Ct 222 Instructions: Fill & Download for Free

This is Wisconsin Statute on self defense using weaponry:939.47  Necessity. Pressure of natural physical forces which causes the actor reasonably to believe that his or her act is the only means of preventing imminent public disaster, or imminent death or great bodily harm to the actor or another and which causes him or her so to act, is a defense to a prosecution for any crime based on that act, except that if the prosecution is for first-degree intentional homicide, the degree of the crime is reduced to 2nd-degree intentional homicide.History: 1987 a. 399.Judicial Council Note, 1988: This section is amended by conforming references to the statute titles created by this bill. Since necessity mitigates first-degree intentional homicide to 2nd degree, it is obviously not a defense to prosecution for the latter crime. [Bill 191-S]The defense of necessity was unavailable to a demonstrator who sought to stop a shipment of nuclear fuel on the grounds of safety. State v. Olsen, 99 Wis. 2d 572, 299 N.W.2d 632 (Ct. App. 1980).Heroin addiction is not a “natural physical force" as used in this section. An addict, caught injecting heroin in jail, who was not provided methadone as had been promised, was not entitled to assert necessity against a charge of possession of heroin because his addiction ultimately resulted from his conscious decision to start using illegal drugs. State v. Anthuber, 201 Wis. 2d 512, 549 N.W.2d 477 (Ct. App. 1996), 95-1365.939.48  Self-defense and defense of others.(1)  A person is privileged to threaten or intentionally use force against another for the purpose of preventing or terminating what the person reasonably believes to be an unlawful interference with his or her person by such other person. The actor may intentionally use only such force or threat thereof as the actor reasonably believes is necessary to prevent or terminate the interference. The actor may not intentionally use force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm unless the actor reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself.(1m)(a) In this subsection:1. “Dwelling" has the meaning given in s. 895.07 (1) (h).2. “Place of business" means a business that the actor owns or operates.(ar) If an actor intentionally used force that was intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm, the court may not consider whether the actor had an opportunity to flee or retreat before he or she used force and shall presume that the actor reasonably believed that the force was necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself if the actor makes such a claim under sub. (1) and either of the following applies:1. The person against whom the force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcibly entering the actor's dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business, the actor was present in the dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business, and the actor knew or reasonably believed that an unlawful and forcible entry was occurring.2. The person against whom the force was used was in the actor's dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business after unlawfully and forcibly entering it, the actor was present in the dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business, and the actor knew or reasonably believed that the person had unlawfully and forcibly entered the dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business.(b) The presumption described in par. (ar) does not apply if any of the following applies:1. The actor was engaged in a criminal activity or was using his or her dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business to further a criminal activity at the time.2. The person against whom the force was used was a public safety worker, as defined in s. 941.375 (1) (b), who entered or attempted to enter the actor's dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business in the performance of his or her official duties. This subdivision applies only if at least one of the following applies:a. The public safety worker identified himself or herself to the actor before the force described in par. (ar) was used by the actor.b. The actor knew or reasonably should have known that the person entering or attempting to enter his or her dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business was a public safety worker.(2) Provocation affects the privilege of self-defense as follows:(a) A person who engages in unlawful conduct of a type likely to provoke others to attack him or her and thereby does provoke an attack is not entitled to claim the privilege of self-defense against such attack, except when the attack which ensues is of a type causing the person engaging in the unlawful conduct to reasonably believe that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm. In such a case, the person engaging in the unlawful conduct is privileged to act in self-defense, but the person is not privileged to resort to the use of force intended or likely to cause death to the person's assailant unless the person reasonably believes he or she has exhausted every other reasonable means to escape from or otherwise avoid death or great bodily harm at the hands of his or her assailant.(b) The privilege lost by provocation may be regained if the actor in good faith withdraws from the fight and gives adequate notice thereof to his or her assailant.(c) A person who provokes an attack, whether by lawful or unlawful conduct, with intent to use such an attack as an excuse to cause death or great bodily harm to his or her assailant is not entitled to claim the privilege of self-defense.(3) The privilege of self-defense extends not only to the intentional infliction of harm upon a real or apparent wrongdoer, but also to the unintended infliction of harm upon a 3rd person, except that if the unintended infliction of harm amounts to the crime of first-degree or 2nd-degree reckless homicide, homicide by negligent handling of dangerous weapon, explosives or fire, first-degree or 2nd-degree reckless injury or injury by negligent handling of dangerous weapon, explosives or fire, the actor is liable for whichever one of those crimes is committed.(4) A person is privileged to defend a 3rd person from real or apparent unlawful interference by another under the same conditions and by the same means as those under and by which the person is privileged to defend himself or herself from real or apparent unlawful interference, provided that the person reasonably believes that the facts are such that the 3rd person would be privileged to act in self-defense and that the person's intervention is necessary for the protection of the 3rd person.(5) A person is privileged to use force against another if the person reasonably believes that to use such force is necessary to prevent such person from committing suicide, but this privilege does not extend to the intentional use of force intended or likely to cause death.