click this image for video

click the image below for ALL
website-page navigation buttons
or scroll down to
for page content

Go to Rabbit Hole Grand Central for links to all pages

Links

to more

pages

that might

interest you

Click image for video

The Baron David Ward Affidavit

We need to use the
Baron David Ward Affidavit
to stop the fraud when it comes to debts
and other legal injustices says
Kirsty, my guest and advocate
of the lawful system.

Baron David Ward Contract
Rumble Channel

Baron David Ward Contract
Audio video on Brighteon

ALL OF US ARE EQUAL
AND NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW

👆👆👆👆👆

The cornerstone of justice:
Do no harm

IN 2019, 11 Supreme Court Justices reaffirmed the Rule of Law across the United Kingdom, though this may come as a surprise to many of us who have borne witness to events since.

In what was essentially an argument between government and Parliament about who the boss is, the Supreme Court confirmed the constitutional position established by the Bill of Rights (1688) that Parliament is sovereign, but sovereign only over the government. Parliament as legislature has no authority over anyone other than the government (the executive).

Importantly, the Supreme Court did not stop there, as that would allow for a corrupted Parliament to approve governmental interference in our lives beyond the constitutional constraint to do no harm.

The court reaffirmed the correct constitutional position as evidenced by both the Bill of Rights and the Coronation Oath Act 1688, that it is the court and the court alone that determines the lawfulness of what they, Parliament, approve.

This is law; it is fundamental to recognise that legislation is not law, a common error which disrupts our ability to go peaceably about our business.

The judiciary then went further still, and said that it is the people who create the law of the land through the independent judiciary, after all, as the Act of Settlement (1700) clearly states: “…the Laws of England are the Birthright of the People thereof.”

Hence, from an argument between the government and Parliament as to who is the boss, it transpires that the court has restored the position that it is we, the people, who are the boss, in keeping with our founding constitutional documents.

Indeed, when viewed from on high, our forebears bequeathed an incredibly elegant system of lawful governance whose beating heart is to do no harm. However, before we explore this any further, it is necessary to bring God into the courtroom.

Simply put, until such a time as we can bring the Creator (howsoever you may see it,) into the court, to provide firsthand, cross-examinable witness testimony that any individual, or group of individuals, can impose their will upon another, then it is self-evident that all are equal under the law, and that no one is above the law.

To understand what it means to be equal under the law, you need to apply one simple question: can I also do that? If the answer is no, then the action to which you are applying the question is unlawful. That no one is above the law simply means that we are all accountable for any harm we cause.

In 2019, when those 11 Supreme Court justices, flanked by an expensive retinue of silks, delivered a verdict that Boris Johnson was not able to prorogue Parliament, they would no doubt have arrived more promptly at the same verdict had they simply asked whether they themselves – or indeed, you or I – are able to do similarly. Clearly, I cannot prorogue Parliament, and consequently, neither could Boris Johnson.

‘What one can do, all can do’ is the simplest and most efficient test of whether something is lawful or not.

Turning back to our lawful governance arrangements, with a fuller understanding of its central tenets in hand, we can now sketch out how the monarch swears to govern us according to our laws and customs, by instituting a government controlled by an independent Parliament.

And it is a Parliament constrained to do no harm to the people, and whose every act is subject to the independent judiciary to determine whether they are acting lawfully or not. Following this, and understanding that we are all equal under the law and nobody is above the law, it is illegal for any individual or group of people (for instance, Parliament) to knowingly impose their will upon any other person without first obtaining their consent, freely given.

In this way, and only in this way, are our duties, rights, and obligations created, i.e., by contract.

Clearly, if I cannot tell you what to do without first having reached an agreement, then neither can anybody else.

Not one item of parliamentary legislation has the people as a contracting party, due to the impossibility of obtaining the consent of all the people.

Similarly, the judiciary, the police, and all officers of the state are bound under contract of their oaths, attestations or affirmations, through which their respective duties, rights and obligations are created.

These contracts are the social contract, and unless you are in possession of one, then you have none of those duties, rights, or obligations bar one, to do no harm.

Our constitutional arrangements are an elegantly designed contractual set of arrangements such that the parties to the agreements are bound over to keep the peace (do no harm), corralled by an independent judiciary in which the people create the law.

It is precisely here where our collective obligation arises.

Should we wish to properly restore the one right that is foundational to us all, the right to do whatever we wish, save that which causes another harm, then we are obligated to act, in the face of harm, to see that the peace is kept.

by LANCE PEATLING

NATURAL LAW
(God’s law)
and man’s law

Natural Law is based on principles of truth while man’s law is based on beliefs and claims to authority.

Embodying, harmonizing, complying, aligning and living according to principles of Natural Law has been done by people like Gandhi who had recognized this knowledge, while most of us are living in the illusion of a myriad of law volumes that we are expected to understand.

They fabricate nonsense into existence with rules and regulations to confuse and complicate our lives.

We comply for fear of punishment if we do not.

We can choose to become enlightened through an understanding of the forces of the universe as they are, or we can stay out of the prison cell of punishment by complying and basing our actions from the lowest modality of consciousness: fear.

Man’s law is based on the dictates of men given power to create rules of conduct.

These laws can be different from one time to another or one place to another, so how are they supposed to be based on right and wrong if they are always changing?

Choosing what is right and wrong instead of recognizing right from wrong is moral relativism.

Universal Cosmic Natural Moral Law is sourced from the cosmic forces of creation. Which force do you want to align yourself with?

In society there are some who are punished and lose their freedom for not having harmed another, while others who engage in harm against another are never acted upon and stopped.

In order for someone to violate Natural Law, another must be violated or harmed, and then action can be taken against them to stop this harm.

