Driving on a suspended license in a different state a 2 part situation here...

[Tigeris76]

Part 1-On traffic cases of driving on an out of state suspended license-when you go to court you are there to either plead guilty or not guilty to that specific act (driving when you knew your license was suspended) right?

So the fact that the police did a search of my personal property after I told them that car was my personal property and did not wish to do business with them and that I did not given them permission to infringe on me or my property but during the search they found a id from the other state and ran the id is that relevant at all?

Part 2-While in court for the arraignment I did not enter a plea guilty or not guilty but the judge entered a plea of not guilty for me. I had it added to the record that it was the judge stating not guilty and not me because they only gave me a certified copy of the certified charges-they "should" have brought out the original correct? Either way I wanna place a bond (which would now be the surety) on the charges/case but I am not sure what type of bond to use or how to write one up . This should handle the case civilly right?

I was informed that the straw man is always guilty so when I go to court in Feb 08, I should plead guilty as soon as they certify the charges and the case should be closed????

I am lost... any ideas?

I know this site is informational only and all that so any feed back will be used as opinion and personal experience reference only... but I would still would like to receive any feedback.

[weishaupt1776]

Originally Posted by Tigeris76

I was informed that the straw man is always guilty so when I go to court in Feb 08, I should plead guilty as soon as they certify the charges and the case should be closed????

No

Originally Posted by Tigeris76

I am lost... any ideas?

Yes, scrap UCC stuff, especially in traffic cases

The whole point is that licensing only applies to "for hire" common carriers engaged in commercial transportation.


If you use UCC, you are feeding the beast by bolstering the presumption that you are in commerce, STRAWDUDE or no STRAWDUDE.

Study luis ewing's stuff which deals exclusively with Washington code and howthe MV code can only apply to commerce

Be advised that luis is known for ripping people off, though

It's too late for this, but for next time, go to the members downloads "Clyde Hyde Dedfault Course" and follow the instructions left on the first couple posts

Clyde was a Washingtonian himself

see luis's stuff in the post below for a Subject Matter Jurisdiction challenge (SMJ)

[weishaupt1776]

To all Washington State Law Enforcement I am NOT required to Have a “Drivers License” to drive a Motor Vehicle in the State of Washington for NON-COMMERCIAL PURPOSES!



In anticipation that the police officer, prosecutor or judge will “lie” to you and tell you that RCW 46.20.001 requires you to have a driver’s license, I will now expose their scam!



“RCW 46.20.001 License required‑‑Rights and restriction.

(1) No person may drive a motor vehicle upon a highway in this state without first obtaining a valid driver's license issued to Washington residents under this chapter.”



THERE IS NO LICENSE ISSUED UNDER THIS CHAPTER, RCW 46.20. et seq!



It is an undisputed fact of law that RCW 46.25.080 is the one (1) and only license classification statute in Title 46 the motor vehicle code for the State of Washington and it is also undisputed that all three classes of licenses issued under this statute, Class A, Class B & Class C are all COMMERCIAL DRIVERS LICENSE’S. See RCW 46.25.080 to wit:



“RCW 46.25.080 License contents, classifications, endorsements, restrictions, expiration‑‑Exchange of information.

(1) The commercial driver's license must be marked "commercial driver's license" or "CDL,"

...(a) Licenses may be classified as follows:

(i) Class A. . .

(ii) Class B. . .

(iii) Class C. . .”



Please note that the older Washington Drivers licenses used to say “COMMERCIAL CLASSES” on the back side of the drivers license and in the left hand column of back side of driver’s license, it used to say “Class A, Class B and Class C. The Department of Licensing has committed fraud against the Citizens of Washington and has removed the COMMERCIAL CLASSES designation from the back of the drivers license? However, the New Drivers License’s still says in very small print: “CDL END” in the upper left hand corner of the front of the New Drivers License’s. CDL END obviously means COMMERCIAL DRIVERS LICENSE ENDORSEMENT! (Emphasis added.)

RCW 46.25.050(1) Drivers of Commercial motor vehicles shall obtain a“commercial driver’s license”as requiredunder this chapter by April 1, 1992. ..., . . . HOWEVER, this requirement does not apply to any person: (c) Who is operating a recreational vehicle for non commercial purposes.



RCW 46.25.050(1) makes it clear that this requirement does NOT apply to any person: (c) WHO IS OPERATING A RECREATIONAL VEHICLE FOR NON COMMERCIAL PURPOSES! (Emphasis added.) For clarification, the Washington Administrative Code at WAC 308-100-210 which reads:



(WAC) 308-100-210 Recreational vehicle–Definition. For the purposes ofRCW 46.25.050(1)(c), the term“recreational vehicle”shall include vehicles used exclusively for NONCOMMERCIAL PURPOSES which are:(1) Primarily designed for recreational, camping, OR TRAVEL USE.And;



WAC 308-100-210 specifically defines the term“RECREATIONAL VEHICLE”shall include vehicles used exclusively for NON COMMERCIAL PURPOSES which are: (1) PRIMARILY DESIGNED FOR RECREATIONAL, CAMPING, OR TRAVEL USE. Hey Officer Friendly, I do not“transport”passengers, freight or commodities for compensation. I use my vehicle solely for NON-COMMERCIAL PURPOSES such as RECREATIONAL, CAMPING OR TRAVEL USE AS A MATTER OF RIGHT! (Emphasis added.)

