I was a few miles east of Chiloquin Oregon in the woods getting some rest when I was rudely awakened by gunshots. I got out of there because I didn’t want to hang out. Then I was followed, and you will never guess what happened??? (Wait for it…)
These videos are from my dual channel dashcam blackbox with GPS available here (http://shop.freedomfromgovernment.org/index.php?route=product/product&product_id=65). I have traveled thousands of miles up and down the west coast this year without incident and I want to tell you that you can do it too. All it takes is some courage and some patience, they have us all controlled through our on fears. I walk with God though, so I have no fear. Actually, God rides shotgun with me because I am on a mission to help people learn how to attain liberty and happiness, while living their life.
United States v. Herrera, F.3d 05-3057 (10th Cir. (Kan.) Apr. 19, 2006) Search and Seizure (Administrative Automobile Inventory Search -Mistake of Fact – Exclusionary Rule – Good Faith Exception Inapplicable).
A Kansas state trooper pulled over defendant’s pickup truck to conduct a random commercial vehicle safety inspection pursuant to a state regulatory statute.
Defendant’s pickup, however, was not a commercial vehicle subject to such random inspections, about which the trooper was mistaken. The defendant was unable to produce proof of insurance, and the trooper arrested him. The trooper then conducted an inventory search, and discovered 23 kilograms of cocaine.
The defendant was charged federally with possession of cocaine with intent to distribute. He filed a motion to suppress that was denied. He was convicted, and appealed. Held: Conviction reversed and case dismissed.
Ruled: The traffic stop was not based on probable cause, or reasonable suspicion, and was not a valid administrative stop because defendant’s pickup was not a commercial vehicle subject to random safety inspections. Hence, the warrantless stop was unconstitutional. Moreover, the trooper’s mistaken belief concerning the statutory regulatory scheme did not save the stop, search, and seizure because the trooper had no lawful authority to make the random inspection and there was no reasonable suspicion or probable cause. Thus, the good-faith exception did not apply.
On December 10, 1985, Arizona State Senator Wayne Stump addressed a letter to the State’s Director of Public Safety, Ralph Milstead, that is sure to shake up the bureaucracy. The same letter was addressed to the sheriff of every county, every police chief, and the head of every law enforcement agency having to do with traffic regulation in the State of Arizona.
Let the letter speak for itself: “It has come to my attention that numerous individuals in our state have rescinded all of their contracts with the United States federal government, the State of Arizona, and each of its political subdivisions, establishing themselves as freemen under the organic national Constitution of the Republic of the United States of America. Consequently, they may be driving without auto registration, driver’s license, or any other evidence of contract.
“Because many law enforcement personnel may be unaware of the contractual nature of auto registration and driver’s licenses, it is conceivable that this situation may lead to confrontation between these individuals and law enforcement personnel.
“I urge you to inform yourself and your personnel about this matter as soon as possible. If you would like to be briefed by someone knowledgeable on this subject, please contact me.
“In the meantime, inasmuch as this procedure is entirely appropriate when properly carried out, I would like to be personally notified of every such instance of confrontation in order that the persons involved and the public officials involved may be apprised of the correct procedure and the appropriateness of their actions on the part of each concerned.
“My office phone is (602) 255-5261 and I am requesting to be notified of the names and incidents along with addresses and phone numbers of participants of any such confrontations arising from the exercise of a person’s freeman status in order to evaluate the outcome of properly rescinded contracts.
State Capitol – Senate Wing
Phoenix, Arizona 85007
[Reprinted from `Freedom League Newsletter’, January 1986]
A STATE SENATOR EXPLAINS 14TH AMENDMENT CITIZENSHIP
The 14th Amendment was not properly ratified by the states of the Union. Like the 16th and 17th Amendments, it is a law that does not exist. We must begin forcing the dialogue in political discussions, meetings and talk radio to these key, core issues.
They are critical to the Unseen Hand and continuing to yap about the symptoms instead of the treatment won’t get the issues out into the public domain.
The following is a reprint from the Free Enterprise Society’s newsletter, May 1989. It is authored by former Arizona State Senator Wayne Stump:
To whom it may concern:
“As my interest in constitutional law has expanded over the past years and the word of my interest spread, I have happily become the recipient of Patriot papers, circulars and letters from all over this great land.
Many folks involved in the research and use of the principles involved in our “Republican” form of government have become personal friends. These friendships have enabled a great deal of activity, from diverse sources, to develop together for comparison and evaluation.
I have, from time to time, endeavored to pass information, on a limited basis, from one source to another for enlightenment of individuals on general issues.
This time, however, it would appear that the emerging principles are so fundamental to our form of government, and of such magnitude as to encompass every man, woman and child in our united Republics, that one wonders how they could have ever become obscured.
