"Operation of a motor vehicle upon public streets and highways is not a mere privilege but is a right or

liberty protected by the guarantees of Federal and State constitutions." Adams v. City of Pocatello 416 P2d
46

"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." "No State
government entity has the power to allow or deny passage on the highways... Transporting his vehicles and
personal property for either recreation or business. "Travel is not a privilege that can be permitted at will
with forced insurances, registration, & licensing, but a common & fundamental right of liberty granted by
the Constitution."
Chicago Motor Coach Co. V. City of Chicago, 337 Ill. 200,169 N.E. 22.

"The use of the automobile as a necessary adjunct to the earning of a livelihood in modern life requires us
in the interest of realism to conclude that the right to use an automobile on the public highways partakes of
the nature of a liberty within the meaning of the Constitutional guarantees..." Berberian v. Lussier 139 A2d
869, 872 (1958)

"...to be free to travel throughout the length and breadth of our land uninhibited by statutes, rules, or
regulations which unreasonably burden or restrain this movement." US Supreme Court, Shapiro v
Thompson, 394 US 618, 22 L Ed 2d 600, 89 S Ct 1322.

"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.

"The right of a citizen to travel upon the public highways...to operate an automobile...is not a mere
privilege...which the city may permit or prohibit at will." Thompson v. Smith (Chief of Police), 154 S.E.
579, 580.

"If the state does convert your right into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it, you can ignore the
license and a fee and engage the right with impunity." Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham, 373 US 262 (1962).

DIPLOMATIC IMMUNITY

Title 8: Aliens and Nationality PART 101—PRESUMPTION OF LAWFUL ADMISSION

§ 101.3 Creation of record of lawful permanent resident status for person born under diplomatic status in
the United States.

(a) Person born to foreign diplomat —(1) Status of person. A person born in the United States to a foreign
diplomatic officer accredited to the United States, as a matter of international law, is not subject to the
jurisdiction of the United States. That person is not a United States citizen under the Fourteenth
Amendment to the Constitution. Such a person may be considered a lawful permanent resident at birth.

(2) Definition of foreign diplomatic officer. Foreign diplomatic officer means a person listed in the State
Department Diplomatic List, also known as the Blue List. It includes ambassadors, ministers, chargés
d'affaires, counselors, secretaries and attachés of embassies and legations as well as members of the
Delegation of the Commission of the European Communities. The term also includes individuals with
comparable diplomatic status and immunities who are accredited to the United Nations or to the
Organization of American States, and other individuals who are also accorded comparable diplomatic
status.

TITLE 22 § 254d. Dismissal on motion of action against individual entitled to immunity

Any action or proceeding brought against an individual who is entitled to immunity with respect to such
action or proceeding under the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, under section 254b or 254c of
this title, or under any other laws extending diplomatic privileges and immunities, shall be dismissed. Such
immunity may be established upon motion or suggestion by or on behalf of the individual, or as otherwise
permitted by law or applicable rules of procedure.

49 Statute 3097 Treaty Series 881 Conventions and Duties and Rights of the States, placed all states under
international law, thus making all courts, International courts which are foreign to me.

The International Organization Immunities Act of 1945 placed all courts under the jurisdiction of the
United Nations (reference Title 22 CFR Foreign Relations with Oaths of Office under section 92.12 and
92.31).

Under Title 8 USC 1481 oath takers (judges, law enforcers, etc.) voluntarily forfeit their citizenship via the
Oath of Office thus becoming foreign agents and are required to register under the Foreign Sovereign
Immunity Act.
US Govt. Code imposes $75,000 fine and imprisonment for Unregistered Foreign Agents.

The Supreme court ruled that the Civil Rights Act of 1875 was unconstitutional. Consider their reasoning;
Neither Congress nor the State have the power to regulate conduct and transactions of private individuals.

SO-CALLED CONTRACTS WITH THE STATE

Any false representation of material facts made with knowledge of falsity and with intent that it shall be
acted on by another in entering into contract, and which is so acted upon, constitutes "fraud," and entitles
party deceived to avoid contracts or recover damages." Barnsdall Refining Corp. V. Birnamwood Oil Co.,
92 F.2d 817.

The terms are not fully disclosed at the time of signing for a driver license and when one is required to
research to find the terms one has been forced to comply with it is considered fraudulent.
A fraudulent agreement imposes no duty.
Our God-given rights are unalienable by the agreements of men

NON-COMMERCIAL TRAVELERS ARE EXEMPT FROM LICENSING

"...a statutory provision that the supervising officials "may" exempt such persons when the transportation is
not on a commercial basis means that they "must exempt them." State v. Johnson, 245 P 1073; 60 C.J.S.
section 94 page 581.

