mass murder

aresting cops and judges for 18,464 mass murder at road stops

2007-05-30T20:20:00.000-07:00

From; Freedom Bureau Commissioner Home office
Soddy Daisy ,Tennessee 37379
423- 362-0088
Email reconmarine6@excite.com

Mandamus request from a “Great Man” A Guardian of an express trust for a First jurisdiction over subject matter and allow Basil Marceaux a Christian A Force Recon Marine civilian . one of the best of all soldiers with the highest Oath of the land a Protect and Defend land and sea , domestic and foreign against all enemies to order God back in our government on national T.V. using FEDERAL ACT 241
This law says on 3841 3rd column that a Army, Navy civilian , that a Marine ,belong to the president Army and belong to the Navy is “Great Men” and a federal judge and on page 3842 in column 1 says he can walk in to the U.S. Supreme Court and when a Great rules on land and judges no appeal can be taken
If I can do this, then I’m the highest authority to Constitution, In the beginning all members of congress must believe in god , but no pastors can hold those offices
I, Basil Marceaux order April 17, 2007 God Back into the United State Government and it will be unlawful for anyone to say separate church and state.
This law says on page 3842 also says our county was invaded.
Do you know who?
Can an invader changes the law? No
Everybody was taught in school about 40 acres and a mule that was given to the black which is stated in the first column, WHY DID THE GOVERNMENT CENSOR THE GREAT MAN AND THE INVASION OUT OF HISTORY?
This law says there will be need for this law when we are a republic again
we are not a republic we are a democracy! If you do not believe me go back and listen to president Bush oath speech, he said the pledge to a republic flag , oath to a republic constitution, then told all America Democracy must live on but never took a oath to it.
God is in our pledge, Declaration of Independent , all oaths. on our money.
It not in schools, they tried to take it out of our pledge and out our public buildings

Our public officials claim to be Christians but only between the hours 5:00 P.M. and 6:00 A.M.
Bring God Back , nobody can over rule a Great Man
You can find this in the Library of the Congress
God must always be first, then the invasion , then slavery at traffic stops. U.S. Supreme Court says no to the stops and the gun that traffic cops wear and county court says yes, now they shoot us, would not be murder ? that 3,239 murders in the U.S. Mass murders and 51 in my home town, but that another story!
This Great Man is poor an airplane ticket and lodging for two would be necessary!
Submitted respectfully

Basil Marceaux
810 Hyatt Rd.
Soddy Daisy, Tn 37379

FEDERAL ACT 241
“CONGRESSIONAL GLOBE 39TH CONGRESS”

