United Washitaw De Dugdahmoundyah Mu'ur Nation
Right-To-Travel
Right-To-Travel
The Holy Prophet Noble Drew Ali stated...“Come all ye Asiatics of America and hear the truth about your nationality and birthrights, because you are not negroes (black, coloreds, African-Americans). Learn of your forefathers ancient and divine Creed. That you will learn to love instead of hate. We are trying to uplift fallen humanity. Come and link yourselves with the families of nations".
Therefore, what I am getting ready to write here is at best optional until we solidify our nation. Even so, it still remain TRUE. Furthermore, everything that will be stated is based on De Jure Law (Common Law, Constitutional Law, Indigenous Rights, Human Rights) and NOT ("just") admiralty / maritime (De Facto Legalities, such as, statutes, codes, rules, regulations, ordinances, policies and etc... ANY colorable law (color of law) that contradicts the Constitution for the united States of America is NULL and VOID and has NO withstanding. (Note: The following U.S. Supreme Court case / decision law is 'ONLY' used as
verification purposes, as we, the Indigenous People of the Americans are outside the jurisdiction of the U.S. Corporation).
Article VI ... "This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding."
Therefore, you must understand (overstand, innerstand) the science of law, especially, Universal Law, Natural Law, Human Rights, Indigenous Rights and International Law. Moreover, one must understand that laws are NO stronger than their enforcers and the same people that pass these laws are the same people responsible for the enforcement of these laws. Thus, if the people who made the laws, NO longer are willing to enforce the laws then the laws has NO power. Therefore, the fairness of treatment rest NOT in laws, but in the activity of people and in the attitude(s) and consciousness of people (Dr. Amos Wilson)! Ultimately, you can NOT put your faith in an Albion (European) law or ANY laws that are supposed to be enforced by Albions (Europeans)! Therefore, as indigenous people our primary observation are Universal and Natural Laws ... all other laws are essentially secondary, especially, statutes, codes, rules, regulations, ordinances, policies and etc... All color of law.
“There, every man is independent of all laws, except those prescribed by nature. He is NOT bound by any institutions formed by his fellow men without his consent.” Cruden vs. Neale, 2 N.C. 338 (1796) 2 S.E. 70.
Therefore, Mu'urs (Moors) it is your obligation to make them abide by their Constitutional Oath, the polices, sheriffs, state highway patrols, clerks, magistrates, judges and jury members... all took their OATHS to uphold the Constitution. Thus, as a Mu'ur (Moor) since you are NOT U.S. citizens, it is your RIGHT to make them enforce their constitutional oath! This is part of the "check and balance" process. Since the united States is "OF" America and it isn't the "America OF the united States... this means that America has the superior position. We know from study that the United States, UNITED STATES, U.S. etc... is a Corporation. You are NOT U.S. citizens
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, INC. Non-profit Delaware Corporation Incorporation Date 4/19/89 File No. 2193946 http://www.state.de.us/corp/directweb.shtml
It is entirely an intentional commercial Fraud (colorable law) created by the alleged de facto government officials and agents of the nul tiel COMMERCIAL CORPORATION(s) doing business as, but not limited to; the UNITED STATES, USA, US, GOVERNMENT OF WASHINGTON DC, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA (including any agencies/persons claiming jurisdiction over any US territories, possessions, enclaves, etc.), et al, (Note: The USA is not the US; these, are two completely different fictitious religious corporate entities whereas the United States of America is the fictitious land mass; the U.S.A. is a non-profit RELIGIOUS Corporation… and the United States is the Jesuit Zionist Khazarian AshkeNazi United States Federal Reserve Military Occupation Bankster Genocide Coup d'état Mafia and all their Military Occupations around the world that operates out of Washington, DC, the City of London and the Vatican) … FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM, DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY, BUREAU OF ALCOHOL, TOBACCO, AND FIREARMS (BATF), FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION (FBI), DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY (NSA), AMERICAN BANKING ASSOCIATION (ABA), AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION (ABA), STATE OF OHIO, etc., with subdivisions being CORPORATE MUNICIPAL COUNTIES, BOROUGHS, PARISHES, and CORPORATE MUNICIPAL CITY(IES). Go to the Delaware Secretary of State website: http://www.state.de.us/corp/directweb.shtml
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, INC.
Non-profit Delaware Corporation
Incorporation Date 4/19/89 File No. 2193946
Trust - a fiduciary relationship in which one party holds legal title to another's property for the benefit of a party who holds equitable title to the property. Who holds the equitable title? Ever notice property deeds state 'tenant' when referring to the supposed owner? U.S.A. is a RELIGIOUS CORPORATION managed by Queen Elizabeth and UNDER CONTROL OF THE VATICAN. Therefore, ALL said MOORS contracting with the U.S. / U.S.A. are Chattel Property of the Vatican. Go to the www.manta.com website, owned by Dunn & Bradstreet. If you research the private corporation called 'the UNITED STATES Government', you will find that the 'OWNER' is listed as being 'Archbishop Deric J. McLeod, of The Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception, of Washington, D.C. Since Archbishops of the Vatican are sworn to poverty, then, the Archbishop can only be the named agent for the secular (so-called) Roman Empire, situate in the city/state called the Vatican. According to the "ELEMENTS OF ECCLESIASTICAL LAW 20”: It states, the Pope can abolish any law in the United States. Why, because, it is a Religious Corporation now, a said Christian Society (Note: Two said Empires, one the said "Black Nobility" of the "HOLY ROMAN EMPIRE [COPTIC MOORS, MORISCOS]" and the other, the said Roman Empire [NOT really an Empire, but a state] and when the said Roman Empire got out of line, the OTTOMAN EMPIRE of Sovereign Moors came in and nearly shut it down).
The FICTION is created for the purpose of disenfranchising the living man/female, of his/her life, liberty, property and the pursuit for happiness for the unjust enrichment of said CORPORATE and GOVERNMENTAL FICTIONS.
This position is pursuant to the U.S. Supreme Court decision of: Brady v. U.S., 397 U.S. 742 at 748 (1970): "Waivers of Constitutional Rights not only must be voluntary, they must be knowingly intelligent acts, done with sufficient awareness of the relevant circumstances and consequences."
Who is on the board of directors of 'UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, INC.' Ask anyone you know if they are aware of this. Call your congressman's office and ask them. Why doesn't anyone know? Why isn't this casually mentioned in the news? 'The Board of Directors of the United States of America, Inc., today ruled. The United States Of America Is A Corporation Owned By Foreign Interests. Below are two articles covering the fact that, since the Act of 1871 which established the District of Columbia, we have been living under the UNITED STATES CORPORATION which is owned by certain international bankers and aristocracy of Europe and Britain. In 1871 the Congress changed the name of the original Constitution by changing ONE WORD -- and that was very significant as you will read. Some people do not understand that ONE WORD or TWO WORDS difference in any "legal" document DO make the critical difference. But, Congress has known, and does know, this. I'm told this corporation, established in 1871, will be cancelled by NESARA and NESARA will also restore the ORIGINAL Constitution which assists in restoring our Constitutional Rights and the Bill of Rights and our rights as described in the Declaration of Independence.
1871, February 21: Congress Passes an Act to Provide a Government for the District of Columbia, also known as the Act of 1871*
With no constitutional authority to do so, Congress creates a separate form of government for the District of Columbia, a ten mile square parcel of land (see, Acts of the Forty-first Congress," Section 34, Session III, chapters 61 and 62). The act -- passed when the country was weakened and financially depleted in the aftermath of the Civil War -- was a strategic move by foreign interests (international bankers) who were intent upon gaining a stranglehold on the coffers and neck of America. Congress cut a deal with the international bankers (specifically Rothschilds of London) to incur a DEBT to said bankers. Because the bankers were not about to lend money to a floundering nation without serious stipulations, they devised a way to get their foot in the door of the United States. The Act of 1871 formed a corporation called THE UNITED STATES. The corporation, OWNED by foreign interests, moved in and shoved the original Constitution into a dustbin. With the Act of 1871, the organic Constitution was defaced -- in effect vandalized and sabotage -- when the title was capitalized and the word "for" was changed to "of" in the title.
* Info from yet unpublished book, "Pentimento: Freedom Revisited." As you will see when reading, just as much of my knowledge of the Trading with the Enemy Act came from Gene Schroder, et al. this, too, came from elsewhere -- from Lisa Guilian of Babel Magazine, whom I first "met" by way of an article by Patrick Bellringer. So, we cooperate as we study and learn the truth. C. E.
THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA is the constitution of the INCORPORATED UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. It operates in an economic capacity and has been used to fool the People into thinking it governs the Republic. It does is not! Capitalization is NOT insignificant when one is referring to a legal document. This seemingly "minor" alteration has had a major impact on every subsequent generation of Americans. What Congress did by passing the Act of 1871 was create an entirely new document, a constitution for the government of the District of Columbia, an INCORPORATED government. This newly altered Constitution was not intended to benefit the Republic.It benefits only the corporation of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and operates entirely outside the original (organic) Constitution. "Refer to any UNITED STATES CODE (USC). Note the capitalization; this is evidence of a corporation, not a Republic. For example, In Title 28 3002 (15) (A) (B) (C), it is unequivocally stated that the UNITED STATES is a corporation. Translation: the corporation is NOT a separate and distinct entity; it is not disconnected from the government; it IS the government -- your government. This is extremely important! I refer to it as the 'corporate EMPIRE of the UNITED STATES,' which operates under Roman Civil Law outside the original Constitution.
