Statutes (Attempting To Sell The Statute) part 2
GOVERNMENT AGENT ACTING AS THE STATUTE MERCHANT
Whatever the form in which the Government functions, anyone entering into an arrangement with the Government takes the risk of having accurately ascertained that he who purports to act for the Government stays within the bounds of his authority. The scope of this authority may be explicitly defined by Congress or be limited by delegated legislation, properly exercised through the rule-making power. And this is so even though, as here, the agent himself may have been unaware of the limitations upon his authority.See, e.g.,Utah Power & Light Co. V. United States, 243 U.S. 389 (1917) 409, 391; United States V. Stewart, 311 U.S. 60 (1940) 70, 108, and see, generally, In re: The Floyd Acceptances, 7 Wall 666 (1868)
NEITHER THE FOR PROFIT GOVERNMENT NOR THE STATUTE MERCHANT/AGENT HAS ACCESS TO SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY
As a member of a corporation, a government never exercises its sovereignty. It acts merely as a corporator, and exercises no other power in the management of the affairs of the corporation, than are expressly given by the incorporating act. Suits brought by or against it are not understood to be brought by or against the United States. The government, by becoming a corporator, lays down its sovereignty, so far as respects the transaction of the corporation, and exercises no power or privilege which is not derived from the charter.);United States of America v. Georgia-pacific Company, 421 F.2d 92
Government may also be bound by the doctrine of equitable estoppel if acting in proprietary [for profit nature ] rather than sovereign capacity); the “Savings to Suitor Clause” is also available for addressing mercantile and admiralty matters aka “civil process” at the common law.
THE SECURED NATURAL RIGHT IS ASSURED
His rights are such as existed by 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 a refusal to incriminate himself, and the immunity of himself and his property from arrest or seizure except under a warrant of law. He owes nothing to the public so long as he does not trespass upon their rights. On 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 powers are limited by law. It can make no contract not authorized by 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 power.);
THE PRIVATE INSOLVENT STATUTE CANNOT UNILATERALLY APPLY TO THE BIOLOGICAL MAN OR WOMAN ABSENT VOLUNTARY ACCEPTANCE
“Courts enforcing your [municipal] statutes do not act judicially but merely ministerally, having thus no judicial immunity and unlike courts of lawdo not obtain jurisdiction by service of process nor even arrest and compelled appearance.”Boswell’s Lessee v. Otis, 50 U.S. 336 (1850)
THE CLEARFIELD DOCTRINE IS CONTROLLING AS REGARDS GOVERNMENT AS A PRIVATE PARTY
When Government is reduced to the Standing of a Private Party by their own election to proceed privately in commerce . . . and any presentment or offer of process and thereby commercial transaction becomes a taxable event and the presenter/transferor is required to execute an IRS Form W-9 surrendering his or her Social Security number so that the transaction may be reported to the IRS on Form 1099-OID as a tax liability assignable to the presenter of the instrument.
Whereas, once the bill is assessed on the 1040-V, the agency is forced into a tax loss write-off and all of the agencies forward sales contracts / agreements (which includes all bonds & securities) are accelerated into time to maturity where the agency on down becomes null & void. Does this not include the court itself? Case in point: HUD contracts (forward sales) with the property management company MC&B, which then contracts with the law firm (forward sales), which contracts with the Court (forward sales) and both appear to employ coercive policies to achieve their commercial scheme to intentionally extort the available credit. The court and the agencies are themselves a private business and thereby, the forward sales includes said court and becomes just as much a moot point as all other forward sales since this process comes within the Clearfield doctrine to wit:
“As the use of private corporate commercial negotiable paper, debt currency or [Federal Reserve notes] securities [checks] Bonds Vouchers and the like is concerned, said use, removes the sovereignty status of the government and reduces said government to doing business as a private entity, rather than a government in the area of finance and commerce. This circumstance causes the government to move in commerce the same as a corporation or person. “Whereas, Governments descend to the level of a mere private corporation and take on the characteristics of a mere private citizen . . . And thereby; the “entity” known as the [OREGON STATE POLICE/TROOPERS or other TRAFFIC CONTROL OFFICERS in “this state” cannot compel [unilateral] performance upon nor contract its insolvent statute or rules unless it, like any other corporation or person is the holder-in-due course of some (certifiable) contract or [known] commercial agreement between it and the party upon whom the payment and performance are made and thereby, willing to produce said documents and place the same in evidence before trying to enforce its demands called statutes”. For purposes of suit, such corporations and individuals are regarded as entities entirely separate from government.”Clearfield Trust Co. v United States, 318 U.S. 363, (1943) Bank of United States V. Planters’ Bank of Georgia, 22 U.S. (9 Wheat.) 904 (1824)
NOTE: Any form of license is not a contract, but a mere unilateral waiver of a “natural right” to accept to be regulated in commerce and is usually achieved by fraud in the inducement on the part of the state of the forum aka “this state” through its law merchant commissioners masquerading as a judiciary.
