Please comment below and add your legal discoveries.
US Constitution – First (1) Amendment “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”
Debt is determined by the US Supreme Court as Speech protected by the First Amendment; “charges” are a debt that we can pay with our own negotiable instruments and our debt-speech payment of their fictitious charges must be honored under the First Amendment. Furthermore, the legal system is one of Magick. K in Magick denotes evil, without the K is “good.” The Legal system uses sigil magick making text and names upper case under “capitis diminutio maxima” (maximum loss of rights, slavery). The “judge” wears black robes like priests, the “clerk” is the Cleric, the defendant is the sinner, the State is the damaged party (hell no! it’s a fiction and thus cannot be “damaged”!). The Entire Legal system uses a separate legal language that looks like English but is NOT English! Legalese is the word magick attorneys use. The Global Legal Systems is literally an implementation of a cult pagan religion in violation of the Constitution establishing a religion.
US Constitution – Fifth (5) Amendment “No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”
Know that we are NOT “legal presence” artificial persons, and that such fictitious names and fictitious addresses are a felony crime to use. When courts imposing legal presences, it is a violation of the right to NOT self-incriminate. All courts are guilt of forcing people to ignorantly self-incriminate as FICTITIOUS PERSONS… this is imposed so the court/tribunal can gain jurisdiction and authority that it does not otherwise have.
Furthermore, Governments worldwide claim to publicly own our private property body, DNA, Minds, finger and hand prints, vocal prints, image likeness, and all manner of other biometric data. If these Informations are our Private Property, and the governments gave themselves permission to require collection these data, then they are also required by the US Constitution Amendment 5 to pay us just compensation for the public use of our private property! American Sheriffs take these datas in violation of the US Constitution – Amendment 5 all across America EVERY SINGLE DAY!!!! When this author confronted his local sheriff about this, they said, “Bill us later” and laughed. When billed, they refused to pay, documenting the illegitimacy of all sheriffs across America.
Also, important to note that “due process” is being rendered for the legal presence and, in their mind, the human is having due process. However, be law, the legal presence-game piece has a separate legal fictional due process than lawful due process owed us as state citizens, world citizens, human beings, etc. So, if they are holding your body as surety, then due process is not going to gut it for due process over the hue-man. There would have to be non-legal lawful courts for due process over whether your god given lawful non-legal private property has been properly “collected” as collateral for the “charges”/bills/debts of the legal presence-game piece. This aspect should be documented by affidavit with the court if it is useful.
US Constitution – Sixth Amendment “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.”
We deserve Constitutional States with Constitutional Common Law Courts, not these foreign STATE OF STATES and military tribunals -being passed of as “judicial”- organized under the United States, INC-United Nations.
US Constitution – Amendment IX “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”
The US Government is using the enumerated governmental protected rights in the constitution to deny and disparage other rights retained by the people. I can definitively say that my right to expatriate, and be a non-legal foreign world citizen at a foreign state, is being violated by Michigan military tribunals.
US Constitution – Amendment X “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.”
The United States (and their respective State of States) is usurping the power of the people and the legitimate states/state assemblies.
US Constitution – Amendment XI “The judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by citizens of another state, or by citizens or subjects of any foreign state.”
This is one of the MOST important clauses and reasons to become a World Citizen and expatriate/relinquish all domestic legal presences. United States “statutes” do not apply to foreign citizens of foreign states. In my instance, the State of Michigan, Washtenaw county are knowingly, intentionally, willfully, and maliciously violating this clause of the US Constitution to continue persecuting me (as of 2020.9.24).
“The state citizen is immune from any and all government attacks and procedures, absent contract.”
Dred Scott vs. Sanford, 60 US (19 How.) 393,
Birth Certificates, Social Security Cards, Drivers Licenses, Passports, Selective Service “Conscription”, State ID cards, County ID cards, City ID cards, Naturalization Papers, and the like are all (unlawful) adhesion contracts. Despite being signed only by one party, The full terms and conditions are of these government contracts are NOT provided before signing, required for any contract to be lawful. Also, these contracts do not provide equal consideration; all contracts must have equal skin in the game, equal liability, equal value. These contracts surrender EVERYTHING WE ARE AND OWN to the government in exchange for a FICTION that doesn’t even exist (aka, Nothing!) except in the demented immoral minds of Licensed BAR Attorneys. This also applies to world citizens as well.
“….every man is independent of all laws, except those prescribed by nature. He is not bound by any institutions formed by his fellowmen, without his consent.”
Cruden vs. Neale, 2 N.C. 238, 2 S.E. 70.
The best way to withdraw consent from the US Government is to perform a expatriating act with intent on relinquishment of US Citizenship/legal presence. Expatriation, for all effective purposes, withdrawal of consent. Follow Title 8 USC §1481 (a) (1)-(4). Easiest way is to make an oath and affirmation to the World Government of World Citizens, and become a World Citizen yourself. We are a self-governing non-limited sovereign de jure government under a 100% flat hierarchy. Once the expatriating act is “committed”, file a Letter to the US Department of State (and possibly US Attorney General, US Treasury Secretary, and US President) documenting the expatriating act, file IRS Form 8854, and DHS Form I-407. This process is documented in the IRS Form 8854 Instructions, page 1. This will list the LEGAL PERSONS UPPER CASE NAME in the Federal Register as an official expatriate.
When in Court, Title 8 USC §1481 (b) says the burden of proof of expatriation is on you and the court must recognize it as per the statute.
“It is not the function of our Government to keep the citizen from falling into error; it is the function of the citizen to keep the Government from falling into error.”
