Tuesday, July 17, 2018

incorporated United States 101. A crash course how you were scammed into being slaves.

ABOUT COMMON LAW. DON'T TRY AND USE U.S. CONST. IN COURT, BECAUSE THE U.S. CONSTITUTION DOES NOT APPLY TO ANY U.S. CITIZEN. (Barron v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore. 32 U.S. 243) It all started with.... The Act of 1871 ( A ILLEGAL ACT OF TREASON) by Congress created an entirely new document, a constitution for the government of the District of Columbia, and INCORPORATED the NEW U.S. Government owned by and is a British Colony. (Treaty of Peace 8 Stat 80, IRS Publication 6209, Articles of Association October 20, 1774.) No one noticed they changed the "for" for the "of". Giving away all your alienable free rights.

The new constitution was not intended to benefit the free Republic you once were. Instead of you once having unalienable rights guaranteed under the organic Constitution, you now have “relative” rights or privileges. you "person" are now a fiction person who the state created from your Birth Cert. Your name in all capital letters who transformed (under corporate government policy) into a “privilege” that requires citizens to be controlled by paying for a driver license, registration, marriage license, Social Security number, Birth Certificate, Pay Tax to I.R.S. Hell the IRS is not even a U.S. Government Organization. Its owned by Agency of the IMF. (Diversified metal Products v. IRS etal. CV-93-405E-EJE U.S.D.C.D.I., Public Law 94-564, Senate Report 94-1148 pg. 5967, Reorganization Plan No. 26, Public Law 102-391.) Why do you think their is no law anywhere that reads you have to pay income tax, you do it voluntary. IRS Headquarters are based in Costa Rica.
All those licenses which you never need to have, do not get any of those license or certificates. Read the fine print. They are all done voluntary. You are scammed by the government in thinking its mandatory to apply for all those papers. You can live a perfect life with out any of those controlled licenses. If you stay sovereign, private people, Natural human being flesh and blood, no laws apply to you. HOW and WHY you ask? Remember your now under U.C.C. codes Corporate Commercial law. Which stands for fiction, artificial, your now a juristic person, but only under a signed consent. A fiction person cannot communicate with a live human being. That's why you are called a person in all contracts with government. Did any of you sign anything agreeing to this? YES! You just don't know it. You did when you signed for DL,, Birth Cert., S.S.N., etc. signed in your all capital name. U.C.C. Contract Law states if you don't argue or question or revoke a contract, you agree to all “privileges". As fore the right to travel no license, no registration, look up (CA. MOTOR VEHICLE ACT 1915 (statue 1915 Ch. 188) you can only do that if you paid cash for your vehicle, or you Revoke State Trusteeship Over the Vehicle you have now.

ATTENTION, THIS NEXT INFORMATION I SHOW YOU, YOU WILL NEVER LEARN IN ANY COLLEGE OR GOVERNMENT OFFICE. MAKE SURE Dealership HANDS OVER THE (MSO) BEFORE YOU SIGN. They will tell you no, but you show them the law. When you finance the vehicle, the dealership surrendered the actual TITLE (MSO) to the state. Its put on microfilm for permanent keeping, the original is destroyed so you cant get your hands on it. The state give you a certificate of title. Dealership sends for the registration, to DMV for you because they get cash back for ever one, just like hospitals get when you fill out a Birth certificate for the state. We are Human capital (Executive Order 13037) look up (STRAW MAN) Now the state owns your vehicle, your driving around a state owned company car. Now you have to obey their rules and laws. The good news is.... well for the state, you still get to drive it as long as you continue to pay off the loan, pay the maintenance, pay insurance, pay the gasoline, pay for a license, pay registration. Getting madd yet? To get out of it, you need to Revoke the states Trusteeship from vehicle. Send Notice to agents of government, law enforcement, Declaration of Political Status, notify the state of your Allodial ownership via Bill of Conveyance. Then your legal to drive freely without license, registration.

Remember UCC code, Consumer goods are not required to be registered. "A vehicle not used for commercial activity is a "consumer good". How do you get out of the fraud contract with the state and federal Government? you need to file and record in the county clerk office for the court a AFFIDAVIT OF DENIAL OF CORPORATE STATUS and NOTICE OF COPYRIGHT of your strawman. Also if you want to win all traffic citations and be exempt from all courts, file a DBA against your all capital name. Take ownership of the name away from the state. Now its copyrighted. Courts cant touch you.


Monday, July 16, 2018

“corpus delecti”

