NOTICE TO PEACE OFFICERS REQUESTING A DRIVER’S LICENCE

This is a Private automobile- exempt from commercial motor vehicle regulations and statutes, protected
by the constitution of these united states, and upheld by supreme and appelate courts in each and every
state of these united states.

Warning: You are about to violate your official oath.

MY STATEMENT;

The supreme court has upheld that if a public servant violates his oath to protect the constitution, and
the citizen, he is no longer acting in official capacity. If you issue citations, illegally arrest, assault,
detain, kidnap, or commit theft upon me, you will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

If you are unfamiliar with any of the terms or legal definitions in this affidavit, please call your
supervisor.

If this is a “traffic stop” you’ve got the wrong automobile, I do not now and will not in the future traffic
goods, or commodities of any kind. I travel the roadways in pursuit of life and liberty, not corporate
gain.

My automobile is not a “motor vehicle” or “vehicle” it is not used in the operation of any commerce, it is
not used to haul passengers or freight for monetary gain. It is my automobile, and is my personal
property – an extention of my household

I am not a “driver” who “operates” a “motor vehicle”. ( "Driver -- One employed in conducting a
coach, carriage, wagon, or other vehicle..." Bovier's Law Dictionary, 1914 ed., p. 940.)
A driver is a person for hire using the roadways as his place of business, hauling freight, or passengers
for monetary gain. I am not employed as a driver, and i do not “operate” any “vehicle” or “motor
vehicle” governed by “transportation” code. “transportation” is the act of transporting, for monetary
gain. I am merely a traveler in my automobile.

I am not a carrier for-hire. I am a private citizen going about my daily activities exercising my unaliable
right to travel.

I noticed red lights declaring an emergency, which is why i pulled to the side. If there is an emergency
and my help is needed, please notify me, and i will help if i am able. If there is no emergency please tell
me why I am not free to go. (I am not about to, nor am I now, and I did not Just recently Commit any
crime.)

Included below are several examples, Definitions, Citations of Supreme court rulings and other
EVIDENCE. “Driver’s License” is a Permission issued to anyone using the roads in commerce.
" ‘‘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
transportation of passengers, passengers and property, or property and cargo; ... ``Used
for commercial purposes'' means the carriage of persons or property for any fare, fee,
rate, charge or other consideration, or directly or indirectly in connection with any
business, or other undertaking intended for profit[.]" 18 U.S.C. 31.

"A carriage is peculiarly a family or household article. It contributes in a large degree to

the health, convenience, comfort, and welfare of the householder or of the family." Arthur
v Morgan, 113 U.S. 495, 500, 5 S.Ct. 241, 243 S.D. NY 1884).

"The Supreme Court, in Arthur v. Morgan, 112 U.S. 495, 5 S.Ct. 241, 28 L.Ed.
825, held that carriages were properly classified as household effects, and
we see no reason that automobiles should not be similarly disposed of."
Hillhouse v United States, 152 F. 163, 164 (2nd Cir. 1907).

"A soldier's personal automobile is part of his ``household goods[.]'' U.S.

v Bomar, C.A.5(Tex.), 8 F.3d 226, 235" 19A Words and Phrases - Permanent
Edition (West) pocket part 94.
Edition (West) pocket part 94.

AUTOMOBILES NOT CLASSIFIED AS VEHICLES

"Automobile purchased for the purpose of transporting buyer to and from his

place of employment was ``consumer goods'' as defined in UCC 9-109." Mallicoat v Volunteer
Finance & Loan Corp., 3 UCC Rep Serv 1035; 415 S.W.2d 347 (Tenn. App., 1966).

"The provisions of UCC 2-316 of the Maryland UCC do not apply to sales of
consumer goods (a term which includes automobiles, whether new or used, that
are bought primarily for personal, family, or household use)." Maryland
Independent Automobile Dealers Assoc., Inc. v Administrator, Motor Vehicle
Admin., 25 UCC Rep Serv 699; 394 A.2d 820, 41 Md App 7 (1978).

"An automobile was part of testatrix' ``household goods'' within codicil. In

re Mitchell's Will, 38 N.Y.S.2d 673, 674, 675 [1942]." 19A Words and Phrases
– Permanent Edition (West) 512. Cites Arthur v Morgan, supra.

"[T]he expression ``personal effects'' clearly includes an automobile[.]"

In re Burnside's Will, 59 N.Y.S.2d 829, 831 (1945). Cites Hillhouse,
Arthur, and Mitchell's Will, supra.

"[A] yacht and six automobiles were ``personal belongings'' and ``household
effects[.]''" In re Bloomingdale's Estate, 142 N.Y.S.2d 781, 782 (1955).
In re Bloomingdale's Estate, 142 N.Y.S.2d 781, 782 (1955).

