The three things that are abhorrent to the U.S. Supreme Court.

There are only three things that are abhorrent in the USA according to the U.S. Supreme Court: Identification Credentials, forced oaths, and forced confessions.

Do not be fooled into thinking that these things are required by the same government that proclaims them to be abhorrent.

By the way, a signature under penalty of perjury is a forced oath. A forced perjury oath.

Identification Credentials

US Supreme Court Aptheker v. Secretary of State, 378 U.S. 500 (1964):

“Free movement by the citizen is of course as dangerous to a tyrant as free expression of ideas or the right of assembly and it is therefore controlled in most countries in the interests of security. … That is why the ticketing of people and the use of identification papers are routine matters under totalitarian regimes, yet abhorrent in the United States…

Freedom of movement, at home and abroad, is important for job and business opportunities – for cultural, [378 U.S. 500, 520] political, and social activities – for all the commingling which gregarious man enjoys. Those with the right of free movement use it at times for mischievous purposes. But that is true of many liberties we enjoy. We nevertheless place our faith in them, and against restraint, knowing that the risk of abusing liberty so as to give rise to punishable conduct is part of the price we pay for this free society. ..

Freedom of movement is kin to the right of assembly and to the right of association. These rights may not be abridged, …”

… Absent war, I see no way to keep a citizen from traveling within or without the country, unless there is power to detain him. Ex parte Endo, 323 U.S. 283 . And no authority to detain exists except under extreme conditions, e. g., unless he has been convicted of a crime or unless there is probable cause for issuing a warrant of arrest by standards of the Fourth Amendment. This freedom of movement is the very essence of our free society, setting us apart. Like the right of assembly and the right of association, it often makes all other rights meaningful – knowing, studying, arguing, exploring, conversing, observing and even thinking. Once the right to travel is curtailed, all other rights suffer, …”

U.S. Supreme Court in Florida v. Bostick, 501 US 429, quoted part of an Arizona case Ekstrom v. Justice Court, 136 Ariz. 1: Here is the more complete quote:

The issue here, therefore, is whether the fourth amendment permits officers to stop and question persons whose conduct is innocent, unremarkable and free from suspicion. The question has frightening implications. The thought that an American can be compelled to “show his papers” before exercising his right to walk the streets, drive the highways or board the trains is repugnant to American institutions and ideals.”

By the way, the 1803 Supreme Court decision Marbury v. Madison, 5 US 137, determined that the elected officers in Washington DC could not be issued government credentials proving who they were.

That’s right! They could not be issued any stinking government badges.  Maybe you can take your case up to the Supreme Court and get Marbury v. Madison overturned. But you want it overturned for a different reason than the lawyers expect — the Marbury case was also used to justify the groundless theory that judges can interpret the law.

Compelled testimony

Back in 1956 the Supreme Court determined in Ullmann v. United States, 350 U.S. 422 that punishments like loss of a job, or ineligibility for a passport are penalties for criminal acts, and now the same punishments are automatic until you are compelled to deny religious liberty.

“The forfeiture of property on compelled testimony is no more abhorrent than the forfeiture of rights of citizenship. Any forfeiture of rights as a result of compelled testimony is at war with the Fifth Amendment.
”The Court apparently distinguishes the Boyd case on the ground that the forfeiture of property was a penalty affixed to a criminal act. The loss of a job and the ineligibility for a passport are also penalties affixed to a criminal act.

In 1886 the U.S. Supreme Court in Boyd v. United States, 116 US 616, at page 632 explained that

any compulsory discovery by extorting the party’s oath… is contrary to the principles of a free government … it is abhorrent to the instincts of an American. It may suit the purposes of despotic power, but it cannot abide the pure atmosphere of political liberty and personal freedom.”


In 1966 the U.S. Supreme Court’s Miranda v. Arizona decision, 384 U.S. 436 at page 459, acknowledged that Miranda’s famous right to remain silent comes from a long history of resistance to oaths.

In the student flag salute case Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 US 624, The Supreme Court said that:

“Such a statutory exaction is a form of test oath, and the test oath has always been abhorrent in the United States.”

The U.S Supreme Court in Girouard v. U.S., 328 U.S. 61 (1946):

The victory for freedom of thought recorded in our Bill of Rights recognizes that in the domain of conscience there is a moral power higher than the State. Throughout the ages men have suffered death rather than subordinate their allegiance to God to the authority of the State.” …

“[t]he test oath is abhorrent to our tradition.”

* * *

These abhorrent themes are the basis for most of my content on

* * *

I will leave you with these thoughts.

May you learn about the enemy within, and relearn liberty.  And maybe you will find out why you tolerate the abhorrent.

US Supreme Court, Laird v. Tatum, 408 US 1, page 28:

This case involves a cancer in our body politic. It is a measure of the disease which afflicts us. … Those who already walk submissively will say there is no cause for alarm. But submissiveness is not our heritage. The First Amendment was designed to allow rebellion to remain as our heritage. The Constitution was designed to keep the government off the backs of the people. … The Bill of Rights was designed to keep agents of government and official eavesdroppers away from assemblies of people. The aim was to allow men to be free and independent and to assert their rights against government. … When an intelligence officer looks over every nonconformist’s shoulder… the America once extolled as the voice of liberty heard around the world no longer is cast in the image which Jefferson and Madison designed, but more in the Russian image …”

U.S. Supreme Court in Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438, at page 485:

“In a government of laws, existence of the government will be imperiled if it fails to observe the law scrupulously. Our Government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the Government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. To declare that, in the administration of the criminal law, the end justifies the means — to declare that the Government may commit crimes in order to secure the conviction of a private criminal — would bring terrible retribution. Against that pernicious doctrine this Court should resolutely set its face

[Footnote 3] In re Pacific Railway Commission, 32 F. 241, 250, “of all the rights of the citizen, few are of greater importance or more essential to his peace and happiness than the right of personal security, and that involves not merely protection of his person from assault, but exemption of his private affairs, books, and papers from the inspection and scrutiny of others. Without the enjoyment of this right, all others would lose half their value.”

