Constitutional Rights

As a newly Credentialed Reporter and Photographer, my intent is to shed light on the corrupt rulings by the Courts, Law enforcement and Congress.  Which clearly violate the intent and meaning of our founding fathers of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.  The Constitution is meant to ensure our liberty, free from being molested by government intrusion, not for the Courts or Congress to restrict or impede our liberties.  All articles are not to be taken as legal advice, use at your own risk.  Conduct your own due diligence to verify articles are accurate and current.


NO Law requires you to record / pledge your private automobile

As will be made painfully evident herewithin, a Private automobile is 
not required by any law, code or statute to be recorded. Any recording 
(pledge) of Private automobile to any agency is strictly voluntary. 
Any recordation / contract you or a Dealership has done was a 
fraudulently conveyed act as the recording agency/automobile Dealer 
told you that you must record your Private Property. The voluntary 
pledge that was done without just compensation is usually done through 
fraud, deceit, coercion and withholding of facts, which can only be 
construed as fraud and unjust enrichment by agency as well as a 
willful malicious act to unjustly enrich the recording agency and its 
public servants. 

If men, through fear, fraud or mistake, should in terms renounce or give up any 
natural right, the eternal law of reason and the grand end of society would absolutely 
vacate such renunciation. The right to freedom being the gift of Almighty God, it 
is not in the power of man to alienate this gift and voluntarily become a 
slave Samuel Adams , our great president. 

"Men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, - 'life, liberty, and the pursuit 
of happiness;' and to 'secure,' not grant or create, these rights, governments are instituted. 
That property which a man has honestly acquired he retains full control of, subject to these 
limitations: first, that he shall not use it to his neighbor's injury, and that does not mean that he 
must use it for his neighbor's benefit: second, that if he devotes it to a public use, he gives to the 
public a right to control that use; and third, that whenever the public needs require, the public 
may take it upon payment of due compensation.'' Budd v. People of State of New York , 143 
U.S. 517 (1892). 

There should be no arbitrary deprivation of life or liberty, or arbitrary spoilation of property. 

( Police power , Due Process ) Barber v. Connolly, 113 U.S. 27, 31; Yick Yo v. Hopkins , 118 U.S. 

But whenever the operation and effect of any general regulation is to extinguish or destroy that 
which by law of the land is the property of any person, so far as it has that effect, it is 
unconstitutional and void. Thus, a law is considered as being a deprivation of property within 
the meaning of this constitutional guaranty if it deprives an owner of one of its essential 
attributes, destroys its value, restricts or interrupts its common, necessary, or profitable use, 
hampers the owner in the application of it to the purposes of trade, or imposes conditions upon the 
right to hold or use it and thereby seriously impairs its value. ( Statute ) 167 Am. Jur. 2d, 
Constitutional Law, Section 369. 

Justice Bandeis eloquently affirmed his condemnation of abuses 
practiced by Government officials, who were defendants, acting as 

Government officials. In the case of Olmstead vs. U.S. 277 US 438, 48 
S.Ct. 564, 575; 72 L ED 944 (1928) he declared: 

NO Law requires you to record / pledge your private automobile 

Page 1 of 24 

"Decency, security, and liberty alike demand that 
Government officials shall be subjected to the same rules 
of conduct that are commands to the Citizen. In a 

Government of laws, existence of the Government will be 
imperiled if it fails to observe the law scrupulously. Our 
Government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. 

For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its 
example. Crime is contagious. If the Government becomes a 
law-breaker, it breads contempt for law; it invites every 
man to become a law unto himself. It invites anarchy. To 
declare that, in the administration of the law, the end 
justifies the means would bring a terrible retribution. 
Against that pernicious doctrine, this Court should 
resolutely set its face." 

The Duty of the Licensor / DMV Commissioner 

The information created and surrounding the stricti juris doctrine 
regarding a particular license which may, or may not, be represented 
by and revealed within the contents and control of a license agreement 
"but must be revealed upon demand, and failure to do so is 
concealment , a withholding of material facts (the enducing, 
contractual consideration) known by those who have a duty and are 
bound to reveal." Dolcater v. Manufacturers S Traders Trust Co ., 
D.C.N.Y., 2F.Supp. 637, 641. 

Is an automobile always a vehicle (or motor vehicle) ? 

Federal ; 

" 1 'Motor vehicle' ' means every description of carriage or other contrivance 
propelled or drawn by mechanical power and used for commercial purposes on 
the highways in transportation of passengers, passengers and property, or 
property and cargo; ... Used for commercial purposes'' means the carriage 
of persons or property for any fare, fee, rate, charge or other 
consideration, or directly or indirectly in connection with any business, or 
other undertaking intended for prof it [ . ] " 18 U.S. C. 31 . 

"A carriage is peculiarly a family or household article. It contributes in a 
large degree to the health, convenience, comfort, and welfare of the 
householder or of the family." Arthur v Morgan , 113 U.S. 495, 500, 5 S . Ct . 
241, 243 S.D. NY 1884). 

NO Law requires you to record / pledge your private automobile 

Page 2 of 24 

"The Supreme Court, in Arthur v. Morgan , 112 U.S. 495, 5 S . Ct . 241, 28 L.Ed. 
825, held that carriages were properly classified as household effects, and 

we see no reason that automobiles should not be similarly disposed of." 
Hillhouse v United States, 152 F. 163, 164 (2nd Cir. 1907) . 

"A soldier's personal automobile is part of his household goods [.]' ' U.S. 

v Bomar , C.A.5(Tex.), 8 F.3d 226, 235" 19A Words and Phrases - Permanent 
Edition (West) pocket part 94. 

"[I]t is a jury question whether ... an automobile ... is a motor vehicle [.] " 
United States v Johnson, 718 F.2d 1317, 1324 (5th Cir. 1983). 

State : 

Use determines classification 

"In determining whether or not a motor boat was included in the expression 
household effects, Matter of Winburn ' s Will, supra [139 Misc. 5, 247 N.Y.S. 
592], stated the test to be "^whether the articles are or are not used in or 
by the household, or for the benefit or comfort of the family' ' ." In re 
Bloomingdale ' s Estate , 142 N.Y.S. 2d 781, 785 (1955). 

"The use to which an item is put, rather than its physical characteristics, 

determine whether it should be classified as consumer goods'' under UCC 9- 
109(1) or equipment ' ' under UCC 9-109(2)." Grimes v Massey Ferguson, 

Inc . , 23 UCC Rep Serv 655; 355 So. 2d 338 (Ala., 1978). 

"Under UCC 9-109 there is a real distinction between goods purchased for 
personal use and those purchased for business use. The two are mutually 
exclusive and the principal use to which the property is put should be 
considered as determinative." James Talcott, Inc. v Gee , 5 UCC Rep Serv 
1028; 266 Cal.App.2d 384, 72 Cal.Rptr. 168 (1968). 

"The classification of goods in UCC 9-109 are mutually exclusive." McFadden 

v Mercantile-Safe Deposit & Trust Co. , 8 UCC Rep Serv 766; 260 Md 601, 273 
A. 2d 198 (1971) . 

"The classification of goods ' ' under [UCC] 9-109 is a question of fact." 
Morgan County Feeders, Inc. v McCormick, 18 UCC Rep Serv 2d 632; 836 P. 2d 
1051 (Colo. App. , 1992) . 

