Certified Mail No, 7018 3090 0001 0730 7769 Return Receipt No. 9590 9402 3968 8079 2858 96 THE MOORISH NATIONAL REPUBLIC FEDERAL GOVERNMENT NORTHWEST AFRICA. ‘THE MOORISH DIVINE AND NATIONAL MOVEMENT OF THE WORLD. Northwest Amexem / Northwest Africa / North America “The North Gate’. gt SocietasRepublicacEa Al Maurikanos. ’ Aboriginal and Indigenous Natural Peoples of the Land. x ‘The true and de jure Al Moroccans / Americans. Averment Of Jurisdiction For The Record, To Be Read Into The Record Notice to Agent is Notice to Principal — Notice to Principal is Notice to Agent, September 8, 2019 ‘Thomas-James: Brown-BeyO® clo THOMAS JAMES BROWNC®™ TRUST c/o [15216] Carlisle Detroit, Michigan [48205-9999] Non-Domestic w/o UNITED STATES Jeffrey W. Bullock d/b/a Secretary of State De-Facto STATE OF DELAWARE Division of Corporations 401 Federal Street, Suite 4 Dover, DE 19901 Latitude/Longitude 39.15791438, -75.5221653, Reference Case(s) # 20196694818, 20196694690, 20196701504, 20196698035 and any other fraudulent attempt that the Secretary of State has falsely made accusations that are unsupported. 1, Thomas-James: Brown-Bey a natural man on or about August 5, 2019, sent to the Secretary of State Office in Dover, Delaware, to file my Private lawfully filed UCC claim documents and an attempt was made by your office to fraudulently try to remove the private claims. This office has fi ke any legal determination on my private lawfully filed cla Point 073. Affiant has no record or evidence that any court or governmental agency has jurisdiction over Affiant, as per EXHIBIT 073 - NOTICE OF NO "LICENSE" OF JURISDICTION. ADMIT - Libellees listed in this document admit to the truth and guilt of assumption and presumption that Affiant is ‘a "franchise" belonging to a fictional governmental entity, to Affiant’s harassment, hurt, and injury. EXHIBIT 073 - NOTICE OF NO "LICENSE" OF JURISDICTION Affiant is neither a "subject", nor "object", under any extended power of the state as Afant exists by the authority permission of Affiant's Creator, Yahweh, THOMAS JAMES BROWNC®™ Page 1 of 7Certified Mail No, 7018 3090 0001 0730 7769 Return Receipt No. 9590 9402 3968 8079 2858 96 [As per the Supreme Court in Murdock v. Pennsylvania 319 US 105, "A state may not, dhrough a license tax, ea chat jovment of ranted by sLCor ” A“LICENSE” IS A FORM OF “TAX” "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.” MeCullough v Maryland, 17 U.S. [4 Wheat] 316 (1819) Point 073 A. Affiant has no record or evidence that Affiant has any nexus with the state in form of license granted, a per, "Lis impossible to prove jurisdiction exists absent a substantial nexus with the state, such as voluntary subscription to license, All jurisdictional facts supporting claim that supposed jurisdiction exisis must appear on the record ofthe court.” Pipe Line v Marathon. 102 S. Ct, 3858 quoting Crowell v Benson 883 US 22. Point 073 B. Affiant has no record or evidence Affiant is a "Licensee", as per; "Where « person is not at the time a licensee, agency, nor any official has any jurise of said person to consider or make any order. One ground as to want of jurisdiction was, accused was not a licensee and it was not claimed that he was." O'Neil Dept Prof. & Vocations 7 CA 2d 398; Eiseman v Daugherty 6 CA 783 Point 073 C. Affiant has no record or evidence that Affiant was employed for compensation asa “licensee” for the act so accused, as per: "Agency, or party sitting for the agency, (which would be the magistrate of a municipal cour)) ‘has no authority 1 enforce as to any licensee unless he és acting for compensation, Such an act is highty penal in nature, and should not be construed 10 include anything which is not embraced within its terms. (Where) there is no ze within a complaint that she accused was emploved for compensation to do the act complained of, or that the ‘act constituied part of a contract," Schomigv. Kaiser, 189 Cal 596 Point 073 D. Affiant has no record or evidence that Affiant ever granted jurisdiction as that of a "licensee", as per: "Am action by Department of Motor Vehicles, whether directly or through a court sitting administratively as the hearing officer, must be clearly defined in the stanute before it has subject matter jurisdiction, without such