LEGISLATURES CANNOT INFRINGE NATURAL RIGHT
Robin v. Hardaway,
1 Jefferson 109, 114, 1 Va. Reports Ann. 58, 61 (1772) aff’d. Gregory v. Baugh, 29 Va. 681, 29 Va. Rep. Ann. 466, 2 Leigh 665 (1831) (Now all acts of the legislature apparently contrary to natural right and justice, are, in our laws, and must be in the nature of things, considered as void.The laws of nature are the laws of God; whose authority can be superseded by no power on earth. A legislature must not obstruct our obedience to him from whose punishments they cannot protect us. All human constitutions which contradict his laws, we are in conscience bound to disobey. Such have been the adjudications of our courts of justice. And cited 8 Co. 118. a. Bonham’s case. Hob. 87; 7. Co. 14. a. Calvin’s case.);
Dr. Bonham’s Case,
8 Coke’s Reports 107, at 118 (1610) ([I]n many cases, the common law will control acts of parliament, and sometimes adjudge them to be utterly void: for when an act of parliament is against common right and reason, or repugnant, or impossible to be performed, the common law will control it, and adjudge such to be void.); aff’d. Robin v. Hardaway,1 Jefferson 109, 114, 1 Va. Reports Ann. 58, 61 (1772);Tumey v. Ohio, 273 U.S. 510 (1927) 524
The thing speaks for itself {Res ipsa loquitur};
1.Natural Right. . . (Recognized by “this state” as Paramount to the statute and the natural law is controlling) BACKGROUND GOING TO THE PRESUMPTIVE AND FRAUDULENT “UNILATERAL” ENFORCEMENT OF THE WHOLLY ELECTIVE CITATION AFTER THE SOVEREIGNS REFUSAL TO CONTRACT WITH THE AGENT/LAW MERCHANT.
SIMULATING LEGAL PROCESS
ORS 162.355[1971 c.743 s.210; 1997 c.395 s.1] (Simulating legal process) (1) A person commits the crime of simulating legal process if the person knowingly issues or delivers to another person any document that in form and substance falsely simulates civil or criminal process. (2) As used in this section: (a) “Civil or criminal process” means a document or order, including, but not limited to, a summons, lien, complaint, warrant, injunction, writ, notice, pleading or subpoena, that is issued by a court or that is filed or recorded for the purpose of: (A) Exercising jurisdiction; (B) Representing a claim against a person or property; (C) Directing a person to appear before a court or tribunal; or (D) Directing a person to perform or refrain from performing a specified act. (b) “Person” has the meaning given that term in ORS 161.015, except that in relation to a defendant, “person” means a human being, a public or private corporation, an unincorporated association or a partnership. (3) Simulating legal process is a Class C felony.
NATURAL RIGHT IS TO PREVAIL OVER THE STATUTE
1. Where a statute is equally susceptible of two interpretations,one in favor of natural right and the other against it, the former [natural right] is to prevail.
2.Standing. . . (On God’s Land) (Not to be treated as occupying the “airs space above” the land. See: ORS 131.205 to 131.235 below.
3.Omission. . . (Of the implementing regulation dates of the regulatory statute [displayed within brackets], recognizing the statute as a for profit private copy right law and unenforceable absent knowing acceptance and related quid pro quo consideration.)