Let me explain: the original Constitution drafted by the Founding Fathers read: 'The Constitution for the united states of America.' [note that neither the words 'united' nor 'states' began with capital letters] But the CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA' is a corporate constitution, which is absolutely NOT the same document you think it is. First of all, it ended all our rights of sovereignty [sui juris]. So you now have the HOW, how the international bankers got their hands on THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA."
From a speech in Congress in The Bankruptcy of The United States United States Congressional Record, March 17, 1993 Vol. 33, page H-1303. Speaker-Rep. James Traficant, Jr. (Ohio) addressing the House:
"Prior to 1913, most Americans owned clear, allodial title to property, free and clear of any liens or mortgages until the Federal Reserve Act (1913) "Hypothecated" all property within the federal United States to the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve - in which the Trustees (stockholders) held legal title. The U.S. citizen (tenant, franchisee) was registered as a "beneficiary" of the trust via his/her birth certificate. In 1933, the federal United States hypothecated all of the present and future properties, assets and labor of their "subjects," the 14th Amendment U.S. citizen, to the Federal Reserve System.
What is the difference between De Jure and De Facto? De jure means by law. It is something that is lawful and legitimate. In normal circumstances, de jure is superfluous as all governments are legally elected and hence de jure. De facto means existing, but not by law. A government overthrown by a military coup is de jure government while the new government, though not legal, is called de facto government. The two Latin expressions were used quite often during civil rights movement in US to express de jure segregation and de facto segregation.
According to the United States Supreme Acts of State to wit:
“Every Sovereign State (people) is bound to respect the independence of every other Sovereign State (people) and the courts of one country (people) will NOT sit in judgment on the acts of the government of another, done within (the same or) its own territory…”
According to the “UNITED NATIONS DECLARATION ON THE RIGHTS OF INDIGENOUS PEOPLES”
Article 4
Indigenous peoples, in exercising their right to self-determination, have the right to autonomy or self-government in matters relating to their internal and local affairs, as well as ways and means for financing their autonomous functions.
Therefore, the City and County Traffic Courts only have jurisdiction to both the corporate and commercial matters, and the commercial use of “Motor Vehicles” on public highways and streets, as defined by Federal law (18 USC 31). The City and County Traffic Courts are NOT, nor ever have been authorized to assume jurisdiction over the general public’s ordinary travel on the public highways and streets. In fact, City and County Traffic Courts that try traffic cases are NOT courts of law recognized by either the Constitution for the united States of America (1791) or ANY State Constitution. The following U.S. Supreme Court cases are used to demonstrate that the RIGHT-TO-TRAVEL is an un-a-lien-able right and NOT a privilege. Unless otherwise, stated, I have individual knowledge of the matters contained within this Affidavit. I am fully competent to testify, if need be with respect to these matters. I have NOT knowingly or willingly waived ANY of my UNALIENABLE RIGHTS. American case law has clearly adjudicated that:
“The use of the highways for the purpose of TRAVEL and transportation is NOT a mere privilege, but a common and fundamental RIGHT, of which the public and individuals can NOT be encroached upon by private individuals or corporations. Moreover, streets and highways are for the use of the public in general passage and traffic without distinction, and ALL persons have an equal RIGHT TO use them for purposes of TRAVEL by proper means, and with due regard for the corresponding RIGHTS of others.” - 25 Am. Jur. (1st) Highways Sect. 163. pg. 457
The following article verifies the decision made by the U.S. Supreme Court
U.S. Supreme Court says No License Necessary To Drive Automobile On Public Highways/Streets Apr 21, 2015
JEAN-MICHEL LETENNIER
U.S. SUPREME COURT AND OTHER HIGH COURT CITATIONS PROVING THAT NO LICENSE IS NECESSARY FOR NORMAL USE OF AN AUTOMOBILE ON COMMON WAYS". The right of a citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, by horse drawn carriage, wagon, or automobile, is not a mere privilege which may be permitted or prohibited at will, but a common right which he has under his right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Under this constitutional guaranty one may, therefore, under normal conditions, travel at his inclination along the public highways or in public places, and while conducting himself in an orderly and decent manner, neither interfering with nor disturbing another's rights, he will be protected, not only in his person, but in his safe conduct."
Thompson v. Smith, 154 SE 579, 11 American Jurisprudence, Constitutional Law, section 329, page 1135 "The right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, in the ordinary course of life and business, is a common right which he has under the right to enjoy life and liberty, to acquire and possess property, and to pursue happiness and safety. It includes the right, in so doing, to use the ordinary and usual conveyances of the day, and under the existing modes of travel, includes the right to drive a horse drawn carriage or wagon thereon or to operate an automobile thereon, for the usual and ordinary purpose of life and business." -
Thompson vs. Smith, supra.; Teche Lines vs. Danforth, Miss., 12 S.2d 784 "… the right of the citizen to drive on a public street with freedom from police interference… is a fundamental constitutional right" -White, 97 Cal.App.3d.141, 158 Cal.Rptr. 562, 566-67 (1979) “citizens have a right to drive upon the public streets of the District of Columbia or any other city absent a constitutionally sound reason for limiting their access.”
Caneisha Mills v. D.C. 2009 “The use of the automobile as a necessary adjunct to the earning of a livelihood in modern life requires us in the interest of realism to conclude that the RIGHT to use an automobile on the public highways partakes of the nature of a liberty within the meaning of the Constitutional guarantees. . .”
Berberian v. Lussier (1958) 139 A2d 869, 872, See also: Schecter v. Killingsworth, 380 P.2d 136, 140; 93 Ariz. 273 (1963). “The right to operate a motor vehicle [an automobile] upon the public streets and highways is not a mere privilege. It is a right of liberty, the enjoyment of which is protected by the guarantees of the federal and state constitutions.”Adams v. City of Pocatello, 416 P.2d 46, 48; 91 Idaho 99 (1966). “A traveler has an equal right to employ an automobile as a means of transportation and to occupy the public highways with other vehicles in common use.”
Campbell v. Walker, 78 Atl. 601, 603, 2 Boyce (Del.) 41. “The owner of an automobile has the same right as the owner of other vehicles to use the highway,* * * A traveler on foot has the same right to the use of the public highways as an automobile or any other vehicle.”
Simeone v. Lindsay, 65 Atl. 778, 779; Hannigan v. Wright, 63 Atl. 234, 236. "The RIGHT of the citizen to DRIVE on the public street with freedom from police interference, unless he is engaged in suspicious conduct associated in some manner with criminality is a FUNDAMENTAL CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT which must be protected by the courts." People v. Horton 14 Cal. App. 3rd 667 (1971) “The right to make use of an automobile as a vehicle of travel long the highways of the state, is no longer an open question. The owners thereof have the same rights in the roads and streets as the drivers of horses or those riding a bicycle or traveling in some other vehicle.”
House v. Cramer, 112 N.W. 3; 134 Iowa 374; Farnsworth v. Tampa Electric Co. 57 So. 233, 237, 62 Fla. 166. “The automobile may be used with safety to others users of the highway, and in its proper use upon the highways there is an equal right with the users of other vehicles properly upon the highways. The law recognizes such right of use upon general principles.
Brinkman v Pacholike, 84 N.E. 762, 764, 41 Ind. App. 662, 666. “The law does not denounce motor carriages, as such, on public ways. They have an equal right with other vehicles in common use to occupy the streets and roads. It is improper to say that the driver of the horse has rights in the roads superior to the driver of the automobile. Both have the right to use the easement.”
Indiana Springs Co. v. Brown, 165 Ind. 465, 468. U.S. Supreme Court says No License Necessary To Drive Automobile On Public Highways/Streets No License Is Necessary Copy and Share Freely YHVH.name 2 2 “A highway is a public way open and free to any one who has occasion to pass along it on foot or with any kind of vehicle.” Schlesinger v. City of Atlanta, 129 S.E. 861, 867, 161 Ga. 148, 159;
Holland v. Shackelford, 137 S.E. 2d 298, 304, 220 Ga. 104; Stavola v. Palmer, 73 A.2d 831, 838, 136 Conn. 670 “There can be no question of the right of automobile owners to occupy and use the public streets of cities, or highways in the rural districts.” Liebrecht v. Crandall, 126 N.W. 69, 110 Minn. 454, 456 "The word ‘automobile’ connotes a pleasure vehicle designed for the transportation of persons on highways."
-American Mutual Liability Ins. Co., vs. Chaput, 60 A.2d 118, 120; 95 NH 200 Motor Vehicle: 18 USC Part 1 Chapter 2 section 31 definitions: "(6) Motor vehicle. - The term "motor vehicle" means every description of carriage or other contrivance propelled or drawn by mechanical power and used for commercial purposes on the highways…" 10) The term "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. "A motor vehicle or automobile for hire is a motor vehicle, other than an automobile stage, used for the transportation of persons for which remuneration is received."
-International Motor Transit Co. vs. Seattle, 251 P. 120 The term ‘motor vehicle’ is different and broader than the word ‘automobile.’"