"The definition of goods ' ' includes an automobile." Henson v Government 
Employees Finance & Industrial Loan Corp . , 15 UCC Rep Serv 1137; 257 Ark 273, 
516 S . W. 2d 1 (1974) . 

Household goods 

"The term household goods'' ... includes everything about the house that is 
usually held and enjoyed therewith and that tends to the comfort and 
accommodation of the household. Lawwill v. Lawwill , 515 P. 2d 900, 903, 21 
Ariz. App. 75" 19A Words and Phrases - Permanent Edition (West) pocket part 
94. Cites Mitchell's Will below. 

NO Law requires you to record / pledge your private automobile 

Page 3 of 24 

"Bequest ... of such " household goods and effects'' ... included 
not only household furniture, but everything else in the house that 
is usually held and used by the occupants of a house to lead to the 
comfort and accommodation of the household. State ex rel. Mueller v 
Probate Court of Ramsey County, 32 N.W.2d 863, 867, 226 Minn. 346." 
19A Words and Phrases - Permanent Edition (West) 514. 

"All household goods owned by the user thereof and used solely for 
noncommercial purposes shall be exempt from taxation, and such person 
entitled to such exemption shall not be required to take any affirmative 

to receive the benefit from such exemption." Ariz. Const. Art. 9, 2 . 

Automobiles classified as vehicles 

" " " [H] ousehold goods ''... did not [include] an automobile ... used by the 
testator, who was a practicing physician, in going from his residence to his 
office and vice versa, and in making visits to his patients." Mathis v 
Causey , et al., 159 S.E. 240 (Ga. 1931). 

"Debtors could not avoid lien on motor vehicle, as motor vehicles are not 
NN household goods'' within the meaning of Bankruptcy Code lien avoidance 
provision. In re Martinez, Bkrtcy.N.M. , 22 B.R. 7, 8." 19A Words and 
Phrases - Permanent Edition (West) pocket part 94. 

Automobiles NOT classified as vehicles 

"Automobile purchased for the purpose of transporting buyer to and from his 
place of 

employment was consumer goods'' as defined in UCC 9-109." Mallicoat v 

Volunteer Finance & Loan Corp . , 3 UCC Rep Serv 1035; 415 S.W.2d 347 (Tenn. 
App . , 1966). 

"The provisions of UCC 2-316 of the Maryland UCC do not apply to sales of 
consumer goods (a term which includes automobiles, whether new or used, that 
are bought primarily for personal, family, or household use) ." Maryland 
Independent Automobile Dealers Assoc., Inc. v Administrator, Motor Vehicle 
Admin . , 25 UCC Rep Serv 699; 394 A. 2d 820, 41 Md App 7 (1978). 

"An automobile was part of testatrix' household goods'' within codicil. In 

Mitchell's Will, 38 N.Y.S.2d 673, 674, 675 [1942]." 19A Words and Phrases - 
Permanent Edition (West) 512. Cites Arthur v Morgan, supra. 

"[T]he expression ^ personal effects'' clearly includes an automobile [.] " In 

re Burnside's Will , 59 N.Y.S.2d 829, 831 (1945). Cites Hillhouse, Arthur, 
and Mitchell's Will, supra. 

"[A] yacht and six automobiles were ' "personal belongings'' and ~~ household 
effects!.] In re Bloomingdale ' s Estate , 142 N.Y.S.2d 781, 782 (1955). 

NO Law requires you to record / pledge your private automobile 

Page 4 of 24 


Is an automobile always a vehicle (or motor vehicle) ? No . 

This is a question of fact that turns on the use to which the automobile in 

question is put (i.e., either personal or commercial) . While the presumption 
of an automobile being a vehicle (or motor vehicle) is created by the owner 
of said automobile registering same with the state as a vehicle, this 
presumption may be overcome by an 

affirmative defense to the allegation of the automobile being a vehicle, 
baring any evidence to the contrary indicating commercial use . 

NO Law requires you to record / pledge your private automobile 

Page 5 of 24 

Use defines Classification 

Private Automobile is NOT required to be registered by Law 
The California Motor Vehicle Code, section 260: Private cars/vans etc. not in 
commerce / for profit, are immune to registration fees: 

(a) A "commercial vehicle" is a vehicle of a type 
REQUIRED to be REGISTERED under this code". 

(b) "Passenger vehicles which are not used for the 
transportation of persons for hire, compensation or 
profit, and housecars, are not commercial vehicles". 

(c) "a vanpool vehicle is not a commercial vehicle." 

"A vehicle not used for commercial activity is a "consumer goods", is 
NOT a type of vehicle required to be registered and "use tax" paid of which the 
tab is evidence of receipt of the tax." Bank of Boston vs Jones , 4 UCC Rep. 
Serv. 1021, 236 A2d 484, UCC PP 9-109.14. And; 

"It is held that a tax upon common carriers by motor vehicles is based 
upon a reasonable classification, and does not involve any unconstitutional 
discrimination, although it does not apply to private vehicles, or those used by 
the owner in his own business, and not for hire." Desser v. Wichita , (1915) 96 
Kan. 820; Iowa Motor Vehicle Asso. v. Railroad Comrs. , 75 A.L.R. 22. 

"Thus self-driven vehicles are classified according to the use to which they are put rather than 
according to the means by which they are propelled." Ex Parte Hoffert , 148 NW 20. And; 

"In view of this rule a statutory provision that the supervising officials "may" 
exempt such persons when the transportation is not on a commercial basis 
means that they "must" exempt them." State v. Johnson , 243 P. 1073; 60 
C.J.S. section 94 page 581. 

See New Jersey Motor Vehicle Code Chapter 3, Section 39:3-1. Certain vehicles 
excepted from chapter which reads: "Automobile, fire engines and such self 
propelling vehicles as are used neither for the conveyance of persons for hire, 

pleasure or business, nor for the transportation of freights, such as steam road rollers and 
traction engines are excepted from the provisions of this chapter." 

See Annual Report of the Attorney General of the State of New York issued on 
July 21, 1909, ALBANY NEW YORK, pages 322-323 which reads: "There is NO 
requirement that the owner of a motor vehicle shall procure a license to run the 
same, nor is there any requirement that any other person shall do so, unless he 
proposes to become a chauffeur or a person conducting an automobile as an 
employee for hire or wages. Yours very truly, EDWARD R. O'MALLEY Attorney 

NO Law requires you to record / pledge your private automobile 

Page 6 of 24 

See Laws of New York 1901, Chapter 53, page 1316, Section 169a. 

See also Laws of Wyoming 2002, Motor Vehicle Code, page 142, Section 31-5- 
110. See RCW 5.24.010! 

"Privately owned Buses not engaged in for hire Transportation are outside the 
jurisdiction of Division of Motor Vehicles enforcement of N.C. G.S. Article 17, 
Chapter 20***" 58 N.C.A.G. 1 (It follows that those Citizens not engaged in 
extraordinary use of the highway for profit or gain are likewise outside the 
jurisdiction of the Division of Motor Vehicles.) 

