Edited repost as new thread: Do attachements to R4C create an appearance or am I ok?

[phreeman2003]

Last Friday (4/6/07), I was stopped for expired registration (chose to let lapse). Also, I previously had not reinstated DL after trumped up DUI charges from attempting to exercise my rights to refuse to roadside contracting transaction the preceding year and a half ago (I used a bar card negotiater that time around. There was so much wrong with the paper work I'm pretty sure the cop purposelly did it to let me skate or was drunk himself). I felt these acts were constructive notice I was ceceding from the corporate state. I hadn't yet created any of the display notices because the only examples I was aware of were David Merril's before all the others started sharing. I really couldn't make heads or tails of them, at the time. I've been distracted from the research, due to family issues, and never got around to it. I was thinking of having a not for hire plate made.

I offered the revenue agent what he claimed unacceptable forms of ID (no picture) through the slightly opened window. I was carrying a not amenable to service DL, they never found it in my wallet. Because it's only legible once one is told what it reads and I hadn't reinstated DL, I didn't feel this was the right time to test it. He claimed everyone needed a license to drive. I told him I was traveling and those were all I had, at which point, I told him that was all I had to say. After a couple more minutes of the DL/registration requests to identify myself, the officer grabbed for the car door, which is normally locked, but this time wasn't and proceeded to forcefully assist me out of the car to cuff and stuff me into his squad. He did this just as backup arrived, then helped himself to extensive search of my private property. I keep a couple small lunch size coolers, changes of clothes, some tools, and recreational equipment in the back section, due to my work; and, like a boy scout, I like to be prepared for what may come. (accepted for this scenario, I guess)

Turns out I had warrants cause SOS must have re-suspended the license, the registration renewal notice has a place for listing one's mandatory insurance or maybe the emmissions test I didn't take.

So, I'm escorted to city hall/police station, where I'm again told you can't drive anywhere in this STATE, or U.S. without a license. My response was I chose not to renew the registration and know there's supreme court cases that declare the right to travel. The officer responded driving was a previlege and he could use a trip to Washington. I replied "The privilege to drive was a voluntary agreement. I don't accept."

I was printed "for identification purposes" seated on a bench for processing and then put in the gray bar suite. While checking my priors, I heard the officer mumble he's glad he called. When he finished this phone call I asked what that statement was about and he claimed I had a history of resisting. I told him I didn't do anything different in that situation, where that "peace officer" dragged me from my car into the middle of a busy street luckily it was early a.m., so there was no traffic. That guy was on a power trip and the town has some checkered history. Why does a population of 5000 need a police helicopter, gratis of the patriot act? The $500 impound administrative fee must be to gas that thing. (a different village than current situation)

In this instance, the second officer, whom I'll gather is a witness to holding/processing claimed that's passive resistence. I slightly sarcastically thanked him for educating me to that. They requested some additional identifying info and I gave them a post office box saying I was a man on the land (I know technically zip code district postal customer; it's close to where I stay).

I was stopped at 4:30 p.m. and released by 6:30 p.m., with a $2000 I-bond on my autograph. I was unlawfully searched and seized never read my miranda.
I was cited for obstruction (complaint reads refused to provide DL, give name or identify himself), no proof of insurance, driving on suspended, and expired registration. One citation has the P.O. Box and the others and misdemeanor complaint use my last known. Everything was filled out with all caps fiction. I autographed things U.D. and told the officers I would be doing such. One said, "I didn't need to sign anything, they just wouldn't let me go." I only had change in my pocket having just purchased gas. Is change lawful money?

The auto was impounded without giving me any paper work or towing report and I wasn't given any notice on a probable cause hearing for impound. Just told the tower's flyer was posted on the reception window and I would need proof of insurance, license, and title to get release. Trying to coral a sheeple?