“In every prosecution for a crime it is necessary to establish the “corpus delecti”, i.e., the body or elements of the crime.”  People v. Lopez, 62 Ca.Rptr. 47, 254 C.A.2d 185.
“In every criminal trial, the prosecution must prove the corpus delecti, or the body of the crime itself-i.e., the fact of injury, loss or harm, and the existence of a criminal agency as its cause.”  People v. Sapp, 73 P.3d 433, 467 (Cal. 2003) [quoting People v. Alvarez, (2002) 27 Cal.4th 1161, 1168-1169, 119 Cal.Rptr.2d 903, 46 P.3d 372.].
“Elements of “corpus delecti,” injury or loss or harm and a criminal agency which causes such injury, loss or harm, need only be proven by a “reasonable probability,” i.e., by slight or prima facie proof…”  People v. Ramirez, 153 Cal.Rptr. 789, 791, 91 C.A. 132.
““Corpus delecti” of crime consists of fact of injury, loss, or harm, and existence of criminal agency as cause.”  People v. Daly, 10 Cal.Rptr.2d 21, 28, 8 CA4th 47.
“Generally, “corpus delecti” of crime is (1) the fact of the loss or harm, and (2) the existence of a criminal agency as its cause.”  People v. Dorsey, 118 Cal.Rptr. 362, 43 CA3d 953.
“There is no requirement of independent evidence ‘of every physical act constituting an element of an offense,’ so long as there is some slight or prima facie showing of injury, loss, or harm by a criminal agency.”  In re I.M., 23 Cal.Rptr.3d 375, 381 (2005).
“The corpus delecti of a crime consists of two elements[:] the fact of the injury or loss or harm, and the existence of a criminal agency as its cause.”  People v. Jones, 949 P.2d 890, 902, 70 Cal.Rptr.2d 793, 17 Cal.4th 279.
“The corpus delecti rule requires that the corpus delecti or the body or substance of the crime charged be proved independent from the accused’s extrajudicial confession or admissions.  The corpus delecti of a crime consists of two elements: (1) the fact of the injury or loss or harm, and (2) the existence of a criminal agency as its cause. [citing] People v Jennings, 53 Cal 3d 334, 279 Cal Rptr 780, 807 P2d 1009, 92 CDOS 2576, 91 Daily Journal DAR 4222, reh den. cert den (US) 116 L Ed 2d 464, 112 S Ct 443…People v Pensinger, 52 Cal 3d 1210, 278 Cal Rptr 640, 805 P2d 899, 91 CDOS 1514, 91 Daily Journal DAR 2504, mod 53 Cal 3d 729a, 91 Daily Journal DAR 4745 and stay gr (Cal) 1991 Cal LEXIS 3318 and reh den. cert den (US) 116 L Ed 2d 290, 112 S Ct 351, 91 Daily Journal DAR 12909, reh den (US) 116 L Ed 2d 821, 112 S Ct 923; State v Pullos, 76 Idaho 369, 283 P2d 590; People v Friedland (1st Dist) 202 Ill App 3d 1094, 148 Ill Dec 415, 560 NE2d 1012; Brown v State, 239 Ind 184, 154 NE2d 720, cert den 361 US 936, 4 L Ed 2d 360, 80 S Ct 375; Joseph v State, 236 Ind 529, 141 NE2d 109, 69 ALR2d 824, cert dism 359 US 117, 3 L Ed 2d 673, 79 S Ct 720; People v Aiken, 66 Mich 460, 33 NW 821; People v Gould, 156 Mich App 413, 402 NW2d 27; State v Simler, 350 Mo 646, 167 SW2d 376; State v Hill, 47 NJ 490, 221 A2d 725; State v Robinson (App. Scioto Co) 83 Ohio L Abs 259, 168 NE2d 328; State v Brown, 103 SC 437, 88 SE 21…there must be sufficient proof of both elements of the corpus delecti beyond a reasonable doubt.”  29A American Jurisprudence Second Ed., Evidence § 1476.
“Without standing, there is no actual or justiciable controversy, and courts will not entertain such cases.  (3 Witlen, Cal. Procedure (3rd ed. 1985) Actions § 44, pp 70-72.)  “Typically, … the standing inquiry requires careful judicial examination of a complaint’s allegations to ascertain whether the particular plaintiff is entitled to an adjudication of the particular claims asserted.”  (Allen v. Wright, (1984) 468 U.S. 737, 752…Whether one has standing in a particular case generally revolved around the question whether that person has rights that may suffer some injury, actual or threatened.”  Clifford S. v. Superior Court, 45 Cal.Rptr.2d 333, 335.
“As a general principal, standing to invoke the judicial process requires an actual justiciable controversy as to which the complainant has a real interest in the ultimate adjudication because he or she has either suffered or is about to suffer an injury.”  People v. Superior Court, 126 Cal.Rptr.2d 793.
