Exhibit ______

Government Authority
and lack thereof

The ONLY authority of ALL government here in the United States of America is to provide a
CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLICAN FORM of GOVERNMENT.

The Oath Clauses of the United States Constitution

Article IV, section 4.

“The United States shall guarantee in this Union a Republican Form of Government,…”

Article VI, paragraph 2 and 3.

“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance
thereof; . . . 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, any Thing 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
Legislators, 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; . . . “

To be even more specific, what we have is more accurately called a CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLICAN
FORM of GOVERNMENT. The Constitution being a Contract, Compact, an inviolate set of binding
contractual limitations.

"A state like a merchant makes a contract. A dishonest state, like a dishonest merchant
willfully refuses to discharge it." Chrisholm v Georgia, 2 Dal. 419 at p456

Why Republican and not democratic? Let us examine some differences between these forms:

In a democracy the minority, which any of us may be a part of by one metric or another, is always subservient
to the will and exercise of the Majority.

Here the Supreme Court, very early on, not only recognized that we were a Republic but also clearly stated that
no one could act in a ‘democratic” manner to rule over others

U.S. Supreme Court, Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 U.S. 2 Dall. 419 419 (1793)
"at the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people, and they are truly the sovereigns
of the country, but they are sovereigns without ... and have none to govern but themselves"
[FROM: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/2/419/case.html]

In Europe, the executive is synonymous with the sovereign power of a state where it is too
commonly acquired by force or fraud or both.
In America, however the case is widely different. Our government is founded upon Compact.
Sovereignty was, and is, in the People.
Glass v. The Sloop Betsy, 3 Ball 6.(1794)

In our CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLICAN FORM of GOVERNMENT exactly the opposite is true!

The way that has been set out can be seen in following high court decisions:

Page 1 of 20
 The first and foremost duty of our CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLICAN FORM of GOVERNMENT is to
protect any and ALL Natural Rights, enumerated and otherwise, of Natural, Living, Flesh and Blood People
who are living Lawfully within the protected boarders of of authority of the many government subdivisions.

"It is the duty of the courts to be watchful for the Constitutional rights of the citizen and
against any stealthy encroachments thereon."
Boyd vs. United States, 116 US 616.

The wording of Title 42 USC 1983 is as follows:

“EVERY PERSON WHO, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom or
usage, of any State or Territory. SUBJECTS, or causes to be subjected, ANY CITIZEN of the
United States or other persona TO THE DEPRIVATION OF ANY RIGHTS, privileges or
immunities SECURED BY THE CONSTITUTION and laws, SHALL BE LIABLE TO THE
PARTY INJURED IN AN ACTION AT LAW, equity, or any other proper proceeding for
redress.

Sec. 1986 provides:

“Every person who, having knowledge that any of the wrongs conspired to be done, and
mentioned in the preceding section (Sec. 1985 of Title 42) are about to be committed, and having
power to prevent or aid in preventing the commission of the same, neglects or refuses to do
so, if such wrongful act which such person by reasonable diligence could have prevented; and
such damages may be recovered in an action on the case; and any number of persons guilty of
such neglect or refusal may be joined as defendants in the action ...”

Further:

"The officers of the law, in the execution of process, are required to know the requirements
of the law, and if they mistake them, whether through ignorance or design , and anyone is
harmed by their error, they must respond in damages." Roger v. Marshall (United States use of
Rogers v. Conklin), 1 Wall. (US) 644, 17 Led 714.

The ONLY entities upon which government agencies are permitted to exercise control over are those
Artificial (Corporate) Entities which have been created by government. While this principal has been
perverted by decades of practice, repeatedly we find verification contradicting those perversions:

"Our safety, our liberty, depends upon preserving the Constitution of the United States as our
fathers made it inviolate. The people of the United States are the rightful masters of both
Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who
pervert the Constitution.”

No man is good enough to govern another man without that other's consent . . . . These United
States of America can never be destroyed from forces outside its borders. If America falls, it will
fall from within. Brought down by apathy. When good people do nothing, Anarchy reigns."
― Abraham Lincoln

U.S. Supreme Court, Yick Wo v Hopkins, 118 US 356, at p370:

"When we consider the nature and the theory of our institutions of government, the principles
upon which they are supposed to rest, and review the history of their development, we are
constrained to conclude that they do not mean to leave room for the play and action of purely
personal and arbitrary power. Sovereignty itself is, of course, not subject to law, for it is the
author and source of law; but in our system, while sovereign powers are delegated to the

Page 2 of 20
 agencies of government, sovereignty itself remains with the people, by whom and for
whom all government exists and acts."
And the law is the definition and limitation of power. It is, indeed, quite true that there
must always be lodged somewhere, and in some person or body, the authority of final decision;
and in many cases of mere administration, the responsibility is purely political, no appeal lying
except to the ultimate tribunal of the public judgment, exercised either in the pressure of opinion,
or by means of the suffrage.
But the fundamental rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, considered as
individual possessions, are secured by those maxims of constitutional law which are the
monuments showing the victorious progress of the race in securing to men the blessings of
civilization under the reign of just and equal laws, so that, in the famous language of the
Massachusetts bill of rights, the government of the commonwealth 'may be a government of laws
and not of men.’
For the very idea that one man may be compelled to hold his life, or the means of living, or
any material right essential to the enjoyment of life, at the mere will of another, seems to be
intolerable in any country where freedom prevails, as being the essence of slavery itself.