The Washington State Supreme Court has already made it clear in the following case that the“drivers license”is intended to apply only to“for hire”vehicles. (Emphasis added.)



“Sec. 103 It shall be unlawful for any person to drive an automobile or other motor vehicle carrying passengers for hire, within the city of Seattle, without having a valid and subsisting license so to do, to be known as a‘drivers license’...”Driver’s license,‘first class’shall entitle the holder thereof to drive any kind or class of motor vehicles for hire within the city of Seattle.“Drivers license, second class’shall be limited to stages, sight-seeing cars, or other motor vehicles operating over a specified route and having a fixed terminal.“Drivers license,‘third class’shall be limited to drivers of taxicabs, for hire cars, or other automobiles not operating on fixed routes, and having a passenger capacity of less than seven (7) persons, not including the driver. ...It is intended to apply to“for hire”vehicles as provided in section 6313, Rem. Comp. Stats., are defined to mean all motor vehicles other than auto-mobile stages used for the transportation of persons for which remuneration of any kind is received, either directly or indirectly.”INTERNATIONAL MOTOR TRANSIT CO. et al. V. CITY OF SEATTLE et al. , (No. 19992) 251 PACIFIC REPORTER 120-123 (Dec. 6, 1926.)And;

[farmer_giles_of_ham]

RCW 46.20.161
Issuance of license — Contents — Fee.


The department, upon receipt of a fee ... shall issue to every qualifying applicant a driver's license. [edit] The license must include a distinguishing number assigned to the licensee, the name of record, date of birth, Washington residence address, photograph, a brief description of the licensee, and either a facsimile of the signature of the licensee or a space upon which the licensee shall write his or her usual signature ...

----------------------------------------------------

That looks like the "classification" statute for non-commercial drivers- the one for CDL is in the other section. Maybe it's not the case, this is what I found online for Wash State.

The fact that there is a space for "CDL END" may just mean that...there is a space available for cdl endorsements.

What class, by letter, is normally printed on a standard non commercial washington DL, under the "cdl end" section?

[bman]

CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE

Law Enforcement personal; The State of Washington does NOT required anyone to Have a “Drivers License” to drive a Motor Vehicle for NON-COMMERCIAL PURPOSES!


“RCW 46.20.00 License required Rights and restriction.
(1) No person may drive a motor vehicle upon a highway in this state without first obtaining a valid driver's license issued to Washington residents under this chapter.”

THERE IS NO LICENSE ISSUED UNDER THIS CHAPTER, RCW 46.20. et seq!

For clarification; as is detailed below in RCW1.04.010, and also, RCW 1.04.013,1.04.014, 1.04.015, 1.04.016, the RCW is divided into Title (46), Chapter (20), Section (001), after careful examination and research it is obvious that Chapter RCW 46.20 does not in any form or fashion authorize the issue of anything that can be recognized as a “Driver’s License”; as is detailed below only RCW46.25.080 is authorized that duty; see below.

RCW 1.04.010
Revised Code of Washington enacted.
The ninety-one titles with chapters and sections designated as the "Revised Code of Washington" and attested by the secretary of the senate and the chief clerk of the house of representatives of the legislature of the state of Washington, are hereby enacted and designated as the "Revised Code of Washington." Said code is intended to embrace in a revised, consolidated, and codified form and arrangement all the laws of the state of a general and permanent nature.

It is an undisputed fact of law that RCW 46.25.080 (Title 46 chapter 25, see above RCW46.20) is the one (1) and only license classification statute in Title 46 the motor vehicle code for the State of Washington and it is also undisputed that all three classes of licenses issued under this statute, Class A, Class B & Class C are all COMMERCIAL DRIVERS LICENSE’S. See RCW 46.25.080 to wit:

“RCW 46.25.080 License contents, classifications, endorsements, restrictions, expiration Exchange of information.
(1) The commercial driver's license must be marked "commercial driver's license" or "CDL,"
...(a) Licenses may be classified as follows:
(i) Class A . . .
(ii) Class B . . .
(iii) Class C . . .”


