Apostille No.

: 2262252-1
Session: One Supreme Court
Issued By ; Secretary of The Commonwealth of Virginia,
a Republic; “Self-Authenticating”: Rule 902 (3), Federal
Rules of Evidence;

“Superior Proof of Official Record”: Rule 27,

Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure: Rule 44

(a)(2) &1991 Amendments, Federal Rules of
.Civil Procedure

Act of State
(Immutable Autonomous Nationals Statement)

Expressed Administrative Hearing

(Pursuant to Title 5 U.S.C. § 551-559)

Private Law Rule 301 Rebuttal

(Pursuant to Federal Rules of Evidence, Rule 301)

Mandatory Judicial Notice

(Rule 201 (d), Federal Rules of Evidence)

`*WRIT FOR A FREEMAN’S RIGHT TO TRAVEL*

*JUDICIAL NOTICE AND COMMAND FOR AUTONOMOUS AUTOCHTHON MOORS BY AF-
FIRMED AFFIDAVIT*
NOTICE TO AGENT IS NOTICE TO PRINCIPAL AND NOTICE TO PRINCIPALS IS NOTICE TO AGENT
APPLICABLE TO ALL SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS
Status: Indigenous , Trust A-1; Freehold by Inheritance
AA 222141...I.S.L.A.M

TO ALL OFFICIALS AND PUBLIC SERVANTS OF FEDERAL, STATE AND CITY MUNICIPAL,
STATUTORY AND CIVIL LAW/CODE OF THE LAND, KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS.
+
Upon Our Nobility and Private Status and Commercial Liability, We, affirm, being duly affirmed under
oath and upon the five points of light – Love, Truth, Peace, Freedom, and Justice, squarely affirm to tell the truth, the
whole truth and nothing but the truth; and having knowledge and belief of the adjudicated facts contained herein,
and being competent to make this affidavit in our own writing, state and declare the following facts to be true, cor-
rect, certain, complete, complete, not misleading, and not intended for any improper purpose to wit.

We are the indigenous Sundry Free and Autonomous, Private

Mu’urs*, possessing freehold inheritance status to travel upon the Roadways, Byways, and Highways of America
as a matter of asserted Royal Law, Common Law, Muslim Customary Law, Treaty Law, the Great Law of Peace,
the Law of Nations, the Free Moorish Great Seal Zodiac Constitution and the 1791 United States Republic Consti-
tution.

True Nobles of the Al Moroccan Empire are recognized as Autonomous Autochthon and United Moorish America
Aboriginal Republic, ( bearers of the names / titles Ali, Al, El, Bey, Dey, and Dun, the True Nobles of Americas,
the Land of Their Moorish forefathers and mothers of Moroccan descent. Autonomous Autochthon Mu’urs have
freehold inheritance and retain all substantive rights and immunities, enjoy and operate upon consummated, vested
Constitutional Rights and Immunity ( ies) from TAXATION, CRIMINAL AND CIVIL JURISDICTION by, and
of, the Union States Rights Republic (USA), pursuant to, but not limited to United States Supreme Court Acts of
State to wit: “Every Sovereign State ( people ) is bound to respect the independence of every other Sovereign State
(people) and the courts of one country ( People ) will not sit in judgment on the government of another, done
within ( the same or) its own territory…”

That the present Union States Municipal and Civil Laws and Codes of the Land are an incorporated political unit
of self-government established by the political powers of the General Assembly, of each state of the Union and
initiated in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, in the year eighteen fifty-four (1854). It governs “ONLY” the rights of
conduct of “WHITE PEOPLE”, Christians and Jews, of the eighteen sixty-three (1863) Union States Rights Re-
public under the Magna Charter, the Knights of Columbus Code and Klu Klux Klan Oath. Forever said Union
States Rights Republic denies citizenship in the United States Republic (USA) to the descendents of the Moorish
Nation in the Western Hemisphere, referred to and mislabeled as Negroes, Blacks, Coloreds and African-
American, etc.,, In addition, the Supreme Court of the United States in the Landmark case of dred scott v. Sand-
ford 60 US (19 Howard 393 (1857) held that Negroes-slave or free-were not included and were not intended to
be included in the category of “citizen” as the word was used in the US Constitution…” Therefore based upon
these facts of the established law of the land, the True Nobles of the Al Moroccan Empire ( Free Moors) “were not
included and were not intended to be included in the category of “citizens” ( subjects ) of the Union States Rights
Republic. Resultantly, the True Nobles of the Al Moroccan Empire ( Free Moors ), bearers of the names / titles
Ali, Al, El, Bey, Dey, and Dun, are excluded from Union States Rights Republic (USA) jurisdiction. The True
Nobles of the Al Moroccan Empire are Autonomous Autochthons, and Self-Governed by an ONLY obligated to
the Free Moorish Zodiac Constitution, and the principals and standards embodied in the Moorish National Flag,
Love , Truth, Peace, Freedom and Justice. The True Nobles maintain a NON-OBLIGATORY respect for the
Union State Rights Republic (USA), its members, laws, ordinances, codes, customs and tradition, pursuant to: the
Free Moorish Zodiac Constitution Article IV and VI; the Moroccan Treaty of Seventeen-Hundred Eighty-Seven
(1787 ); the National Constitution of the Continental United States Article III, Section 2, Amendment V – Liberty
Clause, and Amendment IX- Reservation of the Rights of the People; the United States Department of Justice
Moorish Credentials; Free Moorish Zodiac Constitution, Truth A-1 Classified; the US Copyright Certificate Num-
ber AA 222141 Clock of Destiny; the Moorish Nationality Identification Card; Free Moorish Zodiac Constitution;
the File of the House of Representatives, Resolution Number Seventy-Five, April 17, 1933 Moorish American
Society and Use of Their Names; and the United Nation Right of Indigenous People.

