As for grounds for arrest: The carrying of arms in a quiet, peaceable, and orderly manner, concealed on or about the

person, is not a breach of the peace. Nor does such an act of itself, lead to a breach of the peace. (Whartons Criminal and Civil Procedure, 12th Ed., Vol.2: Judy v. Lashley, 5 W. Va. 628, 41 S.E. 197) "The mere presence of firearms does not create exigent circumstances." WI v. Kiekhefer, 212 Wis. 2d 460, 569 N.W.2d 316 (Ct. App. 1997), 96-2052. The Supreme Court of the United States of America has determined, "All codes, rules, and regulations are for government authorities only, not human/Creators in accordance with God's laws. All codes, rules, and regulations are unconstitutional and lacking due process" Rodriques v. Ray Donavan (U.S. Department of Labor) 769 F. 2d 1344, 1348 (1985). "There, every man is independent of all laws, except those prescribed by nature. He is not bound by any institutions formed by his fellowman without his consent." [Cruden v. Neale, 2 N.C. 338 (1796) 2 S.E.] Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S. 737 (1984) "In essence the question of standing is whether the litigant is entitled to have the court decide the merits of the dispute or of particular issues. Standing doctrine embraces... the general prohibition on a litigant's raising another person's legal rights, the rule barring adjudication of generalized grievances more appropriately addressed in the representative branches, and the requirement that a plaintiff's complaint fall within the zone of interests protected by the law invoked. The requirement of standing, however, has a core component derived directly from the Constitution. A plaintiff must allege personal injury fairly traceable to defendants allegedly unlawful conduct and likely to be redressed by the requested relief." "No law allows officers to arrest for obstruction on a persons refusal to give his or her name. Mere silence is insufficient to constitute obstruction". Henes v. Morrissey, 194 Wis. 2d 339, 533 N.W.2d 802 (1995) "Under our system of government upon the individuality and intelligence of the citizen, the state does not claim to control him/her, except as his/her conduct to others, leaving him/her the sole judge as to all that affects himself/herself." Mugler v. Kansas 123 U.S. 623, 659-60. "For a crime to exist, there must be an injured party. There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of this exercise of Constitutional rights."- Sherar v. Cullen, 481 F. 945. "Qualified immunity defense fails if public officer violates clearly established right because a reasonably competent official should know the law governing his conduct" Jones vs Counce 7-F3d-1359-8th Cir 1993; Benitez v Wolff 985-F3d 662 2nd Cir 1993 "Statutes that violate the plain and obvious principles of common right and common reason are null and void." Bennett v. Boggs, 1 Baldw 60. "Any law that is repugnant to the constitution is null and void of law." Marbury v Madison, 5 US 137

"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 "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. "There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of this exercise of constitutional rights." Sherer v. Cullen, 481 F 946 "A State may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the Federal Constitution." Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105, at 113. "We are all citizens of the United States, and as members of the same community must have the right to pass and repass through every part of it without interruption, as freely as in our own States.Crandall v. Nevada (73 U. S. 35) "The State cannot diminish rights of the people." Hertado v. California, 110 U.S. 516 "The Claim and exercise of a Constitutional Right cannot be converted into a crime."Miller v. U.S. , 230 F 2d 486. 489 "If the state converts a liberty into a privilege the citizen can engage in the right with impunity" Shuttlesworth v Birmingham , 373 USs 262 Refusal to consent to a search does not provide reasonable suspicion to justify a stop or continued detention. United States v. Machuca-Barrera, 261 F.3d 425, 435 n.32 (5th Cir. 2001) (citing United States v. Hunnicutt, 135 F.3d 1345, 1350-51 (10th Cir. 1998) ([I]t would make a mockery of the reasonable suspicion and probable cause requirements ... if citizens insistence that searches and seizures be con ducted in conformity with constitutional norms could create the suspicion or cause that renders their consent unnecessary.)) "Constitutions are not primarily designed to protect majorities, who are usually able to protect themselves, but rather to preserve and protect the rights of individuals and minorities against arbitrary action of those in authority." Houston County v. Martin, 232 A 1 511; 169 So. 13. Bonnett v. Vallier Unconstitutional Statutes The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void and ineffective for any purpose, since its unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment... In legal contemplation, it is as inoperative as if it had never been passed... Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no right, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection and justifies no acts performed under it... A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing law. Indeed insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, (the Constitution) it is superseded thereby. No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it." Bonnett v. Vallier, 116 N.W. 885, 136 Wis. 193 (1908); NORTON v. SHELBY COUNTY, 118 U.S. 425 (1886) "Any law which would place the keeping and safe conduct of another in the hands of even a conservator of the peace, unless for some breach of the peace committed in