4.Contract. . . (A Secured Right that Cannot be Infringed). “Contract” is acknowledged as applicable under the Uniform Commercial Code and contract goes first and foremost to full disclosure and the right of choice upon full disclosure at Chapter 71- UCC Section 71.1030.
Oregon Statutes – Chapter 71 – General Provisions for Uniform Commercial Code – Section 71.1030 – Supplementary general principles of law applicable.
Unless displaced by the particular provisions of the Uniform Commercial Code, the principles of law and equity, including the law merchant and the law relative to capacity to contract, principal and agent,estoppel, fraud, misrepresentation, duress, coercion, mistake, bankruptcy, or other validating or invalidating cause shall supplement its provisions. [1961 c.726 §71.1030]
Fraud will not be entertained under the law merchant and thereby, the agent cannot contract the statute by use of Fraud in the Inducement:“… as such fraud is intended to and which does cause one to execute an instrument, or make an agreement… The misrepresentation involved does not mislead one as the paper he signs but rather misleads as to the true facts of a situation, and the false impression it causes is a basis of a decision to sign or render a judgment”. Source: Steven H. Gifis, ‘Law Dictionary’, 5th Edition, Happauge: Barron’s Educational Series, Inc., 2003, s.v.: ‘Fraud’.
This is the point where “this state[s]” statute merchant “agent” “personally” and in his or her “Individual capacity” pervert the process for and to their own advantage . . . but the law is in place to call said “agent” on their fraud and related extortion, as the natural law will prevail.
1. “This state” recognizes the Natural Right to prevail over the statutes of “this state”, as recognized at ORS Chapter 174: Section 174.030 below.
Oregon Statutes – Chapter 174 – Construction of Statutes; General Definitions – Section 174.030 – Construction favoring natural right to prevail.Where a statute is equally susceptible of two interpretations, one in favor of natural right and the other against it, the former [natural right] is to prevail.
THE CORPORATE STATE EXISTS ONLY IN METAPHYSICAL TERMS
2.”The [de jure] state” acknowledges the Land that you “Stand” on, by addressing that (This [de facto] state, rather than “The state”) exists (APPEARS) in the “airspace” above that land and is not grounded. See: Chapter 131:
ORS 131.205 to 131.235,“this” state” meansthe [fictitious] land and water and the air space abovethe [substantive] Land and Waterwith respect to which “the”State of Oregon[being the land below and on which you are STANDING]has legislative jurisdiction.
Where and How does the Statute Court Acquire Jurisdiction over the Natural Man or Woman?
“This state” through “its” statute courts i.e. civil/admiralty Prize Courts . . . issues “Charges” . . . the charges cannot reach and therefore empower the court until the charges are grounded to complete the (Circuit of that Court). You are on the Ground or the “Grounded” party and if you don’t voluntarily join (go into controversy and respond to the charges), the court is not grounded and has no “power” to move forward . . . As long as you don’t “appear” or stand outside of the BAR, the court is “dis-empowered” to move or issue motion(s) or process . . . the court must be “plugged” into you to LIGHT ITS FICTIONAL FIRE . . . and this is the behind the scenes slight of hand employed to coerce jurisdiction over the natural Man or party . . . such process is held as “Fraud in the Inducement” whereas;
3. “Omission” as noted within the “Government Printing Office Style Manual” (Rules of Style) provides the recognition and distinction between substantive “natural right” and the right of “standing” of the Sovereign Man or Woman and the private copyright law as simply defined in “this state” and as “elective” and thereby coming within the consideration going to the right of “election” to “Contract” or not to “Contract.” (The Government Shall not Infringe the Right of Contract.)
4. “Contract” is acknowledged as applicable under the Uniform Commercial Code and contract goes first and foremost to full disclosure and the right of choice upon full disclosure at Chapter 71:
Oregon Statutes – Chapter 71 – General Provisions for Uniform Commercial Code – Section 71.1030 – Supplementary general principles of law applicable.