-City of Dayton vs. DeBrosse, 23 NE.2d 647, 650; 62 Ohio App. 232 "Thus self-driven vehicles are classified according to the use to which they are put rather than according to the means by which they are propelled" - Ex Parte Hoffert, 148 NW 20 "
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 citizen has the right to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon..." State vs. Johnson, 243 P. 1073; Cummins vs. Homes, 155 P. 171; Packard vs. Banton, 44 S.Ct. 256; Hadfield vs. Lundin, 98 Wash 516, Willis vs. Buck, 263 P. l 982;
Barney vs. Board of Railroad Commissioners, 17 P.2d 82 "The use of the highways for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege, but a common and fundamental Right of which the public and the individual cannot be rightfully deprived."
Chicago Motor Coach vs. Chicago, 169 NE 22; Ligare vs. Chicago, 28 NE 934; Boon vs. Clark, 214 SSW 607; 25 Am. Jur. (1st) Highways Sect.163 "the right of the Citizen to travel upon the highway and to transport his property thereon in the ordinary course of life and business… is the usual and ordinary right of the Citizen, a right common to all." -
Ex Parte Dickey, (Dickey vs. Davis), 85 SE 781 “Every Citizen has an unalienable RIGHT to make use of the public highways of the state; every Citizen has full freedom to travel from place to place in the enjoyment of life and liberty.” People v. Nothaus, 147 Colo. 210. "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. "Traffic infractions are not a crime." People v. Battle "Persons faced with an unconstitutional licensing law which purports to require a license as a prerequisite to exercise of right... may ignore the law and engage with impunity in exercise of such right."
Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham 394 U.S. 147 (1969). U.S. Supreme Court says No License Necessary To Drive Automobile On Public Highways/Streets No License Is Necessary Copy and Share Freely YHVH.name 3 "The word 'operator' shall not include any person who solely transports his own property and who transports no persons or property for hire or compensation."
Statutes at Large California Chapter 412 p.83 "Highways are for the use of the traveling public, and all have the right to use them in a reasonable and proper manner; the use thereof is an inalienable right of every citizen." Escobedo v. State 35 C2d 870 in 8 Cal Jur 3d p.27 “RIGHT -- A legal RIGHT, a constitutional RIGHT means a RIGHT protected by the law, by the constitution, but government does not create the idea of RIGHT or original RIGHTS; it acknowledges them. . . “ Bouvier's Law Dictionary, 1914, p. 2961. “Those who have the right to do something cannot be licensed for what they already have right to do as such license would be meaningless.”
City of Chicago v Collins 51 NE 907, 910. “A license means leave to do a thing which the licensor could prevent.” Blatz Brewing Co. v. Collins, 160 P.2d 37, 39; 69 Cal. A. 2d 639. “The object of a license is to confer a right or power, which does not exist without it.”
Payne v. Massey (19__) 196 SW 2nd 493, 145 Tex 273. “The court makes it clear that a license relates to qualifications to engage in profession, business, trade or calling; thus, when merely traveling without compensation or profit, outside of business enterprise or adventure with the corporate state, no license is required of the natural individual traveling for personal business, pleasure and transportation.”
Wingfield v. Fielder 2d Ca. 3d 213 (1972). “If [state] officials construe a vague statute unconstitutionally, the citizen may take them at their word, and act on the assumption that the statute is void.” -
Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham 394 U.S. 147 (1969). "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." Donnolly vs. Union Sewer Pipe Co., 184 US 540; Lafarier vs. Grand Trunk R.R. Co., 24 A. 848; O'Neil vs. Providence Amusement Co., 108 A. 887. "The right to travel (called the right of free ingress to other states, and egress from them) is so fundamental that it appears in the Articles of Confederation, which governed our society before the Constitution."
(Paul v. Virginia). "[T]he right to travel freely from State to State ... is a right broadly assertable against private interference as well as governmental action. Like the right of association, it is a virtually unconditional personal right, guaranteed by the Constitution to us all." (U.S. Supreme Court,
Shapiro v. Thompson). EDGERTON, Chief Judge: “Iron curtains have no place in a free world. ...'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 Constitution.'
Williams v. Fears, 179 U.S. 270, 274, 21 S.Ct. 128, 45 L.Ed. 186. “Our nation has thrived on the principle that, outside areas of plainly harmful conduct, every American is left to shape his own life as he thinks best, do what he pleases, go where he pleases.” Id., at 197.
Kent vs. Dulles see Vestal, Freedom of Movement, 41 Iowa L.Rev. 6, 13—14. “The validity of restrictions on the freedom of movement of particular individuals, both substantively and procedurally, is precisely the sort of matter that is the peculiar domain of the courts.” Comment, 61 Yale L.J. at page 187. “a person detained for an investigatory stop can be questioned but is “not obliged to answer, answers may not be compelled, and refusal to answer furnishes no basis for an arrest.”Justice White, Hiibel “Automobiles have the right to use the highways of the State on an equal footing with other vehicles.”
Cumberland Telephone. & Telegraph Co. v Yeiser 141 Kentucky 15. “Each citizen has the absolute right to choose for himself the mode of conveyance he desires, whether it be by wagon or carriage, by horse, motor or electric car, or by bicycle, or astride of a horse, subject to the sole condition that he will observe all those requirements that are known as the law of the road.”
Swift v City of Topeka, 43 U.S. Supreme Court says No License Necessary To Drive Automobile On Public Highways/Streets No License Is Necessary Copy and Share Freely YHVH.name 4 Kansas 671, 674. The Supreme Court said in U.S. v Mersky (1960) 361 U.S. 431: An administrative regulation, of course, is not a "statute." A traveler on foot has the same right to use of the public highway as an automobile or any other vehicle.
Cecchi v. Lindsay, 75 Atl. 376, 377, 1 Boyce (Del.) 185. Automotive vehicles are lawful means of conveyance and have equal rights upon the streets with horses and carriages.
Chicago Coach Co. v. City of Chicago, 337 Ill. 200, 205; See also: Christy v. Elliot, 216 Ill. 31; Ward v. Meredith, 202 Ill. 66; Shinkle v. McCullough, 116 Ky. 960; Butler v. Cabe, 116 Ark. 26, 28-29. …automobiles are lawful vehicles and have equal rights on the highways with horses and carriages. Daily v. Maxwell, 133 S.W. 351, 354.
Matson v. Dawson, 178 N.W. 2d 588, 591. A farmer has the same right to the use of the highways of the state, whether on foot or in a motor vehicle, as any other citizen.
Draffin v. Massey, 92 S.E.2d 38, 42. Persons may lawfully ride in automobiles, as they may lawfully ride on bicycles. Doherty v. Ayer, 83 N.E. 677, 197 Mass. 241, 246;
Molway v. City of Chicago, 88 N.E. 485, 486, 239 Ill. 486; Smiley v. East St. Louis Ry. Co., 100 N.E. 157, 158. "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. "[I]t is a jury question whether ... an automobile ... is a motor vehicle[.]"
United States v Johnson, 718 F.2d 1317, 1324 (5th Cir. 1983). Other right to use an automobile cases: -
EDWARDS VS. CALIFORNIA, 314 U.S. 160 -
TWINING VS NEW JERSEY, 211 U.S. 78 - WILLIAMS VS. FEARS, 179 U.S. 270, AT 274 - CRANDALL VS. NEVADA, 6 WALL. 35, AT 43-44 - THE PASSENGER CASES, 7 HOWARD 287, AT 492 - U.S. VS. GUEST, 383 U.S. 745, AT 757-758 (1966) -
GRIFFIN VS. BRECKENRIDGE, 403 U.S. 88, AT 105-106 (1971) - CALIFANO VS. TORRES, 435 U.S. 1, AT 4, note 6 -
SHAPIRO VS. THOMPSON, 394 U.S. 618 (1969) - CALIFANO VS. AZNAVORIAN, 439 U.S. 170, AT 176 (1978) Look the above citations up in American Jurisprudence. Some citations may be paraphrased.
1. That I have researched extensively the organic laws of the united states of America, including two hundred years of American case law (i.e., Common Law), that confirms the UNALIENABLE and FUNDAMENTAL, UNRESTRICTED and UNREGULATED RIGHT TO TRAVEL upon both the public walkways and the highways, and transport my personal and allodial property, duly conveyed, unhindered by ANY private, corporate or statutory law, or Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) regulation or so-called requirement. This unalienable RIGHT TO TRAVEL is guaranteed by the 9th & 10th Amendments of the organic Constitution for the united States of America and Bill of Rights, and upheld by many court decisions in support of that right. I, now explicitly RESERVE, ASSERT and DEFEND that right.
“The RIGHT TO TRAVEL is an unconditional personal right whose exercise may NOT be conditioned.” - Dunn v. Blumstein, 405 U.S. 330, 92 S Ct 995, 31 L Ed 2d 274. [5 U.S. Dig, Constitutional Law, and 101.5, Right of interstate of international travel.]
2. This AFFIDAVIT is submitted upon demand of a driver’s license, registration or proof of insurance as part of the official record of ANY ensuing action and must be introduced as evidence in said action.
“NO State 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 INSURANCE.” - Chicago Coach Co. v. City of Chicago, 337 III. 200, 169 N. E. 22.