Please note that the older Washington Drivers licenses used to say “COMMERCIAL CLASSES” on the back side of the drivers license and in the left hand column of back side of driver’s license, it used to say “Class A, Class B and Class C. The Department of Licensing has committed fraud against the Citizens of Washington and has removed the COMMERCIAL CLASSES designation from the back of the drivers license? However, the New Drivers License’s still says in very small print: “CDL END” ( see above, RCW 46.25.080 (1), and also below, The Commercial Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1986, Commercial Driver's License Document ) in the left hand side of the front of the New Drivers License’s. CDL END obviously means COMMERCIAL DRIVERS LICENSE ENDORSEMENT! (Emphasis added.)


U.S. Department of Transportation, Commercial Driver's License (CDL) Program

The Commercial Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1986 was signed into law on October 27, 1986,… The Act retained the State's right to issue a driver's license,… it merely requires States to upgrade their existing testing and licensing programs, if necessary, to conform with the Federal minimum standards.,… The Federal standard requires States to issue a CDL to drivers according to the following license classifications:
Class A --. Class B – Class C --

Commercial Driver's License Document:
A State determines the license fee, the license renewal cycle, most renewal procedures, and continues to decide the age, medical and other driver qualifications of its intrastate commercial drivers. Interstate drivers must meet the longstanding Federal driver qualifications (49 CFR 391).

All CDLs must contain the following information:
The words "Commercial Driver's License" or "CDL;"
The driver's full name, signature, and address;
The driver's date of birth, sex, and height
Color photograph or digitized image of the driver;
The driver's State license number;
The name of the issuing State;
The date of issuance and the date of the expiration of the license;
The class(es) of vehicle that the driver is authorized to drive;
Notation of the "air brake" restriction, if issued;
The endorsement(s) for which the driver has qualified;
States may issue learner's permits for purposes of behind-the-wheel training on public highways as long as learner's permit holders are required to be accompanied by someone with a valid CDL appropriate for that vehicle and the learner's permits are issued for limited time periods.



RCW 46.25.050(1) Drivers of Commercial motor vehicles shall obtain a “commercial driver’s license” as required under this chapter by April 1, 1992. ..., . . . HOWEVER, this requirement does not apply to any person: (c) Who is operating a recreational vehicle for non commercial purposes.

RCW 46.25.050(1) makes it clear that this requirement does NOT apply to any person: (c) WHO IS OPERATING A RECREATIONAL VEHICLE FOR NON COMMERCIAL PURPOSES! (Emphasis added.) For clarification, the Washington Administrative Code at WAC 308-100-210 which reads:

(WAC) 308-100-210 Recreational vehicle–Definition. For the purposes of RCW 46.25.050(1)(c), the term “recreational vehicle” shall include vehicles used exclusively for NONCOMMERCIAL PURPOSES which are: (1) Primarily designed for recreational, camping, OR TRAVEL USE. And;

WAC 308-100-210 specifically defines the term “RECREATIONAL VEHICLE” shall include vehicles used exclusively for NON COMMERCIAL PURPOSES which are: (1) PRIMARILY DESIGNED FOR RECREATIONAL, CAMPING, OR TRAVEL USE.

The State of Washington only issues a Commercial Driver's License .There does not appear anywhere else provisions stating otherwise.
I do not “transport” passengers, freight or commodities for compensation, hence commercial activity. I use my vehicle solely for NON-COMMERCIAL PURPOSES such as RECREATIONAL, CAMPING OR TRAVEL USE AS A MATTER OF RIGHT! (Emphasis added.)

cont. below

[bman]

The Washington State Supreme Court has already made it clear in the following case that the “drivers license” is intended to apply only to “for hire” vehicles. (Emphasis added.)

“Sec. 103 It shall be unlawful for any person to drive an automobile or other motor vehicle carrying passengers for hire, within the city of Seattle, without having a valid and subsisting license so to do, to be known as a ‘drivers license’ ...”Driver’s license, ‘first class’ shall entitle the holder thereof to drive any kind or class of motor vehicles for hire within the city of Seattle. “Drivers license, second class’ shall be limited to stages, sight-seeing cars, or other motor vehicles operating over a specified route and having a fixed terminal. “Drivers license, ‘third class’ shall be limited to drivers of taxicabs, for hire cars, or other automobiles not operating on fixed routes, and having a passenger capacity of less than seven (7) persons, not including the driver. ...It is intended to apply to “for hire” vehicles as provided in section 6313, Rem. Comp. Stats., are defined to mean all motor vehicles other than auto-mobile stages used for the transportation of persons for which remuneration of any kind is received, either directly or indirectly.” INTERNATIONAL MOTOR TRANSIT CO. et al. V. CITY OF SEATTLE et al. , (No. 19992) 251 PACIFIC REPORTER 120-123 (Dec. 6, 1926.)