Unless displaced by the particular provisions of the Uniform Commercial Code, the principles of law and equity, including the law merchant and the law relative to capacity to contract, principal and agent, estoppel,fraud,misrepresentation, duress, coercion, mistake, bankruptcy, or other validating or invalidating cause shall supplement its provisions. [1961 c.726 §71.1030]
Fraud will not be entertained under the law merchant and thereby, the agent cannot contract the statute by use of Fraud in the Inducement: “… as such fraud is intended to and which does cause one to execute an instrument, or make an agreement… The misrepresentation involved does not mislead one as the paper he signs but rather misleads as to the true facts of a situation, and the false impression it causes is a basis of a decision to sign or render a judgment”.Source: Steven H. Gifis, ‘Law Dictionary’, 5th Edition, Happauge: Barron’s Educational Series, Inc., 2003, s.v.: ‘Fraud’.
This is the point where “this state[s]” statute merchant “agent” “personally” and in his or her “Individual capacity” pervert the process for and to their own advantage . . . but the law is in place to call said “agent” on their fraud and related extortion, as well as the natural law to wit: “The people, or sovereign are not bound by general words in statutes, restrictive of prerogative right, title or interest, unless expressly named.
Acts of limitation do not bind the King or the people. The people have been ceded all the rights of the King, the former sovereign … It is a maxim of the common law, that when an act is made for the common good and to prevent injury, the King shall be bound, though not named, but when a statute is general and prerogative right would be divested or taken from the King [or the people] he shall not be bound.” — The People v. Herkimer, 4 Cowen (NY) 345, 348 (1825):
PRIVATE FOR PROFIT STATUTES ARE INSOLVENT ABSENT JOINDER
- Sed vide: The cause of the church is equal to public cause; and paramount is the reason which makes for religion{Causa ecclesiæ publicis æquiparatur; et summa est ratio quæ pro religione facit; Coke, Litt. 341}; The law of God and the law of the land are all one; and both preserve and favor the common and public good of the land {Le ley de dieu et ley de terre sont tout un; et l’un et l’autre preferre et favour le common et publique bien del terre; Keilw. 191}; No man warring for God should be troubled by secular business {Nemo militans Deo implicetur sccularibus negotiis; Coke, Litt. 70}; The thing speaks for itself {Res ipsa loquitur}; A sacrilegious person transcends the cupidity and wickedness of all other robbers {Sacrilegus omnium prædorum cupiditatem et scelerem superat; 4 Coke, 106}; That is the highest law which favors religion {Summa est lex quæ pro religione facit; 10 Mod. 117, 119; 2 Chanc. Cas. 18}; accord, Fiction yields to truth {Fictio cedit veritati}; We can do nothing against truth {Nihil possumus contra veritatem; St. Albans, Doct. & Stu. Dial. 2, c. 6}; He who does not freely speak the truth is a betrayer of the truth {Qui non libere veritatem pronunciat proditor est veritatis}; Suppression of the truth is (equivalent to) the suggestion of what is false {Suppressio veri, suggestio falsi; 23 Barb. N.Y. 521, 525}; Truth, by whomsoever pronounced, is from God {Veritas, a quocunque dicitur, a Deo est}; A greater or superior force; an irresistible force {Vis major}; and that class of authority, reason, custom and usage ad infinitum:
REMEMBER . . . . ALL AGENTS OF “THIS [corporate] STATE” PROCEED IN THE NATURE OF A “LAW MERCHANT” TO OFFER AND THEREBY “SELL” THE “INSOLVENT” STATUTE . . . THE PRIMARY QUESTION IS: “WHAT IS MY CONSIDERATION SHOULD I ACCEPT YOUR OFFER?” DOESEN’T MY CONSIDERATION HAVE TO BE QUID PRO QUO i.e. VALUE FOR VALUE?
Consider the following:
THE USE OF THE HIGHWAYS IS A MATTER OF RIGHT
Oregon Statutes – Chapter 801 – General Provisions and Definitions for Oregon Vehicle Code
– Section 801.305 – “Highway.”
(1) “Highway” means every public way, road, street, thoroughfare and place, including bridges, viaducts and other structures within the boundaries of this state, open, used or intended for use of the general public for vehicles or vehicular traffic as a matter of right.