"Since a sale of personal property is not required to be evidenced by any 
written instrument in order to be valid, it has been held in North Carolina that 
there may be a transfer of title to an automobile without complying with the 
registration statute which requires a transfer and delivery of a certificate of 
title." N.C. Law Review Vol. 32 page 545, Carolina Discount Corp. v. Landis 
Motor Co. , 190 N.C. 157. 

"The following shall be exempt from the requirements of registration and the 
certificate of title: 1.) Any such vehicle driven or moved upon the highway in 

conformance with the provisions of this Article relating to manufacturers, dealers, or 
nonresidents." 2.) Any such vehicle which is driven or moved upon a highway only for 
the purpose of crossing such highway from one property to another. ****20-51 (1)(2) 
(comment: not driven or moved upon the highway for transporting persons or property 
for profit.) (Case note to North Carolina G.S. 12-3 "Statutory Construction") 

The California Constitution in Article I, Section 8 (and 
similar statements made in all other state constitutions) , 
mandates that no one "be compelled to be a witness against 
himself, " is in agreement with the Supreme Court ruling in 
Haynes v. U.S. , 390 U.S. 85, 88 S . Ct . 722, wherein the ruling 
was that to force anyone to register anything is communicative, 
and such communicative evidence is precluded by the 5th 

"No State government entity has the power to allow or deny 
passage on the highways, byways, nor waterways... transporting his 
vehicles and personal property for either recreation or 
business, but by being subject only to local regulation i.e., 
safety, caution, traffic lights, speed limits, etc. Travel is 
not a privilege requiring, licensing, vehicle registration, or 
forced insurances." Chicago Coach Co. v. City of Chicago, 337 
111. 200, 169 N.E. 22. 

NO Law requires you to record / pledge your private automobile 

Page 7 of 24 

The fundamental Right to travel is NOT a Privilege, it f s a gift 
granted by your Maker, and restated by our founding fathers as 

Unalienable and cannot be taken by any Man / Government made Law 
or color of law known as a private Code (secret) or a Statute, 

To Wit: 

"As general rule men have natural right to do anything which their 
inclinations may suggest, if it be not evil in itself, and in no way 
impairs the rights of others." In Re Newman (1858), 9 C. 502. 

" Traveling is passing from place to place — act of performing journey; 
and traveler is person who travels." In Re Archy (1858), 9 C. 47. 

"Right of transit through each state, with every species of property 
known to constitution of United States, and recognized by that 
paramount law, is secured by that instrument to each citizen, and does 
not depend upon uncertain and changeable ground of mere comity." In Re 
Archy (1858) , 9 C. 47 . 

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

"First, it is well established law that the highways of the state are 
public property, and their primary and preferred use is for private 
purposes, and that their use for purposes of gain is special and 
extraordinary which, generally at least, the legislature may prohibit 
or condition as it sees fit." Stephenson vs . Rinf ord , 287 US 251; 
Pachard vs Bant on , 264 US 140, and cases cited; Frost and F . Trucking 
Co. vs. Railroad Commission , 271 US 5 92; Railroad commission vs . 
Inter-City Forwarding Co., 57 SW.2d 290; Parlett Cooperative vs . 
Tidewater Lines, 164 A. 313. 

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

The right to travel is a part of the "liberty" of which the citizen 
cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment. 
So much is conceded by the solicitor general. In Anglo Saxon law that 
right was emerging at least as early as Magna Carta. Kent v. Dulles , 
357 U.S. 116, 125. 

The use of the highway for the purpose of travel and transportation 

NO Law requires you to record / pledge your private automobile 

Page 8 of 24 

is not a mere privilege but a common and fundamental right of which 
the public and individuals cannot rightfully be deprived." Chicago 
Motor Coach v. Chicago , 337 111. 200, 169 NE 22, 66 ALR 834. Ligare 
v. Chicago , 139 111. 46, 28 NE 934. Boone v. Clark , 214 SW 607; 25 AM 
JUR (1st) Highways, Sec. 163. 

"The right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways and to 
transport his property thereon, either by a carriage or automobile, is 
not a mere privilege which a City may prohibit or permit at will, but 
a common right which he has under the right to Life, Liberty and the 
Pursuit of Happiness." Thompson v. Smith 154 SE 579. 

"Even the legislature has no power to deny to a citizen the right to 
travel upon the highway and transport his property in the ordinary 
course of his business or pleasure, though this right may be regulated 
in accordance with public interest and convenience. Chicago Coach Co. 
v. City of Chicago , 337 111. 200, 169 N.E. 22, 206. 

"... It is now universally recognized that the state does possess such 
power [to impose such burdens and limitations upon private carriers 
when using the public highways for the transaction of their business] 
with respect to common carriers using the public highways for the 
transaction of their business in the transportation of persons or 
property for hire. That rule is stated as follows by the supreme court 
of the United States: 'A citizen may have, under the fourteenth 
amendment, the right to travel and transport his property upon them 
(the public highways) by auto vehicle, but he has no right to make the 
highways his place of business by using them as a common carrier for 
hire. Such use is a privilege which may be granted or withheld by the 
state in its discretion, without violating either the due process 
clause or the equal protection clause.' ( Buck v. Kuykendall , 267 U. S. 
307 [38 A. L. R. 286, 69 L. Ed. 623, 45 Sup. Ct . Rep. 324].) 

"The right of a citizen to travel upon the highway and transport his 
property thereon in the ordinary course of life and business differs 
radically an obviously from that of one who makes the highway his place 
of business and uses it for private gain, in the running of a stage 
coach or omnibus. The former is the usual and ordinary right of a 
citizen, a right common to all; while the latter is special, unusual 
and extraordinary. As to the former, the extent of legislative power 
is that of regulation; but as to the latter its power is broader; the 
right may be wholly denied, or it may be permitted to some and denied 
to others, because of its extraordinary nature. This distinction, 
elementary and fundamental in character, is recognized by all the 
authorities . " 

NO Law requires you to record / pledge your private automobile 

Page 9 of 24 

In Thompson v. Smith , Chief of Police. Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia. 155 Va. 367, 
154 S.E. 579, 71 A.L.R. 604. Sept. 12, 1930 it states: 

Constitutional law : Citizen's right to travel upon public highways and transport his property 
thereon in ordinary course of life and business is common right. The right of a citizen so to do 
is that which he has under his right to enjoy life and liberty, to acquire property, and to pursue 
happiness and safety. 

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

Injunction : Injunction lies against enforcement of void statute or ordinance, where legal 
remedy is not as complete or adequate as injunction, or where threatened or attempted 
enforcement will do irreparable injury to person in interfering with exercise of common 
fundamental personal right. By "irreparable injury" is meant an injury of such a nature that 
fair and reasonable redress may not be had in a court of law and that to refuse the injunction 
would be a denial of justice. 

Constitutional Law § 101 - right to travel - 5. The nature of the 
Federal Union and constitutional concepts of personal liberty unite to 
require that all citizens be free to travel throughout the length and 
breadth of the United States uninhibited by statutes, rules, or 
regulations which unreasonably burden or restrict this movement. 6. 
Although not explicitly mentioned in the Federal Constitution, the 
right freely to travel from one state to another is a basic right 
under the constitution. 