his presence, or upon suspicion of felony, would be most oppressive and unjust, and destroy all the rights which our Constitution guarantees." Pinkerton v Verberg, 78 Mich 573, 584; 44 NW 579, 582-583 (1889). The Supreme Court makes a clear line and definition of an unreasonable search In the 2001 case of Kyllo v. United States, Scalia wrote the Court's opinion in a 5-4 decision that cut across ideological line.[91] That decision found thermal imaging of a home to be an unreasonable search under the Fourth Amendment. (But Law enforcement thinks removing a firearm from my person without evidence of a crime is not???) Quotes: A search is a search, even if it happens to disclose nothing but the bottom of a turntable. Supreme Court Judge Antonin Scalia "Those of us who are public officials and are entrusted with the power of the state are ultimately accountable to the public. When we exercise that power in public fora, we should not expect our actions to be shielded from public observation. 'Sed quis custodiet ipsos cutodes' ("Who watches the watchmen?)." -Circuit Court Judge Emory A. Plitt Jr "Stopping a car for no other reason than to check the license and registration was unreasonable under the 4th amendment." Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U.S. 648 (1979). Right to Travel: Whether armed or not "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 right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."- Thompson v Smith, 154 SE 579 "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 l4th Amendment and by other provisions of the Constitution." - Schactman v Dulles, 96 App D.C. 287, 293. It is settled that the streets of a city belong to the people of a state and the use thereof is an inalienable right of every citizen of the state. Whyte v. City of Sacramento, 65 Cal. App. 534, 547, 224 Pac. 1008, 1013 (1924); Escobedo v. State Dept. of Motor Vehicles (1950), 222 Pac. 2d 1, 5, 35 Cal.2d 870 (1950). This right of the people to the use of the public streets of a city is so well established and so universally recognized in this country, that it has become a part of the alphabet of fundamental rights of the citizen. Swift v. City of Topeka, 23 Pac. 1075,1076, 43 Kansas 671, 674. "Complete freedom of the highways is so old and well established a blessing that we have forgotten the days of the Robber Barons and toll roads, and yet, under an act like this, arbitrarily administered, the highways may be completely monopolized, if, through lack of interest, the people submit, then they may look to see the most sacred of their liberties taken from them one by one, by more or less rapid encroachment." Robertson vs. Department of Public Works, 180 Wash 133,147.