American Communications Association v. Douds, 339 U.S. 382, 442 (1950)
This is hugely significant legal precedence. When the government assumes our legal presence (or shall I say, their legal presence for us), it is our function to correct their presumption of legal presence, and it is their function to correct their false presumption of legal presence. Here is an example of how to use this legal precedence: If the government uses a domestic, or zip code address, they are using a fictitious address. If the Government uses an upper case name, they are using a fictitious name. By Title 18 USC §1341, The government is NOT allowed to use or even assume fictitious names and fictitious address as doing so is a felony crime. It is a felony crime fo your to open mail sent to a fictitious name/address by the same statute. It is your function to correct the court regarding your Proper name and Proper Address (non-domestic, and zip code exempt). It is the function of gov’t to correct the fictitious name/address to the proper name/address.
“One sovereign does not need to tell another sovereign that he/she is sovereign. The sovereign is merely sovereign by his very existence. The rule in America is that the American people are the sovereigns.”
Kemper v. State, 138 Southwest 1025 (1911), page 1043, section 33
US Citizens are not American People. US Citizens, “We the People” are a collection of “legal presences” artificial persons created by the United Nations for management by their belligerent “United States” subsidiary. American People are Lawful Persons, us, physical.
R.S. § 1999 (click “Notes” and scroll to bottom of the page) provided that: “Whereas the right of expatriation is a natural and inherent right of all people, indispensable to the enjoyment of the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness;
and whereas in the recognition of this principle this Government has freely received emigrants from all nations, and invested them with the rights of citizenship;
and whereas it is claimed that such American citizens, with their descendants, are subjects of foreign states, owing allegiance to the governments thereof;
and whereas it is necessary to the maintenance of public peace that this claim of foreign allegiance should be promptly and finally disavowed:
Therefore any declaration, instruction, opinion, order, or decision of any officer of the United States which denies, restricts, impairs, or questions the right of expatriation, is declared inconsistent with the fundamental principles of the Republic.”
This is critical. This legal precedence documents the “right to expatriate.” This is the right to LEAVE their system! Expatriation is only of the few actual real solutions to stop their presumptions. Below documents how to do it yourself.
First, this legally documents that the Right to Expatriate is a natural right given by god, and cannot be taken away by Government Agents… no matter what. They can make unlawful presumptions of domestic artificial person all they want, it’s still a crime. Expatriation is inherent, and 100% unalienable. Government can’t say no, even in their courts.
Second, this legally documents that the only way to actually have a right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness is to expatriate, as expatriation and the exercise of expatriation is indispensable to these rights.
Third, this legally documents that citizenship is a monetary contract due to citizenship being an investment for the United States. Citizenship is what makes you, your body, your mind, your DNA, your essence into state property. You are the investment worth billions of dollars to the United States – United Nations.
Fourth, Allegience is passed down biologically, genealogically and if you are a citizen/slave then so are your children, naturally.
Fifth, for there to be peace, we must expatriate (not consent) to the United Nations global military dictatorship. Such non-consent to the State of War of the UN must be performed promptly and when expatriation happens, it is FINAL. There are no take backs. There are no oops. And the Government agents (even judges and sheriffs) CANNOT reverse your decision to expatriate because it is FINAL. Once you decide to leave the artificial person legal fiction, the cannot force it upon you.
Lastly, any “PERSON” US Citizen that declares, instructs, opinies, orders, or decides to deny, restrict, impair, or question your exercised right to expatriate, to be a State Citizen or a World citizen, can and should be taken to town. Legally.
To exercise your right to expatriate, you must perform an expatriating act with intent to expatriate. Go Read Page 1 of IRS Form 8854 Instructions for the process: Sign up with Anna Von Reitz State Assembly or become a World citizen, to execute Title 8 USC §1481 (a) (1)-(4). Send a certified (w/ return receipt) letter documenting the expatriation to the US Department of State. Send the Department of Homeland Security form I-407 and file IRS Form 8854. The LEGAL NAME will then be listed in the FEDERAL REGISTER as an expatriate. You can you use that as perfected evidence of expatriation.
Nuremberg Code
Article 6, Section 1: Any preventive, diagnostic, and therapeutic medical intervention is only to be carried out with the prior, free and informed consent of the person concerned, based on adequate information. The consent should, where appropriate, be express and may be withdrawn by the person at any time and for any reason without disadvantage or prejudice.
Article 6, Section 3: In no case should a collective community agreement or the consent of a community leader or other authority substitute for an individual’s informed consent.
All preventative, diagnostic, and therapeutic medical intervention applies. ALL. All (“judicial”, “administrative-executive”, governor, or even legislature -making laws-) authority, community leader, and/or a collective community agreement is not substitute for consent of an individual. There can be NO disadvantages nor prejudices for not consenting. This includes, and is not limited to, unwanted psychiatric treatments for courts (Forensic Psychiatry), masks, quarantine, lockdowns (which literally only occur in Jails and Prisons!), vaccines, mandatory testing for any common activity/business, and social distancing. These all fit the categories of medical intervention documented by the Nuremberg Code.
UCC §2A – 105. TERRITORIAL APPLICATION OF ARTICLE TO GOODS COVERED BY CERTIFICATE OF TITLE.
“Subject to the provisions of Sections 2A-304(3) and 2A-305(3), with respect to goods covered by a certificate of title issued under a statute of this State or of another jurisdiction, compliance and the effect of compliance or noncompliance with a certificate of title statute are governed by the law (including the conflict of laws rules) of the jurisdiction issuing the certificate until the earlier of (a) surrender of the certificate, or (b) four months after the goods are removed from that jurisdiction and thereafter until a new certificate of title is issued by another jurisdiction.“
By having a World Citizen World Government of World Citizens Certificate of Birth at the World Service Authority, one is not subject to the STATUTES of the Unconstitutional United States Government and related State of States, doing the business of the United States, United Nations. Despite this, States do not want to recognize that they do not have authority/jurisdiction over foreign World Citizens.