Here it is pointed out that only artificial entities such as corporations are to be the subject of taxation and
regulation NOT natural, living, sovereign people:

"The individual, unlike the corporation, cannot be taxed for the mere privilege of existing.
The corporation is an artificial entity which owes its existence and charter powers to the State;
but the individuals rights to live and own property are NATURAL RIGHTS for the
enjoyment of which an EXCISE cannot be imposed."
Redfield v Fisher, 292 P. 813, 819 (1930) (emphasis added)

Here we are warned of the true purpose of government and its predisposition to “run a muck”:

"In doing this, I shall have occasion incidentally to evince, how true it is that States and
Governments were made for man, and, at the same time, how true it is that his creatures and
servants have first deceived, next vilified, and, at last oppressed their master and maker."
Chrisholm v Georgia, 2 Dal. 419 at p455.

U.S. Supreme Court, Wilson v. Omaha Indian Tribe, 442 U.S. 653 (1979)
""[I]n common usage, the term 'person' does not include the sovereign, [and] statutes
employing the phrase are ordinarily construed to exclude it."
United States v. Cooper Corp., 312 U. S. 600, 312 U. S. 604 (1941); accord, United States v.
Mine Workers, 330 U. S. 258, 330 U. S. 275 (1947).
"Particularly is this true where the statute imposes a burden or limitation, as distinguished
from conferring a benefit or advantage."
United States v. Knight, 14 Pet. 301, 39 U. S. 315 (1840)."
[FROM: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/442/653/case.html]

US Supreme Court in U.S. v. Cooper, 3l2 US 600,604, 6l S.Ct 742 (1941):

"Since in common usage the term ‘person’ does not include the sovereign, statutes employing
that term are ordinarily construed to exclude it.

US Supreme Court in U.S. v. United Mine Workers of America, 330 U.S. 258 67 SCt677 (1947):
"In common usage, the term ‘person’ does not include the Sovereign and statutes employing
it will ordinarily not be construed to do so."

Page 3 of 20
US Supreme Court in US v. Fox, 94 US 315:
"Since in common usage, the term ‘person' does not include the sovereign, statutes employing
the phrase are ordinarily construed to exclude it."

"the word ‘person’ in legal terminology is perceived as a general word which normally includes
in its scope a variety of entities other than human beings., see e.g. 1, U.S.C. § para 1."
Church of Scientology v. US Department of Justice, 612 F.2d 417 @425 (1979)

By design, the last and weakest power of government has, is the power to mediate issues arising between
opposing living, Flesh and Blood People! This power has been weakened by requiring the courts to be
dependent upon the assistance of the Legislative and Executive branches of government. A process known as
“The Separation of Powers” which has since been hijacked where members of Legislator and Executive
branches are now frequently populated with “Officers of the Court” - Attorneys!

Here are some examples of how the power of the courts are limited even further:

“A universal principle as old as the law is that proceedings of a court without jurisdiction are a
nullity and its judgment therein without effect either on person or property.”
Norwood v.Renfield, 34 C 329; Ex parte Giambonini, 49 P. 732.

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

“The law requires proof of jurisdiction to appear on the record of the administrative agency
and all administrative proceedings.” Hagans v Lavine, 415 U. S. 533.

“The Constitution of these United States is the supreme law of the land. Any law that is
repugnant to the Constitution is null and void of law.” Marbury v. Madison, 5 US 137

Here we see a clear example of the limitation of courts to commercial jurisdiction.

“Proof of jurisdiction, appearing on the record, that the defendant is subject to a commercial
contract to be tried for a commercial crime.” See UCC 1-308 Reservation of rights

The Supreme Court of New Jersey takes this point in State v. Madewell, 63 N.J. 506, 512 (1973):
"Statutes or ordinances, designed as debt collecting devices under the guise of penal
laws, contravene the constitutional prohibition against imprisonment for debt. Thus, the
legislature may not circumvent the prohibition by rendering criminal a simple breach of contract,
the nonpayment of debt, or the failure to use one's own money for a purpose other than for
payment of debts. However, . . . . . such statutes impose imprisonment for debt, on the theory that
one who violates the act is punished for the crime he has committed, although civilly the acts
may also constitute a breach of contract or the nonpayment of a debt.
(16 C.J.S., Constitutional Law, Section 204(4), p.1011)." [bold, underline and italics added]

The following rule also can be applied to the Courts of the States as Civil Statutes can not be used to impose
criminal penalties on activities arising out of civil statutes, codes, penal or otherwise, circumventing
constitutional protections absent clear, written waivers to the contrary;
“The criminal jurisdiction of the courts of the United States is wholly derived from the
STATUTES of the United States.” Manchester v Mass. 132 U.S. 262

Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p. 266, ISBN

0—314—76271—X:

Page 4 of 20
 Color of Law: The appearance or semblance, without the substance, of legal right. Misuse of
power, possessed by virtue of state law and made possible only because wrongdoer is clothed
with authority of state, is action taken under "color of state law." Atkins v. Lanning, D.C.Okl.,
415 F.Supp. 186, 188.