"No State government entity has the power to allow or deny

passage on the highways, byways, nor waterways… transporting
his vehicles and personal property for either recreation or
business, but by being subject only to local regulation i.e.,
safety, caution, traffic lights, speed limits, etc. Travel is
 not a privilege requiring, licensing, vehicle registration, or
forced insurances." Chicago Coach Co. v. City of Chicago, 337
Ill. 200, 169 N.E. 22.

RIGHT TO TRAVEL

"The right to travel is part of the Liberty of which a citizen cannot

deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment. This Right was
emerging as early as the Magna Carta." Kent vs. Dulles, 357 US 116 (1958).

"With regard particularly to the U.S. Constitution, it is elementary that a

Right secured or protected by that document cannot be overthrown or impaired
by any state police authority." Connolly vs. Union Sewer Pipe Co., 184 US
540; Lafarier vs. Grand Trunk R.R. Co., 24 A. 848; O'Neil vs. Providence
Amusement Co., 108 A. 887

No person shall be...deprived of Life, Liberty, or Property without due process of law.

CONVERSION OF A RIGHT TO A CRIME

As previously demonstrated, the Citizen has the Right to travel and to transport his property
upon the public highways in the ordinary course of life and business. However, if one
exercises this Right to travel (without first giving up the Right and converting that Right into
a privilege) the Citizen is by statute, guilty of a crime. This amounts to converting the
exercise of a Constitutional Right into a crime.

"We find it intolerable that one constitutional right should have to

be surrendered in order to assert another". SIMMONS v US, supra.

"When rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule
making or legislation which would abrogate them." Miranda vs. Arizona,
384 US 436 p. 491.

"The claim and exercise of a Constitutional right cannot be converted into

a crime." Miller v. U.S. 230 F 2d 486, 489.

History is clear that the first ten amendments to the Constitution were adopted
to secure certain common law rights of the people, against invasion by the
Federal Government." Bell v. Hood, 71 F.Supp., 813, 816 (1947) U.S.D.C. --
So. Dist. CA.

"The state cannot diminish Rights of the people." Hurtado vs. California, 110
US 516.

IN ADDITION:

Since no notice is given to people applying for driver's (or other) licenses that they have a
perfect right to use the roads without any permission, and that they surrender valuable
rights by taking on the regulation system of licensure, the state has committed a massive
construction fraud. This occurs when any person is told that they must have a license in
order to use the public roads and highways.

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.

Few know that the driver's license is a contract without which the police are powerless to
regulate the people's actions or activities.

Few if any licensees intentionally surrender valuable rights. They are told that they must
have the license. As we have seen, this is not the case.

No one in their right mind voluntarily surrenders complete liberty and accepts in its place a
set of regulations.

"The people never give up their liberties but under some delusion." Edmund Burke, 1784.

SURRENDER OF RIGHTS

A Citizen cannot be forced to give up his/her Rights in the name of regulation.

"...the only limitations found restricting the right of the state to condition the use of the
public highways as a means of vehicular transportation for compensation are (1) that the
state must not exact of those it permits to use the highways for hauling for gain that they
surrender any of their inherent U.S. Constitutional Rights as a condition precedent to
obtaining permission for such use..." [emphasis added] Riley vs. Laeson, 142 So. 619;
Stephenson vs. Binford, supra.

If one cannot be placed in a position of being forced to surrender Rights in order to exercise
a privilege, how much more must this maxim of law, then, apply when one is simply
exercising (putting into use) a Right?

"To be that statute which would deprive a Citizen of the rights of person or property,
without a regular trial, according to the course and usage of the common law, would not be
the law of the land." Hoke vs. Henderson, 15 NC 15.

&
"We find it intolerable that one Constitutional Right should have to be surrendered in order
to assert another." Simons vs. United States, 390 US 389.

Since the state requires that one give up Rights in order to exercise the privilege of driving,
the regulation cannot stand under the police power, due process, or regulation, but must be
exposed as a statute which is oppressive and one which has been misapplied to deprive the
Citizen of Rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution and the state constitutions.

MORE CASE LAW CITATIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT:

The fundamental Right to travel is NOT a Privilege, it’s a gift granted by your Maker,
and restated by our founding fathers as Unalienable and cannot be
taken by any Man / Government made Law or color of law known as a
private Code (secret) or a Statute, To Wit:

"As general rule men have natural right to do anything which their
inclinations may suggest, if it be not evil in itself, and in no way
impairs the rights of others." In Re Newman (1858), 9 C. 502.

"Traveling is passing from place to place--act of performing journey;

and traveler is person who travels." In Re Archy (1858), 9 C. 47.

"Right of transit through each state, with every species of property known to
constitution of United States, and recognized by that paramount law, is
secured by that instrument to each citizen, and does not depend upon
uncertain and changeable ground of mere comity." In Re Archy (1858), 9 C. 47.

