I have added many things to  my list since I first posted it here, so I figured I would share the updated list…

Legal “Big List” 

1795 – SUPREME COURT RULING – NO CORPORATE JURISDICTION OVER THE NATURAL MAN
Penhallow v. Doane’s Administraters (3 U.S. 54; 1 L.Ed. 57; 3 Dall. 54),
Supreme Court of the United States 1795:
“Inasmuch as every GOVERNMENT is an ARTIFICIAL PERSON, an abstraction, and a creature of the mind only, a GOVERNMENT can interface only with other ARTIFICIAL PERSONS. The Imaginary, having neither actuality nor substance, is foreclosed from creating and attaining parity with the Tangible. The legal manifestation of this is that no GOVERNMENT, as well as any Law, agency, aspect, Court, etc. can concern itself with anything other than Corporate, ARTIFICIAL PERSONS and the contracts between them.”
Voiding an unlawful contracts (i.e., tickets) before refusing to sign:

For tickets or other fraudulent government invitations to contract

First, draw diagonal line from lower left to upper right corners with arrow heads on both ends.
Above line: Presumption to contract null & void ab initio Below line: per SEC #2640220 and Lufkin Case #9:14-cv-138.
Do all of this in red ink.

Hoffsomer v. Hayes, 92 Okla 32, 227 F. 417The courts are not bound by an officers interpretation of the law under which he presumes to act.
A right which is free and open to all is not the subject of a license or tax.Chicago v Collins, 51 NE 907; Freeburg v Dawson 274 F 240.
.Owen v. Independence, 100 S.C.T. 1398, 445 US 622“Officers of the court have no immunity, when violating a Constitutional right, from liability.For they are deemed to know the law.”

__________________________________________

Self Naming-identification

“Under well established principles of common law, a person is free to adopt and use any name that he or she sees fit so long as it is not done for any fraudulent purposes and does not infringeupon the rights of others. 57 Am. Jur. 2d Name sections 1, 10 (1971); Attorney General Opinion, Jan.30. 1928.” DOE v. DUNNING, 87 Wn.2d 50, 549 P.2d 1 [No. 43907. En Banc. April 22, 1976.]And;
“In the manner of the choice of a name for a person, it is fundamental law that any person may use any name he sees fit, provided that the use thereof is not with the intent to defraud.”Washington State Attorney General Opinion, January 30, 1928. And;
“In the matter of the choice of a name for a person, it is fundamental law that any person may use any name he sees fit, provided that the use thereof is not with the intent to defraud. The custom of person taking names from their male parent is merely a custom and is not binding upon anyone, and the same may be said of the custom of a woman taking her husband’s name. In the matter of the choice of a name the individual has absolute liberty provided that a name is not assumed for the purpose of committing a fraud.” [Emphasis Supplied].

__________________________________________

Clerks and filing

USC 18 §2076 – Clerk is to file: Whoever, being a clerk willfully refuses or neglects to makeor forward any report, certificate, statement, or document as required by law, shall be finedunder this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.
USC 18 §2071 – Whoever willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, ordestroys, or attempts to do so, documents filed or deposited with any clerk or officer of anycourt, shall be fined or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
18 USC §1512b – Whoever knowingly uses intimidation, threatens, or corruptly persuades another person, or attempts to do so, or engages in misleading conduct toward another person,with intent to – (1) influence, delay, or prevent … an official proceeding; (2) cause or induce any person to – (a) withhold … a document, or other object, from an official proceeding; (b)alter, destroy, mutilate, or conceal an official proceeding; … shall be fined under this title orimprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.