No imaginary rights can be invented or granted to individuals or groups where they did not exist for every other individual.

For example, can you imagine giving someone a right you do not possess?

If one person can’t steal from others, who then can take from the labors of others?

No one.

No amount of people collected into a group can assume or grant such a right that does not exist.

If 1000 people don’t have the right to take the labor of others by threats, (which is what taxation is), then a group of those 1000 people calling themselves “government” can’t invent or assume a right that does not exist.

Granting something you do not possess yourself is an illusion.

You cannot ‘grant’ what isn’t yours to ‘grant’.

A right cannot be assumed if it does not already exist.

So why can’t we write laws into existence?

Because we are not “God”.

Man’s law is irrelevant in light of the revelation and recognition of Universal Cosmic Natural Moral Law.

If man’s law is in contradiction with Natural Law, it is false and immoral and cannot be binding upon anyone.

Click image to link to original article

NATURAL LAW
Transgressions

Harmful Actions:

• Murder / Assault – Ending a life without the right to do so. If a being is killed in the act of somebody defending themselves, it is not murder. Under no possible circumstance does the “right to murder” or the “right to assault” exist. However, the right to defend oneself through physical force exists at all times.

• Rape – Coercing the free will of another person, and making them sexually associate with whom they wish not to.

• Theft – Taking what somebody else has created or acquired through lawful means, which is their property for as long as they are using it and being responsible for it. You have no right to just take something that does not belong to you.

• Trespass – Every person has the right to set aside a (reasonably sized) space for themselves. And invading this area without permission or consent would be invading their privacy and their personal space, while taking away their security in the process.

• Coercion – Forcing somebody through threat of violence to have their will comply with yours, whether they wish that to be the case or not. Making somebody do something against their will is not a right.

Although this is already a short and seemingly simple list, all these transgressions can ultimately be narrowed down to just one wrong-doing: Theft.

Every harmful action that a person is capable of taking is a form of theft; some form of property is always being stolen when a wrong-doing is committed.

• Life is a form of property.

• Rights are a form of property.

• Freedom is a form of property.

• A person’s own body is a form of property.

A living being or their property must have been harmed or damaged in order for a violation of natural law, or a wrong-doing to have taken place.

Any action which does not cause such harm to other sentient beings is a right.

No victim, no crime.

This is the fundamental crux of natural law; what is right behaviour, and what is wrong behaviour.

There is no such thing as the delegation of a wrong-doing.

In other words, if a specific action is not a right for any individual, then that action cannot be “delegated,” “granted,” or “licensed” to any other individual, or group of individuals, and suddenly be called a right.

That action forever remains wrong under natural law.

Rights can’t be granted to human beings by other human beings, because rights don’t come from human beings; everybody is born with the exact same rights.

Natural law (the difference between right and wrong behaviour) always holds true regardless of a population’s belief systems (culture).

This means that it doesn’t matter how many people agree that a wrong action can be turned into a right action, or that a right action can be turned into a wrong action.

Such things can never be done in reality.

People can only believe they can claim such reversals and that this will in some way make it so.

Unfortunately, at this moment in time most people do erroneously believe that it is morally possible for some groups of people to create and delegate “rights” which do not exist, or to take away rights which do exist.

When in doubt as to whether an action is, or is not in harmony with natural law, visualise the scenario of a world with only two people.

If the behaviour is a right or a wrong in that instance, it shall forever remain a right or a wrong in any size population; regardless of how many people may believe otherwise.

So, if the action is a right for one person to do toward another, it shall always remain a right.

And if the action is a wrong for one person to do toward another, it shall always remain a wrong, regardless of the number of people involved.

For example, let’s examine Taxation
for what is really is, without euphemising.

Taxation is the claim that a group of people who call themselves ‘government’ have been given or delegated the “right” to (forcibly) confiscate an arbitrarily chosen percentage of the product of another individual’s labour (a form of property), whether or not that person agrees to share that product voluntarily (coercion is involved).

Taxation is enforced by the threat of theft (seizing property that is rightfully a person’s possession), the threat of imprisonment (taking away the physical freedom of movement), or even the threat of violence (behaviour resulting in bodily harm) if those from whom the product is being seized attempt to resist the confiscation.

This practise is always “justified” by those who claim that such practises are necessary and required to uphold the common good.

The word ‘Justified’ etymologically derives from the Latin noun ‘Jus / Juris’ which mean ‘Right / Law,’ and the Latin verb ‘Facere’ which means ‘to Create / to Make.’

Therefore, ‘to Justify’ etymologically means ‘to Create right / to Create law.’

If we define the concept of slavery as: the involuntary confiscation of 100% of the product of labour of another person, we can clearly see that there is no percentage to which we could lower this number (other than 0%) that would no longer constitute slavery.

Many people try to justify this by saying this money is used for different services.

However, we aren’t able to refuse most of these “services.”

Imagine, you have a computer at home; one day a computer technician knocks on your door and tells you: “I am now your computer technician, and you are not allowed to refuse my services.”

Immediately the right to choose (free will) has been taken away.

Then he tells you “Whether you want or don’t want my technician services, I’m going to need $300,- every year, I’ll come over every two months to collect my money.

I do not care if you are happy with my service or not, and if you refuse to pay me, I will take your computer.”

Does it seem like the computer is truly yours, if you are living under that kind of coercion? Or does it seem more like a violent criminal telling you: “I am going to steal your possessions if you don’t give me what I tell you to.”

That sounds more like a form of extortion or duress, and that is what all forms of taxation fall under; duress.

If we are being completely honest with ourselves, taxation is merely a euphemism for theft, violence, and slavery; these are the three practises on which it is actually truly based.