Constitutional Law § 101 - law chilling assertion of rights - 7. If a 

law has no other purpose than to chill the assertion of constitutional 
rights by penalizing those who choose to exercise them, then it is 
patently unconstitutional. Shapiro v Thompson , 394 US 618, 22 L Ed 2d 
600, 89 S Ct 1322 . ' " " ' 

So with all of that in mind, cite/deliver the cases above and 
you have given the agency, etc. knowledge! 

Under USC Title 42 §1986 . Action for neglect to prevent . . ., it states: Every person 

who, having 

knowledge that any wrongs conspired or to be done. . . and having power to prevent or 
aid in preventing . . . Neglects or refuses so to do ... shall be liable to the party 
injured... and; 

The means of "knowledge", especially where it consists of public record is deemed in 
law to be 

"knowledge of the facts". As the means of "knowledge" if it appears that the individual 
had notice or information of circumstances which would put him on inquiry, which, if 
followed, would lead to "knowledge", or that the facts were presumptively within his 

NO Law requires you to record / pledge your private automobile 

Page 1 0 of 24 

knowledge, he will have deemed to have had actual knowledge of the facts and may be 
subsequently liable for any damage or injury. You, therefore, have been given 
"knowledge of the facts" as it pertains to this conspiracy to commit a fraud against me. 

I state now that I will NOT waive any fundamental Rights as: 

"waivers of fundamental Rights must be knowing, intentional, and voluntary acts, done 

sufficient awareness of the relevant circumstances and likely consequences. U.S. v. 
Brady , 397 U.S. 742 at 748 (1970); U.S.v. O'Dell , 160 F.2d 304 (6 th Cir. 1947)". 

And that the agency committed fraud, deceit, coercion, willful 
intent to injure another, malicious acts, RICO activity and 
conspired by; 

Unconscionable "contract" - "One which no sensible man not under delusion, or 
duress, or in distress would make, and such as no honest and fair man would accept "; 
Franklin Fire Ins. Co. v. Noll 115 Ind. App. 289, 58 N.E.2d 947, 949, 950. and; 

"Party cannot be bound by contract that he has not made or authorized." Alexander v. 
Bosworth (1915), 26 C.A. 589, 599, 147 P.607. 

And therefore; 

"Failure to reveal the material facts of a license or any agreement is immediate 
grounds for 

estoppel." Lo Bue v. Porazzo , 48 Cal.App.2d 82, 1 19, p.2d 346, 348. 

The fraudulently "presumed" quasi-contract us that binds the 
Declarant with the CITY/STATE agency, is void for fraud ab 
initio, since the de facto CITY/STATE cannot produce the material 
fact (consideration inducement) or the jurisdictional clause (who 
is subject to said statute) . (SEE: Master / Servant [Employee] 
Relationship — C.J.S .) — " Personal, Private, Llberty "- 

Since the "consideration" is the "life blood" of any agreement or 
quasi-agreement, (contractus) "... the absence of such from the 
record is a major manifestation of want of jurisdiction , since 
without evidence of consideration there can be no presumption of 
even a quasi-contract us . Such is the importance of a 

"consideration." Reading R.R. Co. v. Johnson , 7 W & S (Pa.) 

So without a Contract (no recording of the M.C.O.) or 

consideration there is no DMV / government etc. jurisdiction as 

NO Law requires you to record / pledge your private automobile 

Page 1 1 of 24 

the property does not "reside" in the colorable fictitious 
territory as evidenced in Supreme Court cite below: 

In Wheeling Steel Corp v. Fox , 298 U.S. 193 (1936) it states: Property taxes can be 
on tangibles or intangibles. In order to have a situs for taxation (a basis for imposing 
the tax), tangible property (physical property) must reside within the territorial 
jurisdiction of the taxing authority, and intangibles . . . 

Under USC Title 42 §1982 . Property rights of citizens further evidences the 
above position that the City or State cannot take land because 
they DO NOT have Jurisdiction. It states that federal or state 
governments / agencies MUST have a monetary or proprietary 
interest in your real private property in order to have 
jurisdiction over it (if your land has no government 
grant /funding or is not a subsidized government project, then 
agencies have neither). DEMAND any public servant/said agencies 
to provide the legal document that allows any federal or state 
agency to supercede and/or bypass Title 42 USC §1982 and/or §1441. Title 
42 §1983. Civil action for deprivation of rights further protects Declarant's 
private property. 

The State cannot diminish rights of the people . Hurtado v. California , 

110 U.S. 516. ' ' 

"To say that one may not defend his own property is usurpation of 
power by legislature." O'Connell v. Judnich (192 5), 71 C.A.386, 235 
P. 664. 

"A state MAY NOT impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted 
(sic) by the Federal Constitution." MURDOCH v PENNSYLVANIA , 319 US 

MARYLAND, 4 Wheat 316. 

"All subjects over which the sovereign power of the state extends are 
objects of taxation, but those over which it does not extend are 
exempt from taxation. This proposition may almost be pronounced as 
self-evident. The sovereignty of the state extends to everything 
which exists by its authority or its permission." McCullough v 
Maryland , 17 U.S. [4 Wheat] 316 (1819). ' 

NO Law requires you to record / pledge your private automobile 

Page 1 2 of 24 

U.S. adopted Common laws of England with the Constitution. Caldwell vs. Hill , 178 

SE383 (1934). 

To be that statutes which would deprive a citizen of the rights of person or property without 
a regular trial, according to the course and usage of common law , would not be the law 
of the land. ( Jury) Hoke v. Henderson , 1 5, N.C. 1 5 25 AM Dec 677. 

"The phrase ' common law ' found in this clause, is used in contradistinction to equity , 
and admiralty , and maritime jurisprudence ." Parsons v. Bedford , et al, 3 Pet 433, 478-9. 

"If the common law can try the cause, and give full redress, that alone takes away the 
admiralty jurisdiction ." Ramsey v. Allegrie , supra, p. 41 1 . 

Inferior Courts - The term may denote any court subordinate to the 
chief tribunal in the particular judicial system; but it is commonly 
used as the designation of a court of special , limited , or statutory 
jurisdiction, whose record must show the existence and attaching of 
jurisdiction in any given case, in order to give presumptive validity 
to its judgment . In re Heard's Guardianship , 174 Miss. 37, 163, So. 

The high Courts have further decreed, that Want of Jurisdiction makes 
"...all acts of judges, magistrates, U.S. Marshals, sheriffs, local 
police, all void and not just voidable." Nestor v. Hershey , 425 

F2d 504. 

Void Judgment - "One which has no legal force or effect, invality of 
which may be asserted by any person whose rights are affected at any 
time and at any place directly or collaterally. Reynolds v. 
Volunteer State Life Ins. Co ., Tex . Civ . App . , 80 S.W.2d 1087, 1092. 

Voidable Judgment - "One apparently valid, but in truth wanting in 
some material respect." City of Lufkin v. McVicker , Tex . Civ . App . , 510 

S.W. 2d 141, 144 . 

Property MUST be devoted / pledged to the public with your 
consent and being fully compensated for such 

"... In one of the so-called elevator cases, that of Munn v. Illinois , 
94 U. S. 113, [24 L. Ed. 77], it is said: 'When, therefore, one devotes 
his property to a use in which the public have an interest, he in 
effect grants to the public an interest in that use, and must submit to 
be controlled by the public for the common good, to the extent of the 
interest he has thus created. ' But so long as he uses his property for 
private use, and in the absence of devoting it to public use, the 
public has no interest therein which entitles it to a voice in its 
control. Other case to the same effect are Budd v. New York, 143 U. S. 