___________________

Travel

Get officer’s Name, badge #, and DPST # first
The Right to Travel; the Right to Mode of Conveyance; The Right to Locomotion are all absolute rights, and the police cannot make void the exercise of Rights.  Statev. Armstead. 60s 78, and 781
“Speeding, driving without a license, wrong plates or no plates, no registration, no tags, etc., have been held to be “non-arrestable offenses” Cal V. Farley, 98 Cal. Rep. 89, 20 CA 3d 1032.
CASE #1: “The use of the highway for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege, but a common fundamental right of which the public and individuals cannot rightfully be deprived.” Chicago Motor Coach v. Chicago, 169 NE 221.
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 law right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” Thompson v. Smith, 154 SE 579.
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 Fifth Amendment.” Kent v. Dulles, 357 US 116, 125.
CASE #4: “The right to travel is a well-established common right that does not owe its existence to the federal government. It is recognized by the courts as a natural right.” Schactman v. Dulles 96 App DC 287, 225 F2d 938, at 941.
“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.)
“Undoubtedly the right of locomotion, the right to remove from one place to another according to inclination, is an attribute of personal Iiberty, 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.
United States v. Drefke, 707 F.2d 978, 981 (8th Cir. 1983). Contentions that driver licenses are contracts are baseless; see Hershey v. Commonwealth Dep’t. of Transportation, 669 A.2d 517, 520 (Pa.Cmwlth. 1996); and State v. Gibson, 697 P.2d 1216 (Idaho 1985).
§ 801.208¹ Commercial motor vehicle(1) Commercial motor vehicle means a motor vehicle or combination of motor vehicles and vehicles that:(a) Has a gross combination weight rating of 26,001 pounds or more, inclusive of a towed unit or a combination of towed units, with a gross vehicle weight rating of more than 10,000 pounds;(b) Has a gross vehicle weight rating of 26,001 pounds or more;(c) Is designed to transport 16 or more persons, including the driver; or(d) Is of any size and is used in the transportation of hazardous materials.(2) Notwithstanding subsection (1) of this section, the term commercial motor vehicle does not include the following:(a) An emergency fire vehicle being operated by firefighters as defined in ORS 652.050 (Definitions for ORS 652.050 to 652.080);(b) Emergency vehicles being operated by qualified emergency service volunteers as defined in ORS 401.358 (Definitions);(c) A motor home used to transport or house, for nonbusiness purposes, the operator or the operators family members or personal possessions; or(d) A recreational vehicle that is operated solely for personal use. [1989 c.636 §2; 1991 c.185 §1; 1991 c.676 §1; 1999 c.359 §1; 2007 c.387 §1; 2009 c.395 §3; 2009 c.718 §27; 2011 c.470 §1]
§ 801.557¹ Traffic violationTraffic violation means a traffic offense that is designated as a traffic violation in the statute defining the offense, or any other offense defined in the Oregon Vehicle Code that is punishable by a fine but that is not punishable by a term of imprisonment. Penalties for traffic violations are as provided for violations generally in ORS chapter 153. [Formerly 801.550; 2011 c.597 §95a]
Other U.S. court cases that confirm and point out the difference between the “right” of the citizen to travel and a government “privilege” are – Barney v Board of Railroad Commissioners; State v City of Spokane, 186 P. 864.; Ex Parte Dickey (Dickey v Davis), 85 S.E. 781.; Teche Lines v Danforth, 12 So.2d 784.
“The right of a citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, by horsedrawn 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 Kentucy 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
“Each person has the right to resist an unlawful arrest. In such a case, the person attempting the arrest stands in the position of a wrongdoer and may be resisted by the use of force, as in self-defense.” State v. Mobley, 240 N.C. 476, 83 S.E. 2d 100.
“One may come to the aid of another being unlawfully arrested, just as he may where one is being assaulted, molested, raped or kidnapped. Thus it is not an offense to liberate one from the unlawful custody of an officer, even though he may have submitted to such custody, without resistance.” Adams v. State, 121 Ga. 16, 48 S.E. 910.
“Similarly, a person cannot be convicted of resisting a peace officer in the execution of his duty unless the officer was acting strictly within the limits of his powers and duty. If the officer makes an unlawful arrest, then there is a common law right to resist that arrest.” Police Manual of Arrest, Seizure and Interrogation, 8th Edition, by The Honorable Roger E. Salhany, page 96,

