In Bondage Through Capitis Diminutio Maxima

Capitis Diminutio Maxima (a maximum loss of status through the use of capitalization, e.g. JOHN DOE or DOE JOHN) – The highest or most comprehensive loss of status. This occurred when a man’s condition was changed from one of freedom to one of bondage, when he became a slave. It swept away with it all rights of citizenship and all family rights.

Diminutio. Lat. In civil law. Diminution; a taking away; loss or deprivation.

Capite. – Lat. By the head.

Black’s Law Dictionary explains: the full capitalization of the letters of one’s natural name, results in a diminishing or complete loss of legal or citizenship status, wherein one actually becomes a slave or an item of inventory. The method, by which the State causes a natural person to “volunteer” himself into slavery, is through forming legal joined, implied or stated, with the entity or legal fiction (name all CAPS). Of course, most natural persons wouldn’t willingly form such an unlawful bond like this.  Instead, trickery and obfuscation are used; and this starts when our birth certificates are created.

http://www.lawversuslegal.com/

In Case You Really Need to Flee Authorities

by Simon Black

When most people think of Brazil, it’s the incredible beaches that come to mind. Or the crazy parties of Carnival. Or the spectacular vistas and great weather. Or how indescribably gorgeous (and welcoming) the locals are.

But here’s a little known fact, and it’s something that sets Brazil apart from most other places: Brazil’s constitution prohibits the extradition of Brazilian citizens to other countries. This is a rare gem in the world… I’ll explain.

Believe it or not, most countries are happy to sell their citizens down the river to another government. If you have been charged with a crime in another country, or are even simply ‘wanted for questioning’, your home government in all likelihood will comply with the request to round you up and ship you off.

For example, only 7% of all extradition requests that the US government made to the British government between 1 January 2004 and 31 July 2009 were denied. The US government denied ZERO extradition requests from the British government over the same period.

You may also be familiar the ongoing case of Wikileaks’ founder Julian Assange, who is wanted in Sweden for “questioning” related to bizarre sex case.

The British government approved Sweden’s extradition request, though Assange has appealed the decision numerous times. He’s lost every appeal so far, and in all likelihood he’ll be on a plane bound for Sweden in the near future.

Assange is an Australian citizen, and his government has completely abandoned him.

You may also remember the more recent case of Kim Dotcom, the German founder of MegaUpload.com who was arrested in New Zealand as part of a US operation to shut down his file-sharing site. Like Assange, the German government has been silent.

This is ironic because most people are brought up to believe that their governments will protect them… that if you get into a jam overseas, they’ll send the military to rescue you.

The reality is that, far more often, governments trade their own citizens away in order to score diplomatic brownie points, even when there’s not even a crime involved.

The US-Mexico extradition treaty, for example, lists a number of extraditable offenses, such as:

– Violations of the customs laws
– Offenses against copyright or intellectual property
– Offenses related to international trade and transfers of funds or valuable metals
– Offenses relating to prohibition “unfair transactions”

We’re not exactly talking about violent criminals here; these rules so opaque that just about everyone on the planet is in violation of some offense.

That’s why Brazil’s Constitutional guarantee is so refreshing. Brazil has a long history of rejecting extradition requests for citizens… and if Assange and Dotcom had thought that far ahead, they’d be sitting on the beach in Rio right now instead of wearing electronic ankle bracelets under house arrest.

Needless to say, this requires obtaining Brazilian citizenship… which, if you’re in a hurry, you can qualify for in just 12-months. More on that in a future letter, I’ve got a plane to catch!

The American Expatriot Primer

A growing number of Americans are frustrated with the way in which their economy has been managed and are becoming increasingly concerned about future measures the government may take to keep its coffers full.

A question that is arising with increasing frequency is: does expatraition offer a viable protection to those concerned about a more financially-intrusive US system?

The answer is ‘yes’, it does offer a completely legal solution for ending your obligation to pay US income, capital gains, and gift taxes on your worldwide income. But it is certainly not for everyone and should only be pursued after lengthy and diligent consideration.

And before you begin dreaming of a tax-free future, you should realize that the United States imposes taxes on a broader basis than any other country. The United States is one of two countries, and is the only major country, that imposes significant income, capital gains, gift, and estate taxes on its non-resident citizens.

In virtually all other countries, individuals end their liability to pay income tax after a sustained period of non-residence, generally one year or longer. But to legally and permanently end U.S. tax liability on their worldwide income, U.S. citizens must also give up their U.S. citizenship and passport. This process is called “expatriation.”

Yes, it’s a radical step. However, if you’re a U.S. citizen, you can make nearly all of the preparations for a possible future expatriation without permanently leaving the United States. This is a four-step process:

Phase 1. Relocate your assets from the United States to other jurisdictions, preferably where the assets won’t be taxed.
Phase 2. Identify foreign countries where you would consider living,
Phase 3. Obtain a suitable second passport
Phase 4. Expatriate – give up your U.S. citizenship and passport

Once you’ve accomplished the first three phases, summarized here in Part I of this report, the final step – expatriation – is much easier than if you’re starting from scratch. Part II of this report describes the expatriation process.

Are you a good candidate for expatriation? You are, if:

You are comfortable living outside the United States, or are already doing so-
Your spouse and children are comfortable living outside the United States, or are already doing so; and
You have already or are capable of shifting the majority of your income and assets outside the United States.

Phase 1: Relocate Your Assets Outside the United States

With a few exceptions, the IRC imposes taxes on both U.S. source income and foreign source income of U.S. citizens. Non-resident, non-U.S. citizens (also known as “non-resident aliens”) pay tax only on U.S. source income, although some U.S. sources of income (e.g., most capital gains) are tax-free.

To prepare for this more favorable tax treatment in anticipation of expatriation, begin moving liquid assets outside the United States to more tax-friendly jurisdictions. Begin selling assets that can’t be relocated (e.g., real estate) so that you may reinvest the proceeds overseas.

Invest only in countries and investments with which you are comfortable. If you are accustomed to buying and selling U.S. securities, consider using offshore bank or brokerage accounts to target non-U.S. securities. If you are an experienced real estate investor, investigate real estate purchases outside the United States. Keep in mind that a targeted investment or real estate purchase may also qualify you for legal residence in some countries (Phase 2) or even a second passport (Phase 3). If you have substantial domestic investments in precious metals, consider moving the metals offshore.

The vast majority of foreign banks and brokerages now refuse to accept new U.S. citizen clients, especially U.S. citizens resident in the United States. However, banks and brokerages in a handful of countries still accept new U.S. citizen and resident clients and allow them to purchase non-U.S. securities. A few banks in Austria, the Bahamas, Hong Kong, Liechtenstein, Singapore, and Switzerland are suitable for this purpose. The minimum deposits in these banks start at $100,000. Minimum deposits in offshore brokerages start around $5,000. Fees are much higher for banking services and securities trading than in the United States.

Both the accounts you hold offshore and the income derived from them must be reported to U.S. authorities. The penalties for failing to make these disclosures are draconian. Consult with an expert familiar with the tax and reporting rules for international investments when you file your annual tax return.

Offshore real estate is a non-reportable asset for U.S. investors if owned individually or jointly with your spouse or other individuals. Income or gain from foreign real estate investment is reportable and taxable. Countries offering first-world infrastructure and where real estate is relatively affordable include Argentina, Australia, Canada, Chile, Ireland, Mexico, New Zealand, Panama, Spain, and Uruguay.

Numerous potential “land mines” exist in offshore real estate investments. Among them are the lack of a multiple listing service in many countries, difficulty in establishing good title, and legal provisions giving squatters the right to live on your property. Retain a knowledgeable real estate attorney in the country in which you purchase real estate to avoid problems.

You may transport precious metals you own in the United States to another country and store the metals in a safety deposit box, bank vault, or private vault. One option for doing so is to use a secure shipping service. Make certain the service not only promises secure transport but also assists with completing non-U.S. customs and tax declarations. Another option to transport precious metals out of the United States is a like-kind exchange under Sec. 1031 of the IRC. If you move the metals yourself, the best option can be to hire an import agent in the country to which you’re taking them to handle the import formalities. You will generally post a bond through the agent covering taxes due (if any) plus the agent’s fee.

Phase 2: Identify Foreign Countries Where You Would Consider Living

Once you give up U.S. citizenship and passport, you no longer have the right to live in the United States. You may generally make brief visits, but in most cases, you won’t be able to stay more than approximately four months annually without becoming subject to U.S. tax on your worldwide income based on the IRC’s “deemed residence” rules discussed in Part II of this report. Finding another country to live in is therefore an essential part of any expatriation exit strategy.

Even if you have no plan currently to leave the United States permanently, finding a country that you may wish to relocate to in the future is a prudent safeguard. If economic or political conditions deteriorate in the United States and reach your personal breaking point, having legal residence in a suitable offshore jurisdiction provides a valuable “insurance policy.”

If you merely want the right to live in another country in the form of a residence permit, but don’t necessary want to be physically resident there, a number of countries can accommodate your needs. These include Belize, Costa Rica, Malta, Mexico, the Dutch Caribbean territories, and Panama. In most cases, you can qualify for residence (although not the right to work in the country) by either making an investment or demonstrating a minimum guaranteed pension payment. Residence rights may be purchased in some countries by making an investment of $80,000 or more in real estate or other assets. A guaranteed pension payment of $1,000 or more may also qualify you for residence. In other countries, you may need to qualify on a points system. Some countries have multiple programs to consider.

Phase 3: Obtain a Suitable Second Passport

To end your responsibility to comply with U.S. tax and reporting obligations, you must give up your U.S. citizenship and passport. Without a second nationality in place and passport in hand, however, giving up your U.S. passport would render you a “stateless person.” Avoid this status, as it makes it difficult or impossible to legally live or travel internationally.

A second passport also conveys numerous other benefits:

It gives you the right to reside in the country that issued the passport, and possibly other countries. For instance, a passport from a member of the European Union conveys the right to live and work in any other EU country.
It gives you a way to travel internationally if your primary passport is lost or stolen, or if the issuing government confiscates or refuses to renew it.
It provides you with the opportunity to travel to countries blacklisted by the government that issued your primary passport. For U.S. citizens, this includes countries such as Cuba, North Korea, etc.
It avoids disclosing your primary nationality, should you ever need to keep that a secret. This can be useful if you’re ever confronted by militants who oppose the government that issued your primary passport.

You may qualify for a second citizenship and passport by ancestry, marriage, religion, or extended residence in another country. If not, a handful of countries offer “instant” citizenship in return for an investment or contribution. The Commonwealth of Dominica and the Federation of St. Kitts & Nevis are the only countries with an official, legally mandated, economic citizenship. (Note: Dominica and the Dominican Republic are different countries.)

Dominica is the least expensive option. The nationality law of Dominica authorizes the government to waive the normal requirement of seven years of legal residence to acquire citizenship in exchange for a cash contribution. Total costs including all fees for a single applicant come to about $105,000. Add $25,000 for your spouse and up to two children under 18. The Dominican passport holders can travel without a visa, or obtain a visa upon entry, to nearly 90 countries and territories.

The Federation of St. Kitts & Nevis offers two options to obtain economic citizenship. One option is to make a direct contribution to a charitable foundation set up to support displaced sugar workers: the Sugar Industry Diversification Foundation (SIDF). Total costs including all fees for a single applicant under this option come to about $285,000 or $335,000 for an applicant with up to three dependents.

The second option is to purchase “qualifying property” with a minimum investment of $400,000. Fees and closing costs add a minimum of $100,000. Total costs for a single applicant come to at least $500,000 and close to $600,000 for a family of four. The St. Kitts & Nevis passport provides visa-free entry, or visa upon entry, to more than 120 countries, including nearly all of the 27 member countries of the European Union.

In all cases, applicants must pass a strict vetting process that includes a comprehensive criminal background check.

Bogus second citizenship offerings abound. In recent years, I have received offers to purchase passports from Costa Rica, Nicaragua, the Dominican Republic, Ireland, and Lithuania, among other countries. Some of these offers are outright scams. Others involve illegally purchased or stolen documents. Even if you succeed in obtaining a passport on this basis, it may be revoked at any time and you could be subject to arrest and/or deportation.

