💾 Archived View for gemini.spam.works › mirrors › textfiles › law › travel.rgt captured on 2022-04-28 at 22:26:36.

View Raw

More Information

⬅️ Previous capture (2020-10-31)

-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Newsgroups: alt.activism.d
From: ajteel@dendrite.cs.Colorado.EDU (A.J. Teel)
Subject: Driving vs. Traveling by Right
Message-ID: <1993Mar23.075627.28636@colorado.edu>
Organization: Universtiy of Coloardo, Boulder
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 1993 07:56:27 GMT
Lines: 320

Hello All:
	Many questions have been raised about "driving" vs. "Travelling
by Right". I am currently working on a FAQ to answer these questions.
In the meantime and for further questions for said FAQ, here is Howard
Freeman on the subject. I invite comments to this post.

With Explicit Reservation Of All Rights (U.C.C. 1-207)
Regards, -A. J. Teel-, Sui Juris (ajteel@dendrite.cs.Colorado.EDU)

[START OF DOCUMENT: frmn2.txt.lis ]
                    "HOW-TO" INFORMATION FOR SOVEREIGNS
                  6TH-AMENDMENT JURISDICTIONAL CHALLENGE

                           by Howard J. Freeman

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

                               AMENDMENT VI

     "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to  a
speedy  and  public  trial,  by an impartial jury of the State and district
wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been
previously  ascertained  by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause
of the accusation;  to be confronted with the witnesses  against  him;   to
have  compulsory  process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have
the assistance of counsel for his defence."

     Since we often deal with usurpation  of  power  by  the  hirelings  of
government,  it  is  not a single lawless action that we must contend with,
but rather a 180  degree  turning  in  the  "order  of  power"  making  the
sovereign  citizens,  under  "de  jure"  government,  into  subjects of the
bureaucrats in our present "de facto" government."

     We all know that true "law" leaves everyone free to do as one  pleases
so long as there is no damage done to life, liberty or property of another.
Upon a sworn complaint of damage by a fellow sovereign citizen, one may  be
brought  into  a  Court  of  Law  and  ordered  to pay for proven damage to
another.  That is where  true  law  ends.   When  we  come  upon  something
"called"  law which compels us to perform in some specified manner, we know
that what is "called" law in that instance, is "not true law," but that  it
properly  comes  under  what  our  Constitution  terms  as "equity." Equity
Jurisdictions are authorized in our Constitution, and they  stem  from  our
unlimited  right  to  contract.  An Equity Jurisdiction compels performance
upon the  exact  letter  of  any  contract  obligation.   So  any  statute,
ordinance  or  regulation which compels us to perform in a specified manner
must, of necessity, involve a contract of some kind:  be it  written,  oral
or  implied.   It  is  around  "implied"  contracts  that licensed attorney
legalese has worked  to  "use  our  Constitution"  to  destroy  our  rights
declared  to  be  inalienable rights by the Constitution and unalienable by
the Declaration of Independance, the Supreme Law of the Land and of the Law
of Nations.

     The Constitution is still an obstacle in the path of  those  who  seek
complete  and  absolute  mastery  over  the  citizens  of this nation.  The
obstacle in the path is, that State Statutes or City Ordinances that compel
performance  around  a contractual base of American contractual law must be
considered "Civil" Statutes or "Civil" ordinances to be enforceable  in  an
Equity  Jurisdiction,  and  Article  III,  Sec.   2,  Clause  2 of the U.S.
Constitution states that any Civil controversy in which a State is a party,
cannot  be  tried  in a State Court, but that the U.  S.  Supreme Court has
original jurisdiction in such cases.  So,  States  and  Municipalities,  in
order  to try violations of State Statutes or Municipal Ordinances in their
own Courts, have to declare  that  said  violations  are  of  a  "Criminal"
nature,  since  State  and  Municipal  Courts are empowered with a Criminal
Jurisdiction to hear offenses against the people of the  City.   It  is  in
this  area  that the Sixth Amendment approach to a jurisdictional challenge
is effective, and it works as follows:

     Suppose you are stopped for not using your car's seat belts in a State
which has a statute that compels performance in the fastening of seat belts
in any moving motor vehicle.  It  is  foolish  to  talk  to  the  arresting
officer;   demand  of  him only that you be tried in a Court of Record.  At
arraignment in such a Court the Judge will read the charge, and  the  State
Statute  that  you  supposedly violated.  He will call the Statute Law, but
you know that it is not true law, because it compels performance,  but  let
the  Judge  have  his  say  because your chance will come later.  After the
Judge reads the charge, and the "law" you violated,  he  will  ask  if  you
understand  the  charge  against you.  Always say "No." The Judge will then
ask what it is about that simple charge, that even a fool could understand,
yet you do not understand?  Tell him that the Sixth Amendment to the U.  S.
Constitution requires him to inform you of the "nature" and "cause" of  the
action  against  you.   Ask  him:  "Judge, is the action against me in this
Court a Civil Action, or a Criminal Action?" The Judge, now answering under
your Sixth Amendment authority to ask, will tell you that the action before
his Court in this particular case is a Criminal  Action.   Now,  while  you
have  the  Judge  responding  to your first question, ask him the question,
that he does not want to answer.

     Question #2 is as follows:

     "Judge, I need further instruction  regarding  the  'nature'  of  this
charge  pending  against me in order that I may properly defend against it.
As  you  know,  Judge,  there  are  two  separate  and  distinct,  Criminal
Jurisdictions  authorized  for this Court by the U.  S.  Constitution:  One
is for Criminal Action under a Common Law Jurisdiction, and the other is  a
Condition  of Contract violation under the Criminal Aspects of an Admiralty
Jurisdiction.  As you well know, Judge, the defenses for a Criminal  Action
under  a Common Law Jurisdiction are distinctly different from the defenses
under an  Admiralty  Jurisdiction.   Which  Jurisdiction:   Common  Law  or
Admiralty, is this Criminal Action pending against me to be tried under?"

     There are four possible responses that you will receive from the above
question.  I will cover all four:

     Response #1:

     "This is a Crime against the People of this State so it is a  Criminal
Action under a Common Law Jurisdiction."

     With that response, you now repeat into the  record  of  the  case  as
follows:   "Thank you Judge, let the record of this particular case against
this particular individual (include your name) show  that  this  Court  has
gone  on record as stating that the pending Criminal Action in this case is
to be tried under a Common Law Jurisdiction." If the Judge does not dispute
you  at  this  point,  you  have  set a Common Law Case in concrete, and no
future Court can alter that fact.

     Now you can ask that the case be dismissed for want  of  jurisdiction,
since  there  is no injured party in this case to give the Court a cause of
action  under  a  Common  Law  Jurisdiction.   Also,  in   a   Common   Law
Jurisdiction, you have ALL of your rights from the Magna Charta through the
Constitution, and it is a felony under 18 U.S.C.  Section 241 for any Judge
to  deny  you  any  right guaranteed by the Supreme Organic Law of the land
(under said Criminal Action under a Common Law Jurisdiction, which  is  now
established  in  the  record  of  the  case.)  You  may  put  the  Judge on
Constructive Notice of the above law, which if violated after  Constructive
Notice  of  same,  causes  the  Judge to lose his immune status as a judge,
opening him to trial as an individual on the felony charges.

     Response #2:  (of the Judge to question #2)

     "I am sorry.  I am not here to advise you on the  law.   If  you  want
answers to such questions, I advise you to contact a licensed attorney."

     YOU:  "But, your honor, the Constitution requires this Court  to  tell
me  the  nature  of  this  Criminal  Action  pending against me.  How can I
properly defend myself, which I am lawfully entitled to do,  if  I  am  not
told the type of Jurisdiction the case is to be heard under?

     THE JUDGE:  "I told you before, if you want answers to legal questions
of this nature I advise you to secure the services of a licensed attorney."