____________________________________________________________________________
CONSTITUTION AND RIGHTS

Obsta principiis – Resist the beginnings. Nip it in the bud
USC 18 §2382 – Misprision of treason Whoever having knowledge of treason, conceals and does not make known the same to some judge is guilty of treason for contempt against the sovereign and shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than seven years, or both.
USC 18 §201 BRIBERY – of any public official directly or indirectly gives, offers, or promises anything of value to any person to influence any official act
USC 18 §241; CONSPIRACY AGAINST RIGHTS: If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both
USC 18 §242; DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS UNDER COLOR OF LAW: Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State the deprivation of any rights shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both;
USC 18 §2071: Whoever willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, or destroys, or attempts to do so, documents filed or deposited with any clerk or officer of any court, shall be fined or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
USC 18 §2076: CLERK IS TO FILE: Whoever, being a clerk willfully refuses or neglects to make or forward any report, certificate, statement, or document as required by law, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.   USC 42 §1983; CIVIL ACTION FOR DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS: Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State subjects, or causes to be subjected, any person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law.
USC 42 1985; CONSPIRACY TO INTERFERE WITH CIVIL RIGHTS: If two or more persons in any State or Territory conspire for the purpose of depriving, either directly or indirectly any persons rights the party so injured or deprived may have an action for the recovery of damages against any one or more of the conspirators.
USC 42 §1986 – ACTION FOR NEGLECT TO PREVENT: Every person who, having knowledge that any of the wrongs conspired to be done or are about to be committed, and having power to prevent or aid in preventing the commission of the same, neglects or refuses so to do, if such wrongful act be committed, shall be liable to the party injured.
“…, every man is independent of all laws, except those prescribed by nature. He is not bound by any institutions formed by his fellowman without his consent.” — Cruden v. Neale, 2 N.C. 338 May Term 1796.
In Hertado v. California, 110 US 516, the U.S Supreme Court states very plainly: “The state cannot diminish rights of the people.”
And in Bennett v. Boggs, 1 Baldw 60, “Statutes that violate the plain and obvious principles of common right and common reason are null and void.”
“The assertion of federal rights, when plainly and reasonably made, is not to be defeated under the name of local practice.” Davis v. Wechsler, 263 US 22, at 24
“Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them.” Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US 436, 491.
“The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime.” Miller v. US, 230 F 486, at 489.
There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of this exercise of constitutional rights.” Sherer v. Cullen, 481 F 946
Article Six of the U.S. Constitution:
“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof;…shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or laws of any State to the Contrary not one word withstanding.”
“The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution…”
Personal liberty, or the Right to enjoyment of life and liberty, is one of the fundamental or natural Rights, which has been protected by its inclusion as a guarantee in the various constitutions, which is not derived from, or dependent on, the U.S. Constitution, which may not be submitted to a vote and may not depend on the outcome of an election. It is one of the most sacred and valuable Rights, as sacred as the Right to private property…and is regarded as UNALIENABLE.” 16 C.J.S., Constitutional Law, Sect.202, p.987.
Personal liberty, or the Right to enjoyment of life and liberty, is one of the fundamental or natural Rights, which has been protected by its inclusion as a guarantee in the various constitutions, which is not derived from, or dependent on, the U.S. Constitution, which may not be submitted to a vote and may not depend on the outcome of an election. It is one of the most sacred and valuable Rights, as sacred as the Right to private property…and is regarded as UNALIENABLE.” 16 C.J.S., Constitutional Law, Sect.202, p.987.
“The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and the name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.”16th American Jurisprudence 2d, Section 177, late 2nd, Section 256
An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no right; it imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed.” Norton vs Shelby County118 US 425 p.442
“Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them.”- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 491.
“The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime.· – Miller v. U.S., 230 F 2d 486, 489.
“There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of this exercise of Constitutional rights.”- Sherar v. Cullen, 481 F. 945. ( There is no question that a citation/ticket issued by a police officer, for no drivers license, no current vehicle registration, no vehicle insurance etc. which carries a fine or jail time, is a penalty or sanction, and is indeed “converting a Right into a crime”.)
CITIZENSHIP
“It is not the duty of the police to protect you. Their job is to protect the Corporation, Elected and public employees and arrest code breakers.” (Sapp v. Tallahasee, 348 So. 2nd. 363, Reiff v. City of Philadelphia 477 F.Supp. 1262, Lynch v. N.C. Dept of Justice 376 ENFORCEMENT OF CITY/COUNTY CODES PROHIBITED. California Law prohibits Cities and Counties from enforcing City or County Codes and OrdinancesThere 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.
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.”
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