“The court makes it clear that a license relates to qualifications to engage in profession, business, trade, or calling; thus, when merely traveling without compensation or profit, outside of business enterprise or adventure with the corporate state. NO LICENSE IS REQUIRED OF THE NATURAL INDIVIDUAL TRAVELING FOR PERSONAL BUSINESS, PLEASURE AND TRANSPORTATION.” - Wingfield v. Fielder 2d Ca. 3d 213 [1972]
Traveling in an automobile on the public roads was not a threat to the public safety or health and constituted no hazard to the public, and such a traveler owed nothing more than “due care” (as regards to tort for negligence) to the public and the owner owed no other duty to the public (eg. State), he / she and his / her auto, having equal rights to and on the roadways / highways as horses and wagons, etc.; this same right is still substantive rule, in that speeding, running stop signs, TRAVELING WITHOUT LICENSE PLATES, OR REGISTRATION ARE NOT TREATS TO THE PUBLIC SAFETY, AND THUS, ARE NOT ARRESTABLE OFFENSES. Christy v. Elliot, 216 I 131, 74 HE 1035, LRA NS 1905 – 1910: ILLINOIS v. Farley 98 CED Rpt. 89, 20 CA 3d 1032 (1971).
The Constitution for the united States of America Article I Section 2 states… Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. Historically, the 3/5th reference have been applied to so-called “blacks” (negroes, colored, African-Americans and etc…). According to the “BLACK LAW DICTIONARY 2nd Edition” Citizen…3. All natives are NOT citizens of the United States; the descendants of the aborigines, and those of African origin, are not entitled to the rights of citizens …that constitution does not authorize any but white persons to become citizens of the United States; and it must therefore be presumed that no one is a citizen who is not white.
Once again, I am NOT a 14th Amendment legal “person” engaged in interstate commerce, NOR do I derive income from the travel and transport of goods. I am NOT a “driver,” NOR am I an “operator” of a “motor vehicle.” I am a “traveler” and a “traveler” places NO charge upon other(s) traveling with him or her.
“No person (individual) shall…be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.” - Article v. Amendment
1. Thus, there is a difference between a traveler and a driver. The driver’s license is for motor vehicles involved in commerce only, such as, Taxi Cabs, UPS Trucks, Motor Coach (Buses), Airplanes and 18-wheel Tractor-Trailer Trucks. “Motor Vehicle” therefore, can be defined as, every description of carriage or other contrivance propelled or drawn by mechanical power and passengers and property, or property and cargo; “used for commercial purposes” means the carriage of person or property for any fare, fee, rate, charges, or other consideration, or directly or indirectly, in connection with any business, other undertaking for profit.” My private, self-propelled contrivance/carriage is NOT involved in commerce; therefore, it is NOT a “motor vehicle.” The corporate State Department of Motor Vehicle code does NOT disclose the true intent and purpose of the statutes, though a motor vehicle” is adequately and clearly defined in the United States Code (USC).
“Motor Vehicle means every description of carriage other contrivance propelled or drawn by mechanical power and used for commercial purposes.” – “18 USC 31”
Thus, ONLY corporations can make money from the use of the motor vehicles.
“Thus, ONLY corporations can make money from the use of motor vehicles. The privilege of using the streets and highways by the operation thereon of motor carriers for hire can be acquired only by permission or license from the state or its political subdivision.”
– Title 18, United States Code, Section 31.
2. Therefore, I have determined and hereby affirm by AFFIDAVIT and under affirmation, by virtue of my declared nationality as a Washitaw De Dugdahmoundyah Mu’ur, that I am NOT required to have government permission to travel, NOT required to have a driver’s license, NOT required to have vehicle registration of my personal property, NOR to surrender the lawful title of my duly conveyed property to the State as security against government indebtedness and the undeclared federal bankruptcy. ANY administrative rule, regulation or statutory act of ANY State legislature or judicial tribunal to the contrary is unlawful and clearly unconstitutional, thus NULL and VOID. American case law has clearly adjudicated that:
“Statutes that violate the plain and obvious principles of common right and common reason are NULL and VOID.”- Bennett v. Boggs, 1 Baldw 60
3. Thus, ANY action involving a citation or ticket issued, confiscation, impoundment or search and seizure of my private property by a police officer or ANY other public servant or employee, which carries a fine or jail time is a penalty or sanction, thus converting a RIGHT into a crime. ANY citation or ticket is thus, NULL and VOID. Under every circumstance without exception, government officials must hold the Constitution for the united states of America (1791) supreme over ANY other laws, regulations or orders. Every police (executive) officer or judicial officer has SWORN AN OATH to uphold the U.S. Constitution, via Article VI… “Treaty(ies)… the Supreme Law of the Land”.
“REGULATIONS, FEES, TAXES, MAY NOT BE APPLIED TO NATURAL PERSON USING COMMON HIGHWAYS, as it is in derogation of common right of public to use highways as an avenue upon, which vehicles for transportation of goods, passengers, freight and traffic of all kinds may be freely moved, having due regard for rights of others, while this, or other provisions of statute, should be fairly, liberally construed to promote the effect and the evident purpose for which it was intended, care should be exercised not to unduly extend its effect.” Young v. Madison County, 115 N.
4. ANY action by a police (executive) officer, officer of the court, public servant or government official to assert unlawful authority under the “color of law” will be construed as a direct and willful violation of my constitutionally protected RIGHTS (1787), and will be prosecuted to the full extent of American law.
“Public officials are NOT immune from suit when they transcend their lawful authority (their oath) by invading constitutional RIGHTS.” - AFLCIO v. Woodward, 406 F2d 137 t.
“Whoever under the color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any inhabitant of any state, Territory, or District to the deprivation of ANY rights, privileges or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution of laws of the United States…shall be fined not more than $1,000 or imprisoned not more than one year, or both…” – 18 USC 242
Therefore, there is a marked difference between citizenship and heritage. Now, the 14th Amendment was "allegedly" fully ratified in
Therefore, if we were really U.S. citizen by the 14th Amendment, then why is it necessary for the President of the U.S. to sign the Voting Right Act of 1965 every 25 years? According to the “BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY” 5th Edition… DRED SCOTT case law of 1857, states, we are not U.S. citizen and nor will we ever be. This has NEVER been repealed and thus stands as law today. Therefore, based on this U.S. Supreme Court decision by Judge Taney, we will remain without rights or privileges, except, such and, those, which the so-called government might grant. One of these said privileges is ‘Voting’. This is the reason why every 25 years “Negro, Black and Colored” Voting Right (Privilege) Act (Bill) has to be signed by the President of the U.S. corporation. Lyndon B. Johnson did so in 1965. Ronald W. Reagan did so in 1982 and George H. W. Bush Jr. did so in 2006.
The 3/5 Clause of the Unites States Constitution declares the slave names “Blacks”, “Negroes” and “Colored People” as identification and marks of U.S. Properties. The 13th Amendment abolished these Slave Labels and their Slave Masters, thus making the 14th and 15th Amendments as ex post facto [laws] to the 13th Amendment. The 13th amendment allegedly abolished slavery. But that created a new problem. The newly freed slaves were not citizens of any state or country, because they were just property, and property did not have citizenship. To solve the problem, the 14th amendment allegedly passed. This amendment created a new class of citizenship. This new class was legally called: 'United States citizen', (with a small "c") NOT 'United States of America Citizen', but just 'United States citizen'. Notice that the U.S. citizen is spelled with a lower case 'c'. This is to show a lower class of citizenship. This class of citizen (U.S. citizen) is a privilege granted by the federal government, and not a sovereign inalienable right. The United States is NOT a nation, nor a nationality (Note: The United States is of America, but America (Al Morocco) is NOT of the United States, meaning one has a superior position. From “BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY 6th Edition”: Fourteenth Amendment. The Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, ratified in 1868, creates or at least recognizes for the first time a citizenship of the United States, as distinct from that of the states; All 14th Amendment Citizens, including unproclaimed and unrecognized Mu’urs (Moors) of Amexem, are property of Corporate U.S. (UNITED STATES).
In March of 1857, the United States Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice Roger B. Taney, declared that all blacks -- slaves as well as free -- were NOT and could NEVER become citizens of the United States.
The DRED SCOTT vs. SANDFORD decision was supposedly superseded by another decision named the Slaughter House case(s) and eventually by the 14th Amendment. However, this is not true, the Slaughter House case(s) simply provided safe guards and the 14th Amendment was never fully ratified; hence, leaving us in limbo once again or rather back to square one about out Citizenship. How are we not Citizens in our own land? (Note: The Constitution for the united States of America, the Constitution of the United States of America and the U.S. Constitution; all have been hijacked as the supreme law of the land and the UCC [Uniform Commercial Code] now superseded it. The UCC [Uniform Commercial Code] is Admiralty Law, which ultimately leads to Colorable Law or Color of Law, meaning, the appearance or semblance, without the substance, of legal right. State vs. Brechler, 185 Wis. 599, 202 N.W. 144, 148).
The Joint Resolution proposing said amendment was NOT submitted to or adopted by a Constitutional Congress per Article 1, Section 3, and Article 5 of the U.S. Constitution. It was NEVER submitted to the President for his approval as required by Article 1, Section 7 of the U.S. Constitution. The proposed 14th Amendment was rejected by more than 1/4th of all the States then in the Union, and it was NEVER ratified by 3/4th of all the States in the Union as required by Article 5 of the U.S. Constitution…15 States out of the then 37 States of the Union rejected the proposed 14th Amendment between the date of its submission to the States by the Secretary of State on June 16th, 1866 and March 24th, 1868, thereby further nullifying said resolution and making it impossible for its ratification by the constitutionally required 3/4th of such States…Texas (Oct. 27th, 1866), Georgia (Nov. 9th, 1866), Florida (Dec. 6th, 1866), Alabama (Dec. 7th, 1866), Arkansas (Dec. 17th, 1866), Kentucky (Jan. 8th, 1867), Virginia (Jan. 9th, 1867), Louisiana (Feb. 6th, 1867), Delaware (Feb. 7th, 1867), Maryland (Mar. 23rd, 1867), Mississippi (Jan. 31st, 1867), Illinois (Jan. 16th, 1868), New Jersey (Mar. 24th, 1868), South Carolina (Dec. 20th, 1866) and even North Carolina (Dec. 14th, 1866) all 15 States rejected the 14th Amendment.
