Common Law Trust (No License Is Necessary) Public Notice/Public Record U.S.

Supreme Court says No License Necessary To Drive Automobile On Public Highways/Streets U.S. Supreme Court and other High Court Citations Proving That No License is Necessary for Normal Use of an Automobile on Common-Ways. Whereas defined pursuant to Supreme Court Annotated Statute; Thompson v. Smith, 154 SE 579, 11 American Jurisprudence, Constitutional Law, section 329, page 1135: "The right of a citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, by horse drawn carriage, wagon, or automobile, is not a mere privilege which may be permitted or prohibited at will, but a common right, which he has under his right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Under this constitutional guaranty one may, therefore, under normal conditions, travel at his inclination along the public highways or in public places, and while conducting himself in an orderly and decent manner, neither interfering with nor disturbing another's rights, he will be protected, not only in his person, but in his safe conduct." Whereas defined pursuant to Supreme Court Annotated Statute; Thompson vs. Smith, supra; Teche Lines vs. Danforth, Miss., 12 S.2d 784: "The right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, in the ordinary course of life and business, is a common right which he has under the right to enjoy life and liberty, to acquire and possess property, and to pursue happiness and safety. It includes the right, in so doing, to use the ordinary and usual conveyances of the day, and under the existing modes of travel, includes the right to drive a horse drawn carriage or wagon thereon or to operate an automobile thereon, for the usual and ordinary purpose of life and business." Whereas defined pursuant to Supreme Court Annotated Statute; White, 97 Cal.App.3d.141, 158 Cal.Rptr. 562, 566-67 (1979): " the right of the citizen to drive on a public street with freedom from police interference is a fundamental constitutional right" Whereas defined pursuant to Supreme Court Annotated Statute; Caneisha Mills v. D.C. 2009: citizens have a right to drive upon the public streets of the District of Columbia or any other city absent a constitutionally sound reason for limiting their access. Whereas defined pursuant to Supreme Court Annotated Statute; . Berberian v. Lussier (1958) 139 A2d 869, 872, See also: Schecter v. Killingsworth, 380 P.2d 136, 140; 93 Ariz. 273 (1963): The use of the automobile as a necessary adjunct to the earning of a livelihood in modern life requires us in the interest of realism to conclude that the RIGHT to use an automobile on the public highways partakes of the nature of a liberty within the meaning of the Constitutional guarantees. . . Whereas defined pursuant to Supreme Court Annotated Statute; Adams v. City of Pocatello, 416 P.2d 46, 48; 91 Idaho 99 (1966): The right to operate a motor vehicle [an automobile] upon the public streets and highways is not a mere privilege. It is a right of liberty, the enjoyment of which is protected by the guarantees of the federal and state constitutions. Whereas defined pursuant to Supreme Court Annotated Statute; Campbell v. Walker, 78 Atl. 601, 603, 2 Boyce (Del.) 41: A traveler has an equal right to employ an automobile as a means of transportation and to occupy the public highways with other vehicles in common use. Whereas defined pursuant to Supreme Court Annotated Statute; Simeone v. Lindsay, 65 Atl. 778, 779; Hannigan v. Wright, 63 Atl. 234, 236: The owner of an automobile has the same right as the owner of other vehicles to use the highway,* * * A traveler on foot has the same right to the use of the public highways as an automobile or any other vehicle. Whereas defined pursuant to Supreme Court Annotated Statute; People v. Horton 14 Cal. App. 3rd 667 (1971): "The RIGHT of the citizen to DRIVE on the public street with freedom from police interference, unless he is engaged in suspicious conduct associated in some manner with criminality is a