Since no individual anywhere on Earth has the right to claim ownership of the product of another person’s labour, such behaviour can never be delegated to a group of people, and called a “right.”

Therefore, all forms of taxation
are always wrong
according to natural law.

Another important example of something to examine for what it actually truly is, is Prohibition.

Whether regarding drugs or junk-food, ingesting anything harmful into the body is strongly opposed, hopefully for obvious reasons; purification of the body is an important part of purification of the mind.

It is crucial to recognise that anyone should be allowed to put anything inside their body, because they own their body.

If an individual, for whatever reason, wants to ingest any given substance they always have the right to do so; because their body is their property.

People easily tend to overthink the concept when confronted with the question whether their body is theirs or not.

They often pause and ask themselves questions like: “Am I going to own my body forever? I’m going to die someday, does that mean I don’t own it now?”

This is a complete over-mystification of the concept. All sensible people recognise that they will die someday, and that their consciousness will then leave their bodies. Does that mean they don’t own their body right now?

Your consciousness inhabits (lives- / exists inside) your body, which is one of the specific reasons you own your body, the other is that you are using your body right now.

Specifically, because your conscious inhabits your body, and you are using it as the vehicle for the expression of your consciousness; your body is yours.

Continuing on the topic of prohibition, it is the claim that a group of people who call themselves ‘government’ have been given the “right” to prevent others from putting any given substance into their own bodies, and if those people refuse to comply with those terms, they will be fined or imprisoned.

It should be self-evident that since an individual’s body is their own property, that individual always maintains the natural right to decide what will or will not be put into their own property.

In this instance, their own body.

Imagine another person telling you that you aren’t allowed to put your jacket into your car, or that you can’t put a certain piece of furniture inside your home.

Why is it that most people would not accept that, but do accept this concept regarding their own body?

Because people can’t seem to separate the act of imbibing the substance, and the action that someone may subsequently take, which are two different things.

A person may have some drinks, and get drunk if they wish to; but if that person goes out on the street afterwards and starts beating somebody up for no reason, they obviously have no right to do that.

However, an individual maintains the right to go drinking, or use cocaine, or even inject heroine into their arm.

They obviously aren’t good ideas, but every individual has the right to do so if they please; as long as their subsequent behaviour isn’t immoral and wrong.

And if it is, they are still fully accountable for the actions they took, that’s what personal responsibility is.

The two separate acts of a person having the right to put whatever they want into their own body, and still being personally responsible for whatever he or she may do with their body afterwards, need to be clearly delineated, and separated from one another.

Understanding this, we can easily see that the claim of “right” to dictate what will or will not be put into the body of another person amounts to a claim of ownership upon the other person’s body.

Imagine somebody telling you that you aren’t allowed to eat carrots or drink orange juice for example.

The claim of
ownership upon another
person’s body is slavery.

Therefore, prohibition is merely a euphemism for slavery, backed by violence, regardless of the justifications made by those who claim such practises are necessary to uphold the common good.

Since no individual anywhere on Earth has the right to claim the ownership of another person’s body, such behaviour can never be delegated to a group, and called a right.

Therefore, all forms of prohibition are always wrong according to natural law.

Lastly, we will examine Licences and Permits, keep in mind to also visualise the same scenario with only two people as was mentioned before.

In that sense, most people can readily see that no single person, or group of people is able to legitimately make these claims towards another person; regarding taxation, prohibition, licenses and permits.

We have gotten to the point where most people actually believe that certain groups of people have created rights for themselves that other people don’t have.

Licences and permits
are claims that a group of people
who call themselves ‘government’
have been given the “right”
to prevent other people from
exercising specific behaviours,
even if such behaviours
cause no harm to others,
or their property.

Unless those people petition (definition of petition: “a formally drawn request, that is addressed to a person or group of persons in authority or power, soliciting some favour, right, mercy, or other benefit.”), or pay the government for permission (where the word ‘permit’ is derived from) to be allowed to exercise those behaviours.

This amounts to the claim that rights are merely privileges that may be granted or taken away by government at any time, based upon the people in government’s preference or discretion.

Remembering that the definition of a right is: ‘any action which does not cause harm to another sentient being or their property.’

It can be readily seen that there is no such thing as the “right” to stop someone from exercising a right, since rights cause no harm.

The claim over the rights of another person is called slavery, regardless of the justification made by those who claim such practises are necessary to uphold the common good.

Since no individual anywhere on Earth has the right to claim the ownership of another person’s rights, such behaviour can never be delegated to a group, and called a right.

Therefore, all forms of licensing and permits
are always wrong according to natural law.

Click button or link for PDF

THE JUDGEMENT OF
WHOLE KINGDOMS
AND NATIONS
(PDF)

Concerning the Rights, Power,
and Prerogative of the Kings,
and The Rights, Privileges,
and Properties of the People.

By 1st Baron Lord Justice
Sir John Somers Keeper of the Seal of Britain
Corrected to Modern English
by:
John; of the Family Tray.
PONTYPRIDD.
2024 Edition.

Recommended as proper, to be kept in all Families, that their Children’s Children may know the Birth-Right, Liberty, and Property belonging to The People.

This may suggest Britain, but it applies to ALL peoples of the British Commonwealth.

The US is a Commonwealth, as you know from your Historical Training and Education here on this Channel. Remember 1871 and 1873.

Please download and study a copy of this for future reference, as it applies to ALL Kingdoms and People’s, including Americans, Aussies, Canadians, et al.

THE JUDGEMENT OF
WHOLE KINGDOMS
AND NATIONS (PDF)

click image for link to article

What is Government?

“What is government itself
but the greatest of all reflections
on human nature?

If men were angels no government
would be necessary.

If angels were to govern men,
neither external nor internal controls
on government would be necessary.”