"It is clear that a license relates to qualifications to engage in profession, business, trade or calling; thus
when merely traveling without compensation or profit, outside of business enterprise or adventure with the
corporate state, no license is required of the natural individual traveling for personal business, pleasure and
transportation." Wingfield v. Fielder, (1972) 29 CA3d 213.

"Those who have the right to do something cannot be licensed for what they already have the right to do as
such license would be meaningless." City of Chicago v Collins, 51 N.E. 907 (Ill. 1898).

NO VIOLATION FOR NOT HAVING A LICENSE OR A SUSPENDED LICENSE or even having a

license

"...It is absolutely necessary for the State to allege and prove that the accused was, on the date of the
alleged offense, a licensee, for, as we construe the statute..., it applies specifically to a licensee and unless
the person accused was a licensee, we fail to understand how he could be guilty of violating the provisions
of this portion of the statute." Barber v. State, 149 Tex. Crim. 18 (1945) 191 S.W. 2D 879

NOTICE when the license is active.....that would be when one is actually "engaged in public business"....
But the license is not active when engaged in private business.
The definition of a licensee is one who holds a current valid license. Only a licensee can violate a statute. A
suspended license is not valid and therefore a suspended licensee is not subject to statutes.

"The acceptance of a license... will not impose upon the licensee an obligation to respect or to comply with
any provision of the statute or with the regulations prescribed that are repugnant to the Constitution of the
United States." Collier v. Wallis 180 US 452 (1901) 333 US 426, 606 CL (1936) 56 P2d 602.

NON-COMMERCIAL TRANSPORTATION DOES NOT REQUIRE LICENSING OR REGISTRATION

"A vehicle not used for commercial activity is a "consumer goods", ...it is not a type of vehicle required to
be registered and "use tax" paid of which the tab [tag] is evidence of receipt of the tax." Bank of Boston vs
Jones, 4 UCC Rep. Serv. 1021, 236 A2d 484, UCC PP 9-109.14.

"It is held that a tax upon common carriers by motor vehicles is based upon a reasonable classification,
although it does not apply to private vehicles... not for hire."[ Desser v. Wichita, (1915), 96 Kan. 820; Iowa
Motor Vehicle Asso.
v. Railroad Comrs., 75 A.L.R. 22]

THE DMV ONLY LICENSES COMMERCIAL MOTOR VEHICLES

"The activity licensed by state DMVs - the operation of motor vehicles – is... related to interstate
commerce". Reno v. Condon, No. 98-1464, Supreme Court of the United States decided January 12, 2000,
BRIEF FOR THE PETITIONERS, Seth Waxman, Solicitor General U.S. Department of Justice.

USC Title 49 > Subtitle IV > Part B > Chapter 145 > § 14504a (10) Vehicle registration;
The term "vehicle registration" means the registration of any commercial motor vehicle.

TRAFFIC STATUTES ONLY APPLY TO COMMERCIAL DRIVERS

"Users of the highway for transportation of persons and property for hire may be subjected to special
regulations not applicable to those using the highway for public purposes." Richmond Baking Co. v.
Department of Treasury 18 N.E. 2D 788.

Driving license and registration are irrelevant if the automobile is not being used in a commercial activity.
A non-commercial traveler is not engaged in any activity that is regulated by the DMV.

MY PRIVATE PROPERTY "CAR" IS NON-COMMERCIAL CONSUMER GOODS not a commercial

motor vehicle

"Consumer goods - automobile for transportation to and from work... is a personal, as opposed to a
business use, as that term is used in UCC § 9-109(l)... and... classified as consumer goods." IN RE
BARNES United States District Court, D Maine, September 15, 1972 Bankruptcy No. BK 72-129ND, No.
EK 72-13OND. In re Barnes, 11 USS rep. Serv. 697 (1972)

TRAFFIC INFRACTIONS ARE NOT CRIMES

"Traffic" matters are NOT criminal. State of Oregon v. Christine Dahl (2002) PR106249; A112549 Appeal
from Circuit Court, Multnomah County

"A [traffic] violation is not a crime." ORS 161.515. [Oregon Revised Statutes].