FUNDAMENTAL CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT which must be protected by the courts." Whereas defined pursuant to Supreme Court Annotated Statute; House v. Cramer, 112 N.W. 3; 134 Iowa 374; Farnsworth v. Tampa Electric Co. 57 So. 233, 237, 62 Fla. 166: The right to make use of an automobile as a vehicle of travel long the highways of the state, is no longer an open question. The owners thereof have the same rights in the roads and streets as the drivers of horses or those riding a bicycle or traveling in some other vehicle. Whereas defined pursuant to Supreme Court Annotated Statute; Brinkman v Pacholike, 84 N.E. 762, 764, 41 Ind. App. 662, 666: The automobile may be used with safety to others users of the highway, and in its proper use upon the highways there is an equal right with the users of other vehicles properly upon the highways. The law recognizes such right of use upon general principles. Whereas defined pursuant to Supreme Court Annotated Statute; Indiana Springs Co. v. Brown, 165 Ind. 465, 468 The law does not denounce motor carriages, as such, on public ways. They have an equal right with other vehicles in common use to occupy the streets and roads. It is improper to say that the driver of the horse has rights in the roads superior to the driver of the automobile. Both have the right to use the easement. Whereas defined pursuant to Supreme Court Annotated Statute; Schlesinger v. City of Atlanta, 129 S.E. 861, 867, 161 Ga. 148, 159; Holland v. Shackelford, 137 S.E. 2d 298, 304, 220 Ga. 104; Stavola v. Palmer, 73 A.2d 831, 838, 136 Conn. 670: A highway is a public way open and free to any one who has occasion to pass along it on foot or with any kind of vehicle. Whereas defined pursuant to Supreme Court Annotated Statute; Liebrecht v. Crandall, 126 N.W. 69, 110 Minn. 454, 456: There can be no question of the right of automobile owners to occupy and use the public streets of cities, or highways in the rural districts. Whereas defined pursuant to Supreme Court Annotated Statute; American Mutual Liability Ins. Co., vs. Chaput, 60 A.2d 118, 120; 95 NH 200: "The word automobile connotes a pleasure vehicle designed for the transportation of persons on highways." Motor Vehicle: 18 USC Part 1 Chapter 2 section 31 definitions: "(6) Motor vehicle. - The term "motor vehicle" means every description of carriage or other contrivance propelled or drawn by mechanical power and used for commercial purposes on the highways" 10) The term "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. Whereas defined pursuant to Supreme Court Annotated Statute; International Motor Transit Co. vs. Seattle, 251 P. 120: "A motor vehicle or automobile for hire is a motor vehicle, other than an automobile stage, used for the transportation of persons for which remuneration is received." Whereas defined pursuant to Supreme Court Annotated Statute; City of Dayton vs. DeBrosse, 23 NE.2d 647, 650; 62 Ohio App. 232: The term motor vehicle is different and broader than the word automobile." Whereas defined pursuant to Supreme Court Annotated Statute; Ex Parte Hoffert, 148 NW 20: "Thus selfdriven vehicles are classified according to the use to which they are put rather than according to the means by which they are propelled" "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). Whereas defined pursuant to Supreme Court Annotated Statute; "...a citizen has the right to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon..." State vs. Johnson, 243 P. 1073; Cummins vs.

Homes, 155 P. 171; Packard vs. Banton, 44 S.Ct. 256; Hadfield vs. Lundin, 98 Wash 516, Willis vs. Buck, 263 P. l 982; Barney vs. Board of Railroad Commissioners, 17 P.2d 82: Whereas defined pursuant to Supreme Court Annotated Statute; 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 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." Whereas defined pursuant to Supreme Court Annotated Statute; Ex Parte Dickey, (Dickey vs. Davis), 85 SE 781: "the right of the Citizen to travel upon the highway and to transport his property thereon in the ordinary course of life and business is the usual and ordinary right of the Citizen, a right common to all." Whereas defined pursuant to Supreme Court Annotated Statute; People v. Nothaus, 147 Colo. 210: Every Citizen has an unalienable 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. Whereas defined pursuant to Supreme Court Annotated Statute; Chicago Coach Co. v. City of Chicago, 337 Ill. 200, 169 N.E. 22: "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. Whereas defined pursuant to Supreme Court Annotated Statute; Chicago Coach Co. v. City of Chicago, 337 Ill. 200, 169 N.E. 22: Travel is not a privilege requiring licensing, vehicle registration, or forced insurances." Whereas defined pursuant to Supreme Court Annotated Statute; People v. Battle: "Traffic infractions are not a crime." Whereas defined pursuant to Supreme Court Annotated Statute; Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham 394 U.S. 147 (1969): "Persons faced with an unconstitutional licensing law which purports to require a license as a prerequisite to exercise of right... may ignore the law and engage with impunity in exercise of such right." Whereas defined pursuant to Statutes at Large California Chapter 412 p.83: "The word 'operator' shall not include any person who solely transports his own property and who transports no persons or