“Judicial power generally is the power to adjudicate upon the legal rights of persons and property, with reference to transactions or occurrences existing or already had and closed…The judicial function is to ‘declare the law and define the rights of the parties under it.’  Frasher v. Rader, 124 Cal. 133, 56 P. 797…’A determination of the rights of an individual under the existing laws’ is an exercise of judicial power…An essential element of judicial power, distinguishing it from legislative power, is that it requires “the ascertainment of existing rights.”  People v. Bird, 300 P. 22, 26-27.

49 U.S. Code § 31301

driver’s license” means a license issued by a State to an individual authorizing the individual to operate a motor vehicle on highways.

motor vehicle” means a vehicle, machine, tractor, trailer, or semitrailer propelled or drawn by mechanical power and used on public streets, roads, or highways, but does not include a vehicle, machine, tractor, trailer, or semitrailer operated only on a rail line or custom harvesting farm machinery

This document was sent around to a lot of people in the last few days, but there aresome problems with it...Rod has listed them below...THE DOCUMENT LOOKS GOOD AND SOUNDS GOOD. AND, HAS A LOT OF WORDS THAT LOOKVERY IMPRESSIVE, BUT...1. WHERE IS TITLE 49 USC & CFR ?




Wednesday, July 11, 2018




Sunday, July 8, 2018

A STUDY GUIDE: Life is lesson on God’s law and the Rights of Man.

A STUDY GUIDE: Life is lesson on God’s law and the Rights of Man.

Look at your traffic ticket as God tutoring you about His law v. the statutes of man!!
If you are going to court, you have been trapped in a commercial scheme. You must learn your rights or you have none.
COMES NOW THE Defendant in Error, Free Man Name, living soul, mature in age, competent to testify, subject to the original jurisdiction of Genesis 1:26-28, hereafter “Accused”,one of the holders of the inherent political power of the State of New Mexico, (see Constitution of the State of New Mexico, Article II, Section 2 & 4), hereinafter ACCUSED, and, ipso facto, a citizen of the body politic, comprised solely of the people, who are the State of New Mexico, and, ipso facto, an American Citizen, and, further, coming under said people’s law of the land, the common law of immemorial antiquity, and submits this memorandum, with all due respect, as evidence and proof of the prevailing and controlling law regarding the matter now before the Court.
THIS MEMORANDUM ADDRESSES the matter of the American Citizens’ unalienable right to use the public highways and byways within the geographical boundaries of the State of New Mexico, and every state of the American Union of States, a.k.a. these united States of America, and within the territories of these United States, to include the District of Columbia, as a matter of sovereign right, as holders of the inherent political power of their states and their nation, notwithstanding each citizen’s duty and obligation to observe, respect, and obey the common law rules of the road.
THIS MEMORANDUM FURTHER addresses the political fundamental fact that there can be no law making or rule making, intended to convert the sovereign citizens’ right to use the public roads into a mere privilege, for want of such authority, by any office holder, within any one of the three constitutional branches of governance of the state government of the State of New Mexico.
THIS MEMORANDUM OF law is filed with the Clerk of the Court, in the instant matter, onDAY TIME YEAR, in support of his Certified Demand to be Informed of the Nature and Cause of the Accusation, filed with the aforesaid clerk on the same day, and his Sworn Demand to Dismiss for Want of Subject Matter Jurisdiction, likewise filed on the same day.
WITH RESPECT TO the aforesaid, also reference Accused’s Memorandum of Law in Matter of What is the Motor Vehicle Division of the Taxation and Revenue Department and Who is Subject to Its Jurisdiction, also filed with aforesaid clerk on the same day in the instant matter, which memorandum of law is herewith incorporated in this memorandum of law by reference.