The principles to which I refer are those heralded in the Preamble of the Constitution, which beings: “We, the People….” and continues “….secure the blessings of Liberty to
Ourselves and our Posterity.” These words, without question, were used to represent the interests of the signers of the Constitutional contract. That is to say, “The Founding Fathers and their Posterity.”
When one reflects on this meaning of “We the People” it would seem to mean that the Preamble People were a class of people who, with the aid of God, originally secured their Liberty with the protections they constructed into the Organic Constitution and the first ten Amendments thereto. This, being the case, tends to bring the import of the 14th
Amendment into focus.
The 13th and 14th Amendments, as we have been taught, were fashioned to give freedom to slaves and to secure for them privileges of citizenship.
Our Educators, however, neglected to explain that the 14th Amendment creation was that of a new “class” of citizenship. It becomes clear when one studies the wording of the Organic Constitution, that the original people cited in the “Preamble” could not lose the “Blessings” secured thereby as long as the Constitution was intact, because our Constitution is perpetual.
The 14th Amendment, then had to create another “position” for those persons for whom it was created. Scrutiny of the 14th Amendment reveals that persons encompassed thereby were “subject” to jurisdiction thereof and may not “question” the validity of the public debt.
Big “C” — Little “c”
When this Nation was founded each of the individual States of this union had their own Citizens (spelled with a capital “C”). Today, we have a second class of citizen (note the small “c”), the 14th Amendment citizen.
In law, every letter in a word is important. A word capitalized may mean one specific thing, while the same word without capitalization may mean something entirely different. In the case of Citizenship (or citizenship), this is more certainly true.
There is a clear distinction between national and State citizenship, U.S. citizenship does not entitle citizen of the privileges and Immunities of the Citizen of the State. K. Tashiro v. Jordan, 256 P 545, affirmed 49 S Ct 47, 278 US 123
Black’s Law Dictionary, 5th Edition, agrees with the distinction between these different classes of (C)itizenship: There are two Privileges and Immunities Clauses in the federal Constitution and Amendments, the first being found in Art. IV, and the second in the 14th Amendment. Section 1, second sentence, clause 1. The provision in Art. IV states that “The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States, while the 14th Amendment provides that “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.
Note the lack of capitalization in the wording used in the 14th Amendment, this specifically means that the words “citizens, privileges, immunities” are not the same as in Article IV. The State of California was admitted into the Union of the United States in 1949; 9 Statutes at Large 452. It was admitted on an equal footing with the original States in all respects whatsoever.
The State of California was required to have its own Citizens, who were first State Citizens, then as a consequence of State Citizenship were American Citizens, known as Citizens of the United States. There was no specific class as this, but for traveling and protection by the United States government while out of the country, they were generally called Citizens of the United States.
The Constitution for the United States of America (1787) used the term “Citizen of the United States” in Article I, Section 2, (capital “C”), and numerous other sections. This referred to the Sovereign Political Body of State Citizens, this Citizen is entitled to all the Privileges and Immunities of the Citizens of the several States under Article IV.
Congress utilized the same term “citizen of the United States” qualifying it with a small “c” to distinguish “federal citizen” in the so-called 14th Amendment. These “citizens” have only statutory rights granted by Congress.
Thus, Congress and most of the Judiciary, without distinction being properly brought forth have made rulings based upon the federal “citizens” who are resident in a State, not State Citizens domiciled within their own State.
The statement by Chief Justice Taney in Dred Scott v. Stanford, 19 How. 393, 422, in defining the term “persons” the Judge stated:
……persons who are not recognized as Citizens,”. See also American and Ocean Ins. Co. V. Canter, 1 Pet. 511, which also distinguishes “persons” and “Citizens.” These were the persons that were the object of the 14th Amendment, to give to this class of native born “persons” who were “resident” in the union of the United States citizenship, and authority to place other than the white race within the special category of”citizen of the United States.”
To overcome the statement in Dred Scott, supra, that only white people were Citizens, and all other persons were only “residents” without citizenship of the United States, Congress then passed the Civil Rights Act of 1866, 14 STAT 27.
The Act of Congress called the Civil Rights Act, 14 U.S. Stats. At Large, pg 27, which was the forerunner of the 14th Amendment, amply shows the intent of Congress:
All persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States, and such citizens of every race and color…shall have the same right in every state and territory of the United States…to full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of person and property as is enjoyed by white citizens,
(Again, note the lack of capitalization)
This was the intent of Congress; not to infringe upon the Constitution or the state of the de jure Citizens of the several states. It was never the intent of the 14th Amendment to subvert the States’ authority or that of the Constitution as it relates to the status of the de jure State Citizens. People v. Washington, 36 C 658, 661 (1869) over ruled on other grounds; French v. Barber, 181 US 324; MacKenzie v. Hare, 60 L Ed 297
At this point, I anticipate a lot of folks reading this article are going into shock as they grab for the Constitution to check out the phrase and “question” of the validity of the public debt. Let me help you by reference to section 4 of the 14th Amendment and caution you to hold onto your chair.