Page 3841 Column 1Sir, I know that it is perfectly useless to appeal to the Constitution of the United States. It is a dead letter. It has no more weight or consideration in the legislation of Congress, in my judgment, than any other piece of printed matter. Not only are the negroes of the South set free by which the object and the aim of all the abolitionists in the land was accomplished as in the land was accomplished as we supposed, but a bill is passed by Congress conferring upon them all civil rights enjoyed by white citizens of the country, and they are now selected out from among the people of the United States, the public Treasury put at their disposal, and the white people of the country taxed for their support. Lands to which you claim title by virtue of a purchase under a tax sale, lands, therefore (if you have the title) of the United States, you take and give to the negroes in South Carolina. You give these lands to no white person, if it be said that is not an absolute gift, you may make money of it, the answer is that you say you sell them to negroes for $1 50 an acre. If you have the title to these lands, what is the reason that you select out the negro race and fix the price at $1 50 an acres, when, if your title be perfect, you can command perhaps fifty or one hundred dollars an acre for these cotton lands? If it was proper to make the remark in the Senate of the United States, I could say that you could have a purchaser without going out of the Senate at ten dollars an acre, taking the whole of them, every acre of the sixty-odd thousand acres which you propose to sell to these negroes at $1 50 an acre. If you have the title to these lands, that is the way you propose to dispose of them at a nominal price to the negro race.Mr. President, I shall attempt no review of the operations of the Freedman’s Bureau. I never believed that Congress has any right to establish any such bureau to take under its charge any particular portion of the people of the United States and to provide for them out of the public Treasury or out of the public lands. Such legislation was unknown in the early history of the Government, unknown until these extra ordinary times; but, sir, it seems that we have become so much wiser than our fathers that we have discovered new principles of government, and have found somewhere within our legislative power the authority to become guardians for four million negroes.Mr. President, there is one aspect of this case, and it will apply to many other cases that come before Congress, that it is time for the American people to begin to consider. If there is anything in private life to which I am opposed; if there is anything that I would oppose as a legislator, it is the repudiation of a private debt, and I do not believe in the repudiation of a public debt. This species of legislation taxes an unwilling people to support negroes in idleness, gives away your lands, if they be your lands, to negroes, that they may live in idleness upon them; deprives citizens of the United States of their title to lands contrary to the principles of the Constitution of the United States, which declares that they shall not be so divested except by due process of law. Pile up your public debt until it becomes so onerous that the people cannot and will not further bear it, and there are men in this country so anxious for political power, so anxious for political promotion that they will start a part in the country to wipe out the debt and get clear of the burden which you wish to impose upon them. I do not wish to see this; I wish to see the national faith and the national honor maintained; but sire, there is a limit to oppression and there is a limit to taxation beyond which the people will not suffer. Already, not in the South, for I have seen no indications from the quarter of any intention to repudiate this debt, but I will tell you, sir, that now, in your own free States, there are men, in my judgment, who would hail the day when your public debt-at least so much of it as has accrued from the appropriation of many to supportPage 3841 Column 2these negroes in idleness-there are men, I say, who would gladly see that portion of the public debt wiped out.This may be plain talk. No man can charge me with a design or a wish that such should be the case; but you must know that men are governed by interest. Your public debt is now over $3,000,000,000. You have added to it enormously during the present session. You propose to continue taxes upon the people of the United States to support this Freedmen’s Bureau for two years longer, and what will be the amount of expenditure under this bill no one can tell. The Commissioner may appoint just as many agents as he pleases, at a salary of not less than $300 each. It is impossible, there fore, for you to determine the amount of expenditure that will take place under this bill. It is so much more needlessly added to your public debt.Why, sir, it seems to me that we have got to conclude that there is no end to the resources of this country or the ability of the people to pay taxes. It used to be that a public debt of $100,000,000 was considered a great burden. An annual expenditure for the purposes of Government of fifty or sixty or seventy-five million dollars was considered such a wasteful expenditure of the public money that when you met in Chicago in 1800 you proclaimed yourselves the friends of retrenchment and reform, and were going to administer this Government upon more economical principles, at a less expenditure than it had been administered theretofore. And yet, sir, in the five or six year you have been in power you have piled up a debt of some five thousand million dollars. You yourselves admitted, the chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means in the House at the commencement of the session admitted that the public debt was $4,000,000,000 and more, and you are levying taxes upon the people of the country to pay the interest upon this enormous debt, and you propose to pay a portion of the principal. Where is the money to come from? There is taxation burdensome, onerous, upon all classes of the community, a stamp upon everything, the necessaries of life two or threefold higher in price than heretofore, and you suppose the people of this country are so absolutely demented that for mere love of the idle, worthless negro race they are going to submit to all this burden of taxation, and that this false philanthropy, the parent of idleness and vagabondism as far as that race is concerned, is going to waft you again into the seats of power and that a tax-ridden and tax-burdened people are going to hail you as the great party to save the country upon the principles of liberty and there to meet you with hosannas wherever you bear your partisan standards and cast their votes to continues you in the high places of power.Sir, there are periods in the history of the world, of all nations and people, when madness seizes upon the mind, when the judgment flies to brutish beasts. We have for a long time been in that situation, passing through it, in it, however, still; but, thank God, the symptoms of a political and a bright dawning began to appear. The People of this country at least are beginning to wake up to the true character of this legislation. Sirs, you sit not quietly in your seats; you are not entirely calm when you can be so alarmed at the call for a little meeting in Philadelphia. IT shows that you yourselves begin to think that there is something in your past political action that the judgment of the American people may not approve. You cannot pretend now that we are in the midst of a war. You cannot set up that plea of necessity, the last refuge of every man without any legal authority to support his action. You cannot set up such a plea as that, and say that there is any necessity for this Freemen’s Bureau. When the people of this country are called upon for their taxes, which, in part, are to be appropriated to the support of this Freemen’s Bureau, you cannot plead that we are now in a state of war and it is necessary to break down the military power in the South;Page 3841 Column 3it is necessary to preserve the integrity of the country; for I presume that in view of your legislation you yourselves will even now blush to say that you ever have preserved the American Union. You can plead none of these things. It is a direct, plain, palpable proposition to the American people to put their hands in their pockets, pull out the earning of their labor, and appropriate them to support