IN AMERICA, THE people waged a successful campaign for their independence from an earthly prince, said to be the Crown of England.The campaign, a.k.a. the American War of Independence, a.k.a. the American Revolutionary War, was waged by flesh and blood mortals, a.k.a. the American people.
IN CONSEQUENCE OF said war of independence, the American people presumed themselves to be the only sovereigns of their land — their nation.No longer were they subjects of any earthly prince.The fundamental political principles, upon which said Americans founded their nation-states, were declared in the Declaration of Independence (1776).The aforesaid document states in part:
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness – That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted by Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…” Declaration of Independence (1776)
IT IS WELL established that the people of each state of the American Union of States, a.k.a. the(se) united States of America, hold inherent political power; and hence, are the state.In New Mexico this fact is in the Constitution of the State of New Mexico, namely:
“All political power is vested in and derived from the people; All government of right originates with the people, it is founded upon their will and is instituted solely for their good.” Constitution of the State of New Mexico 1910, Article II Section 4.
The exact wording is used in the present day version, Article II, Section 2, compiled 1978.
“All persons are born equally free, and have certain natural, inherent and inalienable rights, among which are the rights of enjoying and defending life and liberty, of acquiring, possessing and protecting property, and of seeking and obtaining safety and happiness.” New Mexico Constitution, Article II, Section 4.
IT IS FURTHER well established that the entire body of American jurisprudence, upon which governance in these United States of America is wholly dependent, at the local, state, and national levels, is itself wholly dependent upon political principles, to include the un-rebuttable presumption the people are the holders of the political power; hence are the political trustors of their states and their nation, with the power of sovereigns to create, alter or abolish their governments by and through their respective state political trust-deeds, a.k.a./ their written state constitutions, at the state level, and by and through their national political trust-deed, a.k.a. their written Constitution of the United States, at the national level.
IT IS FURTHER well established that all offices of governance in America, whether at the local, state, or national levels, are said to be offices of public trust in the gift of the people, meaning that each office holder is a political trustee, having no powers and authorities but those which the people, as sovereigns, are capable of granting to the office, in the first place, and which have been granted to the office, in the second place, by and through the people’s aforesaid political trust deeds.
IT IS FURTHER well established that no power or authority is vested in any local, state, or national public office which would derogate or abrogate any unalienable right of the sovereign citizens, a.k.a. political trustors, for want of the power of the sovereign people, themselves, to derogate or abrogate any of their unalienable rights, in the first instance, or power to delegate such a power of authority in the second place.
IT IS TAUTOLOGICAL[1] argument for the Accused to have to remind State of New Mexico public office holders, and their agents, of any of the aforesaid political facts, upon which all authority of government in America are wholly dependent, for they are self-evident from the face of the public record.
IT IS TAUTOLOGICAL argument for the Accused to have to remind State of New Mexico public office holders, and their agents, that all law upon which they rely in support of their official powers and authorities, in their respective state political trusteeships, is wholly dependent upon the aforesaid self- evident political facts of American governance, whether at the local, state, or national levels.
IT IS TAUTOLOGICAL argument for the Accused to have to remind State of New Mexico public office holders, and their agents, that when any office holder of the State of New Mexico government, or its so-called instrumentalities, exercise any powers not delegated, in the first instance, by the people, said office holders commit treason against the people, and commit criminal fraudcriminal extortion, and other felony criminal acts[2].
REGRETTABLY, THE AMERICAN people are now reduced to such a state of witlessness that few within or without public offices (1) understand the nature of the people’s authority, (2) understand the nature and limitations of public office holders authority, (3) have meaningful understanding of the political facts of governance, to include the fact that the laws of governance in America are wholly dependent upon the political facts of governance first.
THEREFORE, IN LIGHT of the foregoing, this memo of law is further ACTUAL and constructive NOTICE to all parties of:
Accused’s right to use the public roads, so long as he observes the common law rules of the road, and respects the right of his fellow sovereigns to use the road; and,
Accused’s right to use the public roads, without first obtaining the permission of any official or agent of the State of New Mexico government, or any of its instrumentalities, by way of any manner of licensure scheme, vehicle registration scheme, insurance scheme or any other manner of scheme which may be devised by his state legislators, proceeding pursuant to no authority granted by the people, for want of a power held by the people to exercise the authority themselves; and,
Accused’s right to answer to no charge of violation of law of statutory origin, if said law is not duly enacted, according to the people’s common law of immemorial antiquity (wherefore the unwritten state constitution of the State of New Mexico is part of the people’s common law), and as further evidenced at Article II Section 4 of the written Constitution of the State of New Mexico; and,
Accused’s right to answer to no charge of violation of law in the nature of administrative law, administered and enforced by administrative agency creature of the state legislature, having only a legislatively created administrative jurisdictional reach, and existing outside any constitutional office created by the people of the State of New Mexico, by and through their political trust-deed, the Constitution of the State of New Mexico, hence extra constitutional law, hence private law, to which no sovereign citizen holder of the political power of the State of New Mexico may be subject, notwithstanding no nexus is in evidence, which presumptively connects the Accused’s to the extra constitutional scheme in the first instance, nor promulgated rule in evidence purporting to make specific the intent of the state legislators, when they presumptively duly enacted a law allegedly violated, inasmuch as the accusing officer cited merely evidence of law when said officer cited MVDTRD statute/ordinance _______________________; and,
Accused’s right to challenge any law duly enacted by his state legislators as unconstitutional, if he being charged with violating a duly enacted law, notwithstanding, in the instant case, that he has been charged with violating merely evidence of law, and no law has been averred in a proper charge of violation of law – a matter having serious felony consequences to say nothing of being an act of treason as aforesaid; and,
Accused’s right to answer to charges in no other forum than a civil or criminal jurisdiction, pursuant to his common law, and provided for by his aforesaid political trust-deed, the Constitution of the State of New Mexico, wherein he shall enjoy his unalienable right to full, a.k.a. plenary, due process of law; and,
Accused’s right to challenge any proceeding of a summary nature, as a violation of his unalienable right to plenary, due process of law, including his right to bring criminal charges, if he be compelled to such a forum, and his challenge of its authority left unanswered, and, more especially, if he be compelled to submit to the treasonous outrage of an ad hoc, summary proceeding, as in the instant matter: and,
Accused’s right to challenge the subject-matter jurisdiction of any court or office of theState of New Mexico government, when said office holder(s) presume to have subject-matter jurisdiction over him, in a matter affecting his sovereign unalienable rights; and,
Accused’s right to see his aforesaid challenge duly answered, as a matter of the absolute duty and obligation of the office holder(s) to duly answer said challenge, and not remain silent in any manner whatsoever, to include, but not limited to, evasion of the challenge by failing to directly answer the specific points of Accused’s averments in his demands, in the first instance, and the specific questions in his depositions, in the second instance, if he be compelled to employ his right to discovery, to get the jurisdictional fact answers, as a consequence of state actors ignoring their duty to forthrightly answer the challenge set forth in his aforesaid demands.