Title 26 USC §7701 (9) United States
“The term “United States” when used in a geographical sense includes only the States and the District of Columbia.“
Title 26 USC §7701 (10) State
“The term “State” shall be construed to include the District of Columbia, where such construction is necessary to carry out provisions of this title.“
When put together, The geographical area of the “United States” is DC (as a “State(s)”) and DC! If you do not live in DC, then you are NOT “in” the United States!
“… railroad benefits, like social security benefits, are not contractual and may be altered or even eliminated at any time.”
United States Railroad Retirement Board vs Fritz, 449 U.S. 166 (1980)
The Benefits from a Social Security Card is not contractual but the Social security Card/Application, being treated as a simple contract under UCC 3 Negotiable Instrument, is contractual. We have the right to terminate the Social Security Association any time we want. I have been trying for years to terminate the SSN, but SSA will not follow legal precedence.
“’It is apparent,’ this court said in the Bailey Case ( 219 U.S. 239 , 31 S. Ct. 145, 151) ‘that a constitutional prohibition cannot be transgressed indirectly by the creation of a statutory presumption any more than it can be violated by direct enactment. The power to create presumptions is not a means of escape from constitutional restrictions.’ If a legislative body is without power to enact as a rule of evidence a statute denying a litigant the right to prove the facts of his case, certainly the power cannot be made to emerge by putting the enactment in the guise of a rule of substantive law.”
Heiner v. Donnan, 285 U.S. 312 (1932)
Statutes have no power to supersede/subvert the US Constitution.
“The failure of an adverse party to deny under oath the allegation that he is incorporated with the necessity of proof of the fact [it becomes part of the official record].”
[Galleria Bank v. Southwest Properties, 498 S.W.2d]
If we do NOT file an AFFIDAVIT with the court that we are deny any incorporation as a legal presence, then it becomes court record that we ARE incorporated as alleged by the legal fictitious paperworks before the court. So, Make sure to File your Affidavit with the court that you are not LEGALLY PRESENT in the United States!
This is a very strong example with many GREAT points in it, but has a few fundamental legal aspects not quite in proper alignment: SEDM- Affidavit of Corporate Denial
THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE STYLE MANUAL
“11. Italic – Names of legal cases
11.8. The names of legal cases are italicized, except for the v., which is always set in lowercase. eg. SMITH v. BROWN ET AL.”
“Names of aircraft, vessels, and spacecraft
11.6. The names of aircraft, vessels, and manned spacecraft are italicized unless otherwise indicated.
11.7. Names of vessels are quoted in matter printed in other than capitals and lowercase roman, even if there is italic type available in the series. eg. SINKING OF THE “LUSITANIA” “
This is proof that the plaintiff and defendant of all court cases are vessels rather than human beings. The vessel is otherwise known as the “legal presence” artificial person identity. Legal presence names should be in quotes when in other than all capital letters, the example is quoting when not needed with all capitalized letters.
Axiom of Law: If the fraud produces a contractual obligation, then the contract is void ab initio (from the beginning) if the injured party explicitly voids it:
American Jurisprudence, 2d [legal encyclopedia] Fraud and Deceit
§8 Effect
Fraud vitiates every transaction and all contracts. 7 Indeed, the principle is often stated, in broad and sweeping language, that fraud destroys the validity of everything into which it enters, and that it vitiates the most solemn contracts, documents, and even judgments. 8 Fraud, as it is sometimes said, vitiates every act, which statement embodies a thoroughly sound doctrine when it is properly applied to the subject matter in controversy and to the parties thereto and in a proper forum. 9 As a general rule, fraud will vitiate a contract notwithstanding that it contains a provision to the effect that no representations have been made as an inducement to enter into it, or that either party shall be bound by any representation not contained therein, or a similar provision attempting to nullify extraneous representations. Such provisions do not, in most jurisdictions, preclude a charge of fraud based on oral representations. 10
It is a general rule in the law of contracts, however, that an agreement induced by fraud is voidable 11 and not void, 12 although the rule laid down in some cases is that fraud in the factum or execution renders the agreement void, whereas fraud in the treaty or inducement renders it merely voidable. 13 Fraudulent representations, to avoid a contract, need not be such as would sustain an indictment for false pretenses. 14 In preventing actual consent, fraud may be as effectual as mistake or a want of capacity; and where such is the fact in dealing with ordinary contracts, its effect is to vitiate and invalidate them. 15 Ordinarily, however, a contract induced by fraud is voidable at the option of the person defrauded, who must take affirmative action for relief. 16 Generally speaking, the right to avoid a contract induced by fraud must be exercised before the rights of third parties have intervened. 17
Fraudulent misrepresentations may operate as an estoppel in pais, whereby the fraudulent person is precluded from denying a statement which another has relied upon to his injury. 18 As respects fraud in law, that is, constructive fraud as contradistinguished from fraud in fact, or actual fraud, where that which is valid can be separated from that which is invalid without defeating the general intent, the maxim, “void in part, void in toto,” does not necessarily apply, and the transaction may be sustained notwithstanding the invalidity of a particular provision. 19 If an original transaction is valid, it cannot be rendered fraudulent by subsequent events, 20 as by the mere nonperformance of a contract, 1 unless, under the rule in force in the majority of jurisdictions, there is a coexisting intention not to perform. 2 In the event of a controversy between the parties regarding fraud in the contract, a “valid” contract is what a court acting with jurisdiction says it is. 3
A person does not, by attempting to defraud another, forfeit his property to the latter. 4 [37 Am.Jur.2d, Fraud and Deceit, §8 (1999)]
Axiom of Law: The person who earned the moneys fraudulently procured by the government has a legal right to recover them:
“Dolus auctoris non nocet successori.”
