UNITED STATES rules and regulations only apply to “PERSONS”!

“The Official State Office Known As “PERSON”

This is the single most important lesson that you MUST learn. If you spend an hour to learn this material you will be rewarded for the rest of your life.

The word “person” in legal terminology is perceived as a general word which normally includes in its scope a variety of entities other than human beings. See e. g. 1 U. S. C. sec 1. Church of Scientology v. U. S. Dept. of Justice (1979) 612 F. 2d 417, 425.

One of the very first of your STATE statutes will have a section listed entitled “Definitions.” Carefully study this section of the statutes and you will find a portion that reads similar to this excerpt.

In construing these statutes and each and every word, phrase, or part hereof, where the context will permit:

(1) The singular includes the plural and vice versa.

(2) Gender-specific language includes the other gender and neuter.

(3) The word “person” includes individuals, children, firms, associations, joint adventures, partnerships, eSTATEs, trusts, business trusts, syndicates, fiduciaries, corporations, and all other groups or combinations.


Under the rule of construction “expressio unius est exclusio alterius,” where a statute or Constitution enumerates the things on which it is to operate or forbids certain things, it is ordinarily to be construed as excluding from its operation all those not expressly mentioned.

Generally words in a statute should be given their plain and ordinary meaning. When a statute does not specifically define words, such words should be construed in their common or ordinary sense to the effect that the rules used in construing statutes are also applicable in the construction of the Constitution. It is a fundamental rule of statutory construction that words of common usage when used in a statute should be construed in their plain and ordinary sense.

If you carefully read the statute laws enacted by your STATE legislature you will also notice that they are all written with phrases similar to these five examples :

1. A person commits the offense of failure to carry a license if the person …

2. A person commits the offense of failure to register a vehicle if the person …

3. A person commits the offense of driving uninsured if the person …

4. A person commits the offense of fishing if the person …

5. A person commits the offense of breathing if the person …

Notice that only “persons” can commit these STATE legislature created crimes. A crime is by definition an offense committed against the “STATE.” If you commit an offense against a human, it is called a tort. Examples of torts would be any personal injury, slander, or defamation of character.

So how does someone become a “person” and subject to regulation by STATE statutes and laws?

There is only one way. Contract! You must ask the STATE for permission to volunteer to become a STATE person. You must volunteer because the U. S. Constitution forbids the STATE from compelling you into slavery. This is found in the 13th and 14th Amendments.

13th Amendment
Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime, whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United STATEs, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

14th Amendment:
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the STATE wherein they reside. No STATE shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any STATE deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law, nor deny any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

You become a STATE created statutory “person” by taking up residency with the STATE and stepping into the office of “person.” You must hold an “office” within the STATE government in order for that STATE government to regulate and control you. First comes the legislatively created office, then comes their control. If you do not have an office in STATE government, the legislature’s control over you would also be prohibited by the Declaration of Rights section, usually found to be either Section I or II, of the STATE Constitution.

The most common office held in a STATE is therefore the office known as “person.” Your STATE legislature created this office as a way to control people. It is an office most people occupy without even knowing that they are doing so.

The legislature cannot lawfully control you because you are a flesh and blood human being. God alone created you and by Right of Creation, He alone can control you. It is the nature of Law, that what One creates, One controls. This natural Law is the force that binds a creature to its creator. God created us and we are, therefore, subject to His Laws, whether or not we acknowledge Him as our Creator.

The way the STATE gets around God’s Law and thereby controls the People is by creating only an office, and not a real human. This office is titled as “person” and then the legislature claims that you are filling that office. Legislators erroneously now think that they can make laws that also control men. They create entire bodies of laws – motor vehicle code, building code, compulsory education laws, and so on ad nauseum. They still cannot control men or women, but they can now control the office they created. And look who is sitting in that office — YOU.

Then they create government departments to administer regulations to these offices. Within these administrative departments of STATE government are hundreds of other STATE created offices. There is everything from the office of janitor to the office of governor. But these administrative departments cannot function properly unless they have subjects to regulate.

The legislature obtains these subjects by creating an office that nobody even realizes to be an official STATE office.

They have created the office of “person.”

The STATE creates many other offices such as police officer, prosecutor, judge etc. and everyone understands this concept. However, what most people fail to recognize and understand is the most common STATE office of all, the office of “person.” Anyone filling one of these STATE offices is subject to regulation by their creator, the STATE legislature. Through the STATE created office of “person,” the STATE gains its authority to regulate, control and judge you, the real human. What they have done is apply the natural law principle, “what one creates, one controls.”

A look in Webster’s dictionary reveals the origin of the word “person.” It literally means “the mask an actor wears.”

The legislature creates the office of “person” which is a mask. They cannot create real people, only God can do that. But they can create the “office” of “person,” which is merely a mask, and then they persuade a flesh and blood human being to put on that mask by offering a fictitious privilege, such as a driver license. Now the legislature has gained complete control over both the mask and the actor behind the mask.

A resident is another STATE office holder.

All STATE residents hold an office in the STATE government.

But not everyone who is a resident also holds the office of “person.”

Some residents hold the office of judge and they are not persons.

Some residents hold the office of prosecutors and they are not persons.

Some residents hold the office of police office(rs) and they are not persons.

Some residents hold the office of legislators and they are not persons.

Some residents are administrators and bureaucrats and they also are not persons.

Some residents are attorneys and they also are not persons.

An attorney is a STATE officer of the court and is firmly part of the judicial branch. The attorneys will all tell you that they are “licensed” to practice law by the STATE Supreme Court. Therefore, it is unlawful for any attorney to hold any position or office outside of the judicial branch. There can be no attorney legislators – no attorney mayors – no attorneys as police – no attorneys as governor. Yes, I know it happens all the time, however, this practice of multiple office holding by attorneys is prohibited by the individual State and U.S. Constitutions and is a felony in most STATEs.

If you read farther into your STATE constitution you will find a clause stating this, the Separation of Powers, which will essentially read as follows:

Branches of government — The powers of the STATE government shall be divided into legislative, executive and judicial branches. No person belonging to one branch shall exercise any powers appertaining to either of the other branches unless expressly provided herein.

Therefore, a police officer cannot arrest a prosecutor, a prosecutor cannot prosecute a sitting judge, a judge cannot order the legislature to perform and so on.

Because these “offices” are not persons, the STATE will not, and cannot prosecute them, therefore they enjoy almost complete protection by the STATE in the performance of their daily duties. This is why it is impossible to sue or file charges against most government employees. If their crimes should rise to the level where they “shock the community” and cause alarm in the people, then they will be terminated from STATE employment and lose their absolute protection. If you carefully pay attention to the news, you will notice that these government employees are always terminated from their office or STATE employment and then are they arrested, now as a common person, and charged for their crimes. Simply put, the STATE will not eat its own.

The reason all STATE residents hold an office is so the STATE can control everything. It wants to create every single office so that all areas of your life are under the complete control of the STATE. Each office has prescribed duties and responsibilities and all these offices are regulated and governed by the STATE. If you read the fine print when you apply for a STATE license or privilege you will see that you must sign a declaration that you are in fact a “resident” of that STATE.

“Person” is a subset of resident. Judge is a subset of resident. Legislator and police officer are subsets of resident. If you hold any office in the STATE, you are a resident and subject to all legislative decrees in the form of statutes.

They will always say that we are free men. But they will never tell you that the legislatively created offices that you are occupying are not free.

They will say, “All men are free,” because that is a true statement.

What they do not say is, that holding any STATE office binds free men into slavery for the STATE. They are ever ready to trick you into accepting the STATE office of “person,” and once you are filling that office, you cease to be free men. You become regulated creatures, called persons, totally created by the legislature. You will hear “free men” mentioned all the time, but you will never hear about “free persons.”

If you build your life in an office created by the legislature, it will be built on shifting sands. The office can be changed and manipulated at any time to conform to the whims of the legislature. When you hold the office of “person” created by the legislature, your office isn’t fixed. Your duties and responsibilities are ever changing. Each legislative session binds a “person” to ever more burdens and requirements in the form of more rules, laws and statutes.

Most STATE constitutions have a section that declares the fundamental power of the People:
Political power — All political power is inherent in the People. The enunciation herein of certain Rights shall not be construed to deny or impair others retained by the People.

Notice that this says “people” it does not say persons. This statement declares beyond any doubt that the People are Sovereign over their created government. This is natural law of creation and the natural flow of delegated power.

A Sovereign is a private, non-resident, non-domestic, non-person, non-individual, NOT SUBJECT to any real or imaginary statutory regulations or quasi laws enacted by any STATE legislature which was created by the People.

When you are pulled over by the police, roll down your window and say, “You are speaking to a Sovereign political power holder. I do not consent to you detaining me. Why are you detaining me against my will?”

Now the STATE office of policeman knows that “IT” is talking to a flesh and blood Sovereign. The police officer cannot cite a Sovereign because the STATE legislature can only regulate what they create. And the STATE does not create Sovereign political power holders. It is very important to lay the proper foundation, Right from the beginning. Let the police officer know that you are a Sovereign. Remain in your proper office of Sovereign political power holder. Do not leave it. Do not be persuaded by police pressure or tricks to put on the mask of a STATE “person.”

Why aren’t Sovereigns subject to the STATE’s charges? Because of the concept of office. The STATE is attempting to prosecute only a particular office known as “person.” If you are not in that STATE created office of “person,” the STATE statutes simply do not apply to you. This is common sense, for example, if you are not in the STATE of Texas, then Texas laws do not apply to you. For the STATE to control someone, they have to first create the office. Then they must coerce a warm-blooded creature to come fill that office. They want you to fill that office.

Here is the often expressed understanding from the United States Supreme Court, that “in common usage, the term “person” does not include the Sovereign, statutes employing the word person are ordinarily construed to exclude the Sovereign.” Wilson v. Omaha Tribe, 442 U. S. 653, 667 (1979) (quoting United States v. Cooper Corp., 312 U. S. 600, 604 (1941)). See also United States v. Mine Workers, 330 U. S. 258, 275 (1947).

The idea that the word “person” ordinarily excludes the Sovereign can also be traced to the “familiar principle that the King is not bound by any act of Parliament unless he be named therein by special and particular words.” Dollar Savings Bank v. United STATEs, 19 Wall. 227, 239 (1874).