Whereas, in light, this firmly establishes a square WANT OF JURISDICTION on the part of the Union States
Rights Republic (USA), and ITS AGENTS AND /OR ASSIGNS legally in force under National and International
Law. And, Affiant does not consent to a public hearing, NON-COMPLIANCE IS A FEDRAL OFFENSE.

That We assert Our Autonomy as Free Autochthon Mu’urs (natural beings) pursuant to wit: the Free Moorish
Zodiac Constitution-The Great Seal, the 1787 Moroccan Treaty of Peace and Friendship, the 1790 Sundry Free
Moors Act, the 1791 organic united States Constitution, the Moorish Federal Financiers Act ( Union States Army
1861-1863), the 1854 Roman Catholic Magna Charta, the Knights of Columbus Code, the Klu Klux Klan Oath, the
United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights XV, the United Nations Charter Article 55 (c), the United
States Supreme Court Acts of State, the Executive Order 13107-Implementation of Human Rights Treaties, the
Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act 28 USC 1602, et. Seq., the Convention on International Road Traffic of the 19th
day of September 1949, the World Court Decision, the Hague Netherlands, the 21st day of January 1958.
That the organic 1791 united States Republic Constitution is the supreme law of the land and all treaties under the
united States Flag of Peace pursuant to United States Code Title 4, Chapter 1; and any law that is Repugnant to the
Constitution is Null and Void. Marbury v. Madison 5 U.S. 137, 174, 176, (1803).

That the United States Supreme Court has determined that State Laws are unconstitutional should they mandate
restrictions on licensing, registration, and insurance requirements as follows:

1. The Right to Travel, Right to Mode of Conveyance, and Right to Locomotion are all absolute rights and the
Police can not make void the exercise of rights. State v. Armistead, 60 s. 778,779, and 781;
2. The use of the highway for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege but a common and
fundamental right of which the public and natural Beings can not rightfully be deprived. Chicago Motor Coach v.
Chicago 337 ILL 200, 169 NE 22, ALR 834, Ligare v. Chicago 139 ILL 46, 28 HE 934, Boone v. Clark 214
SW 607, 25 AM jur (1st) Highways, sec.
3. The Right to Park or Travel is 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
4. The Right of a citizen to Travel upon the public highways and to transport one’s property thereon, either by
carriage or automobile, is not a mere privilege which a City may prohibit or permit at will, but a common right
which he/she has under the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Thompson v. Smith 154 SE 579;
5. State Police power extends only to immediate threats to public safety, health, welfare, etc. Michigan v. Duke
266 US at 476 Led at 449; which driving and speeding are not. California v. Farley Ced. Rpt. 89, 20 CA3d
1032 (1971);
6. The State is prohibited from violating substantive rights, Owen v. City, 445 US 662 (1980); and it can not do
by one power (eg. Police Power) that which is for example, prohibited expressly to any other such power (eg.
Taxation/eminent Domain) as a matter of Law, US and UT v. Daniels, 22 P 159, nor indirectly that which is pro-
hibited to it directly, Fairbanks V US 181, US 283, 294,300;
Traveling in an automobile on the public roads was not a threat to the public safety or health, and constituted no
hazard in so to the public, and such a traveler or owner owed nothing more than “due care” (as regards to tort for
negligence) to the public, and the owner owed no other duty to the public (eg. State), he and his auto, having equal
rights to and on the roadway/highways as horses and wagons etc. this same right is still substantive rule, in that
speeding, running stop-signs, traveling without license plates, or registration are not threats to the public safety,
and thus are not arrest able offenses.

