AFFIDAVIT OF RESERVATION OF RIGHTS

PUBLIC THIS IS A PUBLIC COMMUNICATION TO ALL

All rights reserved UCC 1-308/1-207 rick david shilow : Jimenez,
sui juris Notice to agents is notice to principles
c/o Address Notice to
principles is Notice to Agents City, State a republic near [zip code]
Applications to all successors and assigns Phone: [ XXX XXX-XXXX ]
All are without excuse Non-domestic without the United States

Let it be known to all that I, rick david shiloh : jimenez explicitly reserves all of my rights. See
UCC 1-308 which was formally UCC 1-207. [State reference RSMO 400.1-207]
Ҥ 1-308. Performance or Acceptance Under Reservation of Rights.
(a) A party that with explicit reservation of rights performs or promises performance or
assents to performance in a manner demanded or offered by the other party does not
thereby prejudice the rights reserved. Such words as "without prejudice," "under protest,"
or the like are sufficient.”
I retain all of my rights and liberties at all times and in all places, nunc pro tunc (now for then)
from the time of my birth and forevermore. Further, I retain my rights not to be compelled to
perform under any contract or commercial agreement that I did not enter knowingly, voluntarily
and intentionally. And furthermore, I do not accept the liability of the compelled benefit of any
unrevealed contract or commercial agreement. I am not ever subject to silent contracts and have
never knowingly or willingly contracted away my sovereignty. Further, I am not a United States
citizen or a 14th amendment citizen. I am a State Citizen of the republic and reject any attempted
expatriation. See 15 united States statute at large, July 27th, 1868 also known as the
expatriation statute [page 13]
Violation fee of my liberty is $250,000 per incident or per 15 minutes or any part thereof.
Wherefore all have undeniable knowledge.
AFFIDAVIT
Affiant, rick david shilow : jimenez, sui juris, a natural born Citizen of California in its dejure
capacity as a republic and as one of the several states of the union created by the constitution for
the united States of America 1777/1789. This incidentally makes me an American national and a
common man of the Sovereign People, does swear and affirm that Affiant has scribed and read
the foregoing facts, and in accordance with the best of Affiant's firsthand knowledge and
conviction, such are true, correct, complete, and not misleading, the truth, the whole truth, and
nothing but the truth.

Signed By: ____________________________________sui juris,

This Affidavit is dated_______________
NOTARY PUBLIC
State _____________________________County _____________________________
Subscribed and sworn to before me, a Notary Public, the above signed rick david shilow :
jimenez,
This ______________ day of _____________________, ____________year
________________________________
Notary Public
MY COMMISSION EXPIRES: ______________
 Notification of knowledge and invocation of Rights .
Notice to agents is notice to principals All rights reserved UCC 1-308
Notice to principals is notice to agents .

The following facts are true and correct to the best of my knowledge.
Fact 1: Traffic Citation, by lawful definition means “Commercial Transaction for
punishment”.
Fact 2: A police officer’s job is to serve and to protect the citizens and the laws of the land
under his jurisdiction.
Fact 3: When a police officer issues a traffic citation he is working as a revenue official to
make money for the jurisdiction he serves.
Fact 4: Statutes, Codes, Ordinances, and Acts are written to govern the citizens under the
jurisdiction in which they agree to have over them.
Fact 5: A legal agreement is made through a contract between two parties but does not always
explain the rights of both parties whether the contract is written (ie. Drivers license) or by
acquiescence (ie. Arrest warrant for not showing up to court). A lawful agreement is made
between two or more consenting parties of sound mind over the age of 21 agreeing to all
stipulations and full disclosure.

Fact 6: Simply because one possesses a license (ie. Drivers license) does not mean that every
time they are in a vehicle they are driving. For instance, if one had obtained a liquor license, that
wouldn’t mean every sale they complete is a liquor sale simply because they have a license to
sell liquor.

Fact 7: Not all vehicles on streets, highways, roadways, and lots public or private are motor
vehicles according to state laws, codes, statutes, and/ or acts. “Motor vehicles” as defined by
Blacks Law Dictionary 5th edition are used for business and industry as contrasted with
pleasure vehicles. “Pleasure vehicles” are used for traveling; as defined by Blacks Law
Dictionary 5th edition as a voluntary change of place.

I use my coach for personal use not in a commercial capasity but to voluntarily change the place
that I am. Therefore I am not subject to any Statutes, Codes, Regulations, acts, or civil laws
set, enacted, resolved, revised, or enforced by any state or federal department. My goal is
not to make money nor to contract with anyone, and I do not consent to any contract with a
Revenue official. You are now notified that any attempt to extort money from me or any
attempts to deprive me of my rights will be prosecuted by state and constitutional law. I do not
consent to any search or seizure of me, myself, and I, or my property. If there is reasonable
cause for a search I demand to be served a copy of the search warrant with a signed complaint
by an injured party that is not a corporate entity prior to the search. Failure to preserve my God
given rights will result in criminal trespassing charges brought upon the public officer/s
responsible. If I am being detained you are now advised in writing that my fee schedule is in
effect. My fee schedule is $1,800,000.00 per day, $75,000.00 per hour, $1086.96 per minute
that I am held unlawfully. If I am being detained I demand a reasonable opportunity to secure
my own property. I reserve all my constitutionally secured rights as well as my God given
rights and wish only to proceed with peace in my pursuit of Life, Liberty, and Happiness.