You have to use the Treaties, because the 13th and the 14th Amendment did not help us. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not help us. None of these so-called Rights (“Act” of “privileges”) help us. Our people are still classified under the Negro Act of 1740 (Note: “WEBSTER’S DICTIONARY” definition). Therefore, we must be recognized as human being (not in the since of the Jews [Goyim]) first with Human Rights tied to Indigenous Rights.
Hence, we want “IN FULL LIFE” status, which means: Continuing in both physical and civil existence; that is, neither actually dead nor Civiliter Mortuus. “BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY 4TH DELUXE EDITION. Pg. 895”
The Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857), was a landmark decision by the U.S. Supreme Court in which the Court held that African Americans, whether enslaved or free, could not be American citizens and therefore had no standing to sue in federal court.
Thus, as an indigenous American in the sense of the real word ‘American’ …
In many cases you will be dealing with a Psychopath (Sociopath) or said "White Supremacy attitude (racial profiling, brutality and etc...) . Here is a way to deal with them.
Police officers generally have broad powers to carry out their duties. The Constitution and other laws, however, place limits on how far police can go in trying to enforce the law. As the videotaped beating of motorist Rodney King, in Los Angeles and several recent cases in New York have illustrated, police officers sometimes go too far, violating the rights of citizens. When this happens, the victim of the misconduct may have recourse through federal and state laws. A primary purpose of the nation's civil rights laws is to protect citizens from abuses by government, including police misconduct. Civil rights laws allow attorney fees and compensatory and punitive damages as incentives for injured parties to enforce their rights.
Overcoming Immunity
Being stopped and questioned by police in connection with a crime is an unsettling experience for most anyone. As long as the officer is performing his job properly, however, there is no violation of a suspect's rights. In fact, police are immune from suit for the performance of their jobs unless willful, unreasonable conduct is demonstrated. Mere negligence, the failure to exercise due care, is not enough to create liability. Immunity therefore means that in the typical police-suspect interaction, the suspect cannot sue the police. Civil rights remedies come into play for willful police conduct that violates an individual's constitutional rights.
Civil Rights Laws and Police Misconduct
A statute known as Section 1983 is the primary civil rights law victims of police misconduct rely upon. This law was originally passed as part of the Civil Rights Act of 1871, which was intended to curb oppressive conduct by government and private individuals participating in vigilante groups, such as the Ku Klux Klan. It is now called Section 1983 because that is where the law has been published, within Title 42, of the United States Code. Section 1983 makes it unlawful for anyone acting under the authority of state law to deprive another person of his or her rights under the Constitution or federal law. The most common claims brought against police officers are false arrest (or false imprisonment), malicious prosecution, and use of excessive or unreasonable force.
False Arrest
The claim that is most often asserted against police is false arrest. Persons bringing this claim assert that police violated their Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable seizure. If the officer had probable cause to believe the individual had committed a crime, the arrest is reasonable and the Fourth Amendment has not been violated. Police can arrest without a warrant for a felony or misdemeanor committed in their presence. (Some states also allow warrantless arrests for misdemeanor domestic assaults not committed in the officer's presence.) Even if the information the officer relied upon later turns out to be false, the officer is not liable if he believed it was accurate at the time of the arrest. To prevail on a false arrest claim, the victim must show that the arresting officer lacked probable cause, that is, facts sufficient to cause a reasonable person to believe that a crime had been committed.
Malicious Prosecution
A malicious prosecution claim asserts that the officer wrongly deprived the victim of the Fourteenth Amendment right to liberty. To win this type of claim, the victim must show four things: 1) the defendant police officer commenced a criminal proceeding; 2) the proceeding ended in the victim's favor (that is, no conviction); 3) there was no probable cause; and 4) the proceeding was brought with malice toward the victim. As with false arrest, this claim will fail if the officer had probable cause to initiate criminal proceedings.
Excessive Force
Excessive force claims receive the most publicity, perhaps because the results of excessive force seem the most outrageous, involving serious physical injury or death. Whether the officer's use of force was reasonable depends on the surrounding facts and circumstances. The officer's intentions or motivations are not controlling. If the amount of force was reasonable, it doesn't matter that the officer's intentions were bad. But the reverse is also true: if the officer had good intentions, but used unreasonable force, the excessive force claim will not be dismissed.
Failure to Intervene
Officers have a duty to protect individuals from constitutional violations by fellow officers. Therefore, an officer who witnesses a fellow officer violating an individual's constitutional rights may be liable to the victim for failing to intervene.
The Qualified Immunity Defense
Defense attorneys representing a police officer for any of these claims will raise a defense of qualified immunity. This defense exists to prevent the fear of legal prosecution from inhibiting a police officer from enforcing the law. The defense will defeat a claim against the officer if the officer's conduct did not violate a clearly established constitutional or statutory right. In other words, the specific acts the officer prevented the individual from engaging in must be legally protected, otherwise there is no civil rights violation. In order to win a civil rights claim, an individual bringing a police misconduct claim must prove that the actions of the police exceeded reasonable bounds, infringed the victim's constitutional rights, and produced some injury or damages to the victim.
Police Misconduct: If You've Been Affected
Civil rights claims are an important part of our legal system, providing a balance between the duty of law enforcement to uphold the laws, and the rights of individuals to be free from police misconduct. Yet cases against police officers can be difficult. Officers may be immune from suit, even though an individual feels he or she was mistreated. Claims against police departments can also be expensive to bring because a lot of evidence must be secured, including records, statements of police, statements of witnesses, and various other documentation, to prove the misconduct.
The evidence supporting your claim is the most important element in a police misconduct suit. If you feel you've been the victim of police misconduct, contact a Civil Rights Attorney promptly so that valuable evidence does not disappear. Take photographs of any injuries or damage caused by the police, and set aside clothing or other objects that was torn or stained with blood from the incident. Try to get the names and addresses or telephone numbers of anyone who may have witnessed the incident. Also, write down exactly what happened as soon as you can, so that you don't forget important details
U.S. Supreme Court says No License Necessary To Drive Automobile On Public Highways/Streets Apr 21, 2015
JEAN-MICHEL LETENNIER
U.S. SUPREME COURT AND OTHER HIGH COURT CITATIONS PROVING THAT NO LICENSE IS NECESSARY FOR NORMAL USE OF AN AUTOMOBILE ON COMMON WAYS". The right of a citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, by horse drawn carriage, wagon, or automobile, is not a mere privilege which may be permitted or prohibited at will, but a common right which he has under his right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Under this constitutional guaranty one may, therefore, under normal conditions, travel at his inclination along the public highways or in public places, and while conducting himself in an orderly and decent manner, neither interfering with nor disturbing another's rights, he will be protected, not only in his person, but in his safe conduct."
Thompson v. Smith, 154 SE 579, 11 American Jurisprudence, Constitutional Law, section 329, page 1135 "The right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, in the ordinary course of life and business, is a common right which he has under the right to enjoy life and liberty, to acquire and possess property, and to pursue happiness and safety. It includes the right, in so doing, to use the ordinary and usual conveyances of the day, and under the existing modes of travel, includes the right to drive a horse drawn carriage or wagon thereon or to operate an automobile thereon, for the usual and ordinary purpose of life and business." -
Thompson vs. Smith, supra.; Teche Lines vs. Danforth, Miss., 12 S.2d 784 "… the right of the citizen to drive on a public street with freedom from police interference… is a fundamental constitutional right" -White, 97 Cal.App.3d.141, 158 Cal.Rptr. 562, 566-67 (1979) “citizens have a right to drive upon the public streets of the District of Columbia or any other city absent a constitutionally sound reason for limiting their access.”
Caneisha Mills v. D.C. 2009 “The use of the automobile as a necessary adjunct to the earning of a livelihood in modern life requires us in the interest of realism to conclude that the RIGHT to use an automobile on the public highways partakes of the nature of a liberty within the meaning of the Constitutional guarantees. . .”
Berberian v. Lussier (1958) 139 A2d 869, 872, See also: Schecter v. Killingsworth, 380 P.2d 136, 140; 93 Ariz. 273 (1963). “The right to operate a motor vehicle [an automobile] upon the public streets and highways is not a mere privilege. It is a right of liberty, the enjoyment of which is protected by the guarantees of the federal and state constitutions.”Adams v. City of Pocatello, 416 P.2d 46, 48; 91 Idaho 99 (1966). “A traveler has an equal right to employ an automobile as a means of transportation and to occupy the public highways with other vehicles in common use.”
Campbell v. Walker, 78 Atl. 601, 603, 2 Boyce (Del.) 41. “The owner of an automobile has the same right as the owner of other vehicles to use the highway,* * * A traveler on foot has the same right to the use of the public highways as an automobile or any other vehicle.”