Last Monday, I timely R4Ced all the citations, complaint and I-bond. However, in the red ink I included the ILCS citation for the refusal. In the body of the letter, I used the "your" qualifier before the UCC and ILCS cites. The attached explanation states sui juris status on special visitation and not intended for jurisdictional purposes citing seven numbered points of contention (basic i.e.: misnomer, SMJ, oath, bond, etc)with notorary certification. Additionally, I attached 2 pgs of caselaw citations leading with Chicago Coach v. City Chicago (local jurisdiction RE: license, insurance and registration) followed by primarily Supreme Ct. cases with the heading "Constitutionally Protected Right to Travel as Opposed to State Privilege (voluntary agreement in commerce) to Drive/Drivers License"

I sent certified with green card. Does it seem a fatally defective effort? Might the officer abate; the easy way out? Due the substance over form maxim, couldn't the mailing be construed to replace the probable cause seizure hearing I was denied? I haven't done the respository evidence file, as of yet, because the minor additional cost is even strecthing things right now. I was expecting to call my hall and get back to work this last Monday. I checked the County Clerk's filing records yesterday and the paperwork isn't there, yet, The court house is in this same city blocks away. It happened Friday before Easter I would think Monday would be a normal heavy files delivery day from Police to court.
There's a May 18th court date.

Oh, I did the R4C this way because the thread links weren't working for me, until I figured the way around the login problem. A fellow sui jurist had sent me a template sometime ago. I'll link the R4C response if necessary.

[Shoonra]

Does it seem a fatally defective effort?

Yes.

[aksis]

phreeman2003, are you a U.S. citizen?

If you are not, what have you done to change your National/Political status?

[charlesa6]

That's a good question.

[phreeman2003]

As I reviewed the travel rights history again, the words citizen and right are regularly used in tandem. So, it seems, by that very language perfected status, as an American National, is not a defining requirement, however, the recorded status would be ideal.

I've declared, by my actions, the status upon myself as it is the sovereign's right or more importantly duty choosing to no longer contract with the Illinois secrtary of state's, since August of 2006. Another major sovereign declaration by action (substance over form), to this point in time, would be I've removed myself from the federal reserve system save for the necessity of a payroll check cashing account since 2003 (eliminated all credit cards). There's public record of my sui juris all rights reserved autograph throughout this de facto judicial jurisdiction and up into the U.S. Supreme Ct.

I will begin the use of the non-endorsment once I'm again receiving payment for my labors.

A post on this site linked the R4C to regulation Z another statute based right availiable to citizens. And, as David Merrill realizes, there's the basic right not to be forced into contract.

Should all else fail, I may utilize these proceedings to perfect the American National Status for the court record.

[aksis]

Phreeman2003, forgive me for being nit-picky, but it sounds like you are puting the cart before the horse to me.

You have valid points, yet...

Originally Posted by phreeman2003

Last Friday (4/6/07), I was stopped for expired registration (chose to let lapse).

... so you were admittedly in a car that had STATE plates on it (primia facia evidence you are, in fact, operating a STATE registered motor vehicle aka driving) with expired registration, and that your drivers licence was suspended.

Did you terminate the registration, drivers licence and the agreements associated with these items via certified/registered mail? It dons't sound like it.

Did you privatly register your private property and give Public Notice of the private registration? (note: this is something I am working out and is experimental - using the filing number of the Public Notice - Private Registration of Private Property as the private property id number on a private plate)

What did you use to identify your self with? (A Certificate of Search from the USDC?)

Originally Posted by phreeman2003

As I reviewed the travel rights history again, the words citizen and right are regularly used in tandem. So, it seems, by that very language perfected status, as an American National, is not a defining requirement, however, the recorded status would be ideal.

I like weishaupt1776 threads on: Nationality Premise & the Power of Dejure Nationality (i.e. Claifornian, Arizonan, Illinoisan, etc...) and you may find this instrument and thread of value: Oath-Purgatory

Originally Posted by phreeman2003

I've declared, by my actions, the status upon myself as it is the sovereign's right or more importantly duty choosing to no longer contract with the Illinois secrtary of state's, since August of 2006. Another major sovereign declaration by action (substance over form), to this point in time, would be I've removed myself from the federal reserve system save for the necessity of a payroll check cashing account since 2003 (eliminated all credit cards). There's public regard of my sui juris all rights reserved autograph throughout this de facto judicial jurisdiction and up into the U.S. Supreme Ct.