Whereas The Amurican ( Moorish ) Nation Permanent Mission has internationally registered our identity as a
Private Nation of , Sentient, Aboriginal Americans through the Virginia Commonwealth Apostille
“Reaffirmation…” (#2262252-1 attached, and referenced as if incorporated herein) and,

Whereas in Boaq v. MacDougall, 454 U.S. 364 and Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 the legal determination was
made, “if it can be read, it is lawful process from any citizen…” and,

Whereas the public record is the highest form of evidence, We, The Amurican ) Moorish Nation Permanent Mis-
sion are hereby timely creating public record by declaration with this Notice of the Unalienable Right to Travel in
the Nature of a Declaration of Fact and,

Whereas, service upon the principal is service upon the agent and service upon the agent is service upon the princi-
pal, all necessary parties, including but not limited to ALL members/agents of the STATE OF ________________
are hereby provided notice and opportunity and,

Whereas the STATE OF ________________, ________________________________ COUNTY, the CITY OF

______________________________, and are instrumentalities of the UNITED STATES CORPORATION
whereby Government officers/commissioners/secretaries/personnel are responsible and potentially liable for the
conduct of the STATE OF ________________ officials, and employees especially since ultra vires activity can
result in dissolution of the charter pursuant to QUO WARRANTO and,

Whereas We have researched the organic laws of the united States of America and American case law (i.e. com-
mon law), We now declare that We have the unalienable and fundamental and unregulated right to travel upon the
public highways in my private conveyance, duly conveyed, unhindered by any private or statutory law or Depart-
ment of Finance and Administration regulation or so called requirement. This unalienable right to travel is guaran-
teed by the 9th and 10th Amendments of the Constitution for the united States of America and Bill of Rights, and
upheld by many court decisions at all levels in support of that right (see below). We now explicitly Reserve, As-
sert and Defend that right and,

Whereas “since the claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime, there can be no
sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of his exercise of his constitutional rights.” Miller v. U.S., 230 F.
2d 486,; Sherer v. Cullen 481 F. 2d 946 and,

Whereas according to Shuttleworth v. Birmingham, 373 U.S. 262, “…if the State does convert a liberty into a
privilege, the citizen can engage in the right with impunity,” and “Since the injured party has relied on prior deci-
sions of the Supreme Court, he has the perfect defense for willfulness.” See U.S. v. Bishop, 412 U.S. 346 and,
Whereas Congress, pursuant to the authorization given it by the Commerce Clause of Article I, Section 8, Clause 3
of the Constitution for the united States of America, demands that only (commercial) “motor vehicles” (see 18
USC § 31) are required to be registered/licensed to include a driver’s license/registration to operate that
(commercial) “motor vehicle” and,

Whereas 18 USC § 31. Definitions states in part, “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 or cargo (emphasis mine); and,

Whereas 18 USC § 31. Definitions states in part, “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 busi-
ness, or other undertaking intended for profit; and,

Whereas “Vehicle” is not defined in Title 18 USC § 31 since under the Commerce Clause only commerce is to be
controlled, and our state codes and laws are in compliance with United States Code, because this is what is re-
quired and,

Whereas there is no mention of any requirement for a state-issued identification plate for a (non-commercial) vehi-
cle, either state or federal and,

Whereas our private property is a vehicle, by established definition and the wording on a document entitled
“Certificate of Origin for a Vehicle”, and as such is not a “motor vehicle” subject to registration, We are not re-
quired to register our private vehicle (not used in commerce) under any ‘Motor Vehicle’ _____________ law and,

Whereas no assessment of our “private property” vehicle (as distinguished from “personal property” which can
only belong to the legislatively-created fiction represented by the all caps enumeration of the entity) is required
and,

Whereas the public highways are the property of the People, the only allowable restrictions as to their use is by
regulation under the Commerce Clause by the Congress of the United States of America; the statutes and codifica-
tion of this State are in total agreement with the fact that usage is the key, as all licensing and descriptions of con-
veyances are strictly limited to “commerce” and “commercial vehicles” (motor vehicles) and,

Whereas it is the duty of the state to administratively/ministerially report (see 23 USC §§ 303(c) & 402(a)) all such
“motor vehicle” and “school bus” registration/licensing/driver license registration of those in commerce and com-
mercial activities to the federal government for regulation by Congress and,

Whereas Title 49 USC (which is entitled “Transportation”) Subtitle III, § 5702 states: “Transportation” means any
movement of property in commerce (including intrastate commerce) by a motor vehicle or rail vehicle and,

Whereas the courts have uniformly upheld the unalienable Right to Travel freely upon the Public Highways, the
following citations are offered in affirmation of that Right and,

Whereas When government passes an unlawful act, such as the licensing of a Right, people need to know they
have no obligation to obey it, for it is void from the time it was enacted: “An unconstitutional legislative enact-
ment, though law in form, is in fact not law at all. It confers no rights; it imposes no duties; it affords no protec-
tion; it is in legal contemplation as inoperative as though it had never been passed.” Bonnett v.Vallier, 116 N.W.
885, 136 Wis. 193 (1908); Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425, 442. and,

Whereas “The use of the highway for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege, but a com-
mon fundamental right of which the public and individuals cannot rightfully be deprived.” Chicago Motor Coach
v. Chicago, 169 NE 221. and,