As this passage suggests, however, this interpretive principle applies only to “the enacting Sovereign.” United States v. California, 297 U. S. 175, 186 (1936). See also Jefferson County Pharmaceutical Assn., Inc. v. Abbott Laboratories, 460 U. S. 150, 161, n. 21 (1983).

Furthermore, as explained in United States v. Herron, 20 Wall. 251, 255 (1874), even the principle as applied to the enacting Sovereign is not without limitations: “Where an act of Parliament is made for the public good, as for the advancement of religion and justice or to prevent injury and wrong, the king is bound by such act, though not particularly named therein; but where a statute is general, and thereby any prerogative, Right, title, or interest is divested or taken from the king, in such case the king is not bound, unless the statute is made to extend to him by express words.”

U. S. Supreme Court Justice Holmes explained:
“A Sovereign is exempt from suit, not because of any formal conception or obsolete theory, but on the logical and practical ground that there can be no legal Right as against the authority that makes the law on which the Right depends.” Kawananakoa v. Polyblank, 205 U. S. 349, 353, 27 S. Ct. 526, 527, 51 L. Ed. 834 (1907).

The majority of American STATEs fully embrace the Sovereign immunity theory as well as the federal government. See Restatement (Second) of Torts 895B, comment at 400 (1979).

The following U. S. Supreme Court case makes clear all these principals.

I shall have occasion incidentally to evince, how true it is, that STATEs and governments were made for man; and at the same time how true it is, that his creatures and servants have first deceived, next vilified, and at last oppressed their master and maker.

… A STATE, useful and valuable as the contrivance is, is the inferior contrivance of man; and from his native dignity derives all its acquired importance. …

Let a STATE be considered as subordinate to the people: But let everything else be subordinate to the STATE. The latter part of this position is equally necessary with the former. For in the practice, and even at length, in the science of politics there has very frequently been a strong current against the natural order of things, and an inconsiderate or an interested disposition to sacrifice the end to the means. As the STATE has claimed precedence of the people; so, in the same inverted course of things, the government has often claimed precedence of the STATE; and to this perversion in the second degree, many of the volumes of confusion concerning Sovereignty owe their existence. The ministers, dignified very properly by the appellation of the magistrates, have wished, and have succeeded in their wish, to be considered as the Sovereigns of the STATE. This second degree of perversion is confined to the old world, and begins to diminish even there: but the first degree is still too prevalent even in the several STATES, of which our union is composed. By a STATE I mean, a complete body of free persons united together for their common benefit, to enjoy peaceably what is their own, and to do justice to others. It is an artificial person. It has its affairs and its interests: It has its rules: It has its Rights: and it has its obligations. It may acquire property distinct from that of its members. It may incur debts to be discharged out of the public stock, not out of the private fortunes of individuals. It may be bound by contracts; and for damages arising from the breach of those contracts. In all our contemplations, however, concerning this feigned and artificial person, we should never forget, that, in truth and nature, those who think and speak and act, are men. Is the foregoing description of a STATE a true description? It will not be questioned, but it is. …. See Our Enemy The State

It will be sufficient to observe briefly, that the Sovereignties in Europe, and particularly in England, exist on feudal principles. That system considers the prince as the Sovereign, and the people as his subjects; it regards his person as the object of allegiance, and excludes the idea of his being on an equal footing with a subject, either in a court of justice or elsewhere. That system contemplates him as being the fountain of honor and authority; and from his grace and grant derives all franchise, immunities and privileges; it is easy to perceive that such a Sovereign could not be amenable to a court of justice, or subjected to judicial control and actual constraint. It was of necessity, therefore, that suability, became incompatible with such Sovereignty. Besides, the prince having all the executive powers, the judgment of the courts would, in fact, be only monitory, not mandatory to him, and a capacity to be advised, is a distinct thing from a capacity to be sued. The same feudal ideas run through all their jurisprudence, and constantly remind us of the distinction between the prince and the subject.

“No such ideas obtain here (speaking of America): at the revolution, the Sovereignty devolved on the people; and they are truly the Sovereigns of the country, but they are Sovereigns without subjects (unless the African slaves among us may be so called) and have none to govern but themselves; the citizens of America are equal as fellow citizens, and as joint tenants in the Sovereignty.” Chisholm v. Georgia (February Term, 1793) 2 U. S. 419, 2 Dall. 419, 1 L. Ed 440.
There are many ways you can give up your Sovereign power and accept the role of “person.” One is by receiving STATE benefits. Another is by asking permission in the form of a license or permit from the STATE.

One of the subtlest ways of accepting the role of “person,” is to answer the questions of bureaucrats. When a STATE bureaucrat knocks on your door and wants to know why your children aren’t registered in school, or a police officer pulls you over and starts asking questions, you immediately fill the office of “person” if you start answering their questions.

It is for this reason that you should ignore or refuse to “answer” their questions and instead act like a true Sovereign, a King or Queen, and ask only your own questions of them.

You are not a “person” subject to their laws.

If they persist and haul you into their court unlawfully, your response to the judge is simple and direct, you the Sovereign, must tell him:

I have no need to answer you in this matter.

It is none of your business whether I understand my Rights or whether I understand your fictitious charges.

It is none of your business whether I want counsel.

The reason it is none of your business is because I am not a person regulated by the STATE. I do not hold any position or office where I am subject to the legislature. The STATE legislature does not dictate what I do.

I am a free Sovereign “Man”(or woman) and I am a political power holder as lawfully decreed in the STATE Constitution at article I (or II) and that constitution is controlling over you.

You must NEVER retain or hire an attorney, a STATE officer of the court, to speak or file written documents for you. Use an attorney (if you must) only for counsel and advice about their “legal” system. If you retain an attorney to represent you and speak in your place, you become “NON COMPOS MENTIS”, not mentally competent, and you are then considered a ward of the court. You LOSE all your Rights, and you will not be permitted to do anything herein.

The judge knows that as long as he remains in his office, he is backed by the awesome power of the STATE, its lawyers, police and prisons. The judge w ill try to force you to abandon your Sovereign sanctuary by threatening you with jail. No matter what happens, if you remain faithful to your Sovereignty, The judge and the STATE may not lawfully move against you.

The STATE did not create the office of Sovereign political power holder. Therefore, they do not regulate and control those in the office of Sovereign. They cannot ascribe penalties for breach of that particular office. The reason they have no authority over the office of the Sovereign is because they did not create it and the Sovereign people did not delegate to them any such power.

When challenged, simply remind them that they do not regulate any office of the Sovereign and that their statutes only apply to those STATE employees in legislative created offices.

This Sovereign individual paradigm is explained by the following U. S. Supreme Court case:
“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 such duty [to submit his books and papers for an examination] to the STATE, since he receives nothing therefrom, beyond the protection of his life and property. His Rights are such as existed by the law of the land [Common Law] 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 the law. He owes nothing to the public so long as he does not trespass upon their Rights.” Hale v. Henkel, 201 U. S. 43 at 47 (1905).

Let us analyze this case. It says, “The individual may stand upon his constitutional Rights.” It does not say, “Sit on his Rights.” There is a principle here: “If you don’t use ’em you lose ’em.” You have to assert your Rights, demand them, “stand upon” them.

Next it says, “He is entitled to carry on his private business in his own way.” It says “private business” – you have a Right to operate a private business. Then it says “in his own way.” It doesn’t say “in the government’s way.”

Then it says, “His power to contract is unlimited.” As a Sovereign individual, your power to contract is unlimited. In common law there are certain criteria that determine the validity of contracts. They are not important here, except that any contract that would harm others or violate their Rights would be invalid. For example, a “contract” to kill someone is not a valid contract. Apart from this obvious qualification, your power to contract is unlimited.

Next it says, “He owes no such duty [to submit his books and papers for an examination] to the STATE, since he receives nothing therefrom, beyond the protection of his life and property.” The court case contrasted the duty of the corporation (an entity created by government permission – feudal paradigm) to the duty of the Sovereign individual. The Sovereign individual doesn’t need and didn’t receive permission from the government, hence has no duty to the government.

Then it says, “His Rights are such as existed by the law of the land [Common Law] long antecedent to the organization of the STATE.” This is very important. The Supreme Court recognized that humans have inherent Rights. The U. S. Constitution (including the Bill of Rights) does not grant us Rights. We have fundamental Rights, irrespective of what the Constitution says. The Constitution acknowledges some of our Rights. And Amendment IX STATEs, “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain Rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” The important point is that our Rights antecede (come before, are senior to) the organization of the STATE.

Next the Supreme Court says, “And [his Rights] can only be taken from him by due process of law, and in accordance with the Constitution.” Does it say the government can take away your Rights? No! Your Rights can only be taken away “by due process of law, and in accordance with the Constitution.” “Due process of law” involves procedures and safeguards such as trial by jury. “Trial By Jury” means, inter alia, the jury judges both law and fact.

Then the case says, “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 the law.” These are some of the Rights of a Sovereign individual. Sovereign individuals need not report anything about themselves or their businesses to anyone.

Finally, the Supreme Court says, “He owes nothing to the public so long as he does not trespass upon their Rights.” The Sovereign individual does not have to pay taxes.

If you should discuss Hale v. Henkel with a run-of-the-mill attorney, he or she will tell you that the case is “old” and that it has been “overturned.” If you ask that attorney for a citation of the case or cases that overturned Hale v. Henkel, there will not be a meaningful response. We have researched Hale v. Henkel and here is what we found :

“We know that Hale v. Henkel was decided in 1905 in the U. S. Supreme Court.

Since it was the Supreme Court, the case is binding on all courts of the land, until another Supreme Court case says it isn’t. Has another Supreme Court case overturned Hale v. Henkel? The answer is NO. As a matter of fact, since 1905, the Supreme Court has cited Hale v. Henkel a total of 144 times. A fact more astounding is that since 1905, Hale v. Henkel has been cited by all of the federal and STATE appellate court systems a total of over 1600 times. None of the various issues of this case has ever been overruled.

So if the STATE through the office of the judge continues to threaten or does imprison you, they are trying to force you into the STATE created office of “person.” As long as you continue to claim your Rightful office of Sovereign, the STATE lacks all jurisdiction over you. The STATE needs someone filling the office of “person” in order to continue prosecuting a case in their courts.

A few weeks in jail puts intense pressure upon most “persons.” Jail means the loss of job opportunities, separation from loved ones, and the piling up of debts. Judges will apply this pressure when they attempt to arraign you. When brought in chains before a crowded courtroom the issue of counsel will quickly come up and you can tell the court you are In Propria Persona or simply “PRO PER”, as yourself and you need no other.