(2) For the purpose of enforcing traffic offenses contained in the Oregon Vehicle Code, except for ORS 810.230, “highway” includes premises open to the public that are owned by a homeowners association and whose boundaries are contained within a service district established on or before July 1, 2002, under ORS 451.410 to 451.610. [1983 c.338 §51; 2007 c.561 §1]
WHEREAS; ORS 801.305 “Highway”. “Highway” means every public way, road, street, thoroughfare and place, including bridges, viaducts and other structures within the boundaries of “this state”, open, used or intended for use of the general public for vehicles and vehicular traffic as a matter of [natural] right.” Reference: HB 3445 (2007) “Officers duty at a traffic stop, is to issue a citation and leave.
Assuming that officer had reasonable suspicion that defendant was driving under the influence and that investigatory stop of defendant’s vehicle was valid, subsequent seizure of weapons found in vehicle was illegal, where defendant was detained longer than was reasonable and scope of investigation exceeded reason for stop:….” State of Oregon v. Carl Wayne Johnson, CR 89-0008; CA A62045; 106 Or.App. at 371.
The Fourth Amendment “prohibits” unreasonable detention of private citizens without probable cause that the individual detained has or is about to commit a “crime”. You cannot be compelled to produce identification in a “non criminal” setting. Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U.S. 352 (1983)
A “traffic stop” is an administrative stop if not based upon a “crime”. If your automobile does not display a “DOT Number” indicating that it is “for hire” you cannot be stopped for any “non-criminal” infraction. See generally: United States v. Herrera, No. 05-3057 (10th Cir. April 19, 2006) D C No 04-CR-20023-02-JWL).
And if you don’t hold or possess the OREGON “DRIVER” LICENSE, you have not elected to become a “Customer” of the OREGON DMV and thereby, there is no existing nexus to presume you have waived your “Right to Travel” and thereby converted said right into a commercial regulatory privilege which by its nature fails on its face as a matter of law.
UNITED STATES V. HERRON, 87 U. S. 251 (1873) a maxim of the common law, said Savage, C.J., that when an act of Parliament is passed for the public good, as for the advancement of religion and justice or to prevent injury and wrong, the King shall be bound by such act though not named, but when a statute is general and any prerogative, right, title, or interest would be divested or taken from the King, in such a case he shall not be bound unless the statute is made by express words to extend to him, for which he cites both English and American authorities, and adds that the people of the state, being sovereign, have succeeded to the rights of the former sovereign, and that the people of the state are not bound by the general words in the insolvent law.” i.e. the private for profit copyright statute.
Lastly, the Natural Right to Travel:
“U.S. Courts affirm that Citizens have the right to
travel freely on the public right of way”.
For many years Professionals within the criminal justice System have acted upon the belief that traveling by motor vehicle upon the roadway was a privilege that was gained by a citizen only after approval by their respective state government in the form of the issuance of a permit or license to that Particular individual. Legislators, police officers and court officials are becoming aware that there are now court decisions that prove the fallacy of the legal opinion that” driving is a privilege and therefore requires government approval, i.e. a license”. Some of these cases are:
Case # 1 – “Even the legislature has no power to deny to a citizen the right to travel upon the highway and transport his property in the ordinary course of his business or pleasure, though this right may be regulated in accordance with the public interest and convenience. – Chicago Motor Coach v Chicago 169 NE 22
(“Regulated” here means traffic safety enforcement, stop lights, signs, etc. NOT a privilege that requires permission i.e.- licensing, mandatory insurance, vehicle registration, etc.)
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 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 conclusively that Citizens of the states have a right to travel, without approval or restriction, (license,) and that this right is protected under the U.S. Constitution. Here are other court
decisions that expound the same facts:
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 5th Amendment.” Kent v. Dulles, 357 U.S. 116, 125, (1958)
Case # 4 – “Undoubtedly the right of locomotion, the right to remove from one place to another according to inclination, is an attribute of personal Liberty, and the right, ordinarily, of free transit from or through the territory of any State is a right secured by the l4th Amendment and by other provisions of the Constitution.” – Schactman v Dulles, 225 F.2d 938 (1955)
FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT
As hard as it is for those of us in Law enforcement to believe, there is no room for speculation in these court decisions. The American citizen does indeed have the inalienable right to use the roadways unrestricted in any manner as long as they are not damaging or violating property or rights of another.