the negroes in idleness. It seems to me that you believe sincerely the honestly that they will respond to such a call as that.But, Mr. President, there is a feature in this bill that undertakes to declare and almost undertakes to say that that shall be so which cannot in the very nature of things be so. This bill says that these agents of the Freemen’s Bureau, these guardian angels of the saintly negroes, these protectors of the idols of your heart, shall be under the military protection and subject to the military jurisdiction of the United States. What are they? Are they persons belonging to the Army or Navy of the United States? And can you by act of Congress say that A B, who in fact is in civil life, shall for certain purposes be considered as belonging to the military service? If you can say that the agents of the Freedmen’s Bureau, who cultivate the cotton lands of the South by negro labor for their own benefit, and who dispense your alms to those freed negroes, shall be under the military jurisdiction and protection of the United States, you may say that every member of this Senate and every private citizen of the United States shall be subject to the military protection and under the military jurisdiction of the United States; that he shall be protected by and have a remedy by and through the military power of the United States. How, sir, do you reconcile that with the Constitution of the United States, which declares that all civilians shall be subject to the civil law, and that only those persons who are engaged in the land and the naval forces shall be subject to the military jurisdiction of the United States?An attempt is made by this bill, therefore, to subvert a plain, palpable provision of the Federal Constitution by rendering civilians subject to military jurisdiction and affording them military protection. And what will be the consequence of this? If one of these agents, clothed with a little brief authority, dares to invade the right of any citizen of any State in which he shall be located, and the citizen seeks redress in the courts of law against him, you say by your bill that he shall be subject to the military jurisdiction and have the protection of the military power. You bring him in direct conflict with the civil authority of the States wherever any branch of this Freedmen’s Bureau shall be located. He is to b e protected by the military authority of the United States, and you exempt him in fact from trial for any wrong whatever, murder, breach of the peace, or any crime that can be committed. You exempt the party committing such offenses from responsibility to the civil tribunals. Some little military hero, who perhaps has never smelled gunpowder in battle, but who has been placed in charge of this Freedmen’s Bureau, is to step in and say to the highest courts in the States and to the highest civil authority, “You shall not take cognizance of offenses against the laws, for I am the great man, above the State law and all State authority, that is to determine whether this one of the pet lambs of congressional legislation shall be held amenable for his action or not.”This provision of this bill is totally subversive of the civil law of the land, and it is subjecting the civil authority in time of peace to the military authority. But, sir, that is not all. There is another provision of this bill. It used to be thought that it required many years of long labor and study to become a judge. It used to be a maxim that twenty years at least were required; but, sir, you are making judges fast. These commissioners and agents are by the provisions of this bill actually constituted judges-men who neither know the definition of an estate for life, for years, or in fee, whoPage 3842 Column 1know nothing in the world about land except they see the dirt of which it is composed and the vegetation that springs out of the ground. They are made judges, and judges in reference to title to lands, and judges, too, from whose decision there is to be no appeal. This bill expressly declares that these commissioners and agents shall determine the title to lands, and to give no appeals from their very learned and grave decision. Any ignoramus that has never seen a law book, and perhaps if he ever saw one could not read it, and ever fellow who never conceived a principle of law or a principle of justice, is to sit in solemn judgment in reference to the title to estates, and from his decision no aggrieved party can appeal.Mr. President, I question not the motives of others; I have no right to question them; but I have a right to speak my own honest opinions, and I think that the wit of man could not have framed a bill obnoxious to more serious objections in point of law than this bill to extend the operations of the Freedmen’s Bureau; and certainly if it had been the design to frame a bill impolite in its character, unwise in its provisions, ingenuity could not have possibly devised a bill to accomplish such a purpose more effectually than this. But, Mr. President, it is a foregone conclusion that this bill is to pass. A war, it seems, has been got up between the President of the United States and another portion of his party. The hostile armies on either side are arrayed. I will not be even a private in the ranks of either. I support the President wherever I believe he is right, and I oppose him where ever I believe his is wrong; and while I believe that you by your legislation are greatly promoting his political interests, and peradventure may lead to a renewal of his term of office, yet I claim not to belong to his party nor to yours-neither detachment nor wing of the party. But, sir, it seems this war has been got up, feeling has been engendered; and then when the President of the United Sates sends in a message assigning the strongest possible reasons why your bill should not become a law of the land, the bill must be fought out on this line though it takes all summer-no trace, no cessation of hostilities. All I have got to say is, keep on if you think there is no hereafter. It will not be long before the American people will decide upon the merits of this controversy. Passion is not going to last always; men are not going to be maddened always; the time for clear deliberation and clam thoughtfulness will come at last, and when it does come, I apprehend the reaction will be as powerful as was the invasion of constitutional liberty and constitutional principles by the now dominant party.The people of this country will not always submit to this species of legislation, but resorting to the peaceful method of the ballot box, tired of the control and mismanagement of a part that keeps one third of this Union practically out of the Union, which shuts the halls of legislation against the representatives of eleven States of the Union, and assumes to legislate not only for the States they represent but for those who are denied a voice in the councils of the nation, the time will come, I humbly hope and believe, when the American people, aroused to a sense of their own dignity and their own character and their own interests will, by filling these Halls with representatives of their will, forever put an end to this species of legislation and again restore the Government to the principles upon which it was administered by the founders of the Republic.The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is Shall the bill pass, the objections of the President notwithstanding? This question, under the Constitution, will be taken by yeas and nays.The question being taken, resulted – yeas 33, nays 12; as follows:YEAS-Mesars. Anthony, Brown, Chandler, Clark, Conness, Cruxfu, Creswell, Edmunds, Frsuden, Foster, Grimce, Harris, Henderson, Howard, Howe, Kirkwood, Lane of Indiana, Morgan, Morrill, Nye, Polland, Pomeroy, Ramsey, Sherman, Sprague, Stewart,Page 3842 Column 2Sumner, Trumbul, Wade, Willey, Williams, Wilson, and Yates-33.NAYS-Messrs, Buckalew, Davic, Doolittle, Gatherie, Hendricks, Johnson, McDougall, Nesmith, Norton, Riddle, Saulsbery, and VanWinkle-12.ABSENT-Messrs, Cowan, Dixon, Lane of Kansas, and Wright-4.The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Two thirds of this body have passed the bill, and it having been certified to this House that two thirds of the House of Representatives have voted for this bill, the objections of the President notwithstanding, and two thirds of this body having also voted for the bill, after reconsideration, the objections of The President notwithstanding, I now pronounce that this bill has become a law.