The courts have ruled consistently in favor of the Right to travel upon the public highways, to wit;

“The use of the highways for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a 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

“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 the 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, 57 SE.2d 290; Parlett Cooperative vs. Tidewater Lines, 164 A. 313


“We know of no inherent right in one to use the highways for commercial purposes. The highways are primarily for the use of the public, and in the interest of the public, the state may prohibit or regulate … the use of the highways for gain.” Robertson vs. Dept. of Public Works, supra.

“The right to travel is an unconditional right which cannot be conditioned by the legislature”
Dunn v. Blumstein, 405 U.S. 330,341, 1972

The Washington Constitution, Const. art. 1, 7, differs significantly from the fourth amendment to the United States Constitution in providing: "No person shall be disturbed in his private affairs, or his home invaded, without authority of law." Because of its unique language, Const. art. 1, 7 generally provides greater protection than does the fourth amendment to the United States Constitution. STATE v. MYRICK, 102 Wn.2d 506, 688 P.2d 151 (1984). If "'bona fide separate, adequate, and independent [state constitutional] grounds,'" are the foundation for a decision, it is unnecessary to reach federal constitutional issues. STATE v. COE, 101 Wn.2d 364, 378, 679 P.2d 353 (1984) (quoting MICHIGAN v. LONG, U.S., 77 L. Ed. 2d 1201, 103 S. Ct. 3469, 3476 (1983)).

After thorough and exhaustive research in an attempt to locate a “law” which conforms to the requirements set forth within The Washington Constitution concerning the enactment of a “law”, [see; Washington State Constitution ARTICLE II LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT SECTION 18 STYLE OF LAWS, SECTION 32 LAWS, HOW SIGNED] no such “law” can be found that conclusively requires one to be in possession of a “driver license” in order to travel upon the public roads, and highways as a matter of right, or to be in possession of any type of identification that is available upon the public record that discloses or disturbs ones private affairs.

[Tigeris76]

Originally Posted by bman

The Washington State Supreme Court has already made it clear in the following case that the “drivers license” is intended to apply only to “for hire” vehicles. (Emphasis added.)

“Sec. 103 It shall be unlawful for any person to drive an automobile or other motor vehicle carrying passengers for hire, within the city of Seattle, without having a valid and subsisting license so to do, to be known as a ‘drivers license’ ...”Driver’s license, ‘first class’ shall entitle the holder thereof to drive any kind or class of motor vehicles for hire within the city of Seattle. “Drivers license, second class’ shall be limited to stages, sight-seeing cars, or other motor vehicles operating over a specified route and having a fixed terminal. “Drivers license, ‘third class’ shall be limited to drivers of taxicabs, for hire cars, or other automobiles not operating on fixed routes, and having a passenger capacity of less than seven (7) persons, not including the driver. ...It is intended to apply to “for hire” vehicles as provided in section 6313, Rem. Comp. Stats., are defined to mean all motor vehicles other than auto-mobile stages used for the transportation of persons for which remuneration of any kind is received, either directly or indirectly.” INTERNATIONAL MOTOR TRANSIT CO. et al. V. CITY OF SEATTLE et al. , (No. 19992) 251 PACIFIC REPORTER 120-123 (Dec. 6, 1926.)

The courts have ruled consistently in favor of the Right to travel upon the public highways, to wit;

“The use of the highways for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a 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

“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 the 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, 57 SE.2d 290; Parlett Cooperative vs. Tidewater Lines, 164 A. 313


“We know of no inherent right in one to use the highways for commercial purposes. The highways are primarily for the use of the public, and in the interest of the public, the state may prohibit or regulate … the use of the highways for gain.” Robertson vs. Dept. of Public Works, supra.

“The right to travel is an unconditional right which cannot be conditioned by the legislature”
Dunn v. Blumstein, 405 U.S. 330,341, 1972

The Washington Constitution, Const. art. 1, 7, differs significantly from the fourth amendment to the United States Constitution in providing: "No person shall be disturbed in his private affairs, or his home invaded, without authority of law." Because of its unique language, Const. art. 1, 7 generally provides greater protection than does the fourth amendment to the United States Constitution. STATE v. MYRICK, 102 Wn.2d 506, 688 P.2d 151 (1984). If "'bona fide separate, adequate, and independent [state constitutional] grounds,'" are the foundation for a decision, it is unnecessary to reach federal constitutional issues. STATE v. COE, 101 Wn.2d 364, 378, 679 P.2d 353 (1984) (quoting MICHIGAN v. LONG, U.S., 77 L. Ed. 2d 1201, 103 S. Ct. 3469, 3476 (1983)).

After thorough and exhaustive research in an attempt to locate a “law” which conforms to the requirements set forth within The Washington Constitution concerning the enactment of a “law”, [see; Washington State Constitution ARTICLE II LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT SECTION 18 STYLE OF LAWS, SECTION 32 LAWS, HOW SIGNED] no such “law” can be found that conclusively requires one to be in possession of a “driver license” in order to travel upon the public roads, and highways as a matter of right, or to be in possession of any type of identification that is available upon the public record that discloses or disturbs ones private affairs.