Do not sign their papers or cooperate with them because most things about your life are private and are not the STATE’s business to evaluate. Here is the Sovereign People’s command in the constitution that the STATE respect their privacy:

Right of privacy — Every man or woman has the Right to be let alone and free from governmental intrusion into their private life except as otherwise provided herein. This section shall not be construed to limit the public’s Right of access to public records and meetings as provided by law. See U.S. Constitution, Ninth Amendment

If the judge is stupid enough to actually follow through with his threats and send you to jail, you will soon be released without even being arraigned and all charges will be dropped. You will then have documented prima facie grounds for false arrest and false imprisonment charges against him personally.

If you read these prima facia, color of law statutes, you will find them using words like “person”. I will use the color of law Title 26 USC as a typical way that they do it.

26 USC 7701 (a) (1) Person. The term “person” shall be construed to mean and include an individual, a trust, estate, partnership, association, company or corporation.

In the Internal Revenue code they say that a “person” has to pay taxes and obey their filing requirement etc., and most people think that they are such a “person”, so they do it, but there is a maxim of law that says something else.

Ejusdem Generis (eh-youse-dem generous) v adj. Latin for “of the same kind,” used to interpret loosely written statutes. Where a law lists specific classes of persons or things and then refers to them in general, the general statements only apply to the same kind of persons or things specifically listed. Example: if a law refers to automobiles, trucks, tractors, motorcycles and other motor-powered vehicles, “vehicles” would not include airplanes, since the list was of land-based transportation.

Pursuant to the Maxim of Law ejusdem generis the word “individual” is another type of fictitious entity because the rest of the entities are fictitious entities and in the rules of statutory construction, a definition must contain the same type of entities, or it is void for vagueness. Therefore, an “individual” and a “person” are different names for a corporation.

Title 15 USC Section 44 even provides for an “unincorporated corporation”.

When you do what a color of law statute says, you are deemed to have agreed to the terms of the contract, and ignorance of the law is not an excuse.

This is consistent with what the Courts are saying, a “Person” is:
a) “a variety of entities other than human beings.” Church of Scientology v U.S. Department of Justice, 612 F2d 417 (1979) at pg 418
b) ”…foreigners, not citizens….” United States v Otherson, 480 F. Supp. 1369 (1979) at pg 1373.
c) the words “person” and “whoever” include corporations, companies, associations, firms, partnerships, societies, and joint stock companies…Title 1 U.S.C. Chapter 1 – Rules of Construction, Section 1

A sovereign is not a “person” in a legal sense and as far as a statute is concerned;
a) ” ‘in common usage, the term ‘person’ does not include the sovereign, [and] statutes employing the [word] are normally construed to exclude it.’ Wilson v Omaha Tribe, 442 US653 667, 61 L Ed 2d 153, 99 S Ct 2529 (1979) (quoting United States v Cooper Corp. 312 US 600, 604, 85 L Ed 1071, 61 S Ct 742 (1941). See also United States v Mine Workers, 330 US 258, 275, 91 L Ed 884, 67 S Ct 677 (1947)” Will v Michigan State Police, 491 US 58, 105 L. Ed. 2d 45, 109 S.Ct. 2304
b) “a sovereign is not a person in a legal sense” In re Fox, 52 N. Y. 535, 11 Am. Rep. 751; U.S. v. Fox, 94 U.S. 315, 24 L. Ed. 192

All of this is consistent with the Fourteenth Amendment because the Fourteenth Amendment talks about a “person” being a US citizen, and both of them are corporations.

Other terminologies which mean the same thing are “pretend legislation” and then it would also follow that offenses under “pretend legislation” would also be “pretend offenses”. These terminologies are found in the Declaration of Independence(1776).

For any statute to be legimate, there are certain requirements. For example, it has to have a preamble, it has to be approved by both the House of Representatives and the Senate, and signed by the President, and there are other requirements as well. The lack of any of these would make it color of law. Remember, “color of law” means it does NOT have authority, therefore, you have to agree with it, – it is a contract. That is why it is “prima facia”, which means it is “at first look”. In other words, at first look the courts presume that the statute affects you but if you can show that you didn’t agree to it in some way, then you are free to go.

Because the US Congress perjurers did their Foreign Sovereign Immunity Act, and also because state citizens are foreign to the United States, most people think that they have to go through a lot to prove that they did not agree to one of these so-called contracts, but the opposite is true.

Color of Law, and Prima Facia, and presumption are all associated with Admiralty Maritime Law courts.

Still don’t believe that the courts view these colorable codes, rules and regulations as a contract?

“The rights of the individuals are restricted only to the extent that they have been voluntarily surrendered by the citizenship to the agencies of government.”
City of Dallas v Mitchell, 245 S.W. 944

Now that you know the hidden evil in the word “person”, try to stop using it in everyday conversation. Simply use the correct term, MAN or WOMAN. Train yourself, your family and your friends to never use the derogatory word “person” ever again.

This can be your first step in the journey to get yourself free from all STATE control.

“We The People” have 11th Amendment Immunity!

Most people are unaware that “We the people” have 11th Amendment immunity!

11th Amendment Immunity
1.) The 11th Amendment under the US Constitution reads as follows: “The judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by citizens of another state, or by citizens or subjects of any foreign state.”

2.) On December 9, 1945, International Organization Immunities Act relinquished every public office of the United States to the United Nations. This law makes all public officials foreign citizens, barring them from judicial power. All public officials are administrative agents of the US Corporation. They have no judicial power whatsoever.

3.) 22 CFR (Code of Federal Regulations) 92.12-92.31 FR Heading “Foreign Relationship” states that oath is required to take office.

4.) Title 8 USC 1481 states, once oath of office is taken citizenship is relinquished, thus the oath taker becomes a foreign entity, agency, or state. That means every public office is a foreign state, even all political subdivisions; i.e., every single court is considered a separate foreign entity.

5.) Title 22 USC, “Foreign Relations and Intercourse”, Chapter 11 identifies all public officials as foreign agents.

6.) All “judicial power” of the “inferior courts” comes from the Judiciary Act of 1789, as did the Attorney General position. “Judicial power” comes from Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution. The Eleventh Amendment removed all “judicial power” in law, equity, treaties, contract law, and the right of the State to bring suit against the People. The positions of Attorney General and Prosecutor, of both the United States and the several states, come under the Judicial Branch not the Executive branch of the government. All attorneys come under the Judicial Branch and are judicial officers under the Supreme Court, not under the Secretary of State as licensed professionals, which means they can only represent the Court and not the People or the State. The Eleventh Amendment removed all “judicial power” from the “inferior courts” and the prosecutor’s office as well as from all court officers in law, equity, and so forth.

7.) The Eleventh Amendment also makes a foreign state separation from the position of the Public Office positions to throw off the People. The People have Eleventh Amendment immunity, because there is no “JUDICIAL POWER” of the “inferior courts” and the People have Foreign Sovereign Immunity.

8.) The defendant/affiant/petitioner holds the inherent right of the 11th Amendment, which states in part: “The judicial power shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted by a Foreign State.”

9.) Municipal, county, or state court lacks jurisdiction to hear any case under the foreign state definitions, coming from the 11th Amendment under the US Constitution. This jurisdiction lies with the United States District Court under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) Statutes pursuant to 28 USC 1330.2

10.) The fact that public officials are not citizens, but rather, foreign citizens, all of the cases must be dismissed because the court lacked and lacks jurisdiction to enforce judicial power. This court is an administrative court and not a criminal court. In other words, no judicial power makes this court an administrative court. Also, this following act proves that this court is an administrative agency: The Administrative Procedures Act, Title 5 – Government Organization and Employees Administrative Procedures Act part I – the agencies generally chapter 5 subchapter ii – administrative procedure º551. Definitions. For the purpose of this subchapter – * (1) ”agency” means each authority of the Government of the United States, whether or not it is within or subject to review by another agency.

Additionally, “Jurisdiction can be challenged at any time.” Basso v. Utah Power & Light Co. 495 F 2d 906, 910. And the court cannot ignore lack of jurisdiction. “There is no discretion to ignore lack of jurisdiction.” Joyce v. U.S. 474 2D 215.
A judgment rendered by a court without personal jurisdiction over the defendant is void. It is a nullity. [A judgment shown to be void for lack of personal service on the defendant is a nullity.] Sramek v. Sramek, 17 Kan. App. 2d 573, 576-77, 840 P.2d 553 (1992), rev. denied 252 Kan. 1093 (1993).

“A court cannot confer jurisdiction where none existed and cannot make a void proceeding valid. It is clear and well established law that a void order can be challenged in any court”, Old Wayne Mut. L. Assoc. v. McDonough, 204 U. S. 8, 27 S. Ct. 236 (1907).

“Defense of lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter may be raised at any time, even on appeal.” Hill Top Developers v. Holiday Pines Service Corp. 478 So. 2d. 368 (Fla 2nd DCA 1985)
“Jurisdiction, once challenged, cannot be assumed and must be decided.” Maine v Thiboutot 100 S. Ct. 250.

“A universal principle as old as the law is that proceedings of a court without jurisdiction are a nullity and its judgment therein without effect either on person or property.” Norwood v. Renfield, 34 C 329; Ex parte Giambonini, 49 P. 732.
“Jurisdiction is fundamental and a judgment rendered by a court that does not have jurisdiction to hear is void ab initio.” In Re Application of Wyatt, 300 P. 132; Re Cavitt, 118 P2d 846.

“Thus, where a judicial tribunal has no jurisdiction of the subject matter on which it assumes to act, its proceedings are absolutely void in the fullest sense of the term.” Dillon v. Dillon, 187 P 27.3
If any Tribunal (court) finds absence of proof of jurisdiction over a person and subject matter, the case must be dismissed. (See Louisville v. Motley 2111 US 149, 29S. CT 42.

“The Accuser Bears the Burden of Proof Beyond a Reasonable Doubt”.)
According to Article VI, Clause 2 of the US Constitution, known as the Supremacy Clause, establishes, “The U.S. Constitution and treaties as the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby.” Every judge and public official took an oath of office to uphold and defend the US and their state’s Constitutions, so every judge is indeed bound to uphold and defend the US Constitution.

“Any law that is repugnant to the Constitution, shall remain forever ’colorable’ and is null and void.” (See Marbury v. Madison 5 U.S. 137, 174, 176 (1803).