____________________________________________________________________________
U.S. Codes

Title 18: USC ss 921:
(a) As used in this chapter—(1) The term “person” and the term “whoever” include any individual, corporation, company, association, firm, partnership, society, or joint stock company.
Source: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/921
____________________________________________________________________________
Income Tax

McLaughlin v. CIR, 832 F.2d 986, 987 (7th Cir. 1987)(“The notion that the federal income tax is contractual or otherwise consensual in nature is not only utterly without foundation but… has been repeatedly rejected by the courts.”)
____________________________________________________________________________

LAW

Rule 26(b) Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides, “Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense — including the existence, description, nature, custody, condition, and location of any documents or other tangible things and the identity and location of persons who know of any discoverable matter. For good cause, the court may order discovery of any matter relevant to the subject matter involved in the action.”
__________________________________________________________________________

December 26, 1933 49 Statute 3097 Treaty Series 881 ( Convention on Rights and Duties of States ) stated CONGRESS replaced STATUTES with international law, placing all STATES under international law.
December 9, 1945, the International Organization Immunities Act relinquished every public office of United States to United Nations.
22 CFR 92.12-92.31 FR Heading “Foreign Relationship” states that an oath is required to take office.
Title 8 USC 1481 states once an oath of office is taken, citizenship is relinquished, thus one becomes a foreign entity, agency, or state. That means every public office is a foreign state, including all political subdivisions. (i.e. every single court is considered a separate foreign entity).
Title 22 USC (Foreign relations and Intercourse) Chapter 11 identifies all public officials as foreign agents.
Title 28 USC 3002 Section 15A states United States is a Federal Corporation and not a government, including the Judicial Procedural Section.
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP) 4j states that the Court jurisdiction and immunity fall under a foreign state.
The 11th Amendment states “The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of a Foreign State.” (A foreign entity, agency, or state cannot bring any suit against a United States citizen without abiding the following procedure.)
Title 22 CFR 93.1-93.2 states that the Department of State has to be notified of any suit, and in turn has to notify the United States citizen of said suit.
Title 28 USC 1330states that the United States District Court has to grant permission for the suit to be pursued once the court has been supplied sufficient proof that the United States citizen is actually a corporate entity.
Title 28 USC 1608 One has Absolute Immunity as a Corporation.
Title 28 USC 1602-1611 ( Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act ) allows the jurisdiction of a court to be challenged, and a demand of proper jurisdiction to be stated.
July 27, 1868, 15 Statutes at Large Chapter 249 Section 1 “Acts Concerning American Citizens in a Foreign State,” expatriation, is what is broken when jurisdiction is demanded, and is not met with an answer.
Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12b 6, the prosecution has failed to provide adequate proof that the parties involved in this situation are actually corporate entities. There is ample proof that the prosecution and other agents are actually corporations.
In 1950, the 81st Congress investigated the Lawyers Guild and determined that the B.A.R. Association is founded and run by communists under definition. Thus, any elected official that is a member of the B.A.R. will only be loyal to the B.A.R. and not the people.