Notary Public
STATE OF COUNTY OF .
This day of ,2020
Notary Public
Subscribed and sworn to before me, a Notary Public, the above signed First-Middle: Last Name
My Commission expires. . All rights
reserved UCC 1-308

Legislative act. An alternative name for statutory law. When introduced into the first house of the legislature, a piece of proposed
legislation is known as a bill. When passed to the next house, it may then be referred to as an act. After enactment the terms “law” and
“act” may be used interchangeably. An act has the same legislative force as a joint resolution but it is technically distinguishable,
being of a different form and introduced with the words “Be it enacted” instead of “Be it resolved”.
Appearance. A coming into court as a party to a suit, either in person or by an attorney, whether as plaintiff or defendant. The formal
proceeding by which a defendant submits himself to the jurisdiction of the court. The voluntary submission to a courts jurisdiction.
Citation- A writ issued out of a court of competent jurisdiction, commanding a person therein named to appear on a day named
and do something therein mentioned, or show cause why he should not. An order, issued by the police, to appear before a magistrate
or judge at a later date. Usually used for minor violations (e.g. traffic violations); avoids taking of suspect into immediate physical
custody.
Contract. An agreement between two or more persons which creates an obligation to do or not to do a particular thing. Its
essentials are competent parties, subject matter, a legal consideration, mutuality of agreement, and mutuality of obligation.
Driver. A person actually doing driving, whether employed by owner to drive or driving his own vehicle.
Fine. To impose a pecuniary punishment or mulct. To sentence a person convicted of an offense to pay a penalty in money.
Ordinance. A rule established by authority; a permanent rule of action; a law or statute. In its most common meaning, the term is
used to designate the enactments of the legislative body of a municipal corporation. An ordinance is the equivalent of a municipal
statute, passed by the city counsel, or equivalent body, and governing matters not already covered by federal or state law.
Ordinances commonly govern zoning ,building, safety, etc. matters of municipality.
PERSON. In general usage, a human being (i.e. natural person), though by statute term may include a firm, labor organizations,
partnerships, associations, corporations, legal representatives, trustees, trustees in bankruptcy, or receivers.
Police Officer. One of the staff of men employed in cities and towns to enforce the municipal laws and ordinances for preserving
the peace, safety, and good order of the community. Also called “policeman”; “patrolman”.
Traffic. Commerce; trade; sale or exchange of merchandise, bills, money, and the like. The passing of goods or commodities
from one person to another for an equivalent in goods or money. The subjects of transportation on a route, as persons or goods; the
passing to and fro of persons, animals, vehicles, or vessels, along a route of transportation, as along a street, highway, etc.
Travel. To go from one place to another at a distance; to journey. Spoken of voluntary change of place.
Traveler. One who passes from place to place, whether for pleasure, instruction, business or health.
Violation. Injury; infringement; breach of right, duty or law; ravishment; seduction. All Definitions are verbatim from Blacks
Law Dictionary Special Deluxe Fifth Edition
Proven cases- CASE #1: "The use of the highway for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege, but a
common fundamental right of which the public and individuals cannot rightfully be deprived." Chicago Motor Coach v. Chicago, 169
NE 221. CASE #2: "The right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by carriage
or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit or permit at will, but a common law right which he has under the
right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Thompson v. Smith, 154 SE 579. CASE #3: "The right to travel is a part of the
liberty of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment." Kent v. Dulles, 357 US 116,
125. CASE #4: "The right to travel is a well-established common right that does not owe its existence to the federal government. It is
recognized by the courts as a natural right." Schactman v. Dulles 96 App DC 287, 225 F2d 938, at 941. CASE #5:"The state cannot
diminish rights of the people." Hertado v. California, 110 US 516.CASE#6: "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 US 22, at 24. CASE#7:"Where rights
secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them." Miranda v. Arizona,
384 US 436, 491. CASE#8:"The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime." Miller v. US, 230 F
486, at 489. CASE#9:”There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of this exercise of constitutional rights." Sherer
v. Cullen, 481 F 946. CASE#10:Allen vs. City of Bellingham, 163 P. 18, CASE#11:American Mutual Liability Ins. Co., vs. Chaput,
60 A.2d 118, 120; 95 NH 200, CASE#12: Bacahanan vs. Wanley, 245 US 60, CASE#13: Barney vs.Board of Railroad