(6) In this section “unlawful" means either tortious or expressly prohibited by criminal law or both.History: 1987 a. 399; 1993 a. 486; 2005 a. 253; 2011 a. 94.Judicial Council Note, 1988: Sub. (3) is amended by conforming references to the statute titles as affected by this bill. [Bill 191-S]When a defendant testified that he did not intend to shoot or use force, he could not claim self-defense. Cleghorn v. State, 55 Wis. 2d 466, 198 N.W.2d 577 (1972).Sub. (2) (b) is inapplicable to a defendant if the nature of the initial provocation is a gun-in-hand confrontation of an intended victim by a self-identified robber. Under these circumstances the intended victim is justified in the use of force in the exercise of the right of self-defense. Ruff v. State, 65 Wis. 2d 713, 223 N.W.2d 446 (1974).Whether a defendant's belief was reasonable under subs. (1) and (4) depends, in part, upon the parties' personal characteristics and histories and whether events were continuous. State v. Jones, 147 Wis. 2d 806, 434 N.W.2d 380 (1989).Evidence of prior specific instances of violence that were known to the accused may be presented to support a defense of self-defense. The evidence is not limited to the accused's own testimony, but the evidence may not be extended to the point that it is being offered to prove that the victim acted in conformity with his or her violent tendencies. State v. Daniels, 160 Wis. 2d 85, 465 N.W.2d 633 (1991).Imperfect self-defense contains an initial threshold element requiring a reasonable belief that the defendant was terminating an unlawful interference with his or her person. State v. Camacho, 176 Wis. 2d 860, 501 N.W.2d 380 (1993).The reasonableness of a person's belief under sub. (1) is judged from the position of a person of ordinary intelligence and prudence in the same situation as the defendant, not a person identical to the defendant placed in the same situation as the defendant. A defendant's psycho-social history showing past violence toward the defendant is generally not relevant to this objective standard, although it may be relevant, as in spousal abuse cases, where the actors are the homicide victim and defendant. State v. Hampton, 207 Wis. 2d 369, 558 N.W.2d 884 (Ct. App. 1996).The right to resist unlawful arrest is not part of the statutory right to self-defense. It is a common law privilege that is abrogated. State v. Hobson, 218 Wis. 2d 350, 577 N.W.2d 825 (1998), 96-0914.While there is no statutory duty to retreat, whether the opportunity to retreat was available goes to whether the defendant reasonably believed the force used was necessary to prevent an interference with his or her person. A jury instruction to that effect was proper. State v. Wenger, 225 Wis. 2d 495, 593 N.W.2d 467 (Ct. App. 1999), 98-1739.When a defendant fails to establish a factual basis to raise self-defense, prior specific acts of violence by the victim have no probative value. The presentation of subjective testimony by an accused, going to a belief that taking steps in self-defense was necessary, is not sufficient for the admission of self-defense evidence. State v. Head, 2000 WI App 275, 240 Wis. 2d 162, 622 N.W.2d 9, 99-3071.Although intentionally pointing a firearm at another constitutes a violation of s. 941.20, under sub. (1) a person is privileged to point a gun at another person in self-defense if the person reasonably believes that the threat of force is necessary to prevent or terminate what he or she reasonably believes to be an unlawful interference. State v. Watkins, 2002 WI 101, 255 Wis. 2d 265, 647 N.W.2d 244, 00-0064.A defendant asserting perfect self-defense against a charge of 1st-degree murder must meet an objective threshold showing that he or she reasonably believed that he or she was preventing or terminating an unlawful interference with his or her person and that the force used was necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm. A defendant asserting the defense of unnecessary defensive force s. 940.01 (2) (b) to a charge of 1st-degree murder is not required to satisfy the objective threshold showing. State v. Head, 2002 WI 99, 255 Wis. 2d 194, 648 N.W.2d 413, 99-3071.When a defendant successfully makes self-defense an issue, the jury must be instructed as to the state's burden of proof regarding the nature of the crime, even if the defense is a negative defense. Wisconsin JI-Criminal 801 informs the jury that it “should consider the evidence relating to self-defense in deciding whether the defendant's conduct created an unreasonable risk to another. If the defendant was acting lawfully in self-defense, [his] conduct did not create an unreasonable risk to another." This instruction implies that the defendant must satisfy the jury that the defendant was acting in self-defense and removes the burden of proof from the state to show that the defendant was engaged in criminally reckless conduct. State v. Austin, 2013 WI App 96, 349 Wis. 2d 744, 836 N.W.2d 833, 12-0011.When the circuit court instructed the jury to “consider the evidence relating to ... defense of others, in deciding whether defendant's conduct created an unreasonable risk.... If the defendant was acting lawfully in defense of others, his conduct did not create an unreasonable risk to another," the instruction on the state's burden of proof on defendant's defense of others defense was wholly omitted and the instructions were erroneous. State v. Austin, 2013 WI App 96, 349 Wis. 2d 744, 836 N.W.2d 833, 12-0011.Sub. (1m) does not justify continued use of deadly force against an intruder when that intruder is no longer in the actor's dwelling. The applicable definition of the actor's dwelling, s. 895.07 (1) (h), requires that the part of the lot or site in question be “devoted to residential use." While s. 895.07 (1) (h) lists several parts of a residential lot that are part of a “dwelling," it does not include a parking lot. The common denominator of the listed parts of dwellings is that all are property over which the actor has exclusive control. An apartment building parking lot is not exclusive to one tenant or devoted to the residential use of any one tenant. State v. Chew, 2014 WI App 116, 358 Wis. 2d 368, 856 N.W.2d 541, 13-2592.Wisconsin law establishes a low bar that the accused must surmount to be entitled to a jury instruction on the privilege of self-defense. The accused need produce only “some evidence" in support of the privilege of self-defense. State v. Stietz, 2017 WI 58, 369 Wis. 2d 222, 880 N.W.2d 182, 14-2701.The jury instruction for self-defense in this case was not erroneous. The circuit court gave the jury a general instruction on the state's burden to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Because self-defense is a negative defense, the state disproves self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt if the state proves the elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt, specifically criminal negligence. Therefore, the jury was aware that the state had to prove criminal negligence—the element that self-defense would negate—beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Langlois, 2018 WI 73, 382 Wis. 2d 414, 913 N.W.2d 812, 16-1409.A person may employ deadly force against another, if the person reasonably believes that force is necessary to protect a 3rd-person or one's self from imminent death or great bodily harm, without incurring civil liability for injury to the other. Clark v. Ziedonis, 513 F.2d 79 (1975).Self-defense — prior acts of the victim. 1974 WLR 266.State v. Camacho: The Judicial Creation of an Objective Element to Wisconsin's Law of Imperfect Self-defense Homicide. Leiser. 1995 WLR 742.Home Safe Home: Wisconsin's Castle Doctrine and Trespasser Liability Laws. Hinkston. Wis. Law. June 2013.