Whereas “Personal liberty largely consists of the right of locomotion—to go where and when one pleases--only so
far restrained as the Rights of others make it necessary for the welfare of all other citizens. The right of the citizen
to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, by horse drawn carriage, wagon or auto-
mobile, is not a mere privilege which may be permitted or prohibited at will, but the common Right which he has
under the Right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Under this Constitutional guarantee one may, there-
fore, under normal conditions, travel at his inclination along the public highways or in public places, and while
conducting himself in an orderly and decent manner, neither interfering with nor disturbing another’s Rights, he
will be protected, not only in his person, but in his safe conduct.” American Jurisprudence 1st Edition, Consti-
tutional Law, Sec. 329, p. 1135. and,

Whereas “Those have the right to do something cannot be licensed for what they have the right to do as such li-
cense would be meaningless.” City of Chicago v. Collins. 51 NE 907, 910. and,

Whereas “This right of the people to the use of the public streets of a city is so well established and so universally
recognized in this country, that it has become a part of the alphabet of fundamental rights of the citizen.” Swift v.
City of Topeka, 23 Pac. 1075, 1076, 43 Kansas 671, 674. and,

Whereas “All citizens of the United States of America have a right to pass and re-pass through every part of it
without interruption, as freely as in their own state.” Smith v. Turner, 48 U.S. 283, 12 L Ed. 702. and,

Whereas “The rights, privileges, and immunities of citizens exist notwithstanding there is no specific enumeration
thereof in state constitutions. These instruments measure the powers of rulers, but they do not measure the rights
of the governed….” Thiede v. Town of Scandia Valley, 217 Minn.218,225; 14 N.W. 2d 400 (1944). and,

Whereas “…reasonable regulations of an inalienable right do not include compelling a citizen to waive his consti-
tutional rights by submitting him to licensing, the very nature of which subjects the licensee to rules that can be
unreasonable or a further trespass on his rights… Legislative statute or fiat cannot change the nature of a consti-
tutional right. The right or liberty to travel freely, which had existed when the Constitution of Connecticut was
adopted, exists today, as the right is unchangeable…” Du Pont v. Du Pont, 85 A. 2d 724, 728 (Del. B1951). and,

Whereas constitutional powers can never transcend constitutional rights, and the police power is therefore subordi-
nate to constitutional rights, the police power cannot possibly license the exercise of such a right, and thereby tran-
scend such a right and put itself in a superior position., and,

Whereas “We realize that the police is elastic to meet changing conditions and changing needs, yet it cannot be
used to abrogate or limit personal liberty or property rights contrary to constitutional sanction.” City of Cincin-
nati v. Cornell, 49 N.E. 2d 412, 414; 141 Ohio St. 535. and,

Whereas Licensing cannot be required of free people, because taking on the restrictions of a license requires the
surrender of a right; “Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legis-
lation which would abrogate them.” Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 491. and,

Whereas “The claim and exercise of a right cannot be converted into a crime.” Miller v. U.S., 230 F. 486, 489.
and,

Whereas “Heretofore the court has held, and we think correctly, that while a citizen has the Right to travel upon
the public highways and to transport his property thereon, that Right does not extend to the use of the highways,
either in whole or in part, as a place of business for private gain.” Willis v. Buck, 263 P.I 982; Barney v. Rail-
road Commissioners, 17 P.2d 82. and,

Whereas to deprive all persons of the Right to use the road in the ordinary course of life and business because one
might, in the future, become dangerous, would be a deprivation not only of the Right to travel, but also the Right to
due process, and,

Whereas “We find it intolerable that one Constitutional Right should have to be surrendered in order to assert
another.” Simons v. United States, 390 U.S. 389. and,

Whereas “As a rule, fundamental limitations of regulations under the police power are found in the spirit of the
Constitutions, not in the letter, although they are just as efficient as if expressed in the clearest language.” Mehlos
v. Milwaukee, 146 N.W. 882. and,

Whereas in the instant matter, the state, by applying commercial statutes to all entities, natural and artificial per-
sons alike, has deprived this free and natural person of the Right of Liberty, without cause and without due process
of law, and “The right to travel is part of the Liberty of which a citizen cannot be deprived without due process of
law under the Fifth Amendment. This right was emerging as early as the Magna Carta.” Kent v. Dulles, 357 U.S.
116 (1958). and,

Whereas the legislature does not have the power to abrogate the Citizen’s Right to travel upon the public roads, by
passing legislation forcing the citizen to waive his Right and convert that Right into a privilege, and,

Whereas “Any claim that this statute is a taxing statute would be immediately open to severe Constitutional objec-
tions. If it could be said that the state had the power to tax a Right, this would enable the state to destroy Rights
guaranteed by the constitution through the use of oppressive taxation. The question herein, is one of the state tax-
ing the Right to travel by the ordinary modes of the day, and whether this is a legislative object of the state taxa-
tion. The views advanced herein are neither novel nor unsupported by authority. The question of taxing power of
states has been repeatedly considered by the Supreme Court. The Right of the state to impede or embarrass the
Constitutional operation of the U.S. Government or the Rights which the citizen holds under it, has been uniformly
denied.” McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat 316. and,

Whereas “If, therefore, a statute purported to have been enacted to protect… the public safety, has no real or sub-
stantial relation to those objects or is a palpable invasion of Rights secured by the fundamental law, it is the duty
of the courts to so adjudge, and thereby give effect to the Constitution.” Mulger v. Kansas, 123 U.S. 623, 661.
and,

Whereas "The assertion of federal rights, when plainly and reasonably made, is
not to be defeated under the name of local practice."
Davis v.Wechsler 263 U.S. 22,24.