INNUMERABLE RULINGS OF American state and federal courts may be cited, which give testimony and evidence to these self-evident truths of governance in every American state, and under the national government; namely, the matter of who are the inherent holders of the political power, a.k.a. the sovereigns, in America, and the concomitant inherent limitations of said governance in America, to wit:
“All sovereign power is vested in the citizens of the state, who are limited only as expressed in the Constitution.” State v. Shumaker, 63 A.L.R 218, 200 Ind. 716, 164 N.E. 408
“Government is not sovereignty. Government is the machinery or expedient for expressing the will of the sovereign power.” Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 Dallas (2 U.S.) 419,472 (1793)
“[T]he sole object and only legitimate end of government is to protect the citizen in the enjoyment of life, liberty, and property, and when the government assumes other functions it is usurpation and oppression.” City Council v. Kelly, 30 So. 67, 69, 142 Ala. 552 (1905)
“The office and purpose of the constitution is to shape and fix the limits of governmental activity. It thus proclaims, safeguards and preserves in basic form the pre-existing laws rights mores, habits and modes of thought and life of the people as developed under the common law and as existing at the adoption to the extent and as therein stated. Dean v. Paolicelli72 S.E. 2d 506, 510; 194 Va. 219 (1952)
“Hence, it may be said with great propriety, that a constitution “measures the powers of the rulers, but it does not measure the rights of the governed;” that it is not the origin of rights, nor the fountain of law-but it is the ‘framework of the political government, and necessarily based upon the pre-existing condition of laws rights habits, modes of thought.” Cooley Con. Lim., 37. Atchison & Nebraska R.R. Co. v. Baty 6 Neb. 37, 41.
“There is nothing primitive about a State Constitution. It is based upon the pre-existing laws rights, habits, and modes of thought of the people who ordained it, ***and must be construed in the light of this fact.”Commonwealth v. City Newport News, 164 S.E. 689, 696(1932).
“Where fundamental personal liberties are involved, they may not be abridged by the States simply on a showing that a regulatory statute has some rational relationship to the effectuation of a proper state purpose. Where there is a significant encroachment upon personal liberty, the State may prevail only upon showing a subordinating interest which is compelling. City of Carmel-By-The-Sea v. Young, 466 P. 2d 225, 232; 85 Cal. Rptr. 1(1970)
“A man may not barter away his life, freedom, or substantial rights (Constitution, Article1, para.1)[Reference here is to the New Jersey state constitution]
“The constitutional rights of liberty and property may be limited only to the extent necessary to subserve the public interest. Cameron v. International Alliance, Etc., 176 Atl. 692, 700; 118 N.J. Eq. 11(1935)
“The rights of the individual are not derived from government 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 reliefCity of Dallas, et al. v Mitchell, 245 S.W. 944, 945-46 (Tex – 1922)
NOTE WELL IN the aforementioned City of Dallas, the statement “. . . restricted only to the extent that they have been voluntarily surrendered by the citizenship [sic] to the agencies of government.” This statement touches on a theme honed in the last eighty, or more years by a multitude of privately endowed, private law commissions grinding out ever more feverishly their private uniform code systems and other bodies of private law[3] for incorporation into de facto corporate statutes enacted by puppet state governments and the puppet Congress of the United States – all allegedly in the name of the people.
A GREAT BULK of these laws are of a peculiar variety, generically known as “administrative laws” which depend, for their de facto, corpora ficta authority, upon the presumption of a legal doctrine that the people may voluntarily relinquish, convey, grant, barter, sell, abandon, bequeath, ad nauseam their unalienable rights, and enter into every manner of outrageous agreements in return for benefits, privileges, ad nauseam, being offered by de facto Santa Claus government instrumentalities, whether federal, state or local, which were never theirs to offer, in the first instance.Prima facie, as discussed above, Americans cannot surrender their unalienable, a.k.a. natural, a.k.a. common law, rights in exchange for privileges from administrative agency creatures “ordained” and “established” by allegedly duly enacted laws, of their own state, or federal legislatures – a legal absurdity on its face.
IT IS NON SEQUITUR to acknowledge on the one hand the American citizen holds the inherent political power in his nation and over governments which he creates, and to believe and so state that such a citizen’s rights could be nothing else but unalienable; otherwise the individual is not really the sovereign, . . . and then argue, on the other hand, the proposition that said sovereign can “voluntarily surrender” any part of his sovereign rights to any instrument of his government.Such a statement implies transfer of sovereignty, a political impossibility for the sovereign American citizen, hence a political and legal absurdity on the face of the statement.The statement in City of Dallas is seen to be even more absurd if the citizen is politically and jurally literate enough to know that all “agencies” of American local, state, and federal governments are created by office holders in legislative departments most often, and may even be created by office holders in the executive or judicial departments, but in no case do said office holders have delegated authority to create constitutional offices, because only the people have this power.And, the people do not re-delegate it to their delegated office holders.Hence said offices are quasi offices of government, generically known as agencies, which is to say that they are private in nature because they are extra constitutional.
THE AFORESAID NON sequitur in City of Dallas is an all-too- typical example of the treasonous criminal fraud practiced daily in courtrooms across America.
IN EVERY INSTANCE, as is implied in City of Dallas (supra), fraudulent doctrines are entertained by state (same said for federal) actors, that the citizenry may somehow surrender or abandon their unalienable rights, in exchange for privileges and benefits offered by administrative agencies, created by their delegates in state legislatures (or in Congress, where federal agencies are concerned).Such statements are possible only from incompetents who do not understand the meaning of the language they use, or the duties and obligations of their political trusteeships.Or, they are the utterances of willful men, intent upon conspiring against the peopleby causing them through judicial pressure to resign their sovereign citizenship, as a matter of treason practiced.
Take special note of the meaning of the term “unalienable”, to wit:
“UNALIENABLE”. [Adjective]. NOT alienable; that cannot be alienated; that may not be transferred; as unalienable rights.” Webster’s American Dictionary of the English Language, 1st Ed. VoL II, pg. 101(1828)
“Unalienable”. Inalienable; incapable of being alienated, that is, sold and transferred. Inalienable rights. Rights which can never be abridged because they are so fundamental.” Black’s Law Dictionary, 6th Ed. Pg. 1523. (1990)
ANY EXERCISE IN legal solecisms[4]; that is, executive legislative or judicial constructions, erected by the artful manipulations of private lawyers and others, either trained or gifted, in the science of jurisprudence; which, by sophistry[5], craft and illusion[6], may establish in the minds of the public the proposition that an activity, or an act, which an American has an unalienable right to do, can be reduced to criminal activity, or acts requiring licensure by representatives of the people, sitting in public offices; and, which offices were created by the people, in the first instance, in order to make said activity, or acts legal, is the practice of common law treason by said office holders, lawyers, their principles, and their accomplices against the sovereign people.
Revelation 9:21 nor did they repent of their murders or their sorceries(political, legal tricks) or their sexual immorality or their thefts (commercial schemes).
Revelation 18:23 (in reference to mystical Babylon). . . and all nations were deceived by your sorcery (political, legal tricks).