"Further, [traffic] infractions are not crimes..." (People v. Battle (1975) 50 Cal.App.3d Supp. 1 [123
Cal.Rptr. 636].) fn. 1; ?FN 1. Battle soundly reasoned infractions are not crimes; hence, the Kellett rule was
held inapplicable to prosecutions involving infractions. People v. Sava (1987) 190 Cal.App.3d 935 , 235
Cal.Rptr. 694 [No. D005040. Court of Appeals of California, Fourth Appellate District, Division One.
March 27, 1987.] (NOTE: This case HAS NOT been overturned.)
The interstate compact for the enforcement of traffic infractions (The Motor Vehicle Compact),
is NOT the enforcement of "criminal laws" but the enforcement of policies!

"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.

"The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime." Miller vs. U. S. 230 F
2d 486, 489.

TRAVELERS CANNOT BE STOPPED, ARRESTED, OR PROPERTY CONFISCATED EXCEPT FOR

A CRIME

"All citizens of the United States of America have a right to pass and re-pass through every part of it
without interruption, as freely as in their own state." Smith v. Turner, 48 US 283 (1849).

"For a crime to exist, there must be an injured party. There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one
because of this exercise of Constitutional rights." Sherar v. Cullen, 481 F. 945.

The Fourth Amendment says one cannot be disturbed in their peace. Use of emergency lights, which is a
felony when there is no emergency, is a disturbance of one's peace. Cases are dismissed on that alone.

"The Fourth Amendment forbids stopping a vehicle even for the limited purpose of questioning its
occupants unless police officers have a founded suspicion of criminal conduct." United States v. Salinas.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, citing United States v. Ramirez-Sandoval, (1989).

"Even assuming that purpose is served to some degree by stopping and demanding identification from an
individual without any specific basis for believing he is involved in criminal activity, the guarantees of the
Fourth Amendment do not allow it. When such a stop is not based on objective criteria, the risk of arbitrary
and abusive police practices exceeds tolerable limits." Delaware v. Prouse 440 U.S, 648, 653 (1979).

Founded suspicion exists when an officer is aware of specific articulable facts, that, together with rational
inferences drawn from them, reasonably warrant a suspicion that the person to be detained has committed
or is about to commit a crime. United States v. Cortez, (1981); United States v. Robert L., (1989).

"At common law an arrest could not be made of a person charged with a misdemeanor except on warrant of
a magistrate." Carpenter v. Mills, 29 How. Pr. 473 [Traffic infractions do not even qualify as
misdemeanors]

Declared in the Magna Carta "No one shall be arrested or imprisoned but by the law of the land."
This is called the common law and it is made constitutional law by the due process clause.

Application of the state's police power to NON-criminal conduct is illegal and unlawful.

When a police officer applies the State's police power to conduct that does not rise to the level of crime
they act beyond the scope of their job and violate their oath. An unauthorized arrest is void.

"The makers of the Constitution conferred, as against the government, the Right to be let alone; the most
comprehensive of rights, and the right most valued by civilized men." U S Supreme Court Justice Brandeis
in Olmstead v. United States 277 US 438, 48 S.Ct. 564, 575; 72 L ED 944 (1928).

"The Constitution is a charter of negative liberties; it tells the state to let people alone; it does not require
the federal government or the state to provide services, even so elementary a service as maintaining law
and order." Bowers v Devito, 686 F2d 616.

VIOLATORS OF RIGHTS CAN BE SUED

"It is the duty of all officials whether legislative, judicial, executive, administrative, or ministerial to so
perform every official act as not to violate constitutional provisions." Montgomery v state 55 Fla. 97-
45S0.879.

Under USC Title 42 §1986. Action for neglect to prevent states: "Every person who, having knowledge that
any wrongs conspired or to be done…and having power to prevent or aid in preventing … Neglects or
refuses so to do …shall be liable to the party injured…"

"...an officer may be held liable in damages to any person injured in consequence of a breach of any of the
duties connected with his office...the liability for nonfeasance, misfeasance, and for malfeasance in office is
in his 'individual', not his official capacity." 70 Am. Jur. 2nd Sec. 50, VII Civil Liability.

"The attempt of a State Officer to enforce an unconstitutional statute is a proceeding without authority... is
an illegal act, and the officer is stripped of his official charter and is subjected in his person to the
consequences of his individual conduct. The State has no power to impart to its officer immunity from
responsibility to the supreme authority of the United States."
Ex Parte Young, 209 U. S. 123, (1908). [Supreme Authority = Private men and women "we the people".]

Trespass on one's right to travel is an injury that can result in the trespasser being sued personally under
civil code Abstinence from Injury which states even in the performance of a lawful act one causing injury
must abstain. The injury is a trespass on the right to travel, so the trespasser must abstain.