property for hire or compensation." Whereas defined pursuant to Supreme Court Annotated Statute; Escobedo v. State 35 C2d 870 in 8 Cal Jur 3d p.27: "Highways are for the use of the traveling public, and all have the right to use them in a reasonable and proper manner; the use thereof is an inalienable right of every citizen." RIGHT -- A legal RIGHT, a constitutional RIGHT means a RIGHT protected by the law, by the constitution, but government does not create the idea of RIGHT or original RIGHTS; it acknowledges them. . . Bouvier's Law Dictionary, 1914, p. 2961. Whereas defined pursuant to Supreme Court Annotated Statute; City of Chicago v Collins 51 NE 907, 910: Those who have the right to do something cannot be licensed for what they already have right to do as such license would be meaningless. Whereas defined pursuant to Supreme Court Annotated Statute; Blatz Brewing Co. v. Collins, 160 P.2d 37, 39; 69 Cal. A. 2d 639: A license means leave to do a thing which the licensor could prevent. Whereas defined pursuant to Supreme Court Annotated Statute; Payne v. Massey (19__) 196 SW 2nd 493, 145 Tex 273: The object of a license is to confer a right or power, which does not exist without it. Whereas defined pursuant to Supreme Court Annotated Statute; Wingfield v. Fielder 2d Ca. 3d 213 (1972): The court makes it 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. Whereas defined pursuant to Supreme Court Annotated Statute; Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham 394 U.S. 147 (1969): If [state] officials construe a vague statute unconstitutionally, the citizen may take them at their word, and act on the assumption that the statute is void. Whereas defined pursuant to Supreme Court Annotated Statute; Donnolly 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: "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." Whereas defined pursuant to Supreme Court Annotated Statute; (Paul v. Virginia): "The right to travel (called the right of free ingress to other states, and egress from them) is so fundamental that it appears in the Articles of Confederation, which governed our society before the Constitution." Whereas defined pursuant to Supreme Court Annotated Statute; (U.S. Supreme Court, Shapiro v. Thompson): "[T]he right to travel freely from State to State ... is a right broadly assertable against private interference as well as governmental action. Like the right of association, it is a virtually unconditional personal right, guaranteed by the Constitution to us all." EDGERTON, Chief Judge: Whereas defined pursuant to Supreme Court Annotated Statute; Williams v. Fears, 179 U.S. 270, 274, 21 S.Ct. 128, 45 L.Ed. 186: Iron curtains have no place in a free world. ...'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 Constitution.' Whereas defined pursuant to Supreme Court Annotated Statute; Id., at 197. Kent vs. Dulles see Vestal, Freedom of Movement, 41 Iowa L.Rev. 6, 1314: Our nation has thrived on the principle that, outside areas of plainly harmful conduct, every American is left to shape his own life as he thinks best, do what he pleases, go where he pleases. Whereas defined pursuant to Supreme Court Annotated Statute; Comment, 61 Yale L.J. at page 187: The validity of restrictions on the freedom of movement of particular individuals, both substantively and procedurally, is precisely the sort of matter that is the peculiar domain of the courts. Whereas defined pursuant to Supreme Court Annotated Statute; Justice White, Hiibel: a person detained for an investigatory stop can be questioned but is not obliged to answer, answers may not be compelled, and refusal to answer furnishes no basis for an arrest. Whereas defined pursuant to Supreme Court Annotated Statute; Cumberland Telephone. & Telegraph Co. v Yeiser 141 Kentucy 15: Automobiles have the right to use the highways of the State on an equal footing with other vehicles. Whereas defined pursuant to Supreme Court Annotated Statute; Swift v City of Topeka, 43 Kansas 671, 674: Each citizen has the absolute right to choose for himself the mode of conveyance he desires, whether it be by wagon or carriage, by horse, motor or electric car, or by bicycle, or astride of a horse, subject to the sole condition that he will observe all those requirements that are known as the law of the road. Whereas defined pursuant to Supreme Court Annotated Statute; The Supreme Court said in U.S. v Mersky (1960) 361 U.S. 431: An administrative regulation, of course, is not a "statute." Whereas defined pursuant to Supreme Court Annotated Statute; Cecchi v. Lindsay, 75 Atl. 376, 377, 1 Boyce (Del.) 185: A traveler on foot has the same right to use of the public highway as an automobile or any other vehicle.