AS AFORESAID, IT is well established that the offices of state governments are created by the sovereign people, by and through their respective state constitutions, hence are said to be constitutional offices[7].Holders of such offices serve as political trustees to the people.It is well established that said offices are entrusted with limited and enumerated powers[8], but that, in no case, can any powers within said offices be greater than the powers of the people, as political trustors, who created them.This is a fundamental of the common law of agency, wherein prima facie, the people’s constitutions are common law instruments, written in the language of the common law.It would be a legal absurdity to argue that the people’s state and federal constitutions are not common law documents, written in the language of the common law; and, ipso facto[9]it would be a legal absurdity to arguethat the people’s delegated representatives, sitting in legislative offices created by the will of the people,have powers and authorities, which they may allegedly re-delegate, which are greater than those possessed by the people who created their public offices.
THEREFORE, when the people’s delegated representatives, sitting in their state legislatures, assume authorities which the people did not grant or which the people had no power to grant, then said delegated representatives proceed under self-assumed authorityin de facto capacity.Such is the case when state legislators create administrative agencies, presumptively having executive, legislative, and judicial authorities, under a single appointed executive head.No state legislator has the authority to create new offices of government; but, when these legislative bodies create administrative agencies, they do just that, notwithstanding widespread representations to the contrary.No state legislator has the authority to create a legislative office, an executive office, or a judicial office.It is a legal absurdityand sophistry to argue that they do.
THEREFORE, the legal wizards, practicing sorcery according to the Scripture, by legal[10]metaphysical[11] flimflam[12], say that these creatures have quasi-legislative, quasi-executive, and quasi-judicial powers[13];and, pursuant to their legal metaphysical flimflam, and in their efforts to provide the patina of legitimacy to these de facto governing creatures, the legal wizards have devised an ad hoc Delegation Doctrine, pursuant to which it is argued that these creatures are instrumentalities of government, having an administrative jurisdiction over persons or objects where there is found to be a licensure nexus.
FURTHER, THE LEGAL wizards, and their legal lackeys and stooges, sitting as the people’s elected representatives, have, ex-post facto, enacted Administrative Procedures Acts, in each of the state legislatures, in a further attempt to explain a prima facie, unexplainable constitutional absurdity, namely, the existence of these “fourth branch” of governance creatures, wherein it is proposed to their de facto Delegation Doctrine, that there must be rules promulgated by the head of each administrative agency, which make specific, and otherwise explain, who is subject to said administrative law statutes, allegedly enacted by the state legislatures.But, in practice, state agency bureaucrats routinely practice administration and enforcement of their legislatively assigned administrative laws upon all citizens, upon whom they presumptively choose to set their sights, as though every citizen were subject to their specific and peculiar administrative jurisdiction.
IT IS NOT exaggeration to say that agents of these “fourth branch” instrumentalities of government, at the state and federal level, have a “Jurisdiction-For-Us” mentality, almost invariably, and really don’t have a clue as to how limited their administrative jurisdiction happens to be. Consequently, they not only violate constitutional provisions, but God’s law by violating God’s law-order through enforcement of man-made codes and statutes:
Psalm 94:20 Can wicked rulers be allied with you, those who frame injustice by statute?
HEREINAFTER, IN THIS memorandum, when referring to these de facto, corpora ficta creatures of state legislatures, the phrase, “the State,” will be used.“The State” refers to ultra vires created governing bodies, generically known as administrative agencies–sometimes described as being “entities,” a.k.a. “instrumentalities,” “commercial franchises[14],” within a “fourth branch” of state governments, which state legislatures create, pursuant to their aforesaid self-assumed authority, for innumerable purposes; and, as deemed necessary, to meet the needs or fancies, of America’s legal wizard class and their sponsors.Promoters and sponsors of the State propagandize the idea that the people are the subjects of the State, or commercial slaves, or political concubines, or the host upon which parasitical agencies feed, when patently the American people cannot be subjects of any sovereign governing power, except in the most limited of senses, to wit:
“Sovereignty is the right to govern, ~ In Europe the sovereignty is generally ascribed to the Prince; here it rests with the people; there, the sovereign actually administers the Government; here, never in a single instance; our governors are the agents of the people, *** Their Princes have personal powers, dignities, and pre-eminencies, our rulers have none but official.”Chishoim v. Georgia, 2 Dallas (2 U.S.) 419, 472 (1793)
HOW MUCH SOVEREIGN power does any agent of any administrative agency have?None that is not granted by the state legislature which created the agency or that operates to derogate or abrogate unalienable rights belonging to the people.
How much sovereignty do the state legislators have to grant to their de facto, corpora ficta creatures, generically known as administrative agencies?NONE!Why?Because State legislators are delegated no powers of a sovereign from the people, in the first instance, therefore, State legislators have no power to grant sovereign powers to new governing creatures, which they presume to have sovereign power to create in the first instance. Further, State legislators have no authority to delegate their duties to State agencies any more that a married man can delegate his duties of husband to another man.
Therefore, can a state legislator require the citizen to be subject to the jurisdiction of new government offices, which it presumes to have authority to create?Does a state legislator have power to require the state citizen to get a driver license from the government instrumentality, which he presumes to create, in order to use the public highways?
Can a state legislator convert a citizen’s right to use the public highways into a privilege, and make it a crime if said citizen uses said road without permission of the state legislators, or fails to meet any of the state legislators’ other terms and conditions attendant to their presumption of power to create the citizen’s right into a mere privilege?
Can a state legislator create an administrative agency with authority to administer and enforce such requirements?
Can legal wizards invent legal metaphysical grounds for any of the aforesaid presumptions of sovereignty and law?
Can legal wizards lawfully invent a legal metaphysical government, a fiction of the mind, to which the American people are mere subjects?
It appears that most of the business of modern American state governments is founded on legal absurdities, legal sorcery, and are extra constitutional.It appears that the practice of treason against the sovereign people, pursuant to the people’s law of the land, who are the political trustors and beneficiaries of their state political trusts, is wide-spread by their political trustees, a.k.a. public servants, and functions a treasonous public policy which thrives on ignorance and witless minds.