Public ways, as applied to ways by land, are usually termed highways or public roads, are such ways as every citizen has a right to use. Kripp v. Curtis, 11 P. 879; 71 Cal. 62 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. People v Nothaus, 363 P.2d 180, 182 (Colo.-1961). Americans' "freedom to travel throughout the United States has long been recognized as a basic right under the Constitution," according to multiple cases including Williams v Fears, 179 US 270, 274; 21 S Ct 128; 45 L Ed 186 (1900); Twining v New Jersey, 211 US 78, 97; 29 S Ct 14; 53 L Ed 97 (1908), as listed in the case of United States v Guest, 383 US 745; 86 S Ct 1170; 16 L Ed 2d 239 (1968), a case involving criminally prosecuting people for obstructing the right (obstruction is a federal crime pursuant to federal criminal law 18 USC 241). Case law shows that the "liberty" protected by the Fourteenth Amendment extends beyond freedom from bodily restraint and includes a much wider range of human activity, including but not limited to the opportunity to make a wide range of personal decisions concerning one's life, family, and private pursuits. See Meyer v, 262 US 390, 399; 43 SCt 625, 626; 67 L Ed 1043 (1923), and Roe v Wade, 410 US 113, 152-153; 93 S Ct 705, 726-727; 35 L Ed 2d 147 (1973). One of these life, family, private pursuits is obviously driving. In effect, as per the Supreme Court decision in the case of Crandall v Nevada, 73 US 35; 18 L Ed (1867), speed limits and other traffic control devices, being non-factbased, are simply an unlawful tax or impost on travel, and thus unconstitutional for the reason cited in Crandall. (Crandall involved a tax on travelers! which is what in essence speed limits, unscientific stop signs, etc., simply are, stripped of all the phony fraudulent politician folderol pretending them to relate somehow to safety, not to mention that are extortion violating the federal anti-racketeering act (RICO), 18 USC 1961 and the law against obstructing federal rights, 18 USC 241). Colorado Article 42-2-101 clearly states, licensing is for commercial drivers, not private citizens.. "...For 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...as a place for private gain. For the latter purpose, no person has a vested right to use the highways of this state, but it is a privilege...which the (state) may grant or withhold at its discretion..." State v. Johnson, 245 P 1073. "The right to travel is part of the Liberty of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment." Kent v. Dulles 357 U.S. 116, 125. Reaffirmed in Zemel v. Rusk 33 US 1. "Where activities or enjoyment, natural and often necessary to the well being of an American citizen, such as travel, are involved, we will construe narrowly all delegated powers that curtail or dilute them... to repeat, we deal here with a constitutional right of the citizen..." Edwards v. California 314 US 160 (1941). "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 the public interest

and convenience. - Chicago Motor Coach v Chicago, 169 NE 22 ("Regulated" here means stop lights, signs, etc. NOT a privilege that requires permission or unconstitutional taxation; i.e. - licensing, mandatory insurance, vehicle registration, etc., requiring financial consideration, which are more illegal taxes.) "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 right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."- Thompson v Smith, 154 SE 579. "The right to travel is protected by the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment." "Right to travel is constitutionally protected against private as well as public encroachment." Volunteer Medical Clinic, Inc. V. Operation Rescue, 948 F2d 218; International Org. Of Masters, Etc. V. Andrews, 831, F2d 843; Zobel v. Williams, 457 US 55, 102 Sct. 2309. "License: In the law of contracts, is a permission, accorded by a competent authority, conferring the right to do some act which without such authorization would be illegal, or would be a trespass or tort." Blacks Law Dictionary, 2nd Ed. (1910). "Where an individual is detained, without a warrant and without having committed a crime (traffic infractions are not crimes), the detention is a false arrest and false imprisonment." Damages Awarded: Trezevant v. City of Tampa, 241 F2d. 336 (11th CIR 1984) "License: In the law of contracts, is a permission, accorded by a competent authority, conferring the right to do some act which without such authorization would be illegal, or would be a trespass or tort." Blacks Law Dictionary, 2nd Ed. (1910). "The license means to confer on a person the right to do something which otherwise he would not have the right to do." City of Louisville v. Sebree, 214 S.W. 2D 248; 308 Ky. 420. "The object of a license is to confer a right or power which does not exist without it." Pavne v. Massev, 196 S.W. 2D 493; 145 Tex. 273; Shuman v. City of Ft. Wayne, 127 Indiana 109; 26 NE 560, 561 (1891); 194 So 569 (1940). "A license is a mere permit to do something that without it would be unlawful." Littleton v. Buress, 82 P. 864, 866; 14 Wyo.173. "A license, pure and simple, is a mere personal privilege...River Development Corp. V. Liberty Corp., 133 A. 2d 373, 385; 45 N.J. Super. 445. "A license is merely a permit or privilege to do what otherwise would be unlawful, and is not a contract between the authority, federal, state or municipal granting it and the person to whom it is granted..."American States Water Services Co. Of Calif. V. Johnson, 88 P.2d 770, 774; 31 Cal. App.2d 606. "A license when granting a privilege, may not, as the terms to its possession, impose conditions which require the abandonment of constitutional rights." Frost Trucking Co. V. Railroad Commission, 271 US 583, 589 (1924); Terral v. Burke Construction

