web site index:

Officials' Immunity -- The Tie to Tyranny
by Ed Lewis (April 29, 2002)

Here is an excellent article about the so-called "doctrine of sovereign
immunity," which elected officials at every level use to evade responsibility
for their actions. In this article Ed Lewis argues that we must require
these turncoats to take responsibility for their own actions before we
can restore constitutional government to America.

There are many who say the Constitution is dead, or that it is a "living document" that changes with circumstances (e.g., Scalia of the US Supreme Court). There are even those who apparently believe the Constitution doesn't apply to them, which is to say that rights of the people apply only if they say it is okay, or that they are free to remove rights under some circumstances.

One of the circumstances in which a few believe the Constitution does not apply to them is the state of "official immunity". And who are these few who believe themselves above the law? Why, they are the very ones charged with seeing that "equality of the law" and the unalienable rights of the people are protected at all costs, even to the extent of declaring war against any country (or government) that attempts to force the surrender of those rights.

The writer in several instances has suggested to readers that they get out their copy of the Constitution to verify a point. Well, this isn't being said in a joking manner. Get out your copy and -- if you don't have a copy -- print one out from the many sources available (read the Constitution here). It is only 11 pages long. Since Article V of the Constitution states that amendments become part of the Constitution, also print out the Amendments to the Constitution (click here).

We have long passed the point of not relying on the principles secured by this document to nail offending officials to the cross, so to speak, for their many trespasses into the realm of human rights and the denial of the same. And then officialdom has the gall to falsely protect themselves and their co-conspirators against convictions for encroachments on -- or even the downright destruction of -- unalienable rights.

Except in the Preamble you are not going to see instructions given to the people targeted in the Constitution. The reason is simple. The people are sovereign and the rights of people are sovereign over all government and all other people. Unalienable rights of the individual are those that cannot be messed with. Period.

The founders wished to make certain those in government understood that the rights of the people do not have to be written down to exist. Thus the Ninth Amendment states:

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

Therefore, it is clear the people wrote the Constitution to secure rights by limiting government and setting down its basic operating functions. The Constitution does not "give" people rights as in "my constitutional rights." Why should it, when rights preceded written documents and -- according to our founders -- are given us by our Creator? In other words, it was government that was being established, not the freedom and rights of natural people.

We must understand that even without any document individual people have the right to live their lives as they see fit. Because those rights are inherent in the life given us by our Creator, they stand outside the realm of government control. Forced compliance to unconstitutional laws effectively removes the right of living free and creates a society of subjects.

Examples of people allowing the various governing bodies to tell them what they may do could fill thousands of pages since there are millions of laws being unlawfully applied to the sovereign. We must come to the realization that each and every law that is either applied outside the common law of men or outside the jurisdiction of the enforcing body is unconstitutional.

Are remedies supplied? Yes, but we must get this straight. Because the people are sovereign, no man or group of men may make any law that interferes with unalienable rights. The rule is that one may behave as he sees fit so long as he does not interfere with the rights of others. This is secured by the Constitution establishing parameters government must stay within, including those people who are "officials" or agents of the officials. Thus, only a citizen may file a complaint since governments do not have rights.

So, how are those in governing bodies getting away with it -- interfering with the unalienable rights of the individual man or woman? Enter "official immunity", an absolute atrocity to equality of law and the common law of the land, and a myth perpetuated by the thieves and traitors in government.

What is the source of the belief that officials are exempt from any accusations made against them concerning deprivation of rights? How can they claim immunity from any criminal charges made against them in regard to law making and the like?

Read the Constitution from the Preamble to the end of the document. Article I, Section 6, Clause 1 states:

"They [Senators and Representatives] shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of the respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same."

So there isn't any immunity given in this clause -- not even from arrest -- for treason, the commission of felonies, and breach of the peace. In fact, it indirectly allows arrests of officials who violate the rights of the People.

Since it must be considered part of the puzzle, read Article I, Section 9, Clause 8:

"No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States;"

Nobility, according to The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, means

"2. Noble rank or status: Congress may not grant titles of nobility. 3. The state or quality of being exalted in character."

Correct this is if it is wrong, but hasn't any group or individual with official immunity to arrest and prosecution for their crimes been given noble rank or status, or the state or quality of being exalted in character? Are students of the Constitution misunderstanding the meaning of the words used to the extent that they come out the exact opposite of what the founders intended? Let's continue.

Article II, Section 4 states that

"The President, Vice President, and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."