jurisdiction of the Weensee, all acts of the agency, by lis emplavees, agents, hearing officers, are null and void" Doolan v. Care. 125 US 618; City v Pearson, 181 Cal. 640. Point 073 E. Affiant has no record or evidence that failure to reveal material facts is not grounds for estoppel. “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. Point 073 F. Affiant has no record or evidence that Affiant was ever liable for any tax as Affiant was never required to "pay" for use of public highways, as per: "The tax is placed upon those obtaining compensation for the use of the public highways." ~In re Bush, 6 Cal.2d 43 [Crim. No. 3945. In Bank, April I, 1936.] In the Matter of the Application of C.E.BUSH for a Writ of Habeas Corpus. Point 073 G. Affiant has no record or evidence that any authority exists superficially, as per; "A judge ceases to set ‘as a judicial officer because the governing principals of administrative law provides that courts are prohibited from substituting their evidence, testimony, record, arguments and rationale for that of the agency. Additionally, courts are prohibited from their substituting their judgments for that of the agency. Courts in administrative issues are prohibited from even listening to, or hearing arguments, presentation, or rational" AISI v US, 568 F2d 284. Point 073 H. Affiant has no record or evidence that Libellee(s) ageney/agencies has/have any enabling legislation granting power to take action against Affint, as per; "Us basic in our law that an administrative ageney may act ‘nly within the area of jurisdiction marked out for it by law. if an individual does not come within the coverage of the particular agency's enabling legislation the ageney is without power to take any action which affects him.” Endicott v Perkins, 317 US 501 Point 073 I. Affiant has no record or evidence that Affiant does not suffer substantial harm from statutes designated to apply to corporate entities only, as per: "The elementary docirine that the consttulionality of a legislative act [state] is epen to attack only by persons whose ri cred thereby, applies 10 statute relating t0 administrative agencies, the validity of which may not be called into question in the absence of a showing of THOMAS JAMES BROWNC®™ Page 2 of 7Certified Mail No. 7018 3090 0001 0730 7769 Return Receipt No. 9590 9402 3968 8079 2858 96 substantial harm, actual or impending, to a legally protected interest directly resulting from the enforcement of the statute." Board of Trade v, Olson, 262 US 1;29 ALR 2d 1051. Point 073 J. Affiant has no record or evidence that Libellee(s) "minister" has any judicial capacity, as per; "When acting to enforce a statute and its subsequent amendments to the present date, the judge of the municipal court is acting as administrative officer and not.as a judicial capacity: courts in administrating or enforcing statutes do not ‘act judicially but, merely administerially."” Thompson v Smith. 155 Va. 376. 154 SE $83, 71 ALR 604. Point 073 K. Affiant has no record or evidence that any attorney is qualified to stand in Affiant’s place in any lawful proceedings, as per the Supreme Court in Schware v. Board of Examiners. 353 U. S. 238, 239, "they attorneys] ‘cannot represent any private citizen nor any business as the State cannot license the practice of law." Point 073 L. Affiant has no record or evidence that ignorance ever excuses any police officer, as per; "/gnorance of the law does not excuse misconduct in anyone, least ofall in a sworn officer of the law." in ve MeCowan (1917), 177 C.93, 170 P, 1100. Point 073 M, Affiant has no record or evidence to contradict USC, as per; 18 USC 31, (6) Motor vehicle— The term ‘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. Point 073 N. Affiant has no record or evidence to contradict USC, as per; 18 USC 31, (10) Used for commercial purposes. The term "used for commercial purposes" means the carriage of persons or property far any fare, fee, ‘rate, charge, or other consideration, or directly or indirectly in connection with any business, or other undertaking intended for profi. Point 073 0. Affiant has no record or evidence that Affiant must witness against himself, as per; "The Fifth Amendment provides that no person shall be compelled in any criminal case fo be