The fraud of a possessor does not prejudice the successor.
[Bouvier’s Maxims of Law, 1856]
Axiom of Law: The act of fraud and all the consequences of the act never legally happened. That means that the Social Security Number they falsely believe was issued to me was never actually issued:
“Ex dolo malo non oritur action. “
Out of fraud no action arises. Cowper, 343; Broom’s Max. 349.
[Bouvier’s Maxims of Law, 1856]
Axiom of Law: Any act by any government servant to conceal the fraud becomes an act of fraud:
“Fraus est celare fraudem. “
It is a fraud to conceal a fraud. 1 Vern. 270.
[Bouvier’s Maxims of Law, 1856]
Axiom of Law: Fraud is inexcusable and unpardonable:
“Fraus et dolus nemini patrocianari debent. “ Fraud and deceit should excuse no man. 3 Co. 78.
[Bouvier’s Maxims of Law, 1856]
Axiom of Law: Fraud amounts to an injustice:
“Fraus et jus numquam cohabitant. “
Fraud and justice never agree together. Wing. 680.
Quod alias bonum et justum est, si per vim vel fraudem petatur, malum et injustum efficitur. What is otherwise good and just, if sought by force or fraud, becomes bad and unjust. 3 Co. 78.
[Bouvier’s Maxims of Law, 1856]
Axiom of Law: If a debt or tax obligation arises by virtue of the fraud, then the victim of the fraud must be excused from the liability:
“In commodo haec pactio, ne dolus praestetur, rata non est. “
If in a contract for a loan there is inserted a clause that the borrower shall not be answerable for fraud, such clause is void. Dig. 13, 6, 17.
[Bouvier’s Maxims of Law, 1856]
Axiom of Law: Fraud creates no rights to property on the part of the government:
“Jus et fraudem numquam cohabitant. “
Right and fraud never go together.
[Bouvier’s Maxims of Law, 1856]
Axiom of Law: Fraud gives the victim of the fraud the right to terminate his relationship to the government:
“Si quis custos fraudem pupillo fecerit, a tutela removendus est. “
If a guardian behaves fraudently to his ward, he shall be removed from the guardianship. Jenk. Cent. 39. [Bouvier’s Maxims of Law, 1856]
LAW OF PEACE – VOLUME 1 – HQ DEPARTMENT OF ARMY PAMPHLET (SEPT 1979)
This documents the difference between Law of Peace, which we are all owed and deserve, and the Law of War, which is currently operating under the United Nations. This is proven by Brian Mackie (prosecutor for Washtenaw County, Michigan) stating that his masters are the United Nations. All courts across America and the globe have been converted into United Nations Competent National Military Tribunals, as can be seen with the yellow fringe around the flags in court. The United Nations Charter operates under Law of War, figure 1.
Pertaining to Lawful Money vs Legal Tender and IRS Taxes
18 U.S. Code § 8 – Obligation or other security of the United States defined
The term “obligation or other security of the United States” includes all bonds, certificates of indebtedness, national bank currency, Federal Reserve notes, Federal Reserve bank notes, coupons, United States notes, Treasury notes, gold certificates, silver certificates, fractional notes, certificates of deposit, bills, checks, or drafts for money, drawn by or upon authorized officers of the United States, stamps and other representatives of value, of whatever denomination, issued under any Act of Congress, and canceled United States stamps.(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 685.)
Please note that coupons, bills (receipts!!!), drafts, and canceled US Stamps are obligations of the United States. Every Energy “bill” we receive is literally a PAYMENT coupon, not a bill to be paid. I have personally verified this and it is true. Your LEGAL UPPER CASE NAME is also a U.S. PUBLIC OFFICER, making you, as a legal presence-artificial person, an authorized officer of the US.
12 U.S. Code § 411.Issuance to reserve banks; nature of obligation; redemption
Federal reserve notes, to be issued at the discretion of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System for the purpose of making advances to Federal reserve banks through the Federal reserve agents as hereinafter set forth and for no other purpose, are authorized. The said notes shall be obligations of the United States and shall be receivable by all national and member banks and Federal reserve banks and for all taxes, customs, and other public dues. They shall be redeemed in lawful money on demand at the Treasury Department of the United States, in the city of Washington, District of Columbia, or at any Federal Reserve bank. (Dec. 23, 1913, ch. 6, § 16 (par.), 38 Stat. 265; Jan. 30, 1934, ch. 6, § 2(b)(1), 48 Stat. 337; Aug. 23, 1935, ch. 614, title II, § 203(a), 49 Stat. 704.)
Federal Reserve Notes are Obligations of the United States as shown by both this and the above code 18 USC Sec. 8. This makes all coupons, bills, receipts, drafts, and cancelled/used Stamps redeemable at the US Treasury Dept.
31 U.S. Code § 3124.Exemption from taxation
(a)Stocks and obligations of the United States Government are exempt from taxation by a State or political subdivision of a State. The exemption applies to each form of taxation that would require the obligation, the interest on the obligation, or both, to be considered in computing a tax, except—
(1)a nondiscriminatory franchise tax or another nonproperty tax instead of a franchise tax, imposed on a corporation; and
(2)an estate or inheritance tax.
All obligations and interest are tax exempt. Meaning, if you get paid in Federal Reserve Notes, then you owe no taxes. The only exception is if we, as natural persons, confuse ourselves as a legal presence artificial person with and as a legal name. By “being”/appearing/manifesting as a LEGAL ENTITY (a corporation and public officer), then non-discriminatory franchise taxes can be imposed. Also the legal name is an ESTATE/TRUST. Taxing the DEAD legal entity is also acceptable because it is an estate/trust. BTW part b only applies to non-US Citizens, as they/we are not instrumentalities of the US or possessions/territories there-of.
