Net Neutrality: What it Really Means, and How it Could Impact You

| |

Top Tier Gear USA

net neutrality comic 3

Net neutrality. That sounds like a friendly term, like something we all would WANT, right?

When I first heard people talking about Obama’s attempt to push the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to “keep the internet free and open” I thought, well, that sounds good to me. Last Monday, in his plea for the implementation of rules for net neutrality, Obama used terms like “fairness” and “freedom”. He expressed the need for more government control to ensure equal Internet access for everyone.

And he said that abandoning the principles of net neutrality “would threaten to end the Internet as we know it.”

But, as with everything else that interests me, I had to research it for myself. Whenever a politician (especially one who aggressively forces things like Obamacare) pushes for something, I think it is natural to have some level of skepticism.

So, for the last week, I have been heavily researching this so-called “net neutrality” to find out what it is all about, and why so many support it.

In reality, “net neutrality” is as confusing as its name.

There are two pieces to this that need to be identified and explained before we go further. One is the term “net neutrality”and other is Title II regulation.

What IS net neutrality?

Here’s what Obama wants to you think it is:

“Net neutrality” has been built into the fabric of the Internet since its creation — but it is also a principle that we cannot take for granted. We cannot allow Internet service providers (ISPs) to restrict the best access or to pick winners and losers in the online marketplace for services and ideas. That is why today, I am asking the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to answer the call of almost 4 million public comments, and implement the strongest possible rules to protect net neutrality.

Obama wants the FCC to “create a new set of rules protecting net neutrality and ensuring that neither the cable company nor the phone company will be able to act as a gatekeeper, restricting what you can do or see online.” (Could it be that this is a way for the GOVERNMENT to restrict what we can do or see online? Read on to find out.)

Here are the rules he is recommending:

  • No blocking. If a consumer requests access to a website or service, and the content is legal, your ISP should not be permitted to block it. That way, every player — not just those commercially affiliated with an ISP — gets a fair shot at your business.
  • No throttling. Nor should ISPs be able to intentionally slow down some content or speed up others — through a process often called “throttling” — based on the type of service or your ISP’s preferences.
  • Increased transparency. The connection between consumers and ISPs — the so-called “last mile” — is not the only place some sites might get special treatment. So, I am also asking the FCC to make full use of the transparency authorities the court recently upheld, and if necessary to apply net neutrality rules to points of interconnection between the ISP and the rest of the Internet.
  • No paid prioritization. Simply put: No service should be stuck in a “slow lane” because it does not pay a fee. That kind of gatekeeping would undermine the level playing field essential to the Internet’s growth. So, as I have before, I am asking for an explicit ban on paid prioritization and any other restriction that has a similar effect.

How does Obama want the FCC to do all of this?

His explanation, in his own words:

So the time has come for the FCC to recognize that broadband service is of the same importance and must carry the same obligations as so many of the other vital services do. To do that, I believe the FCC should reclassify consumer broadband service under Title II of the Telecommunications Act — while at the same time forbearing from rate regulation and other provisions less relevant to broadband services. This is a basic acknowledgment of the services ISPs provide to American homes and businesses, and the straightforward obligations necessary to ensure the network works for everyone — not just one or two companies.

The “other vital services” Obama is referring to are public utilities like water and electricity. In other words, he wants the internet to be regulated the same way.

All of that makes it sound like Obama is looking out for American citizens, doesn’t it?

Let’s investigate.

Back in June, Tom Woods talked to Berin Szoka about net neutrality and what it means.

Szoka is the president and founder of TechFreedom, a non-profit technology think tank in Washington, DC. Before founding TechFreedom, Berin was a Senior Fellow and the Director of the Center for Internet Freedom at The Progress & Freedom Foundation, and previously practiced Internet & communications law.

Please visit TechFreedom’s net neutrality myth-busting website Don’t Break the Net for a more detailed explanation of Title II and what reclassifying the internet would mean for consumers.

Here is Szoka’s interview with Woods.