Be mindful that drafting and executing documents are both actions as well... thought, [written] word, and deed.

Originally Posted by phreeman2003

A post on this site linked the R4C to regulation Z another statute based right availiable to citizens. And, as David Merrill realizes, there's the basic right not to be forced into contract.

Yet if you are in one (a contract), already, it must be terminated.

Originally Posted by phreeman2003

Should all else fail, I may utilize these proceedings to perfect the American National Status for the court record.

From what I have been observing, these last minute changes usualy seem to fail people. The judges seem to be bound to adhear to the public record as it stands at the time the suit is initiated... granted, you may use this to make the changes, but it will probably only help next time...

It seems like an uphill battle... don't dispare, they can be won... they are just a little hard to win.

May the Light of God illuminate your path.

Sincerly,

Christopher Theodore of the family of Rhodes

P.S.

You may find some value in this, Title 18, Chapter 13, section 241 & 242, might give some teeth to a counter-claim:

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/h...0_I_20_13.html

§ 241. Conspiracy against rights


If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same; or
If two or more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the premises of another, with intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege so secured—
They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

§ 242. Deprivation of rights under color of law


Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

[phreeman2003]

aksis, thanks for the time you spent. I'd say the oath purgatory was most useful.

The tech probs in the downloads is a real handicap. I've tried multiple search terms in the forums, but I'm getting more results through the related topic links at bottom of page. After I composed the original thread,
weishaupt1776's two you suggested popped up.

I'm well aware of those civil rights statutes. One doesn't go through forclosure in Cook County and not become painfully familiar with them. A case wherein a black robed highwayman disregards verification of debt, tila recoupment, best evidence complete business records, and an "original promissory" note bearing two monetizing endorsements. One slick little devil incorporated into the printed transaction form with a little box that is dated and signed after consummation of the alleged transaction, which date itself was plainly altered. BTW this original was facially different from the one used to swear the complaint in substance and fact. The courts are most definitely operating in admirality. It would be totally contrary to prudent economic behavoir to offer BoE on an alleged debt incapable of being verified. My equity loss was probably in the neighborhood of $200-250K. I had been naive enough to put my faith in proper adherence to rules of procedure, statute, and precedent initiating the ordeal with verification of pleadings and as I became more fully educated captioning and/or signing alleged debtor, sui juris, reserving all rights. Savings to suitor looks more practicle from my experience.

I expect some grief for my next stance, but so be it. I would not say it's nit-picking more closer to form over substance or legal as compared to lawful. Regarding the realm of inane ritualistic procedure, after all, fraud vitiates all especially in the land of oaths/contract. Still, the right to travel has been adjuticated a right of the "citizen". We've all most likely waded through the many different silver bullet type claims littering the internet. Be it from the authentic seekers of truth to the hucksters repackaging other's dedicated research, at ungodly prices, and trying to claim proprietary rights to public record documentation.

You might believe this is horse before the carriage. I point out that, as far back as, the birth of this once great nation open civil disobedience preceded the official declaring of independent status. The Boston tea party of 1773 comes to mind. Also, I was not confident many of the systems which seem to be variations of one another were to a state of proper refinement. And, I've yet had first hand knowledge of any.

Lastly, with your most appropriate finding of the code definition of "person" they have this brief history at Cornell law:
TITLE 1 > CHAPTER 1 > § 8
NOTES:
Source
(Added Pub. L. 107–207, § 2(a), August 5,2002, 116 Stat. 926.)

Now, just like the black robed highwayman of commerce I could leap to the presumption concluding this definition has been tailored to fit within the confines of their charade of legitimacy.

I really did appreciate your efforts. Oh, the Identification I offered was my Union card and an ATM. I didn't realize the darn union card was all caps, no name on the atm though.

[aksis]

Contained in the principles of the unalienable right of Liberty, we find the right to travel.

This in not a civil right, and thus, is not derived from ones citizenship and/or nationality.

[phreeman2003]

But, according to their laws, by adjudication, even the citizen has the right to travel derived from that unalienable source you post.