Title 18 U.S.C. 3231 gave criminal jurisdiction to the U.S. District Courts where it states;
“The District Courts of the United States shall have jurisdiction exclusive of the courts of the
States, of all offenses against the laws of the United States . . . .”
Many Courts commit fraud “Under Color of Law” when they refuse to disregard this basic the fundamental
requirement that proof of jurisdiction, appearing on the record, that the defendant is subject to rules, codes and
regulations.

"All codes, rules and regulations are applicable to the government authorities only, not
Human/Creators in accordance with God's laws. All codes, rules and regulations are
unconstitutional and lacking in due process "
RODRIQUES v RAY DONAVAN (U.S. Department of Labor), 769 F. 2d 1344, 1348 (1985).

In a democracy, oppression derives its power from the false premise that “….You did not create it ….!” -
Obama. When one closely examines the “democracies” of the world, people in those nations must first get
permission from their various “committees” before trying anything NEW (innovation).

In a CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLICAN FORM of GOVERNMENT, government must FIRST get

permission from the people BEFORE it can Tax or Regulate, and those Regulations can ONLY be applied to
the creations of government.

The ONLY exception is where someone has CONTRACTUALLY “sold” their RIGHTS in order to receive
some perceived benefit.

"The People never give up their Liberties but under some delusion." -- Edmund Burke, 1784.

Here we find that the presence of an actual contract, aka License, is required before government can be
permitted to proceed without which such jurisdiction id null and void.

"An action by Department of Motor Vehicles, whether directly or through a court sitting
administratively as the hearing officer, must be clearly defined in the statute before it has
subject matter jurisdiction, without such jurisdiction of the licensee, all acts of the agency,
by its employees, agents, hearing officers, are null and void."
Doolan v. Carr , 125 US 618; City v Pearson , 181 Cal. 640.

"There is no discretion to ignore lack of jurisdiction." Joyce v. U.S. 474 2D 215.

"The law provides that once State and Federal Jurisdiction has been challenged, it must be
proven." Main v. Thiboutot, 100 S. Ct. 2502 (1980) [on the record! - emphasis mine]

Such is the nature and Form of the Penal Law System aka Statutory “Laws”.

"Statutes or ordinances, designed as debt collecting devices under the guise of penal laws,
contravene the constitutional prohibition against imprisonment for debt. Thus, the legislature
may not circumvent the prohibition by rendering criminal a simple breach of contract, the
nonpayment of debt, or the failure to use one's own money for a purpose other than for payment
of debts. However, statutes against false pretenses, frauds, cheats, and the like, are sustained
as against the constitutional objection that such statutes impose imprisonment for debt, on the

Page 5 of 20
 theory that one who violates the act is punished for the crime he has committed, although
civilly the acts may also constitute a breach of contract or the nonpayment of a debt.
16 C.J.S., Constitutional Law, Section 204(4), p.1011." [bold, underline and italics added]

Here we have an example of the evils of Penal codes as used for “arrest”

"The history of the use, and not infrequent abuse of the power to arrest cautions that a
relaxation of the fundamental requirements of probable cause would 'leave law-abiding
citizens at the mercy of the officers' whim or caprice.'"
Wong Sun v.United States, 371 U.S. 471, 479, 9 L.Ed.2d 441, 83 S.Ct. 407 (1963).

When asked during a “Traffic Stop” if it is Criminal, a Police officer will always say “NO”! This
would be correct since it would then be required for the officer then to be able to prove that someone
had been injured by the one stopped which officers are reticent to be required doing. As the brother of a
police officer, he has shown how Police are trained to try to quickly escalate any contact with the public
so as to create the opportunity to “issue” as many revenue generating “Citations / Summons / Tickets” as
possible. This practice was once promoted under the term “Ticket Quotas” and later renamed
“Performance Reviews” each achieving the same result but with different terminologies needed to
circumvent the intent and spirit of the LAW curtailing the use of Police powers to generate revenue.

