NO Law requires you to record/pledge your private automobile

Published on by Tarhaka Amaana El Bey

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 a 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 an 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 spoliation of property.
(Police power, Due Process)
Barber v. Connolly, 113 U.S. 27, 31; Yick Yo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S.
356.
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 command to the Citizen.
In a
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 breeds 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 strict 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 ending,
contractual consideration) known by those who have a duty and are
bound to reveal
.” Dolcater v. Manufacturers & Traders Trust Co.,
D.C.N.Y., 2F.Supp. 637, 641.

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

Federal;
"‘‘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 the 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 profit[.]" 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 soldiers 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 motorboat 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
action
to receive the benefit from such an 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 the lien on the motor vehicle, motor vehicles are not
``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
re
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
CONCLUSION
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
the presumption may be overcome by an
affirmative defense to the allegation of the automobile is 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
commerce / for profit, are immune to registration fees:
California Motor Vehicle Code, section 260: Private cars/vans etc. not in
(a) A commercial vehicleis a vehicle of a type
e
.
(b)
r
.
(c)

“A vehicle not used for commercial activity is a “consumer goods”, ...it is
OT a
REQUIRED to be REGISTERED under this cod
Passenger vehicles which are not used for the
transportation of persons for hire, compensation o
profit and housecars 
are not commercial vehicles
a vanpool vehicle is not a commercial vehicle.
and;
N-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
by
reasonable classification, and does not involve any unconstitutional
discrimination, although it does not apply to private vehicles, or those used
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
mustexempt them.State v. Johnson, 243 P. 1073; 6
C.J.S. section 94 page 581.
0

ee New Jersey Motor Vehicle Code Chapter 3, Section 39:3-1. Certain vehicles
exc
e
,
sand
annual Report of the Attorney General of the State of New York issued on
Jul

ney
General.
S

opted from the chapter which reads: “Automobile, fire engines, and such self
propelling vehicles as are used neither for the conveyance of persons for hir

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

y 21, 1909, ALBANY NEW YORK, pages 322-323 which reads: “There is NO
a 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 Attor
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.
ion 31-5-
110. See RCW 5.24.010!

not engaged in for-hire Transportation are outside the
jurisdiction of Division of Motor Vehicles enforcement of N.C. G.S. Article 17,
required to be evidenced by any
a written instrument in order to be valid
, it has been held in North Carolina that
See also Laws of Wyoming 2002, Motor Vehicle Code, page 142, Sect
Privately owned Buses
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 req
w

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 is driven or moved upon the highway in
only for

similar statements made in all other state constitutions),
man

CE
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 o
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
dates that no one "
is 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 communication
and such communicative evidence is precluded by the 5th
Amendment
.
"No Stat
passage on the highways

g
ve,
the -government entity has the power to allow or deny,
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
Ill. 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’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:

be not even
"As general rule men have natural right to do anything which their
inclinations may suggest if it il in itself, and no way
impairs the rights of others.
" In Re Newman (1858), 9 C. 502.
"
Traveling is passing from place to place-- an act of performing journey;
and a traveler is a person who travels." In Re Archy (1858), 9 C. 47.
y
own to the constitution of United States, and recognized by that
"Right of transit through each state, with every species of property

paramount law is secured by that instrument to each citizen, and does
not depend upon an 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.
step 1, Super, 123 Cal. Rptr. 636, 6

highways of the state are
public property
and their primary and preferred use is for private
3, 39.
"First, it is well established the law that the
public
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. Rainford, 287 US 251;
Packard vs Banton, 264 US 140, and cases cited; Frost and F. Trucking
Co. vs. Railroad Commission
, 271 US 592; 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, 35
U.S. 116, 127.
The right to travel
7
vel 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
the public and individuals cannot rightfully be deprived.”
not a mere privilege but a common and fundamental right of which

Chicago
Motor Coach v. Chicago
, 337 Ill. 200, 169 NE 22, 66 ALR 834. Ligare
v. Chicago
, 139 Ill. 46, 28 NE 934. Boone v. Clark, 214 SW 607; 25 A
JUR (1st) Highways, Sec. 163.
"T
tr
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
The pursuit of Happiness."
M
the right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways and to
transport his property thereon, either by a carriage or automobile, is