Conclusion

Once you’ve completed Phases 1, 2, and 3 of your four-step plan to disconnect from the United States, you’re ready for Phase 4: expatriation. While you may never take the final step of giving up your U.S. citizenship and passport, taking the preparations summarized so far at least gives you that option.

Mark Nestmann is a journalist with more than 20 years of investigative experience and is a charter member of The Sovereign Society’s Council of Experts. He has authored over a dozen books and many additional reports on wealth preservation, privacy and offshore investing. Mark serves as president of his own international consulting firm, The Nestmann Group, Ltd. The Nestmann Group provides international wealth preservation services for high-net worth individuals. Mark is an Associate Member of the American Bar Association (member of subcommittee on Foreign Activities of U.S. Taxpayers, Committee on Taxation) and member of the Society of Professional Journalists. In 2005, he was awarded a Masters of Laws (LL.M) degree in international tax law at the Vienna (Austria) University of Economics and Business Administration.

Copyright © 2012 Chris Martenson

The Death of the Birth Certificate

by Jaro Henry Smith

Killing a Birth Certificate should be easy, since there was deception involved. When your parent signed it, he thought you would be a natural-born state Citizen, one of the People of your state. But instead, this twisted deception made you a federal citizen, which is a citizen of the federal zone. Remember, the 14th Amendment makes you a US citizen ONLY when you’re subject to jurisdiction of United States. The United States is 1 of 51 state sovereigns in this country, with jurisdiction ONLY over the federal zone, i.e. the Washington DC and territories, so it has no jurisdiction over people in states of the Union (the 50 sovereign states). They can only claim such jurisdiction if you admit to it, or by use of federal ZIP codes.

When your parent signed the BC, there was no meeting of minds, since she was trying to secure for you Citizenship in the Republic, but instead it took you away from the republic and made you a federal citizen of a ‘democracy.’ Your parent, or now you, can rescind that signature on the birth certificate because of deception, or at the very least, a misunderstanding.

On top of that, you can simply rescind that signature simply because you don’t want to be a US citizen. That’s because you didn’t sign that BC, that your parent did it on your behalf, which makes it binding upon you, but only as long as you’re a minor. When you become an adult, you have a choice what to sign, and you can exercise that choice regarding the BC as well, by rescinding the signature as if it was yours.

And if they give you any bull*hit that you can’t expatriate when in US, that’s just a smokescreen since by rescinding that signature, you’re not expatriating, just ending your corporate US citizenship. You are a natural-born state Citizen by birth, and federal US citizen by the BC. When you cancel that BC, the hospital record of birth will be your proof of natural-born state Citizenship. Alternatively, you can show them your Declaration of Domicile, which puts you OUTSIDE of the federal United States, on the land of a state of the Union, so technically you ARE outside of United States, and so can expatriate your federal/corporate US citizenship and retain your dejure USA Citizenship.

Now I’m not suggesting that everyone should kill their BC, just showing a way to kill it for those who’d eventually want to return to the Republic, when you get tired of the corporate Democracy crap.

Here’s a Declaration of Domicile:

Jaro Henry Smith, sui juris

Main Street 1422

Costa Mesa, Orange county

California, U.S.A.

Phone: 714-531-3450

PUBLIC                                                                                   

THIS IS A PUBLIC COMMUNICATION TO ALL             

Notice to agent is notice to principals

Notice to principal is notice to agents

Applies to all successors and assigns

All are without excuse

Declaration of Domicil

I, Jaro of the family Smith, a natural man, hereby make this declaration of domicil that I am making for the purpose of establishing my California domicil in accordance with the California Constitution and laws of the United States of America, and state as follows:

I hereby declare that I have had and maintained the place of my domicil on land of Orange county, California (a state of the Union), since the year  _______.

My current home and domicil is on land of Orange county, California (a state of the Union), and within the  home being my place of abode and domicil; and having the following physical location:

Main street 1422

Costa Mesa, California

United States of America

which home I recognize and intend to have and maintain as my permanent home and domicil and if I have or obtain another house or houses in some other state or states of the Union, I hereby declare that the above-described house in California constitutes my predominant and principal home, and that I intend to continue it permanently as such.

I was formerly domiciled since the year ________, in a home on land of Orange county, California, at

Bushard street 542

Stanton, California

United States of America

I have not maintained, during said times, any house outside of California, a state of the Union.

I hereby declare that, pursuant to the foregoing, I am domiciled on land of Orange county, California and am not: a “resident” of the State of California, a “citizen of the United States” or a “U.S citizen. Furthermore I declare that I am NOT located in, or resident of, any area that is subject to jurisdiction of the United States, but am domiciled on the land of a state of the Union. All unalienable rights of the undersigned are hereby reserved.

Please note that there are no ZIP codes and two-letter State abbreviations in states of the Union. Those designate federal areas and not areas in states of the Union, therefore mail sent to address with those federal designations, will NOT reach me. You must send your communications to my domicil location, EXACTLY as printed above.

As section 602 1.3 e(2) of the USPS Domestic Mail Manual declares, ZIP codes are NOT required: “Unless required above, ZIP Codes may be omitted from single-piece price First-Class Mail (including Priority Mail), single-piece price Parcel Post, and pieces bearing a simplified address.”

Executed on this ______ day of  _____________, 2012. Signed ___________________________, sui juris.

On land of state of the Union: _____________________________   _______________________ county

NOTARY PUBLIC

Subscribed and sworn to before me, a Notary Public, by the above-signed Jaro Henry Smith,

 

This ______________ day of _____________________, 2012

 

MY COMMISSION EXPIRES:_______________         ______________________________

Notary Public

Driving Is a Right That Courts Can’t Revoke

Driving IS YOUR RIGHT. Free Use of Public Highways IS YOUR RIGHT paid for by you and people like you.

These are absolute truths without question, held up by courts in Canada and the USA, and fully recognized (though not publicly) by police forces everywhere. “TO TRAVEL IS A “RIGHT,” NOT A GOVERNMENT GRANTED “PRIVILEGE”, and use of your private automobile on public roads and highways CANNOT be regulated, taxed, restricted or constrained in any way whatsoever. You cannot be legally impeded by police road checks, traffic stops or by use of such schemes as “mandatory” insurance, registration, driver licenses or other contracts. You are a human being and as a human being, this inventions do not apply to you, but to corporations.

 

READ CAREFULLY

“The Right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by horse drawn carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city can prohibit or permit at will, but a common Right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” – Thompson vs. Smith, 154 SE 579.

From the day of the signing of the Magna Carta highways became free to the public. New rights can be granted, but existing rights can not be taken away, a timeless and basic principle of common law. Based on common law, new charters do not override previous rights.

–

–

• No Charter overrides previous rights.

The Common Law:
• Magna Carta – was signed in 1215 when people placed a knife to the throat of King John
• English Bill of Rights
• Absolute Right of Bail
• Assize of Arms

Deceased MP Stanley Knowles declared in the House of Commons about the Common Law:

“It consists of a number of statues, some of them Canadian, some of them pre-1867, some since 1867. After all, Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights of 1688 and many other statues are in effect part of the constitutions of both Canada and the United States.”

Examples of Inalienable Rights
• Personal security.           • Personal liberty.
• Right to own and enjoyment of personal property.

The government doesn’t own the highways.
• The government holds the highways in trust for the people. (Example: a trustee is holding your money, but has no jurisdiction to spend it without your consent, even if he thinks it’s in your best interest).
• The rules of Traffic Acts are there to regulate the use of highways in the public’s interest. But not to destroy your rights to use them.
• Traveling on public highway in your car is a right not a privilege.

Fees
• An execution of a right can not be charged a fee.
• Insurance fees can not be mandatory. Advice: Use identification plates for cars that are not tied with insurance .
• Historical note: when insurance was first introduced rates were low. In Manitoba, in past 10 years, motorcycle insurance went up over 288%. The amount of motor-cyclists went down from 20,000 to 5,000.
• Other types of unlawful fees are: parking fees, speeding tickets, charges for registration and renewal of a driver license (they are there to raise revenue for police).

A “DRIVER” is defined in the National Safety Code as a person who drives a commercial vehicle”.

Any common dictionary will tell you that the word “drives” means directing something or someone to a destination. “COMMERCIAL” means a venture wherein there is a profit, or intended profit. A “BUSINESS” is a COMMERCIAL venture. “MOTOR CARRIER AUTHORITY” is exercised over Commercial TRANSPORTATION. A VEHICLE engaged in COMMERCIAL TRANSPORTATION is called a COMMERCIAL VEHICLE. COMMERCIAL TRANSPORTATION is the acting as a third party in the movement of passengers (with tickets) or goods (with bill of lading) in the exercise of the liberty or property right.

Since the exercise of exchanging one’s skill and labor for money is a right, the driving of a commercial transportation vehicle cannot be deemed an unlawful act requiring a license. Therefore, the term “driver or commercial driver” can only apply to an “owner/operator”.

What, then, is the “CRIME” in DRIVING?

DRIVING is a COMMERCIAL venture which uses the PUBLIC HIGHWAYS as a TOOL. If you aren’t doing this for profit, you aren’t actually driving. Taking this right from you is a form of THEFT. Remember, theft entails UNAUTHORIZED USE as well as the unlawful physical confiscation (stealing) of property. When you don’t consent, they have no authority. See article entitled “Learning to Succeed in Court.”

Remember that in the eyes of the corporate courts, according to civil law, you are guilty until proved innocent.

A “LICENSE” is a waiver of prosecution for doing something that would normally be unlawful.

A “LICENSE” is a form of CONTRACT.

A CONTRACT must have three factors, which are:

1. An exchange of property of equal value.

2. Full disclosure of terms.

3. Entered into voluntarily by all parties concerned.

A contract exchanging your property (right to travel) for the “privilege” of driving certainly isn’t a valid contract.

Generally, an owner of property issues a “permit” or permission statement when there may be a situation where the user of someone else’s property may be brought to question. A trustee representing a large group of owners would issue a “license”. The Crown, and thus the Provincial government, is the trustee of the public highways and roads; and, therefore, has authority to issue licenses for drivers.

Upon receiving and acknowledging by your signature that you are a “DRIVER”, you have admitted by signed confession that you are doing something unlawful. In civil law, this is guilty until proven innocent. The public record of your signed application constitutes a “GUILTY PLEA”, just as if it had been entered in the permanent record of a Court of Law.

Now, drawing from your own source of knowledge, you can understand that there is no “trial” or “jury” for someone who is charged with a crime and who enters a GUILTY plea. That person proceeds directly into the custody of the Crown as a convicted criminal. That person becomes a “WARD” of the Crown, and GUARDS or WARDENS have a military type control over that person until his sentence, or his debt to the public is completed.

How does this apply to DRIVERS? Driver’s licenses are issued for a fixed period, the term of the sentence for the unlawful act. Licenses expire; but, the unlawful act is still of public record. Unlawful acts have no statutory limitation; so, presumably, you can forever be held accountable for the unlawful act of being a DRIVER.

The police act under the authority of a prison warden or guard when acting as enforcement officers of the Motor Vehicle Act. They are not acting as peace or public officers. Now you know why they can issue citations, decide fines, search vehicles, confiscate vehicles, arrest and confine people without a warrant and/or with no evidence of any crime as described in the common law, and maybe they even stretch it to the point of searching homes without a warrant (as the Federal gun control legislation supposedly authorizes).

Our government has converted us all into “CONVICTED CRIMINALS” by use of “Driver’s Licenses” and other licensing schemes – such as the “Marriage License”. The Sang Chong Case of 1909 in British Columbia (B.C. Appeals Court) stated in the Judges finding for a street peddlar of vegetables, that one of the freedoms enjoyed by the people was free use of the highways.

There are many precedent setting cases, as well as constitutional documents in the USA which state the same sentiments as did the B.C. Judges in 1909.