Commissioner /agent Basil Marceaux I as
a cFrom the desk of Freedom Bureau
ivilian U.S. Force Recon Marine

U.S. treasury
Brad Moore
Thank for taking my call the other day I only had little time to cover all details but as we read the congressional globe and other documents in the annals of congress in is clear that our county was invaded by a specimens group who does not follow the republic principles of our forefathers as stated in the congressional globe below .
This president was the last president who served as a president for republic form of government being that this one nation under god is now two nations under god and there nothing that he could do about ihe was invaded and today the second nation does not like our nation being under god.
The first document tell the duties of a U.S. Marshal when a freedom bureau Commissioner/ agent comes to there door and when the treasury of the United States specially authorize and required to pay the cost to bring the constitutional violators to justice
The second document tell who the Freedom Bureau commissioner/agent are. As it was ask by the congress who are the guardian angels of the Negro? are they army or navy? The Man who can walk in any state court and remove the judge who does not follow republic principle and go to the highest civil court of the land and do the same when it comes to breaking The U.S. Constitution and taking property from a citizen while doing so and is no appeal when these commissioner rules and all freedom Bureau commissioner/ agents a immuned from all crimes that may exist and has a license to kill for life.
I’m sure you can see it in the third column where the president told the congress you take a=b who is a civilian and the soldier with no powder in there musket are also included and may work in the field is a Freedom Bureau commissioner/agent and should be paid $500 a year by the treasury
In the last paragraph this president order anyone of these agents to change the U. S. back to a republic because the navy and the army allowed our country to be invaded this was there final hope.
Because i hold a federal protect and defend oath to the constitution for life Once a Marine always a Marine, if you do not believe me call the Marine and ask them if my oath is for life?
I’m am the president army and navy , I’m a civilian and i use a knife no gun or powder 80% of the time.
Being the invaders stop my funding the act is still law and enforceable and I now ask you to respect the wishes of that congress and fund me so i can stop the continuing collecting of illegal funds at state courts who allows masses breaches of oaths, slavery though false arrest and imprisonment. If the supreme court say no you can not look ,state court can not say yes we are so we can collect estimated 1.4 billion dollar per state and there nothing you are going to do about it, then fixes the trial that 95% of the citizens are guilty just to balance there budget and keep people working. It should only take one rulings but the invader keep breaking the citizens rights hoping they will appeal and a new judge will over turn a old ruling which also fixxes the trial.
There are costs that incurred in 5 counties courts amounting to around $5.000 where a freedom bureau commissioner ask the judge of the county to arrest the district attorney ,the sheriff and the county attorney for slavery though false arrests the case is on appeal but you read it when an agent rules there is no appeal but the trial judge refused to listen to the supreme court, the U.S. Constitution, which allows them to believe there court are ferior to the U.S. Supreme Court.
The U.S. Marshal office in Chattanooga refused to follow federal law and now owes 550 million dollars and climbing every day in tax , I now ask you to freeze funding to that unit until the tax is paid to the bureau it is the law.
We need bureau cars with gas ,at least three to fill the requirements of this act that is still law.
The bureau needs a office building with phone and office supply with a staff.
When one of the agent in the future step forward as agent it required that a salary be paid ,back then it was $1.50 a day a carpenter made a dollar a day. Today a carpenter makes $15 - $20 per hour making a commissioner pay about $21.00 per hour. This marine became a commissioner 4 years ago.
Stay funding to the flag room in Washington until they make all states in the U.S. to fly the U.S. flag right as required my the U.S. Flag code of 1959 most important the state court can not fly a war flag in there court only the executive branch of the government can fly the U.S. Flag with the gold trim and in a public fourm the Flag should be ahead of the audience and behind the speaker. The D/a, the criminal, the witness is speakers we come to speak to the judge he audience the U.S. flag must be moved and no other flag shall be equal or higher than the U.S Flag . Must show superior presence wherever it may stand.
Thank you
Basil MarceauxI
423-362-0088

aresting cops and judges for 18,464 mass murder at road stops

2007-05-30T19:56:00.000-07:00

I want to arrest my first judge to help me free the slaves and mass murder
This was filed
This is the first 1st jurisdiction case in a appeal court in 146 years or it way to the U.S. Supreme Court as an 1st appeal and must be excepted because it is my right and this also never happen in 146 years
The 6th Circuit Court