Whereas it could be said that the state would suffer a monetary loss, “Economic necessity cannot justify a disre-
gard of Constitutional guarantee.” Riley v. Carter, 79 ALR 1018; 16 Am.Jur.(2nd), Const. Law, Sec. 81. and,

Whereas the state cannot lose money that it never had a right to demand from the Sovereign People in the first
place and,

Whereas it could be argued that the licensing scheme of all persons is a matter of public policy, “No public policy
of a state can be allowed to override the positive guarantees of the U.S. Constitution.” 16 Am.Jur. (2nd), Const.
Law, Sec. 70. and,

Whereas no notice is given to people applying for driver’s licenses that they have a perfect right to use the roads in
non-commercial pursuits without any permission, and that they surrender valuable rights by taking on the regula-
tion system of license, the state has committed a massive constructive fraud. This occurs when any person is
told that they must have a license in order to use the public roads and highways and,

Whereas the license, being a legal contract under which the state is empowered with policing powers, is only valid
when the licensee takes on the burdens of the contract and bargains away his or her rights knowingly, intentionally
and voluntarily and,

Whereas We, Moorish ( Muurican ) Nationals cannot in good faith apply for, renew or accept a state-issued
driver’s license because to do so would be to commit Perjury, attesting that we are citizens of, resident of (fiduciary,
surety for) the corporate STATE OF ________________, when the already established facts by Apostille are that
We are not citizens of, franchisee of, or resident (agent) of the STATE OF ________________ or the federal
UNITED STATES and,

Whereas therefore, We have determined and hereby state the facts by declaration and by virtue of our declared
autonomy and American case law, that WE are not required to have government permission to travel freely upon
the public highways, not required to have a driver’s license, not required to register our private property, nor to
surrender the lawful title of our duly conveyed property to the State as security against government indebtedness
and the undeclared federal bankruptcy. Any administrative rule/regulation or statutory act of any State legislature
or judicial tribunal to the contrary is unlawful and clearly unconstitutional, thus null and void and,

Whereas “The state is to protect against any encroachment of a constitutionally secured liberty and such constitu-
tional provisions for the security of a person and property should be liberally construed.” Boved v. U.S., 116 U.S.
616. Therefore my right must be interpreted in favor of me, the citizen, the beneficiary of the trust, because “it is
the duty of courts to be watchful for the constitutional rights of the citizen, and against any stealthy encroachments
thereon.” Bryars v. U.S., 273 U.S. 28, 16 AmJur 2nd § 97. and,

Whereas it is not the job of government to make sure that the citizens are not in error, it is the duty of the citizens
to make sure that the government is not in error, and since the Constitution is the supreme law of the land as stated
in Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137, “The State may not imposed a charge for the enjoyment of a right protected
by the Federal Constitution nor convert a liberty into a privilege, license it, and attach a fee to it…” as stated in
Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105 and,

Whereas We regard it as just and necessary to give notice to the above-named proponent (see # 5) and its princi-
pals (see # 6) of the consequences of any failure to abide by the Constitution for the united States of America
(1791) and the Constitution of the STATE OF ________________ (1836) and its oaths and duties in this matter,
since it can result in the proponents committing acts of treason, usurpation and tyranny. Such trespasses would be
clear and gross violations of the unambiguous Rights secured by the Constitution which allow no room for con-
struction, as amply demonstrated by the numerous adjudications cited herein and,

Whereas Judge Cooley in Constitutional Limitations, page 71, writes, “Acquiescence for no length of time can
legalize a clear usurpation of power, where the people have plainly expressed their will in the Constitution.” In
this instant matter, although the ___________________ Motor Vehicle and Traffic Laws and State Highway Com-
mission Regulations has been promulgated as “public law” for decades, that cannot be held as justification for any
member of the executive or judicial branch of government (“servants”) to continue to usurp power by the contin-
ued conversion of Rights into privileges where such conversion is manifestly contrary to the enumerated Rights of
the People and,

Whereas “That if two or more persons shall band or conspire together, or go in disguise upon the public highway,
or upon the premises of another, with intent to violate any provision of this act (enforcement act of May 30, 31,
1870), or to injure, oppress, threaten or intimidate any citizen, with intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise
and enjoyment of any rights or privilege granted or secured to him by the Constitution or Laws of the United
States, or because of his having exercised the same, such person shall be held guilty of felony, and, on conviction
thereof, shall be fined or imprisoned, or both, at the direction of the Court, the fine not to exceed $5,000 and the
imprisonment not to exceed ten years; and shall, moreover, be thereafter ineligible to, and disabled from holding,
any office or place of honor, profit, or trust created by the Constitution or Laws of the United States.” 16 Stat.
140-141. and,