The RIGHT TO TRAVEL derives from the inalienable property right, in that, one has the right to exchange or sell property. The place of exchange or sale of property is the “market” – a term with broad meaning. Travel to market is guaranteed through the property right. Remember, LABOUR and SKILLS are property. Also, the right to travel is included in your right to go to the church of your choice. The travel rights were invoked in ancient times to prevent interference in the exercise of primary rights. The right to travel is part of the absolute right of “liberty”. Liberty also entails the right to exercise other rights.

In the above definitions, there is a question as to whether a person who is hired or contracted to drive a commercial vehicle is actually doing anything that could be considered unlawful; and, therefore in need of a license. It seems that the licensing need would only fall upon an owner/operator or the owners of a trucking or busing company.

Anyhow, if you are not in the business of commercial trucking or busing, why do you have a “driver’s license”?

The Motor Vehicle Act is private legislation directed at “commercial drivers”. It is not the “law of the Land” or public general law. I bring to your attention the word “outlawed”. Outlawed means being outside the protection of the Common Law. The protection of the Common Law basically means that you cannot be charged for non-performance of any regulation; and, that there must be damage to person or property before there is an offense which would warrant requiring you to appear in court. As a so-called driver with license, you have been deceptively and fraudulently taken out of the protection of the Common Law (outlawed) by the quasi-legitimate state or federal government and placed under prison or military law, where no protections or rights exist.

The COMMON LAW remedy, if you have a driver’s license, would be to revoke the licensing contract by CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE to whatever claims to be in authority.

If you don’t wish to fight the hassles of not carrying a “driver’s license”, have your license re-issued and place brackets around your signature. If you put brackets around your signature, in law, its as if there is no signature there. This could also be used if the traffic cop has you sign a traffic citation; or, if you a coerced into signing any other kind of summons to appear. Placing the expression “without prejudice” above your signature and/or “trustee” behind your signature also affords some protection against liability for responsibility under the licensing contract. This has apparently worked quite well in the USA; however, staff of Motor Vehicle registar offices may not let you do this, but you should do it anyway. As far as they are concerned, this is part of your signature, which can be pretty much anything.

The plate issued by the state, commonly called a “license plate” is (or was) only a registration number for identification. Authorities may have elevated cars to the status of a legal entity; and, have laid claim to actual ownership of cars and private trucks, with only possession rights going to those who believe they “bought” the car.

If you buy a new car, insure that you actually receive a “bill of sale”, not a “title of ownership”. A title of ownership only signifies “possession rights”. Then, there is the Manufacturer’s Certificate of Origin. You have approximately two weeks after you purchase a new automobile to get the “Manufacturer’s Certificate of Origin” from the manufacturer before they dispose of it. Do you suppose they dispose of it by sending it to the government where the vehicle was registered?

Should you decide to go “whole hog”, and remove your license plate from your car, there are some important steps you must take. First, you would need a “constructive notice” to the authority of your state telling him/her that you are revoking any assumed contract which supposedly made your car a “legal entity’; and, that you are withdrawing any form of implied trust which gave trustee ownership of your property – your car – to the state. Second, you would need a plate to replace the license plate, upon which would be: “This Car Is The Private Property Of (Your name, properly spelled out, See under TICKETS) Traveling Under Common Law Right”.

If you do not have any plate on your car, the police have a perfect right as a peace officer to investigate a possible stolen vehicle.

The replacement plate is a trespass warning to the police that they are dealing with private property. Third, you will need to carry some proof of ownership, such as a bill of sale and , if available, the manufacturer’s certificate of origin. In common law, possession is 9/10th of the law. If there is no official report of this particular piece of property being stolen; or, there is no particular evidence of it being someone else’s property (say, by a name on the door, etc.), the police have no reason to question your possession.

IF, or more appropriately, WHEN you are stopped by the police, they are going to ask you to produce a driver’s license, vehicle registration and proof of insurance. Lock your doors and talk to the police officer through a slightly rolled down window. Remove your keys from the ignition. (They may attempt to grab your keys and seize your car). That would be armed robbery and breach of trust of a public officer if they do attempt this. Remember, although police do much in the way of commendable work, when acting as a motor vehicle enforcement officer, they are acting as armed thugs. Your response should be: Officer, has there been a breach of the peace? His response will include some statement in which he mentions the Motor Vehicle Act. This tells you that the Officer is not acting as a “peace officer”; but, is acting as a “Warden”.

For a police officer, acting as a warden, to use arrest authority against a free and natural person for their exercising of their common law right(s) is a criminal act of common aggression. If he makes any move to use force, such as marshal arts or a weapon to effect an arrest against such a person, that becomes “armed aggression”. Such acts are outside a warden’s authority.

Several years ago, the Governor of the State of Arizona sent a warning memo to all State Troopers telling them that they were to leave peaceful and non-suspicious cars without license plates alone. If they were attacked or harmed by the owners of such cars, those troopers would not be protected under the Police Protection Act.

TICKETS:
1. File an Abatement of type use a “Dilatory Plea”; it allows to change the procedure by which you defend, by allowing you to make a statement before you are in “defending mode”.
2. You can’t use a lawyer, must do all by yourself.
3. Don’t appear in traffic court – by doing so you admit that you’re guilty. If you end up in traffic court, inform the judge that you want to be transferred to a regular provincial court.
4. Draft “Affidavit of Dilatory Plea”. It must be sworn by any magistrate or justice of the peace. Then give to court.
5. Provide court precedence (previous cases) upon which you will rely.
6. When in provincial court, ask the judge if you are judged by Admiralty Law, or by Common Law. If Admiralty Law – leave, or if forced to stay, remain mute.
7. Otherwise if it is indeed Common Law, confirm with judge if rights and freedoms are preserved by Common Law.
8. Attack: prove to court that you have the rights to use the public highway using your “automobile” to travel for private pleasure.

Regarding the driver’s license, you would ask: Does this car appear to you to be a commercial vehicle? Under common law, you would only have to prove financial responsibility if you were in an accident and have damage to other property. Most, if not all provinces or states have the requirement for insurance to establish financial responsibility; but, that is written within the Motor Vehicle Acts – acts which are only applicable to commercial vehicles, or as they have been doing, applicable to vehicles placed into the trustee ownership of the state or province through vehicle registration.

So, for the “proof of insurance” question, you would ask: Does it appear to you that I have done any damage to any person or property? If the officer tells you that you must sign the ticket, put brackets around your signature (that nullifies your signature). If you are arrested, you can apply for “Habeas Corpus.” You will have to, and should, research the use of that right, especially if you are going to de-license. Fighting any ticket or summons to appear is listed below.

Should you choose to avoid some of the hassles you would, no doubt, encounter if you do not register your car, you can sign the registration and put the words “without Prejudice” after your signature. The term “without prejudice” means that you are making no contracts by your act of affixing your signature to that document.

Most people confuse “driver’s license” with a “proficiency certificate”. The state or province may have the duty to protect the public from harm. Automobiles are dangerous mechanisms, especially in the hands of the ignorant, the untrained, the careless, the alcohol or drug impaired, the emotionally unstable and/or the arrogant. A requirement for a demonstrated proficiency level and proof of proficiency in the form of a certificate would certainly be in order for the operation of a motor vehicle. (Although the term “motor vehicle” may imply state or provincial ownership, according to some researchers, here it is used strictly to mean a wheeled engine-powered machine used for traveling.) A peace officer certainly has the power to restrain the misuser of a dangerous instrument.

It is up to you to deter inappropriate use  of radar speed traps and cameras. If you get stopped in a radar speed trap, you can demand that the radar, and the patrol car (if the radar is attached) be seized and sealed as your defense evidence. The patrol car would have to be trucked to a secure compound as the evidence may be subject to tampering.

If the policeman writes your name any other way than the proper common law way, (IE: John Fitzgerald Kennedy) it is a military name; and, therefore inapplicable to you ( if you have properly nullified your signature on the license you are carrying ). Military or prison names are legal in administrative courts – traffic courts. The proper common law presentation of a name is: First Middle Last – Start with a cap and the remainder of each name in lower case.Example: John Fitzgerald Kennedy

Most tickets for speeding state a speed. For instance, 68 in a 50 zone. Fines are based upon 68. You are allowed 50, so, you should only be penalized for 18. Of course, this is based upon your being classed as a “driver”. If you take the common law measures mentioned earlier, such tickets are invalid unless there has been damage to a person or property.

If you wish to go to court to fight a ticket, question the name on the ticket. If that doesn’t impress the Traffic Court (administrative – not judicial court) judge, then, after the policeman states his evidence and you are given opportunity to question him/her, say: “NO”, I wish to call my own witness”. You then name the officer.

Your questions to the officer are (and, these questions can also be asked of the judge):

1. (If you have the “without prejudice” on your driver’s license, have your signature in brackets, or have “trustee” after your signature) Ask him to read the signature on your license. If he doesn’t mention it, ask him to note the signature and additions. Again, this should make an impression on the judge.

2. Ask: Do you personally have any cause of action or judgment against me? His answer has to be: NO.

3. Ask: Do you know of anyone else who has a cause of action or judgment against me? The answer has to be: NO.

As an option, if you feel comfortable in doing so – and fiesty, you may ask additional questions of the officer, such as: Are you a peace officer? He has to say “yes”. Was there a breach of the peace on the occasion of your giving me the citation which brings us here today into this court? He has to say “no”.

Under what authority, then, did you impede my travel at (place) on (time and date) and serve me with this citation? He would have to answer: “The Motor Vehicle Act”.

How does the Motor Vehicle Act give you the authority to violate sections 20, 24, 38 and 39 of the Magna Carta; and, do that against a natural person exercising his common law right to travel on free highways? His answer here (if the Judge lets him answer) may be: “You are a licensed driver”.

Sir, did you observe that my car was not a commercial vehicle when you decided to stop me on (date)? His answer: ??

Do you believe that a driver’s license carried by a natural person who is traveling in his/her private conveyance gives any authority to a peace officer to enforce regulations which can only be construed as being enforceable against a person who is operating a commercial vehicle?

You then turn to the judge and demand that the case be dismissed for want of proper cause; and, demand that the officer and Crown attorney be sanctioned for the criminal act of “breach of trust of a public officer”.

What about Risks?
• Government doesn’t have the right to make risk free highways by denying rights of people to use them.
• Individuals who choose to be around highways are deliberately placing themselves at risk – its their choice.
• People still speed and occupy parking meters as long as they want.
• Speeding is not the cause of the majority of accidents.

Driver License
• As already covered, a Driver license is required only if vehicle is used for commercial purposes
• In literature referenced “automobile” means private vehicle used for leisure, and “motor vehicle” – a commercial vehicle used for business.
• Driver License is not a certificate of skill of driving.
• When you get a driver license, you sign a contract to obey laws in the Motor Vehicle Act. You are signing your rights away! You don’t have to sign it . Without signing you will not be granted a driver license, because they cannot take your money and your rights without your written consent! You claim Common Law Jurisdiction.

Advice: Cancel contract by sending “Affidavit of Denial of Jurisdiction”. If no response (or denial response), send “Constructive Notice”. (Just Google it for info.)
More thoughts
• You can not be stopped by police without reason and asked to inspect papers, unless they have a search order from the court.
• You can not be charged with a possible crime if you haven’t committed it. If you don’t interfere with other traffic, you can not be pulled over
• The corner stone of a police state is the restriction on free travel and registration of the means to do so and the identification of those who wish to do so.

What is freedom if one is not free to move from point A to point B, UNREGISTERED and UNLICENSED?

DESPITE ACTIONS OF POLICE AND LOCAL COURTS, HIGHER COURTS HAVE RULED THAT WE HAVE A RIGHT TO TRAVEL WITHOUT GOVERNMENT PERMITS

A vehicle is property and a person cannot be deprived of property without due process of law. The term property, within the meaning of the due process clause, includes the RIGHT to make full use of the property which one has the unalienable RIGHT to acquire. Every Citizen has an unalienable RIGHT to make use of the public highways; every Citizen has full freedom to travel from place to place in the enjoyment of life and liberty.

Those who do not fight for their rights do not deserve them.