Government, in requiring the people to file for “drivers Licenses, vehicle registrations, mandatory insurance, and demanding they stop for vehicle inspections, DUI/DWI roadblocks etc. without question, are “restricting”, and therefore violating, the Peoples common law right to travel.
Is this a new legal interpretation on this subject of the right to travel? Apparently not. The American Citizens and Lawmen Association in conjunction with The U.S. Federal Law Research Center are presently involved in studies in several areas involving questions on constitutional law. One of the many areas under review is the area of “Citizens right to travel.” In an interview a spokesmen stated: “Upon researching this subject over many months, substantial case law has presented itself that completely substantiates the position that the “right to travel unrestricted upon the nations highways” is and has always been a fundamental right of every Citizen.”
This means that the “beliefs and opinions” our state legislators, the courts, and those of as involved in the law enforcement profession have acted upon for years have been in error. Researchers armed with actual facts state that U.S. case law is overwhelming in determining that – to restrict, in any fashion, the movement of the individual American in the free exercise of their right to travel upon the roadways, (excluding “commerce” which the state Legislatures are correct in regulating), is a serious breach of those freedoms secured by the U.S. Constitution, and most state Constitutions, i.e – it is Unlawful.
THE REVELATION THAT THE AMERICAN CITIZEN HAS ALWAYS HAD THE INALIENABLE RIGHT TO TRAVEL RAISES PROFOUND QUESTIONS TO THOSE WHO ARE INVOLVED IN MAKING AND ENFORCING UNDER FRAUD IN THE INDUCEMENT, “INSOLVENT” STATE LAWS FOR PROFIT.
The first of such questions may very well be – If the States have been enforcing laws that are unconstitutional on their face, it would seem that there must be some way that a state can legally put restrictions, such as – licensing requirements, mandatory insurance, vehicle registration, vehicle inspections, D.W.I. roadblocks, to name just a few, on a Citizens constitutionally protected right. Is that not so?
For the answer to this question let us look, once again, to the U.S. courts for a determination on this very issue.
The case of Hurtado v. California, 110 U.S. 516 (1884) states very plainly: “The State cannot diminish rights of the people.”
“the assertion of federal rights, when plainly and reasonably made, is not to be defeated under the name of local practice.”-Davis v. Wechsler, 263 U.S. 22,24 (1923)
Would we not say that these judicial decisions are straight to the point – that there is no lawful method for government to put restrictions or Limitations on rights belonging to the people?
Other cases are even more straight forward:
“Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them.” –Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 439 (1966 )
“The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime.· –Miller v. U.S., 230 F.2d 486, 489
“There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of this exercise of Constitutional rights.”-Sherar v. Cullen, 481 F.2d 945 ( There is no question that a citation/ticket issued by a police officer, for no drivers license, no current vehicle registration, no vehicle insurance etc. which carries a fine or jail time, is a penalty or sanction, and is indeed “converting a Right into a crime”.)
We could go on, quoting court decision after court decision, however, In addition, the Constitution itself answers our question- “Can a government legally put restrictions on the rights of the American people at anytime, for any reason”? (Such as in this particular case – when the government believes it to be for the safety and welfare of the people).
The answer is found in ARTICLE SIX of the U.S. Constitution:
“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary not withstanding”. (This tells us that the U.S. Constitution is to be upheld over any state, county, or city Laws that are in opposition to it.)
In the same Article it goes on to say just who it is within our governments that is bound by this Supreme Law:
“The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution;”. – ART. 6 U.S. CONST.
We know that Police officers, are a part of the Executive branch. We are “Executive Officers”.
Article 6 above, is called the SUPREMACY CLAUSE, and it clearly states that, under every circumstance, the above listed officials in these United States must hold this documents tenets supreme over any other laws, regulations, or orders. Every U.S. Police officer knows that they have sworn a oath to the people of our nation that we will not only protect their lives and property, but, that we will uphold, and protect their freedoms and rights under the Supreme laws of this nation, – the U. S. Constitution.