Famous Loyalists and Loyalist Commanders of the American RevolutionThe initial British strategy for the American war was to secure or otherwise blockade America’s port cities thereby starving the colonial economies into submission while preventing the import of the necessary materials of war for the patriot army. Their plans contemplated only a police action to restore order among a small fraction of their own subjects in New England.The Prime Minister, Frederick Lord North; the American secretary, George Lord Germain; and the King continued to consider the colonial militias a mere ragtag rabble armed with fowling pieces and homemade swords that could be swept away by the British regulars. Their opinion was reinforced by the series of easy successes during the New York and New Jersey campaigns of 1776.It was thought — hoped really — that the loyal colonials, especially those in the American South, would rise up against the patriot cause and drive the fractious rebel minority from their midst. This expectation never materialized. Britain raised more Loyalist battalions from among displaced New Yorkers than from those in the south.While companies of armed patriots were rallying from every part of the country to repel the regulars, thousands of Americans of a more “dignified character” were practicing their own form of obstinate loyalty to the king. The formation of a loyalist party, or Tory resistance, has been largely dismissed by generations of American historians as reactionary. Early writers, devoted to portraying the activities of the patriots as necessary and appropriate in light of the democratic institutions that followed in the wake of the Revolution, simply ignored the existence of widespread support for royal authority among many Americans.There were many loyalist drawn from those elements of colonial society considered politically to be Tories. Among these were the colonial office-holders, whose own incomes and those of their relations and friends, depended on the continuance of the old order. Others were loyal from habit. George III was their rightful king. Still others were loyal simply because their families, friends, and neighbors were loyal. Nonetheless, even the most loyal American well understood that cannon often failed to discriminate between friend and foe, especially if fired randomly into a group of dwellings.When detected by the Committees of Safety, loyalists were sometimes arrested on charges of disaffection to the cause and confined in jails. The worst of these prisons was undoubtedly the Simsbury Mines in Connecticut, where scores of men were confined underground in the dark and damp galleries left behind by the copper miners. Many loyalists, and patriots for that matter, found themselves victims of lynching without the formality of a trial. Such incidents often reflected local hostilities." At the least four persons were hanged in a series of associated incidents in predated that vendettas personal petty and hatreds New Jersey involving two opposing familiess, one ardently loyal and the other equally dedicated to the rebellion. Serving as ad hoc "irregulars," each used the pretext of the war to execute members of the opposition with no justification other than revenge.Word of the fighting at Lexington and Concord led to a series of encounters in Virginia and North Carolina between the regional militias and their respective colonial governors, Lord Dunmore and Governor Martin. The number of men involved in Virginia at Great Bridge (December 1775) was much smaller than those engaged about Boston, and the American troops were not as well organized. The numbers engaged in North Carolina at Moore's Creek Bridge (February 1776) were larger. More than 2,500 men, mostly provincials, were distributed fairly equally on each side — rebels vs. loyalists. Both of these southern battles were undisputed victories for the Patriots, but they have failed to find the same significance in history textbooks as those fought in New England. In addition, patriot militia made a significant defense of the port of Charleston, South Carolina from a combined Crown force of naval vessels and assault troops (June 1776).At Great Bridge in Virginia, a militia company numbering about sixty was prepared for the British advance behind earthworks. They carefully withheld fire until the grenadiers, advancing with bayonets fixed, were within 50 yards, and then unleashed a volley of fire on them. British Captain Charles Fordyce, leading the column, went down just steps from the earthworks along with many of his men. The British advance dissolved as the musket fire continue. About half of Fordyce's force was killed, and many were injured. Following a truce to permit the British to remove their dead and wounded, the Royal forces retreated by night to Norfolk. Fordyce was buried by the Americans near the site of the battle. Casualty estimates ranged from the official British report of 62 killed or wounded to a Patriot report that the British losses totaled 102 casualties.Josiah Martin, the royal governor of North Carolina, ordered the Loyalist militia under Donald MacDonald, Donald MacLeod, and John Campbell to muster in anticipation of the arrival of patriot militia units at Wilmington. The Loyalists (about 750 men) were forced to confront the rebels at Moore's Creek Bridge, about 18 miles north of the city. In a brief early-morning engagement, a charge across the bridge by sword-wielding Loyalist Scots was met by a barrage of Patriot musket fire. One Loyalist leader (MacLeod) was killed, another captured (MacDonald), and the whole Loyalist force was scattered. MacLeod’s body was ravaged by upwards of twenty musketballs and swan shot. The surviving elements of Campbell's company retired back over the bridge pulling up the planking behind them. Many Loyalists were arrested, and North Carolina was not militarily threatened again until 1780. The American militia force was part of the command of Col. James Moore (a Continental officer who arrived at the end of the battle) and militia Captains Alexander Lillington and Richard Caswell, who were on site. The Patriot leaders reported one man killed and one wounded.In 1775 Lord Dunmore personally helped organize 1500 Tories in Delaware, and in 1776 the Royal Navy landed agents in the state to help direct loyalist resistance. Congress instructed the Committee of Safety to disarm all the loyalists in the state whom they deemed hostile. When word of this proposal reached the loyalist leaders, a petition to the Congress was circulated to which 5000 Tories attached their signatures. Squire John Clark was sent to Philadelphia to plead the Tory case for the maintenance of their civil rights; but he was arrested and the petition was destroyed. A loyalist plot to burn the city of Dover was discovered on June 10, 1776, in time to prevent its completion, and Congress immediately detached a force of 3000 men under Col. Samuel Miles to Lewes, Delaware, to overawe the 1500 Tories who had gathered there. One month after the adoption of the Declaration of Independence, 600 loyalists again assembled at Lewes during an election and allowed only those friendly to the king to vote. Caesar Rodney and Thomas McKean were thereby removed as congressional delegates and replaced by the more conservative John Evans and John Dickinson. A "lukewarm patriot" named John McKinley was elected president of Delaware, and many patriot-leaning judges were replaced by Tories.In April 1778, an armed group of 150 Delaware insurrectionists led by Cheney Clow marched on Dover, burned a small fortification, stole some goods, and destroyed a quantity of military stores. Clow's