In 1933, elected officials and the alleged “country” have been given to the United Nations Government system. Under Senator Barack Hussein Obama’s Bill, SB2433, the Poverty Act of 2007, the UN military forces can step on American soil to confiscate weapons from U.S. citizens. Under the Bush Administration, B.A.R. Attorney General Ashcroft and Haliburton established FEMA Concentration Camps for U.S. citizens who refuse the new world order/one world government.
“That the Pan American treaty of 12-26-1933 (49 STAT 3097) Treaty Series 881 – (Convention on Rights and Duties of States) stated CONGRESS replaced STATUTES with international law, placing all states under international law.
That the International Organization Immunities Act of 12-9-1945 – – Congress relinquished every public office over to the UN. Local governments up to the president fall under UN jurisdiction. Congress gave the UN the right to dictate what laws will be international & gave them the right to tax the States.
That the International Reorganization Rescind Act- Congress put this into form but they never took action to rescind the act. Fairly recently an Ohio judge filed suit claiming that Congress did not have the right to relinquish government authority over to the UN (a corporation or foreign country) and that the Congressional act was a constitutional violation because they didn’t put it to the States or the people to agree on it. In 2005 the US Supreme court declined to hear the case therefore all public offices are under UN jurisdiction & they are not American Citizens.
That the Oath of Office – Title 5 USC 331, 332, 333 backed up by Title 22 CFR Foreign Relations 92.12 – 92.31 and Title 8 USC, section 1481 – the public official relinquishes his national citizenship and are thus foreign agents as stipulated under Title 22 USC, chapter 11, section 611, loss of national citizenship – Public officials are no longer US Citizens, but rather are foreign agents and must register as such.
That Title 8 USC 1481 stated once an oath of office is taken citizenship is relinquished, thus you become a foreign entity, agency, or state. That means every public office is a foreign state, including all political subdivisions. (i.e. every single court is considered a separate foreign entity).
That Title 22 USC (Foreign Relations and Intercourse) Chapter 11 identifies all public officials as foreign agents.
Title 28 USC 3002 Section 15A states that the United States is a Federal Corporation and not a Government, including the Judiciary Procedural Section.
That the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP) 4j states that the Court jurisdiction and immunity fall under a foreign State.
That 28 USC CHAPTER 176 – FEDERAL DEBT COLLECTION PROCEDURE.The Federal Debt Collection Procedure places all courts under equity and commerce and under the International Monetary Fund.”
Maxims:
“Intentio inservire debet legibus, non leges intentioni. Intentions ought to be subservient to the laws, not the laws to intentions.”  Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, p. 2139.
“Lata  culpa  dolo  æquiparatur. Gross  negligence  is equivalent to fraud.”  Black’s Law Dictionary, p. 698.
“Maxime paci sunt contraria vis et injuria. The greatest enemies to peace are force and wrong.” Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, p. 2145.
“Legibus sumptis desinentibus, lege naturæ utendum est. When laws imposed by the state fail, we must act by the law of nature.”  Id. at 2142.
Expressio unius est exclusio alterius. The expression of one thing is the exclusion of the other.
EJUSDEM GENERIS (Lat.). Of the same kind.
“Ignorantia excusator, non juris sed facti. Ignorance of fact may excuse, but not ignorance of  law”  (Bouvier’s  Law  Dictionary,  3rd  rev.,  8th ed., p. 2136
“Quod per recordum probatum, non debet esse negatum.  What  is  proved  by  the  record,  ought  not  to be  denied”  (id.  at  2159)
Contra negantem principia non est disputandum. There  is  no  disputing  against  one  who  denies principles. Bouvier’s   Law   Dictionary,   3rd rev., 8th ed., p. 2129.

More to come as research continues. This is not meant as “legal advice,” but merely presented as relevant information when constructing your own documents after doing your own “due diligence” research.

Advertisements