Commissioners, 17 P.2d 82, CASE#14: Barbour vs. Connolly, 113 US 27, 31, CASE#15: Bennett v. Boggs, CASE#16: Blair vs.
Broadmore, 93 SE 532., CASE#17: Boon vs. Clark, 214 SSW 607, CASE#18: Boyd vs. United States, 116 US 616., CASE#19:
Chicago Motor Coach vs. Chicago, 169 NE 22, CASE#20: City of Dayton vs. DeBrosse, 23 NE.2d 647, 650; 62 Ohio App. 232.,
CASE#21: Cohens vs. Meadow, 89 SE 876
CASE#22: Connolly vs. Union Sewer Pipe Co., 184 US 540, CASE#23: Crandall vs. Nevada, 6 Wall 35, 46, CASE#24: Cummins
vs. Homes, 155 P. 171, CASE#25: Davis vs. Massachusetts, 167 US 43, CASE#26: Dennis vs. Moses, 52 P. 333, CASE#27: Ex
Parte Dickey, (Dickey vs. Davis), 85 SE 781, CASE#28: Frost and F. Trucking Co. vs. Railroad Commission, 271 US 592,
CASE#29: Hale v. Hinkel, 201 US 43, 74-75.
CASE#30:Hadfield vs. Lundin, 98 Wash 657l, 168, p.516, CASE#31: Hurtado vs. California, 110 US 516, CASE#32: International
Motor Transit Co. vs. Seattle, 251 P. 120, CASE#33: Kent v. Dulles (1958) 357 US 116, 125. 2, CASE#34: Lafarier vs. Grand Trunk
R.R. Co., 24 A. 848, CASE#35: Ligare vs. Chicago, 28 NE 934, CASE#36:Locket vs. State, 47 Ala. 45, CASE#37: Marbury v
Madison (1803). A void act is void ab initio. 2, CASE#38: Mehlos vs. Milwaukee, 146 NW 882, CASE#39: McCulloch vs.
Maryland, 4 Wheat 316, CASE#40: Miranda v. Arizona, (1966) 384 US 436, 491. 2, CASE# 41: Miller v. US, 230 F 486, 489 1,
CASE#42: Miller v. US, 230 F 486, 489 1, CASE#43: Mulger vs. Kansas, 123 US 623, 661, CASE#44: Newbill vs. Union
Indemnity Co., 60 SE.2d 658., CASE#45: Northern Pacific R.R. Co. vs. Schoenfeldt, 213 P. 26., CASE#46: O'Neil vs. Providence
Amusement Co., 108 A. 887., CASE#47: Packard vs. Banton, 44 S.Ct. 256, CASE#48: Panhandle Eastern Pipeline Co. vs. State
Highway Commission, 294 US 613, CASE#49: Parlett Cooperative vs. Tidewater Lines, 164 A. 313, CASE#50: Parks vs. State, 64
NE 682, CASE#51: People vs. Henderson, 218 NW.2d 2, 4, CASE#52: People vs. Smith, 108 Am.St.Rep. 715, CASE#53: Railroad
commission vs. Inter-City Forwarding Co., 57 SW.2d 290, CASE#54: Riley vs. Carter, 79 ALR 1018, CASE#55: Riley vs. Laeson,
142 So. 619, CASE#56: Robertson vs. Department of Public Works, 180 Wash 133, 147, CASE#57: Rosenblatt vs. California State
Board of Pharmacy, 158 P.2d 199, 203, CASE#58: Schactman v. Dulles 96 App DC 287, 225 F2d 938, at 941. 1, CASE#59: Slote vs.
Examination, 112 ALR 660, CASE#60: Sherer v. Cullen, 481 F 946. 1, CASE#61: State vs. City of Spokane, 186 P. 864., CASE#62:
State vs. Jackson, 60 Wisc.2d 700; 211 NW.2d 480, 487, CASE#63: State v. Johnson, 245 P 1073. 1, CASE#64: State vs. Strasburg,
110 P. 1020, CASE#65: Stephenson vs. Rinford, 287 US 251, CASE#66: Pachard vs Banton, 264 US 140, CASE#67: Simon vs.
Craft, 182 US 427, CASE#68: Simons vs. United States, 390 US 389, CASE#69: Ex Parte Sterling, 53 SW.2d 294, CASE#70:Teche
Lines vs. Danforth, Miss., 12 S.2d 784, CASE#71: Tiche vs. Osborne, 131 A. 60., CASE#72: Thompson v. Smith, 154 SE 579 1,
CASE#73: Washington A.G.O. 59-60 No. 88, p. 11, CASE#74: Watson vs. Memphis, 375 US 526, CASE#75: Western Electric Co.
vs. Pacent Reproducer Corp., 42 F.2d 116, 118., CASE#76: Willis vs. Buck, 263 P.l 982., CASE#77: Yick Wo vs. Hopkins, 118 US
356. CASE#78: The "RIGHT" to travel is a part of the liberty of which the Citizen "cannot be deprived" without due process of the
law under the 5th Amendment. See: Kent v. Dulles, 357 U.S. 116, 125 CASE#79: The term "Public Highway," in its broad popular
sense, includes toll roads, streets, highways-and roadways which the public has a "RIGHT" to use even conditionally, though in a
strict legal sense it is restricted to roads which are wholly public. See: Weirich v. State, 140 Wis. 98. CASE#80: Even the legislature
has no power to deny to a Citizen the "RIGHT" to travel upon the roadways and transport his property in the ordinary course of his
business or pleasure, through this "RIGHT" might be regulated in accordance with the public interest and convenience. See: Chicago
Motor Coach v. Chicago, 169 N.E. 22 CASE#81: The use of the roadways for the purpose of travel and transportation is NOT a mere
PRIVILEGE, but a "COMMON AND FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT" of which the public and individuals cannot rightfully be deprived.
(Emphasis added) See: Chicago Motor Coach v. Chicago, supra; See: Ligare v. Chicago, 28 N.E. 934; See: Boone v. Clark, 214 S. W.
607;See: American Jurisprudence 1st Ed., Highways 163 CASE#82: A Citizen 's "RIGHT" to travel upon public highways includes
the right to use usual conveyances of time, including horse-drawn carriage, or automobile, for ordinary purposes of life and business.
See: Thompson v. Smith (Chief of Police), 154 S. E. 579, 580 CASE#83: The "RIGHT" of the Citizen to travel upon the public
roadways and to transport his property thereon, either by carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit
or permit at will, but a "COMMON RIGHT" which he has under the "RIGHT" to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. See:
Thompson v. Smith, supra. CASE#84: The streets and roadways belong to the public, for the use of the public in the ordinary and
customary manner. See: Hadfield v. Lundin, 98 Wn. 657; 168 P. 516; CASE#85: All those who travel upon, and transport their