IN THE NAME of alleged licensure-based government regulatory authority and like kind of extra-constitutional, hence treasonous, de facto doctrines, the following authorities provide insight.
“A license is merely a permit or privilege to do what otherwise would be unlawful”.Payne v. Massey, 196 S.W. 2d 493; 145 Tex 237, 241.
“The purpose of a license is to make lawful what would be unlawful without it.”State v. Minneapolis-St. Paul Metro Airports Corn ‘n, 25 NW. 2d 718, 725
“A license is a right granted by some competent authority to do an act which, without such a license, would be illegal.” Beard v. City of Atlanta, 86 S.E. 2d 672, 676; Ga. App.584
“A license confers the right to do that which without the license would be unlawful” Littleton v. Burgess, 82 P.864, 866; 14 Wyo. 173.
Generally, a license is a permit to do what, without a license, would not be lawful.” Bateman V. City of Winter Park; 37 So. 2d 362, 363; 160 Fla. 906
In Governmental Regulations. Authority to do some act or carry on some trade or business, in its nature lawful but prohibited by statute, except with the permission of civil authority or which would otherwise be unlawful.” Bouvier’s Law Dictionary 8th Ed., 3rd Rev. Vol.2, pg 1976 (1914)
“A permit granted by an appropriate governmental body, generally for a consideration, to a person, firm, or corporation to pursue some occupation or to carry on some business subject to regulation under the police power. A license is not a contract between the state and the licensee, but is a mere personal permit. Rosenblatt v. California State Board of Pharmacy, 69 CaL App. 2d 69, 159 P 2d 199, 203. Neither is it property or a property right. American States Water Service Co. of California v. Johnson, 31 Cal. App. 2d 606, 88 P.2d 770, 774.” Black’s Law Dictionary, 6th Ed. Pgs. 919, 920.
IN PASSING, ONE can hardly avoid the observation that any class of deeds, acts, activities, conduct or behavior, et cetera, which would be unlawful, hence mala in se crimes, pursuant to common law and the law of nature and the creator, are, and must, immutably remain, crimes against the society of men.It necessarily follows that any enterprise, which sets itself up as the rightful authority to override undertakings by issuing licenses, must be declaring itself above the sovereign people’s common law, where their unalienable rights are to be found, as well as the so-called laws of nature.
AND, SINCE ITS declared business is the issuance of such privileges or permissions, to persons it judges to be worthy, in order that they may proceed in what is, prima facie; inherently unlawful, or otherwise criminal in nature, pursuant to the common law and/or the laws of nature, then this self-appointed sovereign licensor, namely public office holders of the State of New Mexico, must be engaged in a criminal syndicate.
WHEN ANY OFFICER or any instrumentality, or agent of the state government, conducts such a licensing business in the name of the people, no matter under what banner, when the people, themselves, have no such power, then said persons exceed their authority and power granted by the people, and entrusted to them as political trustees, and each “official” act of enforcement of the licensing scheme, and prosecution of alleged violation of the licensing scheme, is a separate act of violating the political trust, and a crime against the individual, and against the people.
IT IS A foundational principle of the American law of the land, a.k.a. the common law, that a right possessed by one party cannot be converted to a mere privilege by another party, whereupon the second party may package the right as a privilege, which the second party may then grant to the first party as a privilege., This proposition is both a common law and a constitutional absurdity, on its face, where the first and second parties are American citizens, who, by birthright, are political equals [See Declaration of Independence, supra]., Such a proposition could only be conceived by criminal minded schemers. This proposition is a compounded absurdity, in those instances, where the first party is an American citizen, a.k.a. holder of the inherent political power, and the second party is nothing more than a corpora ficta, that is, a de facto, private, corporate creature, being masqueraded as a governmental entity.This is, prima facie, a fraudulent representation of the people’s government–the political trusteeship.
THEREFORE, APPRECIATE THE American common law absurdity and American constitutional absurdity, a.k.a. political trusteeship absurdity, inherent in any presumption that a state office holder may have the right to require the citizen to have a license in some particular matter, based upon such grounds as the following:
“The object of a license is to confer a right or power which does not exist without it.” Payne v. Massey, 196 S.W. 2d 493; 145 Tex. 237, 241.
“To license means to confer on a person the right to do something which otherwise he would not have the right to do.” City of Louisville v. Sebree, 214 S.W. 2d 248,253; 308 Ky. 420.
“The object of a license is to confer right or power which does not exist without it and exercise of which without license would be illegal.” Inter City Coach Lines v. Harrison, 157 S.E. 673, 676; 172 Ga. 390.
IT SHOULD BE obvious that, if the activity, requiring licensure, is of a kind which would be criminal to engage in, pursuant to the common interests of the people, then to propose that some citizens may be able to obtain a license to do it, is a proposal for a license to injure the people, and can only be seen as criminality on the part of the office holder.If engaging in the activity is not criminal in the eyes of the people, but instead may be engaged in as of common right, then to require a license, is equally an act of criminality on the part of the office holder.
IT IS THE mere practice of legal sophistry, for legal wizards to argue that a state legislator has power to convert his constituents’ rights to privileges, and,\ then offer their rights back in the form of licenses, or other instruments of privilege, with stipulations that the licenses may be revoked at the pleasure of the licensor, that the licensee agrees to pay periodic fees for the privileges, and be subject to fines and all manner of penalties and punishments upon the judgment of the licensor or his agents, if the licensee fails in some manner, or degree, to perform as required.
AND IT WOULD be equally a political trusteeship absurdity, hence a constitutional absurdity, and legal absurdity to argue that there is no conversion of aright, per se, yet a man may voluntarily agree to abandon his unalienable right to travel on the public highways, and become a licensee in the business of traveling, by requesting, petitioning, or otherwise, asking The State to issue him a license for the privilege of traveling, and that the man does thereby also agree to be liable for necessarily unspecified and unlimited prospective liabilities, attendant to the licensing agreement.
THE PROPOSITION THAT state legislators have power to create fictional bodies to be instrumentalities of state government, and that these corpora ficta entities may issue licenses to the sovereign people granting them a privilege to travel on the public highways, in pursuit of their own private affairs and business, and regulate their use of said highways pursuant to terms of the license, cannot be demonstrated as within the authority of any state political trustee, and is nothing but the unbridled practice of private, unprincipled legal metaphysical flimflam, and is treasonous criminal behavior.
IT IS A PRINCIPAL OF LAW, extending into antiquity, that no man can grant to another a license which he does not have the power to grant. Further, no man can confer to another the authority to issue a license, when he himself lacks the power to issue the license.It follows that, where a man determines to create a legal fiction, it is equally absurd that he can endow his newly minted legal fiction with powers which he himself does not possess.
IT IS AN ABSURDITYto say that a man, or a group of men, may create a legal fiction (Like a municipal corporation or magistrate court) which he, or they, may empower with a sovereign, or jurisdictional authority, which power he, or they, does, or do, not possess himself, or themselves; and which he, or they, cannot exercise in his, or their, own sovereign natural right.The presumptionthat men can invent corporations, or any other legal fiction device of like nature, and grant these man-made creations with sovereign powers over their fellow man, is a common law absurdity, and a political trusteeship absurdity, hence it is a constitutional absurdity.The practice of such behavior is nothing more than legal flimflam, in the name of the science of jurisprudence.Neither can a collection of men determine to create a legal fiction and endow it with powers which they, as individuals, do not possess.
IT IS A FACT of our political body politic, that the people themselves have no power to create a government, and then bestow upon said government the power to grant or deny licenses to their fellow man, where they had as individuals no power to practice the granting or denying of licenses, or, which is to add insult to the injury, to have the power toreclassify certain natural rights of their fellow man as being illegal; and hence, only permissible upon the grant of license from the people’s government, pursuant to a police power, which could have only originated in the people in the first place.Said proposition is an insult, an outrage, and a treason upon the people at large.It is the practice of criminal syndicalism[15].
“Nothing that is against reason is lawful”Coke on Littleton 97b.
“If a man grant that which is not his, the grant is void.” Sheppard’s Touchstone.