“According to Cohens vs. Virginia, 19 U.S. (6 wheat) 264 404 5 L. Ed. 257 (1821), “No one can war with the Constitution.” To war with the constitution constitutes the overthrow of our constitutional form of government, which is treason in violation of Title 18 U.S.C, Section 2381.

“Where Rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule – making or legislation, which would abrogate them.” (See Miranda v. Arizona 384 US 436, 125.)

American Citizen, or U.S. citizen?

There appears to be general misunderstanding by people in general as to the difference between a natural person and an artificial person. This document will explain that difference.

John Joseph Smith, is a natural, flesh and blood, person, created by God.

JOHN JOSEPH SMITH, is a U.S. corporate artificial person, U.S. citizen, created by the government.

In basic English grammar, a name spelled in upper and lower case, such as John Joseph Smith, is indicative of a flesh and blood man, a natural person.

Person. In general usage, a human being (i.e. natural person), though by statute term may include labor organizations, partnerships, associations, corporations, legal representatives, trustees, trustees in bankruptcy, or receivers. Black’s Law Dictionary 6th Ed.

On the other hand, a name spelled in all caps, such as JOHN JOSEPH SMITH, is indicative of an artificial person.

Artificial persons. Persons created and devised by human laws for the purposes of society and government, as distinguished from natural persons. Corporations are examples of artificial persons. Black’s 6th Ed.

U.S. v. Anthony 24 Fed. 829 (1873) “The term resident and citizen of the United States is distinguished from a Citizen of one of the several states, in that the former is a special class of citizen created by Congress.”

The “United States” is defined in Title 28 USC Sec. 3002(15)(A) as a “Federal corporation”.

It is also a municipal corporation.

Municipal. In narrower, more common, sense, it means pertaining to a local governmental unit, commonly, a city or town or other governmental unit. In its broader sense, it means pertaining to the public or governmental affairs of a state or nation or of a people. Black’s Law Dictionary 6th Ed.

So the federal corporation United States, that pertains to the public affairs of a people, would be a municipal corporation.The federal government pertains to the affairs of its sovereign people.

Municipal corporation. A body corporate consisting of the inhabitants of a designated area created by the legislature with or without the consent of such inhabitants for governmental purposes . . .
A municipal corporation has a dual character, the one public and the other private, and exercises corresponding twofold functions and duties — one class consisting of those acts performed by it in the exercise of delegated sovereign powers for benefit of people generally, as arm of the state, enforcing general laws made in pursuance of general policy of the state, and the other consisting of acts done in exercise of power of the municipal corporation for its own benefit, or for the benefit of its citizens alone, or citizens of the municipal corporation and its immediate locality. Black’s 6th Ed.

A municipal corporation is an artificial person, as shown above, and consists of the general inhabitants called citizens, and these artificial persons (citizens) were created by the legislature, not by God. A corporation can be a citizen itself, and that corporation can have its own citizens. A corporation also has it’s own officers. When a corporation is dissolved, then the officers of that corporation no longer exist. A government has it’s own citizens and employees. When that government is dissolved, then those citizens also cease to exist, since both officers and citizens of a corporation are both artificial persons.

Corporate citizen. Corporate status in the state of incorporation . . . Black’s 6th Ed.

A municipal corporation in its broader sense, such as the United States, consists of the inhabitants (U.S. citizens) of a designated area (federal United States). And a corporation can through its legislative branch create artificial persons, who are termed citizens of the municipal corporation. Can an artificial person create a flesh and blood natural man? Can the creator create a being superior to itself? Or can an artificial person only create (make) another artificial person?

I claim that when the municipal corporation United States, creates a citizen through legislative act, that citizen is then a corporate U.S. citizen. That corporate citizen’s name is spelled in all capital letters, to indicate that it is an artificial person, as distinguished from a natural person whose name is spelled in upper and lower case letters. That corporate citizen is subject to its creator, the U.S. government, and is subject to its exclusive jurisdiction.

Constitution of the United States of America
14th Amendment. Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any States deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

A citizen of the United States is a corporate citizen, with corporate status, created by the corporation called United States, and is acting as their agent for the purpose of collecting revenue. This citizen has only privileges and immunities under the 14th Amendment. A natural person has inalienable rights, secured by the Constitution. A person with corporate status, would have corporate income.

Brasswell v. United States 487 U.S. 99 (1988) This doctrine – known as the collective entity rule- has a lengthy and distinguished pedigree.

What is a “collective entity”? A collective entity is simply a corporate entity. Since the status of U.S. citizen can be created by naturalization let’s see what naturalization is, and determine if a U.S. citizen is part of a collective entity.

Naturalization. The process by which a person acquires nationality after birth and becomes entitled to the privileges of U.S. citizenship. In the United States collective naturalization occurs when designated groups are made citizens by treaty (as Louisiana Purchase), or by a law of Congress (as in annexation of Texas and Hawaii). Black’s 6th Ed.

Person. Scope and delineation of term necessary for determining to whom Fourteenth Amendment of Constitution affords protections since this Amendment expressly applies to “person”.

Let’s review the definition of artificial person.

Artificial persons. Persons created and devised by human laws for the purposes of society and government, as distinguished from natural persons. Corporations are examples of artificial persons. Black’s 6th Ed.

The 14th Amendment applies to “persons”, and person in legal parlance means an artificial person, in distinction from a natural person. “Collective” “naturalization occurs when designated groups” (inhabitants) “are made (created) citizens by a law of Congress”. These artificial persons were “created and devised by human laws (14th Amendment U.S. citizen) for the (revenue) purposes of society and government”, and have their names spelled in all capital letters. These designated groups are “made” or created corporate citizens/employees and are distinguished from natural persons.

A natural person, with his named spelled in upper and lower case letters, has inalienable rights, and is NOT a corporate U.S. citizen. An artificial person, and corporate citizen of the United States, has his name spelled in all capital letters. A natural person cannot be an artificial person at the same time.

The theme of the collective entity rule states:
Brasswell v. United States 487 U.S. 99 (1988) quoting, United States v. White 322 U.S. 694 (1944) But individuals, when acting as representatives of a collective group, cannot be said to be exercising their personal rights and duties, nor be entitled to their purely personal privileges. Rather they assume the rights, duties and privileges of the artificial entity or association of which they are agents or officers and they are bound by its obligations.

Under the collective entity rule, if John Joseph Smith contracted to be a representative or agent of the corporate citizen JOHN JOSEPH SMITH, then he would not be able to exercise his inalienable rights, which are his personal rights. John Joseph Smith (American Citizen) is contracting to be the agent of JOHN JOSEPH SMITH (U.S. citizen), thereby waiving his inalienable rights.

After the birth of John Joseph Smith, a new artificial person was created (JOHN JOSEPH SMITH), by the 14th Amendment, under the collective entity rule, and was naturalized as a corporate citizen of the United States. This did not destroy the natural person, but simply created a second separate legal entity, a legal fiction, artificial person. This legal fiction was created as an agent (U.S. citizen) of the corporate U.S. government to engage in commerce and collect revenue for the governments, federal, state, and local. You contracted to represent this artificial perosn, thereby waiving your inalienable rights.

A sovereign flesh and blood person is an American Citizen.

A corporate U.S. citizen is an artificial person and is a government agent/employee.


We the People

Most people are aware that “We the people” are sovereign in America.

“…at the revolution the Sovereignty devolved on the people; and they are truly the sovereigns of the country, but they are sovereigns without subjects ……and have none to govern but themselves; the citizens of America are equal as fellow citizens, and as joint tenants in the sovereignty.” Chisholm v Georgia, 2 Dall. 440, at pg 471;

“The words “people of the United States” and “citizens” are synonymous terms, and mean the same thing. They both describe the political body who, according to our republican institutions, form the sovereignty, and who hold the power and conduct the Government through their representatives. They are what we familiarly call the “sovereign people,” and every citizen is one of this people, and a constituent member of the sovereignty.” Dredd Scott v Sandford, 60 US 393, at pg 404;

So what does it mean to be sovereign? It means that you have all of the rights of the King.

“People of a state are entitled to all rights, which formerly belong to the King by his prerogative.” Lansing v Smith, (1829) 4 Wendell 9,20 (NY).

“The people or sovereign are not bound by general word 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.” People v Herkimer, 4 Cowen (NY) 345, 348 (1825)

“It will be admitted on all hands that with the exception of the powers granted to the states and the federal government, through the Constitutions, the people of the several states are unconditionally sovereign within their respective states.” Ohio L. Ins. & T. Co. v. Debolt, 16 How. 416, 14 L.Ed. 997.

Every nation on the planet, is a nation of Kings and Queens. Many people will find this hard to believe but the courts have affirmed this on numerous occasions. This is because of what is known as common law.

In fact, the courts have ruled that there is NOTHING that the government can do to affect “the people”.

“Sovereignty itself is, of course, not subject to law, for it is the author and source of law; …..” Yick Wo v Hopkins, 118 US 356, at pg 370;

Inasmuch as every government is an artificial person, an abstraction, and a creature of the mind only, a government can interface only with other artificial persons. The imaginary, having neither actuality nor substance, is foreclosed from creating and attaining parity with the tangible. The legal manifestation of this is that no government, as well as any law, agency, aspect, court, etc. can concern itself with anything other than corporate, artificial persons and the contracts between them.
Penhallow v. Doane’s Administraters 3 U.S. 54; 1 L.Ed. 57; 3 Dall. 54, (1795)

In fact the courts have also ruled that the ONLY authority held by the government is authority that is “delegated” by the people.

“…., while sovereign powers are delegated to the agencies of government, sovereignty itself remains with the people, by whom and for whom all government exists and acts.” Yick Wo v Hopkins, 118 US 356, at pg 370;

The ONLY legitimate authority that any government has is delegated by “we the people”, so what does that mean?

Can I delegate to the government the authority to take some money from you and give it to the guy down the street because he is broke?


So how do they do it? There are 2 classes of citizens.

They do it by way of what the courts view as a contract, through our own ignorance. Much of it is our own fault, because of our own ignorance of the law and how it works, and it is as old as time itself.

Firstly, foreign agents infiltrated our government.

Secondly, the foreign agents converted citizenship to the opposite of what the founding fathers intended.

Thirdly they passed color of law statutes.

Fourthly, we don’t know who we are.

There have always been 2 classes of citizens in America.

The Constitution for the United States of America talks about 2 classes of citizens.

Article IV, Section 2 Clause 1 says; “The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.”

