To: Terra Costa Howard To: Michelle Mussman To: Kelly M. Cassidy
To: Katie Stuart To: Mary Beth Canty To: Janet Yang Rohr
To: Nicole Grasse To: Margaret Croke To: Chris Welch
To: All Illinois State Representatives (via email)
Remonstrance By Notice
[RE: Homeschool Act HB2827]
Notice to Principal is Notice to Agent and Notice to Agent is Notice to Principal
I, one of the People (as seen in the Illinois State Constitution Article I, Sections 5, 6, and 23), which is republican in form, Sui Juris, do serve you, this Remonstrance by Notice, so that you may provide immediate due care;
Please take notice, the people have granted the government certain powers but secured their rights in Article I, the "Bill of Rights," of the Illinois Constitution. This Bill of Rights is supreme over legislative powers, ensuring these rights remain protected and inviolable. All other constitutional provisions and laws must respect these rights. The government, created by the people, exists to secure, not infringe upon, these rights and liberty. (see evidence below)
Illinois Constitution Article I, Section 1
“All men are by nature free and independent and have certain inherent and inalienable rights among which are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. To secure these rights and the protection of property, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” [highlight added for emphasis]
INDEPENDENT. Not dependent; not subject to control, restriction, modification, or limitation from a given outside source. Black’s Law Dictionary 4th Edition, Page 911
LIBERTY. Freedom; exemption from extraneous control… The power of acting as one thinks fit, without any restraint or control, unless by the law of nature. Black’s Law Dictionary 4th Edition, Pages 1064 and 1066
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT. A right guaranteed to the citizens by the Constitution and so guaranteed as to prevent legislative interference therewith. See also Constitutional Freedom; Constitutional liberty or freedom; Constitutional protections. Black’s Law Dictionary 5th Edition [highlights added for emphasis]
Maxim of Law: Liberty is more favored than all things [anything.] Dig. 50, 17, 122.
Maxim of Law: A frequent recurrence to fundamental principles, and a firm adherence to justice, virtue, and original law, are indispensably necessary to preserve the blessings of liberty and good government. American Maxim.
Please take notice, the people are guaranteed that the state of Illinois is a republican form of government. Absolute and arbitrary power over the lives, liberty and property of freemen exists nowhere in a republic, not even in the largest majority. The people are sovereign and have only granted limited power to their representatives. (see evidence below)
United States Constitution Article 4 Section 4
“The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened), against domestic Violence.” [highlight added for emphasis]
REPUBLICAN GOVERNMENT. One in which the powers of sovereignty are vested in the people and are exercised by the people, either directly, or through representatives chosen by the people, to whom those powers are specially delegated. Black’s Law Dictionary 4th Edition, Page 824
Please take notice, it has been a long-held historical precedent that children are the fundamental liberty interests of their parents and the fundamental rights of the parents to make decisions concerning the care, custody, control of their children is protected by due process. People shall not be deprived of their liberty interests without due process of law. This liberty interest includes the right to direct the upbringing and education of children under their control and is protected by not only the Illinois Constitution, but also the US Constitution, and cannot be interfered with by any legislation. (see evidence below)
Excerpt from Troxel v Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000)
““The Fourteenth Amendment provides that no State shall "deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." We have long recognized that the Amendment's Due Process Clause, like its Fifth Amendment counterpart, "guarantees more than fair process." Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U. S. 702, 719 (1997). The Clause also includes a substantive component that "provides heightened protection against government interference with certain fundamental rights and liberty interests." Id., at 720; see also Reno v. Flores, 507 U. S. 292, 301-302 (1993).The liberty interest at issue in this case-the interest of parents in the care, custody, and control of their children is perhaps the oldest of the fundamental liberty interests recognized by this Court. More than 75 years ago, in Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U. S. 390, 399, 401 (1923), we held that the "liberty" protected by the Due Process Clause includes the right of parents to "establish a home and bring up children" and "to control the education of their own." Two years later, in Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U. S. 510, 534-535 (1925), we again held that the "liberty of parents and guardians" includes the right "to direct the upbringing and education of children under their control." We explained in Pierce that "[t]he child is not the mere creature of the State; those who nurture him and direct his destiny have the right, coupled with the high duty, to recognize and prepare him for additional obligations." Id., at 535. We returned to the subject in Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U. S. 158 (1944), and again confirmed that there is a constitutional dimension to the right of parents to direct the upbringing of their children. "It is cardinal with us that the custody, care and nurture of the child reside first in the parents, whose primary function and freedom include preparation for obligations the state can neither supply nor hinder." Id., at 166.