NO Law requires you to record / pledge your private automobile 

Page 1 3 of 24 

517, [36 L. Ed. 247, 12 Sup. Ct . Rep. 468]; Weems Steamboat Co. v. 

People's Co., 214 U. S. 345, [16 Ann. Cas. 1222, 53 L. Ed. 1024, 29 

Sup. Ct. Rep. 661]; Monongahela Nav. Co. v. United States, 148 U. S. 

336, [37 L. Ed. 463, 13 Sup. Ct . Rep. 622]; and Del Mar Water Co. v. 

Eshleman, 167 Cal. 666, [140 Pac. 591, 948]. Indeed, our attention is 
directed to no authority in this state or elsewhere holding otherwise." 
Associated etc. Co. v. Railroad Commission (1917) 176 Cal. 518, 526. 

"... That subjecting petitioners' property to the use of the public as 
common carriers constitutes a taking of the same, admits of no 
controversy. 'Whenever a law deprives the owner of the beneficial use 
and free enjoyment of his property, or imposes restraints upon such use 
and enjoyment that materially affect its value, without legal process 
or compensation, it deprives him of his property within the meaning of 
the constitution. ... It is not necessary, in order to render the 
statute obnoxious to the restraints of the constitution, that it must 
in terms or effect authorize the actual physical taking of the property 
or the thing itself, so long as it affects its free use and enjoyment, 
or the power of disposition at the will of the owner. ' ( Forster v. 
Scott , 136 N. Y. 577, [18 L. R. A. 543, 32 N. E. 976]; Monongahela Nav. 
Co. v. United States, 148 U. S. 312, 336, [37 L. Ed. 463, 13 Sup. Ct . 
Rep. 622] . ... Mr. Lewis in his work on Eminent Domain, third edition, 
section 11, says: 'A law which authorizes the taking of private 
property without compensation, . . . cannot be considered as due process 
of law in a free government.' ( Chicago etc, R. R. Co. v. Chicago , 166 
U. S. 226, [41 L. Ed. 979, 17 Sup. Ct . Rep. 581]." Associated etc. Co. 
v. Railroad Commission (1917) 176 Cal. 518, 528-530. 

It is beyond the power of a State by legislation fiat to convert 
property used exclusively in the business of a private carrier, into a 
public utility, or to make the owner a public carrier, for that would be 
taking private property for public use without just compensation which 
no State can do consistently with the due process of law clause of the 
14th Amendment. (See police power ) Producers Transportation Co. v. RR 
Commission, 251 U.S. 228, 230; Wolff Co. v. Duke, 266 U.S. 570, 578. 

The binding shackles of Government is the Constitution, to wit: 

The laws of nature are the laws of God, whose authority can be 
superseded by no power on earth. A legislature must not obstruct our 
obedience to him from whose punishments they cannot protect us. All 
human constitutions which contradict his cannot protect us. All human 
constitutions which contradict his (God's) laws, we are in conscience 
bound to disobey. 1772, Robin v. Hardaway , 1 Jefferson 109. 

If the state were to be given the power to destroy rights through 

NO Law requires you to record / pledge your private automobile 

Page 1 4 of 24 

taxation, then the framers of our constitutions wrote said documents 
in vain . 

A republic is not an easy form of government to live under, and when 
the responsibility of citizenship is evaded, democracy decays and 
authoritarianism takes over. Earl Warren , "A Republic, If You Can 
Keep It", p 13. 

It is a fundamental principle in our institutions, indispensable to the 
preservation of public liberty , that one of the separate departments of 
government shall not usurp powers committed by the Cons t it ut ion to 
another department. Mugler v. Kansas , 123 U.S. 623, 662. 

An unconstitutional law is not a law, it confers no rights, imposes no 
duties, and affords no protection. Norton vs. Shelby County , 118 US 
425 . 

"Primacy of position in our state constitution is accorded the 
Declaration of Rights; thus emphasizing the importance of those basic 
and inalienable rights of personal liberty and private property which 
are thereby reserved and guaranteed to the people and protected from 
arbitrary invasion or impairment from any governmental quarter. The 
Declaration of Rights constitutes a limitation upon the powers of 
every department of the state government . State ex rel . Davis v. 
Stuart . 64 A.L.R. 1307, 97 Fla. 69, 120 So. 335. 

"The rights of the individual are not derived from governmental 
agencies, either municipal, state, or federal, or even from the 
Constitution. They exist inherently in every man, by endowment of the 
Creator, and are merely reaffirmed in the Constitution, and restricted 
only to the extent that they have been voluntarily surrendered by the 
citizenship to the agencies of government. The people's rights are not 
derived from the government, but the government's authority comes from 
the people. The Constitution but states again these rights already- 
existing, and when legislative encroachment by the nation, state, or 
municipality invade these original and permanent rights, it is the 
duty of the courts to so declare, and to afford the necessary relief. 
City of Dallas, et al . v. Mitchell , 245 S. W. 944, 945-46 (1922). 

A constitution is designated as a supreme enactment, a fundamental act 
of legislation by the people of the state. A constitution is 
legislation direct from the people acting in their sovereign capacity, 
while a statute is legislation from their representatives, subject to 
limitations prescribed by the superior authority. Ellingham v. Dye , 178 

NO Law requires you to record / pledge your private automobile 

Page 1 5 of 24 

Ind. 336; NE 1; 231 U.S. 250; 58 L. Ed. 206; 34 S. Ct . 92; Sage v. New 
York, 154 NY 61; 47 NE 1096. 

"Owner has constitutional right to use and enjoyment of his property." 
Simpson v. Los Angeles (1935), 4 C.2d 60, 47 P. 2d 474. 

"We find it intolerable that one constitutional right should have to 
be surrendered in order to assert another". SIMMONS v US, supra. 

"When rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no 
rule making or legislation which would abrogate them. " Miranda vs . 
Arizona, 384 US 436 p. 491. 

"The claim and exercise of a Constitutional right cannot be converted 
into a crime." Miller v. U.S. 230 F 2d 486, 489. 

History is clear that the first ten amendments to the Constitution were 
adopted to secure certain common law rights of the people, against 
invasion by the Federal Government." Bell v. Hood , 71 F.Supp., 813, 816 
(1947) U.S.D.C. — So. Dist. CA. ~~ 

Economic necessity cannot justify a disregard of cardinal constitutional 
guarantee. Riley v. Certer , 165 Okal. 262; 25 P. 2d 666; 79 ALR 1018. 

When any court violates the clean and unambiguous language of the 
Constitution, a fraud is perpetrated and no one is bound to obey it. 
(See 16 Ma. Jur. 2d 177, 178) State v. Sutton , 63 Minn. 147, 65 NW 262, 
30 L.R.A. 630 Am. 459. 

"The 'liberty' guaranteed by the constitution must be interpreted in 
the light of the common law, the principles and history of which were 
familiar and known to the framers of the constitution. This liberty 
denotes the right of the individual to engage in any of the common 
occupations of life, to locomote, and generally enjoy those rights 
long recognized at common law as essential to the orderly pursuit of 
happiness by free men." Myer v. Nebraska , 262 U .S. 390, 399; United 
States v. Kim Ark , 169 U.S. 649, 654. 