Another example would be:

Nationally Interstate Speed Limits were raised to 65MPH. In order to recoup lost revenues relied upon
by the States and their Municipalities by the use of their Police powers for such activities. This has
taken the form of what are now called “Safety Zones”, “Work Zones”, and all of the many variations
created to be used to “Double the Fines” generated by such creations! The ingenuity to devise ways to
plunder the public by Politicians should never be underestimated! For a better understanding of how
this is done find and read the book “How to Lie with Statistics” (less than 150 pages long) – very
educational! Many other abuses can be easily documented.

In an attempt to address the issues of government abusing its Police Powers for Political and Financial
profit and gain. The Courts tried to restrict Police activities to addressing only Criminal activities.
Politicians easily circumvented those limitations by using Penal Codes to circumvent Constitutional
Protections as may be seen in the following court decisions. While the words have been cleverly
redacted or redefined the spirit remains!

State, county and/or municipal law enforcement officers are only empowered to act for the arrest,
detection, investigation, conviction, detention or rehabilitation of persons violating the criminal laws of
the State. Pursuant to N.J.S.A. 40A:14-152.2 states:

"As used in this section, "law enforcement officer" means any person who is employed as a
permanent full-time member of any State, county or municipal law enforcement agency,
department, or division of those governments who is statutorily empowered to act for the
detection, investigation, arrest, conviction, detention, or rehabilitation of persons violating the
criminal laws of this State and statutorily required to successfully complete a training course
approved by, or certified as being substantially equivalent to such an approved course, by the
Police Training Commission pursuant to P.L.1961, c. 56 (C.52:17B-66 et seq.).
"Law enforcement agency" means any public agency, other than the Department of Law and
Public Safety, any police force, department or division within the State of New Jersey, or any
county or municipality thereof, which is empowered by statute to act for the detection,
investigation, arrest, conviction, detention, or rehabilitation of persons violating the criminal
laws of this State." [Bold-face added]

Page 6 of 20
 One only has the study the origins of Penal Law to easily discover its origins in its exclusive use as a tool to
oppress the Rights and Freedoms of one group, such as the Irish Catholics, over the power and interests of
another group, such as the British Protestants.

It should be noted that under the British “Penal Codes” the British attempted to “cut out the Heart” of the
Celtic people by using “Penal Laws” to Criminalize Celtic Music and Dance as well as many other activities
unique to the Celtic Culture! A previous attempt was made when the British imposed "primae noctis" (see
following Note) leading to the writing of the Magna Carta and the foundations of our Grand and Petit or
Common Juries. These lessons of history were to be repeated once again by the Germans during WWII.

Note:
This excerpt from the movie “Braveheart” perhaps best illustrates the abusive application of an original Penal /
Administrative Law. While it may not be historically precise, it does properly illustrate the “spirit and
practice” of that time.

The “Movie Dialog” went as follows:

Nobles are the key to the door of Scotland.
Grant our nobles lands in the North.
Give their nobles estates here in England.
And make them too greedy to oppose us.
But, sir, our nobles will be reluctant to uproot.
New lands mean new taxes and they're already taxed for the war in France.
The trouble with Scotland…...is that it's full of Scots.
Perhaps the time has come… ..to re-institute an old custom.
Grant them "primae noctis". (“The Right of First Night”)
First night.
When any common girl inhabiting their lands is married..our nobles shall have sexual rights to
her on the night of her wedding.
If we can't get them out…..we'll breed them out.
That should fetch just the kind of lords we want in Scotland. Taxes or no taxes, eh?

Note:
Right of First Night aka Legalized RAPE by Penal Code!
A crime otherwise punishable by execution was “Legalized” by Penal Code for the sake of oppression and the
benefit of those in power!

In order to understand this more clearly, one must first understand that the “Celtic People” (pronounced
“Keltic” NOT “Seltic”) were farm people and were well practiced in the art of “animal husbandry” or to be
even more clear, the fertility cycles of animals and humans (women). To that, weddings were always timed to
coincide with the peak of the woman’s fertility cycle so that nine months after the marriage was consummated a
child / heir would be born! In these cases a child of the English Noble (Rapist) creating a new “English Blood
Line” to advance the English claim upon the lands thereby inherited.

The State of New Jersey has had a long and sorted history of abusing its Police Powers to Generate
Revenue. With each attempt to limit those abuses the politicians of the State of New Jersey have
shown their ingenuity in finding ways to circumvent such prohibitions.

"The history of the use, and not infrequent abuse of the power to arrest cautions that a
relaxation of the fundamental requirements of probable cause would 'leave law-abiding
citizens at the mercy of the officers' whim or caprice.'"

Page 7 of 20
 Wong Sun v.United States, 371 U.S. 471, 479, 9 L.Ed.2d 441, 83 S.Ct. 407 (1963).

The most popular instrument used by the State of New Jersey has been the Motor Vehicle Codes and
such other so called “infractions” which have been attached to expand and protect those activities.