If ever a judge understood the public’s right to use the public roads, it was Justice Tolman of the Supreme Court of the State of Washington. Justice Tolman stated:

“Complete freedom of the highways is so old and well established a blessing that we have forgotten the days of the Robber Barons and toll roads, and yet, under an act like this, arbitrarily administered, the highways may be completely monopolized, if, through lack of interest, the people submit, then they may look to see the most sacred of their liberties taken from them one by one, by more or less rapid encroachment.” – Robertson vs. Department of Public Works, 180 Wash 133, 147.

The words of Justice Tolman ring most prophetically in the ears of Citizens throughout Canada and the USA today as the use of the public roads has been monopolized by the very entity which has been empowered to stand guard over our freedoms, i.e., that of government.

SPECIAL POLICE OFFICER BULLETIN:

“For many years Professionals within the criminal justice System have acted upon the belief that traveling by motor vehicle upon the roadway was a privilege that was gained by a citizen only after approval by their respective state government in the form of the issuance of a permit or license to that Particular individual. Legislators, police officers and court officials are becoming aware that there are now court decisions that prove the fallacy of the legal opinion that” driving is a privilege and therefore requires government approval, i.e. a license”. Some of these cases are:

Case # 1 – “Even the legislature has no power to deny to a citizen the right to travel upon the highway and transport his property in the ordinary course of his business or pleasure, though this right may be regulated in accordance with the public interest and convenience.” – Chicago Motor Coach v Chicago 169 NE 22 (“Regulated” here means traffic safety enforcement, stop lights, signs, etc. NOT a privilege that requires permission i.e.- licensing, mandatory insurance, vehicle registration, etc.)

Case # 2 – “The right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit or permit at will, but a common right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” – Thompson v Smith 154 SE 579.

It could not be stated more conclusively that Citizens of the states have a right to travel, without approval or restriction, (license,) and that this right is protected under the U.S. Constitution. Here are other court decisions that expound the same facts:

Case # 3 – “The right to travel is a part of the liberty of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the 5th Amendment.” – Kent v Dulles, 357 U.S. 116, 125.

Case # 4 – “Undoubtedly the right of locomotion, the right to remove from one place to another according to inclination, is an attribute of personal Liberty, and the right, ordinarily, of free transit from or through the territory of any State is a right secured by the l4th Amendment and by other provisions of the Constitution.” – Schactman v Dulles, 96 App D.C. 287, 293.

As hard as it is for those of us in Law enforcement to believe, there is no room for speculation in these court decisions. The American citizen does indeed have the inalienable right to use the roadways unrestricted in any manner as long as they are not damaging or violating property or rights of another.

Government, in requiring the people to file for “drivers Licenses, vehicle registrations, mandatory insurance, and demanding they stop for vehicle inspections, DUI/DWI roadblocks etc. without question, are “restricting”, and therefore violating, the Peoples common law right to travel.

Is this a new legal interpretation on this subject of the right to travel? Apparently not. The American Citizens and Lawmen Association in conjunction with The U.S. Federal Law Research Center are presently involved in studies in several areas involving questions on constitutional law. One of the many areas under review is the area of “Citizens right to travel.” In an interview a spokesmen stated: “Upon researching this subject over many months, substantial case law has presented itself that completely substantiates the position that the “right to travel unrestricted upon the nations highways” is and has always been a fundamental right of every Citizen.”

This means that the “beliefs and opinions” our state legislators, the courts, and those of as involved in the law enforcement profession have acted upon for years have been in error. Researchers armed with actual facts state that U.S. case law is overwhelming in determining that – to restrict, in any fashion, the movement of the individual American in the free exercise of their right to travel upon the roadways, (excluding “commerce” which the state Legislatures are correct in regulating), is a serious breach of those
freedoms secured by the U.S. Constitution, and most state Constitutions, i.e – it is Unlawful.

THE REVELATION THAT THE AMERICAN CITIZEN HAS ALWAYS HAD THE INALIENABLE RIGHT TO TRAVEL RAISES PROFOUND QUESTIONS TO THOSE WHO ARE INVOLVED IN MAKING AND ENFORCING STATE LAWS.

The first of such questions may very well be – If the States have been enforcing laws that are unconstitutional on their face, it would seem that there must be some way that a state can legally put restrictions, such as – licensing requirements, mandatory insurance, vehicle registration, vehicle inspections, D.W.I. roadblocks, to name just a few, on a Citizens constitutionally protected right. Is that not so?

For the answer to this question let us look, once again, to the U.S. courts for a determination on this very issue.

The case of Hertado v. California, 110 U.S. 516. states very plainly: “The State cannot diminish rights of the people.”

“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 U.S. 22, 24.

Would we not say that these judicial decisions are straight to the point – that there is no lawful method for government to put restrictions or Limitations on rights belonging to the people?

Other cases are even more straight forward:

“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”.

We could go on, quoting court decision after court decision, however, In addition, the Constitution itself answers our question- “Can a government legally put restrictions on the rights of the American people at anytime, for any reason”? (Such as in this particular case – when the government believes it to be for the safety and welfare of the people).

The answer is found in 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 withstanding”. (This tells us that the U.S.
Constitution is to be upheld over any state, county, or city Laws that are in opposition to it.)

In the same Article it goes on to say just who it is within our governments that is bound by this Supreme Law:

“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;”. – ART. 6 U.S. CONST.

We know that Police officers, are a part of the Executive branch. We are “Executive Officers”.

Article 6 above, is called the SUPREMACY CLAUSE, and it clearly states that, under every circumstance, the above listed officials in these United States must hold this documents tenets supreme over any other laws, regulations, or orders. Every U.S. Police officer knows that they have sworn a oath to the people of our nation that we will not only protect their lives and property, but, that we will uphold, and protect their freedoms and rights under the Supreme laws of this nation, – the U. S. Constitution.

In this regard then, we must agree that those within government that restrict a Citizens rights, (such as restricting the peoples right to travel,) are acting in violation of his or her oath of office and are actually committing a crime against such Citizens. Here’s an interesting question. Is ignorance of these laws an excuse for such acts by officials? If we are to follow the “letter of the law (as we are sworn to do), this
places officials that involve themselves in such unlawful acts in an unfavorable legal situation. For it is a felony and federal crime to violate, or deprive citizens of their constitutionally protected rights.

Our system of law dictates the fact that there are only two ways to legally remove a right belonging to the people. These are – #1 – by lawfully amending the constitution, or #2 – by a person knowingly waiving a
particular right.

Some of the confusion in our present system has arisen because many millions of people have waived their right to travel “unrestricted” upon the roadways of the states and opted into the jurisdiction of the state for various reasons. Those who have knowingly given up these rights are now legally regulated by state law, the proper courts, and “sworn, constitutionally empowered officers-of-the-law,” and must acquire proper permits, registrations, insurance, etc.

There are basically two groups of people in this category:

#1 – Any citizen that involves themselves in “commerce,” (business for private gain), upon the highways of the state.

Here is what the courts have said about this:

“…For while a citizen has the right to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, that right does not extend to the use of the highways, either in whole or in part, as a place for private gain. For the latter purpose no person has a vested right to use the highways of the state, but is a privilege or license which the legislature may grant or withhold at its discretion…” – State v Johnson, 243 P. 1073, 1078.

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.

There are numerous other court decisions that spell out the JURISDICTION issue in these two distinctly different activities. However, because of space restrictions we will leave it up to officers to research it further for themselves.

#2 – The second group of citizens that are legally under the jurisdiction of the state is the individual citizen who has voluntarily and knowingly waived their right to travel “unregulated and unrestricted” by requesting placement under such jurisdiction through the acquisition of a state – drivers license, vehicle registration, mandatory insurance, etc. (In other words “by contract only”.)

We should remember what makes this “legal,” and not a violation of the individual’s common law right to travel “unrestricted” is that they knowingly volunteer, freely, by contract, to waive their right. If they were forced, coerced or unknowingly placed under the States powers, the courts have said it is a clear violation of their rights.

This in itself raises a very interesting question. What percentage of the people in each state [and province in Canada] have filed, and received, licenses, registrations, insurance etc. after erroneously being advised by their government that it was mandatory?

Many of our courts, attorneys and police officials are just becoming informed about this important issue and the difference between “Privileges vs. Rights”. We can assume that the majority of those Americans carrying state licenses, vehicle registrations etc., have no knowledge of the rights they waived in obeying laws such as these that the U.S. Constitution clearly states are unlawful, i.e. “laws of no effect”. In other words – “LAWS THAT ARE NOT LAWS AT ALL.”

OUR SWORN DUTY

An area of serious consideration for every police officer, is to understand that the most important law in our land he has taken an oath to protect, defend, AND ENFORCE, is not state laws, nor city or county ordinances, but, that law that supercede all other laws in our nation, – the U.S. Constitution. If laws in a particular police officer’s state, or local community are in conflict with the SUPREME LAW of our nation, there Is no question that the officer’s duty is to “uphold the U.S. Constitution.”

What does this mean to the “patrol officer” who will be the only sworn “Executive Officer” on the scene, when knowledgeable Citizens raise serious objections over possession of insurance, drivers licenses and other restrictions? It definitely means these officers will be faced with a hard decision. (Most certainly if that decision affects state, city or county revenues, such as the issuing of citations do.)

Example: If a state legislator, judge or a superior tells a police officer to proceed and enforce a contradictory, (illegal), state law rather than the Supreme Law of this country, what is that “sworn officer” to do? Although we may not want to hear it, there is but one right answer, – “the officer is duty bound to uphold his oath of office” and obey the highest laws of the nation. THIS IS OUR SWORN DUTY AND IT’S THE LAW!

Such a strong honest stand taken by a police officer, upholding his or her oath of office, takes moral strength of character. It will, without question, “SEPARATE THE MEN FROM THE BOYS.” Such honest and straight forward decisions on behalf of a government official have often caused pressure to
be applied to force such officers to set aside, or compromise their morals or convictions.

As a solace for those brave souls in uniform that will stand up for law and justice, even when it’s unpopular, or uncomfortable to do so…let me say this. In any legal stand-off over a sworn official “violating” or “upholding” their oath of office, those that would side with the “violation” should inevitable lose.

Our Founding Fathers assured us, on many occasions, the following: Defending our freedoms in the face of people that would for “expedients sake,” or behind the guise, “for the safety and welfare of the masses,” ignore people’s rights, would forever demand sacrifice and vigilance from those that desired to remain free. That sounds a little like – “Freedom is not free!”

Every police officer should keep the following U.S. court ruling, that was covered earlier, in mind before issuing citations in regard to “mandatory licensing, registration and insurance” – verses – “the right of the people to travel unencumbered”:

“THE CLAlM AND EXERCISE OF A CONSTITUTIONAL RlGHT CANNOT BE CONVERTED INTO A CRIME.” – Miller v U.S., 230 F 2d 486. 489.

And as we have seen, “traveling freely,” going about ones daily activities, is the exercise of a most basic right.”

Aid&Abet Newsletter Mon, 03 Feb 2003
P.O.BOX 8787, PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85066

Driver’s licenses are used as a ‘guilty plea’ and a signed confession of guilt. Police are given “warden” authority; rather than ‘peace officer’ authority over ‘drivers’. The confiscation by the Province or State of the New Vehicle Identification Statement (NVIS) or Manufacturers Certificate of Origin(MCO) of all automobiles sold at the dealer level, and the registration by the Province or State of an gives it the status of a ‘legal entity’, thus making the owner a ‘ward of the Crown’ as a confessed criminal(license holder), with the ‘privilege’ of possession of that automobile. MAKE SURE YOU ALWAYS CARRY A SIGNED BILL OF SALE FOR YOUR VEHICLE.

Another recent successful court case: http://www.loveforlife.com.au/node/6499 No Drivers License or Insurance – Case Dismissed! – “I Claim Common Law Jurisdiction – I Do Not Consent And I Waive The Benefits”

“Personal liberty largely consists of the Right of locomotion — to go where and when one pleases — only so far restrained as the Rights of others may make it necessary for the welfare of all other citizens. The Right of the 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 the common Right which he has under his Right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”
[emphasis added] II Am.Jur. (1st) Constitutional Law, Sect.329, p.1135.

