The following argument has been used in at least three states (Pennsylvania, Ohio, and West Virginia) as a legal brief to support a demand for dismissal of charges of “driving without a license.” It is the argument that was the reason for the charges to be dropped, or for a “win” in court against the argument that free people can have their right to travel regulated by their servants.
The forgotten legal maxim is that free people have a right to travel on the roads which are provided by their servants for that purpose, using ordinary transportation of the day. Licensing cannot be required of free people, because taking on the restrictions of a license requires the surrender of a right. The driver’s license can be required of people who use the highways for trade, commerce, or hire; that is, if they earn their living on the road, and if they use extraordinary machines on the roads. If you are not using the highways for profit, you cannot be required to have a driver’s license.
BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF NOTICE FOR DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION
NOW, comes the Accused, appearing specially and not generally or voluntarily, but under threat of arrest if he failed to do so, with this “BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF NOTICE FOR DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION,” stating as follows:
If ever a judge understood the public’s right to use the public roads, it was Justice Tolman of the Supreme Court of the State of Washington. Justice Tolman stated:
“Complete freedom of the highways is so old and well established a blessing that we have forgotten the days of the Robber Barons and toll roads, and yet, under an act like this, arbitrarily administered, the highways may be completely monopolized, if, through lack of interest, the people submit, then they may look to see the most sacred of their liberties taken from them one by one, by more or less rapid encroachment.”
Robertson vs. Department of Public Works, 180 Wash 133, 147.
The words of Justice Tolman ring most prophetically in the ears of Citizens throughout the country today as the use of the public roads has been monopolized by the very entity which has been empowered to stand guard over our freedoms, i.e., that of state government.
The “most sacred of liberties” of which Justice Tolman spoke was personal liberty. The definition of personal liberty is:
“Personal liberty, or the Right to enjoyment of life and liberty, is one of the fundamental or natural Rights, which has been protected by its inclusion as a guarantee in the various constitutions, which is not derived from, or dependent on, the U.S. Constitution, 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 to private property … and is regarded as inalienable.”
16 C.J.S., Constitutional Law, Sect.202, p.987
This concept is further amplified by the definition of personal liberty:
“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 the 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 the common Right which he has under his Right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Under this Constitutional guarantee 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, Sect.329, p.1135
and further …
“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
Justice Tolman was concerned about the State prohibiting the Citizen from the “most sacred of his liberties,” the Right of movement, the Right of moving one’s self from place to place without threat of imprisonment, the Right to use the public roads in the ordinary course of life.
When the State allows the formation of a corporation it may control its creation by establishing guidelines (statutes) for its operation (charters). Corporations who use the roads in the course of business do not use the roads in the ordinary course of life. There is a difference between a corporation and an individual. The United States Supreme Court has stated:
“…We are of the opinion that there is a clear distinction in this particular between an individual and a corporation, and that the latter has no right to refuse to submit its books and papers for examination on the suit of the State. The individual may stand upon his Constitutional Rights as a Citizen. He is entitled to carry on his private business in his own way. His power to contract is unlimited. He owes no duty to the State or to his neighbors to divulge his business, or to open his doors to investigation, so far as it may tend to incriminate him. He owes no such duty to the State, since he receives nothing therefrom, beyond the protection of his life, liberty, and property. His Rights are such as the law of the land long antecedent to the organization of the state, and can only be taken from him by due process of law, and in accordance with the Constitution. Among his Rights are the refusal to incriminate himself, and the immunity of himself and his property from arrest or seizure except under warrant of law. He owes nothing to the public so long as he does not trespass upon their rights.”
“Upon the other hand, the corporation is a creature of the state. It is presumed to be incorporated for the benefit of the public. It receives certain special privileges and franchises, and holds them subject to the laws of the state and the limitations of its charter. Its rights to act as a corporation are only preserved to it so long as it obeys the laws of its creation. There is a reserved right in the legislature to investigate its contracts and find out whether it has exceeded its powers. It would be a strange anomaly to hold that the State, having chartered a corporation to make use of certain franchises, could not in exercise of its sovereignty inquire how those franchises had been employed, and whether they had been abused, and demand the production of corporate books and papers for that purpose.”
Hale vs. Hinkel, 201 US 43, 74-75
Corporations engaged in mercantile equity fall under the purview of the State’s admiralty jurisdiction, and the public at large must be protected from their activities, as they (the corporations) are engaged in business for profit.
“…Based upon the fundamental ground that the sovereign state has the plenary control of the streets and highways in the exercise of its police power (see police power, infra.), may absolutely prohibit the use of the streets as a place for the prosecution of a private business for gain. They all recognize the fundamental distinction between the ordinary Right of the Citizen to use the streets in the usual way and the use of the streets as a place of business or a main instrumentality of business for private gain. The former is a common Right, the latter is an extraordinary use. As to the former, the legislative power is confined to regulation, as to the latter, it is plenary and extends even to absolute prohibition. Since the use of the streets by a common carrier in the prosecution of its business as such is not a right but a mere license of privilege.”
Hadfield vs. Lundin, 98 Wash 516
It will be necessary to review early cases and legal authority in order to reach a lawfully correct theory dealing with this Right or “privilege.” We will attempt to reach a sound conclusion as to what is a “Right to use the road” and what is a “privilege to use the road”. Once reaching this determination, we shall then apply those positions to modern case decision.
“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 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.”
Snerer vs. Cullen, 481 F. 946
Streets and highways are established and maintained for the purpose of travel and transportation by the public. Such travel may be for business or pleasure.
“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 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
So we can see that a Citizen has a Right to travel upon the public highways by automobile and the Citizen cannot be rightfully deprived of his Liberty. So where does the misconception that the use of the public road is always and only a privilege come from?
“… 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
Here the court held that a Citizen has the Right to travel upon the public highways, but that he did not have the right to conduct business upon the highways. On this point of law all authorities are unanimous.
“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
“The right of the citizen to travel upon the highway and to 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 for private gain in the running of a stagecoach or omnibus.”
State vs. City of Spokane, 186 P. 864
What is this Right of the Citizen which differs so “radically and obviously” from one who uses the highway as a place of business? Who better to enlighten us than Justice Tolman of the Supreme Court of Washington State? In State vs. City of Spokane, supra, the Court also noted a very “radical and obvious” difference, but went on to explain just what the difference is:
“The former is the usual and ordinary right of the Citizen, a common right to all, while the latter is special, unusual, and extraordinary.”
“This distinction, elementary and fundamental in character, is recognized by all the authorities.”
State vs. City of Spokane, supra.
This position does not hang precariously upon only a few cases, but has been proclaimed by an impressive array of cases ranging from the state courts to the federal courts.
“the right of the Citizen to travel upon the highway and to 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 stagecoach or omnibus. The former is the usual and ordinary right of the Citizen, a right common to all, while the latter is special, unusual, and extraordinary.”
Ex Parte Dickey, (Dickey vs. Davis), 85 SE 781
“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 a horse drawn carriage or wagon thereon or to operate an automobile thereon, for the usual and ordinary purpose of life and business.”
Thompson vs. Smith, supra.;
Teche Lines vs. Danforth, Miss., 12 S.2d 784
There is no dissent among various authorities as to this position. (See Am. Jur. [1st] Const. Law, 329 and corresponding Am. Jur. [2nd].)
“Personal liberty — or the right to enjoyment of life and liberty — is one of the fundamental or natural rights, which has been protected by its inclusion as a guarantee in the various constitutions, which is not derived from nor dependent on the U.S. Constitution. … It is one of the most sacred and valuable rights [remember the words of Justice Tolman, supra.] as sacred as the right to private property … and is regarded as inalienable.”
16 C.J.S. Const. Law, Sect.202, Pg. 987
As we can see, the distinction between a “Right” to use the public roads and a “privilege” to use the public roads is drawn upon the line of “using the road as a place of business” and the various state courts have held so. But what have the U.S. Courts held on this point?
“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, and cases cited;
Frost and F. Trucking Co. vs. Railroad Commission, 271 US 592;
Railroad commission vs. Inter-City Forwarding Co., 57 SW.2d 290;
Parlett Cooperative vs. Tidewater Lines, 164 A. 313
So what is a privilege to use the roads? By now it should be apparent even to the “learned” that an attempt to use the road as a place of business is a privilege. The distinction must be drawn between …
Travelling upon and transporting one’s property upon the public roads, which is our Right; and …
Using the public roads as a place of business or a main instrumentality of business, which is a privilege.
“[The roads] … are constructed and maintained at public expense, and no person therefore, can insist that he has, or may acquire, a vested right to their use in carrying on a commercial business.”
Ex Parte Sterling, 53 SW.2d 294;
Barney vs. Railroad Commissioners, 17 P.2d 82;
Stephenson vs. Binford, supra.
“When the public highways are made the place of business the state has a right to regulate their use in the interest of safety and convenience of the public as well as the preservation of the highways.”
Thompson vs. Smith, supra.
“[The state’s] right to regulate such use is based upon the nature of the business and the use of the highways in connection therewith.”
“We know of no inherent right in one to use the highways for commercial purposes. The highways are primarily for the use of the public, and in the interest of the public, the state may prohibit or regulate … the use of the highways for gain.”
Robertson vs. Dept. of Public Works, supra.
There should be considerable authority on a subject as important a this deprivation of the liberty of the individual “using the roads in the ordinary course of life and business.” However, it should be noted that extensive research has not turned up one case or authority acknowledging the state’s power to convert the individual’s right to travel upon the public roads into a “privilege.”
Therefore, it is concluded that the Citizen does have a “Right” to travel and transport his property upon the public highways and roads and the exercise of this Right is not a “privilege.”
In order to understand the correct application of the statute in question, we must first define the terms used in connection with this point of law. As will be shown, many terms used today do not, in their legal context, mean what we assume they mean, thus resulting in the misapplication of statutes in the instant case.
AUTOMOBILE AND MOTOR VEHICLE
There is a clear distinction between an automobile and a motor vehicle. An automobile has been defined as:
“The word `automobile’ connotes a pleasure vehicle designed for the transportation of persons on highways.”
American Mutual Liability Ins. Co., vs. Chaput, 60 A.2d 118, 120; 95 NH 200
While the distinction is made clear between the two as the courts have stated:
“A motor vehicle or automobile for hire is a motor vehicle, other than an automobile stage, used for the transportation of persons for which remuneration is received.”
International Motor Transit Co. vs. Seattle, 251 P. 120
The term `motor vehicle’ is different and broader than the word `automobile.'”
City of Dayton vs. DeBrosse, 23 NE.2d 647, 650; 62 Ohio App. 232
The distinction is made very clear in Title 18 USC 31:
“Motor vehicle” means every description or other contrivance propelled or drawn by mechanical power and used for commercial purposes on the highways in the transportation of passengers, or passengers and property.
“Used for commercial purposes” means the carriage of persons or property for any fare, fee, rate, charge or other considerations, or directly or indirectly in connection with any business, or other undertaking intended for profit.
Clearly, an automobile is private property in use for private purposes, while a motor vehicle is a machine which may be used upon the highways for trade, commerce, or hire.
The term “travel” is a significant term and is defined as:
“The term `travel’ and `traveler’ are usually construed in their broad and general sense … so as to include all those who rightfully use the highways viatically (when being reimbursed for expenses) and who have occasion to pass over them for the purpose of business, convenience, or pleasure.”
25 Am.Jur. (1st) Highways, Sect.427, Pg. 717
“Traveler — One who passes from place to place, whether for pleasure, instruction, business, or health.”
Locket vs. State, 47 Ala. 45;
Bovier’s Law Dictionary, 1914 ed., Pg. 3309
“Travel — To journey or to pass through or over; as a country district, road, etc. To go from one place to another, whether on foot, or horseback, or in any conveyance as a train, an automobile, carriage, ship, or aircraft; Make a journey.”
Century Dictionary, Pg. 2034
Therefore, the term “travel” or “traveler” refers to one who uses a conveyance to go from one place to another, and included all those who use the highways as a matter of Right.
Notice that in all these definitions, the phrase “for hire” never occurs. This term “travel” or “traveler” implies, by definition, one who uses the road as a means to move from one place to another.
Therefore, one who uses the road in the ordinary course of life and business for the purpose of travel and transportation is a traveler.
The term “driver” in contradistinction to “traveler,” is defined as:
“Driver — One employed in conducting a coach, carriage, wagon, or other vehicle …”
Bovier’s Law Dictionary, 1914 ed., Pg. 940
Notice that this definition includes one who is “employed” in conducting a vehicle. It should be self-evident that this individual could not be “travelling” on a journey, but is using the road as a place of business.
Today we assume that a “traveler” is a “driver,” and a “driver” is an “operator.” However, this is not the case.
“It will be observed from the language of the ordinance that a distinction is to be drawn between the terms `operator’ and `driver’; the `operator’ of the service car being the person who is licensed to have the car on the streets in the business of carrying passengers for hire; while the `driver’ is the one who actually drives the car. However, in the actual prosecution of business, it was possible for the same person to be both “operator” and “driver.”
Newbill vs. Union Indemnity Co., 60 SE.2d 658
To further clarify the definition of an “operator” the court observed that this was a vehicle “for hire” and that it was in the business of carrying passengers.
This definition would seem to describe a person who is using the road as a place of business, or in other words, a person engaged in the “privilege” of using the road for gain.
This definition, then, is a further clarification of the distinction mentioned earlier, and therefore:
Travelling upon and transporting one’s property upon the public roads as a matter of Right meets the definition of a traveler.
Using the road as a place of business as a matter of privilege meets the definition of a driver or an operator or both.
Having defined the terms “automobile,” “motor vehicle,” “traveler,” “driver,” and “operator,” the next term to define is “traffic”:
“… Traffic thereon is to some extent destructive, therefore, the prevention of unnecessary duplication of auto transportation service will lengthen the life of the highways or reduce the cost of maintenance, the revenue derived by the state … will also tend toward the public welfare by producing at the expense of those operating for private gain, some small part of the cost of repairing the wear …”
Northern Pacific R.R. Co. vs. Schoenfeldt, 213 P. 26
Note: In the above, Justice Tolman expounded upon the key of raising revenue by taxing the “privilege” to use the public roads “at the expense of those operating for gain.”
In this case, the word “traffic” is used in conjunction with the unnecessary Auto Transportation Service, or in other words, “vehicles for hire.” The word “traffic” is another word which is to be strictly construed to the conducting of business.
“Traffic — Commerce, trade, sale or exchange of merchandise, bills, money, or the like. The passing of goods and commodities from one person to another for an equivalent in goods or money …”
Bovier’s Law Dictionary, 1914 ed., Pg. 3307
Here again, notice that this definition refers to one “conducting business.” No mention is made of one who is traveling in his automobile. This definition is of one who is engaged in the passing of a commodity or goods in exchange for money, i.e .., vehicles for hire.
Furthermore, the words “traffic” and “travel” must have different meanings which the courts recognize. The difference is recognized in Ex Parte Dickey, supra:
“…in addition to this, cabs, hackney coaches, omnibuses, taxicabs, and hacks, when unnecessarily numerous, interfere with the ordinary traffic and travel and obstruct them.”
The court, by using both terms, signified its recognition of a distinction between the two. But, what was the distinction? We have already defined both terms, but to clear up any doubt:
“The word `traffic’ is manifestly used here in secondary sense, and has reference to the business of transportation rather than to its primary meaning of interchange of commodities.”
