.)
HISTORICAL AND REVISION NOTES
Based on title 18, U.S.C., 1940 ed., §§1, 2 (Mar. 4, 1909, ch. 321, §§1, 2, 35 Stat. 1088).
Section consolidates sections 1 and 2 of title 18, U.S.C., 1940 ed.
The language referring to collection of the fine was omitted as obsolete and repugnant to the more humane policy of modern law which does not impose criminal consequences on the innocent.
The words "every person so convicted of treason" were omitted as redundant. Minor change was made in phraseology.
EDITORIAL NOTES
AMENDMENTS
1994—Pub. L. 103–322 inserted "under this title but" before "not less than $10,000".
Section 2382 - Misprision of treason
§2382. Misprision of treason
Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States and having knowledge of the commission of any treason against them, conceals and does not, as soon as may be, disclose and make known the same to the President or to some judge of the United States, or to the governor or to some judge or justice of a particular State, is guilty of misprision of treason and shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than seven years, or both.
(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 807; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, §330016(1)(H), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2147.)
HISTORICAL AND REVISION NOTES
Based on title 18, U.S.C., 1940 ed., §3 (Mar. 4, 1909, ch. 321, §3, 35 Stat. 1088). Mandatory punishment provision was rephrased in the alternative.
EDITORIAL NOTES
AMENDMENTS
1994—Pub. L. 103–322 substituted "fined under this title" for "fined not more than $1,000".
Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States and having knowledge of the commission of any treason against them, conceals and does not, as soon as may be, disclose and make known the same to the President or to some judge of the United States, or to the governor or to some judge or justice of a particular State, is guilty of misprision of treason and shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than seven years, or both.
(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 807; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, §330016(1)(H), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2147.)
HISTORICAL AND REVISION NOTES
Based on title 18, U.S.C., 1940 ed., §3 (Mar. 4, 1909, ch. 321, §3, 35 Stat. 1088). Mandatory punishment provision was rephrased in the alternative.
EDITORIAL NOTES
AMENDMENTS
1994—Pub. L. 103–322 substituted "fined under this title" for "fined not more than $1,000".
Section 2383
§2383. Rebellion or insurrection
Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.
(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 808; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, §330016(1)(L), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2147.)
HISTORICAL AND REVISION NOTES
Based on title 18, U.S.C., 1940 ed., §4 (Mar. 4, 1909, ch. 321, §4, 35 Stat. 1088).
Word "moreover" was deleted as surplusage and minor changes were made in phraseology.
EDITORIAL NOTES
AMENDMENTS
1994—Pub. L. 103–322 substituted "fined under this title" for "fined not more than $10,000".
Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.
(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 808; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, §330016(1)(L), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2147.)
HISTORICAL AND REVISION NOTES
Based on title 18, U.S.C., 1940 ed., §4 (Mar. 4, 1909, ch. 321, §4, 35 Stat. 1088).
Word "moreover" was deleted as surplusage and minor changes were made in phraseology.
EDITORIAL NOTES
AMENDMENTS
1994—Pub. L. 103–322 substituted "fined under this title" for "fined not more than $10,000".
Section 2384
§2384. Seditious conspiracy
If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the
United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.
(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 808; July 24, 1956, ch. 678, §1, 70 Stat. 623; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, §330016(1)(N), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2148.)
HISTORICAL AND REVISION NOTES
Based on title 18, U.S.C., 1940 ed., §6 (Mar. 4, 1909, ch. 321, §6, 35 Stat. 1089).
EDITORIAL NOTES
AMENDMENTS
1994—Pub. L. 103–322 substituted "fined under this title" for "fined not more than $20,000".
1956—Act July 24, 1956, substituted "$20,000" for "$5,000", and "twenty years" for "six years".
STATUTORY NOTES AND RELATED SUBSIDIARIES
EFFECTIVE DATE OF 1956 AMENDMENT
Act July 24, 1956, ch. 678, §3, 70 Stat. 624, provided that: "The foregoing amendments [amending this section and section 2385 of this title] shall apply only with respect to offenses committed on and after the date of the enactment of this Act [July 24, 1956]."