Still, this happens all over the country. Whether the matter is deemed civil or the particular State
somehow fraudulently converts a civil matter into a criminal matter to fine or jail people for not
complying with “Specific Performance” commandments. By fraudulently converting a Right into a
Privilege, which is civil, into a criminal matter, always occurs without people being read their rights at
the time the arrest is initiated. People are coerced into giving up personal and financial information,
how much they make, where they work, where they live, and all other kinds of disclosures, without ever
being told of their rights to remain silent, rights to counsel, rights to a full and fair hearing before a jury
of twelve of their peers of the community, etc., at the inception of all Motor Vehicle Code proceedings
and applications.

For a similar argument, see Hynson v. City of Chester, Legal Dep't., 864 F.2d 1026, 1032 (3rd Cir.
1988). If police officers are to be sued for these constitutional violations of persons . . . .

However, "probable cause" to arrest requires a showing that both a crime has been, or is being
committed, and that the person sought to be arrested committed the offense. U.S.C.A. Const.
Amend. 4. In Motor Vehicle Code enforcement matters, no probable cause can exist,
because the entire matter arose out of a civil context.

New Jersey statute, N.J.S.A. 40A:14-152, (as well as similar statutes around the country)
expressly forbids police officers from arresting people in civil causes:

"...police officers shall have the power to serve and execute process issuing out of the courts
having local criminal jurisdiction in the municipality and shall have the powers of a constable in
all matters other than in civil causes arising in such courts".

N.J.S.A. 40A:14-152.2 states:

"As used in this section, "law enforcement officer" means any person who is employed as a
permanent full-time member of any State, county or municipal law enforcement agency,
department, or division of those governments who is statutorily empowered to act for the
detection, investigation, arrest, conviction, detention, or rehabilitation of persons violating the
criminal laws of this State and statutorily required to successfully complete a training course
approved by, or certified as being substantially equivalent to such an approved course, by the
Police Training Commission pursuant to P.L.1961, c. 56 (C.52:17B-66 et seq.).

"Law enforcement agency" means any public agency, other than the Department of Law and
Public Safety, any police force, department or division within the State of New Jersey, or any
county or municipality thereof, which is empowered by statute to act for the detection,
investigation, arrest, conviction, detention, or rehabilitation of persons violating the criminal
laws of this State." [Bold-face added]

These clearly are attempts to curtail the use of Police Powers to generate revenue.

The law is clear. Arresting someone in a civil matter is unconstitutional and unlawful,
notwithstanding a fraudulent "Order for arrest warrant" issued by purported Judges allegedly
acting as Judges.

Page 8 of 20
 “When enforcing mere statutes, judges of all courts do not act judicially (and thus are not
protected by “qualified” or “limited immunity,” - SEE: Owen v. City, 445 U.S. 662; Bothke v.
Terry, 713 F2d 1404) - - “but merely act as an extension as an agent for the involved agency --
but only in a “ministerial” and not a “discretionary capacity...” Thompson v. Smith, 154 S.E.
579, 583; Keller v. P.E., 261 US 428; F.R.C. v. G.E., 281, U.S. 464. Immunity for judges does
not extend to acts which are clearly outside of their jurisdiction. Bauers v. Heisel, C.A. N.J.
1966, 361 F.2d 581, Cert. Den. 87 S.Ct. 1367, 386 U.S. 1021, 18 L.Ed. 2d 457 (see also Muller
v. Wachtel, D.C.N.Y. 1972, 345 F.Supp. 160; Rhodes v. Houston, D.C. Nebr. 1962, 202
F.Supp. 624 affirmed 309 F.2d 959, Cert. den 83 St. 724, 372 U.S. 909, 9 L.Ed. 719, Cert. Den
83 S.Ct. 1282, 383 U.S. 971, 16 L.Ed. 2nd 311, Motion denied 285 F.Supp. 546).

“When acting to enforce a statute and its subsequent amendments to the present date, the judge of
the municipal court is acting as an administrative officer and not in a judicial capacity; courts
in administering or enforcing statutes do not act judicially, but merely ministerially.”
Thompson v Smith, 154 SE 583.

“No officer can acquire jurisdiction by deciding he has it. The officer, whether judicial or
ministerial, decides at his own peril.” Middleton v. Low (1866), 30 S.Ct. 596, citing Prosser v.
Secor (1849), 5 Barb.(N.Y) 607, 608.

“A court has no jurisdiction to determine its own jurisdiction, for a basic issue in any case
before a tribunal is its power to act, and a court must have the authority to decide that question in
the first instance.” Rescue Army v. Municipal Court of Los Angeles, 171 P2d 8; 331 US 549, 91
L. ed. 1666, 67 S.Ct. 1409.