From; Freedom Bureau Commissioner Home office
Soddy Daisy ,Tennessee
Part #3
This Great man entity can police the rulings of the U.S. Supreme Court, and our system as we know it. Becoming a member of an elite group like the U.S. Marine, and Force, Battalion Recon required that The Enlistment oath U.S.C.A. 10- 502 to pledge to and require this Marine to have obedience to superior orders U.S.C.A. 10-976 et and ,This Great man was ordered to protect the U.S. Constitution in the home land and oversea .
This Great man was never relief of this responsible, once a marine always a marine. .All these public officials are operating a indictable and impeachable offences of kidnapping, extortion, racketeering ring, jury temping and fixing, Embezzlement, Entrapment, Massive Judicial Misconduct, as described in- U.S.C.A. 18-1961-+ 18 -241 + 18- 1203 + 18-1202 and all the T.C.A. to maintain the Tennessee counties and cities budget for the last 3 - 8 years.
This Great man states that after intensive search in Tennessee and any U.S. Courts cases, there is no precedent history for this magnitude of crime.

This Great man A man with guts, doing the right thing is no different in a big matter such as, say, hanging around the Alamo after you have been asked to leave ,or in a small matter, such as risking your job by defending a racial matter . If we listen to Thomas Jefferson statement The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, and requires the blood of patriot and tyrants.
President Reagan stated if a citizen rights are broken the federal government must reinstate that citizen rights even at gun point. Let it be known that in the state Tennessee there are citizens with gut to protect our U.S. Constitution when needed, but you go to the street and ask 200 people in 15 counties in Tennessee and discuss routine traffic stop as it lay out below, the 189 would say that wrong it is against our Constitutional rights ,but what can one do about it? These public officials are the law.
The system will have to find a new way. If you take the 5,696 D.U.I.s last year, only 399, executed by road blocks, maybe were legal, At 5277DUI x $500.00+ costs of $125.00, an estimated 45000 open containers x 50.x 106 court cost, 85,726 x $10+ court costs of $80.00 for seat belts. 134,578 pot smokers x $ 500. + $275. cost and only around 55 major drug dealers were arrested. Let me tell you I've talked with and citizen’s arrested the sheriff, a judge and a police officer all of them didn't know or want to know about Knowels. On top of all that the judge and the sheriff claim sovereign immunity and the police officer refused to turn themselves over as stated in the Tenn. code. A couple weeks ago county judge was on the bench he didn't know what Knowels was and when a defendant in his court, shown him a copy he read two sentences and then said he wouldn't honor it. He should have at least read the whole thing but the county needed the money so without any regard to the U.S. Supreme court, the Constitution, or the citizens. he decided to extend the blue line law where the U.S. Supreme Court wouldn’t.
This Great man claims that defendants co -defendants cease to be a defensive instrument and became a coercive weapon, this happen when the defendants engages in violence against the peaceful citizen, restricts the liberty of a citizen, and confiscate a citizen property for their own or some other entity to profit. All the defendants criminal acts are by far the absolute worst than armed raping, pillaging drug dealers or gangs. Now we are adding a new search item car insurance . Car insurance a new extortion tactic against the low-income citizen. Since Tennessee didn’t require insurance for a lots year only the citizens who chose had insurance and during these years if a citizen who didn’t have insurance wanted to get insurance had to pay a premium of up to 300% more than a citizens who had insurance for years. This policy is still in effect so the low-income uninsured has no chance in this trouble world. All this would be a nightmare for this type of citizens no insurance get a $100 fine plus court cost lose his or her driver license now county fee of $ 80.00 and court cost, then reinstatement fees for the state. Each one of these citizens would get a least 20 suspending $100 each and has to drive to work to support their families. Now let add all this up either pay 300% more insurance or at least $2180.00 in fines x 100000 citizens =
$218,000,000.
This Great man personally states that there are over 100 people that are being arrested every day here in Hamilton County. Under Knowels v Iowa police are limited to only given tickets and any search is illegal. All citizens’ rights needs to be protected. All the cities and county officials and long with our federal Congressmen and Senators of our state of Tennessee are refusing to act. The defendants are resemble a bureaucrat prostitutes and bullies which passes new laws and regulations which need to be enforced because these new rules create paying jobs for themselves and never concern themselves with the concepts of personal rights or right or wrong of real justice, the defendants say I’m just doing my job and that I don’t make the rules. A bullies taking advantage has two motto for there victims: never give a victim and even break, and we dare you to fight.
Now this is three years since Knowels was rule on. over 250,000 (estimated) wrong ruling in three years, and now everybody involved is turning into a racketeers, exorcist, kidnapper the crimes are to big to stop, bigger than Watergate. The illusion of freedom in nazi Germany you will be free as soon as i see is your papers are in order, in communist Soviet union you will be free as soon as i see your travel papers, in Tennessee you will be free as soon I see your driver license, registration, and proof of your insurance. Welcome to Tennessee check your guns! put your helmets on !fasten your seat beats . The Supreme Court unanimously ruled that police officers couldn’t automatically search a vehicle after a routine stop.
In This Great man opinion this is kidnapping, extortion, and racketeering. If you can’t find evidence for the speeding in the car they can't look for anything else. THIS HAS TO STOP!! All that is necessary for evil people to triumph is for good people to do nothing.
These public officials at all levels seem to feel they have the right and duty to lie and steal, oppression is there style, tyranny their method, and despotism is their standard, with plunder being ultimate goal.
This Great man claims can any one suppose it to be reasonable that a set of men should have the uncontrollable right to lay the most heavy and grievous burdens upon us, if they please, purely to gratify their unbound avarice and luxury? Must we be obliged to perish with cold and hunger to maintain them in idleness, in all kinds of debauchery and dissipation? If they have the right to take our property from us with out our consent, we must be wholly at their mercy for food and raiment, and we know ,by sad experience, that their tender mercy are cruel . Because are not willing to submit to such an unrighteous and cruel decree, though we modestly complaint and humbly petition for a redress of our grievances, instead of a hearing on our complaint, and granting our requests,, they have gone on to add iniquity to transgression, by cruel and unrighteous act, whereby thousands of innocent citizens had their lives ruined.
This Great man states these public officials are bunch of damnable kidnappers, extortionists, racketeers pretending to be our sovereign leaders, do indeed talk about out rights, but the defendants retain to themselves the power to violate them to all intents and purposes by surulously searching the English language to find words feeble in the nature or doubtful in their meaning, and then the defendants interpret them for their own evil proposes. The end doesn’t always equal the means.
2.Knowels v Iowa U.S. Supreme court (1998)
In pursuant of all the following cases:
. In Robinson, we held that the authority to conduct a full field search as incident to an arrest was a "bright-line rule,"
New York v. Belton, 453 U. S. 454, 460(1981).
Michigan v. Long, 463 U. S. 1032, 1049
(1983);
2.Terry v.Ohio, 392 U. S. 1 (1968); conduct a "Terry patdown"
3. Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U. S. 420, 439 (1984). See also Cupp v. Murphy, 412 U. S. 291, 296 (1973)
4. Officer safety_is " `both legitimate and weighty,' " Maryland v.Wilson, 519 U. S. 408, 412 (1997)
5. Quoting Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U. S. 106, 110 (1977) (per curiam)).
6. Agnello v. United States, 269 U. S. 20, 30 (1925);
7. Weeks v.United States, 232 U. S. 383, 392 (1914).
8. United States v. Edwards, 415 U. S. 800, 802-803 (1974);
9. Chimel v. California, 395 U. S. 752, 762-763 (1969);
10. Preston v. United States, 376 U. S. 364, 367 (1964); 2
11. United States v. Edwards, 415 U. S. 800, 802-803 (1974);
12. Chimel v. California, 395 U. S. 752, 762-763 (1969);
13. Preston v. United States, 376 U. S. 364, 367 (1964); 2
14. W. LaFave, Search and Seizure 5.2(h), p. 99, and n. 151 (3d ed. 1996). arresting officer had probable cause to make a custodial arrest, there need not in fact have been a custodial arrest. We granted certiorari,
15. In # 14 above ,523 U. S. 1019 (1998), and we now reverse."
16. Search incident to arrest" exception recognized in United States v. Robinson, 414 U. S. 218 (1973),
All the above cases were used for or not for searches in routine traffic stop in Knowels v Iowa and all “for “arguments were denied or reversed. The plaintiff agrees with the U.S. Supreme Court and relieve that there are over 7500 people that are being arrested every day here in Tennessee.
Knowels v Iowa, this is the ruling of U.S. Supreme Court. The copy enclosed came from the bounded version in the archives of the U.S. Supreme Court. This version is the only one that counts. After reading this you will see that on a regular basis, our U.S. senators, congressmen, state and county officials, along with the police are stealing money from our citizens in the estimated amount of $ 65,000,000 to 120,000,0000. each year, plus all the property forfeitures, by false arrest. The only way that citizens can prove they are right is by suing in court. Normally each case has to go to county court then state court, then federal court at a cost to the citizens of $30,000 or more each. If you look you will find at least 1,200 cases going at one time using our tax money to fight the citizen in court and then if the state loses they take more of our tax money to pay it off.
This Great man argues the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled that police officers couldn’t automatically search a vehicle during a routine stop. All justices agree that no further evidence of excessive speed were going to be found either on the persons in the car, or in the passenger compartment of the car. Chief Justice W. Rehnquist said the law, which was designed to protect officers during an arrest, did not apply in relative’s brief encounter such as a traffic stop .
Under Knowels v Iowa police are limited to only giving tickets and any search is illegal.
This Great man and all other citizens’ rights needs to be protected as our forefathers promised with the U.S. Constitution . All the cities and county officials, with our federal Congressmen and Senators of our state of Tennessee are refusing to act. Now this has been three years since Knowels were ruled on. Over 250,000 (estimated) wrong rulings in three years, and now everybody involved are turning routine traffic stops into a racketeering and extortion. kidnapping ring’s. These crimes against all spots of We The People were going on for almost a century and are to big to stop, bigger than Watergate

Abraham Lincoln said we the people ARE THE RIGHTFUL MASTERS OF BOTH CONGRESS AND THE COURTS--NOT TO OVERTHROW THE CONSTITUTION, BUT OVERTHROW THE MEN WHO PERVERT THE CONSTITUTION .
Now This Great man is not for DUI, drugs, or any other type of crimes ,but George Washington stated once “To do nothing for the cause of right is to do something for the cause of wrong”
Jo.
In 1777 John Adams stated You will never know how much it cost the present generation, to preserve your freedom! I hope you make good use of it. If you do not ,I shall repent in heaven that ever took the pains to preserve it.