property upon, the public highways, using the ordinary conveyance of today, and doing so in the usual and ordinary course of life and
business. See: Hadfield, supra; See: State v. City of Spokane, 109 Wn. 360; 186 P. 864. CASE#86: The "RIGHT" of the Citizen to
travel upon the highways and to transport his property thereon, in the ordinary course of life and business, obviously differs radically
from that of one who makes the highways his principal place of business and uses it for private gain ... See: State v. City of Spokane,
supra. CASE#87: 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. For the latter
purposes no person has a vested right to use the highways of the state, but is a MERE PRIVILEGE or license which the legislature
may grant or withhold at its discretion .... See: Hadfield, supra; State v. Johnson, 243 P. 1073; See: Cummins v. Jones, 155 P. 171;
See: Packard v. Banton, 44 S.Ct. 257, 264 U.S. 140 and other cases too numerous to mention. CASE#88: I am not particularly
interested about the rights of haulers by contract, or otherwise, but I am deeply interested in the "RIGHTS" of the public to use the
public highways freely for all lawful purposes. See: Robertson v. Department of Public Works, 180 Wash. 133 at 139 CASE#89: It is
not the amount of travel, the extent of the use of a highway by the public that distinguishes it from a private way or road. It is the
"RIGHT" to so use or travel upon it, not its exercise. See: ? Ind 455, 461 CASE#90: The "RIGHT" of the Citizen to travel upon the
public roadways and to transport his property thereon, by horse-drawn carriage, wagon, or automobile, is NOT a mere PRIVILEGE
which may be permitted or prohibited at will, but a "COMMON RIGHT" which he has under his right to life, liberty, and the pursuit
of happiness. Under the Constitutional guarantee one may, therefore, under normal conditions, travel at his inclination along the public
roadways or in public places, and while conducting himself in an orderly and decent manner, neither interfering with, not disturbing
another's "RIGHTS," he will be protected, not only in his person, but in his safe conduct. (Emphasis added) See: 11 American
Jurisprudence 1st., Constitutional Law, 329, page 1123CASE#91: In this connection, it is well to keep in mind that, while the public
has an absolute "RIGHT" to the use of the streets for their primary purpose, which is for travel, the use of the streets from the purpose
of parking automobiles is a privilege, and not a "RIGHT"; and the privilege must be accepted with such reasonable burdens as the city
may place as conditions to the exercise of that privilege. See: Gardner v. City of Brunswick, 28 S.E.2d 135 CASE#92: Every Citizen
has an inalienable "RIGHT" to make use of the public highways of the state; every Citizen has full freedom to travel from place to
place in the enjoyment of life and liberty. See: People v. Nothaus, 147 Colo. 210 CASE#93: 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. See: Hoke v. Henderson, 15 N.C. 15, 25 AM. Dec. 67722.1 Undoubtedly the "RIGHT" of locomotion, the "RIGHT"
to remove from one place to another according to inclination, is an attribute of personal liberty, and the "RIGHT," ordinarily, of free
transit from or through the territory of any State is a "RIGHT" secured by the Fourteenth Amendment and by other provisions of the
Constitution. See: Williams v. Fears, 343 U.S. 270, 274
Title 18 USC 31, 16 C.J.S., Constitutional Law, Sect.202, p.987, Const. Law, 329 and corresponding Am. Jur. [2nd], 12 Am.Jur.
[1st] Const. Law, Sect.573, p.269, 16 Am.Jur. (2nd), Const. Law, Sect.70, 25 Am.Jur. (1st) Highways, Sect.260, 25 Am.Jur. (1st)
Highways, Sect.427, p.717,
 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF ________
STATE OF__________
DEFENDANT
FIRST MIDDLE LAST NAME
Vs.
PLAINTIFF
NAME
NOTICE AND DEMAND TO COMPEL DISCOVERY OF FACTS AND
EVIDENCE
Comes now Affiant, First-Middle: Last Name, sui juris the representative of the DEFENDANT
and the lawful holder of all property both registered and unregistered of the DEFENDANT to
assist the court in relief and/ or dismissal of charges against DEFENDANT. Affiant notified the
arresting officer that all rights are reserved under UCC 1-308, any offer of contract was refused
and any force of contract by way of threats, duress, and coercion was dishonored because of lack
of mutuality of agreement and mutuality of obligation. Furthermore officer was notified that if
contract was forced upon Affiant there was to be proof of discovery of facts and evidence of a
breach of contract signed by the injured party under the penalty of perjury. Proof was to be
provided to Affiant within 10 days, or 240 hours, or 14,400 minutes for Affiants examination of
validity of the charges therein. This is simply to assist the court and its procedure to move along
as quickly and smoothly as possible. No proof, facts, or evidence, of any injured party has been
brought before Affiant for examination and therefore Affiant has reasonable suspicion to question
whether the officer was falsifying documents without having any supporting facts or evidence for
his trespass upon Affiant and Affiants private property.