a witness against himself. The Amendment not only protects the individual against being involuntarily called as a witness against himself in a criminal prosecution but also privileges him not to answer official questions put to him in any other. proceeding ctl 2r_criminal_for informal, where the answers mi riminate him in future criminal Lefhowite v. Turley, 94 8, Ct, 316, 414 U.S. 70(19 73). Point 073 P. Affiant has no record or evidence to contradict; The Fourth Amendment forbids stopping a vehicle even for limited purposes of questioning its occupams unless the police officer has a founded suspicion of criminal ‘conduct. U.S. V. Ramirer & Sandoval, 872 F2d, 1392. Point 073 Q. Affiant has no record or evidence to contradict; "An action by Department of Motor Vehicles, whether directly or through a court sitting administratively as the hearing officer, must be clearly defined in the statute before it has subject matter jurisdiction, without such jurisdiction of the licensee, all acts of the agency, by its employees, agents, hearing officers, are mull and void." Doolan v. Carr, 125 US 618; City v Pearson, 181 Cal. 640. Point 073 R. Affiant has no record or evidence to contradict; "Agency, or party sitting for the agency, {which would bbe the magistrate of a municipal court] has no authority (0 enforce as to any licensee unless he [licensee] is acting for compensation. Such an act is highly penal in nature, and should not be construed to include anything which is ‘not embraced within its terms. (Where) there is no charge within a complaint that the accused was employed for ‘compensation to do the act complained of, or that the act constituted part of a contract.” Schomig v. Kaiser, 189 Cal 596. Point 073 S, Affiant has found no cause to not agree with; "The high Courts, through their citations of authority, have frequenily declared, that “..where any state proceeds against a private individual in a judicial forum it is well setled that the state, county, municipality, et. waives any Immunity 10 counters, eross 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; Poin 0737. Aan has fund no ease to not agree wih: “When enforcing mere statues, judges of all cours do ‘not-act judicially (and thus are not protected by “qualified” or “limited immunity.” - SEE: Qwen v. City, 445 U.S, 662; Borhke v. Terry, 713 F2d 1404) - -“but merely act as an extension as an agent for the involved agency ~ ‘but only n.d “ministerial” and wot a “discretionary capacity.” Thomson v, Smith, 154 S.E, 579, 583; Keller v. THOMAS JAMES BROWNC®™ Page 3 of 7Certified Mail No. 7018 3090 0001 0730 7769 Return Receipt No. 9590 9402 3968 8079 2858 96 PE, 261 US 428; ERC. v. GE. 81, US. 464, Point 073 U. Affiant has no record or evidence that any magistrate, sitting in ministerial capacity has the ability to receive grants of "judicial" power from the legislature, as per: "Ministerial officers are incompetent to receive grants Judicial power from the legislature, their act smpting to exercise such powers are ily mllities.” Burns v, Sup, Ct, SF, 140 Cal. 1 Point 073 V. Affiant has no record or evidence that, as per the Supreme Court in Murdock v. Pennsylvania 319 US 105, "A state may not, through a license fax, impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the Federal Constinution,"” "Rear Bumper" Cl 1rd of Education v. (1974) 414 US 632, 39 L Ed 2d 52, 94S Ct791. Irrebutable Presumption violates Due Process clause. Significance. Plaintiffs contend that enforcement of VC 14602.6 by defendants utilizes the irrebutable presumption of valid constitutional license suspension without regard to constitutional invalidity al la Bell v Burson (discussed herein) upon receipt by police radio of information from DMV or other agency alleging a suspension of driver license. Driver has no opportunity to rebut prior to impoundment of his car and imposition of towing charges for ‘which his car is held as security despite the car's exempt status pursuant to bankruptcy law or CCP 704.010 et seq in violation of the supremacy clause and, in the office's case, in violation of the officer's oath to support the constitution which includes the supremacy clause and the due process clause A related case: People v, Bailey (1982) 133 Cal.App..3d Supp.12,184 Cal. Rptr. 608 