The courts have talked about the two classes of citizens as shown below.

“there is in our Political System, a government of each of the several states and a government of the United States Each is distinct from the other and has citizens of its own.” . US vs. Cruikshank, 92 US 542,

The Fourteenth Amendment, “….creates or at least recognizes for the first time a citizenship of the United States, as distinct from that of the States.”
Black’s Law Dictionary, 5th Edition at pg 591;

“One may be a citizen of a State and yet not a citizen of the United States. Thomasson v State, 15 Ind. 449; Cory v Carter, 48 Ind. 327 (17 Am. R. 738); McCarthy v. Froelke, 63 Ind. 507; In Re Wehlitz, 16 Wis. 443.”
Mc Donel v State, 90 Ind. Rep. 320 at pg 323;

“Both before and after the 14th Amendment to the Federal Constitution it has not been necessary for a person to be a citizen of the U.S. in order to be a citizen of his State” Crosse v. Board of Supervisors, Baltimore, Md., 1966, 221 A. 2d 431 citing US Supreme Court Slaughter House Cases and U.S. v. Cruikshank 92 US 542, 549, 23 L. Ed 588 1875

“There are two classes of citizens, citizens of the United States and of the State. And one may be a citizen of the former without being a citizen of the latter” Gardina v. Board of Registers 48 So. 788, 169 Ala. 155 (1909)

“Citizenship of the United States does not entitle citizens to privileges and immunities
of Citizens of the State, since privileges of one are not the same as the other” Tashiro v. Jordan, 255 P. 545 California Supreme Court

The United States Supreme Court quite thoroughly expanded on the two classes
of citizenship in the case Maxwell v Dow, 20 S.C.R. 448, where it said:

“…that there was a citizenship of the United States and a citizenship of the states,
which were distinct from each other, depending upon different characteristics and circumstances in the individual; that it was only privileges and immunities of the citizens of the United States that were placed by the amendment under the protection of the Federal Constitution, and that the privileges and immunities of a citizen of a state, whatever they might be, were not intended to have any additional protection by the
paragraph in question, but they must rest for their security and protection where they have heretofore rested.”
Maxwell v Dow, 20 S.C.R. 448, at pg 451;

These two classes of citizenship continue to this day,
“Privileges and immunities clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protects only those rights peculiar to being a citizen of the federal government; it does not protect those rights which relate to state citizenship. 14,§ 1.”
Jones v Temmer, 829 F.Supp. 1226 (D.Colo. 1993);

Because there are 2 classes of citizens, and also because of circumstances that will become known below, it is necessary to assert your sovereignty. In order to understand how and why you assert your sovereignty, we need to have some background knowledge.

A state citizen is one of “We the People” found in the preamble to the constitution. You can be in a state without being in the United States. In fact, if you read their codes, the United States in the United States Code is the District of Columbia and the Territories. The Puerto Rico website even talks about it.

What is a US citizen?


The US citizen

A US citizen does not have any rights.

“…the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States do not necessarily include all the rights protected by the first eight amendments to the Federal constitution against the powers of the Federal government.” Maxwell v Dow, 20 S.C.R. 448, at pg 455;

“The only absolute and unqualified right of a United States citizen is to residence within the territorial boundaries of the United States,” US vs. Valentine 288 F. Supp. 957

“Therefore, the U.S. citizens [citizens of the District of Columbia] residing in one of the states of the union, are classified as property and franchises of the federal government as an “individual entity.”
Wheeling Steel Corp. v. Fox, 298 U.S. 193, 80 L.Ed. 1143, 56 S.Ct. 773.

“A “US Citizen” upon leaving the District of Columbia becomes involved in “interstate commerce”, as a “resident” does not have the common-law right to travel, of a Citizen of one of the several states.” Hendrick v. Maryland S.C. Reporter’s Rd. 610-625. (1914)

A US citizen is a corporation.

“…it might be correctly said that there is no such thing as a citizen of the United States. ….. A citizen of any one of the States of the Union, is held to be, and called a citizen of the United States, although technically and abstractly there is no such thing.” Ex Parte Frank Knowles, 5 Cal. Rep. 300

This can also be confirmed in the definitions section of Title 5 USC, Title 26 USC, and Title 1 USC.

Therefore a US citizen is a piece of property. If you read any of those old court cases prior to the civil war where slavery was the issue, the debate was ALWAYS over property rights, therefore a US citizen, is a SLAVE.

The Fourteenth Amendment defines what a US citizen is;

“Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States,…..”

The so-called Fourteenth Amendment criminally converts US citizenship completely upside down from what the founding fathers intended.

“The rights of the individuals are restricted only to the extent that they have been voluntarily surrendered by the “citizenship” to the agencies of government.”
City of Dallas v Mitchell, 245 S.W. 944

“Civil rights under the 14th amendment are for Federal citizens and not State Citizens; Federal citizens, as parents, have no right to the custody of their infant children except subject to the paramount right of the State.” Wadleigh v. Newhall, Circuit Court N. Dist. Cal., Mar 13, 1905

and “US citizens” can even murder their unborn children by committing the common law crime of infanticide, and because the unborn are NOT “persons”, then they are by definition State Citizens, which means the BAR members (foreign agents of the Crown) in the so-called courts are engaged in genocide against the American sovereignty, and this is proof that it has nothing to do with race, and has everything to do with slavery;
“The unborn are not included within the definition of “person” as used in the 14th Amendment.” Roe v. Wade, US Supreme Court, 410 US 13, 35L. Ed. 2d 147, 1973

“The only absolute and unqualified right of a United States citizen is to residence within the territorial boundaries of the United States,” US vs. Valentine 288 F. Supp. 957,

“…it is evident that they [US citizens] have not the political rights which are vested in citizens of the States. They are not constituents of any community in which is vested any sovereign power of government. Their position partakes more of the character of subjects than of citizens. They are subject to the laws of the United States, but have no voice in its management. If they are allowed to make laws, the validity of these laws is derived from the sanction of a Government in which they are not represented. Mere citizenship they may have, but the political rights of citizens they cannot enjoy…” People v. De La Guerra,40 Cal. 311, 342 (A.D. 1870) [emphasis added]

“SUBJECT. SUBJECT may imply a state of subjection to a person, such as a monarch, without much sense of membership in a political community or sharing in political rights … It may on the other hand simply indicate membership in a political community with a personal sovereign to whom allegiance is owed.” Webster’s Third New International Dictionary, MERRIAM-WEBSTER INC., Publishers 1986

“[T]he term “citizen,” in the United States, is analogous to the term “subject” in the common law.” State vs Manual 20 NC 122, 14 C.J.S. 4, p 430

and a “US citizen” is a fictitious entity, and has no rights;
“Therefore, the U.S. citizens residing in one of the states of the union, are classified as property and franchises of the federal government as an “individual entity.” Wheeling Steel Corp. v. Fox, 298 U.S. 193, 80 L. Ed. 1143, 56 S. Ct. 773

“In our opinion, it was not the intent of the legislature to restrict the operation of the
statute to those only who were subjects of the United States government …”
Prowd v. Gore (1922) 57 Cal. App. 458, 459-461 [emphasis added]

“Upon the other hand, the 14th Amendment, upon the subject of citizenship, Declares
only that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the
jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States, and of the state wherein they
reside.” Here there is a limitation to person born or naturalized in the United States,
which is not extended to person born in any place “subject to their jurisdiction.””
Downes v. Bidwell (1900) 182 U.S. 244, 249-251, 45 L. Ed. 1088, 1092, [emphasis added]

A “US Citizen” upon leaving the District of Columbia becomes involved in “interstate commerce”, as a “resident” does not have the common-law right to travel, of a Citizen of one of the several states. Hendrick v. Maryland S.C. Reporter’s Rd. 610-625. (1914)

“The right of trial by jury in civil cases, guaranteed by the 7th Amendment (Walker v. Sauvinet, 92 U. S. 90), and the right to bear arms, guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment (Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252), have been distinctly held not to be privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States guaranteed by the 14th Amendment against abridgement by the states, and in effect the same decision was made in respect of the guarantee against prosecution, except by indictment of a grand jury, contained in the 5th Amendment (Hurtado v. California, 110 U. S. 516), and in respect of the right to be confronted with witnesses, contained in the 6th Amendment.” West v. Louisiana, 194 U. S. 258.

“The technical niceties of the common law are not regarded. . . .”, 1 R.C.L. 31, p. 422. “A jury does not figure, ordinarily, in the trial of an admiralty suit. . . the verdict of the jury merely advisory, and may be disregarded by the court.” 1 R.C.L. 40, p. 432. “[The] rules of practice may be altered whenever found to be inconvenient or likely to embarrass the business of the court.” 1 R.C.L. 32, p. 423. “A court of admiralty. . . acts upon equitable principles.” 1 R.C.L. 17, p. 416. “A libel of information [accusation] does not require all the technical precision of an indictment at common law. If the allegations describe the offense, it is all that is necessary; and if it is founded upon a statute, it is sufficient if it pursues the words of the law.” The Emily v. The Caroline, 9 Wheat. 381

“…that there was a citizenship of the United States and a citizenship of the states, which were distinct from each other, depending upon different characteristics and circumstances in the individual; that it was only privileges and immunities of the citizens of the United States that were placed by the amendment under the protection of the Federal Constitution, and that the privileges and immunities of a citizen of a state, whatever they might be, were not intended to have any additional protection by the paragraph in question, but they must rest for their security and protection where they have heretofore rested.” Maxwell v Dow, 20 S.C.R. 448, at pg 451;

“…the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States do not necessarily include all the rights protected by the first eight amendments to the Federal constitution against the powers of the Federal government.” Maxwell v Dow, 20 S.C.R. 448, at pg 455; — Timeline Photos

Citizenship vs. Residence

If you were born in one of the 50 states of the Union, then you should be a State Citizen with human rights, and not subject to Congressional laws.

HOWEVER, since you filled out the birth certificate and Social Security application (SS-5) you have declared to be a Federal citizen called a “citizen of the United States”.

ALSO, you cannot be a “Resident” of a state and a “Citizen” of a state at the same time. This is because “Resident” DOES NOT MEAN what you think it means. “Resident” means that you are a temporary visitor, and that you do NOT have the same rights as a state Citizen.

Because ALL “citizens of the United States” are Federal citizens, presumed to be domiciled in the District of Columbia, they are also presumed to be “Residents” of the states where they live. The 14th Amendment created a “new class of citizen”, and stated:

“any person born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the State wherein they reside.”