Thanks to all who replied ,this is very helpful forme and my family...

[bman]

Demand for police officer to produce authority; to wit:
Please consider this my request for you to produce your authorization, as such.
RCW 46.61.020
Refusal to give information to or cooperate with officer -- Penalty.
(1) It is unlawful for any person while operating or in charge of any vehicle to refuse when requested by a police officer to give his or her name and address and the name and address of the owner of such vehicle, or for such person to give a false name and address, and it is likewise unlawful for any such person to refuse or neglect to stop when signaled to stop by any police officer or to refuse upon demand of such police officer to produce his or her certificate of license registration of such vehicle, his or her insurance identification card, or his or her vehicle driver's license or to refuse to permit such officer to take any such license, card, or certificate for the purpose of examination thereof or to refuse to permit the examination of any equipment of such vehicle or the weighing of such vehicle or to refuse or neglect to produce the certificate of license registration of such vehicle, insurance card, or his or her vehicle driver's license when requested by any court. Any police officer shall on request produce evidence of his or her authorization as such.

(2) A violation of this section is a misdemeanor.
[2003 c 53 § 245; 1995 c 50 § 2; 1989 c 353 § 6; 1967 c 32 § 65; 1961 c 12 § 46.56.190. Prior: 1937 c 189 § 126; RRS § 6360-126; 1927 c 309 § 38; RRS § 6362-38. Formerly RCW 46.56.190.]
Definitions provided here for your convenience;
authorization
1. permission: official power or permission to do something
2. document giving permission: a letter or document that confirms that somebody has permission to do something or be somewhere
Encarta ® World English Dictionary © & (P) 1998-2004 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.


The numerous courts have also ruled that jurisdiction must be proven when requested, and, or prior to any sanctions or proceedings, to wit;

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES BRENDLIN v. CALIFORNIA CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA No. 06–8120. Argued April 23, 2007—Decided June 18, 2007
A person is seized by the police and thus entitled to challenge the government’s action under the Fourth Amendment when the officer, “‘by means of physical force or show of authority,’” terminates or restrains his freedom of movement, Florida v. Bostick, 501 U. S. 429, 434 (1991) (quoting Terry v. Ohio, 392 U. S. 1, 19, n. 16 (1968)), “through means intentionally applied,” Brower v. County of Inyo, 489 U. S. 593, 597 (1989)


The law requires PROOF OF JURISDICTION to appear on the Record of the administrative agency and all administrative proceedings. Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 533 (1974)

"The law provides that once State and Federal Jurisdiction has been challenged, it must be proven." 100 S. Ct. 2502 (1980)

“Jurisdiction, once challenged, cannot be assumed and must be decided.[Maine v. Thiboutot, 100 S. Ct. 250]

No sanction can be imposed absent proof of jurisdiction. Standard v. Olsen, 74 S.Ct. 768.
Hoppe v. King County, 95 Wash.2d 332, 622 P.2d 845 (1980): "Public officers have only those powers expressly granted or necessarily implied by statute, " 622 P.2d, at 848.
RCW 9A.04.110 Definitions. *** CHANGE IN 2005 *** (SEE 1934-S.SL) ***
In this title unless a different meaning plainly is required:
(24) "Statute" means the Constitution or an act of the legislature or initiative or referendum of this state,
Piper v. Pearson, 2 Gray 120, cited in Bradley v. Fisher, 13 Wall. 335, 20 L.Ed. 646 (1872)
"Where there is no jurisdiction, there can be no discretion, for discretion is incident to jurisdiction."

Constructive Notice

This is being offered as a constructive notice so that we will all be aware of the laws and penalties associated with, and concerning, the above cited code.
As is stated within RCW 46.61.020, “ Any police officer shall on request produce evidence of his or her authorization as such”.

(2) A violation of this section is a misdemeanor

As such, if evidence of authorization to perform the specific act is not produced as requested it is an automatic violation of the code, which is a misdemeanor, also there are other penalties for refusal to perform as directed, to wit;
RCW 42.20.100
Failure of duty by public officer a misdemeanor.
Whenever any duty is enjoined by law upon any public officer or other person holding any public trust or employment, their willful neglect to perform such duty, except where otherwise specially provided for, shall be a misdemeanor.


RCW 42.20.040
False report.
Every public officer who shall knowingly make any false or misleading statement in any official report or statement, under circumstances not otherwise prohibited by law, shall be guilty of a gross misdemeanor.
[1909 c 249 § 98; RRS § 2350.]

RCW 9A.80.010
Official misconduct.

(1) A public servant is guilty of official misconduct if, with intent to obtain a benefit or to deprive another person of a lawful right or privilege:

(a) He intentionally commits an unauthorized act under color of law; or

(b) He intentionally refrains from performing a duty imposed upon him by law.