Allen vs. City of Bellingham, 163 P. 18
Here the Supreme Court of the State of Washington has defined the word “traffic” (in either its primary or secondary sense) in reference to business, and not to mere travel! So it is clear that the term “traffic” is business related and therefore, it is a “privilege.” The net result being that “traffic” is brought under the (police) power of the legislature. The term has no application to one who is not using the roads as a place of business.
It seems only proper to define the word “license,” as the definition of this word will be extremely important in understanding the statutes as they are properly applied:
“The permission, by competent authority to do an act which without permission, would be illegal, a trespass, or a tort.”
People vs. Henderson, 218 NW.2d 2, 4
“Leave to do a thing which licensor could prevent.”
Western Electric Co. vs. Pacent Reproducer Corp., 42 F.2d 116, 118
In order for these two definitions to apply in this case, the state would have to take up the position that the exercise of a Constitutional Right to use the public roads in the ordinary course of life and business is illegal, a trespass, or a tort, which the state could then regulate or prevent.
This position, however, would raise magnitudinous Constitutional questions as this position would be diametrically opposed to fundamental Constitutional Law. (See “Conversion of a Right to a Crime,” infra.)
In the instant case, the proper definition of a “license” is:
“a permit, granted by an appropriate governmental body, generally for consideration, to a person, firm, or corporation, to pursue some occupation or to carry on some business which is subject to regulation under the police power.”
Rosenblatt vs. California State Board of Pharmacy, 158 P.2d 199, 203
This definition would fall more in line with the “privilege” of carrying on business on the streets.
Most people tend to think that “licensing” is imposed by the state for the purpose of raising revenue, yet there may well be more subtle reasons contemplated; for when one seeks permission from someone to do something he invokes the jurisdiction of the licensor which, in this case, is the state. In essence, the licensee may well be seeking to be regulated by the licensor.
“A license fee is a charge made primarily for regulation, with the fee to cover costs and expenses of supervision or regulation.”
State vs. Jackson, 60 Wisc.2d 700; 211 NW.2d 480, 487
The fee is the price; the regulation or control of the licensee is the real aim of the legislation.
Are these licenses really used to fund legitimate government, or are they nothing more than a subtle introduction of police power into every facet of our lives? Have our “enforcement agencies” been diverted from crime prevention, perhaps through no fault of their own, instead now busying themselves as they “check” our papers to see that all are properly endorsed by the state?
How much longer will it be before we are forced to get a license for our lawn mowers, or before our wives will need a license for her blender or mixer? They all have motors on them and the state can always use the revenue.
The confusion of the police power with the power of taxation usually arises in cases where the police power has affixed a penalty to a certain act, or where it requires licenses to be obtained and a certain sum be paid for certain occupations. The power used in the instant case cannot, however, be the power of taxation since an attempt to levy a tax upon a Right would be open to Constitutional objection. (See “taxing power,” infra.)
Each law relating to the use of police power must ask three questions:
“Is there threatened danger?
Does a regulation involve a Constitutional Right?
Is this regulation reasonable?”
People vs. Smith, 108 Am.St.Rep. 715;
Bovier’s Law Dictionary, 1914 ed., under “Police Power”
When applying these three questions to the statute in question, some very important issues emerge.
First, “is there a threatened danger” in the individual using his automobile on the public highways, in the ordinary course of life and business?
The answer is No! There is nothing inherently dangerous in the use of an automobile when it is carefully managed. Their guidance, speed, and noise are subject to a quick and easy control, under a competent and considerate manager, it is as harmless on the road as a horse and buggy.
It is the manner of managing the automobile, and that alone, which threatens the safety of the public. The ability to stop quickly and to respond quickly to guidance would seem to make the automobile one of the least dangerous conveyances. (See Yale Law Journal, December, 1905.)
“The automobile is not inherently dangerous.”
Cohens vs. Meadow, 89 SE 876;
Blair vs. Broadmore, 93 SE 532
To deprive all persons of the Right to use the road in the ordinary course of life and business, because one might, in the future, become dangerous, would be a deprivation not only of the Right to travel, but also the Right to due process. (See “Due Process,” infra.)
Next; does the regulation involve a Constitutional Right?
This question has already been addressed and answered in this brief, and need not be reinforced other than to remind this Court that this Citizen does have the Right to travel upon the public highway by automobile in the ordinary course of life and business. It can therefore be concluded that this regulation does involve a Constitutional Right.
The third question is the most important in this case. “Is this regulation reasonable?”
The answer is No! It will be shown later in “Regulation,” infra., that this licensing statute is oppressive and could be effectively administered by less oppressive means.
Although the Fourteenth Amendment does not interfere with the proper exercise of the police power, in accordance with the general principle that the power must be exercised so as not to invade unreasonably the rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution, it is established beyond question that every state power, including the police power, is limited by the Fourteenth Amendment (and others) and by the inhibitions there imposed.
Moreover, the ultimate test of the propriety of police power regulations must be found in the Fourteenth Amendment, since it operates to limit the field of the police power to the extent of preventing the enforcement of statutes in denial of Rights that the Amendment protects. (See Parks vs. State, 64 NE 682.)
“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.”
Connolly 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
“The police power of the state must be exercised in subordination to the provisions of the U.S. Constitution.”
Bacahanan vs. Wanley, 245 US 60;
Panhandle Eastern Pipeline Co. vs. State Highway Commission, 294 US 613
“It is well settled that the Constitutional Rights protected from invasion by the police power, include Rights safeguarded both by express and implied prohibitions in the Constitutions.”
Tiche vs. Osborne, 131 A. 60
“As a rule, fundamental limitations of regulations under the police power are found in the spirit of the Constitutions, not in the letter, although they are just as efficient as if expressed in the clearest language.”
Mehlos vs. Milwaukee, 146 NW 882
As it applies in the instant case, the language of the Fifth Amendment is clear:
“No person shall be … deprived of Life, Liberty, or Property without due process of law.”
As has been shown, the courts at all levels have firmly established an absolute Right to travel.
In the instant case, the state, by applying commercial statutes to all entities, natural and artificial persons alike, has deprived this free and natural person of the Right of Liberty, without cause and without due process of law.
“The essential elements of due process of law are … Notice and The Opportunity to defend.”
Simon vs. Craft, 182 US 427
Yet, not one individual has been given notice of the loss of his/her Right, let alone before signing the license (contract). Nor was the Citizen given any opportunity to defend against the loss of his/her right to travel, by automobile, on the highways, in the ordinary course of life and business. This amounts to an arbitrary deprivation of Liberty.
“There should be no arbitrary deprivation of Life or Liberty …”
Barbour vs. Connolly, 113 US 27, 31;
Yick Wo vs. Hopkins, 118 US 356
“The right to travel is part of the Liberty of which a citizen cannot deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment. This Right was emerging as early as the Magna Carta.”
Kent vs. Dulles, 357 US 116 (1958)
The focal point of this question of police power and due process must balance upon the point of making the public highways a safe place for the public to travel. If a man travels in a manner that creates actual damage, an action would lie (civilly) for recovery of damages. The state could then also proceed against the individual to deprive him of his Right to use the public highways, for cause. This process would fulfill the due process requirements of the Fifth Amendment while at the same time insuring that Rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution and the state constitutions would be protected.
But unless or until harm or damage (a crime) is committed, there is no cause for interference in the private affairs or actions of a Citizen.
One of the most famous and perhaps the most quoted definitions of due process of law, is that of Daniel Webster in his Dartmouth College Case (4 Wheat 518), in which he declared that by due process is meant:
“a law which hears before it condemns, which proceeds upon inquiry, and renders judgment only after trial.”
See also State vs. Strasburg, 110 P. 1020;
Dennis vs. Moses, 52 P. 333
Somewhat similar is the statement that is a rule as old as the law that:
“no one shall be personally bound (restricted) until he has had his day in court,”
by which is meant, until he has been duly cited to appear and has been afforded an opportunity to be heard. Judgment without such citation and opportunity lacks all the attributes of a judicial determination; it is judicial usurpation and it is oppressive and can never be upheld where it is fairly administered. (12 Am.Jur. [1st] Const. Law, Sect. 573, Pg. 269)
Note: This sounds like the process used to deprive one of the “privilege” of operating a motor vehicle “for hire.” It should be kept in mind, however, that we are discussing the arbitrary deprivation of the Right to use the road that all citizens have “in common.”
The futility of the state’s position can be most easily observed in the 1959 Washington Attorney General’s opinion on a similar issue:
“The distinction between the Right of the Citizen to use the public highways for private, rather than commercial purposes is recognized …”
“Under its power to regulate private uses of our highways, our legislature has required that motor vehicle operators be licensed (I.C. 49-307). Undoubtedly, the primary purpose of this requirement is to insure, as far as possible, that all motor vehicle operators will be competent and qualified, thereby reducing the potential hazard or risk of harm, to which other users of the highways might otherwise be subject. But once having complied with this regulatory provision, by obtaining the required license, a motorist enjoys the privilege of travelling freely upon the highways …”
Washington A.G.O. 59-60 No. 88, Pg. 11
This alarming opinion appears to be saying that every person using an automobile as a matter of Right, must give up the Right and convert the Right into a privilege. This is accomplished under the guise of regulation. This statement is indicative of the insensitivity, even the ignorance, of the government to the limits placed upon governments by and through the several constitutions.
This legal theory may have been able to stand in 1959; however, as of 1966, in the United States Supreme Court decision in Miranda, even this weak defense of the state’s actions must fall.
“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
Thus the legislature does not have the power to abrogate the Citizen’s Right to travel upon the public roads, by passing legislation forcing the citizen to waive his Right and convert that Right into a privilege. Furthermore, we have previously established that this “privilege” has been defined as applying only to those who are “conducting business in the streets” or “operating for-hire vehicles.”
The legislature has attempted (by legislative fiat) to deprive the Citizen of his Right to use the roads in the ordinary course of life and business, without affording the Citizen the safeguard of due process of law. This has been accomplished under supposed powers of regulation.
“In addition to the requirement that regulations governing the use of the highways must not be violative of constitutional guarantees, the prime essentials of such regulation are reasonableness, impartiality, and definiteness or certainty.”
25 Am.Jur. (1st) Highways, Sect. 260
“Moreover, a distinction must be observed between the regulation of an activity which may be engaged in as a matter of right and one carried on by government sufferance of permission.”
Davis vs. Massachusetts, 167 US 43;
Pachard vs. Banton, supra.
One can say for certain that these regulations are impartial since they are being applied to all, even though they are clearly beyond the limits of the legislative powers. However, we must consider whether such regulations are reasonable and non-violative of constitutional guarantees.
First, let us consider the reasonableness of this statute requiring all persons to be licensed (presuming that we are applying this statute to all persons using the public roads). In determining the reasonableness of the statute we need only ask two questions:
Does the statute accomplish its stated goal?
The answer is No!
The attempted explanation for this regulation “to insure the safety of the public by insuring, as much as possible, that all are competent and qualified.”
However, one can keep his license without retesting, from the time he/she is first licensed until the day he/she dies, without regard to the competency of the person, by merely renewing said license before it expires. It is therefore possible to completely skirt the goal of this attempted regulation, thus proving that this regulation does not accomplish its goal.
Furthermore, by testing and licensing, the state gives the appearance of underwriting the competence of the licensees, and could therefore be held liable for failures, accidents, etc. caused by licensees.
Is the statute reasonable?
The answer is No!
This statute cannot be determined to be reasonable since it requires to the Citizen to give up his or her natural Right to travel unrestricted in order to accept the privilege. The purported goal of this statute could be met by much less oppressive regulations, i.e., competency tests and certificates of competency before using an automobile upon the public roads. (This is exactly the situation in the aviation sector.)
But isn’t this what we have now?
The answer is No! The real purpose of this license is much more insidious. When one signs the license, he/she gives up his/her Constitutional Right to travel in order to accept and exercise a privilege. After signing the license, a quasi-contract, the Citizen has to give the state his/her consent to be prosecuted for constructive crimes and quasi-criminal actions where there is no harm done and no damaged property.
These prosecutions take place without affording the Citizen of their Constitutional Rights and guarantees such a the Right to a trial by jury of twelve persons and the Right to counsel, as well as the normal safeguards such as proof of intent and a corpus dilecti and a grand jury indictment. These unconstitutional prosecutions take place because the Citizen is exercising a privilege and has given his/her “implied consent” to legislative enactments designed to control interstate commerce, a regulatable enterprise under the police power of the state.
We must now conclude that the Citizen is forced to give up Constitutional guarantees of “Right” in order to exercise his state “privilege” to travel upon the public highways in the ordinary course of life and business.
SURRENDER OF RIGHTS
A Citizen cannot be forced to give up his/her Rights in the name of regulation.
“… the only limitations found restricting the right of the state to condition the use of the public highways as a means of vehicular transportation for compensation are (1) that the state must not exact of those it permits to use the highways for hauling for gain that they surrender any of their inherent U.S. Constitutional Rights as a condition precedent to obtaining permission for such use …”
Riley vs. Laeson, 142 So. 619;
Stephenson vs. Binford, supra.
If one cannot be placed in a position of being forced to surrender Rights in order to exercise a privilege, how much more must this maxim of law, then, apply when one is simply exercising (putting into use) a Right?
Hoke vs. Henderson, 15 NC 15
“We find it intolerable that one Constitutional Right should have to be surrendered in order to assert another.”
Simons vs. United States, 390 US 389
Since the state requires that one give up Rights in order to exercise the privilege of driving, the regulation cannot stand under the police power, due process, or regulation, but must be exposed as a statute which is oppressive and one which has been misapplied to deprive the Citizen of Rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution and the state constitutions.
“Any claim that this statute is a taxing statute would be immediately open to severe Constitutional objections. If it could be said that the state had the power to tax a Right, this would enable the state to destroy Rights guaranteed by the constitution through the use of oppressive taxation. The question herein, is one of the state taxing the Right to travel by the ordinary modes of the day, and whether this is a legislative object of the state taxation.
The views advanced herein are neither novel nor unsupported by authority. The question of taxing power of the states has been repeatedly considered by the Supreme Court. The Right of the state to impede or embarrass the Constitutional operation of the U.S. Government or the Rights which the Citizen holds under it, has been uniformly denied.”
McCulloch vs. Maryland, 4 Wheat 316
The power to tax is the power to destroy, and if the state is given the power to destroy Rights through taxation, the framers of the Constitution wrote that document in vain.
“… It may be said that a tax of one dollar for passing through the state cannot sensibly affect any function of government or deprive a Citizen of any valuable Right. But if a state can tax … a passenger of one dollar, it can tax him a thousand dollars.”
Crandall vs. Nevada, 6 Wall 35, 46
“If the Right of passing through a state by a Citizen of the United States is one guaranteed by the Constitution, it must be sacred from state taxation.”
Ibid., Pg. 47
Therefore, the Right of travel must be kept sacred from all forms of state taxation and if this argument is used by the state as a defense of the enforcement of this statute, then this argument also must fail.
CONVERSION OF A RIGHT TO A CRIME
As previously demonstrated, the Citizen has the Right to travel and to transport his property upon the public highways in the ordinary course of life and business. However, if one exercises this Right to travel (without first giving up the Right and converting that Right into a privilege) the Citizen is by statute, guilty of a crime. This amounts to converting the exercise of a Constitutional Right into a crime.
Recall the Miller vs. U.S. and Snerer vs. Cullen quotes from Pg. 5, and:
“The state cannot diminish Rights of the people.”