Last week, the Cato Institute spoke with Szoka:

Is Obama exploiting the confusion over net neutrality in an attempt to push draconian Title II regulation – and, ultimately, more taxes – upon citizens?

It sure seems that way.

He is misrepresenting what “net neutrality” actually is and what Title II regulations would actually do.

From TechFreedom’s November 10 media statement titled Obama Cynically Exploits Confusion over Title II, Misses Opportunity to Lead on Legislative Deal:

This morning, President Obama called on the FCC to “reclassify” broadband under Title II of the Communications Act so it can ban all paid prioritization. TechFreedom President Berin Szoka responded as follows:

Title II means the very opposite of net neutrality. Even under Title II, the FCC can’t legally ban all paid prioritization — only regulate it to make sure that prices are just and reasonable. In fact, Title II would authorize broadband providers to charge some price to content and service providers for carrying their traffic to users — and there’s no precedent for the FCC from “forbearing” from this requirement in a market that it claims is a “terminating access monopoly.” Title II would raise a host of other problems, including choking broadband competition, inviting regulation of the rest of the Internet and validating Russia and China’s push to have the International Telecommunications Union regulate the Internet as a telecom service.

Obama’s statement is simply a cynical political ploy, a way of playing to activists on the radical Left who have built mailing lists and a political movement on the most absolutist conception of net neutrality. Forbearance, the process by which many claim the FCC could make Title II palatable, will only be politicized even further by Obama’s inflammatory rhetoric.

This is simply the opening salvo of the legislative fight over net neutrality that has been brewing for nearly a decade. No-blocking and transparency rules are uncontroversial: back in 2006, 215 House Republicans voted for them as part of badly-overdue update to the Communications Act. The debate has always been about two questions. First, how to craft a non-discrimination rule that bans anti-competitive behavior — but doesn’t ultimately harm consumers? That means policing paid prioritization under flexible rules, not banning it. Second, how to prevent net neutrality from leading to larger regulation of the Internet? That means barring Title II, clarifying that Section 706 isn’t a grant of authority, and giving the FCC narrow authority to deal with truly harmful broadband practices.

A legislative deal is possible, but both the President and Congressional Republicans would have to get beyond soundbites and start talking substance.President Obama’s bizarre insistence that four million Americans supported Title II, when nearly a quarter of the comments filed with the FCC actually opposed Title II, doesn’t augur well for the negotiating process. A more pragmatic president would have used this opportunity to work with Republicans and the dozens of Congressional Democrats who’ve opposed Title II on a legislative deal — the way that Clinton and Gingrich resolved welfare reform and the key debates of their day.

If FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler does what Obama wants him to do, the repercussions to Americans will be quite unpleasant.

If broadband is reclassified as a Title II public utility, the FCC will soon start taxing it – at an estimated $87/year per broadband household.

And then, there’s this:

On September 18, 2014, President Obama signed House Joint Resolution 124, which includes provisions
extending the Internet Tax Freedom Act (ITFA) through December 11. The Act was previously scheduled
to expire November 1, 2014, and the extension gives Congress a chance to consider the ITFA’s long-term
future during the lame-duck session after the midterm elections. (source)

Why is this significant? Steve Pociask, president of the American Consumer Institute Center for Citizen Researchexplains:

Using existing state laws, these regulations would be free to tax Internet services as a regulated or public utility service. In addition, the Internet tax moratorium will end on December 11th, which will give state and local governments the right to levy Internet taxes on consumers. If common carrier taxes are any benchmark, we can expect Internet taxes on consumers to increase to a rate of 17 percent. Ironically, the increase in price would suppress consumer demand and block Internet access far beyond whatever “openness” could hope to be achieved by net neutrality. This would be regulatory mismanagement at its finest.

And what about privacy? Grant Babcock of Reason addressed this in his article Net Neutrality—and Obama’s Scheme for the Internet—Are Lousy Ideas:

We know, indisputably, thanks to the heroic disclosures by Edward Snowden and the tireless work of journalists like Laura Poitras and Glenn Greenwald, that the federal government is attempting to use the Internet to build a global Panopticon, capable of accessing everyone’s personal information at any time for any reason or no reason.