Simeone v. Lindsay, 65 Atl. 778, 779; Hannigan v. Wright, 63 Atl. 234, 236. "The RIGHT of the citizen to DRIVE on the public street with freedom from police interference, unless he is engaged in suspicious conduct associated in some manner with criminality is a FUNDAMENTAL CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT which must be protected by the courts." People v. Horton 14 Cal. App. 3rd 667 (1971) “The right to make use of an automobile as a vehicle of travel long the highways of the state, is no longer an open question. The owners thereof have the same rights in the roads and streets as the drivers of horses or those riding a bicycle or traveling in some other vehicle.”
House v. Cramer, 112 N.W. 3; 134 Iowa 374; Farnsworth v. Tampa Electric Co. 57 So. 233, 237, 62 Fla. 166. “The automobile may be used with safety to others users of the highway, and in its proper use upon the highways there is an equal right with the users of other vehicles properly upon the highways. The law recognizes such right of use upon general principles.
Brinkman v Pacholike, 84 N.E. 762, 764, 41 Ind. App. 662, 666. “The law does not denounce motor carriages, as such, on public ways. They have an equal right with other vehicles in common use to occupy the streets and roads. It is improper to say that the driver of the horse has rights in the roads superior to the driver of the automobile. Both have the right to use the easement.”
Indiana Springs Co. v. Brown, 165 Ind. 465, 468. U.S. Supreme Court says No License Necessary To Drive Automobile On Public Highways/Streets No License Is Necessary Copy and Share Freely YHVH.name 2 2 “A highway is a public way open and free to any one who has occasion to pass along it on foot or with any kind of vehicle.” Schlesinger v. City of Atlanta, 129 S.E. 861, 867, 161 Ga. 148, 159;
Holland v. Shackelford, 137 S.E. 2d 298, 304, 220 Ga. 104; Stavola v. Palmer, 73 A.2d 831, 838, 136 Conn. 670 “There can be no question of the right of automobile owners to occupy and use the public streets of cities, or highways in the rural districts.” Liebrecht v. Crandall, 126 N.W. 69, 110 Minn. 454, 456 "The word ‘automobile’ connotes a pleasure vehicle designed for the transportation of persons on highways."
-American Mutual Liability Ins. Co., vs. Chaput, 60 A.2d 118, 120; 95 NH 200 Motor Vehicle: 18 USC Part 1 Chapter 2 section 31 definitions: "(6) Motor vehicle. - The term "motor vehicle" means every description of carriage or other contrivance propelled or drawn by mechanical power and used for commercial purposes on the highways…" 10) The term "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. "A motor vehicle or automobile for hire is a motor vehicle, other than an automobile stage, used for the transportation of persons for which remuneration is received."
-International Motor Transit Co. vs. Seattle, 251 P. 120 The term ‘motor vehicle’ is different and broader than the word ‘automobile.’"
-City of Dayton vs. DeBrosse, 23 NE.2d 647, 650; 62 Ohio App. 232 "Thus self-driven vehicles are classified according to the use to which they are put rather than according to the means by which they are propelled" - Ex Parte Hoffert, 148 NW 20 "
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 citizen has the right to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon..." State vs. Johnson, 243 P. 1073; Cummins vs. Homes, 155 P. 171; Packard vs. Banton, 44 S.Ct. 256; Hadfield vs. Lundin, 98 Wash 516, Willis vs. Buck, 263 P. l 982;
Barney vs. Board of Railroad Commissioners, 17 P.2d 82 "The use of the highways for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege, but a common and fundamental Right of which the public and the individual cannot be rightfully deprived."
Chicago Motor Coach vs. Chicago, 169 NE 22; Ligare vs. Chicago, 28 NE 934; Boon vs. Clark, 214 SSW 607; 25 Am. Jur. (1st) Highways Sect.163 "the right of the Citizen to travel upon the highway and to transport his property thereon in the ordinary course of life and business… is the usual and ordinary right of the Citizen, a right common to all." -
Ex Parte Dickey, (Dickey vs. Davis), 85 SE 781 “Every Citizen has an unalienable RIGHT to make use of the public highways of the state; every Citizen has full freedom to travel from place to place in the enjoyment of life and liberty.” People v. Nothaus, 147 Colo. 210. "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. "Traffic infractions are not a crime." People v. Battle "Persons faced with an unconstitutional licensing law which purports to require a license as a prerequisite to exercise of right... may ignore the law and engage with impunity in exercise of such right."
Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham 394 U.S. 147 (1969). U.S. Supreme Court says No License Necessary To Drive Automobile On Public Highways/Streets No License Is Necessary Copy and Share Freely YHVH.name 3 "The word 'operator' shall not include any person who solely transports his own property and who transports no persons or property for hire or compensation."
Statutes at Large California Chapter 412 p.83 "Highways are for the use of the traveling public, and all have the right to use them in a reasonable and proper manner; the use thereof is an inalienable right of every citizen." Escobedo v. State 35 C2d 870 in 8 Cal Jur 3d p.27 “RIGHT -- A legal RIGHT, a constitutional RIGHT means a RIGHT protected by the law, by the constitution, but government does not create the idea of RIGHT or original RIGHTS; it acknowledges them. . . “ Bouvier's Law Dictionary, 1914, p. 2961. “Those who have the right to do something cannot be licensed for what they already have right to do as such license would be meaningless.”
City of Chicago v Collins 51 NE 907, 910. “A license means leave to do a thing which the licensor could prevent.” Blatz Brewing Co. v. Collins, 160 P.2d 37, 39; 69 Cal. A. 2d 639. “The object of a license is to confer a right or power, which does not exist without it.”
Payne v. Massey (19__) 196 SW 2nd 493, 145 Tex 273. “The court makes it clear that a license relates to qualifications to engage in profession, business, trade or calling; thus, when merely traveling without compensation or profit, outside of business enterprise or adventure with the corporate state, no license is required of the natural individual traveling for personal business, pleasure and transportation.”
Wingfield v. Fielder 2d Ca. 3d 213 (1972). “If [state] officials construe a vague statute unconstitutionally, the citizen may take them at their word, and act on the assumption that the statute is void.” -
Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham 394 U.S. 147 (1969). "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." Donnolly vs. Union Sewer Pipe Co., 184 US 540; Lafarier vs. Grand Trunk R.R. Co., 24 A. 848; O'Neil vs. Providence Amusement Co., 108 A. 887. "The right to travel (called the right of free ingress to other states, and egress from them) is so fundamental that it appears in the Articles of Confederation, which governed our society before the Constitution."
(Paul v. Virginia). "[T]he right to travel freely from State to State ... is a right broadly assertable against private interference as well as governmental action. Like the right of association, it is a virtually unconditional personal right, guaranteed by the Constitution to us all." (U.S. Supreme Court,
Shapiro v. Thompson). EDGERTON, Chief Judge: “Iron curtains have no place in a free world. ...'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 Constitution.'
Williams v. Fears, 179 U.S. 270, 274, 21 S.Ct. 128, 45 L.Ed. 186. “Our nation has thrived on the principle that, outside areas of plainly harmful conduct, every American is left to shape his own life as he thinks best, do what he pleases, go where he pleases.” Id., at 197.
Kent vs. Dulles see Vestal, Freedom of Movement, 41 Iowa L.Rev. 6, 13—14. “The validity of restrictions on the freedom of movement of particular individuals, both substantively and procedurally, is precisely the sort of matter that is the peculiar domain of the courts.” Comment, 61 Yale L.J. at page 187. “a person detained for an investigatory stop can be questioned but is “not obliged to answer, answers may not be compelled, and refusal to answer furnishes no basis for an arrest.”Justice White, Hiibel “Automobiles have the right to use the highways of the State on an equal footing with other vehicles.”
Cumberland Telephone. & Telegraph Co. v Yeiser 141 Kentucky 15. “Each citizen has the absolute right to choose for himself the mode of conveyance he desires, whether it be by wagon or carriage, by horse, motor or electric car, or by bicycle, or astride of a horse, subject to the sole condition that he will observe all those requirements that are known as the law of the road.”
Swift v City of Topeka, 43 U.S. Supreme Court says No License Necessary To Drive Automobile On Public Highways/Streets No License Is Necessary Copy and Share Freely YHVH.name 4 Kansas 671, 674. The Supreme Court said in U.S. v Mersky (1960) 361 U.S. 431: An administrative regulation, of course, is not a "statute." A traveler on foot has the same right to use of the public highway as an automobile or any other vehicle.
Cecchi v. Lindsay, 75 Atl. 376, 377, 1 Boyce (Del.) 185. Automotive vehicles are lawful means of conveyance and have equal rights upon the streets with horses and carriages.
Chicago Coach Co. v. City of Chicago, 337 Ill. 200, 205; See also: Christy v. Elliot, 216 Ill. 31; Ward v. Meredith, 202 Ill. 66; Shinkle v. McCullough, 116 Ky. 960; Butler v. Cabe, 116 Ark. 26, 28-29. …automobiles are lawful vehicles and have equal rights on the highways with horses and carriages. Daily v. Maxwell, 133 S.W. 351, 354.
Matson v. Dawson, 178 N.W. 2d 588, 591. A farmer has the same right to the use of the highways of the state, whether on foot or in a motor vehicle, as any other citizen.
Draffin v. Massey, 92 S.E.2d 38, 42. Persons may lawfully ride in automobiles, as they may lawfully ride on bicycles. Doherty v. Ayer, 83 N.E. 677, 197 Mass. 241, 246;
Molway v. City of Chicago, 88 N.E. 485, 486, 239 Ill. 486; Smiley v. East St. Louis Ry. Co., 100 N.E. 157, 158. "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. "[I]t is a jury question whether ... an automobile ... is a motor vehicle[.]"