Hurtado vs. California, 110 US 516
“Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them.”
Indeed, the very purpose for creating the state under the limitations of the constitution was to protect the rights of the people from intrusion, particularly by the forces of government.
So we can see that any attempt by the legislature to make the act of using the public highways as a matter of Right into a crime, is void upon its face.
Any person who claims his Right to travel upon the highways, and so exercises that Right, cannot be tried for a crime of doing so. And yet, this Freeman stands before this court today to answer charges for the “crime” of exercising his Right to Liberty. As we have already shown, the term “drive” can only apply to those who are employed in the business of transportation for hire. It has been shown that freedom includes the Citizen’s Right to use the public highways in the ordinary course of life and business without license or regulation by the police powers of the state.
It is the duty of the court to recognize the substance of things and not the mere form.
“The courts are not bound by mere form, nor are they to be misled by mere pretenses. They are at liberty — indeed they are under a solemn duty — to look at the substance of things, whenever they enter upon the inquiry whether the legislature has transcended the limits of its authority. If, therefore, a statute purported to have been enacted to protect … the public safety, has no real or substantial relation to those objects or is a palpable invasion of Rights secured by the fundamental law, it is the duty of the courts to so adjudge, and thereby give effect to the Constitution.”
Mulger vs. Kansas, 123 US 623, 661
“It is the duty of the courts to be watchful for the Constitutional rights of the citizen and against any stealthy encroachments thereon.”
Boyd vs. United States, 116 US 616
The courts are duty bound to recognize and stop the stealthy encroachments which have been made upon the Citizen’s Right to travel and to use the roads to transport his property in the “ordinary course of life and business.” (Hadfield, supra.)
Further, the court must recognize that the Right to travel is part of the Liberty of which a Citizen cannot be deprived without specific cause and without the due process of law guaranteed in the Fifth Amendment. (Kent, supra.)
The history of this invasion of the Citizen’s Right to use the public highways shows clearly that the legislature simply found a heretofore untapped source of revenue, got greedy, and attempted to enforce a statute in an unconstitutional manner upon those free and natural individuals who have a Right to travel upon the highways. This was not attempted in an outright action, but in a slow, meticulous, calculated encroachment upon the Citizen’s Right to travel.
This position must be accepted unless the prosecutor can show his authority for the position that the “use of the road in the ordinary course of life and business” is a privilege.
To rule in any other manner, without clear authority for an adverse ruling, will infringe upon fundamental and basic concepts of Constitutional law. This position, that a Right cannot be regulated under any guise, must be accepted without concern for the monetary loss of the state.
“Disobedience or evasion of a Constitutional Mandate cannot be tolerated, even though such disobedience may, at least temporarily, promote in some respects the best interests of the public.”
Slote vs. Examination, 112 ALR 660
“Economic necessity cannot justify a disregard of Constitutional guarantee.”
Riley vs. Carter, 79 ALR 1018;
16 Am.Jur. (2nd), Const. Law, Sect. 81
“Constitutional Rights cannot be denied simply because of hostility to their assertions and exercise; vindication of conceded Constitutional Rights cannot be made dependent upon any theory that it is less expensive to deny them than to afford them.”
Watson vs. Memphis, 375 US 526
Therefore, the Court’s decision in the instant case must be made without the issue of cost to the state being taken into consideration, as that issue is irrelevant. The state cannot lose money that it never had a right to demand from the Sovereign People.
Finally, we come to the issue of public policy. It could be argued that the licensing scheme of all persons is a matter of public policy. However, if this argument is used, it too must fail, as:
“No public policy of a state can be allowed to override the positive guarantees of the U.S. Constitution.”
16 Am.Jur. (2nd), Const. Law, Sect. 70
So even public policy cannot abrogate this Citizen’s Right to travel and to use the public highways in the ordinary course of life and business. Therefore, it must be concluded that:
“We have repeatedly held that the legislature may regulate the use of the highways for carrying on business for private gain and that such regulation is a valid exercise of the police power.”
Northern Pacific R.R. Co., supra.
“The act in question is a valid regulation, and as such is binding upon all who use the highway for the purpose of private gain.”
Any other construction of this statute would render it unconstitutional as applied to this Citizen or any Citizen. The Accused therefore moves this court to dismiss the charge against him, with prejudice.
June 10, 1986.
This ends the legal brief.
Since no notice is given to people applying for driver’s (or other) licenses that they have a perfect right to use the roads without any permission, and that they surrender valuable rights by taking on the regulation system of licensure, the state has committed a massive construction fraud. This occurs when any person is told that they must have a license in order to use the public roads and highways.
The license, being a legal contract under which the state is empowered with policing powers, is only valid when the licensee takes on the burdens of the contract and bargains away his or her rights knowingly, intentionally, and voluntarily.
Few know that the driver’s license is a contract without which the police are powerless to regulate the people’s actions or activities.
Few (if any) licensees intentionally surrender valuable rights. They are told that they must have the license. As we have seen, this is not the case.
No one in their right mind voluntarily surrenders complete liberty and accepts in its place a set of regulations.
“The people never give up their liberties but under some delusion.”
Edmund Burke, (1784)
The author of this araticle is unknown. If anyone knows the name of the author, we will gladly give credit.
Affidavit of Truth provided below is not necessarily the same as the one used here
RE: Sovereign Rights
To any it may concern:
I am presenting you with this affidavit along with or without any other document, license, certificate, name and/or signature, or any document with personal information (hereafter simply ‘documents’), as a courtesy and for your personal use only in understanding the present situation/interaction, and in no way is meant to imply the offer or acceptance of any contract, or submission to any jurisdiction or authority, of any kind. You may be receiving this because you are a duly elected public servant, or are occupying a position created by an act of law or expediency.
This declaration is not a legal document. The statements made in this declaration are not a matter of law or legality. The statements made in this declaration exist outside law promulgated by government. My declaration relates to the Natural Law that binds all People and is the antecedent basis and justification for any other moral law. Just as ignorance of the law is no excuse, by this declaration, ignorance of my sovereignty, my rights, and my liberty, is no excuse.
I hereby declare:
- I am a living breathing human being; a human sovereign, called by the name John and of the family Doe; I am endowed by my creator with certain inalienable rights; rights inherent to all men;
- I am not a name, nor a fictitious corporate entity created by government; I am not the fictitious ‘person’ named ‘JOHN SMITH DOE’ with the all capital letter spelling (block letter);
- I am not a trained lawyer, all I know is the common law: I have unlimited rights so long as they do not infringe on any other living human being’s rights;
- I have the unlimited right to contract, however, I have no contract with any country, city, county or state granting my rights; my rights are not granted to me by any constitution or government, but by my creator;
- I reserve my right to traverse any public land, in any manner I deem fit, unencumbered by any official, officer, representative or any other person(s) or means;
- I reserve my right to possess or carry on my person, property or vehicle anything I may call “property” that I have acquired through my own just, peaceful efforts, and which may consist of but is not limited to: any plant, animal, mineral, composition, machine, device, drug, weapon, fluid or product. I may possess such for my own purposes, defined by my own intentions, and that which does not pose an immediate threat or harm to the life or property of another.
- I do not believe that I am a citizen to any city or state, a citizen of any country, a statutory resident, a statutory person, a taxpayer, or any other creature, fiction, subject, or definition found in statutes, codes, ordinances, or anywhere that does not recognize a natural, free-born man.
- I am the authorized agent of the fictitious ‘person’ named ‘JOHN SMITH DOE’ with the all capital letter spelling, and I have full ‘Power of Attorney’ to act on ‘its’ behalf; I may or may not presently have on my person documentation, (including licenses, permits, certificates or any other documents), supporting this fact, however, I am not required to do so. Further, merely having any said documents on my person in no way implies, either directly or indirectly, that I am the said entity, nor that I am currently acting on ‘its’ behalf or for ‘its’ benefit.
- I do not acknowledge any authority, power, or jurisdiction as a consequence of my physical presence, wherever such may be claimed; nor submit to any of the aforementioned as a consequence of my actions in enjoying or exercising any of my natural rights in a peaceable manner.
I reject any and all previous applications and issuances of any and all licenses or permits for actions exercised by me of a personal, non-commercial nature. I hereby refuse to personally partake or engage in any scheme, program, plan, court, tribunal, proceedings or mandate requiring my coerced participation, in violation of my free-will; any claim, conscription, adhesion, restriction or duty under any previous license or permit, as herein stated, is null and void.
I am not asking for permission; I am not seeking approval; I am not petitioning for acknowledgement of my declaration. This will stand as my public proclamation in clarifying or correcting who I am, in relation to whatever government has presumed or deemed me to be; it is my peaceful overture to all of mankind as a reasonable, rational, and conscionable man; and it is my firm and true belief that absent my tacit or explicit consent, I have the right and power to conscript myself to, or remove myself from, any power that acts in any manner whatsoever, in which case I consider to be inconsistent with my conscience, reason, or morality. My declaration is absolute, non-negotiable, and the supreme Law to which I morally bind myself.
For years professionals within the criminal justice system have acted on the belief that traveling by motor vehicle was a privilege that was given to a citizen only after approval by their state government in the form of a permit or license to drive. In other words, the individual must be granted the privilege before his use of the state highways was considered legal. Legislators, police officers, and court officials are becoming aware that there are court decisions that disprove the belief that driving is a privilege and therefore requires government approval in the form of a license. Presented here are some of these cases:
CASE #1: “The use of the highway for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege, but a common fundamental right of which the public and individuals cannot rightfully be deprived.” Chicago Motor Coach v. Chicago, 169 NE 221.
CASE #2: “The right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit or permit at will, but a common law right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” Thompson v. Smith, 154 SE 579.
It could not be stated more directly or conclusively that we the people living among the states have a common law right to travel, without approval or restriction (license), and that this right is protected under the U.S Constitution.
CASE #3: “The right to travel is a part of the liberty of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment.” Kent v. Dulles, 357 US 116, 125.
CASE #4: “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 App DC 287, 225 F2d 938, at 941.
As hard as it is for those in law enforcement to believe, there is no room for speculation in these court decisions. American citizens do indeed have the un-a-lien-able right to use the roadways unrestricted in any manner as long as they are not damaging or violating property or rights of others. Government — in requiring the people to obtain drivers licenses, and accepting vehicle inspections and DUI/DWI roadblocks without question — is restricting, and therefore violating, the people’s common law right to travel.
Therefore, let it be known:
The ‘Sovereign American Traveler’ honorably and passively, presenting this knowledge to you, is doing so graciously. I have a great deal of respect for the ‘Public Service’ to which you are committed, and understand how difficult it is to seek out and prosecute criminals. However, this Document is being presented at a ‘traffic stop’ or upon ‘demand’ of ‘Identification’ by any official/agent I feel may attempt/be attempting to abridge or usurp my common law rights, or ANY other rights, and therefore is a mandatory part of the Official Record of any ensuing action, and MUST be introduced as prima facie Discovery Evidence in said action.
It will be noted that willful suppression of ‘Evidence’ is a ‘Felony’. Any cause for action will result in a lawsuit under USC Title 18, Title 28, and Title 42, 1983.
This “NOTICE” has been submitted upon DEMAND of a ‘DRIVERS LICENSE,’ ‘Registration,’ ‘Proof of Insurance,’ or ANY other State issued Privilege, Permit or License (of which, NONE of these Statutes, this Sovereign American Traveler is Liable, or Contracted to).
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled: ‘The unalienable “RIGHT” to travel is a part of the liberty of which the American Citizen cannot be deprived without due process of the law under the 5th Amendment’ See: Kent v. Dulles, 357 U.S. 116, 125.
This Traveler does not willfully choose to Consent to your “Offer To Contract“, nor to be ‘compelled’ To Incriminate himself by answering ANY questions and thereby Entering into ANYsort of Verbal Agreement, nor does this traveler consent to any searches or seizures of any type.
Unless you have a Warrant for this Sovereign American’s Arrest or search of property, i.e.: a ‘Valid Sworn Claim of Liability’, or have seen this Sovereign American Commit a Felony, you have NO Probable Cause to detain him, as he has the “Right to Free Travel”.
If you are Arresting this ‘Secured Party’ Sovereign American Without A Warrant, you must IMMEDIATELY take him before a Judicial Officer of competent jurisdiction, to determine whether the Arrest was lawful, or if there was ‘Probable Cause’ for the Arrest, or you will be held Personally Liable, and Acountable, for False Arrest(Kidnapping) and Sued in your Official Capacity. The arrest shall not be based upon hearsay, unless supported by a Warrant accompanied by a Bona Fide Affidavit. Said ‘Warrant’ and ‘Affidavit’ must be based upon first-hand knowledge of the Affiant who has a Claim against him, charging him with a Felony or other infamous crime. This Secured Party Sovereign American must be allowed the right to face his accuser.
Please, also be informed that under the Rules of the “Uniform Commercial Code“, this First Class Sovereign American is NOT engaged in ANY COMMERCIAL Activity (STATUTORY LAW) where MOTOR VEHICLE Licensing is mandatory. This ‘First Class Sovereign American’ is a “Free-Born and Natural Sovereign American”, “riding a motor bike” or “traveling for pleasure in an Automobile”, and this “Conveyance” form of “Locomotion”, is “Private Property’’ for private use, only.
This ‘First Class Sovereign American’ is NOT “DRIVING OR OPERATING A Public Property ‘MOTOR VEHICLE”, therefore NOT Engaged in the ‘Activity of Commerce’, and therefore NOT Liable, under the “MOTOR VEHICLE STATUTORY LAW”, Or subject to your Jurisdiction.
If a ‘Public Official’ ‘Assumes Jurisdiction’ and insists in his/her pursuit in engaging a ‘Private Sovereign American’ without a “Viable Sworn Claim of Liability”, ie: ‘Affidavit’ or a ‘Warrant’ , s/he is “trespassing” and is therefore no longer ‘immume to prosecution’, and will be ‘held personally accountable’, in his/her ‘Private Capacity’ for acting outside of his/her ‘Official Capacity’ and will therefore be ‘charged’ with a ‘Hostile Act of Official Aggression’, in an Article 3 Court.
(The Supreme Court has held that the courts are open twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week, three hundred sixty five days a year.)
Where a Secured Party’ Sovereign American is detained, without a Warrant and without having committed a crime (traffic infractions are not crimes), the detention is a false arrest and false imprisonment.
Damages awarded; TREAEVANT v. CITY OF TAMPA, 241F2D.336 (11TH CIR.1984) Motorist illegally held for 23 minutes in a traffic charge was awarded $25,000 in damages. The above case sets the foundation for $75,000 dollars per hour, or $1,800,000 dollars per day.
“The privilege is not ordinarily dependent upon the nature of the proceeding in which the testimony is sought or is to be used. It applies alike to civil and criminal proceedings, wherever this might tend to subject to criminal responsibility on him who gives it. The privilege protects a mere witness as fully as it does one who is a party defendant.” MC CARTHY v. ARNDSTEIN, 266 U.S. 34, 40, 45 S.CT. 16, 17, 69 L.ED. 158 (1924)
This document is not meant to serve as the source of, nor as a ‘complete’ list of the natural, spiritual rights granted to this and all men, but merely an assertion of the most obvious and pertinent to the present situation and under no circumstance is it to be used, cited or construed as justification for the limitation of this Sovereign American’s rights, nor the rights of any other.