We also know that one way the government is trying to accomplish this is by securing the cooperation of private companies. You can attempt to thwart surveillance by using encryption—but encryption only protects data in transit. Once it’s received and decrypted, it’s an open book. If the government can compromise private data custodians, encryption loses a lot of its efficacy. This is exactly what happened to Google, which had its internal traffic bugged by the NSA.

Sometimes instead of outright sabotage, the government pressures companies into turning over information about their customers. See, for example, the brave efforts of Ladar Levison, head of now-defunct secure email provider Lavabit, to protect his customers—including Edward Snowden—from the government’s prying eyes.

But not all tech companies have the spine of Lavabit. What we risk doing by ramping up the government’s regulatory authority over the Internet is to make it easier for the government to pressure ISPs, many of which are data custodians, to get what they want.

Babcock also points out that the government is not above using its “‘legitimate regulatory’ authorities to bully private actors.” He references the heavily-regulated financial industry and the blackmailing of healthy banks into taking unwanted TARP money by Bernanke’s Federal Reserve. The government’s “Operation Choke Point” program, which puts pressure on banks to refuse to deal with people engaged in perfectly legal businesses the Obama administration, for one reason or another, doesn’t like, is another example.

The bottom line? Obama’s idea of “net neutrality” is not “neutral” and is not consumer-friendly. Not one bit.

Here’s a heavily-researched video on the history of the internet and FCC regulations, related corruption, and why net neutrality is not good for consumers. It is long, but worth watching.


Don’t be fooled: Net neutrality is all about cronyism

Obama couldn’t be more wrong on Title II

The Net Neutrality Debate Is About Companies & Politicians Own Posturing

We Need Real Competition, Not a Cable-Internet Monopoly

Net Neutrality—and Obama’s Scheme for the Internet—Are Lousy Ideas

Net Neutrality Is A Bad Idea Supported By Poor Analogies

A Perfect Storm: Net Neutrality And The End Of The Internet Tax Moratorium

Regulations almost killed the Internet

Net Neutrality and Reclassification Make American Broadband Consumers the Real Losers

Against Net Neutrality

Delivered by The Daily Sheeple

We encourage you to share and republish our reports, analyses, breaking news and videos (Click for details).

Contributed by Lily Dane of The Daily Sheeple.

Lily Dane is a staff writer for The Daily Sheeple. Her goal is to help people to “Wake the Flock Up!”

Wake The Flock Up! Please Share With Sheeple Far & Wide:
  • trig500

    Here’s a pretty reliable guideline; if a democrat wants it, you’ll lose liberties & pay more for what they wish to alter & control.
    If a republican wants it, the US will end up sending more cash, weapons and UN vetoes to Israel.
    Want change? Vote Libertarian.

  • All i have to know is on the CFR Website Norman Rockerfellow said that, this is the first time in history that the ave joe knows more about politics and what is going on in the world than ever before, which is why we have to eliminate or censor the internet. plus Obama is a patholgical liar.

  • sparksfly

    If Comcast/Time Warner/Verizon are against net neutrality it’s not so that they can keep from raising your bill yet again, you can count on that. I’m far more confident that my bill will stay lower with net neutrality than I am with trusting my cable company not to jack me if regulations change.

    • Lily Dane

      More regulations will make it harder for smaller companies to compete, which will mean less choice for consumers, and ultimately, higher prices and all the other problems people are concerned about (problems that don’t even exist currently).

  • Stop Bush and Obama

    Net neutrality is vital — if it goes away, the first “prioritized traffic” will be making sure that you get super-fast connections to the propaganda media (CNN, FOX News, and friends) while the speed for alternative news sites drops to 1 character/minute.

    Now whether what Adolf Obomber wants to do to guarantee net neutrality is the right thing is a different matter altogether.

    Don’t blame net neutrality for what corrupted politicians are trying to attach to it.

    • Lily Dane

      NN will only make it easier for Big Internet to charge us more. It will also allow the gov to invade our privacy more.

  • Lout

    I thought net neutrality was obamacare for the internet.