     YOU:  "Thank you, your honor, I would like the record of this case  to
show  that  this  court has refused my request made, under the authority of
the Sixth Amendment to the U.  S.  Constitution,  to  be  informed  of  the
'nature'  of the jurisdiction by which this Criminal Action is to be tried,
and would like the record to show that the Criminal Action pending  against
(your  name) is a Criminal Action under a secret jurisdiction known only to
licensed attorneys making it  impossible  for  one  to  defend  himself  in
Propria Persona."

     Response #3:  (of the Judge to question #2)

     THE JUDGE:  "This case is to be tried under Statutory Jurisdiction."

     YOU:  "Thank you, your honor.  I am  not  acquainted  with  the  Court
rules  for  such a Jurisdiction.  I will, however, accept such Jurisdiction
if this Court, prior to trial date, will provide me with, or tell me  where
I  can find a book containing the Rules of Criminal Procedure for Statutory
Jurisdiction."

     Since there are no such rules published, the Judge will advise you  to
obtain  the services of a licensed attorney.  At that point, speak into the
Court Record as listed in Response #2 that the Court intends to  conduct  a
Criminal  Action  against  you  under  a  secret jurisdiction known only to
licensed attorneys.

     Response #4:  (of the Judge to question #2)

     THE JUDGE:  "This case will be tried under an Admiralty Jurisdiction."

     YOU:   "Thank  you,  your  honor,  but,  as  you  know,  an  Admiralty
Jurisdiction  depends upon a valid international contract in dispute.  I am
not aware of having entered into any such contract and so I deny  that  any
such  contract  exists.  Will you have this prosecuting attorney prove into
the record of this case that a valid international  contract  exists  as  a
fact  of  law,  and that I am a party to said contract, and that my being a
party to said contract obligates me to obey this State Statute #_____" etc.

     Most prosecuting attorneys would be at a loss  to  offer  such  proof.
This  takes  the problem off the Judge's back, and places it on the back of
the  prosecuting  attorney  (where  it  belongs!).   Failure  of  proof  of
Admiralty  Jurisdiction  on his part is ground to have his action dismissed
by the Court.

     Should you run into a learned prosecuting attorney, who would dare  to
expose  the  legalese  by which the order of power in the United States has
been turned upside down, allow him to proceed with his proof, which will be
along this fashion:

     "Your Honor, in 1933 the American People,  being  sovereigns  in  this
country,  voted Franklin D.  Roosevelt into the position as their spokesman
and president.  In order  to  accomplish  the  task  desired  of  him,  Mr.
Roosevelt  had to spend more money than the sovereign citizens were willing
to pay in taxes.  This made it necessary for the people's representative to
borrow  bank  credit from the International Banking Houses.  It was written
into that loan contract that the loans of bank credit, in addition  to  the
interest  (usury)  upon  them  were to be repaid in gold coin.  By the year
1938 the International Banking Houses had  extended  their  credit  to  the
United  States in excess of the gold coin, available for repayment of same,
thus the former sovereign citizens of the Nation,  through  Mr.   Roosevelt
their  representative,  could  no longer meet their contract obligations to
pay their international debts in gold coin, and they lost  their  sovereign
status  under  the  Common  Law, because of this default on the debt to the
International banking houses, and  the  Bar  Associations  accomodated  the
situation  by  blending "law" with "equity" in 1938 in such a way as not to
alarm the American citizens over their newly acquired servile  status.   As
every  licensed bar attorney knows, the rules of equity are quite different
from the rules of law.  American equity compels performance upon the letter
of  a  contract  obligation,  or in the interest of the creditor in case of
financial default, but it allows a jury trial for controversy above $20.00,
and  it  outlaws  debtors  prisons.   However,  the  equity jurisdiction of
International default on debt is tried in Admiralty Courts,  which  do  not
recognize  any of the constitutional protections of American Equity Courts,
since they are international.   A  Jury  in  an  Admiralty  Court  is  only
advisory  to  the Chancellor (called Judge) who may rule contrary to a jury
verdict if he wishes. Also Admiralty  Courts  impose  Criminal  penalty  on
those  who  fail  to  perform.  The legislative bodies in America today, no
longer pass Public "law" statutes, pursuant to the  limitations  upon  such
statutes  by  National  and State Constitutions, but rather our legislative
bodies in America are now the Sovereign,  over  the  Courts  and  Executive
officers, as well as over all of the so-called citizens, and their function
is to pass Public  "policy"  statutes  in  the  interest  of  the  nation's
creditors,  which  civil  statutes  contain  Criminal  penalties  under  an
Admiralty Jurisdiction.  In this particular Public Policy Statute requiring
the  fastening  of  seat  belts,  the  defendant is charged with a Criminal
Action for his failure to perform within a public policy statute written in
the  interest  of  the  Nations'  Creditors,  who  feel  they want this man
protected from his own careless behavior because dead men pay no taxes, and
the  nations' Creditors need this man's labor to help pay the International
debt, which is in default.  This Court has an Admiralty  Jurisdiction  over
the  person of this defendant in this Criminal Action, because he failed to
perform according to the contract for the repayment of the nation's debt."