IT SHOULD BE clear, by now, The State’s propaganda to the contrary, backed by The State’s private de facto army of “criminal justice practitioners,” trained primarily, if not exclusively, by all available evidence, in the ways and means of the Great American Legal Fiction, The State, reigning in regal de facto corpora ficta splendor, that, in truth, in America, the people are the sovereigns, and public office holders are merely trustees and servants.Rights, which are unalienable, are merely protected by constitutions.Protected from whom?Obviously, in modem America, the threat arises most frequently from public office holders and their hireling wizards, lackeys, and stooges employed within the de facto, corpora ficta instrumentalities, which they have presumed to have authority to create.In any case, those rights are protected by the various sections and provisions of Article II of the Constitution of the State of New Mexico, which sets forth the terms and conditions of the people’s state-level political trust, and the rights are further protected by the 9th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which sets forth the terms and conditions of the people’s national level political trust, by and through the de facto Fourteenth Amendment of said constitution.And what have earlier courts had to say about the unalienable right to travel?


IN THE MATTER of the right of the American citizen to use his public highways, without permission of his public office holders, American courts have, many times over, ruled upon the self-evident truth, to wit:
“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 Ill. 200, 169 N.E. 22, 206.
“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, Le., safety, caution, traffic lights, speed limits, etc. Travel is not a privilege requiring licensing, vehicle registration, or forced insurance. Chicago Coach Co. v. City of Chicago, 337 Ill. 200, 169 N.E. 22.
“Regulations, fees, taxes – may not be applied to natural person using common highways as it is in derogation of common right of public to use highways as an avenue upon which vehicles for transportation of goods, passengers, freight and traffic of all kinds may be freely moved, having due regard for rights of others, while this, or other provisions of statute, should be fairly, liberally construed to promote the effect the evident purpose for which it was intended, care should be exercised not to unduly extend its effect.” Young v. Madison County, 115 N.W. 23.
“Our Court has stressed the basic right of the transit public and abutting property owners to the free passage of vehicles on public highways and the paramount function of travel as overriding all other subordinate uses of our streets.” State v. Perry, 269 Min. 204,206.
“A highway is a public road, which every citizen of the state has aright to use for the purpose of travel.” Shelby County Corners v. Castter; 33 N.E. 986, 987; 7 Ind. App. 309. Spindler v. Toomey 111 N.E. 2d 715, 716.
“The right of travel over a street or highway is a primary absolute right of everyone.” Foster’s Inc. v. Boise City, 118 P. 2d 721, 728.


STATE LEGISLATORS CAN make no claim that the public highways are property belonging to them, nor can they claim said highways are the property of any fictional instrumentality (corporation or agency) created by them.The public highways belong to the people at large.State office holders are only political trustees, holding the people’s highways in political trust for the people.
THE CASE HISTORY of the automobile shows that it has always been lawful to travel on the public roads and streets with an automobile, for it cannot be otherwise. The obvious reasons why it is lawful to travel on the public roads, by whatever means of conveyance available, is that the public roads belong to the people, and are built for, and dedicated to, the purpose of common travel.The court cites are numerous:
“It is well established law that the highways of the state are public property; and their primary and preferred use is for private purposes,Stephenson v. Binford, 287 U.S. 251, 264, et al.
“It is settled that the streets of a city belong to the people of a state and the use thereof is an inalienable right of every citizen of the state.” Whyte v. City of Sacramento, 165 Cal. App.534, 547.


NO HOLDER OF any state or local public office, nor any instrumentality which they may create, has a sovereign right, a.k.a. power, a.k.a. authority, to dictate to the people, who are the holders of the inherent political power, and, therefore, who are the State of New Mexico, when, and on what terms and conditions, they may use the public highways for their own private use, and in the pursuit of their own livelihood, notwithstanding the treasonous acts of the officials, officers, employees, and agents of state and local governing bodies against said people, the felonious misappropriation and criminal conversion of the sovereign people’s own money for expenditure by said officials, officers, employees and agents of state and local governing bodies to propagandize and bamboozle said people, and create, by legalistic sophistries, the illusion that said people are required to have driver licenses, vehicle registrations and mandatory insurance.
NO STATE LEGISLATOR has power to enact laws requiring the people, who are the political trustors, to have driver licenses, issued by any instrumentality of the state government, nor register their vehicles with such instrumentality, nor have vehicular insurance, nor any like kind of licensure schemes and terms and conditions which must be fulfilled before the individual citizen, a.k.a. political trustor and political beneficiary, may use the public roads, merely held in political trust for his private pleasure and business.
THERE CAN BE no law making, rulemaking, or rulings which require the sovereign citizen to obtain the permission of any office holder, or instrumentality of state or local government, in order to use the public highways for his private personal or business travel.
THE FOLLOWING CASES bear witness to the fundamental and self-evident political and jural facts of every state of the American nation, including the State of New Mexico:
“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 to a crime,” Miller v. US. 230 F.2d 286,489.
“There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of this exercise of constitutional rights.”Sherer v. Cullen, 481 F. 945.
SUBMITTED WITH ALL due respect on _______________, in the year of our Lord ____________.
Name of Free ManAccused/Defendant in Error
Proceeding in propria persona
Address and Phone Number

[1] Tautology is a logical argument constructed in such a way, generally by repeating the same concept or assertion using different phrasing or terminology
[2] Terms like “fraud”, “extortion,” and “felony criminal acts” are not political rhetoric, but legal terms used appropriately to describe the criminal conduct of State trustees.
[3] Private law: Private law is that part of a civil law legal system which is part of the jus commune that involves relationships between individuals, such as the law of contracts or torts (as it is called in the common law), and the law of obligations (as it is called in civil legal systems). Private law is opposed to common law. Private law involves duties mutually agreed upon by the signers of a contract. It applies to the parties of the contract, but not to the whole world.
[4] Legal solecisms: an intentional, deliberate speech designed to empower fraudulent doctrines in favor of the State’s unlawful actions.
[5] Sophistry: specious arguments displaying ingenuity in reasoning for the purpose of deceiving someone.
[6] Illusion: the practice of sorcery, a trick of the mind.
[7] A constitutional office is one created by a State constitution which was in turn created by the sovereign people, under the LORD God, under the Ten Commandments, for the good of the people.
[8] Political powers are a grant of the people; and, such powers are enumerated in clear, precise sentences contained in a state’s constitution; and, are therefore, limited by the true meaning of its words and terms. If it is not written, it is not law.
[9]Ipso facto is a Latin phrase. It is directly translated as “by the fact itself,”which means is a direct consequence, a resultant effect, of the action in question, instead of being brought about by a previous action.
[10] Legal: something permitted or authorized by men, but not something necessarily approved or authorized by the LORD God in His Law-word.
[11] Metaphysical: existing in the realm of ideas, but not in creation; an idea, not a thing; a thought, whether right or wrong that cannot be seen, but that can be spoken and heard.
[12] Flimflam is dishonest behavior meant to defraud and deceive for commercial gain in violation of the Tenth Commandment in God’s law-order.
[13]Quazi means “resembling;” “having some, but not all of the features” of legitimate political powers; and, therefore, is unconstitutional on its face; and, its rulings void.
[14] Commercial franchises are concoctions of administrative agencies that proceed against American Citizens on the presumption that Citizens are under contract with the State.
[15] Syndicalism: type of proposed economic system, a form of Marxism, a form of socialism, considered a replacement for capitalism. It suggests that industries be organized into confederations or syndicates. It is “a system of economic organization in which today’s government agencies are owned and managed by the government workers for the welfare of government employees to the detriment of Citizens.