“Acting without statutory power at all, or misapplying one’s statutory power, will result in a
finding that such action was ultra vires. The assertion of federal rights, when plainly and
reasonably made, is not to be defeated under the name of local practice.” Davis v. Wechsler, 263
US 22, 24

“No provision of the Constitution is designed to be without effect,” “Anything that is in

conflict is null and void of law”, “Clearly, for a secondary law to come in conflict with the
supreme Law was illogical, for certainly, the supreme Law would prevail over all other laws
and certainly our forefathers had intended that the supreme Law would be the bases of all law
and for any law to come in conflict would be null and void of law, it would bare no power to
enforce, in would bare no obligation to obey, it would purport to settle as if it had never existed,
for unconstitutionality would date from the enactment of such a law, not from the date so branded
in an open court of law, no courts are bound to uphold it, and no Citizens are bound to obey
it. It operates as a near nullity or a fiction of law.” If any statement, within any law, which is
passed, is unconstitutional, the whole law is unconstitutional by Marbury v. Madison : 5 US 137
(1803)

See also: State v. Madewell, 63 N.J. 506, 512 (1973): below:

“Sometimes the law defends plunder and participates in it. Sometimes the law places the
whole apparatus of judges, police, prisons and gendarmes at the service of the plunderers, and
treats the victim, when he defends himself, as a criminal.”
“THE LAW”, 1850 - Frederic Claude Bastiat
(1801 - 1850, French economist and statesman, orphan).

It is asserted that by definition, probable cause can only exist in relation to criminal conduct.
It follows that civil disputes cannot give rise to probable cause.

Page 9 of 20
 Paff v. Kaltenbach, 204 F.3d 425, 435 (3rd Cir. 2000) (Fourth Amendment prohibits law
enforcement officers from arresting citizens without probable cause (citations omitted));

New Jersey District Court cases and other nearby district courts, Santiago v. City of Vineland,
107 F. Supp.2d 512, 561-62, 564 (D.N.J. 2000); Hill v. Algor, 85 F.Supp.2d 391, 397-98 (D.N.J.
2000) (arrest made without probable cause violates the Fourth Amendment);

Schneider v. Simonini , 749 A.2d 336, 163 N.J. 336, 361-65 (2000) (detailed explanation of
probable cause standard in New Jersey).

In Schneider, the New Jersey Supreme Court set the standard for probable cause. It shows us
that probable cause to arrest "requires a showing that both a crime has been, or is being
committed, and that the person sought to be arrested committed the offense".

Schneider , 163 N.J. at 363. It was further held that a probable cause determination could only
be made if a warrant had a "supporting affidavit, as supplemented by sworn testimony
before the issuing judge that is recorded contemporaneously". Id . at 363.

The practice of enacting Administrative, Penal Codes for the purpose of compelling Specific Performance
absent a clear and un-coerced contractual agreement founded upon an unconcealed, unobstructed understanding
of all rights and freedoms relinquished is clearly unconstitutional by all measures of law and contractual
construction and bares the marks of Fraud and Deceit!

Penal Laws are in fact, “Chains and Leg Irons” placed upon an otherwise Free People as a tool to
economically limit the ability of a free people to move “off the Plantation” and be independent of Mind, Body
and Motion of those seeking to enslave others for the profit and gain of those in power.

Notice where it has been revealed here that only the those having a License results in a grant of Jurisdiction:

"An action by Department of Motor Vehicles, whether directly or through a court sitting
administratively as the hearing officer, must be clearly defined in the statute BEFORE it
has subject matter jurisdiction, without such jurisdiction of the licensee, all acts of the
agency, by its employees, agents, hearing officers, are null and void."
Doolan v. Carr , 125 US 618; City v Pearson , 181 Cal. 640.

Here the commercial limitation requirement of the Statute / Penal “Law” is stated as well as key
elements which are devoid of the “Due Process” requirements:

"Agency, or party sitting for the agency, (which would be the magistrate of a municipal court)
has no authority to enforce as to any licensee unless he [the licensee - comment added] is
acting for compensation. Such an act is highly penal in nature, and should not be construed
to include anything which is not embraced within its terms. (Where) there is no charge
within a complaint that the accused was employed for compensation to do the act
complained of, or that the act constituted part of a contract."
Schomig v. Kaiser , 189 Cal 596.

"When acting to enforce a statute and its subsequent amendments to the present date, the judge
of the municipal court is acting as an administrative officer and not in a judicial capacity;
courts in administering or enforcing statutes do not act judicially, but merely
ministerially".
Thompson v. Smith , 154 SE 583.

Page 10 of 20
 "A judge ceases to sit as a judicial officer because the governing principle of administrative
law provides that courts are prohibited from substituting their evidence,
testimony, record, arguments, and rationale for that of the agency .
Additionally, courts are prohibited from substituting their judgment for that of the agency.
Courts in administrative issues are prohibited from even listening to or hearing arguments,
presentation, or rational."
ASIS v. US , 568 F2d 284.

"Ministerial officers are incompetent to receive grants of judicial power from the
legislature, their acts in attempting to exercise such powers are necessarily nullities."
Burns v. Sup. Ct. , SF, 140 Cal. 1.