JAMES MADISON, speech in the Virginia Convention, June 6, 1788:

“Since the general civilization of mankind, I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people, by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power, than by violent and sudden usurpations.”

Dissenting Opinion in Robertson v. Department of Public Works 180 Wash 133, 39 P2d 596 (1934)
Complete freedom of the highways is so old and well established a blessing that we have forgotten the days of the “Robber Barons” and toll roads, and yet, under an act like this, arbitrarily administered, the highways may be completely monopolized. If, through lack of interest, the people submit, then they may look to see the most sacred of their liberties taken from them one by one by more or less rapid encroachment.”

My books on Identification Credentials, and Oaths. These provide in-depth history of our right to resist. And plenty of other authorities.

If you want a good online law course that explains procedures and rules on how to defend yourself in their courts, I recommend this self-help course: How To Win In Court.

Bill of Rights Institute


* Well after the 1803 case of Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137, which lawyers insist is the “proof” of judicial authority, Thomas Jefferson wrote in a letter to Mr. Jarvis dated September 25, 1820 to refute this emerging dangerous doctrine: “To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions is a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. … their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life, and not responsible as the other functionaries are, to the selective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that, to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots.”

How much is your Liberty worth?

It was once said that the price of Liberty is eternal vigilance. John Philpot Curran, July 10, 1790:

“The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance; which condition if he breaks, servitude is at once the consequence of his crime.”

Now that we have lost our liberty, what are the damages to you if you are innocent of any crime but detained, handcuffed or questioned and then released?
Damages to your liberty
When Tampa, Florida police detained Mr. Trezevant in 1984 for 23 minutes, he sued for $25,000.
Trezevant v. Tampa, 741 F.2d 336, determined that damages to liberty in 1984, accrued at a rate of more than $1000 per minute, which is more than 1½ million dollars per day.
That was in 1984 dollars, be sure to adjust your damages for inflation.
As you consider the damage to your own liberty, remember that you have equal protection of the law.
• As was the case in Trezevant, there is no requirement that there be an arrest
• As was the case in Trezevant, official policy or custom is the “moving force of the constitutional violation”
• As was the case in Trezevant, governments are liable for any unconstitutional deprivation of liberty caused by government “custom” even if such custom has not received formal approval through governing body’s official decision making channels
• As was the case in Trezevant, there is no requirement that the policy itself be unlawful
• Your State’s definition of Kidnapping does not require any element of physical restraint, nor does your State definition of “Unlawful imprisonment”.  Both are violations of liberty.
• As in Trezevant, such award is not excessive.
• And as in Trezevant, such award is compensatory not punitive.  To compensate for your loss of liberty, not to punish police behavior.
But Liberty is so much more than physical restraint.

US Supreme Court in Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 US 390, 399: The term Liberty

“… denotes not merely freedom from bodily restraint, but also the right of the individual to contract, to engage in any of the common occupations of life, to acquire useful knowledge, to marry, to establish a home and bring up children, to worship God according to the dictates of his/her own conscience… the established doctrine is that this liberty may not be interfered with under the guise of protecting public interest, by legislative action which is arbitrary or without reasonable relation to some purpose within the competency of the state to effect.”

Are you denied the right to contract, engage in any common occupation, acquire knowledge, marry, bring up children, worship God?

What better way to eliminate corrupt officers than to collect damages from their bond?

If you want a good online law course that explains procedures and rules showing how our courts work, I recommend this self-help course: How To Win In Court.

I also recommend

Jefferson’s definition of “liberty” and “republic”

Jefferson authored the Declaration of Independence.  He was one of the delegates sent to negotiate the peace treaty with the British.  He was there when your government was created.

Perhaps he knew more about the purpose of government than today’s pundits claim to know.

If his definitions are different than what the Constitution intended, then his acts on behalf of government were  fraudulently extorted for some other purpose.

Letter from Thomas Jefferson to Isaac H. Tiffany, 4 April 1819:

 I will however essay the two definitions which you say are more particularly interesting at present: I mean those of the terms liberty & Republic, aware however that they have been so multifariously applied as to convey no precise idea to the mind. Of Liberty then I would say that, in the whole plenitude of it’s extent, it is unobstructed action according to our will: but rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will, within the limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add ‘within the limits of the law’; because law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual. I will add secondly that a pure republic is a state of society in which every member, of mature and sound mind, has an equal right of participation, personally, in the direction of the affairs of the society. Such a regimen is obviously impracticable beyond the limits of an encampment, or of a very small village—when numbers, distance, or force, oblige them to act by deputy, then their government continues republican in proportion only as the functions they still exercise in person, are more or fewer, and as in those exercised by deputy the right of appointing their deputy is pro hâc vice only, or for more or fewer purposes, or for shorter or longer terms.

You do not have liberty.

You do not have a republic.

If you do nothing to free yourself, you will suffer the consequences.