  • Jenn West


    Self v. Rhay, 61 Wn (2d) 261, “The common law is the real law, the Supreme Law of the land, the code, rules, regulations, policy and statutes are “not the law.”

    16Am Jur 2d, Sec 177 late 2d, Sec 256: The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any statute, to be valid, myst be In agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows: The General rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective or any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of it’s enactment and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted. Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection and justifies no acts performed under it…A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law. Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby. No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.


    5th Amendment of the United States Constitution, “No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or inditement of a Grand Jury…”

    New York Constitution Article 1.S8, “…the jury shall have the right to determine the law and the fact. Elmore v . McCammon (1986) 640 F. Supp. 905, “…the right to file a lawsuit pro se is one of the most important rights under the constitution and laws.”

    Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 US 356, 370 (Undersigned is Sovereign and no court has challenged that Status/Standing), Sovereignty itself is, of curse, not subject to law, for it is the author and source of law.”

    Sherer v Cullen, 481 F 946, “There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of this exercise of constitutional rights.”

    Hurtado v People of State of California, 110 U.S. 516, “The state cannot diminish rights of the people.”

    Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 491, “Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them.”

    Marbury v. Madison, 5th US (2 Cranch) 137, 174, 176, (1803),”All laws, rules and practices which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void.”

    Rodriques v. Ray Donavan (U.S. Department of Labor) 769 F. 2d 1344, 1348 (1985), “All codes, rules, and regulations are for government authorities only, not human/creators in accordance with God’s laws. All codes, rules, and regulations are unconstitutional and lacking due process…”

    Curden V. Neale, 2 N. C. 338 May Term 1796. All men decide for themselves whether they want to participate in the institutions of men or not. “…every man is independent of all laws, except those prescribed by nature. He is not bound by any institutions formed by his fellowman without his consent.”

    16Am Jur 2d:16Am Jur 2d., Sec.97; Bary V. United States – 273 US 128, “…statutes which would deprive a citizen of the rights of person or property without a regular trial, according to the course and usage of common law, would not be the law of the land.”

    Amos vs. Mosley, 74 Fla. 555; 77 So. 619: “If the legislature clearly misinterprets a constitutional provision, the frequent repetition of the wrong will not create a right.”

    Chisholm vs. State of Georgia (US) 2 Dall 419, 454, 1 L Ed 440, 455 2 DALL 1793 pp. 471-472: “…at the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people; and they are truly the sovereigns of the country, but they are sovereigns without subjects…with none to govern but themselves; the citizens of America are equal as fellow citizens, and as joint tenants in the sovereignty.

    City of Bisbee vs. Cochise County, 78 P.2d 982, 986, 52 Ariz. 1: “”Government” is not “sovereignty.” “Government” is the machinery or expedient for expressing the will of the sovereign power.”

    Filbin Corporation vs. United States, D.C.S.C., 266 F. 911, 914: “The “sovereignty” of the United States consists of the powers existing in the people as a whole and the persons to whom they have delegated it, and not as a separate personal entity, and as such it does not possess the personal privileges of the sovereign of England; and the government, being restrained by a written Constitution, cannot take property without compensation, as can the English government by act of king, lords, and Parliament.”

    Hale vs. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43, 279: “The individual may stand upon his constitutional rights as a citizen. He is entitled to carry on his private business in his own way. His power to contract is unlimited. He owes no duty to the state or to his neighbors to divulge his business, or to open his doors to an investigation, so far as it may tend to incriminate him. He owes no such duty to the state, since he receives nothing therefrom, beyond the protection of his life and property. His rights are such as existed by the law of the land long antecedent to the organization of the state, and can only be taken from him by due process of law, and in accordance with the Constitution. Among his rights are a refusal to incriminate himself, and the immunity of himself and his property from arrest or seizure except under a warrant of the law. He owes nothing to the public as long as he does not trespass upon their rights.”

    Marbury vs. Madison, 5 US (@ Cranch) 137, 174, 176, (1803): “All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void.”

    Norton vs. Shelby County, 118 US 425 p.442: “An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed.”