– James Madison –

SUPREME COURT RULING

NO CORPORATE JURISDICTION
OVER THE NATURAL MAN:

Supreme Court of the
United States 1795

“Inasmuch as every government is an artificial person, an abstraction, and a creature of the mind only, a government can interface only with other artificial persons.

The imaginary, having neither actuality nor substance, is foreclosed from creating and attaining parity with the tangible.

The legal manifestation of this is that no government, as well as any law, agency, aspect, court, etc. can concern itself with anything other than corporate, artificial persons and the contracts between them.” S.C.R. 1795, (3 U.S. 54; 1 L.Ed. 57; 3 Dall. 54)

Government is merely a legal fiction which was created solely to protect peoples’ rights, property and natural resources; and, to provide the people with services, not to lord over them.

Ask yourself, how can a
piece of paper rule over
real living tangible people?

It cannot, dear people;
only by our consent;

It has no jurisdiction over the tangible as affirmed by the above ruling.

What is the essence of government?

After you cut through the rhetoric, the doublethink, and the smokescreen of altruism that surround the subject, you find that the essence of government is force…and the belief it has the right to initiate the use of force whenever expedient.

Government is an organization with a monopoly, albeit with some fringe competition, on the use of force within a given territory. As Mao Zedong said, “The power of government comes out of the barrel of a gun.”

There is no voluntarism about obeying laws.

The consent of a majority of the governed may help a government put a nice face on things, but it is not essential and is, in fact, seldom given with any enthusiasm.

“GOVERNMENT”
IS JUST ANOTHER RELIGION

The word ‘government’ comes from the Latin verb gubernare which means “to control” (also the root for the word ‘gubernatorial’), and the Latin noun mens, mentis which means “mind.”

Put them together.

In colloquial English, the suffix ‘-ment’ means “the state of or condition of,” but all things must first begin in the mind.

Those who formulated the English language knew this which is why they used the Latin word for “mind” to mean this.

All creation
emerges first from thought.

So, if you want the world to be a certain way then you have to steer and control how people think.

If they think and believe what you want then that is the reality they will manifest.

So yes, “government”
does mean mind control.

Through the control of our thoughts with false ideologies (religion, culture, statism, solipsism, scientism, and other erroneous and dogmatic beliefs) resulting in Wrong Action in the world, we are – as a species – manifesting a reality of suffering and slavery.

Government cannot protect you
from Violence and Chaos
because government
IS Violence and Chaos.

We have inherent natural,
pre-existing, in-alienable un-alienable
Creator-given rights
that have existed since the
beginning of our species
and before the man-created
fiction called “government”
that installed itself to rule over us.

“In as much as every government is an artificial person, an abstraction, and a creature of the mind only, a government can interface only with other artificial persons.

The imaginary, having neither actuality nor substance, is foreclosed from creating and attaining parity with the tangible.

We have inherent natural pre-existing inalienable unalienable Creator-given rights that existed thousands of years before the fiction called “government”.

Now, ask yourself: Then how can a fiction rule over a living wo/man? And, the answer is by numerous frauds of conversion and semantic deceit (legalese)

Theory of Government

The theory of government is supposed to be that we have surrendered some of our rights to government so that the government protects the rights that we have not surrendered; that is the sole purpose of government: to protect our rights!

Not lord over us.

The government derives its powers from the consent of the governed; the fiction is that we have consented to the surrender of ALL our rights; the reality is that our rights have been stolen from us because the government monopolises force; it’s a sad and terrible reality;

The government must stop! When it wants to touch our natural rights, whatever we think our natural rights are; because these are the things that we all yearn as human-beings to do; to be free from interference by the government;

If my rights belong to me as my fingers belong to me then they cannot be taken away by majority vote; they cannot be taken away by legislation; they cannot be taken away by command of the executive; they can only be taken away if I give them up myself.

Since mankind lived in co-operative, non-coercive, non-hierarchical, self-organizing and self-governing tribal societies we were never without a common law – which means to exchange together;

If, our Creator has made us with reason to govern ourselves, then it makes no sense at all for corporate fictions fronting as government and for London, Rome, Washington DC and New York to interfere with our independence and claim authority over us with unrestrained power;

When rights become subjected to unrestrained power, respect for natural law and natural justice is destroyed, and rational self-government is impossible.

-0-0-0-0-0-

Un-alienable rights
are in-born-at-birth-rights

In Natural Law, you were created equal to any other man or woman, and you were endowed with certain inherent Un-alienable Rights that you possess as your lifelong private property.

Your Unalienable Rights were not given to you by any man-made authority, nor can they be taken away by any man-made authority.

The State, as a creation of the People, can only acknowledge, uphold, and protect your Unalienable Rights.

However, your sovereign nation has been usurped by YOURNATION (INC.), which is bankrupt and using a debt-money system – (but that’s another story).

The real property, wealth, assets and productivity of the People have been pledged as Surety for the corporate national debt.

This was done, and is perpetuated, by offering contracts to the private sovereign People.

By contract, your private Rights and Properties can be exchanged for public Privileges and Benefits offered by YOURNATION (INC.).

By contracting into a foreign jurisdiction (Admiralty Maritime, the Law of the Sea), the sovereign People remove themselves from the protections afforded by their sovereign nation in the Common Law jurisdiction, the Law of the Land.

For example, if your country has a “Bill of Rights” or a “Constitution” they do not apply to a normal living man or woman – only ‘corporations’ and your ‘common-law rights’ are not affected by them.

The corporate takeover of your sovereign nation, and the subsequent denial of your Unalienable Rights by non-disclosure, is treason.

Freedom, like truth, is not inherited.

It must be learned and preserved by each generation.

The pursuit of truth, freedom and happiness is every man’s birth-right and individual responsibility.