“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.” [emphasis added] 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.

This position does not hang precariously upon only a few cases, but has been proclaimed by an impressive array of cases ranging from the state courts to the federal courts.

“the right of the Citizen to travel upon the highway and to transport his property thereon in the ordinary course of life and business, differs radically and obviously from that of one who makes the highway his place of business and uses it for private gain in the running of a stagecoach or omnibus. The former is the usual and ordinary right of the Citizen, a right common to all, while the latter is special, unusual, and extraordinary.” Ex Parte Dickey, (Dickey vs. Davis), 85 SE 781.

and…

“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.” Teche Lines vs. Danforth, Miss., 12 S.2d 784; Thompson vs. Smith, supra.

There is no dissent among various authorities as to this position. (See Am.Jur. [1st] Const. Law, 329 and corresponding Am. Jur. [2nd].)

“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 nor dependent on the U.S. Constitution… It is one of the most sacred and valuable rights [remember the words of Justice Tolman, supra.] as sacred as the right to private property… and is regarded as inalienable.” 16 C.J.S. Const. Law, Sect.202, p.987.

Since no notice is given to people applying for driver’s (or other) licenses that they have a perfect right to use the roads without any permission, and that they surrender valuable rights by taking on the regulation system of licensing, the states and provinces have committed a massive construction fraud. This occurs when any person is told that they must have a license in order to use the public roads and highways.

The license, being a legal contract under which the state is empowered with policing powers is only valid when the licensee takes on the burdens of the contract and bargains away his or her rights knowingly, intentionally, and voluntarily.

Few know that the driver’s license is a contract without which the police are powerless to regulate the people’s actions or activities.

Furthermore, few if any licensees intentionally surrender valuable rights. They are told that they must have the license. As we have seen, this is not the case.

“No one in his or her right mind voluntarily surrenders complete liberty and accepts in its place a set of regulations. XX “The people never give up their liberties but under some delusion.” – Edmund Burke, 1784.

How should it work?
• Still need to pass a test (but without probation period) upon which a certificate of driving proficiency, and identification plates are given. Government should not profit – the charge should just recover their costs.
• Individual is not required to tell the government on which car he/she will put the identi-
fication plates. He/she can change their car every day, by reusing the same identification plate.
• The test doesn’t have to be retaken. Doctors are responsible to report to the Crown if they find that an individual in question can no longer drive correctly (e.g. impaired sight). Then the Queen should take the individual to court and present medical evidence.
• Bad drivers, criminals etc. must be dealt within the court – the court will suspend their driving rights only after they have demonstrated danger to other people.
• Insurance is not mandatory, but optional. Right now thousands are denied the right to drive
because they can’t afford insurance. If accident occurs – we are already paying for health care with taxes!

Traffic Control
• Slowing down traffic to snails must stop.
• For some city areas 60kmh is too slow.
• Lights should be synchronized so that if traveling at speed limit, you always hit a green light.
• Number of red lights should be reduced and replaced with stop signs or yield signs.
• Some stop signs must be replaced with yield signs.
• Harsh rules that slow you down without reason are simply ignored right now anyway!
The only difference is that now these ignored rules cost unlawful fees.

Remember that any new adventure requires faith. Who do you put your faith in?

more information:

Right to Drive – 1

Driving brief and memorandum of law: Template can be used to challenge your state’s driving laws. (An updated version is available with more case law and evidence. General format can be used to challenge your state’s driving laws… just replace relevant information and be sure to include your state’s driving code, and send certified mail.)

Right to Drive Handout: Example of what to hand out when you get a police stop for some innocent “infraction.” (US version. Make appropriate changes for Canada).

http://www.apfn.org/apfn/drivers-license-scam.htm The Right to Travel vs. Driver’s License Scam

FURTHER CASE HISTORIES:

1 Chitty Pr. 32
Barron v. Burnside 121 U.S. 186
Boone v. Clark, 214 S.W. 607
Buchanan v. Warley 245 U.S. 60, 74
Chicago Motor Coach v. Chicago, 169 N.E. 22
Cummins v. Jones, 155 P. 171
Deibel v. Kreiss, 50 N.E. 2d 1000 (1943)
Ferrante Equipment Co. v. Foley Machinery Co., N.J., 231 A.2d 208, 211, 49 N.J. 432
Gardner v. City of Brunswick, 28 S.E. 2d 135
Hadfield v. Lundin, 98 Wn. 657; 168 P. 516
Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43
Hoke v. Henderson, 15 N.C. 15, 25 AM. Dec. 677
In re Hong Wah, 82 Fed. 623
Kent v. Dulles, 357 U.S. 116, 125
Ligare v. Chicago, 28 N.E. 934
McKevitt et al v. Golden Age Breweries, Inc., 126 P.2d 1077 (1942)
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 491 (1966)
Murdock v. Pennsylvania 319 U.S. 105
O’Conner v. City of Moscow, 69 Idaho 37
Packard v. Banton, 44 S.Ct. 257, 264 U.S. 140
Parish of Morehouse v. Brigham, 6 S. 257
Parish v. Thurston 87 Ind. 437 (1882)
People v. Nothaus, 147 Colo. 210
Robertson v. Department of Public Works, 180 Wash. 133 at 139
Rogers Construction Co. v. Hill, Or., 384 P.2d 219, 222, 235 Or. 352
Spann v. City of Dallas, 235 S.W. 513
State v. City of Spokane, 109 Wn. 360; 186 P. 864
State v. Johnson, 243 P. 1073
Thompson v. Smith (Chief of Police), 154 S.E. 579, 580
Weirich v. State, 140 Wis. 98
Wells v. Zenz, 236 P. 485
Western Turf Assn. v. Greenberg, 204 U.S. 359
Williams v. Fears, 343 U.S. 270, 274

More References
• “Rights Denied” by David Lindsay.
• “Corpus Julius Secundum” section on Abate-
ments.

Executive Order Alters Your Legal Protections

With the signing of an under-publicized amendment to Executive Order 12425, Barack Obama has fundamentally altered your constitutional rights. His actions are undermining your rights to protect personal privacy from a foreign internationalist police agency named Interpol. A one-paragraph executive order may seem inconsequential to many, but this action has far reaching implications and threatens the sovereignty of America.

Obama’s secretive Executive Order amended an order issued by President Reagan in 1983. Reagan’s order recognized Interpol as an International Organization and gave it privileges and immunities commonly extended to foreign diplomats. Reagan opened the door to allow Interpol to operate in partnership with the U.S. but with significant constitutional safeguards. Specifically, Interpol’s property and assets remained subject to search and seizure by American law enforcement, and its archived records remained subject to public scrutiny under provisions of the Freedom of Information Act. Interpol had to answer to the FBI and U.S. courts under Reagan’s order. These safeguards were stripped away by Obama’s action the week before Christmas without debate or explanation. Obama picked the holiday season to make this radical change to minimize media coverage.

This order marks a significant change in federal policy and usurps the constitutional power of our government by yielding it to an international organization. Michael van Der Galien writes, “This foreign law enforcement organization can operate free of an important safeguard against government and abuse. Property and assets, including the organization’s records, cannot now be searched or seized. Their physical operational locations are now immune from U.S. legal and investigative authorities.”

Obama has given an international organization unsupervised freedom to investigate Americans on our own soil without recourse or the supervision of our own government.

Andy McCarthy writing for the National Review asks some very significant questions: “Why would we elevate an international police force above American law? Why would we immunize an international police force from the limitations that constrain the FBI and other American law-enforcement agencies? Why is it suddenly necessary to have, within the Justice Department, a repository for stashing government files which, therefore, will be beyond the ability of Congress, American law-enforcement, the media, and the American people to scrutinize?”

Interpol is the enforcement arm of the International Criminal Court (ICC). The United States never signed onto the Rome Treaty which created the ICC because of the potential for abuse by foreign interests. Obama has signaled he may sign the treaty over these objections and subject Americans to prosecution overseas in the ICC. This is harmful for two reasons. First, the U.S. Constitution clearly states that it is the supreme law of our land and allowing the ICC to supersede the U.S. Constitution violates America’s sovereignty. Second, the War on Terror is unpopular with Europeans and the ICC may attempt to prosecute heroic American soldiers with trumped up war crimes. Obama is putting brave American men and women at grave risk.

An added wrinkle to this executive order is that Interpol’s operations center for the United States is housed within our own Justice Department. Many of the agents are Americans who work under the aegis of Interpol. This order has potentially created the new civilian security force that Obama proposed during his campaign. This group of law enforcement officials is no longer subject to the restraints enshrined in the U.S. Constitution.

The order guarantees that Interpol officers have immunity from prosecution for crimes they may commit in the United States. Ironically, some Interpol nations are attempting to try American intelligence agents for their work abroad in the War on Terror.

This order shows blatant disregard for the U.S. Constitution. While Obama is extending due process rights to terrorists he is weakening those same rights for American citizens. If a citizen were to be prosecuted by Interpol their newly granted immunity would interfere with the discovery process. Since Interpol files are immune to disclosure, a citizen could be denied his right to see the information used to prosecute him or her.

Obama’s executive order has done more to weaken civil liberties than the much maligned Patriot Act. The silence in the mainstream media on this issue should scare all freedom loving Americans. Obama just signed away parts of our precious legal protections.

from Town Hall
http://townhall.com/columnists/floydandmarybethbrown/2010/01/01/obama_executive_order_alters_your_legal_protections/page/full/

How American Freedom Has Been Destroyed

Why the Fourteenth Amendment Doesn’t Exist
How the Constitution Has Been Destroyed

Originally, the Constitution limited the jurisdiction of the federal government by making citizens of the state in which they were born or resided. According to the Constitution, the federal government could only have jurisdiction on a person if they lived in Washington DC or a US territory.

The Federalists who took control of our government after the Civil War, instituted the 14th Amendment to “protect” the former slaves. This amendment allowed the former slaves to come under the Jurisdiction of the Federal Government in order that the Federal Government could protect their Constitutional rights. Many blacks were being abused by people and the local or state governments would not come to their aid. The 14th Amendment may have freed the slaves from oppression of their neighbors, but it gave them and us a new master, the Federal Government. The 14th Amendment makes us citizens of the UNITED STATES AND of the several states. NOTE THE SMALL “c” ON THE WORD CITIZEN. This allows the Federal Government to have jurisdiction over us that it never had before the 14th Amendment. The 14th Amendment also states (the last section) that the debt of the Federal government cannot even be questioned.

Most people have received their UNITED STATES citizenship when they received their Social Security Card. With the Social Security Card came income taxes. I am not going to go into how we have been put under Statutory (Admiralty) Law; I will simply state that we are under it. We all know this because we need a license (permission to break the law) or permit to do things. A free citizen doesn’t require a license or a permit. Why would a free person require permission from the government to get married, drive a car, start a business, to add onto his/her home or improve his/her property?

Please show me in the US Constitution or your state constitution where a government has the right to demand such obedience? If anyone is arrogant enough to try to use the US Constitution to show such things, please align your argument with the 10th Amendment. How did we get in such a mess, but more importantly, how do we get out of such a mess?

The Congress in session during the time the 14th Amendment was declared law provided people with a way to get out from under these provisions. It is called an apostille. An apostille allows you to deny or renounce your United States citizenship and receive diplomatic immunity. For total freedom, you also must file a UCC-1 lien against your STRAWMAN and a denial of corporate existence against the incorporated local and state governments.

Have you ever noticed that your driver’s license, bank statement, and any bill that you receive is in all capital letters? This is not by accident; there is a legal reason for this.

DID YOU EVER WONDER WHY THE GOVERNMENT OR THE STATE CAN TAKE YOUR HOUSE, PROPERTY, CARS, BANK ACCOUNTS, CHILDREN ETC.?

DO YOU THINK YOU OWN EVERYTHING YOU WORKED SO HARD FOR THROUGHOUT YOUR LIFE?

DO YOU THINK YOU ARE TRULY FREE AS GOD INTENDED IT TO BE SO? OR ARE YOU A SLAVE?

ARE YOU A SUBJECT AND PAYING DUTY TO THE CROWN OF ENGLAND THROUGH THE TAX SYSTEM?