BIBLICAL & LOGICAL REASONS FOR NOT SUBMITTING TO FOREIGN TAX: NOTE: A “person” is licensed (taxed), not the real living man. ‘A *petson’ isa legal entity, not a living man. The “office of person” isa privilege created by a larger legal entity named United States. A United States (U.S.) citizen is @ “person.” This “office of person’ is a license from a larger licensed corporation. Homo vocabulum est naturae: persona juris civilis- Man is x term of nature; person of civil law. Private law isa license, and not a contract, for the receiver of the privilege has no action enforceable against the giver of the privilege AA dispensation or license properly passeth no interest, nor alters or transfers property in any thing, but only ‘makes an action lawful which without it had been unlawful A license is a mere privilege without enforceable rights, which distinguishes it from an easement giving definite property rights enforceable against the entire world. ‘A ‘license’ is not a contract between the state and the licensee, but is a mere personal permit. Neither is it property or a property right. Nor does it create a vested right. A sovereign [*the lawgiver] is exempt from suit, not because of any formal conception or obsolete theory, but ‘on the logical and practical ground that there can be no legal ygainst the authority that makes the law on ‘which the right depends. Car on peut bien recovoir loy d’autruy, mais il est impossible par nature de se donner loy. Nemo suo statuo ligatur necessitative. THOMAS JAMES BROWNO®™ Page 4 of 7Certified Mail No. 7018 3090 0001 0730 7769 Return Receipt No. 9590 9402 3968 8079 2858 96 So, whatever is established by the Commander-in-Chief or "Congress," is in derogation of the Christian common Law, and: One, is a privilege "protected by the military power of the Union"; and, Two, may be taxed constitutionally as an excise for revenue purposes: DEROGATION. The partial abrogation of a law. To derogate from a law is to enact something which impairs its utility and force; to abrogate a law is to abolish it entirely. All statutes are to be construed with reference to the provisions of the common law, and provisions in derogation of the common law are held strictly. UCC 1-103.6 ‘The [*Federal] Civil Rights Act isin derogation of the common law and must be strictly construed. One of the biggest “devices” of the confiscation and asset for the use of "personification" to confiscate property. re plague and the State stampede of licensing” Personification is the idea that things or objects possess the free ply rooted in the practice of witcheraf, the occult and d ‘of power from the devil, ora curse. worship. Objects are supposed to get that ‘The courts declare "things" capable of free will to commit crimes hundreds of times every day. I want to hear a car, boat, or house walk in, sit down on the witness stand and testify like "Mr. Ed” the horse, before I will concede that this practice is anything but an evil ploy to steal property. A “license” issued by a fiction (corporation, government entity, etc.) is a permit rendered to another fiction (fictional legal entity) to do what would be otherwise against natural law. The “lie sense” is a permit for you to lie to your senses; allow a fiction to rule over truth. A“LICENSE” TO LIE ~ (to the senses) = Lie Sense: a Permit to Lie to the Senses, Jude 1:4 For there are certain men who crept in secretly, even they who were of old written of beforehand to this condemnation: ungodly men, turning the grace of our God ino fassiviousness, and denying our only Master, God, and Lond, Jesus Chris, Strong’s Concordance: laseiviousness, wantonness: Word Number 766 unbridled lust, excess, licentiousness, lasciviousness, wantonness, outrageousness, shamelessness, insolence, (lasciviousness and wantonness mean licentiousness) Heritage Dictionary: li-cen-tious ad). 1. Lacking moral discipline or ignoring legal restraint... 2. Having no regard for accepted rules or standards. (Latin centitssus, from licentia, freedom, license. See LiCeNst.] cense 1. 1.a, Official or legal permission to do or own a specified thing, See Synonyms at permission. b. Proof of permission granted, usually in the form of a document, card, plate, or tag: a driver's license, 2. Deviation from normal rules, practices, or methods in order to achieve a certain end or effect: poetic license. 