In subsequent cases also, we have recognized the fundamental right of parents to make decisions concerning the care, custody, and control of their children. See, e. g., Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U. S. 645, 651 (1972) ("It is plain that the interest of a parent in the companionship, care, custody, and management of his or her children 'come[s] to this Court with a momentum for respect lacking when appeal is made to liberties which derive merely from shifting economic arrangements'" (citation omitted)); Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U. S. 205, 232 (1972) ("The history and culture of Western civilization reflect a strong tradition of parental concern for the nurture and upbringing of their children. This primary role of the parents in the upbringing of their children is now established beyond debate as an enduring American tradition"); Quilloin v. Walcott, 434 U. S. 246, 255 (1978) ("We have recognized on numerous occasions that the relationship between parent and child is constitutionally protected"); Parham v. J. R., 442 U. S. 584, 602 (1979) ("Our jurisprudence historically has reflected Western civilization concepts of the family as a unit with broad parental authority over minor children. Our cases have consistently followed that course"); Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U. S. 745, 753 (1982) (discussing "[t]he fundamental liberty interest of natural parents in the care, custody, and management of their child"); Glucksberg, supra, at 720 ("In a long line of cases, we have held that, in addition to the specific freedoms protected by the Bill of Rights, the 'liberty' specially protected by the Due Process Clause includes the righ[t] ... to direct the education and upbringing of one's children" (citing Meyer and Pierce)). In light of this extensive precedent, it cannot now be doubted that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protects the fundamental right of parents to make decisions concerning the care, custody, and control of their children. Section 26.10.160(3), as applied to Granville and her family in this case, unconstitutionally infringes on that fundamental parental right.”” [highlights and underlines added for emphasis]
Illinois Constitution Article I, Section 2
“No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law nor be denied the equal protection of the laws.”
Maxim of Law: No freeman shall be deprived of life, liberty or property but by the lawful judgment of his peers, or by the law of the land—that is by the common law. C.L.M.
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966)
Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rulemaking or legislation which would abrogate them. [highlight added for emphasis]
Please take notice, government cannot bypass constitutional mandates by relabeling or reorganizing. Indirect violations are as unlawful as direct ones. The rights of people over children's education are protected from government overreach. The Illinois Constitution allows regulation of public schools but does not override the secured rights in Article I Section 1. The free people of Illinois cannot be forced into the public realm of education or have their private liberty interests regulated without due process. (see evidence below)
DUE PROCESS OF LAW. “Due process of law in each particular case means such an exercise of powers of the government as the settled maxims of law permit and sanction, and under such safeguards for the protection of individual rights as those maxims prescribe for the class of cases to which the one in question belongs….[due process of law] refer to certain fundamental rights, which that system of jurisprudence, of which ours is a derivative, has always recognized…”Law of the land,” “due course of law,” and “due process of law” are synonymous.” Black’s Law Dictionary 4th Edition, Page 590 [highlight added for emphasis]
Please take notice that the people have reserved and secured their persons, papers, property, and possessions against unreasonable searches, seizures, and invasions of privacy, unless due process is followed. An individual’s right to live free from governmental intrusion in private or personal information is natural, essential, and inherent. Government cannot relabel the people or their liberty of private education into statutory creations (persons) such as calling a parent a “homeschool administrator”, relabel their children to “homeschooled child”, relabel their private right of education to “homeschool program” or “lawful school”, relabel their private papers to “educational portfolio”, replace due process (with a trial by jury, in a court of record and judicial tribunals) with “truancy hearing”, replace independent magistrates with “administrative law judges” and/or “hearing officers”, or any other statutory definition to abrogate or derogate these constitutionally secured rights. Nor can government create discriminatory classes of people called “homeschooled child”. The people realize that Legislature cannot regulate their rights, nor can Legislature create legislation to cause administrative agencies such as the State Board of Education, D.C.F.S., and the Illinois State Police (among others) to do something Legislature cannot do themselves. These agencies have been using faux and unlawful authority, with attorneys who have not understood the law, to take liberty, property, and rights from the People, without the constitutionally required elements of due process, with courts of record, and trial by jury. This has been openly spoken about by the US Supreme Court in the recent SEC v. Jarkesy on 11/29/23 (See Docket Number 22-869). (see evidence below)
Illinois Constitution Article I, Section 6
“The people shall have the right to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and other possessions against unreasonable searches, seizures, invasions of privacy or interceptions of communications by eavesdropping devices or other means. No warrant shall issue without probable cause, supported by affidavit particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seize.” [highlight added for emphasis]
Maxim of Law: The language of a statute is to be understood and interpreted like ordinary spoken language. 10 Coke, 101b
Maxim of Law: To derogate from a law is to take away part of it; to abrogate a law is to abolish it entirely. Dig. 50, 17, 102; 1 Bouv. Inst. n. 91.
Maxim of Law: A home is a social unit formed by a family living together in one dwelling. Anaya v. Foundation Res. Ins. Co., 414 P.2d 848, 849.
Illinois Constitution Article I, Section 13
“The right of trial by jury as heretofore enjoyed shall remain inviolate.”
Maxim of Law: It would be idle and trite to say that no right is absolute. Orient Ins. Co. v. Draggs, 172 U.S. 557, 566.
