travel

Attention!: Print & Carry!
NOTICE:All Rights Reserved
5USC
1946 administrators procedures act
All Privileges DECLINED.
UCC 1-308 Without Prejudice
Convention on Consular Relations-United Nations Treaty
Universal Declaration of Human Rights-United Nations Treaty

Your OATH OF OFFICE is hereby Accepted as Binding Contract.
CAVEAT:42 USC § 1983. Civil action for deprivation of rights:
Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer’s judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable. For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia.
“The assertion of federal rights, when plainly and reasonably made, is not to be defeated under the name of practice.” Davis v. Wechsler, 263 US 22, 24. “Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them.” Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US 436, 491. “The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime.” Miller v. US, 230 F 486, 489. “There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of this exercise of constitutional rights.” Sherer v. Cullen, 481 F 946.
MARBURY v. MADISON, 5 U.S. 137 The Constitution is the Supreme Law.
U.S. Constitution Article 6 This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
NORTON V. SHELBY COUNTY, 118 U. S. 425
An unconstitutional act is not a law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; it affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation as inoperative as though it had never been passed.
Dear Law Enforcement Officer:
With all due respect,
Demand for Trial By Jury to First decide the innocence or guilt of this
individual upon the instant matter is hereby made on all proceedings arising
from charges made by this Officer or Department of Government.

Demand that Nature and Cause be proven into the record of the Court for any
charges arising from charges made by this Officer or Department of
Government is hereby demanded.

Please attach this document in it's entirety with any charge, summons, or
information you may make regarding me as this Document constitutes a
specific demand for Jury trial to FIRST decide my innocence or guilt and
that the Nature and Cause for said charge be proven in this or any matter
arising out of this matter and that it must be made a part of the record of
any and all proceedings as my communication to the court and as these
demands are fully supported by the 6th amendment to the Constitution of the
United States of America (the law of the land, all others notwithstanding).

I am hereby informing you that I do not consent to talk to you, and that I
must insist, unless you are placing me under arrest, or can state specific
and articulable facts which warrant your detaining me that you immediately
leave me alone to go about my business, as is my right as a United States
Citizen or State National.

I am engaged in the ownership and use of Property belonging to me as I see
fit to use it, and as is my Constitutional Right to do. My responsibility
to that act does not extend beyond any harm my decision does to another. If
you (the officer or applicable Department of Government) are attempting to
curtail my free use of my property you are hereby requested to identify the
injured party and to instruct said injured party articulate the specific
harm I or my use of my property has caused, in writing and provided to me
and to the applicable court.

Should you choose to ignore this request and to detain me or cause me
costly litigation knowing that no injured party exists as a result of my
actions, be advised you are very likely acting outside the authority of your
office and your Sovereign immunity.

I am not operating a motor vehicle pursuant to USC Title 18 Sec. 31,
definitions.

Whereas I recognize it is your charge to protect the safety and welfare of
the citizenry, you must also see that I have not harmed nor caused to be
harmed anyone. I state here and now that I have exercised my unalienable
rights in a fashion that is within the meaning and protection of the U. S.
Constitution and beyond that I have no responsibility.

In addition, as it is my opinion, this detention is completely about
converting my money to the use of this municipality, city, county and/or
state, I inform you that my property is also protected by the Constitution
just mentioned and that my money is my property. I do not choose to
surrender it nor any other right protected for me by that Constitution, nor
could I if I did so choose.

In addition, be advised that any act on your part to proceed under color of
law against me knowing full well I am not party to a contract which enables
you to enforce traffic and property laws (unless, there is a real/true
injured party willing to testify that I have done them harm) will be met
with an aggressive and protracted and time consuming Court battle before a
Jury of my peers.

I HAVE NO HISTORY OF PHYSICAL VIOLENCE AND AM THEREBY NO THREAT TO YOUR
SAFETY AS THIS FACT WILL NOT CHANGE .

IN ADDITION

Any assumed contracts this court or this city may be acting in accordance
with are hereby DENIED.

I was acting within my Rights with respect to the use I made of my property
as is defined in Spann vs City of Dallas, Tx SC (1921)

and/or

I was exercising my Constitutional Right to travel in an automobile as
pointed out in Chicago Motor Coach v Chicago quoted #169NE221 which says:
Use of a highway for purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere
privilege but is a common and fundamental Right of which the Public and
Individuals cannot be deprived.

"Highways are for the use of the traveling public, and all have the right to
use them in a reasonable and proper manner; the use thereof is an
inalienable right of every citizen." Escobedo v. State 35 C2d 870 in 8 Cal
Jur 3d p.27

"Users of the highway for transportation of persons and property for hire
may be subjected to special regulations not applicable to those using the
highway for public purposes." Richmond Baking Co. v. Department of Treasury
18 N.E. 2d 788.

The use of the automobile as a necessary adjunct to the earning of a
livelihood in modern life requires us in the interest of realism to conclude
that the RIGHT to use an automobile on the public highways partakes of the
nature of a liberty within the meaning of the Constitutional guarantees. .
.." Berberian v. Lussier (1958) 139 A2d 869, 872

"The RIGHT of the citizen to DRIVE on the public street with freedom from
police interference, unless he is engaged in suspicious conduct associated
in some manner with criminality is a FUNDAMENTAL CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT which
must be protected by the courts." People v. Horton 14 Cal. App. 3rd 667
(1971)

"One who DRIVES an automobile is an operator within meaning of the Motor
Vehicle Act." Pontius v. McClean 113 CA 452

"The word 'operator' shall not include any person who solely transports his
own property and who transports no persons or property for hire or
compensation." Statutes at Large California Chapter 412 p.833

"The right of a citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport
his property thereon, by horse-drawn carriage, wagon, or automobile is not a
mere privilege which may be permitted or prohibited at will, but a common
right which he has under his right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of
happiness." Slusher v. Safety Coach Transit Co., 229 Ky 731, 17 SW2d 1012,
and affirmed by the Supreme Court in Thompson v. Smith 154 S.E. 579.

Also See:

- EDWARDS VS. CALIFORNIA, 314 U.S. 160
- TWINING VS NEW JERSEY, 211 U.S. 78
- WILLIAMS VS. FEARS, 179 U.S. 270, AT 274
- CRANDALL VS. NEVADA, 6 WALL. 35, AT 43-44
- THE PASSENGER CASES, 7 HOWARD 287, AT 492
- U.S. VS. GUEST, 383 U.S. 745, AT 757-758 (1966)
- GRIFFIN VS. BRECKENRIDGE, 403 U.S. 88, AT 105-106 (1971)
- CALIFANO VS. TORRES, 435 U.S. 1, AT 4, note 6
- SHAPIRO VS. THOMPSON, 394 U.S. 618 (1969)
- CALIFANO VS. AZNAVORIAN, 439 U.S. 170, AT 176 (1978)

Further, If the Authority you are enforcing is assumed by you and your
superiors to be an act of "Police Power" granted the State by the people
pursuant to the State's Right to provide for the Health and Welfare of all
the people, I am informing you that the action to which you are undertaking
now is beyond the scope and limits of such power of the State and I
therefore demand that you cease and desist the present intervention. see
Spann v City of Dallas.

And finally, Davis v. Mississippi, 394 U.S. 721, to make sure all are
informed regarding the fact that my fingerprints are private property which
cannot be taken over your objection without a valid court order.

Respectfully Submitted,