"INSURANCE" (GAMBLING) IS NOT MANDATORY

"A policy of Insurance is a maritime contract, and therefore of Admiralty Jurisdiction." De Lovio v. Boit 7
Fed. Cases Number 3, 776.

America was re-insured by a credit policy under the Statute of 19 George II c. 37. Well, that was a long
time ago, but, like an ice-breaker, it allowed many other ships "in the Admiralty" to wedge thru and invade
the land. The use of "private script" of the Federal Reserve, called Federal Reserve Notes, pays homage to
the British Crown. These are not taxes, but insurance premiums on the use of the credit for profit.

"The existence of an insurance policy is a matter of [private] contract law, since insurance involves a
contractual relationship between the insurer and the insured." LaPoint v. Richards, 66 Wn.(2d) 585, 588
(July 8, 1965).

" Traditionally, insurance contracts have been considered to be private contracts between the parties."
Mutual of Enumclaw v. Wiscomb, 25 Wn.App. 841, 846, 611 P.2d 1304 (April 14, 1980).

"...that since the Federal Reserve System and its twelve branch banks are private corporations, the federal
government could not be held responsible."- Lewis v. U.S., 608F 2d 1239 (1982)

Federal Reserve Notes are "Private Script," in fact, they are "War Script" issued by Private Enterprise.

The UCC 3-305(a)(1)(iii) affirms... ...one of the other defenses is that the instrument is illegal, when that
instrument has been deemed to mean for collecting usury or gambling debts. [Usury equals INTEREST, it
is also a gamble]

Insurance is a private contract with no legal or lawful requirement to inform the public.

Remember, since the "State" claims ownership of all material goods, if they hold title to "your" car, they
own it and require "surety" from those that have usufruct of it. So, if they don't have title to it, they don't
own it.

GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES ARE ACTING AS UNQUALIFIED DEBT COLLECTORS

All public corporate agents; judges, attorneys, cops, court clerks, bailiffs, the mayor, etc., right down to the
dog catcher, are all acting as unqualified debt collectors and illegally access the estate as unqualified heirs.
For that reason I can demand a W-9 from them.

United States Code Title 26 section 2032 A e 11, Alternate Valuation on a carryover basis, states; to be a
qualified debt collector one is required to have at minimum their own personal one hundred thousand dollar
surety bond for each and every citation, fine, case, suit, etc. If you are planning on writing a citation I
demand to see the receipt/s of the minimum $100,000.00 private individual surety bond/s that authorizes
debt collection.

Even with a private individual surety bond the accessing of the estate requires the funds be placed in a
Trust within 90 days, which is never done. Then a tax return for that Trust must be filed, which is also
never done, and it is a one and a half million dollar fine which is chargeable to each and everyone involved;
the cop, the judge,
the court clerk, the bailiff, the prosecuting attorney and their spouses as they all benefit.
Tax evasion is a violation and is punishable by a $100,000 fine and 20 years in prison, Section 7201 of the
IRS Tax Code

STATE AND FEDERAL GOVERNMENTS DISSOLVED

"The United States Federal Government has been dissolved by the Emergency Banking Act... and declared
[so] by President Roosevelt... H.J.R. 192... dissolved the Sovereign Authority of the United States and the
official capacities of all United States Governmental Offices, Officers, and Departments and is further
evidence that the United States Federal Government exists today in name only." U. S. Congressional
Record, March 17, 1993 Vol. 33, page H-1303.

United States Code TITLE 28 § 3002 (15) "United States" means— (A) a Federal corporation

The United States "...is a corporation, a legal fiction that existed well before the Revolutionary War."
Republica v. Sween.

The International Organization Immunities Act of 1945 placed all courts under the jurisdiction of the
United Nations (reference Title 22 CFR Foreign Relations with Oaths of Office under section 92.12 and
92.31). Under Title 8 USC 1481all oath takers (judges, law enforcement officers, etc.) voluntarily forfeit
their citizenship via the Oath of Office thus becoming foreign agents and are required to register under the
Foreign Sovereign Immunity Act (though they never do).

All federal and state elected officials, appointed administrators, federal police, sheriffs and judges receive
their paychecks through OPM, the Office of Personnel Management. OPM is owned by the International
Monetary Fund, which is owned by the Rockefeller and Rothschild families and their Banking Empires,
which is treason.

"Since March 9th, 1933, the United States has been in a state of declared national emergency..." Congress,
1973.
"When Congress declares an emergency, there is no Constitution..." Congressman Beck, Congressional
Record,1933.
Currently, permanent state of national emergency. 22 U.S.C.A. 286d. 1977; See: Executive Order 12919.