men were then defeated in a brief battle with an equal force of patriot militia under Lt. Col. Charles Pope. Clow was apprehended in 1782 and executed after the war. Another serious loyalist effort, known as the Black Camp Rebellion, was made in 1780. About 400 Tories terrorized the Whig population of Sussex County by seizing their weapons, kidnapping their militia officers, and generally placing the countryside in an uproar. Patriot forces pursued these Tories into the swamps, and 37 men were arrested and tried for treason. Found guilty, they were sentenced by the court to the most hideous punishment of being hanged, drawn, and quartered. However, all the prisoners were later paroled by the General Assembly.Almost all of Staten Island and much of Long Island in New York was populated by devoted loyalists. Richard Hewlett of Rockaway, along with Jacob Norstrant, Isaac Denton, Jr., and John Smith, were reported to have munitions enough for an army hidden in the marshy areas of Long Island. Joseph Robinson, a Whig informant, warned that these men had organized several dozen loyalist companies, and had distributed powder and arms to them in preparation for a unified resistance to the patriot army. This report was substantiated by loyalists arrested and brought to testify before the Conspiracy Committee of the provincial congress.James Jauncey, a member of the New York Assembly, was an especially active Tory. He was forced to leave his home in the city when a mob of patriot radicals broke in for the purpose of riding him out of town on a rail. He escaped to the Bronx, but he and his sons were soon arrested and taken to prison in Connecticut. His family was stripped of its property, and Jauncey estimated his loss at £100,000. Samuel Tilley of Westchester was imprisoned for selling provisions to the British, but he escaped to serve with a loyalist regiment. His house was plundered, and his wife and children were forced to flee. Isaac Low, a member of the First Continental Congress, was the president of the New York Chamber of Commerce, but he decided to support the British when Washington evacuated the city. Judge Jonathan Fowles and Rev. Samuel Seabury of Eastchester (in the Bronx) were placed under arrest and had their belongings longings confiscated or destroyed. Both men were sent off as prisoners to Connecticut under a strong guard.Realizing that New England might be permanently lost to British rule after 1778, Sir Henry Clinton, the army commander stationed in New York, proposed a “southern strategy” that might feed the enthusiasm of Loyalists in Virginia, the Carolinas, and Georgia. Germain’s enthusiastic adoption of Clinton’s southern strategy required a great deal of loyal colonials. While Germain concentrated on the redeployment of land forces to the south and the encouragement of loyalist resistance, after 1778 Sandwich increasingly focused on the security of the Channel fleet, his bases in the East and West Indies, and his lines of supply.One historian has called William Tryon “the evil genius of the royal cause in America” because of his many successes in prosecuting Loyalist raids on Patriot strongholds. He stood out early, however, in both North Carolina and New York as the most principled political architect of royal resistance to protest, as well as one of its most aggressive military leaders. During the revolution, Tryon operated with a force composed of more than 2,000 Loyalist militiamen encamped on Long Island near Flushing, Queens in New York. He organized a stronghold on the north shore near Glen Cove and from here launched amphibious raids across the Long Island Sound into Connecticut.[i]In April 1777, the Loyalists in brick red or dark green uniforms, commanded by Tryon, crossed Long Island Sound and landed unopposed at Compo Beach near Westport, Connecticut. They marched inland to raid the towns of Bethel, Ridgefield, and Danbury. The American supply depot at Danbury was burned with a great loss of valuable blankets, preserved meat, and flour. While trying to impede the British return to their ships, Continental Army general David Wooster was killed, and Benedict Arnold assumed command of the local troops. Arnold—a wounded hero of the Canadian campaign, but initially passed over for a position as a general officer due to regional quotas enforced by Congress—was chosen to fill the vacancy created by Wooster’s death.The 1777 raid was followed in July 1779 by a larger affair employing more than eighteen warships and 2,000 Loyalist soldiers. This time Tryon targeted the towns of East Haven, New Haven, West Haven, Fairfield, and Norwalk. The landing at Calf Pasture Beach in Norwalk was the largest amphibious operation mounted by Loyalist forces during the entire Revolutionary War. Described in British records as a nest of privateers, Norwalk, with its protective archipelago of small sandy islands and shallow waters, had served as an American vice-admiralty court for small prizes taken on the Sound. This fact has almost escaped historians because all the court records were burned during the 1779 raid along with eighty-eight homes, dozens of barns, and a church.Three separate fights were fought in Norwalk: Grumman Hill, Old Well, and the Rocks. Captain Stephen Betts of Norwalk was able to quickly secure six small ship’s cannon for the defense of the town against British raiders at the Battle of the Rocks. The American forces included troops commanded by Betts, Captain Jeremiah Eells, Captain Phineas Sherman and Major David Porter. The redcoats and loyalists simply could not dislodge the small group of patriots who had positioned the guns among the rocky crags that jutted up twenty to thirty feet from the rolling farmland of the town. The British lost 20 killed and 96 wounded. Out of all towns the British attacked, Norwalk was the most heavily damaged.[ii]The British capture of Charleston, South Carolina, in May 1780, and the victory at Camden in August, temporarily revitalized loyalist support, and when Lord Cornwallis invaded North Carolina, a large number of Tories turned out in the frontier regions of the state to support him. As the British army scored its victories in the South, small bands of Tories formed in response. At Kings Mountain, however, every loyalist under Patrick Ferguson in the fight was killed, wounded, or captured. The loyalist dead — including Ferguson — numbered 157, while the Patriot losses were 28 dead and 52 wounded. This Patriot victory drained the blood from southern loyalist support and dissuaded many Tories from coming forward. Thereafter, small groups of loyalists managed only sporadic victories.It seems clear that the Patriots were unprepared to found an entirely new form of government when the war ended. At least 100,000 loyalists fled to England or Canada during the course of the Revolution. Many waited until 1782 to take ship with the last of the redcoats to leave New York City, hoping in vain for a positive turn in British fortunes. One historian has noted, "The formation of the Tory or Loyalist party in the American Revolution; its persecution by the Whigs during a long and fratricidal war, and the banishment or death ... of these most conservative and respectable Americans is a tragedy but rarely paralleled in the history of the world." Ironically, most Americans today, who believe in traditional American government and conservatism, would probably find themselves siding with the loyalists, if they lived in 1775.[iii][i] North Callahan, Royal Raiders: The Tories of the American Revolution (New York: Bobbs-Merrill, 1963), 77.[ii] Dorothy Denneen Volo and James M. Volo, Daily Life During the American Revolution (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 2003) 222.[iii] Claude Halstead van Tyne, Loyalists in the American Revolution (Ganesvoort, NY: Corner House Historical Publications, 1999), 182.Dorothy Denneen Volo; James M. Volo. Daily Life During the American Revolution (p. 342). Kindle Edition.