    Riley vs. Carter, 165 Okal. 262; 25 P. 2d 666; 79 ALR 1018: “Economic necessity cannot justify a disregard of cardinal constitutional guarantee.”

    Robin vs. Hardaway, 1 Jefferson 109, (Va., 1772): “All acts of the legislature apparently contrary to natural rights and justice are, in our law and must be in the nature of things, considered void … We are in conscience bound to disobey.”

    Scott vs. Sandford, Mo., 60 US 393, 404, 19 How. 393, 404, 15 L.Ed. 691: “The words “sovereign people” are those who form the sovereign, and who hold the power and conduct the government through their representatives. Every citizen is one of these people and a constituent member of this sovereignty.”

    Slote vs. Board of Examiners, 274 N.Y. 367; 9 NE 2d 12; 112 ALR 660: “Disobedience or evasion of a constitutional mandate may not be tolerated, even though such disobedience may, at least temporarily, promote in some respects the best interests of the public.”

    State vs. Sutton, 63 Minn. 147, 65 NW 262, 30 L.R.A. 630 Am. St. 459: “When any court violates the clean and unambiguous language of the Constitution, a fraud is perpetrated and no one is bound to obey it.” (See 16 Am. Jur. 2d 177, 178)

    Yick Wo vs. Hopkins, Sheriff, 118 U.S. 356.: “Sovereignty itself is, of course, not subject to the law, for it is the author and source of law, but in our system, while sovereign powers are delegated to the agencies of government, sovereignty itself remains with the people, by whom and for whom all government exists and acts.” – “For, the very idea that one man may be compelled to hold his life, or the means of living, or any material right essential to the enjoyment of life, at the mere will of another, seems to be intolerable in any country where freedom prevails, as being the essence of slavery itself.”

    16 Am Jur 2d., Sec. 155:, “Since the Constitution is intended for the observance of the judiciary as well as other departments of government, and the judges are sworn to support its provisions, the courts are not at liberty to overlook or disregard its commands or counteract evasions thereof, it is their duty in authorized proceedings to give full effect to the existing Constitution and to obey all constitutional provisions irrespective of their opinion as to the wisdom or the desirability of such provisions and irrespective of the consequences, thus it is said that the courts should be in our alert to enforce the provisions of the United States Constitution and guard against their infringement by legislative fiat or otherwise in accordance with these basic principles, the rule is fixed that the duty in the proper case to declare a law unconstitutional cannot be declined and must be performed in accordance with the delivered judgement of the tribunal before which the validity of the enactment it is directly drawn into question. If the Constitution prescribes one rule and the statute another in a different rule, it is the duty fo the courts to declare that the Constitution and not the statute governs in cases before them for judgment.

    U.S Constitution, “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, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

    Hoke vs. Henderson, 15, N.C. 15, 25, Am Dec 677, “…Statutes which would deprive a citizen of the rights of person or property without a regular trial, according to the course and usage of common law, would not be the law of the land.”

    16 Am Jur 2d: 16Am Jur 2d., Sec. 97: Bary V. United States – 273 US 128, “That a constitution should receive a literal interpretation in favor of the Citizen, is especially true, with respect to those provisions which were designed to safeguard the liberty and security fo the Citizen in regard to person and property.”

    16 Am Jur 2d., Sec. 117, “Various facts of circumstances extrinsic to the Constitution are often resorted to, by the courts, to aid them in determining its meaning, as previously noted, however such extrinsic aids may not be resorted to where the provision in the question is clear and unambiguous in such a case the courts must apply the terms of the Constitution as written and they are not at liberty to search for meanings beyond the instrument.”


    UCC1-308, Performance or Acceptance Under Reservation of Rights. (a) A party that with explicit reservation of rights performs or promises performance or assents to performance in a manner demanded or offered by the other party does not thereby prejudice the rights reserved. Such words as “without prejudice,” “under protest,” or the like are sufficient.