AFFIDAVIT
Officer has not proven jurisdiction to issue any statutory citations by failing to surrender proof of
breach of contract signed by an injured party under the penalty of perjury. Therefore Affiant
cannot be held accountable to any contract with the officer. The officer has denied the show of
valid proof that there is a contract and has only entered heresay into the case made to deprive the
Affiant of his rights and to attempt to ask the court to conspire with him against such rights 18
USC 241-242. Affiant only contracted under protest, without prejudice of the rights reserved,
under duress, threats and coercion, and under the terms that the officer provide him with proof,
facts, and evidence that Affiant was under statutory [contract] Law and had breached a contract
and said contractor had signed a complaint against Affiant.
Signed: Dated:______________
Notary Public
STATE OF COUNTY OF
.
This day of ,2011
Subscribed and sworn to before me, a Notary Public, the above signed First-Middle: Last Name
My Commission expires. .
All rights reserved UCC 1-308
Point 001. All Judges, Officers, and Agents are under oath and only to contract legally under
Statutory law when in uniform and working for the CITY, COUNTY, STATE, and/or
PROVINCE of their Jurisdiction. The Affiant has not received evidence that any officials have
jurisdiction over his sovereign being or any jurisdiction to force Affiant into contract.
Furthermore Affiant has no proof that a mere force of signature obtained by threats, duress, and
coercion gives authority to any employee of the CITY, COUNTY, STATE, and/or PROVINCE
over the being of the Affiant.