It cannot be transferred or deferred to another or to a government.

People who don’t accept individual responsibility, and won’t strive for their own freedom, are known as slaves.

Un-alien-able Rights

Unalienable Rights are the Inherent, Sovereign, Natural Rights that existed before the creation of the State, and which, being antecedent to and above the State, can never be taken away, diminished, altered, or levied by the State, except by Due Process of Law.

Nor can any Unalienable Right be fundamentally removed or waived by contract, whether by non-disclosure, which is fraud and unenforceable in Law, or knowingly by sufferance, which is contrary to the Spirit of the Law and prejudicial to Sovereignty.

The Original, Permanent, Unalienable Rights
of every Man or Woman, include:

* The Right to Life, Freedom, Health and the Pursuit of Happiness

* The Right to Contract, or Not to Contract, which is Unlimited

* The Right to Earn a Living Income by being Compensated with Wages or a Salary in a Fair Exchange for one’s Work

* The Right to Travel in the Ordinary Course of one’s Life and Business

* The Right to Privacy and Confidentiality, free from Unwarranted Invasion

* The Right to Own, and Hold Property, Lawfully without Trespass

* The Right to Self-Defence when threatened with Harm, Loss or Deceit

* The Right to Due Process of Law, with Notice and Opportunity to Defend

* The Right to be Presumed Innocent, suffering NO detention or arrest, NO search or siezure, without reasonable cause

* The Right to Remain Silent when accused, to avoid Self-Incrimination

* The Right to Equality in the eyes of the Law, and to Equal Representation

* The Right to Trial by Jury, being an Impartial Panel of one’s Peers

* The Right to Appeal in Law against Conviction or Sentence, or both

* The Right to Expose Knowledge necessary to one’s Rights and Freedoms

* The Right to Peaceful Association, Assembly, Expression, and Protest

* The Right to Practice a Religion, and to have Beliefs, of one’s choosing

* The Right to Love, and to Consensual Marriage with Children, as a Family

* The Right to Security from Abuse, Persecution, Tyranny, and War

* The Right to Refuse to Kill under command, by reason of Conscience

* The Right to Live in Peace and be left alone when Law-Abiding

If you do not know and
exercise your rights,
you effectively have none.

By the path of ignorance, whether by
apathy or deception, the People arrive in a
state of exploitation, oppression, and tyranny.

Common Law

What is it?

We hear a lot about our ‘Common Law rights’
but few people know what they are
or what ‘Common Law’ really means.

Here’s a simple explanation.

‘Look, it’s your life,
you do whatever you like,
as long as what you do
doesn’t affect me in a way I don’t like’.

Common Law in 6 words.

Now for another explanation

Common Law is the Law of the ‘Land’ –
and concerns only men and women.

‘Admiralty Law’ – or ‘Maritime Law’
is the Law of the ‘sea’
the law of commerce/business/trading.

Admiralty Law
is concerned only with
corporations, business.

Which is why was all of us was turned into
our own personal corporation
when our birth/berth was registered
so that this law system would be
able to take control / rule over us.
(But that’s another topic).

Common Law has been the basis of all law since the dawn of time.

You don’t need a ‘judge’ to tell you when
you’ve broken a Common Law –
your conscience does that for you.

It is the law decided on by the people,
a community, or a nation that
they decide on as a whole.

Common Law is also known as God’s Law,
Natural Law, and the People’s Law.

Common Law is very simple.

It is a common law ordained by the creator
(whatever you choose or not choose that to be)
and the people of the community you choose to live in.

It has only two basic principles:

Do no harm to others
Take responsibility for your actions

It’s basis is that you, as a sacred human being,
have the freedom to do pretty much whatever you like,
where you like, when you like.

As long as…

You do not harm another person physically or mentally or financially

You do not harm another person’s reputation by slander

You do not harm any other person’s environment.

The world is owned by all
to be enjoyed by everyone
with as much claim to it’s
sovereign state as anyone else.

No other person has any right
to interfere with YOUR right and
tell you / force you
how you can or can’t live your life.

You do not harm another person by stealing from them.

You do not harm another person by defrauding them.

Live and let live.

Not hard or complicated, is it?

Admiralty Law
was created
to completely enslave us
and make us compliant
to more rules and regulations
than we know exist – so we can
be fined when we ‘break’ them.

All the other legal BS we put up with was created by man – to keep us enslaved in whatever ‘rules’ the legal system imposed – mostly to keep us ‘in-line’ and poor.

They make out that, by using whacky fancy dress and language to intimidate us, bowing and scraping to each other to give us the impression they’re ‘special’ humans in some way, symbology like blindfolded people holding scales to impress us that justice is fair to all.

But, we know, it isn’t.

We KNOW It favours the rich and powerful – as we see time and time again – but are now conditioned to accept ‘that’s just the way it is’.

And, it is, as long as we allow it.

Time for a change in attitude – or this we’ll never be rid of this control.

Common law supersedes the ‘Admiralty Law’ our controllers have imposed on us. They know it – they just don’t want us to know it because they know if we find out we will destroy them.

This is why they made us ‘DEAD’ and lost-at-sea as individuals when we was born and, instead, turned each and every one of us into a ‘corporation’ when we was born and gave us a BERTH (no error) certificate. We was ‘cargo’ that came out of our mother’s BERTH canal.

And we was turned into cargo with a value that could be traded.

Why, because …

Admiralty Law cannot have jurisdiction over a living person.
Only Common Law can.
but ,conversely …
Common Law cannot deal with a corporation only Admiralty Law can
and it can also impose ‘rules’ on those corporations, (us), for us to break
so it can punish us and issue penalties for breaking them.