Whereas defined pursuant to Supreme Court Annotated Statute; Chicago Coach Co. v. City of Chicago, 337 Ill. 200, 205; See also: Christy v. Elliot, 216 Ill. 31; Ward v. Meredith, 202 Ill. 66; Shinkle v. McCullough, 116 Ky. 960; Butler v. Cabe, 116 Ark. 26, 28-29: Automotive vehicles are lawful means of conveyance and have equal rights upon the streets with horses and carriages. Whereas defined pursuant to Supreme Court Annotated Statute; Daily v. Maxwell, 133 S.W. 351, 354. Matson v. Dawson, 178 N.W. 2d 588, 591: automobiles are lawful vehicles and have equal rights on the highways with horses and carriages. Whereas defined pursuant to Supreme Court Annotated Statute; Draffin v. Massey, 92 S.E.2d 38, 42: A farmer has the same right to the use of the highways of the state, whether on foot or in a motor vehicle, as any other citizen. Whereas defined pursuant to Supreme Court Annotated Statute; Doherty v. Ayer, 83 N.E. 677, 197 Mass. 241, 246; Molway v. City of Chicago, 88 N.E. 485, 486, 239 Ill. 486; Smiley v. East St. Louis Ry. Co., 100 N.E. 157, 158: Persons may lawfully ride in automobiles, as they may lawfully ride on bicycles. Whereas defined pursuant to Supreme Court Annotated Statute; U.S. v Bomar, C.A.5(Tex.), 8 F.3d 226, 235" 19A Words and Phrases - Permanent Edition (West) pocket part 94: "A soldier's personal automobile is part of his household goods[.] Whereas defined pursuant to Supreme Court Annotated Statute; United States v Johnson, 718 F.2d 1317, 1324 (5th Cir. 1983): "[I]t is a jury question whether ... an automobile ... is a motor vehicle[.]" Whereas defined pursuant to; Supreme Court Annotated Statute: Alexander v. Bothsworth, 1915. Party cannot be bound by contract that he has not made or authorized. Free consent is an indispensable element in making valid contracts. Whereas defined pursuant to; Supreme Court Annotated Statute; HALE V. HENKEL 201 U.S. 43 at 89 (1906): Hale v. Henkel was decided by the united States Supreme Court in 1906. The opinion of the court states: "The "individual" may stand upon "his Constitutional Rights" s a CITIZEN. He is entitled to carry on his "private" business in his own way. "His power to contract is unlimited." He owes no duty to the State or to his neighbors to divulge his business, or to open his doors to an investigation, so far as it may tend to incriminate him. He owes no duty to the State, since he receives nothing there from, beyond the protection of his life and property. "His rights" are such as "existed" by the Law of the Land (Common Law) "long antecedent" to the organization of the State", and can only be "taken from him by "due process of law", and "in accordance with the Constitution." He owes nothing" to the public so long as he does not trespass upon their rights." Whereas defined pursuant to Supreme Court Annotated Statute; Griffin v. Mathews, 310 Supp. 341, 423 F. 2d 272, Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 528, Howlett v. Rose, 496 U.S. 356 (1990): Under federal Law, which is applicable to all states, the U.S. Supreme Court stated that "if a court is without authority, its judgments and orders are regarded as nullities. They are not voidable, but simply void, and form no bar to a recovery sought, even prior to a reversal in opposition to them. They constitute no justification and all persons concerned in executing such judgments or sentences are considered, in law, as trespassers." Whereas defined pursuant to Supreme Court Annotated Statute; U.S. v. Throckmorton, 98 US 61: "Fraud vitiates the most solemn contracts, documents and even judgments." Whereas defined pursuant to Supreme Court Annotated Statute; Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 533: "The law requires proof of jurisdiction to appear on the record of the administrative agency and all administrative proceedings. Whereas defined pursuant to Supreme Court Annotated Statute; Clearfield Doctrine - Clearfield Trust Co. v. United States 318 U.S. 363-371 (1942): "Governments descend to the Level of a mere private