The DMV is not part of civil government (see state constitution). The DMV is a department of a
corporation (business fiction) that
does business as "STATE of MISSOURI." The DMV has NO GOVERNMENTAL POWER OF ANY
KIND.

The police are not public officers (see state constitution) but are paid agents of "municipal corporations"
and
have NO GOVERNMENTAL POWER OR AUTHORITY OF ANY KIND.

The Supreme Court has ruled that the police are under NO obligation to protect anyone.

"neither a public entity nor a public employee is liable for failure to establish a police department or
otherwise provide police protection service." California Government Code, § 845
"police officers have no affirmative statutory duty to do anything." Souza v. City of Antioch, 62 California
Reporter, 2d 909, 916 (Cal. App. 1997)

It is not the duty of the police to protect you. Their job is to protect the Corporation and arrest code
breakers. Sappv. Tallahasse, 348 So. 2nd 363, Reiff v. City of Philadelphia, 477 F. Supp. 1262, Lynch v.
N.C. Dept. of Justice 376 S.E. 2nd. 247.

"As the use of private corporate commercial paper [Federal Reserve notes], debt currency or securities
[checks] is concerned, removes the sovereignty status of the government of "We the People" and reduces it
to an entity rather than a government in the area of finance and commerce as a corporation or person. . . .
Governments descend to the level of a mere private corporation and take on the characteristics of a mere
private citizen. This entity cannot compel performance upon its corporate statute or rules unless it, like any
other corporation or person is the holder-in-due course of some contract or commercial agreement between
it and the one upon whom the payment and performance are made and are willing to produce said
documents and place the same 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 US. 363-371

CITY, COUNTY, STATE CORPORATIONS ARE SUBORDINATE TO FEDERAL CORPORATION

CODE

MOA's, Memorandum of Agreements, by which Federal funds are distributed to the States (TITLE 49 Sec.
31102. - Grants to States) makes them all sub corporations of the United States Federal corporation.
Corporations can only control subordinate corporate entities created by the parent corporation. The States
are subject to Federal regulations which only apply to commercial motor vehicles.

GOVERNMENT CORPORATE RULES APPLY ONLY TO GOVERNMENT CORPORATE

EMPLOYEES

[All codes [Chapter 83, Part II as alleged], rules, and regulations are for government authorities only, not
human/Creators in accordance with God's laws. All codes, rules and regulations are unconstitutional and
lacking due process.] Rodriques v Ray Donavan (U.S. Department of Labor), 769 F. 2d 1344, 1348 (1985).

"Rodrigues asserts that the procedures are unconstitutional as applied to him….We do not find the due
process challenges insubstantial." Sherwood T. Rodrigues v. Ray Donovan, Sec. of Labor 769 F 2d 1344
(1985), The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

The Supreme Court has explained that the power to adjudicate private rights must be vested in an Article
III court. Northern Pipeline Const. Co. v. Marathon Pipe Line Co., 458 U.S. 50, 63-76 (1982) (plurality
opinion).

Absent the creation of a separate administrative mechanism for administration and adjudication of civil
forfeitures, such cases must be assigned in the first instance to Article III judges. Assignment of such cases
to Magistrate Judges, who are mere adjuncts to United States District Judges, see Gomez v. United States,
490 U.S. 858, 872 (1989), cannot satisfy the Article III requirement." MEMORANDUM TO STEF
CASSELLA DEPUTY DIRECTOR, POLICY AND LITIGATION ASSET FORFEITURE OFFICE,
December 6, 1993.
"Congress generally "cannot `withdraw from [Art. III] judicial cognizance any matter which, from its
nature, is the subject of a suit at the common law, or in equity, or admiralty,'" id. at 69 n.23 (quoting
Murray's Lessee v. Hoboken Land & Improvement Co., 18 How. 272, 284 (1856)), and

law.cornell.edu/wex/workers_compensation Workers' Compensation: an overview; Federal statutes are

limited to federal employees or those workers employed in some significant aspect of interstate commerce.

The implementation of codes, rules and regulations are nothing more than ex post facto law
absolutely forbidden by the united states constitution

Codification - Lack of Jurisdiction of USDOT

49 USC § 13505. Transportation furthering a primary business

(a) In General.— Neither the Secretary nor the Board has jurisdiction under this part over the transportation
of property by motor vehicle when—
(1) the property is transported by a person engaged in a business other than transportation; and
(2) the transportation is within the scope of, and furthers a primary business (other than transportation) of
the person.

If the Federal government does not have jurisdiction, neither does the state.