ADMIT- Affiant did not lawfully contract with any employee of the CITY, COUNTY, STATE,
and/or PROVINCE.

EXHIBIT 001- Proof of lawful contract under full disclosure, mutuality of agreement, and
mutuality of obligation
Point 001 (a) For a contract to be lawful there is to be full disclosure of all terms and stipulations.
Point 001 (b) When all rights to contract are reserved and there is a force of signature there can
be no lawful contract and the contract is in dishonor because it is not a mutual agreement.
Point 001 (c) For one to force another to sign against their will under the threat of arrest it is no
less than felonious restraint and kidnapping.
Point 001 (d) Contract law is statutory law. If a governmental employee forces someone to sign a
traffic citation that states a violation of Statutory law when there is no valid contract, that
employee is violating statutory law and is in violation of his oath.
Point 001 (e) Any contract gained by way of threats, duress, and coercion has no grounds to be
valid under statutory law, common law, constitutional law, definition of contract, or otherwise.
Point 001 (f) Any contract that is disputed under 15 USC 1692g cannot be collected until there is
a lawful judgment.
Point 001 (g) In accordance with Missouri State Constitution any contract gained by way of
threats, duress, and coercion in is direct violation of Article 1 section 10 which is Due Process of
Law.
Point 001 (h) Any false information on a commercial contract used to deprive the rights of those
in contract is fraud in its most complete form.
Point 001 (i) When one enters a contract in ignorance of hidden contracts and meanings of the
words in the contract, such contract is not lawful in accordance with 15 USC 1692g.
Point 001 (j) If anyone attempts to gain jurisdiction over a human being by way of contract
without full disclosure of what that jurisdiction is and where it ends such jurisdiction was
obtained unlawfully and is null and void.
 AFFIDAVIT
Affiant has entered no such contract under full disclosure of all terms and stipulations except
under threats, duress, and coercion and therein all rights were explicitly reserved placing contract
in dishonor because both parties were not competent and there was no mutuality of agreement
and mutuality of obligation. Furthermore the contract was by way of felonious restraint and
kidnapping. The arresting officer has violated statutory law, Constitutional law, Common law,
and his Oath. Traffic Citations are not valid under statutory law, Constitutional law, or Common
law because so many rights are violated to obtain a Citation. Missouri Constitution Article 1
Section 10 shows that there is to be due process of law and Affiant can not see how this is due
process because the contract is fraud. Affiant did not receive full disclosure of all meanings,
terms, and stipulations of the said traffic citation. Finally Affiant can not be sure that the
contractor is a competent party because the ethics and tactics used to contract were not those of a
professional contractor but were more along the lines a pirate would use when swashbuckling,
pillaging, and plundering.
Signed By: ____________________________________sui juris,
This Affidavit is dated_______________
NOTARY PUBLIC