Maxim of Law: He who does a thing by another is considered as doing it himself [i.e., the acts of an agent are the acts of the principal.] Broom, Max. 817, 818, et seq.; 1 Bl. Comm. 429; Story, Ag. s. 440; Co. Litt. 258; 2 Bouv. Inst. n. 1273; Comm. v. Dewitt, 10 Mass. 155.
Maxim of Law: Power can never be delegated which the authority said to delegate never possessed itself. N.J. Steam Co. v. Merch Bank, 6 How. (47 U.S.) 344, 407.
Please take notice, that any statutory acts created by legislature must be in pursuance of the constitution and the common law to be the rule of decision. The Legislature has not been granted any power to use statutory language to circumvent these rights that have been reserved by the people and secured within the constitution. (See evidence below)
Maxim of Law: An affirmative statute does not take from the common law. Jenk. Cent. 24.
Please take notice that in a republican form of government, the people have not given up their original and highest status as the creators and masters over government and have reserved the right to correct errors by government. The people are private, separate and distinct from government. Government has only been granted limited jurisdiction over public matters. Additionally, the people have retained other rights which are not enumerated in the constitution. The education of the People’s children (their liberty interests) are private, not public. (See evidence below)
Illinois Constitution Article I, Section 24
“The enumeration in this Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the individual citizens of the State.”
Illinois Constitution Article I, Section 12
“Every person shall find a certain remedy in the laws for all injuries and wrongs which he receives to his person, privacy, property or reputation. He shall obtain justice by law, freely, completely, and promptly.”
Maxim of Law: The people is the greatest master of error. Bacon; Black's, 767; Cycl. Dict. 649.
Maxim of Law: The welfare of the people is the supreme law. McInerney v. Ervin, (Fla.) 46 So.2d 458, 463; Bacon, Max. reg. 12; 13 Coke, 139.
Maxim of Law: No right is held more sacred, or is more carefully guarded by the common law, than the right of every individual to the possession and control of his own person, free from all restraint or interference of others, unless by clear or unquestionable authority of law. Union Pac. Ry. v. Botsford, 141 U.S. 250, 251.
Maxim of Law: The deprivation of any rights may be punished. Cummings v. Missouri, 4 Wall. (71 U.S.) 277, 320.
Maxim of Law: Every man's house is his castle; and even though the winds of heaven may blow through it, government officials cannot enter it. C.L.M.; 5 Coke, 91, 92.
Maxim of Law: A man's dwelling-house is his castle and fortress, not merely for his own personal protection, but also for the protection of his family and his property therein. 5 Coke, 91b; Broom, Max. 432; Curtis v. Hubbard, 4 Hill (N.Y.) 437.
Please take notice, the people have reserved full liberty interest in their children. The State has no equitable interest or granted authority in the "best interest of the child" without due process. The government must protect these rights and liberty as mandated by the constitution.
Please take notice, government cannot engage in the practice of preemptively preventing perceived opportunities for harm by attempting to force private people to declare their intention to educate their liberty interests privately. This defies the presumption of innocence.
Please take final notice that the people have noticed the statutory scheme of legislature [HB2827] and the practice of the government relabeling/redefining their rights to gain jurisdiction. The people demand recognition that government has no authority over private education, which is distinguished from the statutorily created term “non-public”, and insist on the immediate cessation or modification of related legislation to acknowledge this right to ensure police power and agencies do not exceed their jurisdiction. Remedy may be had by publicly stating that the government has no authority over the people’s liberty interests, which includes the private education of their children. Any attempts to rename or renumber bills with the same subject matter may be viewed as tortious interference of your contract with the people. If legislation leads agencies to exceeding their jurisdiction, legislators voting for it may lose immunity for these “unofficial acts” (see Trump v. US) that are beyond the limits and constraints of the constitution. If you believe any of the above claims are untrue or that you have authority to harm, infringe, and trespass upon the rights of the free people, please provide clear and unquestionable Constitutional Provisions that grant you such authority to create legislation that would give authority to agency workers, police, corporations, judges, or any other public officer to make rules for the people and their families, then enforce without constitutional due process. All responses must be in writing, by affidavit, sworn under penalty of perjury, and postmarked within five (5) days receipt of this notice or you agree, by acquiescence, all statements in this notice to be true and fact. Any disputes by any public officials who are bound by contract to the Illinois Constitution, agrees to have these matters heard before an arbitrator of my choice and bound thereby. Further, you agree that you are acting with full knowledge, intent, and malice by trespassing against the People’s inherent rights, and that no court shall be able to rehear this matter, but it shall stand as truth and evidence in all courts of record. Non-perjury responses are invalid.
Any man or woman who decides to suppress this notice will be viewed as committing tortious interference with the contract between the people and their Representatives and agrees to pay $5,000 (five thousand dollars) per infraction.
This notice is sent to you in the peace and love of Christ, that you may provide due care for those who have all political power, the People.