Of this presentment take due Notice and heed, and govern yourself accordingly.
I hereunto set my hand and seal on this 19th day of May, 2011 and hereby certify all the statements made herein are true and correct to the best of my knowledge.
Make sure you study what you are doing before you try to use this, because if you use it but you don’t understand exactly what you are doing you can get yourself in a lot of trouble. So study well…and that means a lot more than just this doc!
Read through the entire document and replace anything in red with your information and then change the color to black. Sign it and date it and make sure you keep several copies in your vehicle at all times. I also carry another document (I have included it also) that is nearly 24 pages of case examples describing your ‘Right to Travel’.
The whole idea behind the document is to let it do the talking for you. After all it’s kind of hard to argue with a piece of paper. You have evidence to support your rights. What document can they produce that says they have the right to violate those rights? None…everyone just assumes. So the point is to say as little as reasonably possible and be polite and respectful…VERY IMPORTANT TO BE NICE. If you’re not nice to them, why should they be nice to you?? You still have to identify yourself if the are willing to do so also… and that is what this is for. It explains exactly who you are and that you know exactly what your rights are and now they know the exact consequences if they violate them and no one can say they didn’t know because you personally handed them the documentation.
Before you print this document make sure you change all the appropriate info, change the color back to black and delete this instruction box (everything in blue or green).
John Doe, Sovereign American
Signed: _________________________________________ Date: ___________________
Law – Know Thyself
17 May 2011
This is Robb Ryder … trying to tie up a few more pieces of the puzzle. If you read my thoughts on “Accepting their oath” (see below 5/11/2011), this might help flesh it out a little more, and why “you are a Nation Sovereign State”. You are also the creditor (landlord) to the civil society of persons.
They are not your enemy, they are your servants. The problem is that from the outside a person and a people look the same. They have every right to control the persons that consented to being part of their civil society. Persons are soulless beings, beast of burden, and it’s the obligation of their civil society to keep them controlled…
So “identify yourself to them as being a people, trinity of mind body spirit, created in the image of god, and they will serve you… You are their Landlord”.
Nations being composed of men naturally free and independent, and who, before the establishment of civil societies, lived together in the state of nature, — Nations, or sovereign states, are to be considered as so many free persons living together in the state of nature.
It is a settled point with writers on the natural law, that all men inherit from nature a perfect liberty and independence, of which they cannot be deprived without their own consent. In a State, the individual citizens do not enjoy them fully and absolutely, because they have made a partial surrender of them to the sovereign. But the body of the nation, the State, remains absolutely free and independent with respect to all other men, and all other Nations, as long as it has not voluntarily submitted to them.
We must therefore apply to nations the rules of the law of nature, in order to discover what their obligations are, and what their rights: consequently, the law of Nations is originally no other than the law of Nature applied to Nations…
We call that the Necessary Law of Nations which consists in the application of the law of nature to Nations. It is Necessary because nations are absolutely bound to observe it. This law contains the precepts prescribed by the law of nature to states, on whom that law is not less obligatory than on individuals, since states are composed of men…
You are going to want to go to these links for easy to use Blackstone and Vattel and read for yourself, what I’m trying to explain. If you do, remember when they say Landlord, Land, state, nation Etc… They’re talking about you as a trinity… You need to be a trinity to claim Dominium.
Dominium. (Lat.) Perfect and complete property or ownership in a thing.
This right is composed of three principal elements: The right to use, the right to enjoy, and the right to dispose of the thing, to the exclusion of every other person.
The Law of Nations in its simplest form means following the Laws of Nature, more on that later… after we talk about Blackstone and the laws that pertain to persons, (not people)
The first book of Blackstone defines who the laws pertain to, and it list two, natural persons and individuals. Both are definitions of person. In reality they do not apply to you, ‘you are not a person’, ‘you’re a people’. As a people your law book is the Law of Nations. I’d call it true common law, because what we think of as Common law is partially corrupted Law of Nations, born out of the corruption of Feudal Law. Blackstone has a chapter called the corruption of Feudal law that describes it quite well.
What the Jesuits did when they set up the duel system of civil and private is corrupted Feudal Law, and called it Common law, so they could move the wealth of the private into the hands of the public if the private couldn’t remember who they were, and govern themselves. If the private went unconscious, who was going take care of things…?
The Corruption of Feudal Law… This is the where it all began…
From Blackstone — Corruption of the Feud System:
§ 81. 8. Corruption of the feudal system.—But as soon as the feudal system came to be considered in the light of a civil establishment, rather than as a military plan, the ingenuity of the same ages, which perplexed all theology with the subtlety of seliolastic disquisitions, and bewildered philosophy in the mazes of meta- physical Jargon, began also to exert its influence on this copious and fruitful subject: in pursuance of which, the most refined and oppressive consequences were drawn from what originally was a plan of simplicity and liberty, equally beneficial to both lord and tenant, and prudently calculated for their mutual protection and defense.
So Blackstone will show you the conveyances that were cherry picked, to allow the necessary first step in keeping you an individual instead of a Nation. To be a Nation-Sovereign State requires a trinity of Mind Body Spirit. Let’s look at some definitions.
Variously, in jurisprudence, a natural person is a human being, as opposed to an artificial, legal or juristic person, i.e., an organization that the law treats for some purposes as if it were a person distinct from its members or owner.
They are talking about your land, without its owner, owner being in the context of right of use. This land forms the 1st Leg of the Trinity. A human being is a soulless being, chattel, beast of burden, no better than a sheep. It is not enough to be in human form (soulless entity); the owner also has to be present. But it is one leg of the trinity, let’s define the other 2.
Early empiricists such as Ibn Tufail and John Locke introduced the idea of the individual as a tabula rasa (“blank slate”), shaped from birth by experience and education. This ties into the idea of the liberty and rights of the individual, society as a social contract between rational individuals, and the beginnings of individualism as a doctrine.
They are talking about your mind… (2nd Leg of the Trinity) A blank slate is born and will be shaped by experience and education, 2 out 3, but still not a Trinity.
Conscience is an aptitude, faculty, intuition, or judgment of the intellect that distinguishes right from wrong. Moral evaluations of this type may reference values or norms (principles and rules). In psychological terms conscience is often described as leading to feelings of remorse when a human commits actions that go against his/her moral values, and to feelings of rectitude or integrity when actions conform to such norms. The extent to which conscience informs moral judgment before an action and whether such moral judgments are, or should be, based wholly in reason has occasioned debate through much of the history of Western philosophy.
They are talking about your soul, the owner, the King, Landlord, that is unconscious, and not judging the intellect that the mind is absorbing… The lights are on, but nobody’s home… The missing link…, you’re not dead (you cannot die, you are an immortal living soul), just missing, or just not paying attention. Time to come in from the dark!!
So you need to show up at the door, and be the 3rd leg of the Trinity.
“We the trinity of mind body spirit, here as the Tribunal of the Court of Record, accept your oath and bond. The court is now open”. Magistrate, are you prepared to carry out the orders of the tribunal?
That’s all you got to say. In the Public “they” can only be a person… say again, a person… They have taken an oath of allegiance and pledged a bond… That is exactly what “fealty and homage” in common law is… and they have taken the oath and bond binding them as servants to the King. They can only be 2 out of 3 legs of a trinity. Their oath limits them. You on the other hand can be the Trinity, created in the image of God.
These servants are supposed to be available to all people, Men, Women (kings, people, prince), but not natural persons or individuals. You have to go as a people, which means you cannot work in codified law; you can only work in common law, the law of reason, The Law of Nations…
So you don’t have to charge them with anything, do it correctly (tell them who you are, what they are, and thank them for it, then give an order), go to them in peace, and they will serve you.
Their system has as much right to exist as what you want. Theirs is a Civil Society the members of which have all consented to be part of. But it doesn’t mean it has to apply to you, your loved ones and friends; you just need to change your will.
I’ve just started reading a copy of Law of Nations by De Vattel, with links and easier to read English than the pdf copy I found… This is the Law that pertains to you if you believe you are a sovereign, a people, not a person.
§ 4. What are sovereign states?
Every nation that governs itself, under what form so ever, without dependence on any foreign power, is a Sovereign State. Its rights are naturally the same as those of any other state. Such are the moral persons who live together in a natural society, subject to the law of nations. To give a nation a right to make an immediate figure in this grand society, it is sufficient that it be really sovereign and independent, that is, that it governs itself by its own authority and laws.
By being born, you are a Nation, and if you govern yourself, you are a sovereign state…
A sovereign state is a state with a defined territory on which it exercises internal and external sovereignty, a permanent population, a government, independence from other states and powers, and the capacity to enter into relations with other sovereign states. It is also normally understood to be a state which is not dependent on, or subject to any other power or state. While in abstract terms a sovereign state can exist without being recognized by other sovereign states, unrecognized states will often find it hard to exercise full treaty-making powers and engage in diplomatic relations with other sovereign states.
This is you brothers and sisters, your territory is: The term territory is also used in the law to describe an assigned area of responsibility. God I love definitions that start with just law… Your area of responsibility is simply the limits of the skin that covers your body. It is the border of your Nation.
A territory (from the word ‘terra’, meaning ‘land’) is a defined area, including land and waters, considered to be a possession of a person, organization, institution, animal, state…
In English, “state” is a contraction of the word “estate”, which is similar to the old French estat and the modern French etát, both of which signify that a person has status and therefore estate. The highest estates, are generally those with the most wealth and social rank, were those that held power.
…. In time, the word lost its reference to particular social groups and became associated with the legal order of the entire society and the apparatus of its enforcement.
Many sovereign states can band together under the Law of Nations.
§ 5. States bound by unequal alliance.
We ought, therefore, to account as sovereign states those which have united themselves to another more powerful, by an unequal alliance, in which, as Aristotle says, to the more powerful is given more honour, and to the weaker, more assistance.
This is the method of banding together, that Ben Franklin says we have if we can keep it.
§ 10. Of states forming a federal republic.
Finally, several sovereign and independent states may unite themselves together by a perpetual confederacy, without ceasing to be, each individually, a perfect state. They will together constitute a federal republic:
And that is what the Nation of America is… and has nothing to do with landmass or borders… Any man or woman that says they are an American is… they are one of the United states (estates) of America. Kings, Queens, Landlords, princes, owners, nations, states, sovereigns, people… Take your pick, just be one.
The government is a society, which is supposed to provide the common services all of us little sovereign states might need… Power, sewer, fire etc… the basics, nothing more… and to join that society, you have to take an oath and bond to act as a person, to exist in the PUBLIC, without the power of being a people.
The ones that take an oath and bond, to be “your man” under common law, get to write the rules for the citizenship of their society. After all to be part of their society only requires your consent.
In their society they get to set the rules… Statue, Code, Rule, Administrative Process, UCC… Those are the rules of their society. Those are the rules you agreed to when you became a United States Citizen. You did it by your will… a funny thing about a Kings will (conscience making judgments); he can change his will at anytime. If you’re ready to leave their society, let them know. But they have every right to exist in the form they are, because everyone under the system consented. That is the Law of Nations.
When the conscience (King, prince, landlord etc), returns to his Estate of inheritance (your body), and uses it judgment over the experiences and education of the mind (blank slate shaped since birth) you can form a trinity, and be as you were created, the image of God, a sovereign Nation state.
So as a nation, this is the law you are required to live under, the law of Nations…
§ 13. A nation ought to act agreeably to its nature.
The general and fundamental rule of our duties towards ourselves is, that every moral being ought to live in a manner conformable to his nature, naturaeconveni enter vivere. (14) A nation is a being determined by its essential attributes that has its own nature, and can act in conformity to it. There are then actions of a nation as such, wherein it is concerned in its national character, and which are either suitable or opposite to what constitutes it a nation; so that it is not a matter of indifference whether it performs some of those actions, and omits others. In this respect, the Law of Nature prescribes it certain duties. We shall see, in this first book, what conduct a nation ought to observe, in order that it may not be wanting to itself. But we shall first sketch out a general idea of this subject.
§ 14. Of the preservation and perfection of a nation.
He who no longer exists can have no duties to perform: and a moral being is charged with obligations to himself, only with a view to his perfection and happiness: for to preserve and to perfect his own nature, is the sum of all his duties to himself.
The preservation of a nation is found in what renders it capable of obtaining the end of civil society; and a nation is in a perfect state, when nothing necessary is wanting to arrive at that end. We know that the perfection of a thing consists, generally, in the perfect agreement of all its constituent parts to tend to the same end. A nation being a multitude of men united together in civil society — if in that multitude all conspire to attain the end proposed in forming a civil society, the nation is perfect; and it is more or less so, according as it approaches more or less
Don’t let anyone tell you they are hiding the information, they just aren’t talking about it. If we use eyes that can see, and ears that can hear… The answer is right in front of you. The Public is a civil society; the Private is a Lawful society. If you do not like life under a civil society go return to the Nation of America, a Republic society, where all are self-governing.
E-mail me (Robb Ryder) with comments or questions. All I ask is if you found my attempts worthy that you pass them on…
11 May 2011
Before I start I’d like to point out this is a work in progress, and changes quite often. Not so much changes but continues to get fleshed out, based on comments I receive. One was do you have any practical experience with this process. So at the end is my personal story of how and why I am saying the things I do. For the record, it’s not a process, it’s the Law.
Anyone reading this needs to first comprehend that “Laws, of which there are many kinds”, follow a hierarchy, being stacked on top of each other. We have all heard of statutes, codes, regulations, rules, all “laws” within a select society. If you’re not in that society they do not pertain to you. You have to volunteer to be “governed” by them.
Beyond “these Laws” that we have been exposed to by “them”, there are other levels of laws that need to be “remembered”. If we would just remember, what we have always known, we could stop learning, and get on to doing. Because these laws are not written, they are the laws of reason, the laws between men. Even The Law, the law of reason, has a set of rules to follow…
Divine Law, Natural Law, the Law of Reason… then everything else in a lower order. To be lawful your law cannot break Divine, or Natural law; as long as it doesn’t, it is the law of your land.
The Law of reason we now call “Common Law”, before that it was known as Feudal Law… So why the name changes? Because the creators of “their system” try to control everything by naming it! It is one of their beliefs, and so far it has worked out quite well for them. “Why do they call it Marijuana? Cause you can’t charge hemp”…
Go look at a dictionary; most any word commonly used today has only been in existence for 500 years or less. Either the original word’s spelling has been changed, or it’s a word derived from a Latin word. In their system, there is only one language recognized… Latin, high Latin… The stuff the Pope and Courts use.
When it comes to the definition to use, it depends on the venue it is used in… only a definition for use in Common Law can begin with the words… “In Law”… If it says in statute law, or English Common Law… it is inferior to In Law or In Common Law with no other modifiers allowed. Focus on definitions that say “in Law, or at worst in common law, or feudal law… all others are inferior.
What they gave us is a slave’s language, full of magic words; Common words that have very different meanings depending on the venue. Here is one of my favorites.
The “Legal” definition of Lie: TO LIE. That which is proper, is fit; as an action on the case lies for an injury committed without force; corporeal hereditaments lie in livery, that is, they pass by livery; incorporeal hereditaments lie in grant, that is, pass by the force of the grant, and without any livery. Vide Lying in grant.
Tell a prosecutor, “That’s a lie”, bingo… magic word, you just agreed that what he said was proper. However words have many meanings, the first part is what it means in an inferior “legal” setting, and the last part of Lie has to do with the common law definition. More on that later!