corporation, and take on the characteristics of a mere private citizen...where private corporate commercial paper [Federal Reserve Notes] and securities [checks] is concerned. ... For purposes of suit, such corporations and individuals are regarded as entities entirely separate from government." Whereas defined pursuant to Supreme Court Annotated Statue; CRUDEN vs. NEALE, 2 N.C. 338 2 S.E. 70: "The state citizen is immune from any and all government attacks and procedure. see, Dred Scott vs. Sanford. 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393 or as the Supreme Court has stated clearly, "...every man is independent of all laws, except those prescribed by nature. He is not bound by any institutions formed by his fellowmen without his consent." Whereas defined pursuant to; "Consumer goods" means goods that are used or bought for use primarily for personal, family, or household purposes. He who does not deny, admits. [A well-known rule of pleading] No one is believed in court but upon his oath. In law none is credited unless he is sworn. All the facts must, when established by witnesses, be under oath or affirmation. Additional right to use an automobile cases: - EDWARDS VS. CALIFORNIA, 314 U.S. 160 - TWINING VS NEW JERSEY, 211 U.S. 78 - WILLIAMS VS. FEARS, 179 U.S. 270, AT 274 - CRANDALL VS. NEVADA, 6 WALL. 35, AT 43-44 - THE PASSENGER CASES, 7 HOWARD 287, AT 492 - U.S. VS. GUEST, 383 U.S. 745, AT 757-758 (1966) - GRIFFIN VS. BRECKENRIDGE, 403 U.S. 88, AT 105-106 (1971) - CALIFANO VS. TORRES, 435 U.S. 1, AT 4, note 6 - SHAPIRO VS. THOMPSON, 394 U.S. 618 (1969) - CALIFANO VS. AZNAVORIAN, 439 U.S. 170, AT 176 (1978) Whereas defined pursuant to pursuant to; Article Six: All debts contracted and engagements entered into, before the adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation. This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding. The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States. Cestui Que Trust defined: A barbarous phrase, to signify the beneficiary of an estate held in trust. He for whose benefit another person is enfeoffed or seised of land or tenements, or is possessed of personal property. The cestui que trust is entitled to receive the rents and profits of the land; he may direct such conveyances, consistent with the trust, deed or will, as he shall choose, and the trustee (q.v.) is bound to execute them: he may defend his title in the name of the trustee. 1 Cruise, Dig. tit. 12, c. 4, s. 4; vide Vin. Ab. Trust, U, W, X, and Y 1 Vern. 14; Dane's Ab. Index, h.t.: 1 Story, Eq. Jur. Sec. 321, note 1; Bouv. Inst. Index, h.t.

BREACH OF TRUST AFFIDAVIT OF OBLIGATION (FEE SCHEDULE) Trustee(s), agent(s) Fee Schedule and Invoice (Billing) Statement; Including but not limited to this schedule:

(1) Trespass on Cestui Que Trust matter(s) and trust property, including any trust property impaired as a result of any action taken without consent. $10,000,000.00 in silver dollar coin convertible at the legal and lawful ratio prescribed by law of 24: 1 of Federal reserve notes to silver dollars per trespass per person. (2) Trustee(s), agent(s) Correspondence not signed in affidavit form (under penalties of perjury, commercial liability). $1,000,000.00 in silver dollar coin convertible at the legal and lawful ratio prescribed by law of 24: 1 of Federal reserve notes to silver dollars per communication not in compliance. (3) Trustee(s), agent(s) Foreclosure, Repossession, Court Matters against Cestui Que Trust $1,000,000.00 in silver dollar coin convertible at the legal and lawful ratio prescribed by law of 24: 1 of Federal reserve notes to silver dollars. (4) Trustee(s), agent(s)Taking of any Cestui Que Trust property thru force, duress, coercion, conversion (including but not limited to arrest/kidnapping) $10,000,000.00 in silver dollar coin convertible at the legal and lawful ratio prescribed by law of 24: 1 of Federal reserve notes to silver dollars per occurrence. (5) Self-Executing Lease Agreement (contract) created upon the taking thru force, duress, coercion, conversion of any Cestui Que Trust property $10,000 in silver dollar coin convertible at the legal and lawful ratio prescribed by law of 24: 1 of Federal reserve notes to silver dollars lease/per day out of possession of beneficiary. (6) Trustee(s), agent(s) Harassment after notice $1,000,000.00 in silver dollar coin convertible at the legal and lawful ratio prescribed by law of 24: 1 of Federal reserve notes to silver dollars per occurrence. (7) Trustee(s), agent(s) Violation(s); Breach of Trust, Breach of Contract, Breach of the Peace, Perjury) of oath(s)/oath(s) of office of Trustee(s) False Swearing and acting Without Authority. $10,000,000.00 in silver dollar coin convertible at the legal and lawful ratio prescribed by law of 24: 1 of Federal reserve notes to silver dollars per person per violation. (8) Trustee(s), agents False Statements $1,000,000.00 in silver dollar coin convertible at the legal and lawful ratio prescribed