WHAT IS YOUR REAL NAME? IS IT JOHN HENRY DOE, IN ALL CAPITAL LETTERS OR IS IT, John Henry Doe, IN UPPER AND LOWER CASE LETTERS?

I KNOW THE ANSWERS, BUT DO YOU?

IF YOU WANT YOUR LIFE AND FREEDOM BACK YA BETTER READ ON!

ASSUME THE FOLLOWING:

The United States is bankrupt and has been since 1933. The government has no gold or silver as required by the Constitution. The only asset left is the people. So how does the U.S. finance its daily operations?

Solution, collateralize the people for credit. How? By registering them in international commerce, and selling bonds on them. The people become the surety on the bonds, or the “pledge”. The asset bonded (surety) is the labor of the people which is payable as some undetermined future date. Thus, the people become the “utility” for the “transmission” of energy. Result, a very sophisticated form of peonage or slavery and the Constitution does not apply because the government, on all levels, is thrown into international commerce, the law merchant, now known as the Uniform Commercial Code. [See Public Law 88-244 in which the U.S. Subscribed to private international law. See definition of “goods” under the Uniform Commercial Code; Section 2-105(1) and 9-105(1) in which animals, i.e. humans and their unborn offspring, become “goods” sellable in commerce!]

When a baby is born in the UNITED STATES, a birth certificate is registered with the Bureau of Vital Statistics in the State of birth. The key word here is “registered” as registered in international commerce. The baby becomes the surety, whose energy is due at some future date. REMINDS YOU OF THE MOVIE MATRIX DOESN’T IT. When the birth certificate is registered in the U.S. Department of Commerce, the Department of Treasury issues a bond on the birth certificate ($1,000,000) and the bond is sold at some securities exchange and perhaps bought by the Federal Reserve Bank, which then uses it as collateral in order to issue Federal Reserve Notes or some other form of “debt obligation” (see 18 USC §411). The bond is then held in trust for the Federal Reserve at the Depository Trust Corp. At 55 Water Street, in New York City, about two blocks down the street from the Fed. It is a high rise office building and the sign out front reads “The Tower of Power”. I. E. MATRIX

When the birth certificate is registered, a separate legal entity is created, like a mirror image of the flesh and blood human. This separate entity, or alter ego (THE ALL CAPITAL LETTER NAME) is the “strawman”. (See Black’s Law 6th edition dictionary). And it is the “accommodation party” of the Uniform commercial Code §3-415. The “name” is credit. (See Back’s 6th “accommodation party”). Therefore the right (or the use) has been separated from the title (or deed). The “straw man” holds the title (he belongs to the government’s client who bought the title) and the real live you, flesh and blood man or women has only naked possession with the limited “right” to use the thing (like your body or your alleged possessions and land). Maybe that’s why our civil rights suits get dismissed out of court on Civil Rule 12(b)(6) motions. This deals with “failure to state a title upon which relief can be granted”. A claim is another word for “title”. So we have “failed to state upon which relief can be granted”. We do not own the “title”, even to our own bodies anymore. Isn’t that encouraging! How free are you now?

When the straw man violates some rule or statue (for instance a traffic ticket), the flesh and blood, the real you has to appear at the arraignment and admit the straw man’s name (credit) and the “energy” surety is due and payable (fine) by the flesh and blood man who is in use of the straw man. This, I’m sure, is why it is so important to “voluntarily give” your name to the magistrate (court). The defendant is the straw man. The real you, the flesh and blood man is the “offender”. An “offender” is on the offensive team until he screws up and goes on the defensive team with the defendant (straw man) and looses as the real man.

So if this scenario is correct, how does one get back the bond that has been sold on the birth certificate. And then how does one get in control of his body and his property?

TITLE = RIGHT = REMEDY = RELIEF can only be granted after perfecting the “security interest” in the “goods” (The collateral = pignus = the straw man

DEFINITIONS & MEANINGS

Stramineus homo /straminiyas howmow/. L. Lat. A man of straw, one of no substance, put Forward as bail surety.

Stratocracy /stseokraisiy/. A military government; government by military chiefs of an army.

Straw man or party. A “front”, a third party who is put up in name only to take part in a transaction. Nominal party to a transaction; one who acts as an agent for another for the purpose of taking title to real property and executing whatever documents and instruments the principal may direct respecting the property. Person who purchases property for another to conceal identity of real purchaser, or to accomplish some purpose otherwise not allowed.

At birth your parents and the doctor become the pledger of the birth certificate title to the baby Johnny. The State become the recipient of this pledge for the future energy output of “Johnny”. The state converts the “title security document” into a bond which is sold on the open market place to finance government. The bond holder is the secured party to receive the future energy output of Johnny. Johnny is the mere naked holder and possessor of the body with no title. His duty is to the secured party. To keep your child you must not give it a first name while in the hospital do not fill out the birth certificate papers, put them off permanently. Let the child decide when they are 18 to enter into the fed if they wish.

The definition of the straw man now becomes apparent. The straw man is nom de guerre artificial entity put forth that is owned by the secured party who bought into the bond placed on the market by the Treasury of the United States. The straw man is not yours. It is the front man for the secured party holder of the bond. Whatever the straw man signs, he does so to place title to property in the hands of the UNITED STATES and the bond owner. The straw man does not place title to the property into Johnny’s hands. That is because Johnny does not have title to the straw man. The straw man belongs to the UNITED STATES and the bond owner.

In order to get one’s liberty and independence back, one must first secure the title and ownership of the straw man back. Once one controls the straw man, then one controls the rights of the property that the straw man acquires.

The key to ownership is registration. In a military government, registered property is recognized By the “public” side. If the property is registered on the public side of the government, then the property is public. If the property is registered on the private side, then the property is private with no public interest.

The military government (democracy) has three appointed leaders. The governor, the Secretary Of State, and the Secretary of Treasury. The Secretary of State holds the registration for the Democracy corporation. The public side of the registration is the “corporate filings” at the state And county levels. The private side of the filings are the “Uniform Commercial Code filings” of the creditors to transactions. This registration by the private creditor is the highest priority of recognition by the military State (democracy). If one is not registered, then one is believed to be “foreign” with no rights, private or public, except what is granted by the military law form As a privilege.

For one to regain title to his body, the Birth Certificate must be secured and attached and recorded in the private UCC-1 filings with the Secretary of State in the democracy. Once the living soul has redeemed his Birth Certificate and filed notice of the redemption by a UCC-1 filing with the Secretary of State, then the living soul has the right of property ownership in himself through his straw man who now belongs to the living soul. Furthermore, the bond created and sold in the market place for the straw man now becomes the property of the living soul. The living soul now has the capacity to own real property by allodium and to own private chattel property by the process of the passover, redemption, chargeback, and discharge of public debt.

What’s in a name? Very simple. A name is CREDIT. For any unauthorized person to use your Name or the straw man’s name (when they do not own the title to the straw man) is to violate the laws of “slander of credit”. Once you have redeemed the straw man and own him, then any further commercial process done by any person (like an attorney, a judge, or law enforcement office without your consent) is slander of credit against your straw man. This is a federal criminal securities violation that means prison for them.

Until you redeem your straw man and register his title to you, the living soul, then your straw man becomes the source of the credit for the UNITED STATES to the public affairs of the nation through the “pledge” or gift of your property )your body and energy) to them for their use.

Can You Defend Yourself Against Civil Contempt & Non-Compliance?

Judges abuse their power daily and the use of civil contempt is one of their greatest weapons. This is not simply because this action is powerful in its own right, but because people do not know how to defend themselves against its limits. If you do not speak up and demand your rights, you lose them. Most people don’t know their rights and most lawyers will not “fight” what the judge wants. This is our legal system today, especially in the kangaroo family courts.

Civil contempt in law today is authorized to compel someone to obey a court order in present tense whether in direct view of the court or indirect view of the court. The difference in regard to child support is the remedy of incarceration. This is intended to compel compliance to the court order, however only if you have the ability to comply and are not doing so. You may be held until you no longer have the ability to pay . When that happens, it is grounds for immediate release. In a civil contempt per the view of U.S. law, the punishment is viewed as a remedy, and for the benefit of the complainant, which can be and often is the court. In the event of criminal contempt, the sentence is punitive, to vindicate the authority of the court. A contempt proceeding is considered to be criminal in nature, with possible penalties that include a jail sentence. Fear is the tool.

Civil contempt is for something that is current that you may purge yourself of, while criminal contempt is seen as a past wrong you have committed. Under the civil contempt you must be provided with the option to purge yourself of the contumacious act. With regard to child support enforcement, most states have built into the statutes that civil contempt  and incarceration is a specific remedy for violation of the court’s order. This is not for the civil debt, but for specifically for the act of “willfully disobeying an order of the court while having the capacity to comply.” Even when the order is unjust, you must comply unless a stay of enforcement is granted, while you are challenging the “unjust” order. (Child Support: A Case Against Arrest)

Proof of Contempt

While the court’s power to punish through contempt is broad, contempt is meant to be exercised rarely and is presumed not to exist in many states, such as Texas. Three elements must be satisfied to prove contempt:

1) a reasonably specific order,

2) a violation of the order, and

3) the willful intent to violate the order.

To be specific enough to support a constructive contempt finding, an order must spell out the details of compliance in clear, unambiguous terms so that a person knows exactly what she must do to comply with it. Some courts have held that an oral order is never sufficiently specific; thus, only a written court order may support a constructive contempt finding. An oral order may support a direct contempt finding, but it must still be clear what the court has ordered the person to do. Finally, the person must be able to comply with the order.

Noncompliance with an unambiguous order of which a person has notice raises the inference that the violation was willful. But a person is in contempt only if he has the ability to comply with the court’s order but chooses not to. A person may not, for example, be jailed for failing to turn over property not in his possession. But for this exception to apply, the inability to comply must be involuntary. If a person puts himself in a position where he is unable to comply with the order, then he may still be held in contempt. Disability and mental capacity can impact the ability to comply.

During the past twenty years, both state and federal courts have examined the issue of whether parents who are seriously delinquent on their child support payments may be jailed for their failure to support their children. Nearly half of the state supreme courts and at least ten of the 11 federal circuit courts of appeals have heard cases concerning criminal penalties for failure to pay child support. As legislators and other policymakers debate the value and appropriateness of criminal sanctions for nonsupport, a review of the court holdings from state supreme courts and high level federal courts offers a legal perspective to the policy discussions in this area. Below, we examine some of the most commonly asked questions and how the courts have answered them.

Q. Why are states and the federal government using criminal penalties for delinquent child support obligors?

A. State and federal laws aimed at criminally penalizing parents for not paying child support are gaining backing for several policy reasons. First, child support experts and state policymakers are detecting fundamental differences among parents who are delinquent in child support – dividing them into “can’t pay” and “won’t pay” parents. While millions of dollars nationwide are being invested into programs to help the very low-income “can’t pay” parents, states are developing more aggressive enforcement tools to pursue the “won’t pay” parents who simply refuse to acknowledge their child support obligation, despite having the financial resources to do so. The increasingly common use of criminal statutes and court contempt orders in child support cases reflects society’s growing frustration with “won’t pay” parents. A recent opinion by the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals aptly captured the prevailing judicial sentiment toward parents who evade child support obligations:

“It is just as much a violation of the CSRA [Child Support Recovery Act] for a non-custodial parent to fail to pay child support where his refusal to work is motivated by sloth, a change of lifestyles or pursuit of new career objectives. For most people, bringing children into the world does limit life choices by imposing certain long-term financial obligations.” [U.S. v. Ballek, 1999 WL 125955 (9th Cir. (Alaska), Mar. 11, 1999) (NO. 97-30326)].