Admiralty Law is there to screw us and keep us poor.

Common law is fair for all and requires no legal ‘system’ to maintain

Only the rich with their slick expensive lawyers can benefit from Admiralty Law.

Are you beginning to see what’s been going on?

What are some of the crimes
the political parties have
committed against us under
their Admiralty Law?

Among the many actions they have taken that have destroyed our once productive and wealthy nation are:

They have implemented punitive fines against us without our permission.
They have sold off our Publicly owned utilities and services to private corporations, (they usually have a financial interest in).
Unlawfully taxed us without a referendum, as required by our Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1901.
Raised taxation to such a level that our once thriving manufacturing industries were forced to relocate overseas, which has weakened our nation so that we are unable to produce goods for our own needs, and protect our nation from invasion.
They have set aside our Constitution and deprived us of the lawful protection of the Crown and our Common Law.
They have created a false Queen, THE QUEEN OF AUSTRALIA (which is NOT the Queen of England), and registered this entity in their corporate entity in the USA.
They have forced us to vote into power over us political party representatives who are employees of a private corporation registered in the USA and known as THE AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENT.
They are forcing medical procedures on us, a clear violation of the 1946 Constitutional amendment (51 [xxiiiA] that We, the People of the Commonwealth of Australia voted on to allow the government to provide medical services, but with the proviso that they cannot force any procedure on us.
They have attempted to socially distance us, force us to wear masks, and force us to be ‘vaccinated’ with an unknown and untested ‘vaccine’ (in reality an experimental DNA altering cocktail)
They have destroyed our right to Freedom of Movement by locking us down, and trying to introduce a ‘Vaccine Passport’, forcing us to accept their ‘vaccination’ before we can fly anywhere.

These are just some of the many TREASONOUS ACTS the political parties have enacted against us.

The only reason they have got away with bringing in so many laws and destroying our rights and freedoms that actually harm We, the People, is because we were not informed and therefore we were blind to their criminal actions.

You can choose to ignore this or, maybe, it’s time to have a look at what’s been going on.

It’s a theory that courts applying maritime law were created by Satanists.

Apparently, when a judge, (or any other person in situation of apparent ‘authority’), bangs a gavel 3 times it’s a celebration of the nails that Jesus experienced when he was crucified. (One in each hand and one in the ankles).

Click ink for Website

Click ink for video

Finding Jacob’s Pillow
restoring Common Law

Jacob’s Pillow,

“The Coronation Stone”, the Stone of Scone, Stane o Scuin, Tanist Stone, “the stone of fate”, An Lia Fáil, clach-na-cinneamhain, Jacob’s Pillow Stone, the Stone of the Kingdoms, the Cornerstone rejected, the Stone of the Corner, the Stone of the Kingdom to Ireland, the Stone of Destiny Lia Fáil, the King of Ireland’s Stone of Destiny Lia Fáil, the Stone of the Kingdoms of Israel & Ireland, the Stone of the Kingdom of Israel and the King of Ireland’s Stone of Destiny Lia Fáil, the Coronation Stone of the King of the Scots, and the Stone of Destiny found by Joseph Gregory Hallett, King John III of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and All Ireland from the prophecy and predictions he has been named in. 3 November 2020.

Click PDF button for full article

Retired Judge Reveals All
By Judge Dale

PREFACE:..
STUFF YOU’RE NOT SUPPOSED TO KNOW

I didn’t plan on writing this but given the global movement in play to collapse the fiat financial dominance historically created and controlled by the Vatican; European Royal and Elite plus the retaliatory efforts by the United States Corporation to recoup their control of America; I felt a need to point out the flaws in their CORPORATE PROCESS.

You probably identify with this CORPORATE PROCESS as LEGAL PROCESS but it really isn’t about what is legal or lawful because all process is about the enforcement of CONTRACTS or the imposition and enforcement of CORPORATE REGULATIONS called STATUTES.

The best advice you will ever receive is to: AVOID THEIR COURTS WHENEVER POSSIBLE. There is NO justice to be found in those courts unless you are a member of the Vatican; the royal or Elite, or have purchased Diplomatic Immunity.

THE COURTS:

The only Constitutional Court in America is the International Court of Trades, which was created because no Foreign Nation Government would trade with the Corporate United States, until they provided a way for these foreign Nations to enforce their Trade Agreements with America.

NOTE: Historically, the World Court was created to provide Nations with a venue to enforce their Trade Agreements but the Corporate United States refused the Courts invitation to participate because they were denied control over the Court.

All of the other American Courts are pseudo courts or fictions and simply are Corporate Administrative Offices designed to resemble Courts and all of their Judges are simply Executive Administrations designed to resemble Judges.

The purpose of these pseudo Corporate Courts are only to settle contract disputes and since George Washington’s government was military in structure; if either party refuses to participate, these Courts cannot become involved and the dispute is dead in the water!

For full article download PDF HERE

click image for video

Your Rights in 20 seconds

There is much confusion about the law,
and your rights.

Common Law appears baffling
or too simple to be true.

Ruth Skolmli has been studying
common law for years
and explains to me just what it is,
and why it is so empowering.

click image for video

This is explosive

Richard Vobes chats to Sovereign Pete,
from the Sovereign Project,
about freedom, car tax, council tax,
government oppression and constitution.

There are two states a person can be in this world:

you are either sovereign or a slave;

the choice is only yours to make.

Find out more:

-0-0-0-0-

WELCOME MESSAGE
from the Sovereign Fraternity!

If you’re reading this you certainly know what is happening in the world today.

We will not dwell on this, nor will we despair or run from it, for we know the threat is not real.

We do not accept or consent to tyranny.

You may be living in fear as you read this;
perhaps that is why you gravitated towards the Project.