“By allowing all of the lawful “money” (gold and silver coin) to be replaced with non-taxable (at least, to the States) Federal Obligations (evidence of federal debt – Federal Reserve Notes (FRN)), the states have completely and entirely given up and lost their power to tax anything in the state except real estate and corporations. At least according to the laws documented here.” via Tax-Freedom.com
Pertaining to the Right to Travel vs Driving:
“No state shall convert a liberty into a license, and charge a fee therefore.”
Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105
“The object of a license is to confer a right or power, which does not exist without it.”
Blatz Brewing Co. v. Collins, 160 P.2d 37, 39; 69 Cal. A. 2d 639.
“A license is a privilege granted by the state” and “cannot possibly exist with reference to something which is a Right…to ride and drive over the streets”.
City of Chicago v Cullens, et al, 51 N.E. 907, 910, etc. (1906)
“Statutes that violate the plain and obvious principles of common Right and common reason are null and void.”
Bennett v. Boggs, 1 Baldw 60
“If [state] officials construe a vague statute unconstitutionally, the citizen may take them at their word, and act on the assumption that the statute is void.”
Wingfield v. Fielder 2d Ca. 3d 213 (1972).
“Persons faced with an unconstitutional licensing law which purports to require a license as a prerequisite to exercise of right… may ignore the law and engage with impunity in exercise of such right.”
People v. Battle
“If the State converts a right (liberty) into a privilege, the citizen can ignore the license and fee and engage in the right (liberty) with impunity.”
Shuttlesworth v. City of Birmingham, Alabama, 373 U.S. 262 (1963)
“Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them.”
Miranda vs. Arizona, 384 US 436, 491
“The State cannot diminish rights of the people.”
Hertado v. California, 110 U.S. 516.
“The claim and exercise of a constitutional Right cannot be converted into a crime.”
Miller vs. U.S., 230 F. 486, 489
“There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of this exercise of Constitutional rights.”- Sherar v. Cullen, 481 F. 2d 945.
“The streets of a city belong to the people of the state, and the use thereof is an inalienable right of every citizen…”
19 Cal.Jur. 54, § 407.
“The right to travel is a well-established common right that does not owe its existence to the federal government. It is recognized by the courts as a natural right.”
Schactman v. Dulles 96 Appellate DC 287, 225 F2d 938, at 941.
“With regard particularly to the U.S. Constitution, it is elementary that a Right secured or protected by that document cannot be overthrown or impaired by any state police authority.”
Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham 394 U.S. 147 (1969).
“Those who have the right to do something cannot be licensed for what they already have right to do as such license would be meaningless.”
Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, 1914, p. 2961
“RIGHT – A legal Right, a constitutional Right means a Right protected by the law, by the constitution, but government does not create the idea of Right or original Rights; it acknowledges them.“
Escobedo v. State 35 C2d 870 in 8 Cal Jur 3d p.27
“The use of the automobile as a necessary adjunct to the earning of a livelihood in modern life requires us in the interest of realism to conclude that the RIGHT to use an automobile on the public highways partakes of the nature of a Liberty within the meaning of the Constitutional guarantees. . .”
Caneisha Mills v. D.C. 2009
Anna von Reitz – Claims on Abatement — for Private Autos Misidentified as “Motor Vehicles” – this documents “Claim on abatement” remedy filed with State-of-State Secretary of State or, in some States, the Lieutenant Governor; possibly via Federal Reserve “Regulation Z.” You may also present it to any prosecutor, defense attorney, court clerk or judge involved in any action against your interests. Share this information widely. Make enough people aware of what has gone on here so that they no longer have the option of portraying you as some kind of nutcase while enforcing crimes against you.
—-
“Personal liberty, or the right to the enjoyment of life and liberty, is one of the fundamental or natural rights, which has been protected by its inclusion as a guaranty in the various constitutions, which is not derived from, or dependent on, the federal Constitution, and which may not be submitted to a vote and may not depend on the outcome of an election. It is one of the most sacred and valuable rights; as sacred as the right of private property; or as occupying a preferred position as contrasted with property rights; and is regarded as inalienable.”
16 C.J.S., Constitutional Law, § 202, p. 987: (Corpus Juris Secundum)
“Personal liberty largely consists of the right of locomotion, to go where and when one pleases, only so far restrained as the rights of others may make it necessary for the welfare of all other citizens. The right of a citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, by horse-drawn carriage, wagon, or automobile, is not a mere privilege which may be permitted or prohibited at will, but a common right which he has under his right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Under this constitutional guaranty one may, therefore, under normal conditions, travel at his inclination along the public highways or in public places, and while conducting himself in an orderly and decent manner, neither interfering with nor disturbing another’s rights, he will be protected, not only in his person, but in his safe conduct.”
II Am.Jur. (1st) Constitutional Law, § 329, p.1135 (American Juris Prudence)
“Personal liberty – Consists of the power of locomotion, of changing situations, of removing one’s person to whatever place one’s inclination may direct, without imprisonment or restraint unless by due process of law.”
Bovier’s Law Dictionary, 1914 ed., Black’s Law Dictionary 5th ed. Blackstone’s Commentary 134; Hare Constitution, Pg. 777
—-
“The right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, in the ordinary course of life and business, is a common right which he has under the right to enjoy life and liberty, to acquire and possess property, and to pursue happiness and safety. It includes the right, in so doing, to use the ordinary and usual conveyances of the day, and under the existing modes of travel, includes the right to drive…”
Thompson vs. Smith, supra.; Teche Lines vs. Danforth, Miss., 12 S.2d 784 (1943).