This Great man a sovereign resident of Tennessee argues the state justice system
were willfully conspire, premeditate to disrespect too human rights, privileges and immunities guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution and laws of the United States (u.s.c.a.) and Rulings of the U.S. Supreme Court by operating a kidnapping, extortion and racketeering ring as stated above which bring to the question of jury fixing, massive judicial misconduct, to maintain the Tennessee counties and cities budget for the last 8 years with habit routine practice
This Great man argue:
1. KIDNAPPING: The constitution guarantee personal privacy. With the defendants and co defendants granting them with the power to extent the bright-line law where the U.S. Supreme Court refused to do. All defendants allowed Second Thought arrests, these are arrests that were made after the law enforcement officers exit there police cars while on a public roads within the state of Tennessee. All partiesviolated, Man law, Constitution Law, and an U.S. Supreme Court ruling. All the defendants held the routine traffic stoppers against there will, from one minute to years.
2. EXTORTION: As a direct and proximate results of the herein described arrests was made to go to court, maybe jailed all illegally.
A. The defendants force all citizens involved to pay an outside agencies a ransoms (bail bond) to be released from the kidnapping.
B. The defendants force all citizens involved to answer for crimes that were found illegally, in most cases if you bond out, the rights to a free consular is denied. Being denied then you have to pay for legal consular in most cases the court judge said too the citizen if he or she want to sign a wavier to an attorney we can dissolve their case right now.
C. The defendants knowing of the Knowels v Iowa refused to instruct all law enforcement officers when testifying in court of law of the 3 - 8 years ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court. Instead the citizen without a lawyer don’t know the law or Knowels v Iowa and if the citizen don't quote the right law or have a good excuse he or she would be fine and court cost added. How what about the citizen that has a lawyer, a fixer or deal makers goes to court if the lawyer don’t quote a law in defense of the citizen, a deal is made. Knowels v Iowa is a lawyer and law enforcement worst nightmare because law enforcement don’t be able to continue in the ongoing practice. The lawyer has a better reason by not using this ruling as a defense because if citizens knew of Knowels v Iowa he or she would be able to state it and if the court is constitutional safe case would be dismiss and the attorney just loss $ 500.00 to $4000. for each one.
D. All the defendants continue to collect ransoms or (fines and court cost) so the citizen can continue to be free through several 100 outside concerns like a bonding company the defendants issue licenses to the bonding companies, the bonding companies get the random from the citizens plus a new fee which started last year of $12.00 that go directly to the state of Tennessee to help balance the balance the budget.
2. RACKETEERING: The plaintiff being part of WE THE PEOPLE can’t allow racketeering from another citizens or an entity of government that we own. Being that all the defendants knowingly continued impeachable practices more than 1 time at each location and maintain a one sided operation for three years as described in Federal ,Tennessee code and should be held accountable for all there negligence. Are they accountable?
COUNT II
1. Jury Tempering and Fixing: The defendants As creator of regulation provisions knowingly that the citizen’s constitutional rights would harm and close all the doors available to that citizen. Do you Agree?
2. Embezzlement: All the defendants allowed for the citizens constitutional rights to be annulled and when several citizens decided to go to court to fight for their rights the defendants take our tax money to pay to defend the wrong done and if the defendants cases are lost, all the defendants takes our tax money to pay settlements. Do You Agree?
3. Entrapments: All the defendants allowed bad legislation to be introduce and pass into law . DO You Agree?
A. All the defendants knowingly knew that if a citizen is an alcohol beverage drinker he would drive to an outlet to get such beverage and then back home again. Now through liqueur licensing and taxation all the defendants promote DUI. by maintaining the maximum sales program to balance the Tennessee state budget with said licensing and taxation. Do You Agree?
B. All the defendants has conflict of interest and refuse to take steps to decrease sale volume of alcohol at any outlets through out the state of Tennessee instead the citizen is retained at a routine traffic stop and his or her constitution rights are forgotten. While all the defendants received revenue from the sale and then trap the citizen to get a fine and court cost.
This Great man argues Sovereign immunity and judicial cover up: The defendants deliberately fine citizens guilty and when a citizen try to citizen arrest under Tennessee state statue for wrong doing, the defendants refuse to turn themselves over to proper judicial.
In pursuant DR 1-101 DR1-102 -1,2,3,5 EC 2-1, 2-2, This Great man Moves the honorable court to act quickly and aggressively to stop a conspiracy to defraud, misrepresent the Tennessee citizens involving dishonesty and engaging in prejudicial to the administration of justice
In pursuant EC2 -27 and 2-28 the plaintiff is accusing the defendants of manipulating the cost of defending or refusing to represent a client in cases involving unpopular causes involving judges other lawyers, public officials or influential members of the community. In most cases involving judges, other lawyers, public officials, or influential member of the community if the plaintiff is a low income client that his or her constitutional rights are in question and with the power of the defendants in influencing the creatation of new laws make it almost impossible for this type of plaintiff to goes to court. First if this citizens gets to court the defendants already passed more complex laws, like state a claim, cause of action preventing this pro se plaintiff in getting a favorable decision in any court unless he goes into a massive studying for month but by it to late the statue of limitation expirer.
This Great man claims that these state judges knew the comments of the U.S. Supreme Court in Knowels v Iowa allowed citizens to be arrested for crimes without a warrant The defendants support the practices of kidnapping, extortion, and racketeering of the current Tennessee sovereign immunity government officials.
This Great man claim can any one suppose it to be reasonable that a set of men should have the uncontrollable right to lay the most heavy and grievous burdens upon us, if they please, purely to gratify their unbound avarice and luxury? Must we be obliged to perish with cold and hunger to maintain them in idleness, in all kinds of debauchery and dissipation? If they have the right to take our property from us with out our consent, we must be wholly at their mercy for food and raiment, and we know ,by sad experience, that their tender mercy are cruel . Because are not willing to submit to such an unrighteous and cruel decree, though we modestly complaint and humbly petition for a redress of our grievances, instead of a hearing on our complaint, and granting our requests,, they have gone on to add iniquity to transgression, by cruel and unrighteous act, whereby thousands of innocent citizens had their lives ruined.
This Great man states these state officials are bunch of kidnappers, extortionist, racketeers pretending to be our sovereign leaders, do indeed talk about out rights, but the defendants retain to themselves the power to violate them to all intents and purposes by surulously searching the English language to find words feeble in the nature or doubtful in their meaning, and then the defendants interpret them for their own evil proposes. The end doesn’t always equal the means.
THIS HAS TO STOP!! Do you think so?
The needs to decease the number of lawsuits that eat away at our budgets is a must.
. In 1777 John Adams stated You will never know how much it cost the present generation, to preserve your freedom! I hope you make good use of it. If you do not ,I shall repent in heaven that ever took the pains to preserve it. If there is a spark of the founding fathers within all of you , now is the time to fan this into a flame.
This Great man strongly believe in our Constitutional rights, and hope this action also will have a side effect of lowering the number of lawsuits that eats away our budgets and make