However, let the Fraternity assure you, there is no need to live in fear any longer, for you have a position of power and those in the illusion of power are truly in an extremely vulnerable position.

The system that we have been enslaved by all our lives does have a weakness that is easy to grasp. In fact, it couldn’t be any more clear – you just need to open your eyes to see it.

We will show you this weakness, open the door to escape the system and move into the world of the living, where you will be free.

Claiming back your rights and freedom is there for the taking as it was never anyone’s to take away.

However, it is you, and only you, who is going to save yourself.

You must change your mindset from a slave mentality to one of Sovereign, and truly know that it is your journey to take, and yours alone.

If you can do this, then we can help. As a member of The Sovereign Fraternity, you will never be alone on this journey.

You are now connected to others who have chosen to be free and together we will create a world of peace and abundance for all.

By joining us, you have taken the Sovereign Oath and agreed to become a proactive member of the Fraternity.

NIHIL NOCENT; CUSTODI VERBUM TUUM, ET AUXILIATUS SUM TUI DICIT CONSERVIS

“Do no harm; keep your word, and help your fellow Sovereign.”

Sovereign Oath Becoming Sovereign is a way of life that must be lived daily.

Being proactive means helping, in whatever you can, with the Sovereign Project:

If you have skills to offer, please contribute your time;

Promote The Sovereign Project on all your social media; Set up local chapters and become organised;

We ask you to set a goal of getting a minimum of two other people to join and become a part of the Fraternity, who will work together on The Sovereign Project, and return this planet back to one of peace – there is strength in numbers.

Join our private members only Facebook group to connect with your fellow Fraternity members! ADIUVARE NOS, ET NON ES AUXILIATUS SUM “Help us and we help you.”

Use the Members Resources on the website to help change your mindset, and work on getting your language and paperwork right.

This will help you understand the system of law vs. that of the legal system.

The correct tools and documentation will not only protect you and set you free, but will also increase your prosperity and wealth.

And finally, we at the Fraternity will never initiate force, we only react, but when we do it shall be at a level of vexation so immense that no one will ever try it again.

Find out more:

click button for video

HISTORY and INTRODUCTION
TO COMMON LAW
ALEX RETROV

click button or image for PDF

COMMON LAW HANDBOOK
FOR JURORS, SHERIFFS,
BAILIFFS, AND JUSTICES
(PDF)

Justice and judgment
are the habitation of thy throne
mercy and truth
shall go before thy face

THE REAL LAW The common law is the real law, the Supreme Law of the land; the code, rules, regulations, policy and statutes are not the law.

Legislated statutes enforced upon the people in the name of law is a fraud.

It has no authority and is without mercy.

Justice without mercy is Godless, and therefore repugnant to our United States Constitution.

Lawmakers were given authority by the people to legislate codes, rules, regulations, and statutes which are policies, procedures, and “law” to control the behaviour of bureaucrats, elected and appointed officials, municipalities and agencies, but were never given authority to control the behaviour of the people—as we read in a US Supreme court decision: “All laws, rules and practices which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void.”

-0-0-0-0-

ONLY THE PEOPLE”
CAN SAVE AMERICA

WILL YOU?

THEN REGISTER WITH THE
“NATIONAL REGISTRY”

at www.NationalLibertyAlliance.org
to become a common law Jurist.

We are establishing Common Law Grand Juries in all 3,141 counties in the United States of America.

By doing this the people will move our Courts back to “Courts of Justice” and take 100% control of our government.

THE DUTY OF THE
“COMMON LAW GRAND JURY
is to right any wrong.

If anyone’s unalienable rights have been violated, or removed, without a legal sentence of their peers, the Grand Jury can restore them.

In addition, if a dispute shall arise concerning this matter it shall be settled according to the judgment of the Grand Jurors, the Sureties of the peace.

IN A US SUPREME COURT STUNNING 6 TO 3 DECISION JUSTICE ANTONIN SCALIA, writing for the majority, confirmed that the American grand jury is neither part of the judicial, executive nor legislative branches of government.

click image for video

Blacks Law Dictionary
some definitions
of words explained

Click PDF button for full article

Checkmate Handbook

What to do if stopped by police

For full article download PDF HERE

video: Click image for video

Infringement Notices

Sick of getting petty fines and infringement notices?

Want to know the truth about them and how to deal with them?

Understand your rights and how you are being deceived.

video: Click image for video

License fraud

Licenses give you permission,
(a ‘permit’),
to do something illegal.
But licenses are not legal either

Licenses generally are issued by a
self-appointed authority that has
no right to even assume it has
the authority to issue that license
but takes money off you as a
license fee to give you permission
to do something you don’t need
permission to do but it’s given the illusion
you can’t do without the license it sells you.

video: Click image for video

Sick of paying
Car Registration and License fees?

Click ink for video

4 WORDS
to get police
or others
TO LEAVE

I don't answer questions

U.S. SUPREME COURT
AND OTHER HIGH COURT CITATIONS
PROVING THAT NO LICENSE IS NECESSARY
FOR NORMAL USE OF AN AUTOMOBILE
ON COMMON WAYS

“The right of a citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, by horsedrawn 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.”

Thompson v.Smith, 154 SE 579, 11 American Jurisprudence, Constitutional Law, section 329, page 1135 “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.” –

Thompson vs. Smith, supra.; Teche Lines vs. Danforth, Miss., 12 S.2d 784 “… the right of the citizen to drive on a public street with freedom from police interference… is a fundamental constitutional right” -White, 97 Cal.App.3d.141, 158 Cal.Rptr. 562, 566-67 (1979) “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.”

Caneisha Mills v. D.C. 2009 “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. . .”