(2) Official misconduct is a gross misdemeanor.

Also;

18 USC Sec. 241 CONSPIRACY AGAINST RIGHTS

18 USC Sec. 242 DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS UNDER COLOR OF LAW

42 USC Sec. 1981 EQUAL RIGHTS UNDER THE LAW

42 USC Sec. 1982 PROPERTY RIGHTS OF CITIZENS

42 USC Sec. 1983 CIVIL ACTION FOR DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS

42 USC Sec. 1985 CONSPIRACY TO INTERFERE WITH CIVIL RIGHTS

42 USC Sec. 1986 ACTION FROM NEGLECT TO PREVENT


U.S. v Prudden,424 F.2nd 1021 (5th Cir. 1970) also, U.S. v Tweel, 550 F.2nd 297,299 (5th Cir. 1977), “Silence can only be equated with fraud where there is a legal or moral duty to speak or where an inquiry left unanswered would be intentionally misleading.”
Hafer v. Melo, 502 U.S. 21 (1991) — State officers may be held personally liable for damages based upon actions taken in their official capacities.
Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 94 S. Ct. 1683, 1687 (1974)The U.S. Supreme Court stated that "when a state officer acts under a state law in a manner violative of the Federal Constitution, he comes into conflict with the superior authority of that Constitution, and he is in that case stripped of his official or representative character and is subjected in his person to the consequences of his individual conduct. The State has no power to impart to him any immunity from responsibility to the supreme authority of the United States."



Police officer, so that I may have a record of the jurisdictional facts in the onset of any actions forthwith that may evolve from this encounter with you, as is your duty as stated above, please complete the following questions and produce all of the necessary documents concerning your authority to act; please be aware all responses made by you will be considered complete , true, and correct , unless specifically detailed, itemized and stated as such to the contrary. This is an official statement or report made by you. Please note, any information or evidence that you provide herein can and will be used against you in a court of law or equity. Please also see STATE v. FLORA 68 Wn. App. 802, 845 P.2d 1355, Dec. 1992, as to the acceptability of audio and or video recordings during a police stop.


cont

[bman]

Please print legibly; any illegible or unreadable or blank response shall be construed as your refusal to produce evidence of your authority to act, as is stated as required above.
( use the back if more space is needed ) ( please initial the appropriate response)

1. Identity: provide your complete legal name in the space provided,



2. Address: provide your complete address, where you will receive process of service,



3. State the branch of government you represent, Legislative ______, Judicial ______, Executive______, or other ______.
3a. Note; the Executive branch of Government is divided into, 1, Civilian, or 2, Military,.
Please specify are you, Civilian ______ or, Military ______. ( please initial the appropriate response).
Washington State Constitution SECTION 18 MILITARY POWER, LIMITATION OF.
The military shall be in strict subordination to the civil power.


4. State your commission / job title, rank or designation ( i.e., police officer, law enforcement officer, code enforcement , contract enforcement, etc.) , please explain in detail.


5. Are you elected ______or appointed ______ to the duties you are performing, or are you an employee of an agency ______, (please initial the appropriate response), please explain in detail.


6. Have you taken and sworn or affirmed an oath of office as is required by the Constitution for the United States of America, as well as the Washington Constitution, YES_______, NO_______.(please initial the appropriate response). If yes, provide a certified copy of your filed and recorded oath of office. (Note an oath of office is considered a contract, Please note, any violation of rights as secured and, or enumerated by the Washington Constitution, or the Constitution for the united States of America will be construed to be a violation of said oath,(contract), at which time no official immunity will be in place and will expose yourself in your individual capacity).


7. Provide a certified copy of the delegation of authority you are now acting under, issued and signed by the official authorizing you to perform the duties you are now performing.


8. As your authority rests upon the definitions of certain words, provide the complete definition of “person” as stated in RCW 46.61.020 above, and all information why you believe that I am described as such.

"The word "person" in legal terminology is perceived as a general word which normally includes in its scope a variety of entities other than human beings. See e.g. 1 U.S.C. ss 1. Church of Scientology v. U.S. Dept. of Justice (1979) 612 F 2d 417, 425.

Definitions provided here for your convenience;
Chapter 1.16 RCW
GENERAL DEFINITIONS
RCW 1.16.080
"Person" -- Construction of "association," "unincorporated association," and "person, firm, or corporation" to include a limited liability company.
(1) The term "person" may be construed to include the United States, this state, or any state or territory, or any public or private corporation or limited liability company, as well as an individual.