The 6th Circuit Court
Basil Marceaux I
Freedom Bureau Commissioner Home office
Soddy Daisy ,Tennessee 37379
Mandamus Order
Its appearing to the court that this Mandamus order from a “Great Man” A Guardian of an express trust for a request for First jurisdiction action over subject matter and appoint this moving party as the commissioner using the Means of vindication act ,Sec.4 and the law stated in Congressional globe 39th congress page 3841-42 to stop murders, constitutional rights violations, slavery, Kidnapper extortionists. racketeers, jury fixers, and all felony crimes is granted
It appear to this court if it violates the 4th then you can’t do it and if you do it then involuntary servitude is in place, slavery because the parties were not duly convicted.
It appear to this court that all costs connected with the arrest of anyone under the color of the law will be paid by the public trust where this commissioner Basil Marceaux I is standing
It appear to this court that all warrants for parties arrested must be honored by the U.S. Marshal Office or a $1000.00 fine for each refusal.
It appear to this court that all parties except a judge who is arrested would be arraigned in U.S. Court
It appear to this court that a “Great Man” is a federal judge for land and judges and when handing down a ruling no appeal can be taken.
It appear to this court that this commissioner Basil Marceaux shall get paid the going rate $ 27.00 hour which is equal to $500.00 a year in 1866.
Ordered, adjudged and Decreed that this Freedom Bureau Commissioner, a “Great Man” ,A Marine Force Recon Civilian with a Guardian of an express trust oath to the constitution, and a such person as stated in the EMANCIPATION PROCLAMATION
will recognize and maintain the freedom of such persons and win do no act or acts to repress such persons, or any of them,, in any efforts they may make for their actual freedom shall be appointed as lay out in the Means of vindication act .

Enter--------------day of--------------2007
------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------
Circuit Court Judges

