he Right To Travel Notice - Copy Print Off - Keep In Car - Keep Mouth Shut - Give It To The Cop

Actual & Constructive
LEGAL NOTICE

You are hereby served LEGAL NOTICE that the Sovereign citizen traveling in this automobile is exercising his Constitutionally protected Right to Travel and is therefore *EXEMPT* from the limited jurisdiction of your local state/city Motor Vehicle Code.

This Sovereign citizen-traveler is NOT SUBJECT to your statutorily limited police authority because this traveler:

A. Is NOT engaged in any COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY that may properly fall under the limited ADMINISTRATIVE jurisdiction of your “law” enforcement authority (NOTE: The Motor Vehicle Code is not a CRIMINAL code and is (at best), ONLY applicable to commercially licensed taxis, transport/trucking companies, etc.)

B. Is NOT operating a “MOTOR VEHICLE” as legally defined under 18 USC 31
i.e., "Motor Vehicle" means every description or other contrivance propelled or drawn by mechanical power and used for commercial purposes on the highways in the transportation of passengers, or passengers and property.

C. Is NOT a motor-vehicle “OPERATOR” as defined BY LAW, and therefore,
NOT required to possess an “Operator's License” i.e., "a permit, granted by an appropriate governmental body, generally for consideration, to a person, firm, or corporation, to pursue some occupation or to carry on some business which is subject to regulation under the police power." [emphasis added] Rosenblatt vs. California State Board of Pharmacy, 158 P.2d 199, 203. "Driver -- One employed in conducting a coach, carriage, wagon, or other vehicle..." Bovier's Law Dictionary, 1914 ed., p.940.

This document is LEGAL NOTICE that this traffic stop, detainment, arrest, property search or seizure, or any other interference with the Rightful travel of this citizen is being made under COLOR OF LAW (i.e., without bona fide legal authority) and that further detainment of this traveler (or his property) is a direct VIOLATION of 42 USC 1983, deprivation of Civil Rights (Biven's Acts) and other deprivations of DUE PROCESS. Should you continue in this Act, you can, and will be, held *PERSONALLY LIABLE* FOR ALL DIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL & PUNITIVE DAMAGES.

Regardless of your professional training and/or personal BELIEFS regarding the “Motor Vehicle” regulations, your refusal to IMMEDIATELY RELEASE this private citizen-traveler and his property will constitute an UNLAWFUL ACT, rendering you *PERSONALLY* LIABLE to answer to such charges in U.S. District Court.

In your official capacity as a police officer, you are legally PRESUMED TO KNOW
THE LIMITS OF YOUR LEGAL AUTHORITY. Officers who commit Acts ultra vires,
(i.e., under Color of Law – again, without proper legal authority) by law, cannot be provided legal representation by their enforcement agency. By this NOTICE, you are also hereby barred from raising ignorance of the content put forth in this NOTICE
as an affirmative defense in any subsequent legal proceeding.

Beyond this, any unlawful Acts you may commit will likely subject your “law enforcement” employer to similar liability, financial damages and injunctive prohibitions for engaging in the systemic and willful and deliberate deprivation of this travelers' free, unimpeded use of the highways and free exercise of the Right To Travel.

As the state and Supreme Court cases cited below clearly establish, the citizen you have stopped has a CONSTITUTIONAL and unalienable RIGHT to travel upon the highway WITHOUT any “License” or “Registration” or “Proof Of Insurance.”

"The use of the highways for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege, but a common and fundamental Right of which the public and the individual cannot be rightfully deprived." Chicago Motor Coach vs. Chicago, 169 NE 22; Ligare vs. Chicago, 28 NE 934; Boon vs. Clark, 214 SSW 607; 25 Am.Jur. (1st) Highways Sect.163.
"The Right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by horse drawn carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city can prohibit or permit at will, but a common Right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." [emphasis added] Thompson vs. Smith, 154 SE 579.
"Moreover, a distinction must be observed between the regulation of an activity which may be engaged in as a matter of right and one carried on by government sufferance of permission." (i.e., a “license”)
Davis vs. Massachusetts, 167 US 43; Pachard vs. Banton

"Where 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, 491.
"The claim and exercise of a constitutional Right cannot be converted into a crime." Miller vs. U.S., 230 F. 486, 489.
"If the Right of passing through a state by a Citizen of the United States is one guaranteed by the Constitution, it must be sacred from state taxation."
Crandall vs. Nevada, 6 Wall 35, 46. p.47.
"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.

"The police power of the state must be exercised in subordination to the provisions of the U.S. Constitution." [emphasis added] Panhandle Eastern Pipeline Co. vs. State Highway Commission, 294 US 613; Bacahanan vs. Wanley, 245 US 60.