“The use of the highways for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege, but a common and fundamental Right, of which the public and the individual cannot be rightfully deprived.”
Chicago Motor Coach vs. Chicago, 169 NE 22?1; Ligare vs. Chicago, 28 NE 934; Boon vs. Clark, 214 SSW 607; 25 Am.Jur. (1st) Highways Sect.163
“The right to operate a motor vehicle upon the public streets and highways is not a mere privilege, it is a right or liberty, the enjoyment of which is protected by the guarantees of the federal and state constitutions.”
Adams v City of Pocatello, 416 P.2d 46, 48.
“It cannot be gainsaid that citizens have a right to drive upon the public streets of the District of Columbia or any other city absent a constitutionally sound reason for limiting their access.”
Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347, 373, 96 S.Ct. 2673, 49 L.Ed.2d 547 (1976)
“The RIGHT of the citizen to DRIVE on the public street with freedom from police interference, unless he is engaged in suspicious conduct associated in some manner with criminality is a FUNDAMENTAL CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT which must be protected by the courts.”
Simeone v. Lindsay, 65 Atl. 778, 779; Hannigan v. Wright, 63 Atl. 234, 236.
“A traveler has an equal right to employ an automobile as a means of transportation and to occupy the public highways with other vehicles in common use.”
Adams v. City of Pocatello, 416 P.2d 46, 48; 91 Idaho 99 (1966).
“The right to travel is so fundamental that it appears in the Articles of Confederation, which governed our society before the Constitution.”
Donnolly vs. Union Sewer Pipe Co., 184 US 540; Lafarier vs. Grand Trunk R.R. Co., 24 A. 848; O’Neil vs. Providence Amusement Co., 108 A. 887.
U.S. Supreme Court decisions:
“Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them.”
Miranda vs. Arizona, 384 US 436, 491
“The State cannot diminish rights of the people.”
Hertado v. California, 110 U.S. 516.
“The claim and exercise of a constitutional Right cannot be converted into a crime.”
Miller vs. U.S., 230 F. 486, 489
“Undoubtedly the Right of locomotion, the Right to remove from one place to another according to inclination, is an attribute of personal liberty, and the Right, ordinarily, of free transit from or through the territory of any state is a Right secured by the Fourteenth Amendment and by other provisions of the Constitution.”
Williams v. Fears, 343 U.S. 270, 274
A citizen may have, under the Fourteenth Amendment, the right to travel and transport his property upon them by auto vehicle. But he has no right to make the highways his place of business by using them as a common carrier for hire. Such use is a privilege which may be granted or withheld by the state in its discretion, without violating either the due process clause or the equal protection clause.
Packard v. Banton, 264 U.S. 140, 144[.] and Buck v. Kuykendall, 267 U.S. 307, 314 (1925).
“The assertion of federal rights, when plainly and reasonably made, is not to be defeated under the name of local practice.”- Davis v. Wechsler, 263 U.S. 22, 24.
“The right to travel is a part of the liberty of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the 5th Amendment.”
Kent v Dulles, 357 U.S. 116, 125.
40.01 (22) of the [Wisconsin]Vehicle Code which, in its definitions of words and phrases, states:
“`Highway’ means all public ways and thoroughfares and bridges on the same. It includes the entire width between the boundary lines of every way open to the use of the public as a matter of right for the purposes of vehicular travel….”
Weiss v. Holman, 207 NW 2d 660 – Wis: Supreme Court 1973
Sec. 12-465. Definitions
“Public highways’ includes every way or place generally open to the use of the public as a matter of right for the purposes of vehicular travel….
Wamphassuc Pt. Prop. Owners Assn. v. Public Utilities Commission, 154 Conn. 674 – Conn: Supreme Court 1967
Sec 75-1102, subd. C is a portion of the Motor Fuel Tax Law, public highways are defined as:
“The term `public highways’ shall mean and include every way or place of whatever nature, generally open to the use of the public as a matter of right, for the purposes of vehicular travel, and notwithstanding that the same may be temporarily closed for the purpose of construction, reconstruction, maintenance or repair.” Identical provision also appears in Section 75-1201(c).
Camden v. Harris, 109 F. Supp. 311 – U.S. Dist. Court, WD Arkansas 1953
“Although “highway” has a broad meaning (basically including any street, city or rural), the purposes of a highway, as used in the statutory definition, are limited. In defining highway, the statute refers to “every way open to the use of the public as a matter of right for the purposes of vehicular travel. It includes those roads … opened to the use of the public for the purpose of vehicular travel.” Wis.Stat. § 340.01(22)
Schultz v. Frisby, 807 F. 2d 1339 – U.S. Court of Appeals, 7th Circuit 1986
“We hold, therefore, that a random stop of a motorist in the absence of specific articulable facts which justify the stop by indicating a reasonable suspicion that a violation of the law has occurred is constitutionally impermissible and violative of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. It follows that a random stop solely for the purpose of a documents check is an unreasonable and unconstitutional detention of those in the stopped vehicle…”
STATE v. PROUSE 382 A.2d 1359, 1364 (Del. 1978)
The right to travel means, of course, the right to go from one place to another. It includes the right (1) to start, (2) to go forward on the way, and (3) to stop when the traveler’s destination has been reached. To speak to the first two of these as fundamental rights without including the third would be to descend again to the absurd, and so far as the instant case is concerned that is what we have here. But we do not so limit the right. We affirm that it includes the right to stop on the way, temporarily, for a legitimate or necessary purpose when that purpose is an immediate incident to travel. So it is that the texts and authorities declare that the right to stop when the occasion demands is an incident to the right to travel, a proposition so completely self-evident that no authority is necessary to sustain it, and which we would pronounce irrefutable, had it never heretofore been mentioned.