Hmm. There isn't any immunity given here. In fact, it is clear that all officials can be accused of treason, and possibly arrested for bribery and all other high crimes and misdemeanors, along with breach of the peace as in Article I, Section 6, Clause 1.

Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1 states that

"The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens of the several States."

Thus, all States must equally observe the rights of the people. This means citizens of one State are free to exercise their constitutionally protected rights even though in another State.

Rights determine our immunity from administrative law. Thus, is it not also true that the only people who are not under this requirement of equality and free expression of rights are the non-citizens living under privilege? Does it not make sense that non-resident aliens, for example, do not have the same protection -- that laws may be justly made which affect them regardless of the Constitution of the People?

A case in point is federal income tax, which can properly be applied to non-resident foreigners living here, to government granted privileges such as corporations, or to citizens with earnings from a foreign source in excess of $80,000; but not to the sovereign of the many States. Simply put, any franchised "person" is subject to the plenary power of government in regard to the privilege.

In light of this, does it not then make sense that any immunity to the supreme Law of the Land -- the common law of the Constitution -- must be based on lack of citizenship, or placement in a group outside the "citizens of the several states"? Keep this in mind.

In our investigation of the Constitution, we next must give strict attendance and adherence to Article VI, Clause 2, if we are to restore a constitutional government.

"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."

The Constitution is the supreme Law of the Land and the supreme law of every State. To further support this supremacy clause, the constitution of every State includes a provision that laws may not be made which contradict the Constitution.

Furthermore, in state statutes and in the United States Code, there are many statutes stating specifically that laws may not be made in contradiction to the Constitution. The interesting part is that administrative laws -- those laws made to control government activities or government granted activities -- subject people and organizations of government to strict guidelines regular people are not subjected to. The guidelines for officials are so strict that deviations from them are punishable as crimes (see Title 18 of the US Code).

It almost seems as if the founders believed that people who are elected, hired or appointed to government positions would not be able to understand Clause 2, or would forget their duty to the people, their sovereign. Thus, they continued in Article VI with:

"The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."

Now the courts have held that the Oath of Office and subscribing to it (as required by State constitutions and in State statutes) does not create a contract between the official and the people. However, the people made the government and made the requirements placed on officials. In doing so, the People created the Oath.

The newly elected, hired, or appointed official is presented the Oath of Office by the People. He is required to subscribe to it (sign it) before he can begin his duties -- within 15 days in the State of Missouri -- and if the Oath is not subscribed to, the office must be vacated.

Thus, there is an offer made (by the People) and an acceptance of the offer when the new official signs the Oath. Thus, a commercially valid contract has been made between the People and the official. He has agreed to abide by the Constitution. He in turn receives pay from the people for doing his job, plus the privilege of keeping his position.

Well, that covers the Constitution. It is clear that there isn't any immunity given to officials. In fact, the opposite is true. We next turn to the amendments, since the authority for officials' immunity must lie within them.

Rather than going through the first ten amendments -- the Bill of Rights -- it is prudent to just jump to the amendment that has been used to give officials immunity.The source for this fraud is the Eleventh Amendment. And one of the supreme Court cases enunciating this fraudulent doctrine is Will v. Michigan. Read this judicial "opinion" very carefully:

Moreover, we [Justice White] disagree with JUSTICE BRENNAN that at the time the Dictionary Act was passed "the phrase 'bodies politic and corporate' was understood to include the States." Post, at 78. Rather, an examination of authorities of the era suggests that the phrase was used to mean corporations, both private and public (municipal), and not to include the States.

But it does not follow that if municipalities are persons then so are States. States are protected by the Eleventh Amendment while municipalities are not, Monell, 436 U.S., at 690, n. 54, and we consequently limited our holding in Monell "to local government units which are not considered part of the State for Eleventh Amendment purposes," Will v. Michigan Dept. of State Police, 491 U.S. 58 (1989) (See also - Cooper v Aaron, 358 U.S. 1, 1958)

If you care to see why courts are not to interpret law or the Constitution, read the complete decision in Will v Michigan. It would be difficult to encounter more screwed up thinking than in this decision led by Justice White, a decision made to protect the State from suits made by people against the State and based on 42 USC, Section 1983 (this link will take you directly to that provision) and criminalized in Title 18, Sections 241 and 242.

Also, read the decisions cited in which there is strong disagreement with Justice White and his interpretation.

Here is the language used in the 11th Amendment. Please determine how it gives a State government and its officials immunity to lawsuits for violations of rights or any other violation. If you cannot understand the language used, then neither can the justices of the Supreme Court. If the amendment is that ambiguous, then the amendment must be repealed for vagueness.

"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."