If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the
United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.
(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 808; July 24, 1956, ch. 678, §1, 70 Stat. 623; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, §330016(1)(N), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2148.)
HISTORICAL AND REVISION NOTES
Based on title 18, U.S.C., 1940 ed., §6 (Mar. 4, 1909, ch. 321, §6, 35 Stat. 1089).
EDITORIAL NOTES
AMENDMENTS
1994—Pub. L. 103–322 substituted "fined under this title" for "fined not more than $20,000".
1956—Act July 24, 1956, substituted "$20,000" for "$5,000", and "twenty years" for "six years".
STATUTORY NOTES AND RELATED SUBSIDIARIES
EFFECTIVE DATE OF 1956 AMENDMENT
Act July 24, 1956, ch. 678, §3, 70 Stat. 624, provided that: "The foregoing amendments [amending this section and section 2385 of this title] shall apply only with respect to offenses committed on and after the date of the enactment of this Act [July 24, 1956]."
Section 2385
§2385. Advocating overthrow of Government
Whoever knowingly or willfully advocates, abets, advises, or teaches the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying the government of the United States or the government of any State, Territory, District or Possession thereof, or the government of any political subdivision therein, by force or violence, or by the assassination of any officer of any such government; or
Whoever, with intent to cause the overthrow or destruction of any such government, prints, publishes, edits, issues, circulates, sells, distributes, or publicly displays any written or printed matter advocating, advising, or teaching the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying any government in the United States by force or violence, or attempts to do so; or
Whoever organizes or helps or attempts to organize any society, group, or assembly of persons who teach, advocate, or encourage the overthrow or destruction of any such government by force or violence; or becomes or is a member of, or affiliates with, any such society, group, or assembly of persons, knowing the purposes thereof--
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both, and shall be ineligible for employment by the United States or any department or agency thereof, for the five years next following his conviction.
If two or more persons conspire to commit any offense named in this section, each shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both, and shall be ineligible for employment by the United States or any department or agency thereof, for the five years next following his conviction.
As used in this section, the terms "organizes" and "organize", with respect to any society, group, or assembly of persons, include the recruiting of new members, the forming of new units, and the regrouping or expansion of existing clubs, classes, and other units of such society, group, or assembly of persons.
(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 808; July 24, 1956, ch. 678, §2, 70 Stat. 623; Pub. L. 87–486, June 19, 1962, 76 Stat. 103; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, §330016(1)(N), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2148.)
HISTORICAL AND REVISION NOTES
Based on title 18, U.S.C., 1940 ed., §§10, 11, 13 (June 28, 1940, ch. 439, title I, §§2, 3, 5, 54 Stat. 670, 671).
Section consolidates sections 10, 11, and 13 of title 18, U.S.C., 1940 ed. Section 13 of title 18, U.S.C., 1940 ed., which contained the punishment provisions applicable to sections 10 and 11 of title 18, U.S.C., 1940 ed., was combined with section 11 of title 18, U.S.C., 1940 ed., and added to this section.
In first paragraph, words "the Government of the United States or the government of any State, Territory, District or possession thereof, or the government of any political subdivision therein" were substituted for "any government in the United States".
In second and third paragraphs, word "such" was inserted after "any" and before "government", and words "in the United States" which followed "government" were omitted.
In view of these changes, the provisions of subsection (b) of section 10 of title 18, U.S.C., 1940 ed., which defined the term "government in the United States" were omitted as unnecessary.
Reference to conspiracy to commit any of the prohibited acts was omitted as covered by the general conspiracy provision, incorporated in section 371 of this title. (See reviser's note under that section.)
Words "upon conviction thereof" which preceded "be fined" were omitted as surplusage, as punishment cannot be imposed until a conviction is secured.
The phraseology was considerably changed to effect consolidation but without any change of substance.
EDITORIAL NOTES
AMENDMENTS
1994—Pub. L. 103–322 substituted "fined under this title" for "fined not more than $20,000" in fourth and fifth pars.
1962—Pub. L. 87–486 defined the terms "organizes" and "organize".