I have written about this before, but here is my opinion. The 14th Amendment did nationalize not only civil rights but all the citizenry. As with most of my comments, it is long in order to present Court statements to back up those comments.I am not a fan of the 14th Amendment; I think it is the cornerstone of the elitists that did not want a Republic where all political power is held by the people and was used to destroy the American Republic.First, here is an excerpt that shows the current view held by lawyers and taught to those becoming lawyers. This is important because lawyers make up the majority of those in Congresd and those who actually write the laws, Codes, and Amendments. Remember that they know the English language and its vagaries. The laws, Codes and Amendments are precise and state exactly what was intended.The 14th Amendment: Cornerstone of civil rightsABA Law Student Division •MAY 01, 2017(Part of the text)The theme for Law Day 2017 – The 14th Amendment: Transforming American Democracy – provides the opportunity to explore the many ways that the Fourteenth Amendment has reshaped American law and society.Through its citizenship, due process, and equal protection clauses, this transformative amendment advances the rights of all Americans. It also plays a pivotal role in extending the reach of the Bill of Rights to the states.Ratified during Reconstruction a century and a half ago, the Fourteenth Amendment serves as the cornerstone of landmark civil rights legislation, the foundation for numerous federal court decisions protecting fundamental rights, and a source of inspiration for all those who advocate for equal justice under law.ABA President Linda Klein has this message for Law Day 2017:Linda KleinIn the Gettysburg Address, Abraham Lincoln promised “a new birth of freedom.” Just three years after the Civil War, the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified, guaranteeing former slaves citizenship and all its privileges.The 2017 Law Day theme “The Fourteenth Amendment: Transforming American Democracy” commemorates the important contribution this historic constitutional change made to our understanding of what it means to be an American and how closely liberty is tied to equality and justice.In a nation that had only recently abolished slavery, the Fourteenth Amendment for the first time constitutionally defined United States citizenship. It specifically prohibited states from depriving any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; it also required that states afford any person within their jurisdiction equal protection of the laws. The impact of the extension of these basic guarantees cannot be overstated.In the century and a half that has elapsed since its ratification, the Fourteenth Amendment has continued to transform American law and society in several significant ways:It provided the mechanism for the key guarantees of the Bill of Rights, including free speech, freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures, and the right to a trial by jury, to become enforceable against the states, and not just against the federal government;Its due process clause provided the authority for court recognition of certain fundamental rights not specifically enumerated in the Constitution, such as the right to privacy; andIts equal protection clause established the framework for challenging laws and state-sanctioned practices that create or perpetuate inequality................Two important points made are, "Ratified during Reconstruction....". And "...extending the reach of the Bill of Rights to the states".My thoughts:Americans are taught that the Founders created the federal Constitution. This is somewhat misleading because not all of them wanted a Republic where all political power rested in the People. Some wanted a monarchy; some a pure democracy; some an oligarchy. Those against a republic, in my opinion, worked to have certain seemingly innocuous but well-understood phrases inserted into the Constitution with the idea of using them at a later date to undermine and eventually destroy the American Republic.The vast majority of Americans receive their understanding of the federal Constitution from the government-controlled education system. The form of instruction is from either books written by Constitutional Scholars or teachers taught by Constitutional Scholars.The "Constitutional Scholar" (and lawyers) generally gets the title after being instructed by other constitutional scholars who have also been taught, or perhaps indoctrinated would be a better word, by previous ones. Since most of this instruction is in an academic environment, one must adhere to the teachings in order to pass and be awarded with basically a "Constitutional Scholar" Certificate (or become admitted to the Bar).One problem with this is any falsehoods, accidental and intentional, entering the teachings can be perpetrated as facts for future scholars. These "new" facts are also taught to the general population to encourage their acceptance of false information.Another problem is that proper English word usage and meanings along with English concepts of implicit vs explicit, context defining meaning of words with multiple definitions, etc., are ignored if they conflict with the scholars' teachings.Americans have accepted seemingly unconstitutional actions by the government because unelected judges (lawyers) have amended the Constitution by simply issuing a ruling that said those actions were OK. The SCOTUS has even stated that the Congress, the body elected by the American voters, can not define words used in the federal Constitution because that would amount to amending it. But unelected judges can???When people testify in a courtroom, they swear to: tell the truth, tell the whole truth, and tell nothing but the truth. What is stated must be the truth, the truth with nothing withheld, and the truth with nothing added to it. This is a foundation of our judicial system. However please note that the judges, lawyers and prosecutors do not swear to this. While this does not mean necessarily that all they say are lies, it does mean that they do not have to tell the whole truth about how their ruling is decided. They can bend or omit part of the truth to make a point.One example is the Kelo decision. With the stroke of a pen the SCOTUS drastically amended the Constitution by the simple method of "redefining" the words "Public use" from the longstanding understanding to mean, essentially, anything the government deems a benefit. A company wants certain properties to build a mall? No problem since that will bring in more tax revenue and that's a good public use. Dozens of citizens who have lived there for years displaced? Well, sacrifices must be made.Another seemingly warranted provision that is at the core of the republic's destruction is found in Article 1, Section 8. This gives Congress exclusive jurisdiction over the District of Columbia. Why was that a danger?When you see “United States” in a sentence or law you know that it is referring to the country, right? Well maybe not.The U.S. Supreme Court in Hooven & Allison Co. v. Evatt, 324 U.S. 652 (1945) stated;"The term 'United States' may be used in any one of several senses. It may be merely the name of a sovereign occupying the position analogous to that of other sovereigns in the family of nations. It may designate the territory over which the sovereignty of the United States extends, or it may be the collective name of the states which are united by and under the Constitution."So the term “United States” may be (among others):1. A nation among other nations, as when the United States is represented at the U.N. A singular entity.2. The territory over which the sovereignty of the United States extends. Since this is also a singular entity it must mean the areas over which the Federal government has jurisdiction, the District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico, and all other possessions and territories of the federal government3. The Several States united by the Constitution. A plural term. The term Several States is usually used to denote the, currently, 50 separate States in law.The first definition is easily understood; the second and third are not. Let’s look at the third definition in the U.S. Constitution. Note that these definitions are mutually exclusive to one another.13th AmendmentSECTION 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.Note the "their jurisdiction", it is plural and means the several States, but not the federal government or it's possessions and territories. (In English, and Law, explicitly naming entities implicitly excludes entities not named. So, since this Amendment explicitly and exclusively names the several States it excludes the federal government from its provisions against involuntary servitude.)So the 13th Amendment states explicitly that: Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime where of the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the SEVERAL STATES, or any place subject to their jurisdictionANDImplicitly states that: Either slavery or involuntary servitude shall exist within the Federal Government, or any place subject to the jurisdiction thereof. The punishment exception doesn’t apply here since it is negated by the implicit allowance of involuntary servitude.I have gotten a lot of flak because of this from people indignant over the clear meaning of this amendment. One thing you must remember here is just because the law allows something doesn’t mean it has to either state it or refute it. It would be better to look at our lives and see if we are truly free or not.On to the alleged 14th Amendment and the second definition of United States. The former Confederate States, after being welcomed back into the Union and after voting to ratify the 13th Amendment, balked at the intent of the proposed 14th Amendment. Only Citizens of the several States, known as We the People, could vote for President and had representation in Congress. This amendment's purpose was to create a new class of citizen, one not of the several States but a subject of the federal government. All federal territories and possessions were, and are, under the exclusive control of Congress through Article 1, Section 8 of the federal constitution.In retaliation for their refusal to cede to the federal government a Right that was always held exclusively by the several States, the Northern Congressmen refused to seat those former Confederate Congressmen and then passed the Reconstruction Acts that called for the military occupation of those States (except Tennessee who voted for the 14th), the overthrow of the duly-elected officials and the appointment of replacements by Congress. These appointed officials then voted to ratify the amendment. You think that's constitutional?Among other things, this alleged amendment created a new citizen, all of us now, that is a subject of the federal government. These new citizens have no Rights, only immunities and privileges (14th A.) granted by the federal government (Article 1, Section 8). Some of these mimic those enumerated in the Bill of Rights and create the impression that these federal citizens have Rights protected by the Constitution. These federal citizens, actually chattel, are deemed to be citizens of the Seat of Government, DC, and as such subject to any and all whims of the federal government.Note:14th AmendmemtSection 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.Note the "THE jurisdiction thereof", it is singular and denotes the federal government (in this case also the District of Columbia), NOT the several States since it would have read "their jurisdiction", as in the 13th, or "the jurisdictions".Until this unconstitutional amendment was declared ratified, the only entities that could Naturalize Citizens were the several States, NOT the federal Government.The fourteenth amendment created citizenship of the federal government. This status is a privilege granted by the government.You must pay your owner for privileges unlike Rights. Think you have a Right to marry? Why do you pay the government for a license (permission)? Think you have a right to: own a pet; travel in your own vehicle for non-commercial purposes (commercial activities can be licensed); peaceably assemble to redress grievances. Why do you need to pay for permission?"Privileges and immunities clause of Fourteenth Amendment protects only those rights peculiar o being citizen of federal government; it does not protect those rights which relate to state citizenship."Jones v. Temmer, Federal Supplement, Vol. 829, Page 1227 (1993)"We have cited these cases for the purpose of showing that the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States do not necessarily include all the rights protected by the first eight amendments to the Federal Constitution against the powers of the Federal government. They were decided subsequently to the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment..."Maxwell v. Dow, 176 US 598 (1900)OK, back to the 14th's "and of the State wherein they reside".I often use older California laws and codes because California was one of the last States to enter the Union before 1860's. As such, the original codes are untainted by the results of the undeclared, hence unconstitutional, War Between the States.The original California Codes stated: You were either a Citizen of California or one of the other several States, or you were an alien.Since the District of Columbia is not one of the several States, by law then the citizens thereof would be aliens if they were residing within one of the several States. Note the use of the word "reside" in the amendment. In law, the term "resident" CAN be used interchangeably with the words "resident alien". Do you receive post addressed to "Resident"?Back to "state". Note that it is not defined so it is assumed to mean the several States, but does it?4 U.S.C.S. Sec. 110(d). The term "State" includes any Territory or possession of the United States.You will see this definition throughout the US Codes, CFRs, and federal laws and regulations. Do you see the term "several States"? If not, they are excluded from all those Codes, laws and regulations. But then why are they being enforced within your State? Could it be that the States, such as the one you live in, are not one of the several States?"