It is not the duty of the police to protect you. Their job is to protect the Corporation and arrest code
breakers. Sappv. Tallahasse, 348 So. 2nd 363, Reiff v. City of Philadelphia, 477 F. Supp. 1262, Lynch v.
N.C. Dept. of Justice 376 S.E. 2nd. 247.

Wrongful actions by any corporate entity that bring upon a private living man an injury must be
recompensed.
A corporate government serving papers on a living man is abuse of process because a fiction cannot serve
papers nor
cause injury or harm to a living man. Trustees of Dartmouth College v Woodward, Waters-Pierce v Texas.

If you are planning on accessing the estate with a citation, fill out the accompanying W9 form and
return it to the traveler so these violations can be reported to the IRS.
Also provide a business card with your bonding information.

Officials and their agents may not refuse my right to travel/right of way claim for exemption, nor impede
my forward progress while I am on my way.
Any "interruption" or impediment of my forward progress while I am on my way will be construed as a
blatant and willful disregard of my declaration of status and of my rights, of the Rule of Law, and as a
"dishonor" in commerce, as well as a lack of faithful performance of duty under oath.

If you plan on kidnapping me are you really sure you want to put up your bond? Do you clearly understand
that if you are going to aid and abet a void statute by applying it to me you are putting up your job. Are you
really sure you intend to do that. You may arrest [kidnap] me and do this and do that, but you better make
damn sure that it applies to me and that my capacity and standing has agreed and consented that it applies
to me because you wont have a job when we get all done. Are you really sure that you want to put up your
house, your wife, your kids, your retirement and anything else out there that you might construe that you
have possession and control over because if you're wrong the consequences are dire. Are you really sure
you want to commit an Article 3 impeachable treasonous war crime felony.

Nowhere within the provisions of 49 USC 31301 Definitions do we find any reference to anything that
could be construed to be a "license" for a private automobile, "pickup truck", van or motorcycle.
49 USC 31102 (Grants to States):
(a) General Authority. - Subject to this section and the availability of amounts, the Secretary of
Transportation may make grants to States for the development or implementation of programs for
improving motor carrier safety and the enforcement of regulations, standards, and orders of the United
States Government on commercial motor vehicle safety, hazardous materials transportation safety, and
compatible State regulations, standards, and orders.
(b) State Plan Procedures and Contents. - (1) The Secretary shall prescribe procedures for a State to submit
a plan under which the State agrees to assume responsibility for improving motor carrier safety and to
adopt and enforce regulations, standards, and orders of the [Federal] Government on commercial motor
vehicle safety, hazardous materials transportation safety, or compatible State regulations, standards, and
orders.

49 USC 31102 (Grants to States) The States receive Federal grant money only for and in connection with
programs that involve a commercial driver license, and, the States agree to operate under Federal codes
which only effect commercial motor vehicles, and therefore, the States have no authority to issue any type
of operator's license upon those who travel in their own private property that is not in commerce.

CRIMES BEING COMMITTED

Use of emergency lights when there is no emergency is a felony.
-Title 28- Judiciary and Judicial Procedure, Chapter 13 Civil Rights, 241 Conspiracy against private
property rights.
-Title 28- Judiciary and Judicial Procedure, Chapter 13 Civil Rights, 242 Deprivation of rights under color
of law.
The 4th Constitutional Amendment; Deprivation of security of the Private Property Right from government
invasion.
The 5th Constitutional Amendment Deprivation of Liberty and Private Property without Just
Compensation.
Violation of Substantive Rights and Private Property Rights Secured and Protection by Constitutional Law.
The Theft of the Personal Private Property by Taking without Just Compensation.
The United States Code Title 42 Chapter 21 Subchapter I 1985-Conspiracy interfering with Private
Property Rights.
The United States Code Annotated Title 18 1651 et seq Piracy and Privateering activities conducted on
vessels at dry dock under commercial law by a body of insurgent Privateers.
The United States Code Title 18 152 and 3571 provides fine up to $500,000.00 or imprisonment for up to 5
years for the presenting of fraudulent claims, fraudulent indictment, fraudulent evidence.
The United States Code Title 42 Chapter 21 Subchapter II obstructing the evidence in the witnesses
through the modification of language creating Federal Racketeering; Influenced and Corrupt Organizations
activities extorting financial means creating economical damage point beyond recovery.
The United States Code Title 42 Chapter 21 Subchapter III deprivation of the evidence in the witnesses
through modification of language creating acts of Federal Racketeering; Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations; Terrorism; Privateering.
The United States Code Title 42 1986 For knowledge and the right to stop and correct a wrong,
The United States Code Title 28 USC 1746 and Title 18 1621 Perjury and conspiring to commit perjury.
The United States Code Title 18 1001 and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 9(b). Extorting private
property through the modification of language.
The United States Code Title 18 Part I Chapter 95 1651 Interference with commerce by threats or violence.
Acting without establishing as a matter of record, Proper Jurisdiction.
Breach of Fiduciary Duty of Upholding the "Oath of Office" and Upholding the Office of Public Trust.
Acts of War against the United States Government Treaties and Organic Constitution Constituting Treason.
Employing Intimidation to affect Identity, Nationality, Birthright.
Thief Using a Fiction, Artificial Person Name to Impersonate and Steal the Sovereign De Jure Identity.
Federal law 18 USC 1961 bans engaging in a pattern of crime. When state and local officials in essence
extort money, they are committing federal felonies and are in essence "racketeers" as per the law.
No harm/injury to person.
No damage to property.
Fraudulent attempt to enforce suspended statutes that no court has any jurisdiction to hear to begin with.
Intimidation through threat by stalking.
Intimidation through threat of armed violence.
An impostor employee taking wages under false pretenses.