"An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; it imposes 
no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal 
contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed. " 
Norton vs. Shelby County , 118 US 425 p. 442. 

NO Law requires you to record / pledge your private automobile 

Page 1 6 of 24 

"The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having 
the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, 
and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from 
the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the 
decision so branding it. 

"No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are 
bound to enforce it." 16 Am Jur 2nd, Sec 177 late 2d, Sec 256. 

All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void. 
Chief Justice Marshall, Marbury vs Madison , 5, U.S. (Cranch) 137, 174, 
176 (1803) . 

It cannot be assumed that the framers of the constitution and the 
people who adopted it, did not intend that which is the plain import 
of the language used. When the language of the constitution is 
positive and free of all ambiguity, all courts are not at liberty, by 
a resort to the refinements of legal learning, to restrict its obvious 
meaning to avoid the hardships of particular cases. We must accept 
the constitution as it reads when its language is unambiguous, for it 
is the mandate of the sovereign power. Cook vs Iverson , 122, N.M. 
251 . 

"Right of protecting property, declared inalienable by constitution, 
is not mere right to protect it by individual force, but right to 
protect it by law of land, and force of body politic." Billings v. 

Hall (1857) , 7 C. 1 . 

"Constitution of this state declares, among inalienable rights of each 
citizen, that of acquiring, possessing and protecting property. This 
is one of primary objects of government, is guaranteed by 
constitution, and cannot be impaired by legislation." Billings v. 
Hall (1857) , 7 C. 1 . 

State Constitution - "The state constitution is the mandate of a sovereign people to its servants 
and representatives. Not one of them has a right to ignore or disregard these mandates..." John 
F. Jelko Co. vs. Emery, 193 Wise. 311; 214 N.W. 369, 53 A.L.R., 463; Lemon vs. Langlin , 
45 Wash. 2d 82, 273 P.2d 464. 

NO Law requires you to record / pledge your private automobile 

Page 1 7 of 24 

The People are the Sovereign! 

People are supreme, not the state. Waring vs. the Mayor of Savannah , 60 

Georgia at 93. 

The people of the State do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies 
which serve them. The people, in delegating authority, do not give 
their public servants the right to decide what is good for the people 
to know and what is not good for them to know. The people insist on 
remaining informed so that they may retain control over the 
instruments they have created. (Added Stats. 1953, c. 1588, p. 3270, 
sec. 1.) 

The people are the recognized source of all authority, state or 
municipal, and to this authority it must come at last, whether 
immediately or by circuitous route. Barnes v. District of Columbia , 91 
U.S. 540, 545 [23: 440, 441]. p 234. 

"the government is but an agency to the state," — the state being the 
sovereign people. State v. Chase, 175 Minn, 259, 220 N.W. 951, 953. 

Sovereignty itself is, of course, not subject to law, for it is the 
author and source of law; but in our system, while sovereign powers are 
delegated to the agencies of government, sovereignty itself remains with 
the people, by whom and for whom all government exists and acts. And 
the law is the definition and limitation of power. 

"...The Congress cannot revoke the Sovereign power of the people to 
override their will as thus declared." Perry v. United States , 294 U.S. 

330, 353 (1935) . 

"The Doctrine of Sovereign Immunity is one of the Common-Law 
immunities and defenses that are available to the Sovereign..." 
Citizen of Minnesota. Will v. Michigan Dept. of State Police, (1988) 
491 U.S. 58, 105 L.Ed. 2d. 45, 109 S . Ct . 2304. 

"The people of the state, as the successors of its former sovereign, 
are entitled to all the rights which formerly belonged to the king by 
his own prerogative." Lansing v. Smith, (1829) 4 Wendell 9, (NY) . 

NO Law requires you to record / pledge your private automobile 

Page 1 8 of 24 

Private Corporate State / Municipality Policy Enforcement 
Officer a.k.a Police Officer Duties and limitations of power 

"Nothing is gained in the argument by calling it ^police power.'" 
Henderson v. City of New York , 92 U.S. 259, 2771 (1875); Nebbia v. New 
York, 291 U.S. 501 (1934) . 

"An officer who acts in violation of the Constitution ceases to 
represent the government." Brookfield Const. Co. v. Stewart , 284 
F.Supp. 94. 

Failure to obey the command of a police officer constitutes a 
traditional form of breach of the peace. Obviously, however, one cannot 
be punished for failing to obey the command of an officer if that 
command is itself violative of the constitution . Wright v. Georgia , 

373 U.S. 284, 291-2. 

That an officer or employee of a state or one of its subdivisions is 
deemed to be acting under "color of law" as to those deprivations of 
right committed in the fulfillment of the tasks and obligations assigned 
to him. Monroe v. Page , 1961, 365 U.S. 167. ( Civil law ) 

Actions by state officers and employees, even if unauthorized or in 
excess of authority, can be actions under "color of law." Stringer v. 
Dilger , 1963, Ca. 10 Colo., 313 F.2d 536. ( Civil law ) 

"The police power of the state must be exercised in subordination to 
the provisions of the U.S. Constitution." Bacahanan vs. Wanley , 245 US 
6 0; Panhandle Eastern Pipeline Co. vs. State Highway Commission , 2 94 

US 613. 

"With regard particularly to the U.S. Constitution, it is elementary 
that a Right secured or protected by that document cannot be 
overthrown or impaired by any state police authority. " Donnolly vs. 
Union Sewer Pipe Co ., 184 US 54 0; Lafarier vs. Grand Trunk R.R. Co. , 
2 4 A . 8 4 8; O'Neil vs. Providence Amusement Co., 108 A . 887. 

When officers detained appellant for the purpose of requiring him to 
identify himself, they performed a seizure of his person subject to the 

requirements of the Fourth Amendment . . . The Fourth Amendment, of 
course, applies to all seizures of the person, including seizures that 
involve only a brief detention short of traditional arrest... Whenever a 
police officer accosts an individual and restrains his freedom to walk 
away, he has 'seized' that person, and the Fourth Amendment requires 
that the seizure be 'reasonable'. 

NO Law requires you to record / pledge your private automobile 

Page 1 9 of 24 

* "But even assuming that purpose (prevention of crime) is served to 
some degree by stopping and demanding identification from an 
individual without any specific basis for believing he is involved in 
criminal activity, the guarantees of the Fourth Amendment do not allow 
it . " 

* "The application of . . . (a code) . . .to detain appellant and require him 
to identify himself violated the Fourth Amendment because the officers 
lacked any reasonable suspicion to believe appellant was engaged, or had 
engaged, in criminal conduct. Accordingly, appellant may not be 
punished for refusing to identify himself, and the conviction is 
reversed." (Probable cause) Brown v. Texas, 443 U.S. 47, (1979) 

* "Traffic infractions are not a crime." People v. Battle 

"To this end, the Fourth Amendment requires that a seizure must be based 
on specific objective facts indicating that society's legitimate 
interests require the seizure of the particular individual, or that the 
seizure must be carried out pursuant to a plan embodying explicit, 
neutral limitations on the conduct of individual officers. 