Berberian v. Lussier (1958) 139 A2d 869, 872, See also: Schecter v. Killingsworth, 380 P.2d 136, 140; 93 Ariz. 273 (1963). “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.”

Adams v. City of Pocatello, 416 P.2d 46, 48; 91 Idaho 99 (1966). “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.”

Campbell v. Walker, 78 Atl. 601, 603, 2 Boyce (Del.) 41. “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.”

Simeone v. Lindsay, 65 Atl. 778, 779; Hannigan v. Wright, 63 Atl. 234, 236. “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.” People v. Horton 14 Cal. App. 3rd 667 (1971) “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.”

House v. Cramer, 112 N.W. 3; 134 Iowa 374; Farnsworth v. Tampa Electric Co. 57 So. 233, 237, 62 Fla. 166. “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.

Brinkman v Pacholike, 84 N.E. 762, 764, 41 Ind. App. 662, 666. “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.”

Indiana Springs Co. v. Brown, 165 Ind. 465, 468. U.S. Supreme Court says No License Necessary To Drive Automobile On Public Highways/Streets No License Is Necessary Copy and Share Freely YHVH.name 2 2 “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.” 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 “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.” Liebrecht v. Crandall, 126 N.W. 69, 110 Minn. 454, 456 “The word ‘automobile’ connotes a pleasure vehicle designed for the transportation of persons on highways.”

-American Mutual Liability Ins. Co., vs. Chaput, 60 A.2d 118, 120; 95 NH 200 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. “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.”

-International Motor Transit Co. vs. Seattle, 251 P. 120 The term ‘motor vehicle’ is different and broader than the word ‘automobile.’”

-City of Dayton vs. DeBrosse, 23 NE.2d 647, 650; 62 Ohio App. 232 “Thus self-driven vehicles are classified according to the use to which they are put rather than according to the means by which they are propelled” – Ex Parte Hoffert, 148 NW 20 ”

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). “…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 “The use of the highways for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege, but a common and fundamental Right of which the public and the individual cannot be rightfully deprived.”

Chicago Motor Coach vs. Chicago, 169 NE 22; Ligare vs. Chicago, 28 NE 934; Boon vs. Clark, 214 SSW 607; 25 Am.Jur. (1st) Highways Sect.163 “the right of the Citizen to travel upon the 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.” –

Ex Parte Dickey, (Dickey vs. Davis), 85 SE 781 “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.” People v. Nothaus, 147 Colo. 210. “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. Travel is not a privilege requiring licensing, vehicle registration, or forced insurances.”

Chicago Coach Co. v. City of Chicago, 337 Ill. 200, 169 N.E. 22. “Traffic infractions are not a crime.” People v. Battle “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.”

Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham 394 U.S. 147 (1969). U.S. Supreme Court says No License Necessary To Drive Automobile On Public Highways/Streets No License Is Necessary Copy and Share Freely YHVH.name 3 “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.”

Statutes at Large California Chapter 412 p.83 “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.” Escobedo v. State 35 C2d 870 in 8 Cal Jur 3d p.27 “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. “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.”

City of Chicago v Collins 51 NE 907, 910. “A license means leave to do a thing which the licensor could prevent.” Blatz Brewing Co. v. Collins, 160 P.2d 37, 39; 69 Cal. A. 2d 639. “The object of a license is to confer a right or power, which does not exist without it.”

Payne v. Massey (19__) 196 SW 2nd 493, 145 Tex 273. “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.”

Wingfield v. Fielder 2d Ca. 3d 213 (1972). “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.” –

Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham 394 U.S. 147 (1969). “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.” 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. “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.”

(Paul v. Virginia). “[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.” (U.S. Supreme Court,

Shapiro v. Thompson). EDGERTON, Chief Judge: “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.’

Williams v. Fears, 179 U.S. 270, 274, 21 S.Ct. 128, 45 L.Ed. 186. “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.” Id., at 197.

Kent vs. Dulles see Vestal, Freedom of Movement, 41 Iowa L.Rev. 6, 13—14. “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.” Comment, 61 Yale L.J. at page 187. “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.”Justice White, Hiibel “Automobiles have the right to use the highways of the State on an equal footing with other vehicles.”

Cumberland Telephone. & Telegraph Co. v Yeiser 141 Kentucy 15. “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.”

Swift v City of Topeka, 43 U.S. Supreme Court says No License Necessary To Drive Automobile On Public Highways/Streets No License Is Necessary Copy and Share Freely YHVH.name 4 Kansas 671, 674. The Supreme Court said in U.S. v Mersky (1960) 361 U.S. 431: An administrative regulation, of course, is not a “statute.” A traveler on foot has the same right to use of the public highway as an automobile or any other vehicle.

Cecchi v. Lindsay, 75 Atl. 376, 377, 1 Boyce (Del.) 185. Automotive vehicles are lawful means of conveyance and have equal rights upon the streets with horses and carriages.

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. …automobiles are lawful vehicles and have equal rights on the highways with horses and carriages. Daily v. Maxwell, 133 S.W. 351, 354.

Matson v. Dawson, 178 N.W. 2d 588, 591. 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.

Draffin v. Massey, 92 S.E.2d 38, 42. Persons may lawfully ride in automobiles, as they may lawfully ride on bicycles. 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. “A soldier’s personal automobile is part of his ‘household goods[.]’

U.S. v Bomar, C.A.5(Tex.), 8 F.3d 226, 235” 19A Words and Phrases – Permanent Edition (West) pocket part 94. “[I]t is a jury question whether … an automobile … is a motor vehicle[.]”

United States v Johnson, 718 F.2d 1317, 1324 (5th Cir. 1983). Other 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) Look the above citations up in American Jurisprudence. Some citations may be paraphrased.

Unalienable Rights