3, Latitude of action, especially in behavior or speech. See Synonyms at freedom. 4.2. Lack of due restraint; excessive freedom: “When liberty becomes license, dictatorship is near” (Will Durant). b. Heediessness for the precepts of proper behavior; licentiousness. REMEMBER: The “legal” definition of “license” is a “permit to do something that would otherwise be illegal.” Remember also, that “legalese” only gives enough information to place the inquirer off-balance and believe the intended meaning of the person defining the word, quite often to the “believers” injury World English Bible 2 Peter 2:18 For, uttering great swelling words of emptiness, they entice in the lusts of the flesh, by licentiousness, those who are indeed escaping from those who live in error; THOMAS JAMES BROWNO®™ Page 5 of 7Certified Mail No. 7018 3090 0001 0730 7769 Return Receipt No. 9590 9402 3968 8079 2858 96 Darby Bible ‘Mark 7:22 thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, licemtiousness, a wicked eye, injurious language, haughtiness, folly; 2 Corinthians 12:21 lest my God should humble me as to you when I come again, and that I shall grieve ‘over many of those who have sinned before, and have not repented as to the uncleanness and fornication and licentiousness which they have practiced. Galatians 5:19 Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are fornication, uncleanness, licentiousness, 8 5:6 Thou shalt destroy them that speak leasing: the LORD will abhor the bloody and deceitful man, leasing: Strong #: 3877 --a lie, untruth, falsehood, deceptive thing, Isn't “leasing” is just another word for “licensing?” MISC, LICENSE IS BUT A "TAX" ‘The fraudulently “presumed” quasi-contractus that binds the Declarant with the STATE OF DELAWARE, UCC SECTION, DIVISION OF CORPORATIONS agency, is void for fraud ab initio, since the de facto STATE OF DELAWARE cannot produce the material fact (consideration inducement) of 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 “life blood” of any agreement or quasi-agreement, (contractus) “..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-contractus. Such is the importance of a “consideration.” Reading RR.Co.v, Johnson, 7 W & § (Pa.)317 So without a Contract or consideration there is no STATE OF DELAWARE et. jurist 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 ean 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 inthe territorial jurisdiction ofthe taxing authority .. Government Immunity - “In Land v. Dollar, 338 US 731 (1947), the court noted, “that when the government ‘entered into a commercial ficld of activity, it left immunity behind.” Brady v. Roosevelt, 317 US 575 (1943); FHA v. Burr, 309 US 242 (1940); Kiefer v. REC, 306 US 381 (1939). Immunity for judges does not extend to acts which are clearly outside of their jurisdiction. Bauers v. Heisel CAA. NJ. 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.CN.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 US. 971, 16 L.Ed. 2nd 311, Motion denied 285 F.Supp. 546) tion as the property does “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), 28 USC 1746 1, Thomas-James: Brown-Bey, declare under the penalty of perjury, under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and beliefs. THOMAS JAMES BROWNO®™ Page 6 of 7Certified Mail No, 7018 3090 0001 0730 7769 Return Receipt No. 9590 9402 3968 8079 2858 96 ‘This Affidavit is made without purpose of evasion or intent to mislead, if some fact is proved by facts, law and evidence to be incorrect, I reserve the right to amend for the truth to be clearly stated. “Truth” is the law of “Commerce”. “Judgment” must follow the “Truth”. God's will be done. c/o THOMAS JAMES BROWNO®™ clo [15216] Carlisle Detroit, Michigan [48205-9998] ‘Non-Domestic without UNITED STATES (248)385-7250 THOMAS JAMES BROWNO®™ Page 7 of 7UM oscil cor L® RECEIPT ee =F: —— —=F- es FG Sacer > ss DECAwARES —— ca\ Gree SES >= -- ———— =——— 20 =— 33 ea nit TPs rom S6TT ay zns pares | (postu RP WH HOWL diva sovisod So Se - FBG PMG, |PIIP2, SIMIAN aouEproooy Up meer ae SOS LS EY oN Bows FS PPS Jo hypasas canoer PONSA en Messer besccenel Resmi sauvis a3uINn [es66-sozer 1e8u) uebi arsed eg-umog ‘sawer-SeWouL