"Traffic infractions are not a crime." People v. Battle, 50 Cal. App.3,

step 1, Super, 123 Cal. Rptr. 636, 639.

"First, it is well established law that the highways of the state are
public property, and their primary and preferred use is for private
purposes, and that their use for purposes of gain is special and
extraordinary which, generally at least, the legislature may prohibit
or condition as it sees fit." Stephenson vs. Rinford, 287 US 251;

Pachard vs Banton, 264 US 140, and cases cited; Frost and F.

Trucking Co. vs. Railroad Commission, 271 US 592; Railroad
commission vs.

Inter-City Forwarding Co., 57 SW.2d 290; Parlett Cooperative vs.

Tidewater Lines, 164 A. 313.

Freedom to travel is, indeed, an important aspect of the citizen's

"liberty". We are first concerned with the extent, if any, to which
Congress has authorized its curtailment. (Road) Kent v. Dulles, 357 U.S.
116, 127.

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.
So much is conceded by the solicitor general. In Anglo Saxon law that right
was emerging at least as early as Magna Carta. Kent v. Dulles, 357 U.S. 116,
125.

“The use of the highway for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a
mere privilege but a common and fundamental right of which the public and
individuals cannot rightfully be deprived.”

Chicago
Motor Coach v. Chicago, 337 Ill. 200, 169 NE 22, 66 ALR 834. Ligare

v. Chicago, 139 Ill. 46, 28 NE 934. Boone v. Clark, 214 SW 607; 25 AM

JUR (1st) Highways, Sec. 163.

"The right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either
by a carriage or 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."

Thompson v. Smith 154 SE 579.

"Even the legislature has no power to deny to a citizen the right to travel
upon the highway and transport his property in the ordinary course of his
business or pleasure, though this right may be regulated in accordance with
public interest and convenience. Chicago Coach Co. v. City of Chicago, 337
Ill. 200, 169 N.E. 22, 206.

"... It is now universally recognized that the state does possess such power
[to impose such burdens and limitations upon private carriers when using the
public highways for the transaction of their business] with respect to common
carriers using the public highways for the transaction of their business in the
transportation of persons or property for hire. That rule is stated as
follows by the supreme court of the United States: 'A citizen may have, under
the fourteenth amendment, the right to travel and transport his property upon
them (the public highways) by auto vehicle, but he has no right to make the
highways his place of business by using them as a common carrier for hire.
Such use is a privilege which may be granted or withheld by the state in its
discretion, without violating either the due process clause or the equal
protection clause.' (Buck v. Kuykendall, 267 U. S. 307 [38 A. L. R. 286, 69
L. Ed. 623, 45 Sup. Ct. Rep. 324].)

"The right of a citizen to travel upon the highway and transport his property
thereon in the ordinary course of life and business differs radically an
obviously from that of one who makes the highway his place of business and
uses it for private gain, in the running of a stage coach or omnibus. The
former is the usual and ordinary right of a citizen, a right common to all;
while the latter is special, unusual and extraordinary. As to the former, the
extent of legislative power is that of regulation; but as to the latter its
power is broader; the right may be wholly denied, or it may be permitted to
some and denied to others, because of its extraordinary nature. This
distinction, elementary and fundamental in character, is recognized by all the
authorities.”
In Thompson v. Smith, Chief of Police. Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia. 155 Va. 367, 154 S.E.
579, 71 A.L.R. 604. Sept. 12, 1930 it states:

Constitutional law: Citizen's right to travel upon public highways and transport his property
thereon in ordinary course of life and business is common right. The right of a citizen so to
do is that which he has under his right to enjoy life and liberty, to acquire property, and to
pursue happiness and safety.
Automobiles, Highways: Citizen's right to travel upon public highways includes right to use
usual conveyances of time, including horse-drawn carriage, or automobile, for ordinary
purposes of life and business.
Injunction: Injunction lies against enforcement of void statute or ordinance, where legal remedy is
not as complete or adequate as injunction, or where threatened or attempted enforcement will do
irreparable injury to person in interfering with exercise of common fundamental personal right.
By "irreparable injury" is meant an injury of such a nature that fair and reasonable redress may not
be had in a court of law and that to refuse the injunction would be a denial of justice.

Constitutional Law § 101 – right to travel – 5. The nature of the Federal

Union and constitutional concepts of personal liberty unite to require that
all citizens be free to travel throughout the length and breadth of the
United States uninhibited by statutes, rules, or regulations which
unreasonably burden or restrict this movement. 6. Although not explicitly
mentioned in the Federal Constitution, the right freely to travel from one
state to another is a basic right under the constitution.

Constitutional Law § 101 – law chilling assertion of rights – 7. If a

law has no other purpose than to chill the assertion of constitutional
rights by penalizing those who choose to exercise them, then it is patently
unconstitutional. Shapiro v Thompson, 394 US 618, 22 L Ed 2d 600, 89 S Ct
1322.