Greetings OfficerSubmitted by go213mph on Fri, 12/28/2012 - 13:37
In order for me to respond to you properly, I need to know who you are and how you are representing yourself to me.
For the record, have you approached me as a Peace Officer who serves at the pleasure of the people and through the consent of the governed or are you part of the Enforcement Arm of The Corporate/Political Class of the State?
In other words, have you approached me as a friend and a protector of my inalienable rights as an American Citizen or are you detaining me as a subject based on a possible violation of a Civil Law Statute at the direction of The Corporate/Political Class of the State?
Please note; while you can claim to be both a Peace Officer and a member of the Enforcement Arm of The Corporate/Political Class, it is impossible to be both simultaneously.
If you have approached me as a friend and protector of my inalienable rights as an American Citizen, my name is ___________. I was born in ___________ on May, ________. Currently, I am officially considered “homeless” by The State of ________since I lost my home in 2010 and I no longer have a permanent place of residence. I use ___________________as my current mailing address.
If you are detaining me as a subject based on a possible violation of a Civil Law Statute at the direction of The Corporate/Political Class of the State, you can use the following information to assist you:
____________DRIVER LICENSE CLASS E
123 MAIN STREET
DOB: __________ SEX: ______
ISSUED___________ HGT: ________
SAFE DRIVER MOTORCYCLE ALSO
Because of recent Corporate/Political decisions that require individuals to display a valid DRIVERS LICENSE in order to complete financial transactions like cashing personal/corporate checks, selling personal property to pawn shops, and in order for individuals to pick up prescriptions from a pharmacy, accidently misplacing or losing a DRIVERS LICENSE would create significant problems for any American. To help minimize the chances of misplacing or losing a DRIVERS LICENSE it has become necessary to keep DRIVERS LICENSE'S locked in a safe location.
The REAL ID Act creates a de facto National Identification Card, which is ILLEGAL
Former Department of Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff released the agency's final regulations for REAL ID on January 11, 2008. Secretary Chertoff also indicated that the REAL ID card would be used for a wide variety of purposes, unrelated to the law that authorized the system, including employment verification and immigration determination. He also indicated that the agency would not prevent the use of the card by private parties for non-government purposes.
After publication of the final rule, Secretary Chertoff said, "embracing REAL ID" would mean it would be used to "cash a check, hire a baby sitter, board a plane or engage in countless other activities." This is a description of a national identification system, which is illegal in the United States. When it created the Department of Homeland Security, Congress made clear in the enabling legislation that the agency could not create a national ID system. In September 2004, then-DHS Secretary Tom Ridge reiterated, "[t]he legislation that created the Department of Homeland Security was very specific on the question of a national ID card. They said there will be no national ID card."
Supreme Court Decision Ex Parte Milligan 71 U.S. 2 (4 Wall.) (1866)
The Constitution of the United States is a law for rulers and people, equally in war and in peace, and covers with the shield of its protection all classes of men, at all times [p*121] and under all circumstances. No doctrine involving more pernicious consequences was ever invented by the wit of man than that any of its provisions can be suspended during any of the great exigencies of government.
Amendment IX of the US Constitution states: “The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people”
Amendment X of the US Constitution states: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people”
If I haven’t damaged any of your property and you can’t show me a contract that I’ve reneged on, I should be fee to go.
Supreme Court Decisions that provide precedence for my Constitutional right to travel unmolested on the public roads:
Supreme Court Decision #1: "The use of the highway for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege, but a common fundamental right of which the public and individuals cannot rightfully be deprived." (Chicago Motor Coach v. Chicago, 169 NE 221)
Supreme Court Decision #2: "The right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit or permit at will, but a common law right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." (Thompson v. Smith, 154 SE 579)
Supreme Court Decision #3: "The right to travel is a part of the liberty of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment." (Kent v. Dulles, 357 US 116, 125)
Supreme Court Decision #4: "The right to travel is a well-established common right that does not owe its existence to the federal government. It is recognized by the courts as a natural right." (Schactman v. Dulles 96 App DC 287, 225 F2d 938, at 941)
It cannot be stated more directly or conclusively that citizens of the states have a common law right to travel, without approval or restriction (license), and that this right is protected under the U.S Constitution.
Norton v Shelby County, 118 US 425: An unconstitutional act is not law. It confers no rights, it imposes no duties, it affords no protections, it creates no office, it is in legal contemplation as inoperative as though it had never been passed.
Murdock v Penn clearly established that no state could convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it.
Shuttlesworth v Birm Said that if the state does convert your right into a privilege and charge a license and a fee for it you can ignore the license and fee, and engage in the right with impunity.
Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803) This is one of the leading cases in the history of the U.S. The opinion of the court was “Anything that is in conflict is null and void of law; Clearly for a secondary law to come in conflict with the supreme law was illogical; for certainly the supreme law would prevail over any other law, and certainly our forefathers had intended that the supreme law would be the basis for all laws, and for any law to come in conflict would be null and void of law. It would bear no power to enforce, it would bear no obligation to obey, it would purport to settle as though it had never existed, for unconstitutionality would date from the enactment of such a law, not from the date so branded by a court of law. No courts are bound to uphold it, and no citizens are bound to obey it. It operates as a mere nullity or a fiction of law, which means it doesn't exist in law.”
Do you support section 1022 of the NDAA and the widespread extinguishing of American civil liberties?
Are you or any of the people you directly work for preparing legal action against Jaimie Diamon, Lloyd Craig Blankfein, or any of the other power brokers on Wall Street who along with Ben Bernanke and Tim Geithner and the privately owned Federal Reserve System are currently looting the U.S. Treasury with impunity?
Are you aware and/or are you investigating vote rigging and the political theater of The Corporate State which makes it impossible for proud, loyal, Americans to effect change in Washington DC?
Are you upholding your oath to Constitution and working to slow the relentless progression of American Freedom into a Totalitarian Police State, unimpeded by either party, which is turning all dissent into a crime?