1956—Act July 24, 1956, substituted "$20,000" for "$10,000", and "twenty years" for "ten years" in the paragraph prescribing penalties applicable to advocating overthrow of government and inserted provisions relating to conspiracy to commit any offense named in this section.
STATUTORY NOTES AND RELATED SUBSIDIARIES
EFFECTIVE DATE OF 1956 AMENDMENT
Amendment by act July 24, 1956, as applicable only with respect to offenses committed on and after July 24, 1956, see section 3 of act July 24, 1956, set out as a note under section 2384 of this title.
Whoever knowingly or willfully advocates, abets, advises, or teaches the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying the government of the United States or the government of any State, Territory, District or Possession thereof, or the government of any political subdivision therein, by force or violence, or by the assassination of any officer of any such government; or
Whoever, with intent to cause the overthrow or destruction of any such government, prints, publishes, edits, issues, circulates, sells, distributes, or publicly displays any written or printed matter advocating, advising, or teaching the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying any government in the United States by force or violence, or attempts to do so; or
Whoever organizes or helps or attempts to organize any society, group, or assembly of persons who teach, advocate, or encourage the overthrow or destruction of any such government by force or violence; or becomes or is a member of, or affiliates with, any such society, group, or assembly of persons, knowing the purposes thereof--
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both, and shall be ineligible for employment by the United States or any department or agency thereof, for the five years next following his conviction.
If two or more persons conspire to commit any offense named in this section, each shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both, and shall be ineligible for employment by the United States or any department or agency thereof, for the five years next following his conviction.
As used in this section, the terms "organizes" and "organize", with respect to any society, group, or assembly of persons, include the recruiting of new members, the forming of new units, and the regrouping or expansion of existing clubs, classes, and other units of such society, group, or assembly of persons.
(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 808; July 24, 1956, ch. 678, §2, 70 Stat. 623; Pub. L. 87–486, June 19, 1962, 76 Stat. 103; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, §330016(1)(N), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2148.)
HISTORICAL AND REVISION NOTES
Based on title 18, U.S.C., 1940 ed., §§10, 11, 13 (June 28, 1940, ch. 439, title I, §§2, 3, 5, 54 Stat. 670, 671).
Section consolidates sections 10, 11, and 13 of title 18, U.S.C., 1940 ed. Section 13 of title 18, U.S.C., 1940 ed., which contained the punishment provisions applicable to sections 10 and 11 of title 18, U.S.C., 1940 ed., was combined with section 11 of title 18, U.S.C., 1940 ed., and added to this section.
In first paragraph, words "the Government of the United States or the government of any State, Territory, District or possession thereof, or the government of any political subdivision therein" were substituted for "any government in the United States".
In second and third paragraphs, word "such" was inserted after "any" and before "government", and words "in the United States" which followed "government" were omitted.
In view of these changes, the provisions of subsection (b) of section 10 of title 18, U.S.C., 1940 ed., which defined the term "government in the United States" were omitted as unnecessary.
Reference to conspiracy to commit any of the prohibited acts was omitted as covered by the general conspiracy provision, incorporated in section 371 of this title. (See reviser's note under that section.)
Words "upon conviction thereof" which preceded "be fined" were omitted as surplusage, as punishment cannot be imposed until a conviction is secured.
The phraseology was considerably changed to effect consolidation but without any change of substance.
EDITORIAL NOTES
AMENDMENTS
1994—Pub. L. 103–322 substituted "fined under this title" for "fined not more than $20,000" in fourth and fifth pars.
1962—Pub. L. 87–486 defined the terms "organizes" and "organize".
1956—Act July 24, 1956, substituted "$20,000" for "$10,000", and "twenty years" for "ten years" in the paragraph prescribing penalties applicable to advocating overthrow of government and inserted provisions relating to conspiracy to commit any offense named in this section.
STATUTORY NOTES AND RELATED SUBSIDIARIES
EFFECTIVE DATE OF 1956 AMENDMENT
Amendment by act July 24, 1956, as applicable only with respect to offenses committed on and after July 24, 1956, see section 3 of act July 24, 1956, set out as a note under section 2384 of this title.