     Your answer to the above is to challenge the validity of a contract to
which  you  were  not  a  direct  party  and  you inform the Court that the
validity of the international Contract, lupon which this case  rests,  must
be settled before the trial on issues may begin.

     * * * * * * Howard L.  Freeman, an avid student of law and sovereignty
for  more  than  30  years, is a retired civil engineer.  He lives in Lusk,
Wyoming.

                               O U T L I N E

Note:  this  outline  of  Mr.  Freeman's  work  is  not  complete.   I  got
interrupted and never finished it.  Read the text carefully.  Maybe you can
finish it.

IS ACTION CIVIL OR CRIMINAL?
     CRIMINAL
          IS CRIMINAL JURISDICTION COMMON LAW OR ADMIRALTY?
                COMMON LAW
                      DISMISS FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION
                            THERE IS NO INJURED PARTY
                ADMIRALTY
                      HAVE ATTORNEY PROVE INTO RECORD
                            VALID INT'L CONTRACT EXISTS
                            YOU ARE PARTY TO CONTRACT
                            CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATION TO THE STATE
                STATUTORY JURISDICTION
                      SEE CIVIL
                GET A LICENSED ATTORNEY
                      SEE CIVIL
     CIVIL
          IS STATE A PARTY?  SUPREME COURT HAS JURISDICTION
                STATUTORY JURISDICTION
                      WHAT ARE COURT RULES FOR THIS JURISDICTION?
                             (THEY DON'T EXIST, but if you ask
                              this question, the judge might just
                              refer you to the court rules of
                              another jurisdiction.)
                      GET A LICENSED ATTORNEY (SEE NEXT)
                GET A LICENSED ATTORNEY
                      INSIST UPON BEING INFORMED OF NATURE OF
                            THIS CRIMINAL ACTION.  LET THE RECORD
                            SHOW SECRET JURISDICTION

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

7 audio 60-minute tapes of Howard Freeman for total of $20

Tape Titles:

     ADMIRALTY COURT JURISDICTION (2 CASSETTES)
     ADMIRALTY COURT JURISDICTION UPDATE
     BIBLICAL MEANING OF WORDS - OBEDIENCE & COMMAND (2 CASSETTES)
     CLASSICAL ECONOMICS (2 CASSETTES)

Order tapes from:

     Pastor Dan Gaymon (417)432-3119
     C/O Church of Israel
     Route 1, P.O. Box 62-B-3
     Schell City, MO  64783
Bill Martin
12603 8th ave So.
Seattle Washington

[END OF DOCUMENT: frmn2.txt.lis ]

+=============================================================================+
|                D    I    S    C    L    A    I    M    E    R               |
+------------------------------------oooOooo----------------------------------+
| The sender of this message is not responsible for and does not necessarily  |
| agree with the content or opinions contained herein. Mail will be forwarded |
| to the source identified, if any. This is for "information purposes only",  |
| has not necessarily been verified or tested in any way, and "should not be  |
| construed as legal advise". Your comments and responses are encouraged.     |
| Please Email to "ajteel@dendrite.cs.colorado.EDU" instead of replying here. |
| With Explicit Reservation of All Rights, UCC 1-207, A. J. Teel, Sui Juris.  |
+=============================================================================+