by law of 24: 1 of Federal reserve notes to silver dollars per person, per false statement. (9) Trustee(s), agent(s) Impairment of Contracts $10,000.000.00 in silver dollar coin convertible at the legal and lawful ratio prescribed by law of 24: 1 of Federal reserve notes to silver dollars user fee, per person, per impairment. (10) Trustee(s), agent(s) Violation of any un-a-lien-able rights including but not limited to all rights protected by Trusts, Trust Law, Law, Common-Law, International Law, Constitutions, Law of Nations, etc. $10,000.00 in silver dollar coin convertible at the legal and lawful ratio prescribed by law of 24: 1 of Federal reserve notes to silver dollars user fee, per violation, per person. NOTARY or NOTARY PUBLIC defined: An officer appointed by the executive, or other appointing power, under the laws of different states. 2. Their duties are generally prescribed by such laws. The most usual of which are, l. To attest deeds, agreements and other instruments, in order to give them authenticity. 2. To protest notes, bills of exchange, and the like. 3. To certify copies of agreements and other instruments. 3. By act of congress, Sept. 16, 1850, Minot's Statutes at Large. U. S. 458, it is enacted, That, in all cases in which, under the laws of the United States, oaths, or affirmations, or acknowledgments may now be taken or made before any justice or justices of the peace of any state or territory, such oaths, affirmations, or acknowledgments may be hereafter also taken or made by or before any notary public duly appointed in any state or territory, and, when certified under, the hand and official seal of such notary, shall have the same force and effect as if taken or made by or before such justice or justices of the peace. And all laws and parts of laws for punishing perjury, or subornation of perjury, committed in any such oaths or affirmations, when taken or made before any such justice of the peace, shall apply to any such offence committed in any oaths or affirmations which may be taken under this act before a notary public, or commissioner, as hereinafter named: Provided always, That on any trial for either of these offences, the seal and signature of the notary shall not be deemed sufficient in themselves to establish the official character of such notary, but the same shall be shown by other and proper evidence. 4. Notaries, are of very ancient origin they were well known among the Romans, and exist in every state of Europe, and particularly on the continent. 5. Their acts have long been respected by the custom of merchants and by the courts of all nations. 6 Toull. n. 211, note. Vide, generally, Chit. Bills, Index, h. t.; Chit. Pr. Index,, h. t.; Burn's Eccl. Law, h. t.; Bro. Off. of a Not. passim; 2 Har. & John. 396; 7 Verm. 22; 8 Wheat. 326; 6 S. & R. 484; 1 Mis. R. 434. By act of Aug. 15, 1876, c. 304, notaries are authorized to take depositions and do all other acts in relation to taking testimony to be used in the courts of the United States, and to take acknowledgments and affidavits with the same effect as commissioners of the United States circuit courts may do. R. S. 1778. They may protest national bank circulating notes; R. S. 5226; take acknowledgment of assignment of claims upon the United States; id. 3477; and administer oaths of allegiance to persons prosecuting such claims; id. 3479. By act of June 22, 1874, c. 390, notaries may take proof of debts against the estate of a bankrupt. The acts of notaries are respected by the custom of merchants and the law of nations. Their protest of a bill is received as evidence in the courts of all civilized countries. No State shall enter into any Treaty. No State shall enter into any alliance. No State shall enter into any Confederation. No State shall grant Letters of Marque or Reprisal. No State shall coin money. No State shall emit Bills of Credit. No State shall make any Thing but Gold and Silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts. No State shall pass any Bill of