State _____________________________County _____________________________

Subscribed and sworn to before me, a Notary Public, the above signed First-Middle: Last,
This ______________ day of _____________________, ____________year
________________________________
Notary Public
MY COMMISSION EXPIRES: ______________
Point 002. There are often over 100 violations involved in a Routine Traffic Stop when there
is no breach of contract. The Affiant has informed all officers that he is not driving or
operating a motor vehicle and does not consent to contract. Furthermore Affiant has no
proof that Traveling in his pleasure vehicle is equivalent to driving or operating a motor
vehicle under any law, definition or any other writing used in courts to determine the facts
of the proceeding.
ADMIT- Affiant was traveling in his pleasure vehicle, not driving for hire, or being paid for any
commercial occupation at the time of the arrest.
EXHIBIT 002- Proof of employment, payroll, income, or any evidence that supports the
belief of operation or driving
Point 002 (a) Definitions and reference:
(a1) “Driving” according to “Blacks Law Dictionary,” is “a PERSON actually doing driving
whether employed to drive owners vehicle or driving his own vehicle.
(a2) “Commercial Motor Vehicle” according to “Blacks Law Dictionary,” is “any vehicle used
primarily for business and industry as contrasted with pleasure vehicles.”
(a3) “Travel” according to “Blacks Law Dictionary,” means “To go from one place to another at
a distance; to journey. A spoken of voluntary change of place.”
(a4) The “United States Supreme Court” has ruled repeatedly that “every man has an unalienable
right to travel on public highways unrestricted in any way.” Furthermore they have ruled
repeatedly “that Drivers’ licenses, Registration, Insurance, and periodical inspections are
restrictions one that right.” Therefore if there is any mandatory tax on a right the people can
engage in that right with full immunity.
Point 002 (b) Police officers illegally run license plates before there is evidence of a breach of
contract in direct violation of 4th amendment rights of protection against illegal search and
seizure.
Point 002 (c) Police officers make the legal determination that everyone on public roads are
driving without contacting any employers.
Point 002 (d) Police officers assume jurisdiction without proving any and deny the need to prove
jurisdiction.
Point 002 (e) Police officers often fail to know and understand the law in violation of their oath
to uphold it. How can someone uphold something they don’t know?
Point 002 (f) Police officers are often not certified in all the equipment they use to gain revenue
(i.e. radar guns.)
Point 002 (g) Police officers operate their emergency lights for non emergency routine traffic
stops in violation of their oath and their statutory laws.
Point 002 (h) Police officers ask for drivers’ licenses and proof of insurance in direct violation of
4th amendment rights because there has been no proof of employment or payroll.
Point 002 (i) Police officers often stop travelers not drivers which violates the right to
unrestricted movement.
Point 002 (j) Police officers falsify documents by certifying under oath that the defendant is
driving but not proving that said driver is driving on employment or payroll.
Point 002 (k) Police officers often intimidate or speak down to people to gain compliance which
is harassment.
Point 002 (l) Police officers do not inform defendants of all terms, obligation, and meanings in
the citation (i.e. Appear, PERSONS’ NAME).
Point 002 (m) Police officer forces defendant to sign under duress of arrest which is no less than
felonious restraint and kidnapping.
Point 002 (n) Police officers receive special treatment from the court and therefore are not in
equal standing with defendants in traffic court.
Point 002 (o) Police officers can not serve both the public and his employer when the majority of
his income is commission based. A man can not serve two masters. Either he will cling to one
and hate the other, or cling to the other and hate the one. He is forced to violate multiple rights to
recieve an income.
Point 002 (p) When police officers violate rights, they are guilty of committing treason and
trespass and are to be dishonorably discharged and imprisoned.
Point 002 (q) The judge has sworn an oath to uphold both the United States Constitution and the
State constitution.
Point 002 (r) The judge receives commission for every conviction he gives.
Point 002 (s) By State law he is required to be B.A.R. licensed. There is no license only a
certification.
Point 002 (t) The judge is an employee who works for the plaintiff which is a conflict of interest.
Point 002 (u) According to State law the judge is not to be held accountable for his actions.?
Point 002 (v) The judge does not inform people of their rights (i.e. 7th amendment.)
Point 002 (x) The judge only recognizes PERSONS in violation of due process.
Point 002 (y) The judge attempts to solicit attorneys and gain jurisdiction under hidden contract.
Point 002 (z) The judge attempts to get people to plea with the court and gain jurisdiction under
hidden contract.
Point 002 (aa) The judge intends to defraud people in the court by not allowing due process.
Point 002 (ab) The judge allows and rules on frivolous documents.
Point 002 (ac) The judge allows and rules on heresay.
Point 002 (ad) The judge allows and rules on incomplete documentation.
Point 002 (ae) The judge receives bribes from the plaintiff.
Point 002 (af) The judge threatens and intimidates those that invoke rights.
Point 002 (ag) The judge claims authority over Common law, Constitutional Law, God, and non-
contracting human beings.
Point 002 (ah) The judge refuses truth and notice under penalty of perjury unless it is in the
courts best interest (i.e. $$$.)
Point 002 (ai) The judge stands behind private corporation rules and codes before law.
Point 002 (aj) The judge forces those convicted to pay with private corporation promissory notes
that are not backed by gold or silver.
Point 002 (ak) The judge falsifies documents (i.e. stating that defendants are pro se when they
are sui juris.)
Point 002 (al) The judge does not allow USC, UCC, or other laws that would help the defendant
rather than the corporation.
Point 002 (am) The judge threatens to hold people in contempt of court at his disposal when
there is no injured party and therefore can not be criminal contempt and they have not contracted
with the court therefore can not be held in civil contempt.
Point 002 (an) The prosecutor is to be B.A.R. licensed with the state. There is no license.
Point 002 (ao) The prosecutor works for the State and alongside the judge and the officer(s).
Therefore there is a conflict of interest.
Point 002 (ap) The prosecutor falsifies documents to keep the public blind to real laws.
Point 002 (aq) The prosecutor encourages the judge to defraud the people so his client as well as
he can make money.
Point 002 (ar) The prosecutor accepts bribes from his Client for bonuses he receives for
convicting so many.
Point 002 (as) The prosecutor deprives the rights of the people to get convictions.
Point 002 (at) The prosecutor solicits other attorneys to give the court jurisdiction.
Point 002 (au) The prosecutor denies due process by pushing the judge to rule on incomplete
fraudulent documents.
Point 002 (av) the prosecutor accepts heresay to build his case against the defendant.
Point 002 (aw) The prosecutor conspires with the judge and officer to deprive the rights of the
people.
Point 002 (ax) The prosecutor uses statutes to convict the people rather than facts and actual law.
Point 002 (ay) The prosecutor pushes the judge to get the highest amount of fines possible in
violation of the 8th amendment.
Point 002 (az) The prosecutor dishonors his oath to uphold the constitution and law.
Point 002 (ba) The prosecutor does not allow USC, UCC, or other laws that would help the
defendant rather than the corporation.
Point 002 (bb) The prosecutor is nothing more than a foreign revenue agent turning PERSONS
over to the STATE on a silver platter to pay more taxes and excessive fines in violation of the 8th
amendment.
Point 002 (bc) The judge, officer, and prosecutor are aware that citizens have rights and they are
violating these rights but money is the root of all evil.
Point 002 (bd) The judge, officer, and prosecutor are aware that Affiant reserves his rights under
UCC 1-308 which any right violated is punishable under both deprivation of rights under the
color of law, and conspiracy against rights, 18 USC 241-242 per violation(noted herein are 168
violations).