KNOWLES V IOWA
An Iowa policeman stopped petitioner Knowles for speeding and issued him a citation rather than arresting him. The officer then conducted a search of the car, without either Knowles' consent or probable cause, found marijuana and a "pot pipe," and arrested Knowles. Before his trial on state drug charges, Knowles moved to suppress the evidence, arguing that because he had not been arrested, the search could not be sustained under the "search incident to arrest" exception recognized in United States v. Robinson, 414 U. S. 218. The trial court denied the motion and found Knowles guilty, based on state law giving officers authority conduct a full-blown search of an automobile and driver where they issue a citation instead of making a custodial arrest. In affirming the State Supreme Court applied its bright-line "search incident to citation" exception to the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement, reasoning that so long as the officer had probable cause to make a custodial arrest, there need not in fact have been an arrest.
Held: The search at issue, authorized as it was by state law, nonetheless violates the Fourth Amendment. Neither of the two historical exceptions for the "search incident to arrest" exception, see Robinson, supra, at 234, is sufficient to justify the search in the present case. First, the threat to officer safety from issuing a traffic citation is a good deal less than in the case of a custodial arrest. While concern for safety during a routine traffic stop may justify the "minimal" additional intrusion of ordering a driver and passengers out of the car, it does not by itself justify the often considerably greater intrusion attending a full field type search.
Even without the search authority Iowa urges, officer have other, independent bases to search for weapons and protect themselves from danger. Second, the need to discover and preserve evidence does not exist in a traffic stop, for once Knowles was stopped for speeding and issued a citation, all evidence necessary to prosecute that offense had been obtained. Iowa's argument that a "search incident to citation" is justified because a suspect may try to hide evidence of his identity or of other crimes is unpersuasive. An officer may arrest a driver if he is not satisfied with the identification furnished, and the possibility that an officer would stumble onto evidence offense seems remote. Pp. 116-119e of an unrelated 569 N. W. 2d 601, reversed and remanded.
Rehnquist, C. J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court. Paul Rosenberg argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the briefs was Maria Ruhtenberg. Bridget A. Chambers, Assistant Attorney General of Iowa, argued the cause for respondent. With her on the brief were Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Elizabeth M. Osenbaugh, Solicitor General.* Chief Justice Rehnquist delivered the opinion of the Court. An Iowa police officer stopped petitioner Knowles for speeding, but issued him a citation rather than arresting
him.
The question presented is whether such a procedure authorizes the officer, consistently with the Fourth Amendment, to conduct a full search of the car. We answer this question "no." Knowles was stopped in Newton, Iowa, after having been clocked driving 43 miles per hour on a road where the speed limit was 25 miles per hour. The police officer issued a citation to Knowles, although under Iowa law he might have arrested him. The officer then conducted a full search of the car, and under the driver's seat he found a bag of marijuana and a "pot pipe." Knowles was then arrested and charged with violation of state laws dealing with controlled substances
. Before trial, Knowles moved to suppress the evidence so obtained. He argued that the search could not be sustained under the "search incident to arrest" exception recognized in United States v. Robinson, 414 U. S. 218 (1973), because he had not been placed under arrest. At the hearing on themotion to suppress, the police officer conceded that he had James J. Tomkovicz, Steven R. Shapiro, Susan N. Herman, and Lisa B. Kemler filed a brief for the American Civil Liberties Union et al. as amici curiae urging reversal. Stephen R. McSpadden filed a brief for the National Association of Police Organizations, Inc., as amicus curiae urging affirmance. neither Knowles' consent nor probable cause to conduct the search.
He relied on Iowa law dealing with such searches. Iowa Code Ann. 321.485(1)(a) (West 1997) provides that Iowa peace officers having cause to believe that a person has violated any traffic or motor vehicle equipment law may arrest the person and immediately take the person before a magistrate. Iowa law also authorizes the far more usual practice of issuing a citation in lieu of arrest or in lieu of continued custody after an initial arrest.1 See Iowa Code Ann. 805.1(1) (West Supp. 1997). Section 805.1(4) provides that the issuance of a citation in lieu of an arrest "does not affect the officer's authority to conduct an otherwise lawful search." The Iowa Supreme Court has interpreted this provision as providing authority to officers to conduct a full blown search of an automobile and driver in those cases where police elect not to make a custodial arrest and instead issue a citation that is, a search incident to citation.
See State v. Meyer, 543 N. W. 2d 876, 879 (1996); State v. Becker, 458 N. W. 2d 604, 607 (1990). Based on this authority, the trial court denied the motion to suppress and found Knowles guilty. The Supreme Court< of Iowa, sitting en banc, affirmed by a divided vote. 569 N. W. 2d 601 (1997). Relying on its earlier opinion in State v. Doran, 563 N. W. 2d 620 (1997), the Iowa Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the search under a bright-line search incident to citation" exception to the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement, reasoning that so long as the 1 Iowa law permits the issuance of a citation in lieu of arrest for most offenses for which an accused person would be "eligible for bail." See Iowa Code Ann. 805.1(1) (West Supp. 1997). In addition to traffic and motor vehicle equipment violations, this would permit the issuance of a citation in lieu of arrest for such serious felonies as second-degree burglary, 713.5 (West Supp. 1997), and first-degree theft, 714.2(1) (West 1993), both bailable offenses under Iowa law. See 811.1 (West Supp. 1997) (listing all non-bailable offenses). The practice in Iowa of permitting citation in lieu of arrest is consistent with law reform efforts.
See W. LaFave, Search and Seizure 5.2(h), p. 99, and n. 151 (3d ed. 1996). arresting officer had probable cause to make a custodial arrest, there need not in fact have been a custodial arrest. We granted certiorari, 523 U. S. 1019 (1998), and we now reverse.
The State contends that Knowles has challenged Iowa Code's 805.1(4) only "on its face" and not "as applied," in which case, the argument continues, his challenge would run afoul of Sibron v. New York, 392 U. S. 40 (1968). But in his motion to suppress, Knowles argued that because the officer had no probable cause and no search warrant, and the search cannot otherwise be justified under the Fourth Amendment, the search of the car was unconstitutional."App. 7. Knowles did not argue below, and does not argue here, that the statute could never be lawfully applied.
The question we therefore address is whether the search at issue, authorized as it was by state law, nonetheless violates the Fourth Amendment.2 In Robinson, supra, we noted the two historical rationale for the "search incident to arrest" exception: (1) the need to disarm the suspect in order to take him into custody, and (2) the need to preserve evidence for later use at trial. 414 U. S., at 234. See also United States v. Edwards, 415 U. S.800, 802-803 (1974); Chimel v. California, 395 U. S. 752, 762- 763 (1969); Preston v. United States, 376 U. S. 364, 367 (1964); 2 Iowa also contends that Knowles' challenge is precluded because he failed to seek review of a separate decision of the Iowa Supreme Court, which affirmed his conviction for possession of drug paraphernalia in violation of a city ordinance.
That decision, Iowa argues, resulted from the same search at issue here, rejected the same Fourth Amendment challenge Knowles now makes, and, under principles of res judicata, bars his present challenge. Even if Knowles' failure to seek certiorari review of this decision could preclude his present challenge, Iowa waived this argument by failing to raise it in its brief in opposition to the petition for certiorari. See this Court's Rule 15.2; Oklahoma City v. Tuttle, 471 U. S. 808, 816 (1985) ("Non-jurisdictional defects of this sort should be brought to our attention no later than in respondent's brief in opposition to the petition for certiorari; if not, we consider it within our discretion to deem the defect waived"). Agnello v. United States, 269 U. S. 20, 30 (1925); Weeks v. United States, 232 U. S. 383, 392 (1914). But neither of these underlying rationales for the search incident to arrest exception is sufficient to justify the search in the present case. We have recognized that the first rationale officer safety_ is " `both legitimate and weighty,' " Maryland v.Wilson, 519 U. S. 408, 412 (1997) (quoting Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U. S. 106, 110 (1977) (per curiam)). The threat to officer safety from issuing a traffic citation, however, is a good deal less than in the case of a custodial arrest. In Robinson, we stated that a custodial arrest involves "danger to an officer" because of "the extended exposure which follows the taking of a suspect into custody and transporting him to the police station." 414 U. S., at 234-235. We recognized that "[t]he danger to the police officer flows from the fact of the arrest, and its attendant proximity, stress, and uncertainty, and not from the grounds for arrest." Id., at 234, n. 5.
A routine traffic stop, on the other hand, is a relatively brief encounter and "is more analogous to a so-called `Terry stop' . . . than to a formal arrest." Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U. S. 420, 439 (1984). See also Cupp v. Murphy, 412 U. S. 291, 296 (1973) ("Where there is no formal arrest . . . a person might well be less hostile to the police and less likely to take conspicuous, immediate steps to destroy incriminating evidence").This is not to say that the concern for officer safety is absent in the case of a routine traffic stop. It plainly is not. See Mimms, supra, at 110; Wilson, supra, at 413-414.
But while the concern for officer safety in this context may justify the "minimal" additional intrusion of ordering a driver and passengers out of the car, it does not by itself justify the often considerably greater intrusion attending a full field type search.
Even without the search authority Iowa urges, officers have other, independent bases to search for weapons and protect themselves from danger. For example, they may order out of a vehicle both the driver, Mimms, supra, at 111, and any passengers, Wilson, supra, at 414; perform a "pat down" of a driver and any passengers upon reasonable suspicion that they may be armed and dangerous, Terry v. Ohio, 392 U. S. 1 (1968); conduct a "Terry pat down" of the passenger compartment of a vehicle upon reasonable suspicion that an occupant is dangerous and may gain immediate control of a weapon, Michigan v. Long, 463 U. S. 1032, 1049 (1983); and even conduct a full search of the passenger compartment, including any containers therein, pursuant to a custodial arrest, New York v. Belton, 453 U. S. 454, 460(1981).Nor has Iowa shown the second justification for the authority to search incident to arrest the need to discover and
preserve evidence.
Once Knowles was stopped for speeding and issued a citation, all the evidence necessary to prosecute that offense had been obtained. No further evidence of excessive speed was going to be found either on the person oft he offender or in the passenger compartment of the car. Iowa nevertheless argues that a "search incident to citation"s justified because a suspect who is subject to a routine traffic stop may attempt to hide or destroy evidence related
to his identity (e. g., a driver's license or vehicle registration), or destroy evidence of another, as yet undetected crime. As for the destruction of evidence relating to identity, if a police officer is not satisfied with the identification furnished by the driver, this may be a basis for arresting him rather than merely issuing a citation.
As for destroying evidence of other crimes, the possibility that an officer would stumble onto evidence wholly unrelated to the speeding offense seems remote. In Robinson, we held that the authority to conduct a full field search as incident to an arrest was a "bright-line rule," which was based on the concern for officer safety and destruction or loss of evidence, but which did not depend in every case upon the existence of either concern.
Here we are asked to extend that "bright-line rule" to a situation where the concern for officer safety is not present to the same extent and the concern for destruction or loss of evidence is not present at all. We decline to do so. The judgment of the Supreme Court of Iowa is reversed, and the cause is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.