"The officers of the law, in the execution of process, are required to 
know the requirements of the law, and if they mistake them, whether 
through ignorance or design, and anyone is harmed by their error, they 
must respond in damages." Roger v. Marshall (United States use of 
Rogers v. Conklin) , 1 Wall. (US) 644, 17 Led 714. 

"it is a general rule that an officer, executive, administrative, 
quasi- judicial, ministerial, or otherwise, who acts outside the scope 
of his jurisdiction, and without authorization of law may thereby 
render himself amenable to personal liability in a civil suit." Cooper 
v. CP Conner , 69 App DC 100, 99 F (2d) 

"Public officials are not immune from suit when they transcend their 
lawful authority by invading constitutional rights. " AFLCIO v. 
Woodard, 406 F 2d 137 t. 

NO Law requires you to record / pledge your private automobile 

Page 20 of 24 

Government / Public Servants / Officers / Judges Not Immune from suit! 

"Immunity fosters neglect and breeds irresponsibility while liability 
promotes care and caution, which caution and care is owed by the 
government to its people." (Civil Rights) Rabon vs Rowen Memorial 
Hospital, Inc. 269 N.S. 1, 13, 152 SE 1 d 485, 493. 

Government Immunity - "In Land v. Dollar , 338 US 731 (1947), the 
court noted, "that when the government entered into a commercial field 
of activity, it left immunity behind." Brady v. Roosevelt , 317 US 

575 (1943); FHA v. Burr , 309 US 242 (1940); Kiefer v. RFC , 306 

US 381 (1939) . 

The high Courts, through their citations of authority, have frequently 
declared, that "...where any state proceeds against a private 
individual in a judicial forum it is well settled that the state, 
county, municipality, etc. waives any immunity to counters, cross 
claims and complaints, by direct or collateral means regarding the 
matters involved." Luckenback v. The Thekla , 295 F 1020, 226 Us 328; 
Lyders v. Lund , 32 F2d 308; 

"When enforcing mere statutes , judges of all courts do not act 
judicially (and thus are not protected by " qualified " or " limited 
immunity , " - SEE: Owen v. City , 445 U.S. 662; Bothke v. Terry , 713 
F2d 14 04) - - "but merely act as an extension as an agent for the 
involved agency — but only in a "ministerial " and not a 
"discretionary capacity ..." Thompson v. Smith , 154 S.E. 579, 583; 
Keller v. P.E. , 261 US 428; F.R.C. v. G.E. , 281, U.S. 464. 
Immunity for judges does not extend to acts which are clearly outside of 
their jurisdiction. Bauers v. Heisel, C.A. N.J. 1966, 361 F.2d 581, 
Cert. Den. 87 S . Ct . 1367, 386 U.S. 1021, 18 L.Ed. 2d 457 (see also 
Muller v. Wachtel , D.C.N.Y. 1972, 345 F.Supp. 160; Rhodes v. Houston , 
D.C. Nebr. 1962, 202 F.Supp. 624 affirmed 309 F.2d 959, Cert, den 83 St. 
724, 372 U.S. 909, 9 L.Ed. 719, Cert. Den 83 S . Ct . 1282, 383 U.S. 971, 
16 L.Ed. 2nd 311, Motion denied 285 F.Supp. 546). 

"Judges not only can be sued over their official acts, but could be 
held liable for injunctive and declaratory relief and attorney's 
fees." Lezama v. Justice Court, A025829. 

"The immunity of judges for acts within their judicial role is beyond 
cavil." Pierson v. Ray , 386 U.S. 547 (1957). 

"There is no common law judicial immunity." Pulliam v. Allen , 104S.Ct. 

NO Law requires you to record / pledge your private automobile 

Page 21 of 24 

1970; cited in Lezama v. Justice Court, A025829. 

"Judges, members of city council, and police officers as well as other 
public officials, may utilize good faith defense of action for damages 
under 42-1983, but no public official has absolute immunity from suit 
under the 1871 civil rights statute." ( Samuel vs University of 
Pittsburg , 375 F.Supp. 1119, 'see also, White vs Fleming 374 Supp. 267.) 



"Ignorance of the law does not excuse misconduct in anyone, least of all in a sworn officer of the 
law." In re McCowan (1917), 177 C. 93, 170 P. 1 100. 

"All are presumed to know the law." San Francisco Gas Co. v. Brickwedel (1882), 62 C. 641; 
Pore v. Southern Pacific Co. (1912), 163 C. 182, 124 P. 817; People v. Flanagan (1924), 65 
C.A. 268, 223 P. 1014; Lincoln v. Superior Court (1928), 95 C.A. 35, 271 P. 1 107; San 
Francisco Realty Co. v. Linnard (1929), 98 C.A. 33, 276 P. 368. 

"It is one of the fundamental maxims of the common law that ignorance of the law excuses no 
one." Daniels v. Dean (1905), 2 C.A. 421, 84 P. 332. 

Jurisdiction challenged to all, at any and all times 

"Judge acted in the face of clearly valid statutes or case law 
expressly depriving him of (personal) jurisdiction would be liable." 
Dykes v. Hosemann , 743 F.2d 1488 (1984). 

"In such case the judge has lost his judicial function, has become a 
mere private person, and is liable as a trespasser for damages 
resulting from his unauthorized acts." 

"Where there is no jurisdiction there is no judge; the proceeding is 
as nothing. Such has been the law from the days of the Marshalsea, 10 
Coke 68; also Bradley v. Fisher , 13 Wall 335,351." Manning v. 
Ketcham, 58 F.2d 948. 

"A distinction must be here observed between excess of jurisdiction 
and the clear absence of all jurisdiction over the subject-matter any 
authority exercised is a usurped authority and for the exercise of 

NO Law requires you to record / pledge your private automobile 

Page 22 of 24 

such authority, when the want of jurisdiction is known to the judge, 
no excuse is permissible." Bradley v. Fisher, 13 Wall 335, 351, 352. 


"But, in fact and in law, such statutes are intended to be applied to 
those who are here as "residents" in this State under the Interstate 
Commerce Clause of the Federal Constitution and the so- called 
Fourteenth Amendment." United States v United Mine Workers of 
America, (1947) 67 S . Ct . 677, 686, 330 U.S. 258. 

NOTICE: Information served herein is for educational purposes 
only, no liability assumed for use. The information you obtain 
in this presentation is not, nor is it intended to be, legal 
advice. Author does not consent to unlawful action. Author 
advocates and encourages one and all to adhere to, support 
and defend all law which is particularly applicable. If anything 
in this presentation is found to be in error a good faith effort 
will be made to correct it in timely fashion upon notification. 
VOID where prohibited by law. 

NO Law requires you to record / pledge your private automobile 

Page 23 of 24 

Notice to all whom these presents may come: 

"If I am here at all I am so as a man; I am NOT here as a 
resident of any State (Nation), nor am I of or " in this state ", nor am 
I a [statutory] "citizen of the United States" (in Congress assembled) 
as ALL are fictions/creations of government and therefore and as such 
no statutes apply to Me as evidenced in above cases. I am a Creature 
of Nature (the Creator) and therefore I am a transient foreigner by 
Nature while traveling through Life I am here as a in intinere, as a 
neutral, for a short time, on my way to the greater beyond, a steward 
of my father's land and wishes. My documents of "in intinere standing 
are recorded for all to see." See: bred Scott v. Sanford , 60 US (19 
How.) 393, 595 (1857) Justice Curtis, S.Ct. 