When a government agent trespasses on our private rights it is a tort and this creates a liability for the
government to compensate us for that injury. This comes about because the citation shows no liability of
the defendant to the statute they claim you violated. They failed to state a claim because without a swearing
to liability there is no claim. I use a traffic citation here as an example because all of the other
entanglements with government are handled the same way. IRS, BATF and all the rest of the alphabet soup
use the same procedure. On the U.S. level they get a lot more verbose and the paper work is multiplied by a
factor of about ten, but the procedure remains the same. Probably the major difference is the U.S. agents
will submit an affidavit to either support a claim or to get a "warrant" for someone's "arrest". They will use
up several pages swearing that the grass is green and the sky is blue and that water runs down hill. What
they will never swear to, is the liability of their target. Usually in such operations the "judge" will require
mutual discovery. Once, a friend of mine was going through an IRS prosecution and received a stack of
paper nearly 11 inches high as discovery. It was a very impressive compilation of documents, but nowhere
in it was anything documenting any liability. The "judge", even though he was operating as a magistrate for
the executive branch of government, (a police court) was obligated to inform the defendant of his liability.
(The nature and cause of the accusations). He failed to do that. The failure to do this turns the "court" into a
kangaroo court (see above) and creates an additional injury. It is a FELONY to use one?s office, de facto or
otherwise, in the capacity of a ?Debt Collector? to collect a debt without the requisite evidentiary proof of
the debt giving rise to the obligation and the resulting liability. Ever hear of ?RICO,? or read 18 U.S.C. ''
1951-1968; particularly ' 1961(3)]. Without showing liability on the face of the instrument, the prosecution
has failed to state a claim. Under the FDCPA, 28 U.S.C. '' 3001 et seq., without verification of the debt,
upon timely demand therefore, Scienter and FELONY FRAUD ensues.
A claim is really the affidavit swearing to the liability of the defendant. A "warrant" issued without an
affidavit of liability is not a warrant at all. The best that can be said of it is that it is an order to kidnap. To
be a real warrant it must be issued upon probable cause supported by oath or affirmation (affidavit of
liability sworn to by a competent witness). This is what gives the court subject matter and personal
jurisdiction. Without the swearing to liability by a competent witness, no court or tribunal can have
jurisdiction. It is only the swearing to the liability, whether it is contractual, statutory or anything else that
can support a charge of a violation of any kind. If you have no contractual liability then you cannot violate
or breach any contract. If you are not engaged in an activity that renders you liable and therefore subject to
a statute then you have no liability to that statute and therefore lack the requisite intent [mens rea is not
longer required, i.e., did you or did you not do the act?] or capacity to violate it. Liability is the only thing
that can form a basis for, or give rise to, any charge. The liability of the defendant must be discovered by
him and presented, for him to be correctly informed of the nature and cause of any charges or accusations
he must face. The failure and refusal to present this liability is a severe tort that must be redressed. Without
the swearing to liability an "arrest" is actually a kidnapping. [Kidnap, v. 1 to carry away for the purpose of
denying a right. Bouviers law dictionary.] Without the swearing to the liability any "trial" in any court or
tribunal is a mockery. Justice is disregarded, perverted and parodied. The refusal(s) to verify the liability
and resulting kidnap prevents any lawful process. The court or tribunal is characterized by unauthorized or
irregular procedures, so as to render a fair or impartial [meaningful] proceeding impossible."