2 Blashfield Automobile Law, Perm. Ed., sec. 1191, p. 321; Fulton v. Chouteau County Farmers’ Co., 98 Mont. 48, 37 P.2d 1025; Morton v. Mooney, 97 Mont. 1, 33 P.2d 262, 263; Albrecht v. Waterloo Const. Co., 218 Iowa, 1205, 257 N.W. 183.
The RIGHTS aforesaid, being fundamental, are constitutional rights, and while the exercise thereof may be reasonably regulated by legislative act in pursuance of the police power of the state, and although those powers are broad, they do not rise above those privileges which are imbedded in the constitutional structure. The police power cannot justify the enactment of any law which amounts to an arbitrary and unwarranted interference with, or unreasonable restriction on, those rights of the citizen which are fundamental.
State v. Armstead, 103 Miss. 790, 799, 60 So. 778, Ann. Cas. 1915B, 495.
An administrative regulation, of course, is not a “statute.” A traveler on foot has the same right to use of the public highway as an automobile or any other vehicle.
U.S. v Mersky (1960) 361 U.S. 431
“The right to travel freely from State to State … is a right broadly assertable against private interference as well as governmental action. Like the right of association, it is a virtually unconditional personal right, guaranteed by the Constitution to us all.”
Paul v. Virginia U.S. Supreme Court
– Other Courts –
” The appellant points out that § 39-741(5), 1960 Reissue of Volume 3, Revised Statutes of Nebraska of 1943, defines the term “highway” to mean “* * * every way or place of whatever nature open to the use of the public, as a matter of right, for the purposes of vehicular travel… and that the Nebraska court has adopted this definition in connection with automobile litigation”
Solomon Dehydrating Company v. Guyton, 294 F. 2d 439 – Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit 1961
“Undoubtedly the right of locomotion, the right to remove from one place to another according to inclination, is an attribute of personal liberty, and the right, ordinarily, of free transit from or through the territory of any State is a right secured by the l4th Amendment and by other provisions of the Constitution.
Schactman v Dulles, 96 Appellate D.C. 287, 293.
“There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of this exercise of constitutional Rights.”
Snerer vs. Cullen, 481 F. 946
“Heretofore the court has held, and we think correctly, that while a Citizen has the Right to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, that Right does not extend to the use of the highways, either in whole or in part, as a place of business for private gain.”
Willis vs. Buck, 263 P. l 982; Barney vs. Board of Railroad Commissioners, 17 P.2d 82
“… For while a Citizen has the Right to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, that Right does not extend to the use of the highways, either in whole or in part, as a place for private gain. For the latter purpose, no person has a vested right to use the highways of the state, but is a privilege or a license which the legislature may grant or withhold at its discretion.”
State vs. Johnson, 243 P. 1073; Cummins vs. Homes, 155 P. 171; Packard vs. Banton, 44 S.Ct. 256; Hadfield vs. Lundin, 98 Wash 516
“The Right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by horse drawn carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city can prohibit or permit at will, but a common Right, which he has under the Right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”
Thompson vs. Smith, 154 SE 579
‘The right of a citizen to travel upon the highway and transport his property thereon, in the ordinary course of life and business, differs radically and obviously from that of one who makes the highway his place of business and uses it for private gain, in the running of a coach or omnibus. The former is the usual and ordinary right of a citizen, a common right, a right common to all, while the latter is special, unusual and extraordinary….”
Ex parte Dickey (Dickey v. Davis) 76 W.Va. 576, L.R.A. 1915 F, 840, P.U.R. 1915 E, 93, 85 S.E. 781
“The distinction between the right of a citizen to use the public highways for private, rather than commercial purposes is recognized.”
Barbour v. Walker, 126 Okla. 227, 259 Pac. 552, 56 A.L.R. 1049, 1053
“However, a right as precious as the freedom of an individual who has not violated any law to travel wherever he pleases without interruption should not be denied construction not impairing such right is possible.”
People v. Utsman, 166 N.Y.S. (2d) 358 (1957))
“First, it is well established law that the highways of the state are public property, and their primary and preferred use is for private purposes, and that their use for purposes of gain is special and extraordinary which, generally at least, the legislature may prohibit or condition as it sees fit.”
Stephenson vs. Rinford, 287 US 251; Pachard vs Banton, 264 US 140,
Citizenship as a Political Question – Not Judicial -Important Legal Precedence for World Citizens
“Political questions. Questions of which courts will refuse to take cognizance, or to decide, on account of their purely political character, or because their determination would involve an encroachment upon the executive or legislative powers.
“Political questions doctrine” holds that certain issues should not be decided by courts because their resolution is committed to another branch of government and/or because those issues are not capable, for one reason or another, of judicial resolution. Islamic Republic of Iran v. Pahlavi, 116 Misc.2d. 590, 455 N.Y.S.2d. 987, 990.
“Citizenship is a political tie; allegiance is a territorial tenure. [. . .] The doctrine is, that allegiance cannot be due to two sovereigns; and taking an oath of allegiance to a new, is the strongest evidence of withdrawing allegiance from a previous, sovereign….” [Talbot v. Janson, 3 U.S. 133 (1795) (headnotes, not within case)]
“Allegiance and protection [by the government from harm] are, in this connection, reciprocal obligations. The one is a compensation for the other; allegiance for protection and protection for allegiance.” [Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. (21 Wall.) 162, 166-168 (1874)]
“The citizen cannot complain, because he has voluntarily submitted himself to such a form of government. He owes allegiance to the two departments, so to speak, and within their respective spheres must pay the penalties which each exacts for disobedience to its laws. In return, he can demand protection from each within its own jurisdiction.” [United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875)]
Convention relating to the Status of Stateless Persons (1954) –
Article 1 – Definition of the term “stateless person” provides: “1. For the purpose of this Convention, the term ‘”stateless person” means a person who is not considered as a national by any State under the operation of its law.”
