“Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many Citizens, because of their respect for what appears to be law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their rights due to ignorance.”

This quote appears all over the internet. I have used it many times myself. But, when you read the case, you will find that this quote does not appear at all. There is something that is somewhat similar, but certainly not the same. The case actually says, "...the subpoena is in form an official command, and even though improvidently issued it has some coercive tendency, either because of ignorance of their rights on the part of those whom it purports to command or their natural respect for what appears to be an official command, or because of their reluctance to test the subpoena's validity by litigation."

Because of what appears to be a (legitimate-ha-ha) government on the surface,many citizens,because of their respect for what appears to be a ("legitimate"-ha-ha) government with the best interests of the American people at heart,are coerced into following the "Rule of Law"of the land which actually does not have the Best Interest of The People as a cornerstone of it's existence.REAL EYES REALIZE REAL LIES!!!!!

Damn, like gun laws aren't legal even know they are in law? Arms are legal no matter what Heir Clinton says? A the metal plate in my head feals alright: http://www.firstpatriotact.dubya3c.com/

Absolutely true observation. Mike from Chicago, have you looked into the court records or the original transcripts? Often, quotes as revealing as this are left out of opinions, abstracts, etc. and are only found in the body of the case. I'd like to know if you can find it for future reference, thanks.

Good quote. See my comments concerning the next quote. Many quotes on this site can be taken wrong by the unsuspecting including attributing quotes to the Supreme Court as if the quote is or has become law. If the quote was made by a Justice in a minority opinion it is not law. If made by a lawyer before the court is even more worthless. Lets be careful here.

Judges do not make law -- at least they are not supposed to. The statement whether paraphrased or not, is a clear and accurate statement -- and indeed an opinion of one judge.

Judges do make case law (which is a large majority of the law extant in this country) but only by majority opinion. The editor should be careful in placing quotes on this site without proper identification. Folks can think such a thing is some kind of law or somethig. The quote Archer does not say it is from one Judge, it says that it is from the Supreme Court, not the same thing.

Waffler, this is one of the fundamental problems with today's American justice 'system.' Ever since FDR merged the Common Law courts with the Admiralty/Maritime commercial courts, we have had no venue for Common Law cases. Yes, judges do in fact 'legislate from the bench' and it was something the Founders worried about. Today, one cannot refer to case law prior to 1934 in any courtroom for defense. Indeed judges are rewriting fundamental foudations of American law. The current statutory jusrisdiction treats all of us as corporate entities to be governed under the commerce clause -- and as such, we are not treated as sovereigns but merely as wards of the state and subject to the discretion of a judge -- the jury is irrelevant. This quote addresses this fact well. Thanks to Mike for researching this.

You are full of it Archer. Ever heard of Marbury Vs. Madison etcetera. Can you prove your assertion about prior to 1934. If you can it will be the very first thing you have ever proved.

Good luck using Marbury v. Madison in court today! As discussed in a previous post, the 3 lawful jurisdictions guaranteed by the Constitution are: common law, equity law, and admiralty law. Since we are all using negotiable instruments in our trade with one another, we are acting as commercial entities and thus subject to Equity law. However, since equity law carries no criminal penalties, equity and admiralty have been merged. As a result we have so-called 'laws' (statutes really) that compel performance -- the Common Law does no such thing. I challenge you, Waffler, to identify a case in the last decade that was heard before a common law court. I assert that you cannot find a common law court as our court system has been transformed into Admiralty/Maritime (hence the gold fringe around the courtroom flag indicating Admiralty/Maritime jurisdiction). I wish you luck!

E Archer - I totally agree with your statement "Judges do not make law -- at least they are not supposed to. The statement whether paraphrased or not, is a clear and accurate statement -- and indeed an opinion of one judge."
It is not in the lawful authority for the judges to "make law", but only to define and conclude within the enumerated constitutional guidelines and mandates whether laws that have been created through the legislative process are lawful or not.

law=contract.watch the illusion of government by mr.larson on youtube.also google padleford fay case and the constitution of no authority.its all about consent.

In order to promote their nefarious schemes, governments rely on the ignorance of the people. A good rule to follow is to never believe anything the government tells you and that they rarely, if ever, have your best interests at heart.

When looking at the substance of the quote instead of arguing he-said-she-nuances, a point of acute significance arises: the great truth the quote's actual meaning encompasses. It's a tragic truth that was on display for the whole world to see in Boston last week. Authorities there declared 'unofficial' martial law, ORDERING sovereign citizens to stay indoors, off their own streets, while they conducted mass house-to-house warrantless searches. Upon which, and precisely like the herd they so closely resemble, the people did exactly as ordered - in the Birthplace of our struggle for Independence, no less. Now we find out that Obama and his 'justice' department consciously and intelligently refused to Mirandize the younger Tsarnaev, opting instead for an INTENTIONAL DEPRIVATION of rights the Supreme Court has repeatedly held as essential. Still no hue and cry. Young Tsarnaev, just like every other American, has no rights at all, not when the Raj, as represented by the lowliest beat cop, or even a private security contractor in Obama's employ, decides that's the way it's going to be. This isn't "America" at all, certainly not the one we've been taught to visualize, the one that's publicly honored with obligatory "Pledges of Allegiance. It's closer, much, much closer, to 1933 Germany. It's nakedly apparent we're just as immune to the institutionalized stripping of our PERSONAL freedoms as the Germans were - equally violent too. Five stars for the quote's essence. Zero stars, and I mean absolutely nothing, for Americans.

Mann, exceedingly accurate and said very well. Waffler, case law, as is utilized today, is an oxymoron with, enforcement being a malignant despotism in a totalitarian state. By empirical evidence, law cannot be enforced, only tyranny can be enforced. Can gravity be enforced or does it just exist? Can physics be enforced or does it just exist? Etc. . . . Justice may be recognized by a measure of force but, that is after the fact. Archers terse comments on common law (etc.) are also very good at dispelling your religions myth.