Company, 257 US 529, 532 (1922). "It is clear that a license relates to qualifications to engage in profession, business, trade or calling; thus when merely traveling without compensation or profit, outside of business enterprise or adventure with the corporate state, no license is required of the natural individual traveling for personal business, pleasure and transportation." Wingfield v. Fielder (1972) 29 CA3d 213. "The acceptance of a license, in whatever form, will not impose upon the licensee an obligation to respect or to comply with any provision of the statute or with the regulations prescribed that are repugnant to the Constitution of the United States." W. W. CARGILL CO. v. STATE OF MINNESOTA, 180 U.S. 452 (1901) 180 U.S. 452 "The word privilege is defined as a particular benefit, favor, or advantage, a right or immunity not enjoyed by all, or it may be enjoyed only under special conditions." Knoll Gold Club v. U.S., 179 Fed Supp. 377, 380. "...those things which are considered as inalienable rights which all citizens possess cannot be licensed since those acts are not held to be a privilege." City of Chicago v. Collins, 51 N.E. 907, 910 Right of Defense Against Unlawful Arrest Citizens may resist unlawful arrest to the point of taking an arresting officer's life if necessary. Plummer v. State, 136 Ind. 306. This premise was upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States in the case: John Bad Elk v. U.S., 177 U.S. 529. The Court stated: Where the officer is killed in the course of the disorder which naturally accompanies an attempted arrest that is resisted, the law looks with very different eyes upon the transaction, when the officer had the right to make the arrest, from what it does if the officer had no right. What may be murder in the first case might be nothing more than manslaughter in the other, or the facts might show that no offense had been committed. An arrest made with a defective warrant, or one issued without affidavit, or one that fails to allege a crime is within jurisdiction, and one who is being arrested, may resist arrest and break away. lf the arresting officer is killed by one who is so resisting, the killing will be no more than an involuntary manslaughter. Housh v. People, 75 111. 491; reaffirmed and quoted in State v. Leach, 7 Conn. 452; State v. Gleason, 32 Kan. 245; Ballard v. State, 43 Ohio 349; State v Rousseau, 241 P. 2d 447; State v. Spaulding, 34 Minn. 3621. When a person, being without fault, is in a place where he has a right to be, is violently assaulted, he may, without retreating, repel by force, and if, in the reasonable exercise of his right of self defense, his assailant is killed, he is justified. Runyan v. State, 57 Ind. 80; Miller v. State, 74 Ind. 1. These principles apply as well to an officer attempting to make an arrest, who abuses his authority and transcends the bounds thereof by the use of unnecessary force and violence, as they do to a private individual who unlawfully uses such force and violence. Jones v. State, 26 Tex. App. I; Beaverts v. State, 4 Tex. App. 1 75; Skidmore v. State, 43 Tex. 93, 903. An illegal arrest is an assault and battery. The person so attempted to be restrained of his liberty has the same right to use force in defending himself as he would in repelling any other assault and battery. (State v. Robinson, 145 ME. 77, 72 ATL.

260). Each person has the right to resist an unlawful arrest. In such a case, the person attempting the arrest stands in the position of a wrongdoer and may be resisted by the use of force, as in self- defense. (State v. Mobley, 240 N.C. 476, 83 S.E. 2d 100). One may come to the aid of another being unlawfully arrested, just as he may where one is being assaulted, molested, raped or kidnapped. Thus it is not an offense to liberate one from the unlawful custody of an officer, even though he may have submitted to such custody, without resistance. (Adams v. State, 121 Ga. 16, 48 S.E. 910). Story affirmed the right of self-defense by persons held illegally. In his own writings, he had admitted that a situation could arise in which the checks -andbalances principle ceased to work and the various branches of government concurred in a gross usurpation. There would be no usual remedy by changing the law or passing an amendment to the Constitution, should the oppressed party be a minority. Story concluded, If there be any remedy at all ... it is a remedy never provided for by human institutions. That was the ultimate right of all human beings in extreme cases to resist oppression, and to apply force against ruinous injustice. (From Mutiny on the Amistad by Howard Jones, Oxford University Press, 1987, an account of the reading of the decision in the case by Justice Joseph Story of the Supreme Court.