Signed By: ____________________________________sui juris,

This Affidavit is dated______________

NOTARY PUBLIC

State _____________________________County _____________________________

Subscribed and sworn to before me, a Notary Public, the above signed First-Middle: Last,

This ______________ day of _____________________, ____________year

________________________________
. Notary Public
MY COMMISSION EXPIRES: ______________
Point 003. Officer denied Affiant his right to Common law jurisdiction. Affiant notified officer
by affidavit that he was engaging in his right under Common law jurisdiction. Furthermore
Affiant has received no proof that he has no Common law rights but only Statutory privileges.

ADMIT- Affiant invokes his right to Common Law Jurisdiction as he has not contracted with the
STATE in any way to drive for an employer.

EXHIBIT 003- Proof of no Common (Case) Law Rights within State jurisdiction
Point 003 (a) Every living breathing human being has the right to claim Common Law
jurisdiction in any court and in any case.
Point 003 (b) Common Law sets precedence in other cases.
Point 003 (c) Under Common Law there must be an injured party to have a case.
Point 003 (d) Common Law has 3 elements in a valid cause of action (1 a violation of a right (2
damage or injury (3 redress- ability before the court)
Point 003 (e) Common Law is above Statutory Law because it is Public (positive) Law.
Point 003 (f) Under Common Law any time a right is turned into a privilege the people have a
right to engage in that right with full immunity.
Point 003 (g) Common Law is used often to assist in determining outcomes of present cases.
Point 003 (h)
Point 004. Officer did not sign a valid Cause of Action against Affiant. When Affiant claimed
Common Law jurisdiction the elements of a valid cause of action were then changed from
elements of a breach of contract to proof of an injured party.
ADMIT- There has not been produced a valid cause of action under common law to Affiant.
EXHIBIT 004- Proof of a Valid Cause of Action under Common Law

Belton Police Dept. Chief Of Police 7001 E. 163rd St 8163315522

James R Person Belton, MO 64012

Blue Springs Police Dept. Chief Of Police 1100 Sw Smith St. 8162280169
Wayne E Mccoy Blue Springs, MO 64015

Claycomo Police Dept. Chief Of Police 115 E. Us 69 Hwy. 8164524613

Stephen Matt Coonce Claycomo, MO 64119

Clay County Sheriff's Dept. Sheriff 12 South Water Street 8164073750

Bob Boydston Liberty, MO 64068

Clinton County Sheriff's Dept. Sheriff 207 N Main 8165392156

Keith Porter Hensen Suite 6
Plattsburg, MO 64477

Excelsior Springs Police Dept. Chief Of Police 301 S. Main St. 8166300240
 John M. Mcgovern Excelsior Springs, MO 64024

Gladstone Dept. of Public Safety Director Michael J Hasty 7010 N. Holmes 8164363550
Gladstone, MO 64118

Independence Police Dept. Chief Of Police 223 N. Memorial Drive 8163257304

Tom Dailey Independence, MO 64050

Jackson County Sheriff's Dept. Sheriff 3310 Ne Rennau Drive 8165244302

Mike Sharp Lees Summit, MO 64064

Kansas City Police Dept. Chief Of Police 1125 Locust 8162345010

James D. Corwin Kansas City, MO 64106

Kearney Police Dept. Chief Of Police 725 W. 92 Highway 8166283925

Thomas Carey P.O. Box 773
Kearney, MO 64060

Liberty Police Dept. Acting Chief 101 E. Kansas Street 8164394712

James R Simpson Liberty, MO 64068

Missouri State Highway Patrol Colonel P. O. Box 568 5737513313

Ronald K. Replogle Jefferson City, MO 65102

North Kansas City Police Dept. Chief Of Police 2020 Howell 8162746013
Glenn L Ladd North Kansas City, MO 64116

Oakview Police Dept. Chief Of Police 6404 N. Locust 8164369150

Carl Edward Drowns Oakview, MO 64118

Orrick Police Dept. Chief Of Police 207 W South Front Street 8164965500
Randy R. Dinwiddie P.O. Box 227
Orrick, MO 64077

Plattsburg Police Dept. Chief Of Police 114 W. Maple Street 8165392148

Zephry M Bingham Plattsburg, MO 64477

Pleasant Valley Police Dept. Captain 6502 Royal Street 8167817373

Jerry E Elder Pleasant Valley, MO 64068

Randolph Police Dept. Chief Of Police P. O. Box 34488 8164559323

Edward Morris Kansas City, MO 64116

Ray County Sheriff's Dept. Sheriff 200 W. 9th St. 8162905323

Samuel E Clemens Henrietta, MO 64036

Raytown Police Dept. Chief Of Police 10000 E. 59 Street 8167376022

James B Lynch Raytown, MO 64133

Richmond Police Dept. Acting Chief 207 Summit Street 8167763575

Chad A. Burnine Richmond, MO 64085

Riverside Dept. of Public Safety Director Gregory P Mills 2990 Nw Vivion Road 8167411191
Riverside, MO 64150

Smithville Police Dept. Chief Of Police 107 West Main 8165320500

Ken Wilson Smithville, MO 64089
Wood Heights Police Dept. Chief Of Police 2098 East Ridge Drive 8166309189
Carl Arthur Harper, Jr. Wood Heights, MO 64024

#15 Statutes at Large, Chapter 249 (section 1), enacted July 27 1868

Chap. CCXLIX. ---An Act concerning the Rights of American Citizens in foreign States
Whereas the rights of expatriation is a nature and inherent right of all people, indispensable to
the enjoyment of the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; and whereas in the
recognition of this principle this government has freely received emigrants from all nations, and
invested them with the right of citizenship; and whereas it is claimed that such American
citizens, with their descendants, are subjects of foreign states, owing allegiance to the
government thereof; and whereas it is necessary to the maintenance of public peace that this
claim of foreign allegiance should be promptly and finally disavowed; Thereof.
Be it enacted by the Senator and the House of Representatives of the United States of American
in Congress assembled, That any declaration, instruction, opinion, order, or decision, of any
officers of is government which denies., restricts , impairs or questions the rights of
expatriation , is hereby declared inconsistent with the fundamental principles of this government.