Free Pardon Applications


In 1988, my life was completely destroyed, due to being charged with
“attempt lewdness with a minor” and was coercively forced to
accept a guilty plea, which I consequently served 18 months for,
released with no parole and no obligated supervised release programs
or counseling to attend, thereby proving that I was not a threat to
society.

In 2006, President George W. Bush signed into law the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act (P.L. 109-248), as a guideline for state
laws on sex crimes.
The
statute was intended to toughen punishment

for sex offenders, now making their photos, names and addresses
available to the general public, including next of kin information.
Nevada legislators adopted most provisions of the federal law in 2007
(AB 579), reacting in part to concern the state could lose federal
grants for law enforcement.

Prior
to the year 2009, when I was notified of the above-mentioned change
in law, I did have a family, but after having my life (fiance’ and
child) threatened by people I don’t know in the community, I chose to
leave my home of 13 years and 10 year old daughter, whom I had full
custody of, so she could pursue her singing and acting career,
without this sudden, traumatic change to my life becoming a threat to
her, or ruining her future.

“I
am not the person the state assumes I am and never will be!”

When
laws are changed to deliberately continue ruining someone’s life, or
the assumption is made that I have become a threat to society,
changing my tier level on the Department of Public Safety’s sex
offender website, based solely on my past, with the assistance of
amended laws, it is not only constitutionally offensive, but also
highly prejudicial and defamation of my character, ruining the little
bit of good reputation I did have left.

My
past conviction did not become an issue with the state, until the
system amended their laws to begin using one’s past against them,
which is clearly double jeopardy.

The
Fifth Amendment to The United
States Constitution, which is the Supreme Law of the United States of
America, states
that “no person shall be subject for the same offense to be
twice put in jeopardy of life or limb.” This provision, known as
the Double Jeopardy Clause, prohibits state and federal governments
from prosecuting individuals for the same crime on more than one
occasion, or imposing more than one punishment for a single
offense
.

When
it comes to human rights, it is clearly stated in the second sentence
of our Declaration of Independence, “We hold these truths to be
self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed
by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these
are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

Unalienable
rights are fixed rights given to us by our Creator rather than by
government. Unalienable rights are absolute rights – showing that
they are absolute because they came from him who is absolute, and
they were, are, and always will be, because the Giver of those rights
– “Creator” – was, is, and always will be.

Because
we are “endowed” with them, the rights are inseparable from
us: they are part of our humanity. In other words, the government did
not give them and therefore cannot take them away, but the government
still strains at ways to suppress them. To protect fundamental,
individual rights, James Madison helped include the Bill of Rights in
the Constitution. The intent was to remove them from government’s
reach.

The
“unalienable rights”, explicitly protected by the Bill of
Rights, include, but are not limited to, the rights of
self-determination with regard to one’s own property,
the
right to be secure in one’s own property
, the
right to
protection from cruel and unusual
punishment
, and so forth. Unalienable rights
are incapable of being lost or sold. Unalienable rights are retained
despite government decrees to the contrary, because civil government
does not grant them. Moreover, no future generation may be
disenfranchised of any unalienable right by the present generation.

“…
in our republican forms of government the absolute sovereignty of the
nation is in the people [Private Citizens] of the nation: and the
residual sovereignty of each state, not granted [contracted] to any
of its functionaries, is in the people [Private Citizens] of the
state;” – Chisholm vs. Georgia, 2 U.S. (Dall.) 471 Bouvier’s Law
Dictionary, 8th ed., Page 3096.

Sovereignty
itself is, of course, not subject to 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.
And the law is the definition and limitation of power. It is indeed,
quite true, that there must always be lodged somewhere, and in some
person or body, the authority of final decision; and in many cases of
mere administration the responsibility is purely political, no appeal
except to the ultimate tribunal of the public judgment, exercised
either in the pressure of opinion or by means of the suffrage. But
the fundamental rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of
happiness, considered as individual possessions, are secured by those
maxims of constitutional law, which are the monuments showing the
victorious progress of the race in securing to men the blessings of
civilization under the reign of just and equal laws. 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.”
– Yick Wo v. Hopkins 118 U.S. 356; 6 S.Ct. 1064 (1886) May 10,
1886

Since
the people have an unalienable right to choose their own form of
government and define its powers under law, the Declaration of
Independence also recognized that the people have an unalienable
right to alter or abolish that form of government under the law. The
Declaration of Independence acknowledges the legal preconditions:
“That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of
these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it and
to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles
and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most
likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

Title
18, Section 242 of the U.S.C. makes it a crime [a felony] for
“whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance,
regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State,
Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation
of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the
Constitution or laws of the United States, or to different
punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such person being an
alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for
the punishment of citizens, shall be fined under this title or
imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury
results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if
such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a
dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this
title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death
results from the acts committed in violation of this section, …they
shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years
or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.” [U.S.C.
Article VI, Clause 2 …and the Judges in every State shall be bound
thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the
Contrary notwithstanding. The Supreme Organic Law of the land].

Whenever
Man violates either the equal rights of others, or the
above-mentioned just laws, he thereby forfeits his immunity in this
regard; by his misconduct, he destroys the moral and legal basis for
his immunity and opens the door to just reprisal against himself, by
government. This means that any person, as such offender, may justly
be punished by the people’s proper instrumentality–the government,
including the courts– under a sound system of equal justice under
equal laws; that is, under Rule-by-Law (basically the people’s
fundamental law, the Constitution of the United States). Such
punishment is justified morally because of the duty of all
Individuals – in keeping with Individual Liberty-
Responsibility
to cooperate, through their instrumentality,
government, for the mutual protection of the unalienable rights of
all Individuals. The offender is also justly answerable to the
aggrieved Individual, acting properly through duly-established
machinery of government, including courts, designed for the
protection of the equal rights of all Individuals.

The
Equal Protection Clause, located at the end of Section 1 of the
Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S.C., clearly states that “All
persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the
jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the
State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law
which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the
equal protection of the laws
.”

The
rule of legal equality requires that the law be no respecter of
persons. A law is a respecter of persons if it treats persons
differently because of their immutable status or belief. The law is
not a respecter of persons if it treats persons differently on the
basis of their acts or conduct. The law looks to what a person does,
not who they are. Those who deny the rule of equality or its origins
in the law of God, or who argue that equality is subject to changing
cultural or social conditions, or who twist the meaning of equality
to require government mandated quotas, do so in contravention of the
principle of equality.

President
Abraham Lincoln, referring to the Declaration of Independence,
affirmed that the United States was “conceived in liberty and
dedicated to the proposition that ‘all men are created equal’.”
Lincoln realized that the rule of equality applied to all men and
nations, without regard to the age in which they lived, their
location on the globe, or the circumstances of history which
surrounded them
.

Since
the people have an unalienable right to choose their own form of
government and define its powers under law, the Declaration of
Independence also recognized that the people have an unalienable
right to alter or abolish that form of government under the law. The
Declaration of Independence acknowledges the legal preconditions:
“That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of
these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it and
to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles
and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most
likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

Considering
the state of Nevada never presented any evidence proving that I have
committed a new crime, making me a threat to society, this
infringement of my individual rights to Life, Liberty and the pursuit
of Happiness is now precluding me from ever living a normal life.

I
have paid my debt to society and because of these accusations and the
state enforcing this life changing affliction upon me, ruining all
chances of ever being employed again, or finding suitable residency,
this is now affecting my health, further impairing me completely
disabled.

User story by Jim in Nevada

Tell your story or ask a question on RecordClearing.org


Leave a Reply

Please be aware that these comments will appear publicly.


Featured Expungement Attorney Law Firm of Higbee and Associates