The point I’m trying to make is when you have an idea what to look for, it’s easier to find. Or another way: identify the problem(s), and your half way to the answer. When you read a definition or statute etc., which goes on and on… forget it… Most definitions that are Lawful are at most a paragraph, and usually much shorter… (It doesn’t take long to tell the truth).
I know I’ll take a lot of shit for this, but I do believe that “they” do follow the rules. And once you learn the rules instead of arguing the facts, they will honor you… after all it’s the Law. No source of Law under the Law of Reason no matter what it’s called (Case Law, English Common Law, UCC, US Codes, etc…) can overturn the ruling of “The Court of Record with Final jurisdiction”… I mean you.
Everything they have done is lawful, and therefore Legal, and it is why you cannot “win” in their system. Under the system of “Legal” this is the power of the Magistrate (Judge):
When an officer acts in both a judicial and ministerial capacity, he may be compelled to perform ministerial acts in a particular way; but when he acts in a judicial capacity, he can only be required to proceed; the manner of doing so is left entirely to his judgment. See 2 Fairf. 377; Bac. Ab. Justices of the Peace, E; 1 Conn. 295; 3 Conn. 107; 9 Conn. 275; 12 Conn. 464; also Judicial; Mandamus; Sheriff (They just told you, you cannot win in any court that uses codified law, (their court), this is the venue in which the magistrate has “Judicial” authority”).
Late entry: Brothers and sisters that have responded via email thanks for pointing out to me that the above needs to be stressed… I know this now because so many of your responses keep referring to “them not following” their own laws, statutes, codes etc… They don’t have to… read the definition again… “He acts in a judicial capacity (Judge),… He can only be required to proceed; the manner of doing so is left entirely to his judgment. Where does it say he has to follow a stinkn’ statute? Have you ever heard them say…”In my court”… that’s what it is… ‘His’ court… so do not go to his court, take yours to him… The statutes are just so many rabbit holes for you to chase…
The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over expecting a different result… It’s insane to go to their jurisdiction, the moment you walk in you are an incompetent. Stop being double minded.
At any level in the “Legal system, including UCC and international law”, it’s up to the discretion of the magistrate, and why they can keep coming and coming, and coming… So do you want to go to “their” court, as described above, or “be the court”, the Supreme Court is talking about below.
However, no statutory or constitutional court (whether it be an appellate or Supreme Court) can second guess the judgment of a court of record. “The judgment of a court of record, whose jurisdiction is final, is as conclusive on the entire world as the judgment of this court would be. It is as conclusive on this court as it is on other courts. It puts an end to inquiry concerning the fact, by deciding it.” Ex parte Watkins, 3 Pet., at 202-203. [cited by SCHNECKLOTH v. BUSTAMONTE, 412 U.S. 218, 255 (1973)]
Your court of record, doesn’t follow any written law either, your guide to the law is “reason”, what is reasonable. Since no 2 situations are exactly the same, it would be impossible to write a law that covers them… (That’s why “they” have over 60,000,000 laws… and still want more)… Statute Law sold itself as the codification of the Common Law… … Under common law, or law, you are the Lawmaker!… It’s your wish that makes the law… if you can’t wrap your head around the difference… then go look at as many definitions of common law and sovereign as you need to till it does…
They are talking about you… as a King… a Landlord given a fee simple estate in lands and tenements, by the Ultimate Sovereign being. Something only a people can be… (try finding the word person in the Bible)… You are the trinity of mind, body and spirit, and the Tribunal of the Court of Record with Final Jurisdiction… No ifs ands or buts… you have final jurisdiction in all cases involving your nation.
Why bring up the bible? Because it shows the two available systems “Lawful and Legal” running side by side. Or you can find it in movies, songs and comedies on a bill board etc… Clues to the difference and how to choose which one you live under. After all either you can govern yourself, or surly someone will govern you.
Finally before we get to things more relevant to our situation today we must consider who set up these 2 systems… none other than our friends the Jesuits. They were given the charter hundreds of years ago over banking, commerce, and education… Need I say more… But I will… what we have is the sharpest tacks in the drawer working on, contemplating, instituting, managing both systems. They don’t take sides, and definitely know what system is Lawful, and which one is merely legal.
Crazy talk you say? The Jesuits and Church are running the show…? Sure enough, here is an example:
King John’s grant of England to the Pope
May 15, 1213
“We wish it to be known to all of you, through this our charter, furnished with our seal, that inasmuch as we had offended in many ways God and our mother the holy church, and in consequence are known to have very much needed the divine mercy, and can not offer anything worthy for making due satisfaction to God and to the church unless we humiliate ourselves and our kingdoms: we, wishing to humiliate ourselves for Him who humiliated Himself for us unto death, the grace of the Holy Spirit inspiring, not induced by force or compelled by fear, but of our own good and spontaneous will and by the common counsel of our barons, do offer and freely concede to God and His holy apostles Peter and Paul and to our mother the holy Roman church, and to our lord pope Innocent and to his Catholic successors, the whole kingdom of England and the whole kingdom Ireland, with all their rights and appurtenances, for the remission of our own sins and of those of our whole race as well for the living as for the dead; and now receiving and holding them, as it were a vassal, from God and the Roman church, in the presence of that prudent man Pandulph, subdeacon and of the household of the lord pope, we perform and swear fealty for them to him our aforesaid lord pope Innocent, and his catholic successors and the Roman church, according to the form appended; and in the presence of the lord pope, if we shall be able to come before him, we shall do liege homage to him; binding our successors and our heirs by our wife forever, in similar manner to perform fealty and show homage to him who shall be chief pontiff at that time, and to the Roman church without demur.”
England got a “Crown” in return, the City of London, the 1 mile square… there are 2 other Crowns floating around out there… the Spanish have or had one for the great work they did for the Pope in Central and South America, Mexico. The last one escapes me now…
Most of what “The Controllers” did is simply “divide and conquer”, Divide, divide, and divide, hiding the truth in more and more falsehoods, sprinkled liberally with Fear. First divide the concept of One into Good and Evil, then back both sides, and then divide the concept of Man being a trinity of mind, body and spirit being one into separate ideas. Go around the world and collect all the ancient text, and claim they were all burned or destroyed. Then overtime “educate” the next generations with your version of history… adding layers to the onion.
You are not an “I”, you are a “We”…
And in the pyramid of power that the public is, at some level in every organization a “magistrate” knows that you are a We. I believe there are certain positions in the Public you can go to that know exactly what the game is, and if approached in peace, will honor your position. Their positions straddle the Living and the Public. If you go to them in the Living (Private), you go to them as one of your trusted vassals; in the Public you go to them as one of their inferior slaves.
One last thing on the Jesuits; they are not the Masters of the system of the public, they are the referee. A vicious referee maybe, but much harsher on those who take oaths to a society (like the United States and its Constitution), than those who take an oath to the Creator. For the record, you have no Constitutional rights, what you have are all the rights of a King and they are unalienable.
However, with both systems up and running the Public sells one system over the other, using the systems of Commerce, Banking, and Education provided by the Jesuits and convince you “by your will”. Now, you and I find ourselves under the oppressive system, indoctrinated to believe they have authority over you. But change your will, and you can exit the legal system and enter the lawful one. The one in which you are a self governing King.. “A republic if you can keep it”…
And so, here is a glimpse of when the system of the Public got started…
Vienne, 1311-12,”whoever shall hereafter dare to assert, maintain, or pertinaciously hold that the rational or intellectual soul is not per se and essentially the form of the human body, is to be regarded as a heretic“; (First the truth had to be put in the Public Record, and then from there hid as best they could).
When the intellectual soul shows up in the form of a human body proclaiming the “Law of Reason”, to not honor that is considered heresy! It really is that simple, the truth is always simple. “Simply proclaim that you are an immortal living soul, created in the image of God, and they have no jurisdiction”. If they balk, or test you don’t get upset… simply ask them “are you saying, I am not an immortal living soul? If so I want to speak to your superior” Ask questions, give an order; don’t argue.
Here is what I have been working on… based on “Law”, where it all started. As this is a work in progress towards the end is the latest thoughts I will add into the body of the text when I flesh out what they mean to me… Eventully (shortly), I’ll test it for myself… right now just trying to get it straight in my head… So what you read today may be different that what it reads tomorrow…
If you find this at all useful, or even just interesting you need to bookmark this site: Tucker
A searchabe Blackstone Commentiaries linked with a 1828 dictionary… Marvelous!… I highly suggest you use this to look up terms, and phrases, and the actual text that I am using for my theory’s… also under the American History section are many other books…
Another great one: vattel
This is a book on the Law of Nations… hopefully if you read this you will come away with a compreshension that your body is the Land, Nation, State they are talking about, and your spirit is called things like Landlord, Price, King etc… Just this change in preception changes the meaning of these passages written long ago by folks that could see what was happening in real time.
I hope to give evidence to anyone taking the time to read this narative of the power of accepting a magistrates oath, and bond. I don’t need to see it, I don’t need a copy, I just need to accept them, his oath and bond… and if that ends up being true, then the other points I lay out should make for interesting reading… and I’d like to hear your thoughts please email me.
“Homage”: on the other hand, only made its appearance when the relation became one of land as well as of persons. It was the recognition of service due to the lord, not merely as superior, but as the’ giver of a benefice or fee.”
Under feudal law, homage was the ceremonial acknowledgment by a vassal of allegiance to his lord of whom he held land or whose overlordship he accepted. The act of homage was construed to be the confirmation by the lord of the vassal’s own rights.”
I’ll explain the above shortly and how to use it … but first…
All law is contract, all contract is Law… heard that before? I’m sure you have if you’re a member of this site… But if everything in the PUBLIC is fiction does that not include the contracts made in the Pubic? They don’t exist in the real world; therefor they are not law… The law of contracts is Common Law!
Wikipedia definiton of Common Law: In common law legal systems (connotation 2), the common law (connotation 1) is crucial to understanding almost all important areas of law. For example, in England and Wales and in most states of the United States, the basic law of contracts, torts and property do not exist in statute, but only in common law (though there may be isolated modifications enacted by statute).
Only “real” contracts fall under Common Law (the unwritten law of reason). And that is where you need to take your business, stop trying to win in their court, you cannot do it, unless they let you. In all statutory courts, where codes, rules, regulations are used, the magistrate has Judicial power, and the descresion to use his “judgment” on what the “rule” ment… no matter what it says on the paper… your screwed. Even if you’re using the UCC; you go to their court as a person, a soulless being, a person.
But under common law, the magistrate is merely there to administer the justice of the Tribunal of the Court of Record. I just described your relationship with a magistrate under common law… it’s you that are the tribual of the court of record… If you put him in this position of “serving you”, by accepting his bond and oath and administering your orders, by God you better not turn around and “charge him”… By Fielty and Homage under common law you are both entrusted with each others protection.
Under Common law, a magistrate “is” your administrative process… Give an order then… “so let it be written, so let it be done”… Let the magistrate do the paperwork, and when completed place your “Kings Seal on it, (Red Thumb print) .
For you not to be a person, you have to be complete, a trinity of, mind, body, and spirit.. made in the image of God, now you are not a person, you are a people. Only a people has the trinity inside them, and that trinity is what makes the Tribunal of The Court of Record… The only other “Tribunal” there can be in a Court of Law is a Jury of Peers… (and a United States Citizen is not a peer)… only other Trinity’s are.
You as-king of your land are the tribunal of the court of record with final jurisdiction in your land. And a King is never Legally liable for anything.
Land, state, nation all share one definition… people. You were created as a people, and under common law (not to your knowledge) , you yourself, set the wheels in motion to degenerate from a people into a person… natural and/or artificial… either case… you are now inferior, and cannot form the trinity…within the jurisdiction of the Estate by will, thanks to your birth certificate..
Burn this into your conscience: You do not “own” anything… To “own it” would mean when you die and your body wears out, that your immortal soul would take a thing with it. The only one that can Own anything is the LANDLORD, the Creator of all. And this is the basis of Common Law, or better yet just Law. What he gave you is exclusive right of use of Land and tenements in a Fee Simple Estate of Inheritance. This is the other parallel path to the PUBLIC that you can live in.
“THE LANDLORD” gave you an inheritance in land, your body… your own nation, state, your private property… where you are King, and Landlord… You cannot sell it, or give it away, you do not own it, it’s not yours. You are a tenant with exlusive right of use (private property). Now you are a Landlord, subject only to the Creator, King of your castle. All other land not given by the Creator in a fee simple estate to the immortal souls on Earth is Public Property for use by all. You can take from this Public property all you need for your use, you can claim right of use, but you cannot claim Allodial ownership. If you create somehting from the fruits of this public property, you can claim the right of use until you’re done with it as private property, but the onwership never is relenquished by the LANDLORD.
They want you to think you can Own things… and profit from them, by charging your brother… Instead of saying… isn’t this invention great, let me share it with my brother, they want to you claim ownership, and charge your brother. Chase that dollar… You cannot own an idea, and if you think you can and get a patent on it… you will soon find out who owns it… not you… Ask the 6,500 patent holders of alternative energy devices. The patent was given because the device does work, but it is kept out of production, because the Public has to control the Energy as part of controlling the sheep. You can however give the idea freely, and if someone wants one built, then a man’s labor is worth his hire. It’s your labor that has value, not the thing.
What else can you do with this inheritance… Go read Blackstone explanation on a fee-simple estate… one of the things you can do is convey (lease) it. You can lease your land under a Fee Conditional Estate (an estate not of inheritance) to a tenant. It is a lease at your will to a tenant, and for that lease the tenant is supposed to pay Rent. This isn’t charging your brother; this is a mutual beneficial arrangement. They want to use your private property, and their labor to create something that you both share.
Your Birth Certificate is a common law conveyance (lease) to a tenant of a small portion of land (your blood on the document), that allows the tenant access to incorporeal hereditaments that “issue” from or are annexed to the corporeal hereditaments.. (the land your body), using an expressed trust… So your drop of blood is the “twig” handed over under a common law “livery in seisin” ceremony.
Now I’ve heard the birth certificate described as a Will, and I don’t disagree, except to say that what it might be is a lease contract showing “your will as king” to allow and estate “at your pleasure”. You can stop it at any time… I don’t have a Birth Certificate to look at, but how many witnesses are there on the document? A valid will and testament requires 3 witnesses, and I think the BC only has 2… Nevertheless Wills do not exist in Common Law, but “by your will” is always the Kings prerogative.
The Rights of Things. (Blackstone)
property is frequently in one man, while the appendage or service is in another.
Property is frequently in one man (his body), while the appendage (your drop of blood) and service (to the Landlord, you), is in another.
Thus Gaius may be seised as of fee of a way leading over the land, of which Titius is seised in his demesne as of fee.
Thus Gaius (Gaius a celebrated Roman jurist. Scholars know very little of his personal life. It is impossible to discover even his full name, Gaius or Caius being merely his personal name (praenomen).) may be seised as of fee (an estate in trust) of a way (Way: Method; scheme of management) leading (leading: Guidance; the act of conducting; direction) over the land, (seised: Ownership/right of use… when he has no dominion in the thing itself, as in the case of an incorporeal hereditament,) of which Titius is seised in his demesne as of fee (fee: A loan of land). (A man is said to be seised in his demesne as of fee of a corporeal inheritance, because he has a property dominicum or demesne in the thing itself).
Ok, what the heck does that mean? Here is my take… with you being represented by Titius.
