Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

COMMONWEALTH PENNSYLVANIA v. ERIC J. PHELPS (11/17/89)

filed: November 17, 1989.

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
v.
ERIC J. PHELPS, APPELLANT



Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence entered in the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County, Criminal Division, NO. 1601 OF 1988.

COUNSEL

Eric J. Phelps, appellant, in pro. per.

Tamilia, Kelly and Cercone, JJ.

Author: Per Curiam

[ 388 Pa. Super. Page 625]

This is an appeal from judgment of sentence entered by the court on January 24, 1989 following appellant's convictions of a misdemeanor and three summary offenses under the Vehicle Code.*fn1 He was sentenced to pay a fine of $100 and spend 15 days to 12 months in prison, followed by community service.

Appellant contends the Commonwealth has no jurisdiction over him because he has relinquished to the Commonwealth all property rights constituting privileges and immunities under the fourteenth amendment. Such a release, appellant asserts, returns him to the pre-fourteenth amendment status of an "American Freeman," and it revokes the Commonwealth's power over him.

[ 388 Pa. Super. Page 626]

Appellant's position is not supported by any legal authority and is antithetical to the general notions of a democratic society. One cannot create a special legal status so as to avoid the laws of the Commonwealth by releasing certain property rights. We have reviewed appellant's brief and arguments which are comprised of a myriad of disparate, disconnected and untenable legal citations and conclusions without foundation in constitutional and statutory law. Appellant would have us treat his status as a Pennsylvania citizen as a property right which he can divest at will, retaining to himself only such rights and privileges which were granted him pursuant to the Bill of Rights of the United States Constitution.

Inherent in the adoption by the various states of the United States Constitution and the amendments thereto, was the retention of states' sovereignty over their citizens, which is coextensive in most respects with federal sovereignty. To make abundantly clear that the Federal Constitution did not abrogate individual and states' rights, which were not arrogated to the Federal system, James Madison proposed and had adopted the ninth and tenth amendments to the United States Constitution.

ARTICLE [IX]

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

ARTICLE [X]

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.