"All governments must maintain power through consent, not coercion." President Barack Obama Jan 28,
2011

We are a nation that has a government—not the other way around.

And this makes us special among the nations of the Earth.
Our government has no power except that granted it by the people.
It is time to check and reverse the growth of government, which
shows signs of having grown beyond the consent of the governed.
-- Ronald Reagan, First Inaugural Address, 1981

Their ability to govern is subject to the limit of the law, and that limit is reached with the revocation of
consent.

There is no evidence or record that de facto statutes, rules, and regulations are applicable to the private man
who is alien with respect to the Federal Zone i.e., the District of Columbia and the federal enclaves,
territories and possessions over which the Congress has exclusive legislative jurisdiction.

Failure to respond will be taken as meaning that you have "acquiesced" and that, from this date forward, the
doctrine of "estoppel by acquiescence" will prevail.

Title 28 section 2072 the rules of court is the supreme law that over powers statutes

that San Berdino county has a qualified heir and trustee has paid the capital transfer taxes under 2511 a,
taxable termination under 2601, 2603, 2611 and 2612 and 6901 of title 26 of the united states code as a heir
and donee.

Title 18 was not passed as positive law. Show me where it states it applies to the people not the person.
I am not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States Corporation. I am not a corporate member of your
corporation.

2032 A e 11 of title 26 it talks about a qualified heir under section 1014 of title 26. If you're a qualified heir
and you're the recipient or the receiver of funds from a decedent you are a qualified heir. You have to file a
bond with the secretary of treasury to cover the tax liability. That's the first thing I ask them when I go into
court is where's your bond to indemnify the tax liability as the recipient of the funds from the decedent?
You've acquired funds from a decedent under 1014 of title 26 and you haven't paid the tax. You're in
possession of contraband. I'm gonna have the IRS come out here and seize all your property.

They're liable for the prohibited transaction in 856 of approximately 1.5 million dollars per penalty section

your police department isn't even listed under the county, under the Revised Code of Washington. How is
this group of individuals who are contracted with Interpol have anything to do with me upon proof of claim
that they have any jurisdiction over me at all. Or that they can do anything on a road that they don't own.

DEFINITIONS; per Black's Law Dictionary Sixth Edition:

Privateer: page 1195;
A vessel owned, equipped, and armed by one or more private individuals, and duly commissioned by a
belligerent power to go on cruises and make war upon the enemy, usually by preying on his commerce. A
private vessel commissioned by a nation by the issue of a letter of marque to its owner to carry on
hostilities by sea, presumably according to the laws of war. Formerly, a state issued letters of marque to its
own subjects and to those of neutral states as well, but a privateersman who accepted letters of marque
from both belligerents was regarded as a pirate. By the Declaration of Paris (April, 1856), privateering was
abolished, but the United States, Spain, Mexico, and Venezuela did not accede to this declaration. It has
been thought that the constitutional provision empowering the Congress to issue letters of marque deprives
it of the power to join in a permanent treaty abolishing privateering.
Piracy and privateering are federal offenses, 18 U.S.C. § 1651 et seq.
Note: this is the reason police vehicles are known as "cruisers."
[see LOM_IRS.doc]
I'm now a U.S. National under Title 8 United States Code [USC] section 1481

"As the use of private corporate commercial paper, debt currency or securities is concerned, removes the
sovereignty status of the government of "We the People" and reduces it to an entity rather than a
government in the area of finance and commerce as a corporation or person. Governments descend to the
level of a mere private corporation and take on the characteristics of a mere private citizen. This entity
cannot compel performance upon its corporate statute or rules unless it, like any other corporation or person
is the holder-in-due course of some contract or commercial agreement between it and the one upon whom
the payment and performance are made and are willing to produce said documents and place the same
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 US. 363-371.

"When governments enter the world of commerce, they are subject to the same burdens as any private firm
or corporation" -- U.S. v. Burr, 309 U.S. 242 See: 22 U.S.C.A.286e, Bank of U.S. vs. Planters Bank of
Georgia, 6L, Ed. (9 Wheat) 244; 22 U.S.C.A. 286 et seq., C.R.S. 11-60-103
NOTE: Under the Clearfield Doctrine, the courts are no longer government entities in that they are
demanding private monies and must have a contract with you to compel performance. They are no more
special as a normal business than your local Jack In The Box.

HJR 192, Public law[policy?] 73-10, 48 Stat 48?, 31 USC 5118, OVERRIDDEN
Did/does the court demand payment in a certain "species"? [U.S. $]