"The elementary doctrine that the constitutionality of a legislative act is open to attack only by
persons whose rights are affected thereby, applies to statute relating to administrative agencies,
the validity of which may not be called into question in the absence of a showing of substantial
harm, actual or impending, to a legally protected interest directly resulting from the
enforcement of the statute."
Board of Trade v. Olson , 262 US 1; 29 ALR 2d 1051.

Statutes are not "laws" if there is no harm, injury, damage or fraud involved then it's only color of law.

The Supreme Court has warned,

"Because of what appear to be Lawful commands [Statutory Rules, Regulations and -codes--
ordinances- and Restrictions] on the surface, many citizens, because of their respect for what
appears to be law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their rights, due to ignorance...
[deceptive practices, constructive fraud, barratry, legal plunder, conversion, and malicious
prosecution in inferior administrative State courts]."
(United States v. Minker, 350 U.S. 179, 187, 76 S.Ct. 281, 100 L.Ed. 185 (1956);....

* * * True, there can be no penalty incurred for contempt before there is a judicial order of
enforcement. But the subpoena is in form an official command, and even though improvidently
issued it has some coercive tendency, either because of ignorance of their rights on the part of
those whom it purports to command or their natural respect for what appears to be an official
command, or because of their reluctance to test the subpoena's validity by litigation.' Cudahy
Packing Co., Ltd. v. Holland, 315 U.S. 357, 363—364, 62 S.Ct. 651, 654—655, 86 L.Ed. 895.

These concerns, relevant to the construction of this ambiguously worded power, are emphatically
pertinent to investigations that constitute the first step in proceedings calculated to bring about
the denaturalization of citizens. See Schneiderman v. United States, 320 U.S. 118, 63 S.Ct. 1333,
87 L.Ed. 1796; Baumgartner v. United States, 322 U.S. 665, 64 S.Ct. 1240, 88 L.Ed. 1525.

This may result in 'loss of both property and life, or of all that makes life worth living.'
Ng Fung Ho v. White, 259 U.S. 276, 284, 42 S.Ct. 492, 495, 66 L.Ed. 938.

In such a situation where there is doubt it must be resolved in the citizen's favor. Especially must
we be sensitive to the citizen's rights where the proceeding is nonjudicial because of '(t)he
difference in security of judicial over administrative action * * *.'
Ng Fung Ho v. White, supra, 259 U.S. at page 285, 42 S.Ct. at page 495.

"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."

Page 11 of 20
 Connolly 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 police power of the state must be exercised in subordination to the provisions of
the U.S. Constitution." [emphasis added]
Panhandle Eastern Pipeline Co. vs. State Highway Commission, 294 US 613; Bacahanan vs.
Wanley, 245 US 60.

"It is well settled that the Constitutional Rights protected from invasion by the police power,
include Rights safeguarded both by express and implied prohibitions in the Constitutions."
Tiche vs. Osborne, 131 A. 60.

"As a rule, fundamental limitations of regulations under the police power are found in the
spirit of the Constitutions, not in the letter, although they are just as efficient as if expressed
in the clearest language."
Mehlos vs. Milwaukee, 146 NW 882.

"The right to travel is part of the Liberty of which a citizen cannot deprived without due
process of law under the Fifth Amendment. This Right was emerging as early as the Magna
Carta."
Kent vs. Dulles, 357 US 116 (1958).

"We find it intolerable that one Constitutional Right should have to be surrendered in order to
assert another."
Simons vs. United States, 390 US 389.

A favorite tool used and abused by Administrative Officers is the citing of “Contempt”. Here the New
Jersey Courts have spoken on behalf of those who might be accused of such “Contempt”:

The New Jersey Supreme Court, in N.J. Dept. of Health v. Roselle, 34 N.J. 331 (1961)
eradicated the distinction between civil and criminal contempt and held that all contempts are
essentially one in the same. Therefore, if both civil relief (collection of a commercial debt) and
criminal punishments (arrest and imprisonment for debt) are imposed in the same proceeding, the
"criminal feature of the order is dominant and fixes its character for review". Hicks v.
Feiock,485 U.S. 624, 108 S.Ct. 1423, 99 L.Ed.2d (1988); Nye v. United States, 61 S.Ct. 810, 813
(1941). Civil contempts or violations of court orders/violations of litigants rights, are civil in
name only, entailing what are in reality criminal punishments. U.S. v. Rylander, 460 U.S. 752,
757 (1983); Uphaus v. Wyman, 360 U.S. 72 (1959).

Here one must read carefully to understand the point where “Private Rights” are routinely violated when the
“Accuser aka Judge” takes the position of the “Injured Party”, the “Judge”, the “Prosecutor”, the “Defense
Attorney”, the Jury”, and the “Executioner” and often “Entering testimony or evidence in pretended behalf of
the Accused”! This might be likened to what is called a (also unlawful) “Star Chamber” proceeding.