Notice of Full Faith and Credit 

(I, Me, Myself am a "state", with standing, standing in "original 
jurisdiction" know as the common law, Gods Law, a neutral traveling in 
itinere, demanding all of my rights under God's Natural Law, recorded 
in part in the Bible, which law is recognized in US Public Law 97-280 as 
"the word of God and all men are admonished to learn and apply it" so I 
demand anyone and everyone to notice God's Laws, which are My 
Makers Laws and therefore My Laws!) 

- Article 1 of the Bill of Rights -guarantees freedom of re/igion- 

Constitution for the United States of America ARTICLE IV, sect. 1, 
Full faith and credit among states. (Self -executing constitutional 
provisions) Section 1. Full faith and Credit shall be given in each state 
to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other 

And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the banner in which such Acts, 
Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof. 

Note: Emphasis added to cites, mine! 

NO Law requires you to record / pledge your private automobile 

Page 24 of 24 

MONUMENTAL DECISION – Federal Court Rules a Pennsylvania 302 Mental Health Commitment Insufficient to Trigger a Disability under Section 922(g)(4)

MONUMENTAL DECISION – Federal Court Rules a Pennsylvania 302 Mental Health Commitment Insufficient to Trigger a Disability under Section 922(g)(4)

We are extremely proud to announce that today Attorney Joshua Prince was successful in having Federal District Court Judge Kim Gibson of the Western District of Pennsylvania rule that an involuntary commitment under Section 302 of Pennsylvania’s Mental Health and Procedures Act (“MHPA”) is insufficient to trigger a federal firearms and ammunition disability under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(4).

For those unaware, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(4) provides

It shall be unlawful for any person–

(4) who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or who has been committed to a mental institution;

to ship or transport in interstate or foreign commerce, or possess in or affecting commerce, any firearm or ammunition; or to receive any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce.

Section 302 of the MHPA permits a physician to involuntarily commit an individual in the absence of any form of due process (i.e. the individual is not provided an attorney, the ability to confront or present witnesses, the ability to challenge or submit evidence, or provided any other requisites of due process).

As a result of a single, isolated 302 commitment, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives took the position that Mr. Franklin was federally prohibited from possessing and purchasing firearms and ammunition. As a result, he brought a challenge in federal court challenging, inter alia, whether a 302 commitment was sufficient to trigger a prohibition under Section 922(g)(4) and if so, argued that it would be unconstitutional to deny him in perpetuity his Second Amendment rights, as applied to him. As our viewers are aware, Attorney Prince has won two previous Second Amendment as-applied challenges to mental health commitments.

Judge Gibson in reviewing whether Mr. Franklin was “adjudicated as a mental defective” found that the

procedures provided for by Section 302 of the MHPA and that were applied to Mr. Franklin scarcely constitute an ‘adjudication’. The plain meaning of “adjudicated” connotes the involvement of a judicial decision-maker, the resolution of a dispute after consideration of argument by the parties involved, and a deliberative proceeding with some form of due process….Notably, courts, boards, and commissions all function in a neutral judicial or quasi-judicial role, therein greatly differing from the ex parte, non-judicial procedures and non-judicial actors provided for by Section 302 of the MHPA.

The court continued on

Thus, because Mr. Franklin was not “adjudicated as a mental defective” by a court, board, or commission, Section 922(g)( 4) does not provide for a restriction of Mr. Franklin’s ability to own a firearm based on a determination by one of these three “adjudicators.”…Interpreting Section 922(g)( 4) such that individual physicians and other non-neutral actors have lawful authority to wholly strip a person of their ability to a possess a firearm in perpetuity based on a non-adversarial, ex parte decision would raise serious constitutional concerns with the statute, which
the canon of constitutional avoidance requires the Court to avoid if possible

Judge Gibson then turned to whether Mr. Franklin was “committed to a mental institution” and in finding that he was not committed to a mental institution, held that a prohibition under Section 922(g)(4) “presupposes a formal commitment decision by a ‘court, board, commission, or other lawful authority’.” Most importantly,  Judge Gibson declared

By its own terms and effect, Section 302 of the MHPA does not provide for a commitment to a mental institution as defined by 27 C.F.R. § 478.11, nor did Mr. Franklin undergo a commitment to a mental institution for the purposes of Section 922(g)(4).

In deferring to decide Mr. Franklin’s Second and Fifth Amendment claims on the basis of the constitutional avoidance doctrine and resolution of the issue absent review of the constitutional implications, Judge Gibson declared that

the Court cannot deny the serious constitutional doubts raised by the parties’ arguments in the instant matter-both in regard to due process rights of the Fifth Amendment and the right to bear arms under the Second Amendment. The arguments raised in the parties’ briefs, a “fractured vote” by the Third Circuit on a related issue, and recent, disparate decisions by other district courts within the Third Circuit amply demonstrate the seriousness of these constitutional concerns and the appropriateness of constitutional avoidance when a reasonable interpretation of Section 922(g)( 4) avoids consideration of those weighty constitutional issues.

In concluding the decision, Judge Gibson holds

Although the provisions of Section 302 of the MHPA may be sufficient to justify an involuntary emergency examination and treatment, the Court is not persuaded that these non-adversarial, ex parte procedures without notice, a hearing, the opportunity to present evidence, or a judicial or quasi-judicial actor constitute an “adjudication” for the purposes of Section 902(g)(4), nor that a 120-hour-maximum “involuntary emergency examination and treatment” constitutes a “commitment to a mental institution.”

Please join us in congratulating Attorney Prince for this monumental victory!

If you or someone you know has been involuntarily committed and is now prohibited from purchasing and possessing firearms and ammunition, contact Firearms Industry Consulting Group today to discuss YOUR rights and legal options.


Firearms Industry Consulting Group® (FICG®) is a registered trademark and division of Civil Rights Defense Firm, P.C., with rights and permissions granted to Prince Law Offices, P.C. to use in this article.

Were they “vagrants” or job seekers?

Papachristou et al. v. City of Jacksonville

92 S. Ct. 839, 405 U.S. 156 (1972)

A presumption that people who walk or loaf or loiter or stroll or who look suspicious to the police are to become future criminals is too precarious for a rule of law.  The implicit presumption in these generalized vagrancy standards is that crime is being nipped in the bud is too extravagant to deserve extended treatment.

Jimmy Lee Smith was arrested, no weapon and no ID on vagrancy Charges by the Jacksonville police department.

The United States Supreme Court Reversed and Remanded the lower courts ruling.

Note: It is not illegal to not have an ID or present an ID to the police.

Vagrancy laws offends the 14th Amendment, Statues permit law enforcement and courts to abuse discretion.

Vagancy laws

1.Prevent crime

2.   Permit temporary preventive detention

3.   Arrests are on suspicion.

4.   Do not have probable cause, not to justify arrest under 14th Amendment and 4th Amendment.

5.   Vagrancy laws offends the 14th Amendment, Statues permit law enforcement and courts to abuse discretion.


Criminal Law, Second Edition, Joel Samaha, University of Minnesota, West Publishing,  1987