This means that a Federal citizen (with a lower case “c”) is a Federal citizen, to be treated as such in the State where they “reside”, meaning temporarily live. This statement proves that 14th Amendment citizens are NOT state Citizens, because you cannot be a Resident and a Citizen of the same place.

Legal Dictionary

Main Entry: res·i·dent
Pronunciation: ‘re-z&-d&nt
Function: noun
: one who has a residence in a particular place but does not necessarily have the status of a citizen —compare CITIZEN 1, DOMICILIARY — resident adjective

“Residence and Citizenship are wholly different things within the meaning of the Constitution and the laws defining and regulating the jurisdiction of the circuit courts of the United States; and a mere averment of residence in a particular State is not an averment of Citizenship in that state for the purposes of jurisdiction.” Steigleder v. McQuesten, 198 U.S. 143
“Of course the terms ‘resident’ and ‘citizen’ are not synonymous, and in some cases the distinction is important” [252 U.S. 60, 79] (La Tourette v. McMaster, 248 U.S. 465, 470 , 39 S. Sup. Ct. 160)…TRAVIS v. YALE & TOWNE MFG. CO. , 252 U.S. 60 (1920)

Private Administrative Process

The current commercial process in the world today is a game, is created entirely in the realm of FICTION, operating as private law and private contract between legal fictions, i.e., Countries (Nations,) Corporations, and straw men (Individuals/Sole Proprietors.)

Today’s operational jurisdiction is private law, called “public policy,” not public law as existed in the Republic. To make his way in the Real world a living being, who cannot enter, operate in, or be in the realm of the fictitious and imaginary, needs a commercial vessel.

Such a vessel is the straw man.

You have never had standing to be in, or to act in their commercial court… until now. You are not JOHN HENRY DOE (name changed to protect the “person” lol), and you never were. You are the man who has created a new person to use in commerce, with standing to sue all those who trespass against you or your person (your new fictional entity that you created… what you create, you control). Now it is your commercial “person” whom you use in commerce to conduct your business. You now have good standing (where you did not before) to sue anyone in their individual capacity who violates that person or it’s property. You have successfully separated your body from your participation in commerce and as such can now hand them the person (the ANC) if they want to ask it any questions. Believe me, this rebuts and clarifies many presumptions that are made in court and will do nothing but help you. Include your title and number on all correspondence. I even write correspondence using the all caps person now. I am trying to build it’s credit.

Inasmuch as law must always provide a remedy, when US Inc. declared bankruptcy in 1933, it had to structure a means for living people to appear in their private, proper capacity and deal with whatever claims might arise. The result is that all claims must be resolved through private administrative process to determine whether or not the public sector (public policy) has jurisdiction in a given matter.

Consequently, in order to properly bring or deal with an action in the public sector, the private, administrative remedies must properly be exhausted first. The real being cannot perfect his claim and assert any standing as a creditor in the absence of perfecting the private administrative process, hereinafter “PAP,” first.

Inasmuch as all courts today are admiralty-equity tribunals, the universal principles of equity are operational. These principles include such maxims of equity as:

1. He who comes into a court of equity must come with clean hands. 79 Fed. Rep. 854; 97 Tenn. 180; 11 Tex. Civ. App. 624.

2. He who has committed iniquity shall not have equity. Francis, 2d Max.

3. Equity denotes the spirit and habit of fairness, justness, and right dealing, which would regulate the intercourse of men with men.

4. Equity suffers no right without a remedy.

5. Equality is equity.

6. Equity follows the law.

7. He who seeks equity must do equity.

8. He who seeks equity must have clean hands.

9. Equity will not permit a party to profit by his own wrong.

10. To receive equity one must give equity.

If, in an action, both parties are in dishonor, both have failed to “give equity” and have proceeded without “clean hands.” In such a case, the judge has unbridled discretion, since he is dealing with two losers from inception. The judge must then do is what his exclusive duty is in any case, uphold public policy and collect revenue for paying the insurance policy premiums to keep the bankrupt corporation afloat.

The solution, therefore, is never to dishonor, i.e., always do equity and act with clean hands, and perfect your claim in the private, administrative realm at the outset of a dispute. By so doing, you have availed yourself of the remedy in law and “exhausted your administrative remedies.” At this point, should the matter enter a court and be put before a judge, you will be the one with a perfected claim on the private side and also the only party with clean hands, having done equity and acted in honor and good faith.

Because administrative remedies must be exhausted prior to a matter entering the judicial arena, as long as you are doing administrative procedure, the public officials cannot proceed with any court action against the straw man.

The administrative process consists of having your notary send (you should always send and receive all paperwork by and through a friendly and knowledgeable notary) notice of your position to all of the parties, i.e., “Respondents,” who are assaulting your straw man with demands, obligations, and charges. Said Respondents are sent your private, administrative notices in the private capacity of all concerned, so that you are operating as a real being sending notices to other real beings. The nature of your paperwork is that without dishonoring (denying, traversing, faultfinding, etc.), you require that your adversary “put up or shut up.” In other words, you send your adversaries, in private capacity, conditional acceptances and negative averments that in essence state:

I have no idea whether your claims and charges are bona fide or not, or whether I have a valid obligation to satisfy the obligations you assert, but I am not aware of any evidence substantiating your position in any of these matters and if you claim that your demands are valid, provide documentary proof of claim for the record and I will comply with whatever you have substantiated.”

It is essential to remember that the entire current judicial system functions by stipulations, i.e., agreements, between disputing parties. Either stipulations occur by the two parties openly agreeing on a particular point or, if they do not, the discovery and trial process resulting in stipulations based on the ruling of the judge, i.e., the discretionary “conscience of the court.”

The entire legal/commercial process today is a game, the essential rule of which is: “Whoever dishonors first loses.” Or, phrased differently, “No one who dishonors can be assured of prevailing.” In short, if you wish to win you must proceed without dishonoring, or there is no guarantee you will prevail and, what is worse, if your adversary is the system itself, you are automatically guaranteed to lose because the judge must faithfully adhere to his Prime Directive: Uphold public policy and collect revenue for the bankruptcy reorganization.

Three step process: Conditional acceptance, Notice of fault and opportunity to cure, notice of default.

Your private administrative process must operate as follows:

1. Do everything by affidavit or asseveration, notarized.

2. Use a notary for everything—sending out all of your paperwork, receiving responses, keeping the notarial logbook, retaining copies of everything sent and received, executing such notarial documents as those involved in a notary protest, etc.

3. Have your notary send your adversaries your notices in the private capacity of all involved parties.

4. Never dishonor or traverse, which you can do by enjoining (commenting on, whether admitting or denying) any of the content, i.e., subject matter, in their communications, as well as by ignoring what you receive (failing to respond within the time frames required). Remember the definition of “traverser” from Black’s Law Dictionary: “In pleading, one who traverses or denies. A prisoner or party indicted; so called from his traversing the indictment.” Regard the content of their documents as their truth or fantasy, which, in either case, is not your position/truth and therefore not your business to comment on one way or another, other than as above, “maybe what you say is true, but if so, prove it.” Then you have not dishonored by ignoring, nor traversed by commenting on their statements.

5. Remember the maxim of law: “The burden of proof resides on him who asserts, not on one against whom a claim or charge is made.” They initiated the matter and are demanding something from you, not the reverse. Therefore, in the Private Administrative Process the burden of proof concerning the validity of their assertions rests with them, not you.

6. Invoke the principle of acquiescence by silence, i.e., by the terms and conditions of the interchange, their failure to put up or shut up within the time frame you allow for them to prove their claims constitutes their stipulation (agreement) that your position is true, correct, and complete in entirety and they are devoid of proof of claim for anything they’ve alleged against the straw man.

7. After you have consummated your private administrative process, proceed to the public side by invoking the notary for the notarial protest process, at the end of which you have the following established as documentary proof on the record:

a. A private (from you) and public (from the notary) exhaustion of administrative remedies;

b. A complete set of stipulations by them in support of your position;

c. Private, commercial, and judicial summary judgment and judgment in estoppel on the law, facts, and money.

Their stipulations established by the foregoing process include their admission and confession, i.e., “confession of judgment,” that:

1. You are the creditor and not a debtor concerning the transaction;

2. There is no evidence that they are the creditor;

3. They owe you, and you can bill them for, the sum-certain amount set forth in the paperwork;

4. They have failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted;

5. Any and all proceeding against you thereafter constitutes a libel on the public record authorizing your filing a libel of review in the (general) admiralty against all parties in their private capacity, devoid of official immunity;

6. They and all others are hereafter forever estopped from raising the issue, contesting the stipulations, or proceeding against you in any way concerning what has been finalized.

After completion of the above, you can file your administrative judgment with the appropriate Recorder, and thereafter record a certified copy of the filed judgment on a UCC-1 or UCC-3.

Remember that your notary constitutes a disinterested third-party witness. When the notary, an agent of the State and the court, enters the public side with your private information, your position appears on the public record.

Thereafter, any form of court action against your straw man would constitute self-validating proof, based on the public record that has been established, that any and all involved parties — are acting inequitably and with unclean hands. If you have any form of court proceeding asserted against you, show the judge that he has only one course of action based on the record.

Once the Private Administrative Process has been completed, then all manner of remedies and recourses exist for you that formerly did not and could not. These include a habeas corpus, criminal affidavits, maritime liens, and other remedies.

Here is a sample notice of fault and opportunity to cure that you can make your own:


To: ______________________.

From: ____________________.

Date Notice served:

Notice to Agent is Notice to Principal. Notice to Principal is Notice to Agent

Dear _______________________,

I,__________________________ do declare the following to be true and correct to the best of my knowledge;
This is a lawful notice. Please read it carefully. It informs you. It means what it says. I do not stand under the Law Society’s ‘legalese’ and there are no hidden meanings or interpretations beyond the simple English statements herein.

A reply to this notice is REQUIRED and is to be made stating the respondent’s clearly legible full name and on his or her full commercial liability and penalty of perjury. Your response is required within TEN (10) days from the recorded delivery date of this notice; failure to respond in substance will provide your tacit consent to all of the FACTS contained within this Notice and or any previous Notice served; and that you agree that you are unable to provide lawful proof-of-claim to the contrary. DO NOT IGNORE IT.