Obviously, they are legalizing “stateless persons” into a legal entity, and only legal entities can be “stateless persons.” Black’s Law Dictionary says that “stateless persons” are and can only be “natural persons.” The legal term “natural person”, we assume”, refers to the living breathing wo/man. However “natural person” has been “legalized” to mean the human being represented by the legal entity, and cannot be a “natural person” without being represented by a “legal entity.” But, Black’s legal dictionary refers to the natural person needing to abide by “local laws”, requiring a “legal presence” for the “natural person” to be able to comply with the “local laws.”
Article 6 – The term “in the same circumstances” provides: “For the purpose of this Convention, the term “in the same circumstances” implies that any requirements (including requirements as to length and conditions of sojourn or residence) which the particular individual would have to fulfil for the enjoyment of the right in question, if he were not a stateless person, must be fulfilled by him, with the exception of requirements which by their nature a stateless person is incapable of fulfilling.”
Given Black’s Legal Dictionary definition of “stateless person” being a “natural person”, we are, by definition, incapable of BEING the “legal presence artificial person” as a living breathing wo/man, but “natural person” is with “legal presence” upon which “law” is attached. Given the Convention’s definition of “stateless person” being a “legal presence artificial person”, The stateless “person” only has the “rights” granted or allowed by the local UN Member-State and can be persecuted for not following the requirements to exercise basic natural rights (protected from unlawful coloring of law [eg imposition of Driver’s License] by 18 USC §242) of the stateless person. Can one be “stateless” without a legal entity?
Article 6 as applied to Article 13 protects our property, such as body and private property biometric data from being “confiscated” as surety for and property of the “legal presence artificial person”. This is because lawfully “stateless persons” (without legal presence) are incapable of fulfilling being surety for and property of the “legal presence artificial person.”
Article 6 also applies to Article 15 – Right of association, Article 17 – Wage-earning employment, Article 18 – Self-employment, Article 19 – Liberal professions, Article 21 – Housing, Article 22 – Public education, Article 26 – Freedom of movement,
26 USC 877A provides (g) (2) Expatriate
The term “expatriate” means—
(A) any United States citizen who relinquishes his citizenship, and
(B) any long-term resident of the United States who ceases to be a lawful permanent resident of the United States (within the meaning of section 7701(b)(6)).
(3) Expatriation date
The term “expatriation date” means—
(A) the date an individual relinquishes United States citizenship, or
(B) in the case of a long-term resident of the United States, the date on which the individual ceases to be a lawful permanent resident of the United States (within the meaning of section 7701(b)(6)).
(4) Relinquishment of citizenship
A citizen shall be treated as relinquishing his United States citizenship on the earliest of—
(A) the date the individual renounces his United States nationality before a diplomatic or consular officer of the United States pursuant to paragraph (5) of section 349(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1481(a)(5)),
(B) the date the individual furnishes to the United States Department of State a signed statement of voluntary relinquishment of United States nationality confirming the performance of an act of expatriation specified in paragraph (1), (2), (3), or (4) of section 349(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1481(a)(1)–(4)),
(C) the date the United States Department of State issues to the individual a certificate of loss of nationality, [or …]
Subparagraph (A) or (B) shall not apply to any individual unless the renunciation or voluntary relinquishment is subsequently approved by the issuance to the individual of a certificate of loss of nationality by the United States Department of State.
The only laws regarding Expatriation in the US are found here under the Title 26 USC §877A for the Internal Revenue Service and here 8 USC §1481 for Aliens and Nationality. It is ironic that “expatriation” is defined as a “natural right” in R.S. §1999, which the 26 USC 887A (4) “statute” is converting our right to expatriate into a privilege with a license (issuance of certificate of loss of nationality) for a fee ($2250). Such conversion of a right into a privilege for a fee is directly made unlawful by legal precedence in Murdock vs Pennsylvania.
Title 8 USC §1481 – Loss of nationality by native-born or naturalized citizen; voluntary action; burden of proof; presumptions
(a) A person who is a national of the United States whether by birth or naturalization, shall lose his nationality by voluntarily performing any of the following acts with the intention of relinquishing United States nationality—
(2) taking an oath or making an affirmation or other formal declaration of allegiance to a foreign state or a political subdivision thereof, after having attained the age of eighteen years; or
(3) entering, or serving in, the armed forces of a foreign state if (A) such armed forces are engaged in hostilities against the United States, or (B) such persons serve as a commissioned or non-commissioned officer; or
(4)(A) accepting, serving in, or performing the duties of any office, post, or employment under the government of a foreign state or a political subdivision thereof, after attaining the age of eighteen years if he has or acquires the nationality of such foreign state; or (B) accepting, serving in, or performing the duties of any office, post, or employment under the government of a foreign state or a political subdivision thereof, after attaining the age of eighteen years for which office, post, or employment an oath, affirmation, or declaration of allegiance is required; [or]
(b) Whenever the loss of United States nationality is put in issue in any action or proceeding commenced on or after September 26, 1961 under, or by virtue of, the provisions of this chapter or any other Act, the burden shall be upon the person or party claiming that such loss occurred, to establish such claim by a preponderance of the evidence. […]
Making an oath to the World Government of World citizens via World Service Authority is a valid trigger for 8 USC §1481 (a) (2). When performed with intent to loss “legal presence,” then the stateless persons treaty requires The Contracting State to give exceptions to the law to the Stateless person that the Stateless person is unable to comply with due to being stateless.
Governmental Services Corporation Watch 
One thought on “Important Legal Precedence for Defending Ourselves from the US Government and States Criminality”