    Marbury v. Madison: 5 US 137 (1803), “If any statement, within any law which is passed, is unconstitutional, the whole law is unconstitutional…”

    16Am Jur 2d., Sec. 98, “While an emergency can not create power, and no emergency justifies the violation of any of the provisions of the United States Constitution or States Constitutions, Public emergency such as economic depression for especially liberal construction of constitutional powers, has been declared that because of national emergency, it is the policy of the courts of times of national peril, so liberally to construe the special powers vested in the chief executive as to sustain and effectuate the purpose there of, and to that end also more liberally to construed the constituted division and classification of the powers of the coordinate branches of the government and in so far as may not be clearly inconsistent with the constitution.”


    Olmstead v. U.S., 277 U.S. 438, 478 (1928), “…The right to be let alone is the most comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by civilized men. To protect that right, every unjustifiable intrusion by the government upon the privacy of the individual, whatever means employed, must be deemed a violation the Fourth Amendment.”

    Only people can file a criminal complaint: 1. one or more of the people sign a sworn affidavit that they have been injured. 2. A prosecutor, on behalf of the government brings an accusation before the Grand Jury and the Grand Jury either indicts or does nothing. 3. The Grand Jury by its “own will” can investigate merely on suspicion that the law is being violated, or even because it want assurance that it is not, and if it finds wrongdoing it can present it to the court and it must go to trial. No one can second guess the Grand Jury, unless the Grand Jury’s action violates another’s unalienable rights.


    Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105, “No state hall convert a liberty into a license, and charge a fee therefore.”

    Shuttlesworth v. City of Birmingham, Alabama, 376 U.S. 262, “If the State converts a right (liberty) into a privilege, the citizen can ignore the license and fee, and engage in the right (liberty) with impunity.”

    Isbill v. Stovall, the court is defined, “An agency of the sovereign created by him directly or indirectly under his authority, consisting of one or more officers, established and maintained for the propose of hearing and determining issues of law and fact regarding legal rights and alleged violations thereof, and of applying the sanctions of the law, authorized to exercise its powers int eh course of law at times and places previously determined by lawful authority.”


    USC 18 SS241, If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right that shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

    USC 18 SS242, Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State to the deprivation of any rights shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.

    USC 42 SS1983, Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State subjects, or causes to be subjected, any person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured but eh Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law.

    USC 42 1985, If two or more persons in any State or Territory conspire for the purpose of depriving, either directly or indirectly, any person’s rights the party so injured or deprived may have an action for the recovery of damages against any one or more of the conspirators.

    USC 42 SS1986, Every person who, having knowledge that any of the wrongs conspired to be done or are about to be committed, and having power to prevent or aid in preventing the commission of the same, neglects or refuses so to do, if such wrongful act be committed, shall be liable to the party injured.

    US Code 42 and 18, When you are detained without your consent, for violating a statute, you have just been kidnapped and if the Judge sets bail he just set a ransom and when the prosecutor confirms the charges he becomes pare of a conspiracy and YOU can put the conspirators in jail and sue them for damages. it’s all about Jurisdiction and Consent.

    Davis v. Wechsler, 263 US 22, 24, “The assertion of federal rights, [Bill of Rights] when plainly and reasonably made, is not to be defeated under the name of local practice.”

    Nick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 US 356, 370 (Undersigned is Sovereign and no court has challenged that status/standing, “Sovereignty itself is, of course, not subject to law, for it is the author and source of law.”


    -Servant government can not do anything without individuals consent.

    -Interference of a mans civil rights gives right to a person to sue for damages.

    -Nisi Prius courts rely on statutes, which is fiction of law, that seeks to control the behavior of the sovereign people of New York and other states, who are under common law, not statutes, and who ordained and established the law, therefore legislators cannot legislate the behavior of the people.

    -No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.

    -Congress cannot alter Rights

    -Rights do not come in degrees

    -States cannot license Rights

    -Officers of the court have no immunity from liability when violating constitutional rights.

    -If the people refuse, It can not go forward.

    -Servant government cannot do anything without your consent.

    -When the judge asks you, “do you understand”, he means do you “stand under” the authority of this court, So when you say “yes”, you give him/her/the court jurisdiction over you.