State and federal prosecutors are selectively using their state criminal nonsupport laws to target parents who purposely hide assets, avoid employment or otherwise contrive to shirk their child support responsibilities. Some states, such as Kentucky, Ohio and Virginia, have conducted high profile trials and “sting” operations to locate and prosecute parents with large child support debts – in some cases several hundreds of thousands of dollars. Federal prosecutions are also becoming more common as federal officials crack down on wealthy child support obligors in interstate cases. The Inspector General’s Office and the Office of Child Support Enforcement of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, along with the U.S. Department of Justice, created Project Save Our Children (PSOC), “to create a nationwide comprehensive and coordinated health and human services and criminal justice response to unresolved child support enforcement cases.” PSOC investigates and prosecutes high-profile criminal nonsupport cases with interstate circumstances, typically under the Child Support Recovery Act of 1992. By focusing on high-profile cases, PSOC hopes to deliver a strong public message to delinquent obligors who consistently avoid paying child support. Most of the parents arrested and prosecuted by PSOC are wealthy individuals with substantial assets.

Q. Isn’t child support a matter of civil, not criminal, law?

A. Laws concerning child support guidelines and most child support enforcement mechanisms are civil in nature, but failure to pay child support may subject a parent to criminal sanctions in three situations: 1.) prosecution under a state criminal “failure to provide support” statute, 2.) prosecution under the federal Child Support Recovery Act of 1992 (CSRA), or 3.) a finding of contempt of court for failure to obey the court’s child support order.

All states have criminal laws setting felony or misdemeanor penalties for failure to support a child or family. Most of these laws were not specifically written with child support in mind, but were originally intended for parents who abandoned or neglected their children. Classifications of these statutes range from “desertion and nonsupport” (Michigan) to “nonsupport of a child or spouse” (Kansas) to “failure to meet an obligation to provide support to a minor”(West Virginia). Likewise, maximum penalties under these laws vary greatly, from 14 years in prison for a felony conviction in Idaho to six months in prison for a misdemeanor in Rhode Island.

Parents who willfully avoid child support payments for a child in another state and owe the greater of a year’s worth of child support or $5,000 may be prosecuted under the federal Child Support Recovery Act of 1992. When the statute originally was written, the crime was classified as a misdemeanor, and delinquent parents risked a maximum jail term of six months. With the passage of the Deadbeat Parents Punishment Act of 1998, this federal crime was upgraded to a felony and now carries a maximum prison sentence of two years for parents who owe at least $10,000, or are at least two years behind in their child support obligation and possess two contempt citations for failure to obey their child support order. The original offense also was expanded to include delinquent parents who cross state lines to evade child support responsibilities, in addition to those living in different states from the children.

Because child support orders are official court orders – with the same weight as orders such as subpoenas to appear in court – a parent disobeying the terms of the child support order risks a finding of contempt of court. Based on this, a contempt of court order is probably the most common avenue for a delinquent child support obligor to find himself or herself behind bars.

Q. Is contempt of court a civil or criminal violation?

A. Contempt of court orders can be either criminal or civil in nature, and criminal and civil contempt proceedings differ in several regards. Although most states have many laws concerning contempt of court powers, courts do not need explicit statutory authorization for issuing a civil contempt of court order and subsequent penalty for violation of a child support order; this contempt power is typically inherent in the court’s basic authorization to enforce its orders. Civil contempt of court may be punishable by jail time, restitution, or fines. Under a civil contempt order, the person guilty of contempt of court “holds the jailhouse keys” in that he can cure the contempt and gain release from jail by abiding by the order, e.g. by paying the overdue child support. In a civil contempt of court proceeding, the violation of the order must be proven by clear and convincing evidence and the burden of proof may be shifted to the defendant in some circumstances.

Despite carrying a criminal penalty of incarceration, civil contempt of court orders are not classified as criminal actions; criminal contempt is a different matter in several respects. Unlike in a civil contempt situation, under a criminal contempt order, the contemnor does not “hold the keys to the jailhouse door” — he or she cannot shorten the imprisonment period simply by paying the fine or complying with the order. Criminal contempt, rather, is a form of punishment; a penalty imposed and required to be served to its completion. Because of the punitive nature of these orders, they generally are accompanied by many of the same due process requirements as a criminal trial (e.g. right to notice, right to counsel, right to a jury trial, etc.), and criminal contempt powers must be statutorily authorized by the legislature. Finally, in criminal contempt hearings, the government bears the burden of proving the guilt of the defendant beyond a reasonable doubt.

Courts differ in their characterization of contempt orders for failure to pay child support. The lines between civil and criminal contempt are often blurred in failure to pay child support cases, particularly if the court does not explicitly clarify the charge facing the delinquent parent. Michigan’s supreme court decided that even though child support contempt proceedings were statutorily intended to be civil in nature, the proceedings become criminal if the defendant does not have the present ability to pay, and the defendant is then entitled to representation by an attorney [Mead v. Batchlor, 435 Mich. 480, 460 N.W.2d 493 (Mich. 1990)]. New Mexico’s state supreme court ruled that a jail sentence, which is typically considered a criminal punishment, could be imposed in a civil contempt proceeding for failure to pay child support [Niemyjski v. Niemyjski, 98 N.M. 176, 646 P.2d 1240 (N.M. 1982)]. The Supreme Court of Tennessee, however, held that child support contempt was a criminal offense with a criminal penalty; therefore, the obligor could not be incarcerated without a jury trial and a conviction [Brown v. Latham, Walker v. Walker, 914 S.W.2d 887 (Tenn. 1996)].

The issue is further muddled by court decisions that not all child support contempt proceedings classified as criminal are entitled to a jury trial [see International Union, United Mine Workers of America v. Bagwell, 512 U.S. 821 (1994) [jury trial not constitutionally required for criminal contempt proceedings]]. For example, in a criminal prosecution under the CSRA, the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decided that a jury trial was not necessary because the restitution penalty was not so severe as to convert the petty offense – a misdemeanor – into a serious one deserving of a jury trial [U.S. v. Ballek, 1999 WL 125955 (9th Cir. (Alaska), Mar. 11, 1999)(NO. 97-30326)].

State supreme court cases suggest that additional limits on the use of the contempt power in the child support context exist. At least one state supreme court has decided that if the delinquent parent proves he is financially unable to “cure” the contempt, the court may not continue the incarceration [Hughes v. Dept. of Human Resources, 269 GA. 587, 502 S.E.2d 233 (Ga. 1998)]. The California supreme court adopted a more narrow reading of this concept, holding that a delinquent parent’s incarceration may continue “when the parent’s financial inability to comply with the order is the result of the parent’s willful failure to seek and accept available employment that is commensurate with his or her skills and abilities” [Moss v. Superior Court, 17 Cal.4th 396, 950 P.2d 59 (Cal. 1998)]. Finally, the Supreme Court of Texas ruled that the contempt order must consist of a written judgment of contempt or written order of commitment before a parent may be incarcerated [Ex parte Strickland, 723 S.W.2d 668 (Tex. 1987)].

The only U.S. Supreme Court case to examine the issue of contempt for failure to pay child support pivoted on this very question of whether the contempt was criminal or civil in nature [Hicks v. Fieock, 485 U.S. 624 (1988)]. The Court held that the California statute in question, which had a legal presumption that the obligated parent was able to pay the required child support, was an unconstitutional violation of the Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution if the proceeding was a criminal contempt proceeding. The statute’s legal presumption reduced the burden of proof on the government and transferred that burden to the delinquent parent, which is not permissible in a criminal trial. On the other hand, the Court reasoned, if the statute were being applied in a civil proceeding, the transfer of the burden of proof would be constitutionally valid. Therefore, the Court remanded the case back to the lower court to determine whether the contempt proceedings were civil or criminal in nature. The Supreme Court also offered guidance to the lower court by more clearly delineating some of the characteristics distinguishing civil and criminal contempt orders and outlining examples of both.

Q. Does the child support obligor always have the right to an attorney during contempt proceedings?

A. State courts have reached conflicting conclusions regarding the question of the delinquent obligor’s right to counsel in child support contempt proceedings. Several state supreme courts, including Delaware, Michigan, North Dakota, Texas, and Vermont, have ruled that noncustodial parents facing incarceration for contempt of a child support order have the right to be represented by a lawyer during the contempt proceeding [Black v. Division of Child Support Enforcement, 686 A.2d 164 (Del. 1996)[civil contempt]; Mead v. Batchlor, 435 Mich. 480, 460 N.S.2d 493 (Mich. 1990) [civil contempt]; State v. Gruchalla, 467 N.W.2d 451 (N.D. 1991) [civil contempt]; Ex parte Gunther, 758 S.W.2d 226 (Tex. 1988) [unclear whether civil or criminal]; Choiniere v. Brooks, 163 Vt. 625, 660 A.2d 289 (Vt. 1995) [civil contempt]. The Delaware supreme court specifically found that “the presumption that an indigent defendant has the right to appointed counsel applies when, if he loses, he may be deprived of his personal liberty,” but did not apply if the state sought punishment of something less than incarceration.

Other state supreme courts, including Florida, Missouri, New Mexico and North Carolina, have decided that parents subject to child support civil contempt sanctions are not entitled to legal representation [Andrews v. Walton, 428 So.2d 663 (Fla. 1983); State ex rel. Sterling, 719 S.W.2d 455 (Mo. 1986); State ex rel. Dept. of Human Services v. Rael, 97 N.M. 640, 642 P.2d 1099 (N.M. 1982); Jolly v. Wright, 300 N.C. 83, 265 S.E.2d 135 (N.C. 1980)]. The Florida Supreme Court found that in a situation where the father had the ability to pay the child support but willfully refused to do so, and thus was not indigent, the father’s due process rights were not violated when the trial court ordered incarceration without appointing counsel for him in the civil contempt proceeding.

Even indigent obligors are not necessarily entitled to a lawyer. The North Carolina court ruled that “since the nature of nonsupport civil contempt cases usually is not complex, due process does not require that counsel be automatically appointed for indigents in such cases” and that counsel would only need to be appointed in cases where it was “necessary for an adequate presentation of the merits [of the case], or to otherwise ensure fundamental fairness” [Jolly v. Wright, 300 N.C. 83, 265 S.E.2d 135 (N.C. 1980)].

Proving indigency in order to obtain court-appointed counsel can place the delinquent parent in a potentially self-incriminating position if the he or she is not found to be indigent. If the court rules that the parent is not indigent, that ruling could lend credibility to a charge that the parent had the resources to pay the child support and chose not to. Recognizing this, the Supreme Court of North Dakota required that a father found in contempt for failure to pay child support should have had the opportunity to prove his indigence for purposes of appointment of counsel in private meetings with the judge and lawyers, rather than in open court, since the disclosure of facts relative to proof of his indigence could have been used against him in the contempt proceedings [State v. Gruchalla, 467 N.W.2d 451 (N.D. 1991)].

Even if the defendant is entitled to counsel, he may not be entitled to have the state pay for it. Missouri’s Supreme Court held that the trial court in a civil child support contempt proceeding “could not compel the state to expend public funds by appointment of a public defender to represent the alleged indigent father” [State ex rel. Sterling v. Long, 719 S.W.2d 455 (Mo. 1986)]. Similarly, the Delaware supreme court ruled that the Office of the Public Defender could not be appointed to represent an indigent defendant in criminal contempt proceedings arising out of child support orders [Black v. Division of Child Support Enforcement, 686 A.2d 164 (Del. 1996)].

Q. What if the child support obligor claims that he or she doesn’t have the resources to pay the required child support?

A. Many parents delinquent in their child support payments and subject to contempt citations claim that they are unable to financially meet their support obligations. At least three state supreme courts – California, Oregon, and Texas – have ruled that it is the obligor’s responsibility to raise an inability to pay as a defense, and to prove that inability by a preponderance of the evidence [Moss v. Superior Court, 17 Cal.4th 396, 950 P.2d 59 (Cal. 1998); State ex rel. Mikkelsen v. Hill, 315 Or. 452, 847 P.2d 402 (Or. 1993); Ex parte Roosth, 881 S.W.2d 300 (Tex. 1994)]. It is not, according to the courts, the responsibility of the custodial parent or the state to prove that the noncustodial parent has the financial resources to meet his or her child support obligation. The U.S. Supreme Court, in Fieock, also found that allocating the burden of proof in this manner was constitutional and reasonable in child support contempt proceedings.