United States v Johnson, 718 F.2d 1317, 1324 (5th Cir. 1983). Other right to use an automobile cases: -
EDWARDS VS. CALIFORNIA, 314 U.S. 160 -
TWINING VS NEW JERSEY, 211 U.S. 78 - WILLIAMS VS. FEARS, 179 U.S. 270, AT 274 - CRANDALL VS. NEVADA, 6 WALL. 35, AT 43-44 - THE PASSENGER CASES, 7 HOWARD 287, AT 492 - U.S. VS. GUEST, 383 U.S. 745, AT 757-758 (1966) -
GRIFFIN VS. BRECKENRIDGE, 403 U.S. 88, AT 105-106 (1971) - CALIFANO VS. TORRES, 435 U.S. 1, AT 4, note 6 -
SHAPIRO VS. THOMPSON, 394 U.S. 618 (1969) - CALIFANO VS. AZNAVORIAN, 439 U.S. 170, AT 176 (1978) Look the above citations up in American Jurisprudence. Some citations may be paraphrased.
1. That I have researched extensively the organic laws of the united states of America, including two hundred years of American case law (i.e., Common Law), that confirms the UNALIENABLE and FUNDAMENTAL, UNRESTRICTED and UNREGULATED RIGHT TO TRAVEL upon both the public walkways and the highways, and transport my personal and allodial property, duly conveyed, unhindered by ANY private, corporate or statutory law, or Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) regulation or so-called requirement. This unalienable RIGHT TO TRAVEL is guaranteed by the 9th & 10th Amendments of the organic Constitution for the united States of America and Bill of Rights, and upheld by many court decisions in support of that right. I, now explicitly RESERVE, ASSERT and DEFEND that right.
“The RIGHT TO TRAVEL is an unconditional personal right whose exercise may NOT be conditioned.” - Dunn v. Blumstein, 405 U.S. 330, 92 S Ct 995, 31 L Ed 2d 274. [5 U.S. Dig, Constitutional Law, and 101.5, Right of interstate of international travel.]
2. This AFFIDAVIT is submitted upon demand of a driver’s license, registration or proof of insurance as part of the official record of ANY ensuing action and must be introduced as evidence in said action.
“NO State 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 INSURANCE.” - Chicago Coach Co. v. City of Chicago, 337 III. 200, 169 N. E. 22.
“The court makes it clear that a license relates to qualifications to engage in profession, business, trade, or calling; thus, when merely traveling without compensation or profit, outside of business enterprise or adventure with the corporate state. NO LICENSE IS REQUIRED OF THE NATURAL INDIVIDUAL TRAVELING FOR PERSONAL BUSINESS, PLEASURE AND TRANSPORTATION.” - Wingfield v. Fielder 2d Ca. 3d 213 [1972]
Traveling in an automobile on the public roads was not a threat to the public safety or health and constituted no hazard to the public, and such a traveler owed nothing more than “due care” (as regards to tort for negligence) to the public and the owner owed no other duty to the public (eg. State), he / she and his / her auto, having equal rights to and on the roadways / highways as horses and wagons, etc.; this same right is still substantive rule, in that speeding, running stop signs, TRAVELING WITHOUT LICENSE PLATES, OR REGISTRATION ARE NOT TREATS TO THE PUBLIC SAFETY, AND THUS, ARE NOT ARRESTABLE OFFENSES. Christy v. Elliot, 216 I 131, 74 HE 1035, LRA NS 1905 – 1910: ILLINOIS v. Farley 98 CED Rpt. 89, 20 CA 3d 1032 (1971).
The Constitution for the united States of America Article I Section 2 states… Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. Historically, the 3/5th reference have been applied to so-called “blacks” (negroes, colored, African-Americans and etc…). According to the “BLACK LAW DICTIONARY 2nd Edition” Citizen…3. All natives are NOT citizens of the United States; the descendants of the aborigines, and those of African origin, are not entitled to the rights of citizens …that constitution does not authorize any but white persons to become citizens of the United States; and it must therefore be presumed that no one is a citizen who is not white.
Once again, I am NOT a 14th Amendment legal “person” engaged in interstate commerce, NOR do I derive income from the travel and transport of goods. I am NOT a “driver,” NOR am I an “operator” of a “motor vehicle.” I am a “traveler” and a “traveler” places NO charge upon other(s) traveling with him or her.
“No person (individual) shall…be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.” - Article v. Amendment
1. Thus, there is a difference between a traveler and a driver. The driver’s license is for motor vehicles involved in commerce only, such as, Taxi Cabs, UPS Trucks, Motor Coach (Buses), Airplanes and 18-wheel Tractor-Trailer Trucks. “Motor Vehicle” therefore, can be defined as, every description of carriage or other contrivance propelled or drawn by mechanical power and passengers and property, or property and cargo; “used for commercial purposes” means the carriage of person or property for any fare, fee, rate, charges, or other consideration, or directly or indirectly, in connection with any business, other undertaking for profit.” My private, self-propelled contrivance/carriage is NOT involved in commerce; therefore, it is NOT a “motor vehicle.” The corporate State Department of Motor Vehicle code does NOT disclose the true intent and purpose of the statutes, though a motor vehicle” is adequately and clearly defined in the United States Code (USC).
“Motor Vehicle means every description of carriage other contrivance propelled or drawn by mechanical power and used for commercial purposes.” – “18 USC 31”
Thus, ONLY corporations can make money from the use of the motor vehicles.
“Thus, ONLY corporations can make money from the use of motor vehicles. The privilege of using the streets and highways by the operation thereon of motor carriers for hire can be acquired only by permission or license from the state or its political subdivision.”
– Title 18, United States Code, Section 31.
2. Therefore, I have determined and hereby affirm by AFFIDAVIT and under affirmation, by virtue of my declared nationality as a Washitaw De Dugdahmoundyah Mu’ur, that I am NOT required to have government permission to travel, NOT required to have a driver’s license, NOT required to have vehicle registration of my personal property, NOR to surrender the lawful title of my duly conveyed property to the State as security against government indebtedness and the undeclared federal bankruptcy. ANY administrative rule, regulation or statutory act of ANY State legislature or judicial tribunal to the contrary is unlawful and clearly unconstitutional, thus NULL and VOID. American case law has clearly adjudicated that:
“Statutes that violate the plain and obvious principles of common right and common reason are NULL and VOID.”- Bennett v. Boggs, 1 Baldw 60
3. Thus, ANY action involving a citation or ticket issued, confiscation, impoundment or search and seizure of my private property by a police officer or ANY other public servant or employee, which carries a fine or jail time is a penalty or sanction, thus converting a RIGHT into a crime. ANY citation or ticket is thus, NULL and VOID. Under every circumstance without exception, government officials must hold the Constitution for the united states of America (1791) supreme over ANY other laws, regulations or orders. Every police (executive) officer or judicial officer has SWORN AN OATH to uphold the U.S. Constitution, via Article VI… “Treaty(ies)… the Supreme Law of the Land”.
“REGULATIONS, FEES, TAXES, MAY NOT BE APPLIED TO NATURAL PERSON USING COMMON HIGHWAYS, as it is in derogation of common right of public to use highways as an avenue upon, which vehicles for transportation of goods, passengers, freight and traffic of all kinds may be freely moved, having due regard for rights of others, while this, or other provisions of statute, should be fairly, liberally construed to promote the effect and the evident purpose for which it was intended, care should be exercised not to unduly extend its effect.” Young v. Madison County, 115 N.
4. ANY action by a police (executive) officer, officer of the court, public servant or government official to assert unlawful authority under the “color of law” will be construed as a direct and willful violation of my constitutionally protected RIGHTS (1787), and will be prosecuted to the full extent of American law.
“Public officials are NOT immune from suit when they transcend their lawful authority (their oath) by invading constitutional RIGHTS.” - AFLCIO v. Woodward, 406 F2d 137 t.
“Whoever under the color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any inhabitant of any state, Territory, or District to the deprivation of ANY rights, privileges or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution of laws of the United States…shall be fined not more than $1,000 or imprisoned not more than one year, or both…” – 18 USC 242
Therefore, there is a marked difference between citizenship and heritage. Now, the 14th Amendment was "allegedly" fully ratified in
Therefore, if we were really U.S. citizen by the 14th Amendment, then why is it necessary for the President of the U.S. to sign the Voting Right Act of 1965 every 25 years? According to the “BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY” 5th Edition… DRED SCOTT case law of 1857, states, we are not U.S. citizen and nor will we ever be. This has NEVER been repealed and thus stands as law today. Therefore, based on this U.S. Supreme Court decision by Judge Taney, we will remain without rights or privileges, except, such and, those, which the so-called government might grant. One of these said privileges is ‘Voting’. This is the reason why every 25 years “Negro, Black and Colored” Voting Right (Privilege) Act (Bill) has to be signed by the President of the U.S. corporation. Lyndon B. Johnson did so in 1965. Ronald W. Reagan did so in 1982 and George H. W. Bush Jr. did so in 2006.
