Those four heroic JURORS knew,  that only when actual injury,  to someone's person or

property takes place is there a real crime. No law is broken when no injury can be shown.

Thus there can be no loss or termination of rights unless actual damage is proven.

Many imposter laws were repealed as a result of this case.

THE FIRST AMENDMENT


The year was 1670, and the case Bushnell sat on was that of William Penn,

who was on trial for violation of the "Conventicle Act." This was as

elaborate Act, which made the Church of England the only legal church.

The Act was struck down by their not guilty vote. Freedom of Religion was

established and became part of the England Bill of Rights and later it

became the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. In addition, Right to

peaceful assembly was founded, Freedom of Speech, and also habeas

corpus. The first such writ of habeas corps ever issued by the Court of

Common Pleas was used to free Edward Bushnell. Later this trial gave birth

to concept of Freedom of the press.

Had Bushnell and his colleagues yielded to the guilty verdict sought by the

judge and prosecutor, William Penn most likely would have been executed

as he clearly broke the law.

                                        HE BROKE THE LAW!

 Then there would have been no Liberty Bell, no Independence Hall, no

City of Philadelphia and no state called Pennsylvania, for young William

Penn, founder of Pennsylvania, and leader of the Quakers, was on trial for

his life. His alleged crime was preaching and teaching a different view of

the Bible than that of the Church of England. This appears innocent today,

but then, one could be executed for such actions. He believed in freedom

of religion, freedom of speech and the right peaceful assembly. He had

broken government's law, but he had injured no one. Those four heroic

JURORS knew  that only when actual injury  to someone's person or

property takes place is there a real crime. No law is broken when no injury

can be shown. Thus there can be no loss or termination of rights unless

actual damage is proven. Many imposter laws were repealed as a result

of this case.

District Court Clerk's Manual


The U.S. Supreme Courts states


Overton v. Ohio, 151 L. Ed 3d 317 (October 2001):


IF THERE IS NO VICTIM, THERE IS NO CRIME


Title 18 section 666. Anything  which interferes with land use is Racketeering.


Salinas v. United State, 118 S. Ct. 469 (1997)


The county is liable for its employeesí intent (conspiracy) to conduct city and

county business as a racketeering enterprise.

U.S. v. Hotel, 143 F. 3d 1223 (9th Cir 1998)

The County is liable for its agents/employees stealing anything without probable

cause on a tainted warrant that fails to narrowly list things with particularity that

are connected with a crime, and that fails to have an attached affidavit from a

victims injured in his or her business or property. State and federal law protects

the unalienable rights to own property / livestock, so the county is liable for its

employees fabricated charges and pre-textual search without probable cause.


Sierra Club v. Motin, 405 U.S. 727 (1972)


The United State Supreme Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the

Club lacked standing and had not shown irreparable injury. Held: A person

has standing to seek judicial review under the Administrative Procedure Act

only if he can show that he himself has suffered or will suffer injury,

whether economic or otherwise.

Hertado v. California, 110 US 516,


The United State Supreme Court states very plainly: "The state cannot diminish

rights of the people."

Steagald v. United States, 68 L. 2d 38 held: 2.


In any event, whatever practical problems there are in requiring search

warrant they cannot outweigh the constitutional interest

U.S. v. CRUIKSHANK, 92 U.S. 542 (1875)

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WAITE delivered the opinion of the court.

CIVIL RIGHTS CASES, 109 U.S. 3 (1883)

See v. City of Seattle, 387 US 541, 18 L.Ed.2d 943, 87 S>Ct. 1737

Allen v. City of Portland, 73 F .3d, 232 (9th Cir. 1995):

TERRORISM IS AGAINST THE LAW-FEDERAL CRIMINAL CODES:

Title 18 USC Chapter 113B TERRORISM, Section 2331

Larry L. Fairchild v. Buena Vista Charter Township

Docket # 190810 L.C. # 95-7000 CZ  Exhibit "A"

federal law enforcement officers who generally enjoy absolute immunity

from tort liability may nonetheless be held liable for damages for the tort of

trespass.