In this regard then, we must agree that those within government that restrict a Citizens rights, (such as restricting the people’s right to travel,) are acting in violation of his or her oath of office and are actually committing a crime against such Citizens. Here’s an interesting question. Is ignorance of these laws an excuse for such acts by officials? If we are to follow the “letter of the law (as we are sworn to do), this places officials that involve themselves in such unlawful acts in an unfavorable legal situation. For it is a felony and federal crime to violate, or deprive citizens of their constitutionally protected rights.
Our system of law dictates the fact that there are only two ways to legally remove a right belonging to the people. These are – #1 – by lawfully amending the constitution, or #2 – by a person knowingly waiving a particular right.
Some of the confusion in our present system has arisen because many millions of people have waived their right to travel “unrestricted” upon the roadways of the states and opted into the jurisdiction of the state for various reasons. Those who have knowingly given up these rights are now legally regulated by state law, the proper courts, and “sworn, constitutionally empowered officers-of-the-law,” and must acquire proper permits, registrations, insurance, etc.
There are basically two groups of people in this category:
#1 – Any citizen that involves themselves in “commerce,” (business for private gain), upon the highways of the state.
Here is what the courts have said about this:
“…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 license which the legislature may grant or withhold at its discretion…” – State v Johnson, 243 P. 1073, 1078.
Other U.S. court cases that confirm and point out the difference between the “right” of the citizen to travel and a government “privilege” are – Barney v Board of Railroad Commissioners; State v City of Spokane, 186 P. 864.; Ex Parte Dickey (Dickey v Davis), 85 S.E. 781.; Teche Lines v Danforth, 12
So.2d 784.
There are numerous other court decisions that spell out the JURISDICTION issue in these two distinctly different activities. However, because of space restrictions we will leave it up to officers to research it further for themselves. (See last page for additional references).
#2 – The second group of citizens that are legally under the jurisdiction of the state is the individual citizen who has voluntarily and knowingly waived their right to travel “unregulated and unrestricted” by requesting placement under such jurisdiction through the acquisition of a state – drivers license, vehicle registration, mandatory insurance, etc. (In other words “by contract only”.)
We should remember what makes this “legal,” and not a violation of the individual’s common law right to travel “unrestricted” is that they knowingly volunteer, freely, by contract, to waive their right. If they were forced, coerced or unknowingly placed under the States powers, the courts have said it is a clear violation of their rights.
This in itself raises a very interesting question. What percentage of the people in each state have filed, and received, licenses, registrations, insurance etc. after erroneously being advised by their government that it was mandatory?
Many of our courts, attorneys and police officials are just becoming informed about this important issue and the difference between “Privileges vs. Rights”. We can assume that the majority of those Americans carrying state licenses, vehicle registrations etc., have no knowledge of the rights they waived in obeying laws such as these that the U.S. Constitution clearly states are unlawful, i.e. “laws [that are insolvent], are of no effect”. In other words – “LAWS THAT ARE NOT LAWS AT ALL.”
OUR SWORN DUTY
An area of serious consideration for every police officer, is to understand that the most important law in our land he has taken an oath to protect, defend, AND ENFORCE, is not state laws, nor city or county ordinances, but, that law that supercede all other laws in our nation, – the U.S. Constitution. If laws in a particular police officer’s state, or local community are in conflict with the SUPREME LAW of our nation, there Is no question that the officer’s duty is to “uphold the U.S. Constitution.”
What does this mean to the “patrol officer” who will be the only sworn “Executive Officer” on the scene, when knowledgeable Citizens raise serious objections over possession of insurance, drivers licenses and other restrictions? It definitely means these officers will be faced with a hard decision. (Most certainly if that decision affects state, city or county revenues, such as the issuing of citations do.)
Example: If a state legislator, judge or a superior tells a police officer to proceed and enforce a contradictory, (illegal), state law rather than the Supreme Law of this country, what is that “sworn officer” to do? Although we may not want to hear it, there is but one right answer, – “the officer is duty bound to uphold his oath of office” and obey the highest laws of the nation. THIS IS OUR SWORN DUTY AND IT’S THE LAW!
