Your Right of Defense Against Unlawful Arrest
There are a lot of "dirty cops" out there that are nothing more than ego induced, abuse of power, idiots with guns and that abusing citizens rights on a daily basis. These public servants are fully accountable under the law. I currently have a pending federal law suit against 10+ "dirty cops" from three different agencies in Florida (Sarasota and Orlando) that have clearly abused their authority and jurisdiction.
I have alleged over 60 federal felonies committed against each officer. a formal federal complaint was filed: internal affairs for each dept failed to act, FL Dept of Law Enforcement (LeFiles) failed to act FL ATTY GENERAL failed to act, US ATTY GENERAL (acosta) failed to act, USDOJ failed to act, ACLU wont act, just waiting on the IRS under misuse and abusive of federal funding (Qui Tam Action) by each department.
If a cop abuses your constitutional rights - sue him and his employer!
"When a person, being without fault, is in a place where he has a right to be, is violently assaulted, he may, without retreating, repel by force, and if, in the reasonable exercise of his right of
self defense, his assailant is killed, he is justified." Runyan v. State, 57 Ind. 80; Miller v. State, 74 Ind. 1.
"These principles apply as well to an officer attempting to make an arrest, who abuses his authority and transcends the bounds thereof by the use of unnecessary force and violence, as they do to a private
individual who unlawfully uses such force and violence." Jones v. State, 26 Tex. App. I; Beaverts v. State, 4 Tex. App. 1 75; Skidmore v. State, 43 Tex. 93, 903.
"An illegal arrest is an assault and battery. The person so attempted to be restrained of his liberty has the same right to use force in defending himself as he would in repelling any other assault and battery." (State v. Robinson, 145 ME. 77, 72 ATL. 260).
"Each person has the right to resist an unlawful arrest. In such a case, the person attempting the arrest stands in the position of a wrongdoer and may be resisted by the use of force, as in self- defense." (State v. Mobley, 240 N.C. 476, 83 S.E. 2d 100).
"One may come to the aid of another being unlawfully arrested, just as he may where one is being assaulted, molested, raped or kidnapped. Thus it is not an offense to liberate one from the unlawful custody of an officer, even though he may have submitted to such custody, without resistance." (Adams v. State, 121 Ga. 16, 48 S.E. 910).
"Justice Joseph Story affirmed the right of self-defense by persons held illegally. In his own writings, he had admitted that `a situation could arise in which the checks-and-balances principle ceased to work and the various branches of government concurred in a gross usurpation.' There would be no usual remedy by changing the law or passing an amendment to the Constitution, should the oppressed party be a minority. Story concluded, `If there be any remedy at all … it is a remedy never provided for by human institutions.' That was the `ultimate right of all human beings in extreme cases to resist oppression, and to apply force against ruinous injustice.'" (From Mutiny on the Amistad by Howard Jones, Oxford University Press, 1987,
an account of the reading of the decision in the case by Justice Joseph Story of the Supreme Court.
As for grounds for arrest: "The carrying of arms in a quiet, peaceable, and orderly manner, concealed on or about the person, is not a breach of the peace. Nor does such an act of itself, lead to a breach of the peace." (Wharton's Criminal and Civil Procedure, 12th Ed., Vol.2: Judy v. Lashley, 5 W. Va. 628, 41 S.E. 197)
All existing or future so-called "gun and/or ammunition laws", of whatever name or form under "color of law", whether Federal, Federal Agency, Pseudo Federal Agency, State, County or Municipal that infringes, abridges or restricts in any manner, the God given, unalienable, indefeasible, Constitutional right of Citizens to keep and bear Arms peaceably, openly or concealed, for their defense of life, liberty, and property are prima facie violations of Article 1, Sec. 9, Part 3; Article 6, Part 2; and Amendments I, II, IV, IX, and X of the Constitution for the United States of America.
Article IV. 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.
BE IT KNOWN that any law, statute, or ordinance that is repugnant to the written Constitutions for the United States of America (1787) - Marbury vs. Madison 5 US 137,174, 176, (1803); and the State of
Arkansas (1874) is NULL and VOID, ab initio, ultra vires.
The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The written Constitution for the United States of America is the supreme
law of the land, any statute to be valid, must be in agreement. It is impossible for both the written Constitution for the United States of America and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is
succinctly stated as follows:
The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from
the time of its inactment, and not merely from the date so branding it. An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed.
Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it… A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law. Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby.
No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it. Sixteenth American Jurisprudence Second Edition, Section 256