Therefore In Summary We seek to function according to and within the Private Law and to be afforded the protec-
tions of Private Law, while recognizing the lawful, proper jurisdiction of the Public Law, We will not false swear to
the Public Law which seeks to make driver’s licenses and vehicle registration “mandatory” for all citizens and all
vehicles through a process charitably described as “constructive fraud” and to which the unsuspecting fall prey
and,

Whereas We seek to acquire the items necessary to pass and repass throughout __________________ and this na-
tion without harassment or interference and,
Whereas the STATE OF ________________ has no authority to grant, and is not empowered, absent contract en-
tered into knowingly, intentionally and voluntarily by both parties, to issue “tags” or “plates” for the registration or
identification of the purely private property (private conveyance/vehicle not engaged in commerce) of private, sen-
tient, civilian, absolute sovereign citizens, We will secure a plate for our own identification purposes. It will bear
our internationally unique number, 2262252-1(Apostille #, issued by the Commonwealth of Virginia Secretary of
State) with a single-letter suffix, in state “colors”, and will be mounted and maintained in the space provided for
such identification on our private conveyance.

Whereas We are under no obligation to contract with the STATE OF ________________ for a “driver’s license”,
We will nonetheless secure for ourselves a “Right to Travel /Way Notification” card, in lieu of the “license”, which
will likewise bear my internationally unique number, photo and other identifying information.

WHEREAS, there is no question that a bench appearance Summons, detention, arrest and ticket or citation
issued by a Police Officer or others for traveling with no driver’s license, foreign driver’s license, current reg-
istration, or mandatory insurance, the., which carries a fine or jail time, is a penalty or sanction and is indeed
converting a right into a crime’, thus violating substantial rights. It is reasonable to assume that these judicial
decision are straight to the point, that there is no lawful method for government to put restrictions or limitation
s on rights belonging to the people.

WHEREFORE, you are authorized by this writ, pursuant to National and International Law, to honor all Sub-
stantial rights and Constitutional Immunities for the indigenous Sundry Free, Private Autochthon Mu’urs.
You are to enlist all available and appropriate measures to ensure that all Our Substantive are not breached. The
Sovereign Beings named herein, are not to be arrested or held for detention under any circumstances. The being
named herein are immune from Customs, tariffs, taxation, and any hindrance or restriction of his or her freedom
of movement within member or non-member states. The bearers of this document are to be treated with due re-
spect, and all available and appropriate measures are to be taken to prevent injustice, harm or attack on the
Being’s person, property, freedom, and/or dignity.

Explicit Reservation To All Peace Officers : Our use of All Rights Reserved Without Prejudice UCC 1-308,
1-103 indicates the reservation of our rights whereby we may reserve our Substantive Rights and Constitu-
tional Immunities not to be compelled to perform under any Contract or Agreement that we have not entered
into knowingly, voluntarily or intentionally; and this reservation serves NOTICE upon all Administrative
Agencies of Government, National, State, and Local that we do not accept the liability associated with the
“COMPELLED BENEFIT” of any unrevealed Commercial Agreement.

I, _____________________________witness as, a real live flesh and blood, breathing natural non fictional
being, do solemnly, sincerely, and squarely affirm that the foregoing facts, contained in this Constructive and
Actual Judicial Notice by Affirmed

Affidavit are, to the best of my knowledge and belief, true, correct, complete, and not misleading, the truth, the
whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