You are hereby again put on Notice of my standing and the lawful facts. If you fail to respond to the aforesaid Notices in ‘substance’ or within the reasonable time frame provided herein, without first legally rebutting the points of law claimed herein or within previous Notice(s) served, it shall be taken to mean by all interested parties that all claims and assertions stated by me herein/therein are true and indisputable lawful facts and, that you agree to them entirely and without exception. It will also be taken to mean that any further action taken against myself as a living constitutional subject of the Realm of England and or, against the fraudulently created ‘legal fiction’, shall be taken to mean by all interested parties to be harassment, demanding monies with menaces and coercion to aid and abet crime (High Treason) at common law.

I,___________________ over the age of twenty one years, whilst mentally competent to witness, and with first hand knowledge of the facts do say the following, that:


This being the second Notice to be served I use this ‘Notice of Default and Opportunity to Cure’ as a reminder of the first preceding Notice of Conditional Acceptance, which was either ignored or mislaid, or was not answered correctly according to the claims and assertions stated within it in ‘SUBSTANCE’.

Allowing for a reasonable time frame for you to respond to this ‘Notice of Default and Opportunity to Cure’, I hereby offer you this further chance to rebut or confirm my understanding of the common law as referred to in my previous Notice(s) so that you may remain in honour, and thus by doing so enabling an opportunity to remedy this matter by law, amicably so as to save any future breach of the peace or torts being committed.

I hereby attest and affirm that all of the above is the truth and as to my lawful understanding.

Without malice, vexation, frivolity or ill will, and on my full commercial liability and penalty of perjury and, with no admission of liability whatsoever and with my natural, indefeasible and unalienable Common law rights reserved.Sworn and subscribed on the date:


Witnessed by: Date:



3: _____________________

Learn more about affidavits:

Lien Up

If some organized crime unit steals your car and then tries to sell it back to you or put a lien on it saying that it was “abandoned” or some crap, turn it right back around on them and “lien up” your own stuff first.

I am sure that you have made investments into the car of which you have paramount interest in. Make it legit! If you hold a lien on your own stuff, they have to settle that BEFORE they try and sell it. Always leave a bad taste in their mouth, like taking another bite will make them sick.Here, I will even give you the paperwork –

Also, if some criminal partnerships are evident (like a tow company, police department, lien company) and they are all working together to steal and extort your private property that is likely taxable events that they are not reporting because they are criminal and fraudulent in nature. Would you ever report your earnings from theft as “taxable income”? I wouldn’t either, that’s why you get them to all fill out W-9 forms and if they are reluctant to do that make sure that you show them the 3949A form that you are going to use to report their criminal activities. Then follow through with it! Don’t bluff them. If your car has been stolen you have nothing to lose anyway so give them hell! Don’t be afraid! Do it now! Even if it happened a while back! Don’t let it slide!

Learn more about taxable events here – http://freedomfromgovernment.org/courtroom-ace-in-the-hole-taxable-events/


Get yourself a printable version HERE and carry it with you when you travel. Even though we know that even when cops know how to read, they usually don’t like doing it, but if you record yourself handing them this and they disregard it then no one can say that they didn’t receive notice.

This is a Private automobile- exempt from commercial motor vehicle regulations and statutes, protected by the constitution of these united states, and upheld by supreme and appellate courts in each and every state of these united states.

Warning: You are about to violate your official oath.

The supreme court has upheld that if a public servant violates his oath to protect the constitution, and the citizen, he is no longer acting in official capacity. If you issue citations, illegally arrest, assault, detain, kidnap, or commit theft upon me, you will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

If you are unfamiliar with any of the terms or legal definitions in this affidavit, please call your supervisor.

If this is a “traffic stop” you’ve got the wrong automobile, I do not now and will not in the future traffic goods, or commodities of any kind. I travel the roadways in pursuit of life and liberty, not corporate

My automobile is not a “motor vehicle” or “vehicle” it is not used in the operation of any commerce, it is not used to haul passengers or freight for monetary gain. It is my automobile, and is my personal
property – an extension of my household I am not a “driver” who “operates” a “motor vehicle”. ( “Driver — One employed in conducting a coach, carriage, wagon, or other vehicle…” Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, 1914 ed., p. 940.)

A driver is a person for hire using the roadways as his place of business, hauling freight, or passengers for monetary gain. I am not employed as a driver, and i do not “operate” any “vehicle” or “motor
vehicle” governed by “transportation” code. “transportation” is the act of transporting, for monetary gain. I am merely a traveler in my automobile.

I am not a carrier for-hire. I am a private citizen going about my daily activities exercising my unalienable right to travel.
I noticed red lights declaring an emergency, which is why I pulled to the side. If there is an emergency and my help is needed, please notify me, and i will help if i am able. If there is no emergency please tell me why I am not free to go. (I am not about to, nor am I now, and I did not Just recently Commit any crime.)

Included below are several examples, Definitions, Citations of Supreme court rulings and other EVIDENCE. “Driver’s License” is a Permission issued to anyone using the roads in commerce. ” ‘‘Motor vehicle’’ means every description of carriage or other contrivance propelled or drawn by mechanical power and used for commercial purposes on the highways in transportation of passengers, passengers and property, or property and cargo; … Used for commercial purposes'' means the carriage of persons or property for any fare, fee, rate, charge or other consideration, or directly or indirectly in connection with any business, or other undertaking intended for profit[.]" 18 U.S.C. 31. "A carriage is peculiarly a family or household article. It contributes in a large degree to the health, convenience, comfort, and welfare of the householder or of the family." Arthur v Morgan, 113 U.S. 495, 500, 5 S.Ct. 241, 243 S.D. NY 1884). "The Supreme Court, in Arthur v. Morgan, 112 U.S. 495, 5 S.Ct. 241, 28 L.Ed. 825, held that carriages were properly classified as household effects, and we see no reason that automobiles should not be similarly disposed of." Hillhouse v United States, 152 F. 163, 164 (2nd Cir. 1907). "A soldier's personal automobile is part of his household goods[.]” U.S. v Bomar, C.A.5(Tex.), 8 F.3d 226, 235″ 19A Words and Phrases – Permanent Edition (West) pocket part 94.

“Automobile purchased for the purpose of transporting buyer to and from his place of employment was consumer goods'' as defined in UCC 9-109." Mallicoat v Volunteer Finance & Loan Corp., 3 UCC Rep Serv 1035; 415 S.W.2d 347 (Tenn. App., 1966). "The provisions of UCC 2-316 of the Maryland UCC do not apply to sales of consumer goods (a term which includes automobiles, whether new or used, that are bought primarily for personal, family, or household use)." Maryland Independent Automobile Dealers Assoc., Inc. v Administrator, Motor Vehicle Admin., 25 UCC Rep Serv 699; 394 A.2d 820, 41 Md App 7 (1978). "An automobile was part of testatrix' household goods” within codicil. In
re Mitchell’s Will, 38 N.Y.S.2d 673, 674, 675 [1942].” 19A Words and Phrases
– Permanent Edition (West) 512. Cites Arthur v Morgan, supra.
“[T]he expression personal effects'' clearly includes an automobile[.]" In re Burnside's Will, 59 N.Y.S.2d 829, 831 (1945). Cites Hillhouse, Arthur, and Mitchell's Will, supra. "[A] yacht and six automobiles were personal belongings” and “household
effects[.]”” In re Bloomingdale’s Estate, 142 N.Y.S.2d 781, 782 (1955).
In re Bloomingdale’s Estate, 142 N.Y.S.2d 781, 782 (1955).
“No State government entity has the power to allow or deny
passage on the highways, byways, nor waterways… transporting
his vehicles and personal property for either recreation or
business, but by being subject only to local regulation i.e.,
safety, caution, traffic lights, speed limits, etc. Travel is not a privilege requiring, licensing, vehicle registration, or forced insurances.” Chicago Coach Co. v. City of Chicago, 337 Ill. 200, 169 N.E. 22.

“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).
“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
No person shall be…deprived of Life, Liberty, or Property without due process of law.

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.

“We find it intolerable that one constitutional right should have to
be surrendered in order to assert another”. SIMMONS v US, supra.
“When 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 p. 491.
“The claim and exercise of a Constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime.” Miller v. U.S. 230 F 2d 486, 489.
History is clear that the first ten amendments to the Constitution were adopted to secure certain common law rights of the people, against invasion by the Federal Government.” Bell v. Hood, 71 F.Supp., 813, 816 (1947) U.S.D.C. — So. Dist. CA.
“The state cannot diminish Rights of the people.” Hurtado vs. California, 110 US 516.
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.


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…” [emphasis added] 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?

“To be that statute which would deprive a Citizen of the rights of person or property, without a regular trial, according to the course and usage of the common law, would not be the law of the land.” 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.

MORE CASE LAW CITATIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT:The fundamental Right to travel is NOT a Privilege, it’s a gift granted by your Maker, and restated by our founding fathers as Unalienable and cannot be taken by any Man / Government made Law or color of law known as a private Code (secret) or a Statute, To Wit:
“As general rule men have natural right to do anything which their
inclinations may suggest, if it be not evil in itself, and in no way
impairs the rights of others.” In Re Newman (1858), 9 C. 502.
“Traveling is passing from place to place–act of performing journey;
and traveler is person who travels.” In Re Archy (1858), 9 C. 47.
“Right of transit through each state, with every species of property known to constitution of United States, and recognized by that paramount law, is secured by that instrument to each citizen, and does not depend upon uncertain and changeable ground of mere comity.” In Re Archy (1858), 9 C. 47.

“Traffic infractions are not a crime.” People v. Battle, 50 Cal. App.3,
step 1, Super, 123 Cal. Rptr. 636, 639.

“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.

Freedom to travel is, indeed, an important aspect of the citizen’s
“liberty”. We are first concerned with the extent, if any, to which
Congress has authorized its curtailment. (Road) Kent v. Dulles, 357 U.S. 116, 127.

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. So much is conceded by the solicitor general. In Anglo Saxon law that right was emerging at least as early as Magna Carta. Kent v. Dulles, 357 U.S. 116, 125.
“The use of the highway for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege but a common and fundamental right of which the public and individuals cannot rightfully be deprived.”
Chicago Motor Coach v. Chicago, 337 Ill. 200, 169 NE 22, 66 ALR 834. Ligare v. Chicago, 139 Ill. 46, 28 NE 934. Boone v. Clark, 214 SW 607; 25 AM JUR (1st) Highways, Sec. 163.

“The right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by a carriage or 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.