Attainder. No State shall pass any ex post facto Law. No State shall pass any Law impairing the obligation of Contracts. No State shall grant any Title of Nobility. No State shall without the consent of Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing its inspection laws: and the net Produce of all duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States and all such laws shall be subject to the revision and control of Congress. No State shall, without the Consent of Congress; (1) Lay any duty of Tonnage (2) Keep Troops or ships of War in time of peace; (3) Enter into any agreement compact with another State; (4) Enter into any agreement or Compact with a foreign Power; (5) No State shall without the Consent of Congress engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay. No State shall make or enforce any law, which shall abridge the Privileges of citizens of the United States. No State shall make or enforce any law, which shall abridge the Immunities of Citizens of the United States. No State shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law. No State shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. These are prohibitions upon the activity of the States. A State cannot directly take any step in any degree to directly invade or violate any of these provisions. A State cannot lend its aid in any degree to any person or corporation to effectuate a violation of these absolute prohibitions indirectly or obliquely lest a mockery be made of the Constitution of the United States. A more serious and obvious question arises. Can the Legislative Branch or the Executive Branch or the Judicial Branch of the Government of the United States authorize a State to invade the absolute prohibitions against the States expressly set out in the Constitution, or are the three departments of the U.S. Government incompetent to authorize such an invasion. The answer is obvious. The absolute prohibitions in the Constitution of the United States are impregnable. The Constitution is ordained and established in the name of the people. It is a law for the Governments of the States and the United States. The people said what they meant and they meant what they said; whereas defined pursuant to Supreme Court Annotated Statute; Edwards v. Kearzey U.S. Supreme Court. 6 Otto 795: Assume that Congress by attempted enactment would pass a law authorizing a State to deprive a person of Life, Liberty or Property without due process of law. It would obviously be unconstitutional. The same is true of any other provision set out. Any attempt by Congress or the Executive or the Judiciary to authorize any State to invade any of the prohibitions is void. Sui Juris In my Private Capacity as General Administrator of Cestui Que Trust, facts contained herein are true, correct, complete, and not misleading, to the best of my personal first hand knowledge and belief. Being of sound mind, competent, over the age of 18. This my free will, voluntary act and deed to make, execute, seal, acknowledge and deliver under my hand and seal to record now for and in the public record Formally Accept and Consummate required Oaths/ Oaths of Office, Constitutions as by-laws and Malfeasance Bond, and place you in the Private, (Blacks Law 6th Ed.) all are without excuse. Public notice for successor and assigns, d/b/a/: the U.S., all Enclaves, Insular Possessions, Territories, together with all Cities, Municipalities, Counties, Townships, etc, all sundry employees, agents, and all a/k/a: PUBLIC SERVANTs (trustees) commencing this Self-Executing binding Contract as you being my public servant Fully Personally Liable Now to protect me and all my Un-a-lien-able Rights private and public secured by the Constitutions. Whereas pursuant to Rights includes remedies. Good faith means honesty in fact and the observance of reasonable commercial standards of fair dealing. Notice to agents is notice to principles; Notice to principles is Notice to Agents
This my free will, voluntary act and deed true and lawful attorney-in-fact to make, execute, seal, acknowledge and deliver under my hand and seal reserving all rights without prejudice; By:______________________________________________ Sui Juris known as; John of the genealogy of Doe Bailor for JOHN DOE Bailee _____________________________________________ Jane, Roe Third Party Witness "Sealed and delivered in the presence of us." STATE OF ILLINOIS ) ) SS: COUNTY OF COOK ) CERTIFICATE OF ACKNOWLEDGMENT On this date the individual named above, in his/her stated capacity, personally appeared before me to execute this acknowledgement that this instrument was signed, sealed, and delivered as their free will, voluntary act and deed to make, execute, seal, acknowledge and deliver under their hand and seal verified and authenticated for the uses and purposes therein mentioned. _____________________ DATE AFFIX NOTARY SEAL IF REQUIRED _________________________________ Signature of NOTARY PUBLIC Date Commission Expires __________________