It would seen then, from the foregoing, that there are two “classes” of citizens in this country:
1. Preamble Citizen: persons born or naturalized within the meaning of the Organic Constitution and inhabiting one of the several Republics of the United States who enjoy full citizenship of the Organic Constitution as Citizens of the Republic which they inhabit.
2. Citizen “subject”: persons enfranchised by the 14th Amendment who are born or naturalized in the United States within the meaning of the 14th Amendment and are residing therein as a United States citizen and are enjoying the privileges and immunities of “limited” citizenship.
It is not my intention, in this article, to become technically involved in citations for the information introduced here, but only to outline an overview for those folks who claim “Constitutional Rights” and then wonder why the legislatures, courts and police don’t respond in “kind” to these claims.
When one separates the classes among their appropriate dividing lines, it appears that:
1. Preamble Citizens:
a. Have direct personal access to a God inspired, original Constitution and it’s restraints on government for the protection of life, liberty and property.
b. Have direct personal access to the Article III courts known as “justice courts” which deal with law.
2. Citizen “subjects”:
a. Have representative access to the first eight amendments as purviewed by the 14th Amendment. b. Have representative access to Article 1 courts, provided by legislature, that are known as “legislative courts” which deal with statutes and are served by bar members, or officers of the court, known as lawyers.
My concern here, stems from my observation that folks involved with the preservation of our beloved Constitution are unaware of the “limited” citizenship created by the 14th Amendment. Additionally, these folks don’t realize that they are, or have voluntarily become, citizen subjects because of their acceptance of the “benefits” of limited citizenship.
The main “benefit” that I will mention here is Social Security. There are many other “benefits” such as the benefit of “regulation by licensing” that give control of your children to the State by making them “wards of the State” and subject to the “regulation” of the “legislative courts” by statute, etc.
The intention of this article is to point out the apparent difference in the classes of citizenship and the difference in the courts in serving these classes.
I have noticed that, in many publications, and also personal conversations, people convey their feelings of alarm or despair in finding that “the court” or “government” is in violation of the Constitution without realizing that the court they are addressing is a legislative court and does not hear cases based on justice, but rather, cases based only on statute law.
The reality of the following example of statute law is that the statute specifies a speed limit to be held at 30 m.p.h. The only question that can be entertained by the court is that of whether the accused did in fact go faster than the limit. That is a yes or no question. The accused cannot try to tell the court that it was a six lane highway on a clear day with no traffic in sight and that his speed of 60 m.p.h. did not injure anyone.
The court is not obligated to hear that argument as it is not a justice court. The final question then would seem to be “where is the article III “justice” court and who can use it? I am very aware that many of the folks reading this article are not going to be able to use the justice courts, as they have natural or acquired deficiencies that will not allow them Preamble Citizenship, but for the people endowed with the proper qualifications, it appears that the straight line approach of barring jurisdiction of legislative courts (tribunals) through recision of contracts and declaration of Article
IV, Section 2 status is essential, as it appears that only Preamble People can exercise the offices as set forth in the Organic Constitution. Additionally, it seems that this same class (Preamble People) is the only class that may claim the protection of the first ten Amendments as written.
As the truth of our personal status, and the responsibilities connected therewith unfolds, it becomes clear that the Article III “justice” court must be accessed individually by the person claiming the right. At present it is being done by common law filing of actions “in law” with the County Recorders who have been found to be “ex officio” clerks of the County courts. The authority for the exercise of the “justice” office is found in the 9th Article of Amendment and I believe all State Constitutions have similar provisions for the Preamble Citizens (also known as de jure Citizens).
I will not go farther with an attempt toward instruction but will leave this in the hands of the many patriots engaged in the research of these developments. My mission in presenting this information in a general sense is to help the unfortunate individuals who repeatedly bash themselves against the rocks of misinformation or ignorance in vain, though laudable, effort to protect our beloved Constitution. I hope I have achieved this end.”
It would appear that this former Arizona State Senator was a right-wing, anti-government wacko!
Now, what does this all mean? It means that unless and until the people of this country move the dialogue away from pap like “can John McCain raise enough money….” or “more money for education” malarkey, to how these key problems got started, America will continue to drown in rage, heartbreak, misery and anger that will turn to anarchy.
Are the pieces to the puzzle starting to fall into place? Do a lot more things make sense now when you reflect upon the words above with personal life experience? Do you understand just how duplicitous and devious this government is and has been for a long, long time? Can you now understand why it was so important for the shadow government to comandeer public education in 1978 by creating the Federal Department of Socialist Education and making it a cabinet? Better to teach condoms and “alternative life styles” to children, provide free abortion counseling and eliminate all teaching of the history of this country than to allow the citizenry to discover how they’ve been hoodwinked. Get the population hooked on pornography, drugs, sports and credit cards and wha-la! A greedy, selfish and apathetic people, just ripe for the pickins.