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

.

the 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.
"... It is now universally recognized that the state does possess such
we're [to impose such burdens and limitations upon private carriers


to
when using the public highways for the transaction of their business]
with respect to common carriers using 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
the 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].)
"T
pro
the right of a citizen to travel upon the highway and transport his
party 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 the 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
the remedy is not as complete or adequate as an injunction
, or where threatened or attempted
enforcement will do irreparable injury to a person in interfering with the 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 – the 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
the 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
the knowledge that any wrongs conspired or to be done… and having the 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 10 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
with
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 (6th 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 a 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, 119, p.2d 346, 348.
The fraudulently “presumed” quasi-contracts 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, Liberty”-
Since the “consideration” is the “lifeblood” of any agreement or
quasi-agreement, (contracts) “...
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 quasi-contracts. Such is the importance of a
“consideration.” Reading R.R. Co. v. Johnson
, 7 W & S (Pa.)
317

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 11 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 evidence the
above position that the City or State cannot take the 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 supersede 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 a usurpation of
power by the legislature." O'Connell v. Judnich
(1925), 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."
MURDOCK v PENNSYLVANIA, 319 US
105.
"... THE POWER TO TAX INVOLVES THE POWER TO DESTROY".
McCullough v
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 12 of 24
The U.S. adopted Common laws of England with the Constitution. Caldwell vs. Hill, 178
SE 383 (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, 15, N.C. 15 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. 411.
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 attach 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.
685.
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 has 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 cases to the same effect are Budd v. New York, 143 U. S.
NO Law requires you to record/pledge your private automobile Page 13 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. The 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 constitute 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 affects 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. The 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 law which authorizes the taking of private
property without compensation, ... cannot be considered as the 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 legislative 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 14 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 the 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 Constitution 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 hereby reserved and guaranteed to the people and protected from
arbitrary invasion 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 the 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.
The 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
a legislation direct from the people acting in their sovereign capacity,
while a statute is a 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 15 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 the 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 the 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 16 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 the 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 the primary objects of government, is guaranteed by
the 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 Wisc. 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 17 of 24
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 a 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. the 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 18 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."
Buchanan vs. Wanley, 245 US
60;
Panhandle Eastern Pipeline Co. vs. State Highway Commission, 294
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 540; Lafarier vs. Grand Trunk R.R. Co.,
24 A. 848;
O'Neil vs. Providence Amusement Co., 108 A. 887.
When officers detained the 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
the 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 is 'reasonable'.

NO Law requires you to record/pledge your private automobile Page 19 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 of the officers
lacked any reasonable suspicion to believe appellant was engaged or had
engaged, in criminal conduct. Accordingly, an 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 the 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 an authorization of law may thereby
render himself amenable to personal liability in a civil suit."
Cooper
v. O`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 1404) - -
“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 an 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.)
TAKE DUE NOTICE ALL GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS, SERVANTS, JUDGES,
LAYERS, CLERKS, EMPLOYEES:

"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. 1100.
"All are presumed to know the law."
San Francisco Gas Co. v. Brickwedel (1882), 62 C. 641;
Dore 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. 1107; 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.
AT LAST
“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.”
The 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. The author does not consent to unlawful action. The 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 a 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 the 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 intinerestanding
are recorded for all to see.” See:
Dred 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”, withstanding, standing in “original
jurisdiction” know as the common law, Gods Law, a neutral traveling
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 religion institution 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
state.

And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner 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

Tarhaka on new Numerology and the Zodiac
Watch the video now! click https://youtu.be/IsEqIQ2g7cE

My new website is online now subscribe and get my free report.
http://www.tarhakadebtelimination.org

​​​​​​​

To be informed of the latest articles, subscribe:

Comment on this post

CT corporation system for less 03/20/2019 08:27

We specialize in serving ct corporation system. Choose Process server express over other process server companies to serve CT Corporation System. Find serve legal paper at ctcorporationsystem.