Gaius represents a person… There are lots of persons including government, corporations etc… What they have in common is they are all fictions. The estate in trust is your B.C. which Gaius has devised a scheme of management conducting the direction over the land (Titus, you).
The B.C. is a scheme to control you, the Land… which you agreed to under common law, “by your will”… What they do not elaborate on is that this estate in trust to the public is “by your will” and can be recalled “by your will”… further…
The fee-simple or inheritance of lands and tenements is generally vested and resides in some person or other (your body); though diverse inferior estates may be carved out of it (drop of blood). As if one (you) grants a lease for twenty-one years, or for one or two lives, the fee-simple remains vested in him (you) and his heirs ; and after the deter initiation of those years or lives, the land reverts to the grantor(you) or his heirs, who shall hold it again in fee-simple. Yet some times the fee may be in abeyance, that is (as the word signifies) in expectation, remembrance, and contemplation in law there being no person in esse, in whom it can vest and abide : through the law considers it as always potentially existing, and ready to vest whenever a proper owner appears. (This explains it better than I ever can if you look up most of the words above in a law dictionary). But let’s break it down anyway…
The fee-simple or inheritance of lands and tenements is generally vested and resides in some person or other; (It resides in your natural person… the real you is not your natural person, it just your land) it includes lands and tenements… (Look up tenements and follow the links):
Though diverse inferior estates may be carved out of it. As if one grants a lease for twenty-one years, or for one or two lives, the fee-simple remains vested in him and his heirs; and after the determination of those years or lives, the land reverts to the grantor or his heirs, who shall hold it again in fee-simple. (This is your Birth Certificate, but what he does not say in this particular quote is that the lease is “at your will” … and when you change your will, the B.C Estate reverts to the King.. you)..
Yet some times the fee may be in abeyance, that is (as the word signifies) in expectation, remembrance, and contemplation in law there being no person in esse, in whom it can vest and abide (abeyance … as in the King (your soul) has left his land… the whole idea for making you think you are person, instead of a people… in esse … in existence, no person in existence in whom the estate can return to)… So in law there is no person it can revert to… Persons do not exist in law, persons are fiction… However…
Though the law considers it as always potentially existing, and ready to vest whenever a proper owner appears (The Law… common law (the unwritten law of reason) the only law between Men that exist says… The BC Estate (and that of your ancestors) is ready to vest … Proper owner appears… They did not call him a person… they called him an owner…
Owner… “The rightful proprietor; one who has the legal or rightful title, whether he is the possessor or not”… Proprietor: By the gift of God, man is constituted the proprietor of the earth.
The Law is just waiting for the MAN to stand up, show he is in existence (in esse), and not abeyance, so the BC Estate can vest in him.. Not only yours but your ancestors.
Vest, v.i. To come or descend to; to be fixed; to take effect, as a title or right! Upon the death of the ancestor, the estate, or the right to the estate, vests in the heir at law.
You are also the heir, to your ancestors’ fee-simple estates, they are vested in you as an heir. But the “man” (owner) must claim them because the Law does not recognize persons…>56. Estates upon condition (lease) in law are such as have a condition impliedly annexed to them, without any condition being specified in the deed or will. Litt. s. 378, 380; Co. Litt. 215, b; 233, b; 234, b.
(This is what the Birth Certificate represents, it is an Estate “By your will”, and can be collapsed or controlled “by your will”… If you’re a person, they control by your will, if you’re a people, King, Landlord, a sovereign Nation State of one, then you can control it…
“By your will” LEASE contracts. A lease is a contract for the possession and profits of lands and tenements on one side, and a recompense of rent or other income on the other; Bac. Ab. Lease, in pr.; or else it is a conveyance of lands and tenements to a person for life, or years, or at will, in consideration of a return of rent, or other recompense.
57. Considered as to the title which may be had in them, estates are legal and equitable. 1. A legal estate is one, the right to which can be enforced in a court of law. 2. An equitable, is a right or interest in land,
which not having the properties of a legal estate, but being merely a right of which courts of equity will take notice, require the aid of such a court to make it available. See, generally, Bouv. Inst. Index, h.t.
(This is an interesting statement… Your B.C. was given lawfully “by your will” under common law, by you the King, forming the Estate “MR ALL CAPS”… The inferior courts of Equity even though they do not have legal title, they know it exist within their system and charge it…); only “their” court of law (court of record) can enforce it.
If they cannot get your persons agreement (contract) in Equity, and you argue, they pull out “their” court of record… as only it can charge for contempt… This is what happens when the Judge leaves, comes back and the defendant (person) says one more thing and bam… contempt… done when an equity court changed the form of the court to a court of law… by the exit and return of the magistrate…)… When he takes a recess, he is changing the form of the court… The only time a Judge in Equity will pull out their court of record is to charge for contempt, or if you on the record… …but you can do so much better…
They have a “court of record”, but it has limited jurisdiction… (Only over persons)… You as a people, King… Landlord, are Tribunal of THE most superior court on the earth… as it applies to you… All you have to do is claim it… accept their oath and bond (homage and fealty to the grantor of the fee), make them “your man” and they are bound to carry out your orders, and give you competent advice, so everything is done in your best interest. All you have to do is ASK… You are obligated upon accepting their oath to protect them… This can happen automatically as a magistrate under common law is merely administering the orders of the Tribunal, and has no legal liability. At the end of the day he is going to produce the record in the public, for the agreement already in place in the private….
So how do you know if you are in a Court of Equity… if the plead choices are Guilty or Not Guilty.
Many want to know, including myself, what is the B.C. “worth” to the Public, or… what was it sold for?… recently I watched a Youtube video from a guy named Bill Turner, I don’t know Bill from Adam, but his explanation is as good as any other I have heard… and that is… that your B.C. is sold (monetized) for your birth weight in gold. Here is a link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cFykQwImGwM , then you decide. Your drop of blood as a baby was given the same value as your birth weight in gold.
That is the amount the public gets to work with under your Estate by will, and by their own rules and more importantly under common law, they have to protect this estate, as it really belongs to the Landlord… They only have the right of use. They are expected to make a profit on this estate, but for the benefit of having this lease is they are supposed to be paying rent;… more on that soon!…
Let’s get to the meat…
You were given an inheritance in Land from THE LANDLORD in a Fee Simple Estate, making you king… It came with land and tenaments. Both can be inherited by your heirs, but you cannot sell the land, give it away, etc… it’s not you’re; it’s THE LANDLORDS… what your heirs don’t claim reverts to the Lord;… “ashes to ashes, dust to dust”.
You could however, lease your land in estate in fee for years, or at pleasure etc… That is what the BC is… It’s a lease, and they owe you Rent, it’s being held in reserve waiting for the LandLord that issued the lease to ask for it. It is either Rent or Rente;… in either case your rent is “reserved upon a lease”
The rent is based not just on your contribution, but all your ancestors as well. Theirs is being held back as “Treasure-Trove”… It also looks that, “by your wil, and pleasure” you can shut down this Estate, anytime you want… (I’m just not sure what the “right” time is yet)…
But back to the Rent… what exactly does that mean? RENT, estates, contracts. A certain profit in money, provisions, chattels, or labor, issuing out of lands and tenements in retribution for the use.
There are many forms of Rent… I kinda like this one:
Rack-Rent – An annual rent of the full value of the tenement or near it.
Or it could be Rente:
RENTE. In the French funds this word is nearly synonymous with our word annuity.
RENTE FONCIERE. This is a technical phrase used in Louisiana. It is a rent which issues out of land, and it is of its essence that it be perpetual, for if it be made but for a limited time, it is a lease. It may, however, be extinguished. Civ. Code of Lo. art. 2750, 2759; Poth. h.t. Vide Ground-rent.
RENTE VIAGERE, French law. This term, which is used in Louisiana, signifies an annuity for life. Civ. Code of Lo. art. 2764; Poth. Du Contract de Constitution de Rente, n. 215.
So we got rent coming, and our inheritance from our ancestors, currently being held somewhere, whom do we see about this? … Since all “their courts” are in the fiction, they maybe able to get away with saying “it is outside our jurisdiction”… after all, they are dead… We need to be in the living to be a people…
Welcome your new best friend, The Coroner:
Coroner: n. [Law Lat., a crown.] An officer whose office is concerned principally with pleas of the crown. (Plea: In law, that which is alleged by a party (King) in support of his demand).
Coroners also have a role in treasure trove cases. This role arose from the ancient duty of the coroner as a protector of the property of the Crown (King, you).
The coroner’s court is a court of law (Not a Court of Justice…) Practice is over, this is Law, not Justice…
Go to this link… http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Books_of_authority and read what is says…
Toward the bottom is the list of authors this apply to, and the book that are accepted as the Authority on Law…
Look at the ones that say “pleas of the Crown”… history of the pleas of the crown”…
These books tell you the duties of the coroner… who is the “holder of the pleas of the crown.”
The pleas of the crown are the pleas of the King…you…
It’s worth mentioning, that ‘All’ courts of Justice, can be Courts of Law… The magistrate has 2 duties, in a Court of Justice (Statute, Codes etc) he can Judge, in a Court of Law, he administers the justice of the Tribunal (you)… I’ve said it before but it bears repeating… In equity the magistrate judges; In Common law he administers…your orders… Their Court of record has limited jurisdiction, yours has final.
Next to the Sheriff’s office the Coroner is next in importance under Common Law, because the Coroner is responsible directly to the King for the Crowns (your) Property. I’m not sure that Corporate Sheriffs are the same as Common Law Sheriffs. They could be, but still, by Law the Coroner is responsible for the Crowns (your) Property. Besides, who better to say you’re not dead (person), than the Coroner?
The following seems to point to the fact that the Sheriff in your county is your coroner. Under common law the coroner can fill the vacated office of the sheriff. The sheriff has 4 “shall” duties, shall mean must without question. A quick look will show that none of them have anything to do with “dead bodies”. No homicide division and no drowned bodies, these are duties of the coroner.
“The coroner can be the sheriff, but the sheriff can never be the coroner”
(2) Each sheriff’s department shall provide the following services within the county in which it is established and shall be the law enforcement agency primarily responsible for providing the following services on county primary roads and county local roads within that county, except for those portions of a the county primary roads and county local roads within the boundaries of a city of village; and on those portions of any other highway or road within the boundaries of a county park within that county:
(a) Patrolling and monitoring traffic violations
(b) Enforcing the criminal laws of this state, violations of which are observed by or brought to the attention of the sheriff’s department while providing the patrolling and monitoring required by this subsection.
(c) Investigating accidents involving motor vehicles.
(d) Providing emergency assistance to persons on or near a highway or road patrolled and monitored as required by this subsection…
A separate provision makes the sheriff primarily responsible for the recovery of drowned bodies. (MCL 51.301) This is a continuation of the duties in the Magna Charta dealing with deceased persons. There is also a connection between the county coroner and the sheriff. The coroner serves, as sheriff in the case that both the sheriff and under sheriff vacate the offices (Op. Atty. Gen. 1928-30) and the only person who can serve process of any kind on the sheriff is the coroner. (Hubel V. Rorison, 1890). There is a connection between the sheriff and the coroner. The reasoning behind this connection remains unclear; however, it could it be a continuation of the tradition from medieval times. One theory suggests that the connection in medieval times was because of the educational level and position in society that each had. Both were placed in positions that required the ability to read and write in a time when nearly all persons were illiterate.
If a sheriff is dealing with dead bodies, he is a coroner, only the coroner can handle those duties. Look up your local sheriff office and see if they “recover drowned bodies” if so he is the common law coroner, holder of the kings please and protector of his property, and collector of the rent due you… and by common law, its payable by 6pm of the day asked… ‘No later than midnight’. (See Rent).
Tell them to read Blackstone, or other Law dictionaries… have them show you were it says a Sheriff has the power of a Coroner.
SHERIFF. The name of the chief officer of the county. In Latin he is called vice comes, because in England he represented the comes or earl. His name is said to be derived from the Saxon seyre, shire or county, and reve, keeper, bailiff, or guardian.
. The general duties of the sheriff are, 1st. To keep the peace within the county; he may apprehend, and commit to prison all persons who break the peace or attempt to break it, and bind any one in a recognizance to keep the peace. He is required ex officio, to pursue and take all traitors, murderers, felons and rioters. He has the keeping of the county gaol and he is bound to defend it against all attacks. He may command the posse comitatus.
Coroner. An officer whose principal duty it is to hold an inquisition, with the assistance of a jury, over the body of any person who may have come to a violent death, or who has died in prison. It is his duty also, in case of the death of the sheriff, or when a vacancy happens in that office, to serve all the writs and process which the sheriff is usually bound to serve
II. The coroners’ is also a very ancient office at the common law. He is called coroner, coronator, because he hath principally to do with pleas of the crown, or such wherein the king is more immediately concerned e. And in this light the lord chief justice of the King’s Bench is the principal coroner in the kingdom, and may (if he pleases) exercise the jurisdiction of a coroner in any part of the realm f. But there are also particular coroners for every county of England; usually four, but sometimes six, and sometimes fewer g. This office h is of equal antiquity with the sheriff; and was ordained together with him to keep the peace, when the earls gave up the wardship of the county.
Remember this: Vienne, 1311-12,”whoever shall hereafter dare to assert, maintain, or pertinaciously hold that the rational or intellectual soul is not per se and essentially the form of the human body, is to be regarded as a heretic“; If you take your BC to the Coroner, and declare in his presence yourself as an immortal lining soul, accept his oath and bond, hand him the BC and order him to collect the rent, and return to you the inheritance passed down by your ancestors, by Law “they” have until 6pm, but not later than midnight to pay the rent..
Actually the coroner is even more important to the King, because the King appointed the Coroner to keep an eye on the sheriff… and keep track of his property.
I should stop here to mention that All public officials are magistrates.
Someone told me this today, I hadn’t seen it in the actual act, but had heard Frank O’Collins talk about it… This fits right in with “common law” even though it is inferior “English Common Law”……… Robb
Also, look back into English law, the basis from which U.S. law and the BAR derives. In particular, look at the following paragraph from the Cestui Que Vie Act 1666. This explains that one is declared dead if one hasn’t presented themselves before a judge for seven years.
Cestui que vie remaining beyond Sea for Seven Years together and no Proof of their Lives, Judge in Action to direct a Verdict as though Cestui que vie were dead.
If such person or persons for whose life or lives such Estates have been or shall be granted as aforesaid shall remain beyond the Seas or elsewhere absent themselves in this Realm by the space of seven years together and noe sufficient and evident proof be made of the lives of such person or persons respectively in any Action commenced for recovery of such Tenements by the Lessors or Reversioners in every such case the person or persons upon whose life or lives such Estate depended shall be accounted as naturally dead, And in every Action brought for the recovery of the said Tenements by the Lessors or Reversioners their Heirs or Assigns, the Judges before whom such Action shall be brought shall direct the Jury to give their Verdict as if the person soe remaining beyond the Seas or otherwise absenting himselfe were dead.
Now, the remedy is also present in the act:
IV: If the supposed dead Man proves to be alive, then the Title is re vested. Action for mean Profits with Interest.