Whether or not a parent has the financial ability to comply with the child support order is particularly important in prosecutions under the CSRA, which requires that the parent’s failure to pay support must be “willful” in order to warrant a conviction. In other words, in order to obtain a conviction under this federal law, the government must prove that the parent has the resources to comply and simply chose not to do so. See U.S. v. Mathes, 151 F.3d 251 (5th Cir. 1998); U.S. v. Brand, 163 F.3d 1268 (11th Cir. 1998). The Ballek court examined the CRSA and Congressional legislative history in order to clarify the willfullness requirement and determined that “a noncustodial parent who does not have the funds to satisfy the child support award, and who does not obtain a reduction or remission of the award because of inability to pay, will almost certainly be engaged in willful defiance of the state court’s child support order” [U.S. v. Ballek, 1999 WL 125955, 1999 Daily Journal D.A.R. 2325 (9th Cir. (Alaska), Mar. 11, 1999)(NO. 97-30326)].

Noncustodial parents who truly lack the ability to meet their child support obligations have the right in every state to request a downward modification of their child support order based on a change in circumstances. Also, many states offer parents who cannot meet their obligations and have amassed arrearages the opportunity to negotiate a payment plan and avoid severe sanctions, such as prosecution, revocation of certain licenses, or liens on their property. With these alternatives available, many courts and state agencies are adopting a tougher stance against parents who ignore their child support obligations.

Q. Isn’t it unconstitutional for the court to order a person to work just to pay off a child support debt?

A. Some delinquent parents have argued that requiring an obligor to meet a court-ordered child support obligation, without consideration of his or her current employment status, is unconstitutional because it violates the U.S. Constitution’s prohibition on slavery and involuntary servitude or because it creates a criminal penalty for a civil debt. In a recent case, the California state supreme court examined this argument in detail and ruled that enforcement of a child support order did not run afoul of the Thirteenth Amendment’s slavery and involuntary servitude prohibition [Moss v. Superior Court, 17 Cal. 4th 396, 950 P.2d 59 (Cal. 1998)]. Specifically, the court found that “there is no constitutional impediment to imposition of contempt sanctions on a parent for violation of a judicial child support order when the parent’s financial inability to comply with the order is the result of the parent’s willful failure to seek and accept available employment that is commensurate with his or her skills and ability.” In reaching this conclusion, the court distinguished child support from other types of family support and narrowed 100 years of the state’s common law in this area. California’s highest court also reviewed U.S. Supreme Court and U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals cases, Congressional legislative history, the state constitution, and analogous areas of common law in order to reach its holding. Based on this review, the court determined that the crucial element in slavery or involuntary servitude is the requirement that the oppressed person be bound to one employer or one form of employment. Since child support orders do not require the obligor to work for a specific person or in a particular line of work, the court held that enforcement of such orders does not rise to the level or slavery or involuntary servitude. The court also noted that the U.S. Supreme Court has outlined exceptions for the performance of other civil duties, such as jury service, military service, road work, and enforced labor as punishment for a crime, such as work camps.

In March 1999, the Supreme Court for the State of Colorado likewise ruled against a father’s claim that a criminal contempt sanction for failure to pay child support violated the state constitution’s prohibition against imprisonment for debt [In re Marriage of Nussbeck, 1999 WL 112188 (Colo., Mar 01, 1999) (NO. 97SC540)]. In this case, the father argued that because his child support arrearage was converted automatically to a judgment against him under Colorado child support law, he was being imprisoned for a standing debt. The court rejected this argument, holding that the father may be imprisoned for failure to pay child support because the contempt order was predicated on his failure to comply with the order, not on the existence of a judgment against him. The fact that the arrearage converted to a judgment against him, the court stated, was immaterial to the contempt order for noncompliance.

At least one federal circuit court of appeals has also ruled that enforcement of a child support order is not akin to slavery [U.S. v. Ballek, 1999 WL 125955, 1999 Daily Journal D.A.R. 2325 (9th Cir. (Alaska), Mar. 11, 1999)(NO. 97-30326)]. The U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals cited three reasons for distinguishing child support enforcement from involuntary servitude and slavery: 1.) “the relationship between parent and child is much more than the ordinary relationship between debtor and creditor”; 2.) “the state’s strong concern for the welfare of minor children is…manifested by the fact that parental obligations at the dissolution of marriage are not left to private agreement”; and 3.) “the state has an interest in protecting the public [funds] by ensuring that the children not become wards of the state.” Furthermore, the court declined to “interpret the Thirteenth Amendment in a way that would so drastically interfere with one of the most important and sensitive exercises of the police power – ensuring that persons too young to take care of themselves can count on both their parents for material support.” This holding illustrates courts’ reluctance to create a constitutional loophole in child support enforcement.

Q. Did Congress have the constitutional authority to enact the Child Support Recovery Act of 1992?

A. Many parents with delinquent child support obligations have challenged Congressional authority to enact the CSRA in the first place, but none have been successful. At least ten of the 11 federal circuit courts of appeal have heard cases of this kind. The most common claim is that Congress exceeded its Constitutional authority when it enacted the CSRA, violating the Tenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution in the process. All ten U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeal rejected this argument and further found that passage of the CSRA was a proper exercise of Congress’ broad authority under the Commerce Clause [U.S. v. Bongiorno, 106 F.3d 1027 (1st Cir. 1997); U.S. v. Sage, 92 F.3d 101 (2nd Cir. 1996); U.S. v. Parker, 108 F.3d 28 (3rd Cir. 1997); U.S. v. Johnson, 114 F.3d 476 (4th Cir. 1997); U.S. v. Bailey, 115 F.3d 1222 (5th Cir. 1997); U.S. v. Black, 125 F.3d 454 (7th Cir. 1997); U.S. v. Crawford, 115 F.3d 1397 (8th Cir. 1997); U.S. v. Mussari, 95 F.3d 787 (9th Cir. 1996); U.S. v. Hampshire, 95 F.3d 999 (10th Cir. 1996); U.S. v. Williams, 121 F.3d 615 (11th Cir. 1997)].

Q. Can parents be prosecuted under the Child Support Recovery Act for any arrearage that accrued before the federal law was enacted in 1992?

A. A few obligor parents have argued that prosecutions under the CSRA for child support arrearages that accrued prior to enactment of the federal law violate the U.S. Constitution’s protection that a person not be found criminally liable for an action that was not criminal when it was committed. These challenges to an ex post facto application of the CSRA have generated limited success in the courts. In at least five of the cases at the federal court of appeals level, the courts ruled that the prosecutions did not violate the ex post facto clause of the U.S. Constitution [U.S. v. Rose, 153 F.3d 208 (5th Cir. 1998); U.S. v. Black, 125 F.3d 454 (7th Cir. 1997); U.S. v. Crawford, 115 F.3d 1397 (8th Cir. 1997); U.S. v. Hampshire, 95 F.3d 999 (10th Cir. 1996); U.S. v. Muench, 153 F.3d 1298 (11th Cir. 1998)] Only the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with the defendant that the retroactive application of the CSRA, which subjected the defendant to federal criminal penalties for failure to pay support without differentiating between delinquencies alleged to have occurred before and after the CSRA’s date of enactment, was an unconstitutional ex post facto enforcement of the CSRA [U.S. v. Mussari, 152 F.3d 1156 (9th Cir. 1998). Ex post facto challenges are examined in the context of the circumstances giving rise to the case; therefore, any of these courts, given different circumstances, could rule differently.

Notice: This article is not legal counsel. You will need an attorney and your own wits to supply you with the details of your case.

Can You Defend Yourself Against Civil Contempt & Non-Compliance? by E.J. Manning is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License.
Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available at http://bradleyamendment.wordpress.com.

Book Review: Children of the State

Children of the State by Joseph A. D’Agostino

There is no such thing as other people’s children. – Hillary Clinton

Conservative Americans fancy that socialism has been largely defeated or that its greatest remaining threat lies in taxation and spending. They forget that the dream of leftist revolutionaries for centuries has been not only to equalize wealth and social status, but to eliminate all distinctions among the citizens of their ideal republic. All of these revolutionaries from Marx on down have targeted the family for destruction.

Undemocratic Institution

The family is a highly undemocratic institution. The nuclear family consists of one man and one woman, a highly specific and unliberated straitjacket of a social structure. They have loyalty to one another greater than that to society at large and also dedication to their own children, over whom they have authority—and any private authority is a rival to the government’s. To a true democrat, this preference for one’s spouse and authority over one’s children violates the principle of equality, which proclaims that we must treat everyone exactly the same. For the modern democratic statist, these loyalties and authorities weaken his own power and inhibit the ongoing concentration of all authority in one central government.

Stephen Baskerville’s Taken Into Custody: The War Against Fathers, Marriage, and the Family (Cumberland House) details just how far leftists have succeeded in abolishing the family. Of course, anyone with a cursory knowledge of the state of the American family knows that it has been largely destroyed, with most children spending at least part of their childhoods without one of their biological parents at home, a divorce rate of more than 40%, an ever-increasing illegitimacy rate and no-fault divorce laws that render a marriage compact less legally enforceable than a cell-phone contract.

Yet what most do not know, even if they follow family issues, is that our family courts are nearly all-powerful, unaccountable star chambers that openly reject due process, traditional legal rights and the Constitution itself. Family courts are civil courts or courts of equity, not criminal courts, so most constitutional protections and procedures do not apply, even though these courts have been given tremendous power. They routinely take couples’ children away from them without trial on the flimsiest accusation of abuse from a teacher or neighbor, limit or eliminate one or both parents’ contact with their own children after divorce without any evidence of wrongdoing on the parents’ part, order parents to pay the fees of lawyers and psychotherapists they did not hire, and send parents to jail without a hearing.

Control of the Courts

This excellent book carefully documents the extreme control that these courts have and how faithless mothers—and, increasingly, faithless fathers—use them and are used by them to eject the other parent from the family and garnish his wages for themselves. Then, of course, these mothers must obey the courts’ every order concerning how their children are raised and educated, and the courts are not shy about imposing government-approved methods. Baskerville knows his subject backward and forward and provides 974 endnotes for documentation and further reading. He also provides intriguing psychosocial speculation on why parenthood, and particularly fatherhood, have come under such intense attack in recent decades as a culmination of the long-ago revolt against broader social fatherhood—organic societies and traditional monarchies—and against God the Father Himself.

Those who believe that the United States has, despite the occasional abuse, a just legal system will probably ignore the above. Yet in a country where the courts have declared abortion-on-demand a constitutional right no matter what legislators say and have authorized the government to effectively confiscate land without compensation if an official finds an endangered species on it, is this so unbelievable?

Baskerville repeatedly points out that it is no secret that family courts operate in this way. They officially have the powers that they use thousands of times every day. Unwillingly divorced fathers and children bear the brunt of the family court industry, which profits every time a family is broken but loses financially whenever one stays together. A mother who unilaterally divorces her husband receives primary custody of their children the vast majority of the time and child-support payments to boot. Under the no-fault divorce laws of the various states, wrongdoing on the part of the father is usually not alleged, much less proven. It doesn’t matter: When one party wants to destroy the marriage, the other pays—and now that more men are catching on to the game, mothers are beginning to lose out. Yet contrary to the image portrayed even by conservative journalists, at least two-thirds of divorces are desired by the woman and not the man. It is more women than men who are destroying families today.

Fathers Needed in Homes

The consensus among the vast majority of liberal social scientists, as Baskerville explains, is that children without their biological fathers in the home are far more likely to be abused, poor and develop psychological problems. More than race, income, or race and income combined, father absence is a predictor of juvenile delinquency, drug abuse and mental illness. Divorce harms children by reducing their fathers’ presence in their lives far more often than it helps them—and even scientists can see it.

Baskerville, a longtime fathers’ rights activist and now a professor of government at Patrick Henry College, provides one horror story after another: The unwillingly divorced father ordered to pay two-thirds of his income in child support, the man innocent of any crime jailed for saying hello to his children in the street. Since family courts usually operate in secret without oversight, there is no way of telling how common such atrocities are. But the real horror is the routine process: The power of the courts to control parents’ access to their children and determine their financial lives once the betraying spouse decides to abandon the other.