..... and of the State wherein they reside....."This is interesting because a State Citizen is by definition a Citizen of their respective State but since a federal citizen is, legally, a citizen of the District of Columbia which is not one of the several States, they would have been considered alien to them. That means they would be ineligible to vote within one of them."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."Why is Article 6, Section 2 not used? It states:The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.Note that Rights are not included here because certain Rights are reserved for the particular State's Citizen, voting for State and local representatives being one of them.This portion, since federal citizens had little State Constitutional protections, forces a State to respect the privileges and Immunities GRANTED to them by the federal government. Note that the term "Rights" is not here, all grants by the federal government to its citizens are immunities and privileges not Rights.This is why the federal government can claim to extend its authority over the several States.One important proof of this is the fact that according to the SCOTUS a Right can not be taxed or licensed and the power to tax is the power to destroy.The courts have held that no matter what it is called, if the purpose of a law or statute is to raise money it is a tax. It doesn’t matter if it’s called a fee, user fee, entrance fee, parking fee, license or whatever, it’s a tax.Let’s see your license and registrationNote that a license is special. A license if defined in the American Heritage® Dictionary as:li·cense (lsns)NOUN:a. Official or legal PERMISSION to do or own a specified thing. See Synonyms at permission.b. A document, plate, or tag that is issued as proof of official or legal PERMUSSION: a driver's license.The Right to MarryA lot of you reading this have exercised your God-given RIGHT to get married. But, if you are exercising a right, why do you need permission from the government to do it? Years ago the government tried to validate it by stating you needed a blood test to prevent spreading disease but that’s not done now. So why do you need a license?Definitions from Black's Law Dictionary, 4th Ed:"license" "The permission by competent authority to do an act which without such permission, would be illegal.""marriage license""A license or permission granted by public authority to persons who intend to intermarry.""Intermarry" is "Miscegenation""Miscegenation""mixture of races; marriage between persons of different races, as between a white and a Negro."Some marriage licenses will actually state that its purpose is for interracial marriage."marriage certificate""An instrument which certifies a marriage, and is executed by the person officiating at the marriage; it is not intended to be signed by the parties, but is evidence of the marriage.Most of you are not part of a “marriage between persons of different races” so that isn’t the reason for modern marriage licenses. What else?Slaves could be married with permission from their owner(s). Of course all children and property acquired would belong to the owner. As shown before, the 14th amendment made you a citizen of the corporation known as the United States (Congress) and the 13th amendment allows the United States (Congress) to have slaves. Want more proof?Marriage is a civil contract to which there are three parties; the husband, the wife and the state.Van Koten v. Van Koten, 154 N.E. 146; 5-97-0108 in the appellate court of Illinois fifth district ---West v. West No. 93-F-92Justice Maag delivered the opinion of the court: This action was brought in April of 1993 by Carolyn and John West (grandparents) to obtain visitation rights with their grandson, Jacob Dean West. Jacob was born January 27, 1992. He is the biological son of Ginger West and Gregory West, Carolyn and John's deceased son...However, this constitutionally protected parental interest is not wholly without limit or beyond regulation. Prince v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158, 166, 88 L. Ed. 645, 64 S. Ct. 438, 442 (1944). "[T]he state has a wide range of power for limiting parental freedom and authority in things affecting the child's welfare." Prince, 321 U.S. at 167, 88 L. Ed. 645, 64 S. Ct. at 442.In fact, the entire familial relationship involves the State. When two people decide to get married, they are required to first procure a license from the State. If they have children of this marriage, they are required by the State to submit their children to certain things, such as school attendance and vaccinations. Furthermore, if at some time in the future the couple decides the marriage is not working, they must petition the State for a divorce. Marriage is a three-party contract between the man, the woman, and the State. Linneman v. Linneman, 1 Ill. App. 2d 48, 50, 116 N.E.2d 182, 183 (1953), citing Van Koten v. Van Koten, 323 Ill. 323, 326, 154 N.E. 146 (1926). The State represents the public interest in the institution of marriage. Linneman, 1 Ill. App. 2d at 50, 116 N.E.2d at 183.(emphasis mine)SUBMIT: A yielding to authority. A citizen is bound to submit to the laws; a child to his parents; a servant to his master. A victor may enforce, the submission of his enemy.2. When a captor has taken a prize, and the vanquished have submitted to his authority, the property, as between the belligerents, has been transferred. When there is complete possession on one side, and submission upon the other, the capture is complete. 1 Gallis. R. 532.This public interest is what allows the State to intervene in certain situations to protect the interests of members of the family. The State is like a silent partner in the family who is not active in the everyday running of the family but becomes active and exercises its power and authority only when necessary to protect some important interest of family life.What about Liberty?The SCOTUS has stated that part of Liberty is the Right to Travel."The right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit or permit at will, but a common law right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Thompson v. Smith, 154 SE 579.It could not be stated more directly or conclusively that citizens of the states have a common law right to travel, without approval or restriction (license), and that this right is protected under the U.S Constitution."The use of the highway for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege, but a common fundamental right of which the public and individuals cannot rightfully be deprived." Chicago Motor Coach v. Chicago, 169 NE 221."The right to travel is a part of the liberty of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment." Kent v. Dulles, 357 US 116, 125."The right to travel is a well-established common right that does not owe its existence to the federal government. It is recognized by the courts as a natural right." Schactman v. Dulles 96 App DC 287, 225 F2d 938, at 941.So if you have the right to travel, why do you need a driver’s license? Most people will respond the driving is a privilege and that you need training to drive on the roads to ensure your vehicle doesn’t injure or kill anyone.Remember though that a license is not training nor is it regulation, it is permission. So is there a difference between traveling and driving? There must be. But what is it?According to the Supreme Court and California (similar laws exist in all states) Motor vehicle laws are to license and regulate commercial activity. The term “operator” has been used to describe persons who engaged in the transportation of persons or property for hire or compensation upon the public streets, roads and highways. In other words chauffeurs (busses, taxies) and folks who deliver goods who charge for the service are included. If you aren’t engaged in one of these commercial activities, you do not need a license. The term “operator” has been replaced by the term “driver” in most instances.If you try to use your personal automobile on the roads you will be ticketed and possibly have your auto impounded. Why?As a person under the 14th Amendment, you are a citizen of the Federal government with no Rights just immunities abd privileges.14th Amendment, 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."Note the lawfully designated "several States". This changes the apportionment to "persons" which includes the mentioned alien federal citizen. It has, currently, been construed to include illegal aliens."