Provided always That if any person or [X3 person or] persons shall be evicted out of any Lands or Tenements by virtue of this Act, and afterwards if such person or persons upon whose life or lives such Estate or Estates depend shall return again from beyond the Seas, or shall on proofe in any Action to be brought for recovery of the same [to] be made appear to be living; or to have been living at the time of the Eviction That then and from thenceforth the Tennant or Lessee who was outed of the same his or their Executors Administrators or Assignes shall or may reenter repossesse have hold and enjoy the said Lands or Tenements in his or their former Estate for and during the Life or Lives or so long term as the said person or persons upon whose Life or Lives the said Estate or Estates depend shall be living, and also shall upon Action or Actions to be brought by him or them against the Lessors Reversioners or Tennants in possession or other persons respectively which since the time of the said Eviction received the Profits of the said Lands or Tenements recover for damages the full Profits of the said Lands or Tenements respectively with lawfull Interest for and from the time that he or they were outed of the said Lands or Tenements, and kepte or held out of the same by the said Lessors Reversioners Tennants or other persons who after the said Eviction received the Profits of the said Lands or Tenements or any of them respectively as well in the case when the said person or persons upon whose Life or Lives such Estate or Estates did depend are or shall be dead at the time of bringing of the said Action or Actions as if the said person or persons where then living.
MAGISTRATE, mun. law. A public civil officer, invested with some part of the legislative, executive, or judicial power given by the constitution. In a narrower sense this term includes only inferior judicial officers, as justices of the peace. 2. The president of the United States is the chief magistrate of this
nation; the governors are the chief magistrates of their respective states.
All the above has lead to this… my theory…
I think you can take your Birth Certificate to the Coroner, accept his oath and bond to the office he holds, hand him the BC, and tell him go collect my rent, and claim my ancestral inheritance. Not only that, but he would inform the public that the King (your conscience, soul etc), has returned to the manor, and is no longer in abeyance.
But, ‘You’ have to accept his oath, and bond (same with every Public Officer)… here is why:
Oath of Fealty – Swearing an Oath, Homage –service “bound” to render.
FEALTY. Fidelity, allegiance.
2. Under the feudal system, every owner of lands held them of some superior lord, from whom or from whose ancestors, the tenant had received them. By this ‘connexion’ (Connexion is the original and variant spelling of “connection”) the lord became bound to protect the tenant in the enjoyment of the land granted to him; and, on the other hand, the tenant was bound to be faithful to his lord, and defend him against all his enemies. This obligation was called ‘fidelitas’, or ‘fealty’
OATH. A declaration made according to law, before a competent tribunal or officer, to tell the truth; or it is the act of one who, when lawfully required to tell the truth, takes God to witness that what he says is true. It is a religious act by which the party invokes God not only to witness the truth and sincerity of his promise, but also to avenge his imposture or violated faith, or in other words to punish his perjury if he shall be guilty of it.
2. It is proper to distinguish two things in oaths;
1. The invocation by which the God of truth, who knows all things, is taken to witness.
2. The imprecation by which he is asked as a just and all-powerful being, to punish perjury.
Among promissory oaths may be classed all those taken by public officers on entering into office, to support the constitution of the United States, and to perform the duties of the office.
This obligation on the part of the vassal was called his fidelitas or fealty ; and an oath of fealty was required, by the feudal law, to be taken by all tenants to their landlord, which is couched in almost the same terms as our ancient oath of allegiance a : except that in the usual oath of fealty there was frequently a saving or exception of the faith due to a superior lord by name, under whom the Landlord himself was perhaps only a tenant or vassal. But when the acknowledgment was made to the absolute superior himself, who was vasal to no man, it was no longer called the oath of fealty, but the oath of allegiance ; and therein the tenant swore to bear faith to his sovereign lord, in opposition to all men, without any saving or exception : “contra omnes homines fidelitatem fecit b.” Land held by this exalted species of fealty was called feudum ligium, a liege fee; the vassals homines ligii, or liege men : and the sovereign their dominus ligius, or liege lord. And when sovereign princes did homage to each other, for lands held under their respective sovereignties, a distinction was always made between simple homage, which was only an acknowledgment of tenure c ; and liege homage, which included the fealty before mentioned, and the services consequent upon it.
Homage, on the other hand, only made its appearance when the relation became one of land as well as of persons. It was the recognition of service due to the lord, not merely as superior, but as the ‘giver’ of a benefice or fee (the giver of the estate)… When the tenant had thus professed himself to be the man of his superior or lord, the next consideration was concerning the service, which, as such, he was bound to render (Homage is his Bond, Fealty is his oath)
Under feudal law, homage was the ceremonial acknowledgment by a vassal of allegiance to his lord of whom he held land or whose over lordship he accepted. The act of homage was construed to be the confirmation by the lord of the vassal’s own rights. (They have signed a bond, as a ceremonial acknowledgment of their allegiance to the landlord).
CONFIRMATION, contracts, conveyancing. 1. A contract by which that which was voidable, is made firm and unavoidable… You confirm their bond by accepting it, making it unavoidable that they act in your best interest. Not doing so by them would be considered perjury, or better said heresy.
So where does that leave us?
By accepting his bond and oath, God is now his witness and judging his actions that he will do his utmost for the Landlord (people) that has just accepted it, and puts up his Bond to do so; (as well as risk the sin of Heresy (Perjury) for not)… and they know how the Jesuits feel about Heretics.
The ACT OF HOMAGE is completed when you accept his oath and bond, and he is “now your man”. You make a verbal contact with him, when you accept the oath and bond he has taken, he is your man, and his rights (the right of use of the Bond, so serve in the Public) have been confirmed
YOU HAVE TO ACCEPT THE SERVANTS OATH and BOND, before it becomes unavoidable. From the Cop that just pulled you over, to the magistrate sitting on the bench, to the prison warden holding your loved ones, to the CFO of the Bank trying to Foreclose on you… ACCEPT THEIR OATH, and Bond, then lay down the LAW…
Be warned, having accepted their oath, you cannot “Charge” them with anything, unless they do not fulfill their duties… These are Your Vassals, to do the Kings work, so why would you charge them? Once you accept their oath and bond, these Vassals are required to act as your consultants in your affairs, for your best interest… You just have to Ask!… And if they waver, ask them to call a superior, soon enough you will find someone high enough in the pyramid that will know exactly what you are talking about.
Lastly on the point of oaths, and bonds… These Offices that other Men act in (coroner, Judge, Governor), came as part of the Estate by your will, (your B.C.), they are offices from you to them, they are “your offices” of your nation state, for your benefit.
No, I haven’t done it yet, like I said above I have a couple of other things to figure out… however the more I think about it, the sooner I’ll do it, and this exercise was as much for me as information for you.
However if you have any controversy to deal with in the PUBLIC, this will work, it’s all lawful, using their definitions of words, and Blackstone’s Commentaries on English Law Books I and II as a study guide. You can download these books at http://openlibrary.org/. I picked one that was edited in 1916 but there are many others… These later versions use more common language (it’s the law of common law to as much as possible use common language of the day)… and have added comments from other Common Law authorities. Or use the link I gave at the top …
You can fill out another affidavit, send reply letters, use the UCC as your guide, and seem to keep them at bay, until they come back again… or instead of saying….
“I’m here today as the Secured party creditor…and I conditionally accept your offer”…
Say: “We the trinity of mind, body and spirit, created in the image of God, here as the Tribunal of the Court of Record, accept your oath and bond to be my man”… (or accept your oath and bond to the office you hold)… “The court of record is now open”. Then tell them your “wish”… the kings will;… and let the Vassals go to work…
Common law requires a trial in open court; “open court” means a court to which the public has a right to be admitted. This term may mean either a court that has been formally convened and declared open for the transaction of its proper judicial business or a court that is freely open to spectators.
I think the above could mean that you need to do your business with the officer in front of you, not with paper. That might come later, but first you need to walk in the valley in the shadow of death, and fear no evil.
The reality is this: you are King; they are the vassal. What kind of King will you be? For once you step out of the public and into the private you are no longer under the jurisdiction of a Court of Justice. Nope, now you have to answer to the Court of Conscience….
Fully developed by 17th-century European theology, the concept of the Court Of Conscience held that one’s conscience would testify for or against one’s actions in life after death. During life, the faculty of conscience was like, but not the same as, the voice of God. It drew on divine knowledge and precepts, and applied these laws in order to direct the individual toward right action and warn against wrong action. After life, the function of conscience was that of a record—animated, if you will—that would speak to a divine tribunal, in judgment for or against you. Even if one’s conscience was or seemed dormant (inactive, flawed, ‘seared’, asleep, etc.) during one’s life—as was said to be the case in the worst of villains — it came fully to life with a perfect and true memory of all one’s actions before God.
Retrieved from “http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Court_of_Conscience”
You may get called into the Court of Conscience for not being a King of peace, bringing harmony to the dual system outlined by the Bible. And the only way to bring peace to the system is for you as King to forgive. After all “forgiveness is the only claim upon which relief can be granted”…
There is no need to go to war; the system is overwhelmingly weighted in your favor as a King of a self governing nation with no subjects. (But “they” are your servants)…
If you’ve read this far, thanks for the interest… It may seem like a lot to take in and foreign in many ways but ponder it for a while go to the links at the top, and just read what they say with the idea that you are a Trinity, and Landlord, that your body is a nation… Maybe you’re not ready to go talk to the coroner, yet have a pressing Public issue to deal with today… Then let’s take that… after all you have to learn to crawl, before you can walk!…
The lower level of the pyramid knows nothing about this, not surprising because if they did, they wouldn’t participate. So a traffic cop or other entry level employee may not have any idea what you’re talking about. And that is our fault. They are not the enemy, they are our brothers, misguided and taught falsehoods same as us… So don’t threaten them, or charge them, inform them.
Same with attorneys (Esq.), when the Jesuits took over education they set up today’s modern universities and colleges. In their “law schools” they only teach Civil Law (statute law)… They mentioned common law, but taught Civil Law …incidentally all codified inferior law has its roots in Canon Law (Civil, Statute, Code etc…)
Blackstone notes this in his commentaries, and what it would mean in the future… They could see it in the 17th century, and no one paid attention.
Anyway some ideas on different situations you may need to deal with now… First and foremost if you screw up, and get double minded thinking they have jurisdiction over you be comforted with this, a King can never lose his prerogative, and you can always regroup… Robert Bork said in his Supreme Court confirmation hearing that “all persons in prison volunteered to be there”… they consented to jurisdiction… Never, never consent to their jurisdiction! I have a little experience dealing with the public using these ideas that I retell at the end of this document. But here is what I might do given the circumstances.
Routine traffic stop… (No one injured)…
Cop… License, registration, and proof of insurance… or Do you know why I am stopping you…whatever his opening line…
You… Forgive me officer, you seem to have me confused with a person, I am not a person I am a people, a trinity of mind, body and spirit, created in the image of God. Before you make a mistake I am obligated to inform you that you have no jurisdiction over people, only over persons.
Cop… What the heck are you talking about;… are you some kind of wise guy (you are), give me your license, registration, and insurance or I’m going to arrest you…
You… Brother I have no desire to charge you with bringing a controversy into my life. If you do not understand what I have told you, then for your own protection go to your car and contact a magistrate, and ask them if you have any jurisdiction over an immortal living soul. Your ignorance of the law is no excuse, and if you presist I’ll be forced to arrest the bond of the franchise your represent.
Cop… I’ll give you one more chance to cooperate.
You… Very well, than on and for the record, I accept your oath and bond for the office you occupy, and that of your superiors. I am the tribuanl of the Court of Record, and I order you to immediately return to your vehicle and leave me in peace. If you refuse, then bring your superior before me, so I can lay down the law.
(Who knows what will happen)…
You… Calling the investigator or see their “person”… Forgive me for my dumb mindedness till this point. As you can imagine it can be difficult to distinguish fiction from reality. But after much soul searching I found it. I am an immortal living soul created in the Image of God, and I ask… why are you charging your brother? Why are you causing controversy and disturbing the peace?
IRS… I don’t know what you are talking about…
You… maybe you do, maybe you don’t… maybe your testing me… Whatever you motive I can see where my past might lead you to believe that I am the Taxpayer. But for the record, I am the trinity of body, mind, and spirit, here today as one of the people, and your overlord. You are a servant of the people, and if you continue to disturb the peace, and fail to uphold your oath and bond to the landlords who control your existence I’ll find you in contempt of the Court of Record with final jurisdiction. As my man my wish is that you balance the books by the end of the day and remove the controversy.
IRS …. Are you threatening the IRS?…
You… I cannot threaten a fiction, and I’m cautioning you not to violate your oath and bond… If you do not understand my orders to you, then for your own protection you are to contact a high magistrate of your Tax Court for guidance, and by the end of the day confirm to me that the books have been balanced.
You… From the gallery… “We the trinity of mind, body, and spirit, here today as the tribunal of ‘The Court of Record, with final jurisdiction”, accept your oath and bond, and order that “this court” (their court), has no jurisdiction in this matter. All originals are to be handed over to the Tribunal, and all copies are to be stricken from the Public Record… Magistrare, would it be more comfortable for you if we did this in your chambers?
(I don’t care why you’re going to court… foreclosure, Tax, traffic, civil or criminal, you have final jurisdiction as the court of record with access to the prerogative writs only available to the sovereign… check them out sometime.)… You can demand all originals, tell their court they have no jurisdiction, etc… They never have personal jurisdiction over you, unless you consent… be a people not a person!!…
You are a people, and they have no jurisdiction over people, simple as that… If you attempt using this info and feel yourself slipping just go back to that… What jurisdiction do you have over people?
That is the only issue you are interested in, no matter where they want to take it, it’s your parachute. They either produce the claim showing jurisdiction over a people, or leave me now in peace.
There is no need to go to war with them, and if you are now, stop… Forgive yourself because you didn’t know better. Now you do, so move ahead, and stop looking back. Make them “your man” to administer your orders.. It’s why they took the oath and bond in the first place.
Ok, not sure where to go next with this other than put it to the test. Having put it in words has helped me get closer to the inner peace I’m looking for before acting. I have experience in less involved settings with some of this, little test that I asked for (careful what you ask for).. Great learning experiences… I’ll share them below, but for the particular question of accepting their oath, the court of record adjourns!!
This final leg of the journey got started in earnest for me a little over a year ago… the year prior to that was mostly listening to a few talk shoes and reading others work. But things really started to get tough economically for me.
10 years before I owned a company with 12 employees, and offered a needed service in the economy of the time. Slowly over time what had been a pride of mine to belong to became an anchor around my neck. Driving me deeper and deeper into a unwanted seclusion. Watching the world go by, wondering just what the hell had happened, blaming everyone self included. Year after year, worse then before. I had gotten so far behind in Child Support that I was arrested once, paid enough to get out, the amount went up again, and bingo, another warrant is issued… Paid that one down… then bingo again… another warrant… still on the books…
To the point that about a year and a half ago I asked the creator to show me the truth and I would not look away… Just show me which way to go. His answer apparently was a solid 8 months of no work. At the time I was less than 60 days from being broke, so it was a heck of a ride…
But I used that time as wisely as I felt I could… I listened to many more talk shoes, or Creditors in Commerce audios, Jean Keating, Rod Class, Dave Mack, Angela, Batman, and many, many others. Along with that was learning to distinguish between legal and lawful, be it a definition or explanation. 8, 10 or more hours a day… listen, read, contemplate…
Finally toward the end of this era, every “utility” or service was within 30 days of being shut off. The rent was 6 months past due, car needed work… and…and…and…
So I did my first A4V… with the IRS… I had them send me a list of all the outstanding charges against the Name (about $150,000) Accepted the top copy for value, placed my red thumb print on it and the rest, made up a blank money order, and a simple contract and sent it in.. Basically if I don’t hear back by affidavit or you’ll keep my money order then we have a binding contract, and the debt is settled…
Off it went… didn’t hear back… Considered it over… So what next… How about the Utility and Service companies… But this time I used some information from Jean Keating and others… that by the UCC it was a Mistake in fact that they be charging me… That in fact the coupon they sent monthly and wanted returned with payment, was in fact the payment from the Estate to settle the debt. And that the payments I had sent were done as a mistake in fact. That it appeared to me that this coupon was set aside by them in an escrow account attached to the Account holder (Mr. All CAPs), that they claimed after 3 years as abandoned property. I presumed this to be the case, and therefore they were to pay the outstanding debt out of these funds in escrow and send me a check for the remainder… In the mean time if I did not receive a rebuttal by affidavit and the service was to be cutoff, which they agreed to compensate me $5,000,000 prior to termination of service. These went to the CFO’s …
I did this with 5 different accounts, and only one responded, the Electric utility…
Their first response was on a “blank” sheet of paper not company letter head, no signature, only the company name spelled in all caps at the bottom… it was a one line reply.