ALL RIGHTS RESERVED WITHOUT PREJUDICE UCC 1.308, 1-103

 Traffic Stop Notice
Police Officer, Sheriff, or Law Enforcement Agent, please take notice of the below information:
This information is being presented to you in an attempt to protect you and the presenter of this notice from
breaking THE law. The presenter of this notice has a good deal of respect for the public service job you are doing
and understand how difficult it is to seek out and prosecute criminals. However, this document is presented at a
traffic stop.
Where a Sovereign/Muur is detained, without a warrant and without having committed a crime (traffic infractions
are not crimes), the detention is a false arrest and false imprisonment. Damages awarded; Treavant v. City of
Tampa, 241F.2d. 336 (11th CIR.1984) Motorist illegally held for 23 minutes in a traffic charge was awarded
$25,000 in damages. The above case sets the foundation for $75,000 dollars per hour, or $1,800,000 dollars per
day.
"The Fifth Amendment provides that no person shall be compelled in any criminal case to
be a witness against himself in a criminal prosecution but also privileges him not to an-
swer official questions put to him in any other proceeding, civil or criminal, formal or
informal, where the answers might incriminate him in future criminal proceedings."
[Lefkowitz v. Turley, 94 S. CT. 316, 414 U.S. 70 (1973)]
"The privilege is not ordinarily dependent upon the nature of the proceeding in which the
testimony is sought or is to be used. It applies alike to civil and criminal proceedings,
wherever this might tend to subject to criminal responsibility on him who gives it. The
privilege protects a mere witness as fully as it does one who is a party defendant."
[McCarthy v. Arnstein, 266 U.S. 34, 40, 45 S.CT. 16, 17, 69 L.ED. 158 (1924)]
"where the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination is involved the court has
always construed its protection to ensure that an individual is not compelled to produce
evidence which later may be used against him as an accused in a criminal action. The
protection does not merely encompass evidence which may lead to criminal conviction,
but includes information which would furnish a link in the chain of evidence that could
lead to prosecution, as well as evidence which an individual reasonably believes could be
used against him in a criminal prosecution."
[Hoffman v. United States, 341 U.S. 479, 486, 71 S.CT.814, 95L.Ed. 1, 18 (1951)]
"in Kastigar v. United States, 406 U.S. 441, 92 S. CT. 1653, 32 L. Ed. 212(1972), we re-
cently reaffirmed the principle that the privilege against self incrimination can be as-
serted in any proceeding, civil or criminal, administrative or judicial, investigatory or
adjudicatory. Id., at 444, 92 S. Ct. AT 1656; “
[Lefkowitz v. Turley, 414 U.S. 70, 94 S. CT.316, 322, 38 L. Ed. 274 (1973)]
"WE have recently noted that the privilege against self-incrimination --- the essential
mainstay of our adversary system is founded in a complex of values To maintain a fair
state individual balance, to require the government to shoulder the entire load to protect
the inviolability of the human personality, our accusatory system of criminal justice de-
mands that the government seeking to punish an individual produce the evidence against
him by its own independent labors, rather than by the cruel, simple expedient of compel-
ling it form his own mouth In sum, the privilege is fulfilled only when the person is guar-
anteed the right to remain silent unless he chooses to speak in the unfettered exercise of
his own will."
". . .there can be no doubt that the Fifth Amendment privilege is available outside of
criminal court proceedings and serves to protect persons in all settings in which their
freedom of action is curtailed in any significant way from being compelled to incriminate
themselves."
[Miranda v. Arizona, 86 S. CT. 1602, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) ]
Please also NOTE: the above, as stated by the Supreme Court, are rights and privileges as guaranteed by the Con-
stitution, and anyone (including judges) who knowingly violates those rights may be civilly and criminally liable
under several federal statutes. Please see: United States Code, Title 18 Section 241 (Conspiracy against Rights),
and Section 242 (Deprivation of Rights under Color of Law); Title 42 Section 1983, 1985, 1986 (Civil Rights)
"There, every man is independent of all laws, except those prescribed by nature. He is not
bound by any institutions formed by his fellowman without his consent."
 [Cruden v. Neale, 2 N.C. 338 (1796) 2 S.E.]
Understand this. If one the individual man, that is does not give his consent, no rule made by any institution (all are
fictions of man) is a law placed upon the man. The majority means nothing to human rights and freedom blessed
upon us by our Creator; only rights may prevail without government interference in the real America. This has
been stated in this opinion made about 190 years after Chisholm opinion.
All codes, rules and regulations are applicable to the government authorities only, not
human/Creators in accordance with God’s laws. All codes, rules and regulations are
unconstitutional and lacking in due process Rodriques v Ray Donavan (U.S. Department
of Labor), 769 F. 2d 1344, 1348 (1985) (Bold added)
Sheriffs ignore the fact their job is to protect the rights of the people by in fact controlling artificial entities known
as county and municipal officials. They violate their oaths of office on a regular systematic basis by doing the
unlawful bidding of other officials.
All act under color of authority and commit treason against any American who meets not only his duty as an
American to inform of massive wrongdoing, but also reporting that is required by Title 18, Sections 4 and 2382.
"If the legislatures of the several states may, at will, annul the judgments of the courts of
the United States, and destroy the rights acquired under those judgments, the constitution
itself becomes a solemn mockery"
[United States v. Peters, 5 Cranch 115, 136. ]
If he [the Governor] had such power, said Chief Justice Hughes, in 1932, also for a unanimous Court,
"it is manifest that the fiat of a state Governor, and not the Constitution of the United
States, would be the supreme law of the land; that the restrictions of the Federal Consti-
tution upon the exercise of state power would be but impotent phrases"
[Sterling v. Constantine, 287 U.S. 378, 397-398 (My emphasis) ]
Every state legislator and executive and judicial officer is solemnly committed by oath taken pursuant to Art. VI,
cl. 3, to support this Constitution. Chief Justice Taney, speaking for a unanimous Court in 1859, said that this re-
quirement reflected the framers' anxiety to preserve it [the Constitution] in full force, in all its powers, and to guard
against resistance to or evasion of its authority, on the part of a State . . . . Ableman v. Booth, 21 How. 506, 524.
(Quote copied from Cooper v Aaron, 358 U.S. 1, 1958)