Such a strong honest stand taken by a police officer, upholding his or her oath of office, takes moral strength of character. It will, without question, “SEPARATE THE MEN FROM THE BOYS.” Such honest and straight forward decisions on behalf of a government official have often caused pressure to be applied to force such officers to set aside, or compromise their morals or convictions.
As a solace for those brave souls in uniform that will stand up for law and justice, even when it’s unpopular, or uncomfortable to do so…let me say this. In any legal stand-off over a sworn official “violating” or “upholding” their oath of office, those that would side with the “violation” should inevitable lose.
Our Founding Fathers assured us, on many occasions, the following: Defending our freedoms in the face of people that would for “expedients sake,” or behind the guise, “for the safety and welfare of the masses,” ignore people’s rights, would forever demand sacrifice and vigilance from those that desired to remain free. That sounds a little like – “Freedom is not free!”
Every police officer should keep the following U.S. court ruling in mind that was covered earlier, before issuing citations in regard to presumptive “mandatory licensing, registration and insurance” – verses – “the right of the people to travel unencumbered”:
“THE CLAlM AND EXERCISE OF A CONSTITUTIONALLY [SECURED] RlGHT CANNOT BE CONVERTED INTO A CRIME.” –Miller v. U.S., 230 F.2d 486, 489
And as we have seen, “traveling freely,” going about ones daily activities, is the exercise of a most basic right.
UNITED STATES V. HERRON, 87 U. S. 251 (1873) It is a maxim of the common law, said Savage, C.J., that when an act of Parliament is passed for the public good, as for the advancement of religion and justice or to prevent injury and wrong, the King shall be bound by such act though not named, but when a statute is general and any prerogative, right, title, or interest would be divested or taken from the King, in such a case he shall not be bound unless the statute is made by express words to extend to him, for which he cites both English and American authorities, and adds that the people of the state, being sovereign, have succeeded to the rights of the former sovereign, and that the people of the state are not bound by the general words in the insolvent law.
Aid&Abet Newsletter Mon, 03 Feb 2003 14:09:19 -0600
P.O.BOX 8787, PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85066
CLARIFICATON:
The courts state that a Citizen has an unalienable right to travel freely. This includes the right to travel freely for one’s own private need and enjoyment in an automobile on the public right of way. However, the term “motor vehicle” has a special meaning in the law, as does the term “driving”. “Motor vehicles” are self-propelled devices used for “transport of persons and/or property on the highway”. “Transport” means to move something in commerce. “Driving” is the act of controlling a “motor vehicle”. All of these terms relate to specifically defined commercial use of the public right of way, and commercial use of publicly maintained property is not a right, but a privilege that can be taxed through licensure and registration.
Note also:
The registration of the vehicle at the time of purchase is accomplished by way of “fraud in the inducement,” “Actual Fraud” and Theft by Deception, whereby the “certificate of origin” of the vehicle in question is caused to be surrendered to the DMV, presuming to transfer legal title to said DMV, when in fact, the DMV has given no value for said vehicle. In essence, evidence of registration is an admission of the above criminal acts to defraud and claim control of property that the DMV has no commercially vested interest in except by way of constructive fraud.
“Every commercial law and every regulation is a price-fix of sorts and generates – for some service or some product – a queue, a shortage or a forcible redistribution of resources and must by its nature indemnify the actor/customer.” (But requires knowing “Joinder” by you! Never go into controversy . . . that is by deception, considered a traverse and joinder! (a presumptive knowing grant of jurisdiction.)
The bottom line is biblical re the corporation and other fictional entities:
“Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean [thing]; and I will receive you . . “
2 Corinthians 6:17
THE FOLLOWING PAGE BELOW ALSO HAVE A PLETHORA OF SUPREME COURT RULINGSON THIS GOD GIVEN RIGHTS, SEARCH AND PROPERTY RIGHTS BELOW
NO Law requires you to record / pledge your private automobile
Supreme court cases from digging around Robin v. Hardaway 1790
cited https://keystoliberty2.wordpress.com/2012/01/03/statutes-attempting-to-sell-the-statute-part-2/