The 3/5 Clause of the Unites States Constitution declares the slave names “Blacks”, “Negroes” and “Colored People” as identification and marks of U.S. Properties. The 13th Amendment abolished these Slave Labels and their Slave Masters, thus making the 14th and 15th Amendments as ex post facto [laws] to the 13th Amendment. The 13th amendment allegedly abolished slavery. But that created a new problem. The newly freed slaves were not citizens of any state or country, because they were just property, and property did not have citizenship. To solve the problem, the 14th amendment allegedly passed. This amendment created a new class of citizenship. This new class was legally called: 'United States citizen', (with a small "c") NOT 'United States of America Citizen', but just 'United States citizen'. Notice that the U.S. citizen is spelled with a lower case 'c'. This is to show a lower class of citizenship. This class of citizen (U.S. citizen) is a privilege granted by the federal government, and not a sovereign inalienable right. The United States is NOT a nation, nor a nationality (Note: The United States is of America, but America (Al Morocco) is NOT of the United States, meaning one has a superior position. From “BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY 6th Edition”: Fourteenth Amendment. The Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, ratified in 1868, creates or at least recognizes for the first time a citizenship of the United States, as distinct from that of the states; All 14th Amendment Citizens, including unproclaimed and unrecognized Mu’urs (Moors) of Amexem, are property of Corporate U.S. (UNITED STATES).
In March of 1857, the United States Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice Roger B. Taney, declared that all blacks -- slaves as well as free -- were NOT and could NEVER become citizens of the United States.
The DRED SCOTT vs. SANDFORD decision was supposedly superseded by another decision named the Slaughter House case(s) and eventually by the 14th Amendment. However, this is not true, the Slaughter House case(s) simply provided safe guards and the 14th Amendment was never fully ratified; hence, leaving us in limbo once again or rather back to square one about out Citizenship. How are we not Citizens in our own land? (Note: The Constitution for the united States of America, the Constitution of the United States of America and the U.S. Constitution; all have been hijacked as the supreme law of the land and the UCC [Uniform Commercial Code] now superseded it. The UCC [Uniform Commercial Code] is Admiralty Law, which ultimately leads to Colorable Law or Color of Law, meaning, the appearance or semblance, without the substance, of legal right. State vs. Brechler, 185 Wis. 599, 202 N.W. 144, 148).
The Joint Resolution proposing said amendment was NOT submitted to or adopted by a Constitutional Congress per Article 1, Section 3, and Article 5 of the U.S. Constitution. It was NEVER submitted to the President for his approval as required by Article 1, Section 7 of the U.S. Constitution. The proposed 14th Amendment was rejected by more than 1/4th of all the States then in the Union, and it was NEVER ratified by 3/4th of all the States in the Union as required by Article 5 of the U.S. Constitution…15 States out of the then 37 States of the Union rejected the proposed 14th Amendment between the date of its submission to the States by the Secretary of State on June 16th, 1866 and March 24th, 1868, thereby further nullifying said resolution and making it impossible for its ratification by the constitutionally required 3/4th of such States…Texas (Oct. 27th, 1866), Georgia (Nov. 9th, 1866), Florida (Dec. 6th, 1866), Alabama (Dec. 7th, 1866), Arkansas (Dec. 17th, 1866), Kentucky (Jan. 8th, 1867), Virginia (Jan. 9th, 1867), Louisiana (Feb. 6th, 1867), Delaware (Feb. 7th, 1867), Maryland (Mar. 23rd, 1867), Mississippi (Jan. 31st, 1867), Illinois (Jan. 16th, 1868), New Jersey (Mar. 24th, 1868), South Carolina (Dec. 20th, 1866) and even North Carolina (Dec. 14th, 1866) all 15 States rejected the 14th Amendment.
You have to use the Treaties, because the 13th and the 14th Amendment did not help us. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not help us. None of these so-called Rights (“Act” of “privileges”) help us. Our people are still classified under the Negro Act of 1740 (Note: “WEBSTER’S DICTIONARY” definition). Therefore, we must be recognized as human being (not in the since of the Jews [Goyim]) first with Human Rights tied to Indigenous Rights.
Hence, we want “IN FULL LIFE” status, which means: Continuing in both physical and civil existence; that is, neither actually dead nor Civiliter Mortuus. “BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY 4TH DELUXE EDITION. Pg. 895”
The Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857), was a landmark decision by the U.S. Supreme Court in which the Court held that African Americans, whether enslaved or free, could not be American citizens and therefore had no standing to sue in federal court.
Thus, as an indigenous American in the sense of the real word ‘American’ …
In many cases you will be dealing with a Psychopath (Sociopath) or said "White Supremacy attitude (racial profiling, brutality and etc...) . Here is a way to deal with them.
Police officers generally have broad powers to carry out their duties. The Constitution and other laws, however, place limits on how far police can go in trying to enforce the law. As the videotaped beating of motorist Rodney King, in Los Angeles and several recent cases in New York have illustrated, police officers sometimes go too far, violating the rights of citizens. When this happens, the victim of the misconduct may have recourse through federal and state laws. A primary purpose of the nation's civil rights laws is to protect citizens from abuses by government, including police misconduct. Civil rights laws allow attorney fees and compensatory and punitive damages as incentives for injured parties to enforce their rights.
Overcoming Immunity
Being stopped and questioned by police in connection with a crime is an unsettling experience for most anyone. As long as the officer is performing his job properly, however, there is no violation of a suspect's rights. In fact, police are immune from suit for the performance of their jobs unless willful, unreasonable conduct is demonstrated. Mere negligence, the failure to exercise due care, is not enough to create liability. Immunity therefore means that in the typical police-suspect interaction, the suspect cannot sue the police. Civil rights remedies come into play for willful police conduct that violates an individual's constitutional rights.
Civil Rights Laws and Police Misconduct
A statute known as Section 1983 is the primary civil rights law victims of police misconduct rely upon. This law was originally passed as part of the Civil Rights Act of 1871, which was intended to curb oppressive conduct by government and private individuals participating in vigilante groups, such as the Ku Klux Klan. It is now called Section 1983 because that is where the law has been published, within Title 42, of the United States Code. Section 1983 makes it unlawful for anyone acting under the authority of state law to deprive another person of his or her rights under the Constitution or federal law. The most common claims brought against police officers are false arrest (or false imprisonment), malicious prosecution, and use of excessive or unreasonable force.
False Arrest
The claim that is most often asserted against police is false arrest. Persons bringing this claim assert that police violated their Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable seizure. If the officer had probable cause to believe the individual had committed a crime, the arrest is reasonable and the Fourth Amendment has not been violated. Police can arrest without a warrant for a felony or misdemeanor committed in their presence. (Some states also allow warrantless arrests for misdemeanor domestic assaults not committed in the officer's presence.) Even if the information the officer relied upon later turns out to be false, the officer is not liable if he believed it was accurate at the time of the arrest. To prevail on a false arrest claim, the victim must show that the arresting officer lacked probable cause, that is, facts sufficient to cause a reasonable person to believe that a crime had been committed.
Malicious Prosecution
A malicious prosecution claim asserts that the officer wrongly deprived the victim of the Fourteenth Amendment right to liberty. To win this type of claim, the victim must show four things: 1) the defendant police officer commenced a criminal proceeding; 2) the proceeding ended in the victim's favor (that is, no conviction); 3) there was no probable cause; and 4) the proceeding was brought with malice toward the victim. As with false arrest, this claim will fail if the officer had probable cause to initiate criminal proceedings.
Excessive Force
Excessive force claims receive the most publicity, perhaps because the results of excessive force seem the most outrageous, involving serious physical injury or death. Whether the officer's use of force was reasonable depends on the surrounding facts and circumstances. The officer's intentions or motivations are not controlling. If the amount of force was reasonable, it doesn't matter that the officer's intentions were bad. But the reverse is also true: if the officer had good intentions, but used unreasonable force, the excessive force claim will not be dismissed.
Failure to Intervene
Officers have a duty to protect individuals from constitutional violations by fellow officers. Therefore, an officer who witnesses a fellow officer violating an individual's constitutional rights may be liable to the victim for failing to intervene.
The Qualified Immunity Defense
Defense attorneys representing a police officer for any of these claims will raise a defense of qualified immunity. This defense exists to prevent the fear of legal prosecution from inhibiting a police officer from enforcing the law. The defense will defeat a claim against the officer if the officer's conduct did not violate a clearly established constitutional or statutory right. In other words, the specific acts the officer prevented the individual from engaging in must be legally protected, otherwise there is no civil rights violation. In order to win a civil rights claim, an individual bringing a police misconduct claim must prove that the actions of the police exceeded reasonable bounds, infringed the victim's constitutional rights, and produced some injury or damages to the victim.
Police Misconduct: If You've Been Affected
Civil rights claims are an important part of our legal system, providing a balance between the duty of law enforcement to uphold the laws, and the rights of individuals to be free from police misconduct. Yet cases against police officers can be difficult. Officers may be immune from suit, even though an individual feels he or she was mistreated. Claims against police departments can also be expensive to bring because a lot of evidence must be secured, including records, statements of police, statements of witnesses, and various other documentation, to prove the misconduct.
The evidence supporting your claim is the most important element in a police misconduct suit. If you feel you've been the victim of police misconduct, contact a Civil Rights Attorney promptly so that valuable evidence does not disappear. Take photographs of any injuries or damage caused by the police, and set aside clothing or other objects that was torn or stained with blood from the incident. Try to get the names and addresses or telephone numbers of anyone who may have witnessed the incident. Also, write down exactly what happened as soon as you can, so that you don't forget important details
Right to TravelRight to Travel - Affadvaits and card
|
|