The 14th Amendment was never properly ratified. As with the 16th and 17th Amendments, it is a law that does not exist. Therefore, I am a Preamble Citizen of the Republic of California. Unfortunately that doesn’t mean squat to this government or our judicial system. The one and only way to rein them in and rectify this mess is to shout down the roof tops about the non- ratification of these three critical new world order amendments and demand that the U.S. Congress come clean with the American people.
Yes, it is a mess beyond any proportion but our nation cannot continue to survive on these lies. The people of this nation still hold the power if they would just find the courage to exercise it.
That is the bottom line and that is the only cure. If we have to take to the streets by the tens of thousands, then we must do it. We simply can’t go on with the government’s media complex and these politicians, most of them too stupid to understand what was written above, lying to our nation.
Call your talk radio host and demand these issues be brought to the forefront or boycott their sponsors. We are at the crossroads in the history of America. We, you, me and everyone else who knows the truth – we can shape the course of history right now and be proud of what we saved. Our country and our children’s birthright – it’s worth fighting for and that stupid tv program or a trip to the mall captivating our people, means nothing. Will you fight without violence by making your voice heard and demand these issues be brought to the forefront of public discussion?
October 21, 1999
I have tried to locate Senator Wayne Stump without success as of Feb. 2000. The last known record of him that I was able to find was with the Board of Directors for the National Rifle Association in America during 1995. They have not yet provided any updated contact information for Mr. Stump. The Arizona Department of Public
Safety does have Ralph Milstead listed as a prior Director (with his picture too).
I was shown the following YouTube video and I was so impressed by it that I had to share it on the website. He brings up MANY great points! I am impressed by his level of knowledge. He says to just call up the D.A. and ask him if he knows that he is breaking the law, and that he is likely incurring a personal liability and the case disappears.
I also really like these tags! I would be careful if you have tags with the words “Private Property” on them. “Property” that is not owned by United States is property which one has a right to, not ownership of. If you are going to use these words, you need to be able to explain which definitions you are using. This also goes for citing any government “codes” or “statutes” on them. Don’t do it. We are not even allowed to use their codes, only remind them that they are their rules. I do offer these tags in the Freedom from Government store.
It never hurts to learn more about maintaining independence (contract avoidance) from any deceptive “state” near you.
The entire video is well worth watching, but you can skip to about 7 minutes and 30 seconds in the video below to see the two sheriff’s cruisers pass.
Video by Nagol Bud: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gu0hooi3VDw
I also saw this video by psychokid 23 recently and it made me smile to see another new person doing this. Are YOU ready to break free yet?
Video by psychokid 23: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jtiXsAU_WX8
U.S. COURT DECISIONS CONFIRM “DRIVING A MOTOR VEHICLE” IS A
CITIZENS RIGHT AND NOT A GOVERNMENT GRANTED PRIVILEGE.
By Jack McLamb (from Aid & Abet Newsletter)
For many years Professionals within the criminal justice System have acted upon the belief that traveling by motor vehicle upon the roadway was a privilege that was gained by a citizen only after approval by their respective state government in the form of the issuance of a permit or license to that Particular individual. Legislators, police officers and court officials are becoming aware that there are now court decisions that prove the fallacy of the legal opinion that” driving is a privilege and therefore requires government approval, i.e. a license”.
Some of these cases are:
Case # 1 – “Even the legislature has no power to deny to a citizen the right to travel upon the highway and transport his property in the ordinary course of his business or pleasure, though this right may be regulated in accordance with the public interest and convenience. – Chicago Motor Coach v Chicago 169 NE 22
(“Regulated” here means traffic safety enforcement, stop lights, signs, etc. NOT a privilege that requires permission i.e.- licensing, mandatory insurance, vehicle registration, etc.)
Case # 2 – “The right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit or permit at will, but a common right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”- Thompson v Smith 154 SE 579.
It could not be stated more conclusively that Citizens of the states have a right to travel, without approval or restriction (license), and that this right is protected under the U.S. Constitution. Here are other court decisions that expound the same facts:
Case # 3 – “The right to travel is a part of the liberty of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the 5th Amendment.” –Kent v Dulles, 357 U.S. 116, 125.
Case # 4 – “Undoubtedly the right of locomotion, the right to remove from one place to another according to inclination, is an attribute of personal liberty, and the right, ordinarily, of free transit from or through the territory of any State is a right secured by the l4th Amendment and by other provisions of the Constitution.” – Schactman v Dulles, 96 App D.C. 287, 293. Continue reading “Are you SICK of PAYING the Government to TRAVEL?”