ALL Laws Can Be A STATUTE, BUT
NO STATUTE Can Be A Law, Literally! 

CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE : TO PUBLIC OUR INALIENABLE RIGHTS INNVOCATION

"Laws derived from Immutable Principles, while STATUTES Govern ONLY within Jurisdictional Boundaries through Consent or Contract. This distinction is reinforced by precedents like MARBURY v. MADISON (1803), which asserts that Laws Repugnant to the Constitution are void, and Hale v. Henkel (1906), affirming that "Individuals" are free to stand on Constitutional Rights without STATUTORY OBLIGATIONS. Under U.C.C. § 1-308, NO STATUTE can bind a living being without explicit Consent."

​​​​​

​

​​

MARBURY v. MADISON, 5 U.S. 137 (1803)

"Any Law that is Repugnant to the Constitution is Null & Void."

This Case establishes the Supremacy of Constitutional Principles over EVERY STATUTORY REGULATIONS.
 

​

HALE v. HENKEL, 201 U.S. 43 (1906)

"The Individual may stand upon their Constitutional Rights. He owes NO Duty to the State since he receives nothing therefrom beyond the Protection of his Life Property."

This differentiates between STATUTORY OBLIGATIONS and Inherent Rights under Common Law.
 

​

CLEARFIELD TRUST COMPANY v. UNITED STATES, 318 U.S. 363 (1943)

Establishes that Government Entities lose Sovereignty when engaging in Commerce and are instead bound by the same Laws and Principles as Private Parties. This supports the idea that STATUTES are Contractual in Nature and REQUIRE CONSENT.
 

​

BOND v. UNITED STATES, 572 U.S. 844 (2014)

"Federal Laws that intrude on State Sovereignty or Individual Rights must be strictly interpreted and justified under the Constitution."

Reinforces that ALL STATUTORY AUTHORITY must align with Constitutional Protections.
 

​

SHAPIRO v. THOMPSON, 394 U.S. 618 (1969)

"The Right to Travel is a Fundamental Right not dependent upon STATUTORY Permission."

Demonstrates that Fundamental Rights exist Independently of STATUTORY Frameworks.
 

​

CRANDALL v. NEVADA, 73 U.S. 35 (1868)

Confirms the Inherent Liberty of Free Movement which STATUTES CANNOT impede Natural Rights without explicit Consent.
 

​

UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE - U.C.C. § 1-308

"A Party who, 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."

Protects Individuals from being bound by STATUTES without explicit Consent.
 

​​

UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE - U.C.C. § 1-103

"The Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) is Supplemented by Principles of Law and Equity, including the Law Merchant and the Law

relative to capacity to Contract, Principal and Agent, Estoppel, Fraud, Misrepresentation, Duress, Coercion, Mistake, Bankruptcy,

and/or other Validating or Invalidating Cause."

Reinforces the SUPREMACY OF EQUITABLE PRINCIPLES over STATUTORY Constructs.