Why is it that they are not interested or willfully disobey the laws and continue on with the same treasonous acts,
often seeking retribution against those who inform them of the truth? It is sometimes just ignorant men that un-
knowingly commit treason and use terrorism against our people but it is flat out evil men that do so knowingly.
Not even the Sheriff of a county the only constitutional law enforcer in a county (and, hence, state) has jurisdiction
over the people. He is only in office to protect and preserve rights of the people. Thusly, he/she does have jurisdic-
tion (authority) over artificial entities namely, the other officials and corporations created or holding contracts with
the chartered corporations. (THE SHERIFF Powers and Responsibilities of Elected Peace Officers, presented
by American Citizens and Lawman Association)
Current officials including city, county, state and federal that have the simple task of protecting the rights of the
people instead use their offices and under color of authority to do anything but protect the rights of the people.
Fraud vital information left out and undisclosed to the people is a criminal act by officials
that is also by definition treason and usually invoking terrorism, as it is forced upon peo-
ple through armed and extremely dangerous SOBs wearing badges and the uniforms of
the corporate government they serve.his liberty has the same right, and only the same
right, to use force in defending himself as he would have in repelling any other assault
and battery."
[State v. Robinson 145 Me. 77,72 Atl. 2d 260, 262 (1950)]
"Uncontrolled search and seizure is one of the first and most effective weapons in the
arsenal of every arbitrary government."
[Brenninger V. U.S. 338 US 160]
"When officers detained defendant for the purpose of requiring him to identify himself,
they performed a "seizure" of his person subject to the requirements of the Fourth
Amendment."
[Brown v. Texas, 443 US at 47]
 "The offense of resisting arrest, both at common law and under statute, presupposes a
lawful arrest. It is axiomatic (self-evident) that every person has the right to resist an
unlawful arrest. In such case the person attempting the arrest stands in the position of a
wrongdoer and may be resisted by the use of force, as in self-defense."
[State v. Mobley 240 N.C. 476, 83 S.E. 2d 100,102 (1954)]
"The usual rule is that a police officer may arrest without warrant one believed by the
officer upon reasonable cause to have been guilty of a felony , and that he may only ar-
rest without a warrant one guilty of a misdemeanor if committed in his presence. Kurtz v.
Moffitt, 115 US 487; Elk v. U.S., 117 US 529. The rule is sometimes expressed as follows:
"In cases of misdemeanor, a peace officer like a private person has at common law no
power of arresting without a warrant except when a breach of the peace has been com-
mitted in his presence or there is reasonable ground for supposing that a breach of the
peace is about to be committed or renewed in his presence." Halsbury's Laws of England,
Vol. 9 part III, 612. The reason for arrest for misdemeanors without warrant at common
law was promptly to suppress breaches of the peace, 1 Stephen, History of Criminal Law,
193..."
[Carrol v. U.S., 267 US 132, 157]
"Though the police are honest and their aims worthy, history shows they are not appro-
priate guardians of the privacy which the Fourth Amendment protects."
[Jones v. United States 362 U.S. 257, 273 (1959).]
"The point of the Fourth Amendment, which often is not grasped by zealous officers, is
not that it denies law enforcement the support of the usual inferences which reasonable
men draw from evidence. Its protection consists in requiring that those inferences be
drawn by a neutral and detached magistrate instead of being judged by the officer en-
gaged in the often competitive enterprise of ferreting out crime."
[Terry v. Ohio, 392 US 1, 34 (1968)]
"It must be recognized that whenever a police officer accosts an individual and restrains
his freedom to walk away, he has 'seized' that person."
[Terry v. Ohio, 392 US 1, 16 (1968)]
"Stopping an automobile and detaining its occupants constitute a "seizure" within mean-
ing of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments, even though purpose of stop is limited and
resulting detention is quite brief."
[Delaware v. Prouse, 440 US 648]
Now, to reiterate, We repeat two cite cases mentioned above. Please note:
"An illegal arrest is an assault and battery. The person so attempted to be restrained of
his liberty has the same right, and only the same right, to use force in defending himself
as he would have in repelling any other assault and battery."
[State v. Robinson 145 Me. 77,72 Atl. 2d 260, 262 (1950)]
"The offense of resisting arrest, both at common law and under statute, presupposes a
lawful arrest. It is axiomatic (self-evident) that every person has the right to resist an
unlawful arrest. In such case the person attempting the arrest stands in the position of a
wrongdoer and may be resisted by the use of force, as in self-defense."
[State v. Mobley 240 N.C. 476, 83 S.E. 2d 100,102 (1954)]
Law Enforcer, To provide you with any information that may later be used against the presenter of this notice in a
civil or criminal proceeding would not be in the best interest of the presenter. This includes producing documents
that may or may not be in his or her possession including but not limited to the non consensual search of this con-
veyance. If there is some important information that you wish to impart the presenter of this notice, please do so in
a respectful manner.
Respectfully submitted,

___________________________, Authorized Seal Without Prejudice