“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 public interest and convenience. Chicago Coach Co. v. City of Chicago, 337 Ill. 200, 169 N.E. 22, 206.

“… It is now universally recognized that the state does possess such power [to impose such burdens and limitations upon private carriers when using the public highways for the transaction of their business] with respect to common carriers using the public highways for the transaction of their business in the transportation of persons or property for hire. That rule is stated as follows by the supreme court of the United States: ‘A citizen may have, under the fourteenth amendment, the right to travel and transport his property upon
them (the public highways) by auto vehicle, but he has no right to make the highways his place of business by using them as a common carrier for hire.
Such use is a privilege which may be granted or withheld by the state in its discretion, without violating either the due process clause or the equal protection clause.’ (Buck v. Kuykendall, 267 U. S. 307 [38 A. L. R. 286, 69 L. Ed. 623, 45 Sup. Ct. Rep. 324].)
“The right of a citizen to travel upon the highway and transport his property thereon in the ordinary course of life and business differs radically an obviously from that of one who makes the highway his place of business and uses it for private gain, in the running of a stage coach or omnibus. The former is the usual and ordinary right of a citizen, a right common to all; while the latter is special, unusual and extraordinary. As to the former, the extent of legislative power is that of regulation; but as to the latter its power is broader; the right may be wholly denied, or it may be permitted to some and denied to others, because of its extraordinary nature. This distinction, elementary and fundamental in character, is recognized by all the
authorities.”In Thompson v. Smith, Chief of Police. Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia. 155 Va. 367, 154 S.E. 579, 71 A.L.R. 604. Sept. 12, 1930 it states:
Constitutional law: Citizen’s right to travel upon public highways and transport his property thereon in ordinary course of life and business is common right. The right of a citizen so to do is that which he has under his right to enjoy life and liberty, to acquire property, and to
pursue happiness and safety.

Automobiles, Highways: Citizen’s right to travel upon public highways includes right to use usual conveyances of time, including horse-drawn carriage, or automobile, for ordinary purposes of life and business.

Injunction: Injunction lies against enforcement of void statute or ordinance, where legal remedy is not as complete or adequate as injunction, or where threatened or attempted enforcement will do
irreparable injury to person in interfering with exercise of common fundamental personal right.

By “irreparable injury” is meant an injury of such a nature that fair and reasonable redress may not be had in a court of law and that to refuse the injunction would be a denial of justice. Constitutional Law § 101 – right to travel – 5. The nature of the Federal Union and constitutional concepts of personal liberty unite to require that
all citizens be free to travel throughout the length and breadth of the
United States uninhibited by statutes, rules, or regulations which
unreasonably burden or restrict this movement. 6. Although not explicitly mentioned in the Federal Constitution, the right freely to travel from one state to another is a basic right under the constitution.

Constitutional Law § 101 – law chilling assertion of rights – 7. If a
law has no other purpose than to chill the assertion of constitutional
rights by penalizing those who choose to exercise them, then it is patently unconstitutional. Shapiro v Thompson, 394 US 618, 22 L Ed 2d 600, 89 S Ct 1322

The “HOPE” Experiment

The “HOPE” Experiment :During a brutal study at John Hopkins University in the 1950s, Harvard graduate Dr. Curt Richter placed rats in a pool of water to test how long they could tread water.

On average they’d give up and sink after 15 minutes.

But right before they gave up due to exhaustion, the researchers would pluck them out, dry them off, let them rest for a few minutes – and put them back in for a second round.

In this second try – how long do you think they lasted?

Remember – they had just swam until failure only a few short minutes ago…How long do you think?

Another 15 minutes?

10 minutes?

5 minutes?


40 hours!

That’s not an error.

That’s right! 40 hours of swimming.

The conclusion drawn was that since the rats BELIEVED that they would eventually be rescued, they could push their bodies way past what they previously thought impossible.

I will leave you with this thought: If hope can cause exhausted rats to swim for that long, what could a belief in yourself and your abilities, do for you?

There is nothing evil about traveling… but it’s not proper.

There’s nothing wrong with being in an automobile, there’s nothing evil about that. Even man’s law, in their own court cases, admit that there’s nothing inherently evil about an automobile; it’s the guy behind the wheel. That’s where the evil comes from. Also, most people believe that “roads” belong to the government. They don’t. Just because the government paves over a way common to all does not make it theirs. After all, if the government comes to your home and paves your dirt driveway, does that now mean the driveway belongs to the government? Of course not. And their own laws confirm that the “roads” belong to the people, not the government.

The first thing to understand is that all codes, rules, and regulations that ‘govern’ the areas of transportation apply only to natural persons, residents, corporations, and other fictitious entities. They do not apply to the servants of Christ. Notice that the traffic laws of a State only apply to those who are residents or travelers within that State, and not to foreigners, transients, or sojourners:”The sovereign authority can extend only over those who are subject to it; it cannot, therefore, regulate the rights of foreigners. But if they come within its territory, either to reside or travel, they are considered as submitting themselves to the authority of the laws of the country, and they are bound by them. This is perfectly reasonable, for during their stay in the country they are protected by its laws.” 1 Bouvier’s Inst. of law (1851), page 38.

Notice that to ‘travel’ is synonymous with being a ‘resident.’

“Within the meaning of ‘a right to travel’, means migration with intent to settle and abide.” Strong v. Collatos, D.C. Mass., 450 F. Supp. 1356, 1360.

“Nom de guerre – a war name; an assumed traveling name; a pseudonym.” Webster’s New Twentieth Century Dictionary, Unabridged (World Publishing Company, 1969); Dictionary of Foreign Words and Phrases, page 1202.

‘Traveling’ and ‘driving’ are purely commercial terms. Therefore, you should use the term “exercising my duty of movement on the Common Ways”. As Scripture says, “I can do all things through Christ which strengtheneth me” (Philippians 4:13). Only in this way can you bring God’s Law and your ambassadorship into a potential situation with the military police. Also notice that a Nom de guerre, a fictitious name, is a ‘traveling name’, meaning you are a ‘resident,’ and under the jurisdiction of the State.

When you carry a license (which always has a fictitious name spelled in all capital letters on it), you are looked upon by these powers as one of theirs. It is evidence of your status, as a natural person, a resident, and not an ambassador and sojourner in Christ. The primary evidence of who and what you are is found in how you conduct yourself when confronted by the ‘road patrol’.

The police have the ability to use their discretion. If they feel that you are speaking the truth as to who and what you are (Matthew 12:37, “For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned.”) and are not a threat to the peace and safety of the public, they may respect those convictions and let you go. Or, they may take you to jail and impound your vessel, or they may not. It may appear to be a negative experience for one that decides to take this stand, but appearances can be deceptive. The important thing to remember is that it is for the Lord’s sake; therefore:Hebrews 13:5, “Let your conversation be without covetousness; and be content with such things as ye have: for he hath said, I will never leave thee, nor forsake thee.”


Why is a judge referred to as Your Honor? – It’s because he/she is weighing who is before him/her and remaining in honor . . . like a mirror and also weighing who will get into argument and therefore acting in dishonor.

You will always lose unless you abide by the rules of the matrix game. You will probably lose even if you use the rules, because you will argue and that is what the “controllers” want you to do, argue. When you argue, you are in dishonor. This is unfortunately how we’ve been conditioned.

Forget about the law. The law is only for those that have violated some tenet of commerce.

Remember, everything in this world is a contract. When you go to the store to purchase a quart of milk, you are about to enter into a contract. When you pick up the milk and pay for it, the clerk will give you a receipt. This receipt is the title to the quart of milk. If you discard the receipt before you leave the store and you leave the store, you could be charged with stealing since you do not have the title to the milk.

You will probably begin to argue. Once you begin to argue, you are in dishonor and when you are in dishonor nothing matters except getting back in honor.

Here is a Biblical story example: Jesus came upon the land to teach people how to operate in commerce. His main purpose was to save us from our dishonor. Yet we persist in this dishonor by acquiring things, which we are treating as little demigods.

One of the best lessons Jesus taught was by his example. On his trip to Galilee, he encountered three beggars, who called out and said “Jesus, heal us”! They were offering Jesus a contract.

There are four possible ways in which to answer when one is offered a contract.

a. Agree to the contract and you are in honor.

b. Remain silent (is consider insolent) and therefore you are in dishonor.

c. To argue about the contract is a dishonor. That is why the courts want you to have an attorney. Attorneys argue and get you in dishonor. They are there to turn you in!

d. Doing a novation is like bargaining and it is a conditional acceptance. For example, if a merchant is selling apples for one dollar each and you want an apple, but you don’t want to pay a dollar, you may offer fifty cents. This is bartering, not dishonor and you are remaining in honor. You have just placed the merchant in the position of having to make one of the same four choices on how to answer. You will probably walk away and he will lose the sale if he declines by arguing or remaining silent. He lost because he dishonored you. He remains in honor if he chooses ‘d’.

Getting back to the lesson. The beggars offered Jesus a contract. Jesus replied, “What would you have me do?” He is now doing a novation to the contract. Before he can comply, he has to know what the contract requires. The beggars then re-offered the contract to Jesus by saying, “make us see”. He then agreed by saying, “you are healed”. The beggars and Jesus were always in honor and the contract was completed and everyone was satisfied.

In a court setting, you should re-offer the Judge, by stating: Your Honor, I conditionally accept your offer to give you a NAME upon Proof of Claim that if I do so, it will not bind me to any contract with the State of XYZ (whatever jurisdiction you are supposedly in). The judge will keep trying to get you into contract. You must continue to conditionally accepting the judge’s offer by continually repeating, upon Proof of whatever Claim they are making.

The case is The State of XXY v. JOHN DOE. The judge asks you…How do you plead, Guilty or Not Guilty? or he may say Responsible or Not Responsible? Your answer: Your honor, I conditionally accept your offer to plead upon Proof of Claim that the State of XYX is an injured or the State of XYZ and I have a contract and upon Proof of Claim that the XYZ on the complaint, in all upper case letters is not a legal fiction and upon Proof of Claim that, I, a living being, am a corporation.

Drawing and answering an original bill in chancery

I hope you choose to accept this free equitable gift, from me to you. Over 160 year-old book. A rare find indeed.

To get the book, “right-click” on the link below and select “download link as” to save it to your computer or just click on it to open the document (6MB .PDF)
Drawing and answering an original bill in chancery


If you want to support us, visit http://shop.freedomfromgovernment.org