(2) Unless the context clearly indicates otherwise, the terms "association," "unincorporated association," and "person, firm, or corporation" or substantially identical terms shall, without limiting the application of any term to any other type of legal entity, be construed to include a limited liability company.
[1996 c 231 § 1; 1891 c 23 § 1, part; Code 1881 § 964; 1857 p 46 § 1; 1854 p 99 § 134; RRS § 146.]
NOTES:
Reviser's note: This section is a part of 1891 c 23 § 1. The introductory phrase of that section provides: "The following provisions relative to the construction of statutes shall be rules of construction and shall constitute a part of the code of procedure of this state:". (my emphasis)


9. Provide a complete description of the area that you may exercise territorial jurisdiction in connection with your duties.


If this is being received by you in connection with a “traffic stop”, is the area that we are stopped at right now within you territorial jurisdiction? YES______, NO______.(please initial the appropriate response). Please provide verifiable proof that the area that we are stopped at is within your jurisdiction, (i.e., deed, title, contracts, legislative enactments,(Art. I, § 8, cl. 17 of the U.S. Constitution), etc., etc.)

Definitions provided here for your convenience;
46.25.010 Definitions. The definitions set forth in this section apply throughout this chapter.

(19) "State" means a state of the United States and the District of Columbia.
(22) "United States" means the fifty states and the District of Columbia.
RCW 46.29.270
Meaning of "judgment" and "state."
The following words and phrases when used in this chapter shall, for the purpose of this chapter, have the meanings respectively ascribed to them in this section.
(2) The term "state" shall mean: Any state, territory, or possession of the United States, the District of Columbia, or any province of the Dominion of Canada.
[1999 c 296 § 2; 1963 c 169 § 27.]
Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Ed:
Of: A term denoting that from which anything proceeds; indicating origin, source, descent, and the like; as, he is of noble blood. Associated with or connected with, usually in some casual relation, efficient, material, formal, or final. The word has been held equivalent to after; at, or belonging to; in possession of; manufactured by; residing at; from.[Emphasis added]

As the RCW definitions above indicate “state of the United States”, “or possession of the United States” is referring to a Federal enclave, territory ,or possession (State) of the United States. Since the Republic Of Washington was accepted into the union of independent Republic States in 1889, completely independent of Federal government control or ownership, the Republic state of Washington does not belong to, nor is it a possession of the Federal United States government, it is a completely independent operating republic state which requires the Federal United States to perform certain functions on its, (their, the50 Republic States), behalf, as is dictated within the Constitution for the United States of America, as well as the Washington Constitution. Although there are certain areas that the Federal United States has retained or acquired through the provisions of the Constitution, for its own purposes as dictated within the Constitution. So, upon reading the above RCW definitions it becomes apparent that the RCW’s only refer to and only apply to the Federal enclaves, territory ,or possessions (State), of the United States, (Federal Government). To conclude otherwise would be fraudulent in administration.

"Special provision is made in the Constitution for the cession of jurisdiction from the states over places where the federal government shall establish forts or other military works. And it is only in these places, or in territories of the United States, where it can exercise a general jurisdiction" [New Orleans v. United States, 35 U.S. (10 Pet.) 662 (1836)]
1818: U.S. v. Bevans, 16 U.S.336. Establishes two separate jurisdictions within the United States Of America: 1. The "federal zone" and 2. "the 50 States".
"The exclusive jurisdiction which the United States have in forts and dock-yards ceded to them, is derived from the express assent of the states by whom the cessions are made. It could be derived in no other manner; because without it, the authority of the state would be supreme and exclusive therein," 3 Wheat., at 350, 351.
Does the term “United States” have multiple legal meanings and, if so, what are they?
Answer: Yes. The term has several meanings. The term "United States" may be used in any one of several senses. [1] It may be merely the name of a sovereign occupying the position analogous to that of other sovereigns in the family of nations. [2] It may designate the territory over which the sovereignty of the United States extends, or [3] it may be the collective name of the States which are united by and under the Constitution. See Hooven & Allison Co. v. Evatt, 324 U.S. 652 (1945) [ brackets and numbers added for clarity].

This is the very same definition that is found in Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition. The second of these three meanings refers to the federal zone and to Congress only when it is legislating in its municipal capacity. For example, Congress is legislating in its municipal capacity whenever it creates a federal corporation, like the United States Postal Service.

[bman]

10. Provide all contracts, and/or waivers, where I have specifically given up any Right or Rights what so ever.

“Privilege against self-incrimination is in part individual's substantive right to private conclave where he may lead a private life. Constitutional foundation underlying privilege against self-incrimination is the respect of the government, state or federal, must accord to dignity and integrity of its citizens. Fifth Amendment provision that individual cannot be compelled to be witness against himself cannot be abridged.” Miranda vs. State of Arizona, 380 US 436 (1966)


“waivers of fundamental Rights must be knowing, intentional, and voluntary acts, done with sufficient awareness of the relevant circumstances and likely consequences. U.S. v. Brady, 397 U.S. 742 at 748 (1970); U.S.v. O’Dell, 160 F.2d 304 (6th Cir. 1947)”.