“To avoid an interruption in service, please pay in legal tender”.
I replied to this, thanking them for accepting the offer as sent to them, as they had not responded by affidavit within the allotted time, and we therefore had and agreement, and now a binding contract. Please send me the remainder of the funds from the escrow account.
Their reply… again on blank paper…
Your letters are meaningless, to avoid an interruption in service, please pay in legal tender…
So I asked myself what is legal tender… (I had an idea, but I wanted to see it from end to end)… after some research, it came down to my belief that I could make up my own money order and send it to them. It’s what I did with the IRS, and 2 months later the IRS hadn’t broken down my door yet.
So I sent them a money order for $2,000 for a $450.00 bill, and said here is your legal tender, monetize it, settle the debt and send me a check for the remainder. If they did not return it to me with in 7 days I considered the debt settled, and would be paying future debts the same way, and in the mean time send me my check for the remainder…
There reply to that was much thicker…
Out comes the company letter head, with titles, signatures etc… but what they sent me was a CC copy of what they had sent to the assistant federal prosecutor… they were recommending to the prosecutor that he might want to investigate an apparent counterfeit money order (they had apparently sent the original to the prosecutor). And … and … and … Things are going to a different level… but after a couple of day I decided to handle it this way…
I wrote my reply to the prosecutor, and CC to the utility… I told him I felt it my obligation to inform him that what the utility had sent them, if the same as they had sent me was not a complete copy of our contract. And since his involvement would be as a 3rd party intervener, and I did not want to compromise him into that position I could not send him an entire copy, but he should demand it from the Utility.
However if he decided to further the investigation I demanded his affidavit stating his authority over a private contract, and how any statute overrode the maxims of law, or the UCC. Further if the utility claimed to send him the original, then why the Board of Directors of the Utility should not be charged for counterfeiting a negotiable instrument, as they had sent me one… copy attached.
Out it went, and till this day 7 months later I have never heard from the Federal prosecutor office.. at least directly… more on that later… and nothing else from the Utility until…
About day 86 since last payment I get a knock on the door at about 8 AM… I open it to find a short squat hard hat wearing, scuffed booted, clipboard carrying Utility representative… “Are you MR All Caps…?” Who are you? … I’m from consumers and here to turn off your power… … Did you bring a check? (remember the $5,000,000)… What are you talking about she says…
I said I have a private contract with your corporation, and seeing as how you represent them I guess you want to be an interested party, let me get you a copy of the agreement… (in an envelope over the meter)… You can’t sue me she says… I not going to sue you I said, I’m going to lien all the interested parties to the contract if I do not get my check before the power is interrupted, so here is your copy, you might want to go to your truck and read it…
You can’t threaten me… “They” say you’re suing the CFO for counterfeiting”… I’m not suing anyone, I have a private contact, if I need to I may lien someone’s bond, but I’m not suing anyone…
So as she was headed to her truck, I made a mad dash to the kitchen to get a pot of coffee brewing, as I had no idea what would happen next… but a couple of minutes later I looked out and she was gone… Hey this shit does work!!!
Or it did till the next day, when about the same time, her and her boss show up and without knocking get ready to do their business. Hey I said, who are you? Consumers Energy and we are turning off your power… Got any ID? I don’t have to show you an ID he said; It’s for our protection…
What do you mean you don’t have to show ID, you’re a public employee, and you do not have to show ID? Consumers is a private corporation… No I said, it’s a public utility regulated by the government, making you a public servant, are you refusing to identify yourself? He said nothing …
How about you I said to the girl… Hey I’m just doing my job… No I said, you’re a stranger trespassing on my property, and I guess I need to call the sheriff… I went to get the phone, just started dialing when she pulled the plug, and I lost the dial tone… (I have Vonage)… and off they went, 2 days before thanksgiving… leaving me in the soon to be dark…
Long story shorter… for the next 10 days I lived with out electricity, and had to use the library to “write” a couple of judges, and the Director of the IRS Criminal Investigation Division… asking for the fraud to be looked into… but with no apparent change after 10 days, I relented to my moms concerns and had the power turned back on … and time for the next chapter…
I had no other replies from any providers, (I had sent out 3 other money orders as an attempt to pay with legal tender)…
Soon after power was restored, Jean Keating was on a number of talk shoes, and he kept mentioning IRS Manual 6209, in which is shows among other things what class tax applies to every IRS form or publication… and can you believe it, all W-2’s and 1099’s are considered “Class 5 Gift Tax” , further if you asked for your IMF (Individual Master File) it would show that most people are not required to fill out a 1040… (It’s really not the right form for Gift tax… I think its 706 and 709)…
But by “mistake of fact” we have put it down on the income line of a 1040 form… The UCC says once a mistake of fact is recognized it voids any contract the mistake is part of… So I wrote the IRS claimed mistake of fact for the Taxpayer, and asked for an audit from the inception of the taxpayer, to correct the mistake of fact, and return any notes or securities that may have been sent do to mistake in fact, including any unjust enrichment they may have produced…
No reply… so in early January I was deciding what to try next… and was inspired to write the Inspector General of the Treasury, pointing out the apparent fraud of the IRS… I think I just did it via email through the Treasury Website…
About 10 days later I got a call, and it was game on… A special agent of the Inspector General of the Treasury called me… and asked was I Mr. All caps… I asked, who is asking… and he gave his name and title… for now we will call him John. I said John, I represent the name you mentioned, but no, it is not me; how can I help you…
You sent an email to the IG, and we are not sure what you are asking, is there any chance we can meet to discuss it… Well thanks for calling I said, sure when would you like to meet? John said, how about tomorrow at the federal building, I’m out of town today but will be back then… He said the town he was in, so I said, well John, your driving right by address of the taxpayer, why not just stop in…
Well I guess I could he said, but it would be more convenient if you went to my office… But John I said, who is getting paid to do this? Well Ok he says, it’s not that big of deal how about 10 am… Ok I said; any idea how long this will take… Oh could be 5 minutes could be a half an hour…
Ok then, call me when you get close and I’ll make sure I’m here.
Next day about 5 after 10 the phone rings, and John says… hey … my partner needed to use the restroom so we stopped at the diner just down the road, how about meeting us here for a cup of coffee.. (realizing their concern of running into a nutter I said sure, be down in about 10 minutes)…
The diner is less than ¼ mile away so I decided to walk, give myself the think of what I would say, and calm my spirit a bit.. It was a cold, crisp, blue sky winter day in Michigan, glad I walked… cause during the walk I decided on my opening line… something I had heard on a talk shoe..
I walk in looking for 2 guys in suits… don’t see any… hmmmmm… then a guy in the corner stands up and says … Bob!! And there is a table with one guy and 3 cups of coffee… (I guess his partner has a weak bladder because he was still in the restroom)… So as I reached the table and John stood up I took his hand and said.. Some think that shaking another’s hand is a sign of consenting to jurisdiction, but for the record, that is not so in this case”
That lit up Johns eyes… he said, is that so… but cannot 2 men extend each other pleasantries? Yes John 2 men can, but not 2 persons… As I was sitting down, and saying So John how can I help you? A person crossed behind me and took the other chair…
Now both treasury agents are sitting, one John about my age, early 50’s and a young guy maybe late 20’s… and John says to his partner what I had said to him when I sat down… to which he said “really”.
John gave me his business card, and said, so what is it you are asking the IG to do, and then handed me a copy of the email I had sent the IG.. I said well look, I’m just a peaceful inhabitant, and represent the Trust MR ALL CAPS… It came to my attention that by mistake of fact the wrong IRS forms have been filled out for the taxpayer, and I just want to set the record straight.
He had a copy of what I had sent to the IRS, and said so this is the document you are talking about.. Well John, it’s more than a document, it’s a contract in the private, and by the UCC it is now a binding contract, but I have not heard from the IRS..
But you don’t have a signature on it he says… Sure I do, and pointed out my thumb print… on the original its in Red I told him… Where is the date? Only persons use dates, its part of their system. This was sent by a man, and a man has no calendar.
Then he shifted to how was it that I came to believe the things I was saying… I said by listening to other people, and doing my own research… He said people like…@@@@@ . I said sorry he is not familiar to me; who is he?… John said, he is in federal prison for tax evasion.
Well John, I’m not evading taxes, they do not apply to me… they may apply to the TAXPAYER, but that is not me, I just represent him.. however as I pointed out I just want to set the record straight with the IRS but they refuse to respond, have not sent a rebuttal by affidavit as required, and therefore agree with me, so how can I be avoiding anything?
Then we went into where I grew up, what my parents did, did I have brothers and sisters, what I did for work etc… I answered them all, then said, but John, you already know all this or could.
This chit chat got us through our first cup of coffee, then early in the 2nd it got interesting… He asked me had I done any other letters, or things. I said matter of fact John I have, I have sent out a number of private contracts under international law, none have been returned or rebutted by affidavit, and are therefore now binding on the recipients yet they refuse to follow the contract. Can you help with that?
Like what he says, what did you send them… so I told him the whole story about the electric utility… So you sent them a money order he said,… well not me… my natural person did… Mr. Signature…
Then he said… is this it here, and reached into a manila envelope and pulled out one of various pieces of paper in it… It happened to be the “money order” to the utility and the letter they had sent to the Federal prosecutor. So as he is handing it to me I’m thinking… hmmm wonder where this is headed… but to late to turn back…
So I took it, looked it over, looked John in the eye, and said, No John this is not mine, this is a counterfeit copy of mine, mine has a blue ink signature, and since it was never returned, it was accepted as payment, when you get back to your office can you ask this prosecutor to inquire with the utility why they are again threatening me with another interruption in power? And handed it back to him…
For one of the few times the young guy spoke up… so you’re saying this is a counterfeit copy? Sure I said, look at it, it is a full size copy of a negotiable instrument. If I did that with a dollar bill would it not be illegal… He said so what is the stamp for on the bottom of the letter to the prosecutor? I said that puts it under the UPU, in international law, and out of your jurisdiction. Then he went quiet again…
So what account and bank is it drawn against John asked… here… this is the account number (I pointed to the SSN without dashes) and this is the bank… (Treasury of the United States of America)…
John changed gears a little… so what did you do when they came and turned your power off? You mean after they reneged on our contract… well John it was 2 days before Thanksgiving, and my kids were coming over for diner, so I spent most the first 2 days making other arrangements… But after a long holiday weekend without power, the only option left seemed to be to Lien the Board of Trustees as specified in the contract… but in my heart that didn’t seem correct. If I lien the CFO I am affecting his family and they haven’t done anything to me… so I sent letters to a couple of Judges, and CID of the IRS… None of it leads to anything so under pressure from my family I relented and paid the bill…
John said, well the money order is for $2,000, how much was your bill… Well the bill was about $450.00 but I hadn’t worked in a while and needed some extra cash… John say’s from the utility company? I said why not, there just a bank, they monetize the coupon they send me, why not this?
Have you done any other Money orders…? Yeah, couple of 3, but they were ignored also…
John says: You know Bob, many people are in prison for sending similar things… I said John, I respectfully disagree, there are no people in prison, only persons, if they knew they were a people they would be out immediately as you have no jurisdiction over people.
You not worried about being arrested? John says… No John, you can’t arrest me, I’m not a commodity. You could send 12 men, trespass on my property, destroy my house, shoot my dog, scare my kids, and kidnap me… but you cannot arrest me… I am not a person, and you have no jurisdiction…
Next thing I know we are getting our 3rd cup of coffee, some idle chit-chat …
So where do you live… (A) I live in this vessel provided by the Creator. But you walked over here from somewhere else…(A)… I sometimes harbor my vessel at a local residence, but I never leave the vessel.
What do you consider yourself… (A) … Well I used to consider myself a homo-sapiens, but the dictionary is so corrupted that now Homo means servant, and I am not a servant wise man.
Are you not a servant of God? (A), I think that’s a bad choice of words, we all have a spark of God in us, and I was created in his image, I think that makes me a child of God, not a servant of god, and since I am male in form, I guess I am a Son of God…
Do you consider yourself a Christian…? (A) Again, I guess it depends on the definition… but for the record there is only one creator, God… and who knows how many religions… I choose the simple route and just go directly to the creator.
Do you talk to God…? (A) All the time… bunch of times since I sat down with you…
Anyway eventually the young gun goes the restroom again… when he was gone, John says to me… “I have been at this for over 15 years, and yours is the most intelligent explanation of why someone believes the way he does”… That’s comforting to here John, but it doesn’t give me a remedy… can you help me with that? Like what he says…
How about the bank? Nope, How about the utilities? Nope, can you tell me what you can help me with? Nope! Ok, then I’ll quit asking.
So after his partner returned, and a little more idle talk John said, so what are you going to do next…? Not sure John, like I said I have a problem with liens. There has to be an easier way, and I’ll keep looking for it… Not sure exactly what it is, except that it will have to do with ordering it done, not requesting.
I could tell the conversation was coming to an end, so I asked John a question… John, like I said, I have a dog, and often one or more of my kids are over for the night. I don’t want them scared, or my dog shot, so is there any reason for me to worry about being kidnapped anytime soon…, because if so you are hereby noticed that I will go peacefully, without need of a militaristic response from the Public…
He looked at his young partner and said… I know I’ll take shit all the way to the office from him, for acting like a social worker, but in this case I’d have to say no, you do not have to worry. Unless you keep sending money orders, or put a lien on someone… No John I’m done with that, next time you might hear from me is when I figure out how to order it done, not request it…
Then that’s good enough he said, and we have to get going to our next appointment… We all stood up, shook hand, and went our separate ways… that was in January; and here in May I’m putting the final touches on my comprehension to see if I can make that happen… Just order it done, and always remember I am a people, and they have no jurisdiction…
In closing, and not to be boastful but to offer hope… the agent actually told me 3 different time how intelligent my explanations were… that has to mean something… On top of that by their rules they had the evidence to arrest me… if I was under their jurisdiction… heck I told them what I had done… so either they had no jurisdiction, or they aided the escape of a felon… Warrant for back child support, A4V of IRS issues, Money orders off my printer… come on… Did they let me go, or do they not have jurisdiction.
That’s why I write things like this and put it out there… I want them to know me… I am a people and they have no jurisdiction. I do not want to disturb the peace, so try to gain the knowledge necessary not to have to charge anyone, simply order it done… Good luck to everyone and see you on the other side.