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 inhabit￾ants 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.This reduces the basis for representation by excluding persons whose right to vote has been suspended. But note the exception to the reduction for "participation in rebellion". This was aimed at those former members of the Confederacy who would be denied their Right to vote. While white males, a considerable number that would affect representation, were denied that Right by the unlawful Reconstruction Acts, those former Confederate States soon to be APPOINTED reps would not be diminished allowing the traitorous Congress to further enslave the former We the People.Section 3:No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Con￾gress, 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 thereofWhile sounding reasonable, note the "...shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same,....".The States making up the Confederate States of America LAWFULLY SECEDED from the Union. Hence, no rebellion or insurrection. But it does deflect the real reason for the Amendment.".... But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability...."This alleged Amendment then allows the Congress to have those it wants to be in Congress and the States' legislatures regardless of crimes. Sound familiar?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.So this prohibits anyone, including you, from questioning the now astronomical debt. Nice!This alleged Amendment truly started the conversion of the free united States of America into a Feudal Democracy where government controls virtually every aspect of life in America.15th Amendment (another Reconstruction amendment)SECTION 1.The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.SECTION 2.The Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.The 15th Amendment further obscured the federal takeover of the Republic by supposedly preventing the several States from denying freed slaves from voting but, actually, preventing the several States from denying any federal citizen from voting in State elections.The original California Code stated that a person was either a Citizen of California, one of the other several States OR you were an alien. 14th Amendment citizens of the United States are deemed to be citizens of the District of Columbia, that being the Seat of the federal government, residing in one of the several States. DC is not one of the several States, hence its citizens could be denied voting in a State without the 15th.Of course, the fact of the military takeover of the Southern States and the appointment of those States representatives in both State and federal offices, allowed the traitorous Congress to control what information the people received for years safely indocrinated into accepting their eventual enslavenent.In 1940, Congress passed the "Buck Act". In Section 110(e), this Act authorized any department of the federal government to create a "Federal area" for imposition of the "Public Salary Tax Act of 1939". The rest of the taxing law is found in the Internal Revenue Code. The Social Security Board also created a "Federal area" overlay.A "Federal area" is any area designated by any agency, department, or establishment of the federal government. This includes the Social Security areas designated by the Social Security Administration, any public housing area that has federal funding, a home that has a federal bank loan, a road that has federal funding, and almost everything that the federal government touches through any type of aid. Springfield v. Kenny, 104 N.E. 2d 65 (1951 App.).The Buck Act created a fictional Federal "State within a state". See Howard v. Sinking Fund of Louisville, 344 U.S. 624, 73 S.Ct. 465, 476, 97 L.Ed. 617 (1953); Schwartz v. O'Hara TP. School Dist., 100 A. 2d. 621, 625, 375 Pa. 440. (Compare also 31 C.F.R. Parts 51.2 and 52.2, which also identify a fictional State within a state.) This fictional "State" is identified by the use of two-letter abbreviations like "CA", "AZ" and "TX", as distinguished from the authorized abbreviations like "Calif.", "Ariz." and "Tex.", etc. This fictional State also uses ZIP codes which are within the municipal, exclusive legislative jurisdiction of Congress.Remember, all acts of Congress are territorial in nature and only apply within the territorial jurisdiction of Congress. (See American Banana Co. v. United Fruit Co., 213 U.S. 347, 356-357 (1909); U.S. v. Spelar, 338 U.S. 217, 222, 94 L.Ed. 3, 70 S.Ct. 10 (1949); New York Central R.R. Co. v. Chisholm, 268 U.S. 29, 31-32, 69 L.Ed. 828, 45 S.Ct. 402 (1925).)This "Federal area" attaches to anyone who has a Social Security Number or any personal contact with the federal or state governments. Through this mechanism, the federal government usurped the Sovereignty of the People, as well as the Sovereignty of the several states, by creating "Federal areas" within the boundaries of the states under the authority of Article 4, Section 3, Clause 2 (4:3:2) in the federal Constitution, which states:"The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State."Therefore, all U.S. citizens [i.e. citizens of the District of Columbia] are classified as property, as franchisees of the federal government, and as an "individual entity". Under the "Buck Act", the federal government has created a "Federal area" within the boundaries of all the several states. This area is similar to any territory that the federal government acquires through purchase, conquest or treaty, thereby imposing federal territorial law upon all people in this "Federal area".The 16th was not properly ratified because some states modified the wording before voting on it which should have mandated that it be returned to Congress, the changes debated and incorporated or not, and then resubmitted. This amendment was unlawfully declared ratified by Secretary of State Alexander Knox.This is claimed to allow the federal government to tax everybody but it is more insidious. The feds already had that authority under Article 1 Section 8, the total control of DC and, by extension, its citizens. This alleged amendment was to divert the people's attention away from the actuality of the fact that they, we, own nothing; all our property is owned and taxable by the feds.That is why the SCOTUS ruled that the government can take your property for any reason and give it to anyone else despite the clear wording of the Constitution specifying public use (but that was only for We the People).