Washington State Constitution
SECTION 7 INVASION OF PRIVATE AFFAIRS OR HOME PROHIBITED. No person shall be disturbed in his private affairs, or his home invaded, without authority of law


11. In the performance of your duties at this time are you administering; Law ______, Statute_____, Code ______, Rule______ , Contract enforcement______, or Other______, (please initial the appropriate response), please explain in detail.


"Ignorance of the law does not excuse misconduct in anyone, least of all in a sworn officer of the law." In re McCowan (1917), 177 C. 93, 170 P. 1100.

Definitions provided here for your convenience;

Washington State Constitution ARTICLE II
LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT
SECTION 18 STYLE OF LAWS. The style of the laws of the state shall be: "Be it enacted by the Legislature of the State of Washington." And no laws shall be enacted except by bill.

SECTION 32 LAWS, HOW SIGNED. No bill shall become a law until the same shall have been signed by the presiding officer of each of the two houses in open session, and under such rules as the legislature shall prescribe.

12. Is the highway, road, street, at which we are now stopped along (a) Public______, (b) Private______. (please initial the appropriate response)

Definitions provided here for your convenience;

Washington State Constitution

ARTICLE II LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT
SECTION 40 HIGHWAY FUNDS. All fees collected by the State of Washington as license fees for motor vehicles and all excise taxes collected by the State of Washington on the sale, distribution or use of motor vehicle fuel and all other state revenue intended to be used for highway purposes, shall be paid into the state treasury and placed in a special fund to be used exclusively for highway purposes. Such highway purposes shall be construed to include the following:
(a) The necessary operating, engineering and legal expenses connected with the administration of public highways, county roads and city streets;
(b) The construction, reconstruction, maintenance, repair, and betterment of public highways, county roads, bridges and city streets; including the cost and expense of (1) acquisition of rights-of-way, (2) installing, maintaining and operating traffic signs and signal lights, (3) policing by the state of public highways, (4) operation of movable span bridges, (5) operation of ferries which are a part of any public highway, county road, or city street;
Definitions provided here for your convenience;
public
1. concerning all members of the community: relating to or concerning people as a whole or all members of a community 2. for community use: provided for the use of a community 3. open to all: open to everyone, and typically frequented by large numbers of people 4. of the state: relating to or involving government and governmental agencies rather than private corporations or industry 8. politics belonging to the community: belonging to the community as a whole and administered through its representatives in government noun; 1. everyone: the community as a whole Encarta ® World English Dictionary © & (P) 1998-2004 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
13. Please clarify, Is there any jurisdictional difference that alters your authority between the different grammatical spelling of the Constitutionally correct spelling of "The State of Washington," , as declared within the Washington Constitution , as compared to the incorrect grammatical spelling of , THE STATE OF WASHINGTON, or WASHINGTON STATE, as well as being altered from the Constitutionally correct spelling found within the Constitution , Yes______, No______, (please initial the appropriate response), please explain in detail.
If there is no difference in authority or jurisdiction between the different spellings or grammar of the above "The State of Washington", then I demand that you use the proper spelling and grammar as is used within the Washington Constitution when you provide any process of service to me now or in the future, please note, failure to adhere to the Constitutional mandate may be construed as an indication of fraud, unless of course your jurisdiction is limited to only the federal states, or also known as the federal territories within the geographical boundaries of each republic state of the union of states, which often times use the all capital, grammatically incorrect spelling to indicate the difference between the different jurisdictions. That being said, if you or anyone connected to this encounter in any way what so ever serves process upon me in anything other than the proper grammatical spelling and style as is required by the Washington Constitution, it shall be an admission that the jurisdiction you are administering is only within the federal territories, states or enclaves as defined Art. I, § 8, cl. 17 of the U.S. Constitution.

Definitions provided here for your convenience; RCW 46.25.010 Definitions.
The definitions set forth in this section apply throughout this chapter
(19) "State" means a state of the United States and the District of Columbia.



Washington State Constitution ARTICLE IV
THE JUDICIARY
SECTION 27 STYLE OF PROCESS. The style of all process shall be, "The State of Washington," and all prosecutions shall be conducted in its name and by its authority. (emphasis added, please notice the proper grammatical spelling, upper and lower case, not all capital spelling)


13a. Please state for the record, is the authority which you now claim to exercise confined to the Federal areas , or territories, or possessions of the Federal government, within the Republic states of the union states, as defined within RCW 46.25.010, and Art. I, § 8, cl. 17 of the U.S. Constitution.
Yes______, No______. (please initial the appropriate response)


14. Within the RCW’s, does the definition of the word State,( in any type or form of spelling), refer to, or include the meaning of the word “State” as used within the “Washington State Constitution”, Yes______, No______, (please initial the appropriate response)