Doesn't the amendment merely prohibit the judicial power (jurisdiction) of the United States in any suit in law or equity started by a citizen of one state or a foreign state against another State? Doesn't the 11th Amendment in fact limit the judicial power of the United States when a citizen of one State or a foreign State sues a State? I.e., such cases are NOT within federal jurisdiction.

Is it not clear then that it has nothing whatsoever to do with providing official immunity of any State government or any official therein from being sued by a citizen of the State?

Jurisdiction lies with the State when a citizen sues the State. But there isn't any way in hell that a State or the officials making up the government are immune from a lawsuit for violations of rights and other criminal activities. The truth is that administrative laws give people the foundation for suits and the filing of criminal complaints against offending officials.

Rights, including the right to sue for damages done against the sovereign, reign supreme over any level of government. The right to sue any individual or corporation (person) should and must remain supreme -- whether judges, attorneys in and/or advising the government, and government officials like it or not.

Plus, there is this. Holding that officials have immunity renders the Oath of Office all officials must subscribe to meaningless. Furthermore, any action giving any person or organization immunity effectively voids the Constitution and the Bill of Rights reflected in the first ten amendments, along with voiding all of God's laws.

Besides, People, official immunity to laws would place us in a quandary. If officials are exempted from the supreme Law of the Land because of their positions in government, then are they not outside the supreme Law of the Land? Does this not imply that they are not constitutional citizens and are therefore agents of a government foreign to that established by the Constitution?

This is tough to understand, but in the case of Justice White's thinking -- and of all others who protect officials at every level -- the State (as a government) is being treated as something separate from the People. This is a gross misinterpretation. The State is the People (State: A political unit consisting of an autonomous state inhabited predominantly by a people sharing a common culture, history, and language - American Heritage Dictionary, 4th Ed., 2000).

What is called the State government is a bunch of people, citizens of the State, who are given the honorable (once upon a time) task of protecting the rights of each man, woman, and child who make up the State. Never mind for now that few people in such governing bodies (bodies politic, and corporations) are "honorable" any longer.

If it is a separate organization, such as the US Government being a corporation independent of the State with its employees being franchises of the corporation, then so also must State governments be considered and treated as corporations independent of the People. As such, it or any of its agents may be sued at will by the People or charged by the People for criminal activities. This applies to every corporation, as all are classified as "persons" (entities not of natural creation) in law, contrary to Justice White's thinking.

Thus, either government officials are still citizens of one of the many States and subject to the Constitution uniting the States, the applicable State constitution, and the laws governing the administration of governments, or they are non-citizens (government created franchises) without the protection of the Constitution. Either way, there is no immunity from charges being made against them or from lawsuits by the People.

This includes the occupant of the Oval Office. Either he is a citizen subject to the supreme Law of the Land or he is not. If not, then no one outside his immediate employees (secretaries and the like) has to pay any attention to him whatsoever. He is an agent of an organization foreign to the many States. (Re-read Article II to see the truth in this.)

"Official immunity" is a great big crock of buffalo chips doled out by officials to protect themselves as they rape the Constitution and destroy this once great land. Such fallacies seek to destroy rights, and not to protect them.

Isn't it time that the People dig themselves out from under this mountain of fraud? Rather than simply lining offenders up and shooting them as our forefathers might have done, let's take them to task. Organize groups and file criminal charges. If judges will not accept the charges, then as a group make a citizen's arrest and throw his butt in jail while official charges are made out against him. Isn't that how other citizens are treated?

Then, arrest the other offenders and place them in jail. THE PEOPLE ARE SOVEREIGN, not those who are killing this nation with hundreds of thousands of unconstitutional laws meant only to govern the government and persons with government-granted privileges.

No matter what, do something other than sitting on your butt waiting for others to do it for you. Such lack of patriotism will only result in an eventual blood bath. And it is hard to believe that an armed conflict is desired by any American except maybe the traitors in or behind the federal government. They could care less one way or the other, as they will sit out the conflict in bunkers far underground or in their villas in other countries.

We -- meaning the whole of the People -- must end "official immunity," the concept binding us to tyranny by allowing officials in all levels of government to get away with atrocity after atrocity committed against the people of this country. The remedies are in administrative laws (State statutes), the constitution of every State, and the US Constitution. Use them.

Stand against tyranny now, folks, or it will worsen. Somehow, I don't believe allowing a complete police state with all people treated as subjects is the legacy we wish to leave our descendants. Or is it?

Bill of Rights Home Judicial Abuses

This web site paid for by Stanley for Senate. All rights reserved.
Contact the
. Contact the .