The New Jersey Appellate Division held in Lusardi v. Curtis Point Property Owners Assoc.,
138 N.J. Super. 44, 50 (App.Div. 1975) that there are grave doubts whether a defendant's rights
can be adequately protected in a "double-barreled proceeding" where charges of both contempt
and deprivation of private rights are tried in a common proceeding.

Page 12 of 20
 Under U.S. v. Rylander: ignorance of the order or the inability to comply with the order, or as in
this case, to pay, would be a complete defense to any contempt sanction, violation of a court
order or violation of litigant's rights. In such cases the risk of erroneous deprivation for civil
contempt/violation of litigant's rights, from the lack of a neutral fact finder, may be
substantial. Under these circumstances, criminal procedural protections such as the right to be
notified, right to a pre-deprivation hearing (or in this case, pre-deprivation ability to pay
hearing), right to proof beyond a reasonable doubt, right to counsel are both necessary and
appropriate to protect the due process rights of parties and prevent the arbitrary and
oppressive exercise of judicial power.
International Union, United Mine Workers of America v. Bagwell, 114 S.Ct. 2552, 2561, 129
L.Ed.2d 642 (1994).

The case law history on this subject is extensive. It would be absurd to distinguish criminal and civil
incarceration. From the perspective of the person incarcerated, the jail is just as bleak no matter what label
used. In addition, the line between civil and criminal contempt, or violations of litigant's rights or violations of
a court order, is a fine one, and is rarely as clear as the state would have us believe. If the party does not have
the present ability to pay, or if he has paid and is unlawfully jailed for it, he does not have the "keys to his jail".
What is nominally a civil contempt proceeding (or in aid of litigants rights enforcement proceeding) is in fact
nothing more than a criminal proceeding, with the defendant being punished and not coerced. It is the fact of the
incarceration and not the label placed upon the proceeding which determines if someone was unlawfully
arrested and imprisoned.

Once again we find the abuse of the Administrative use of Penal Codes used to circumvent any and frequently
ALL Constitutional Protections for the sake of Plunder, Trespass upon Rights, and the political and economic
profit and gain by those who are REQUIRED to provide protection from such clearly criminal activities and
from a system of Racketeering perfected by governments refusing to obey their oaths to provide and protect our
CONSTITUTIONAL, REPUBLICAN, FORM OF GOVERNMENT!

First we find the Constitution of the State of New Jersey commanding:

In New Jersey Constitution, Article I, Paragraph 13:

"No person shall be imprisoned for debt in ANY action, or on any judgment founded upon
contract, unless in cases of fraud".

Once AGAIN we find how Supreme Court of the State of New Jersey HAS “Stepped up to the Plate”:

The Supreme Court of New Jersey takes this point one step further in State v. Madewell, 63 N.J. 506, 512
(1973):
"Statutes or ordinances, designed as debt collecting devices under the guise of penal
laws, contravene the constitutional prohibition against imprisonment for debt. Thus, the
legislature may not circumvent the prohibition by rendering criminal a simple breach of contract,
the nonpayment of debt, or the failure to use one's own money for a purpose other than for
payment of debts. However, statutes against false pretenses, frauds, cheats, and the like, are
sustained as against the constitutional objection that such statutes impose imprisonment for debt,
on the theory that one who violates the act is punished for the crime he has committed, although
civilly the acts may also constitute a breach of contract or the nonpayment of a debt.
(16 C.J.S., Constitutional Law, Section 204(4), p.1011)." [bold, underline and italics added]

Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham Al. 373 US 262:(1962)

“If the state does convert your right into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it, you
can ignore the license and a fee and engage the right with impunity.”

Page 13 of 20
Judges know, or should know, that under the Supreme Law of the Land:

"Courts are the mere instruments of the law, and can will nothing. When they are said to
exercise a discretion, it is a mere legal discretion, a discretion to be exercised in discerning the
course prescribed by law, and, when that is discerned, it is the duty of the court to follow it.
Judicial power is never exercised for the purpose of giving effect to the will of the judge; always
for the purpose of giving effect to the will of the legislature; or, in other words, to the will of the
law." [Emphasis in original]. Littleton v. Berbling, 468 F.2d 389, 412 (7th Cir. 1972), citing
Osborn v. Bank of the United States, 9 Wheat (22 U.S.) 738, 866, 6 L.Ed 204 (1824); U.S. v.
Simpson, 927 F.2d 1088, 1090 (9th Cir. 1991).

"We [Judges] have no more right to decline the exercise of jurisdiction which is given, then to
usurp that which is not given. The one or the other would be treason to the Constitution."
[clarification added] U.S. v. Will, 449 U.S. 200, 216, 101 S.Ct. 471, 66 L.Ed.2d 392, 406 (1980);
Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. (6 Wheat) 264, 404, 5 L.Ed 257 (1821).

Extortion is defined in Black's Law Dictionary - 6th Edition as:

"The obtaining of property from another induced by wrongful use of actual or threatened force,
violence, or fear, or under color of official right."

The lawful exercise of a designated power (possession) is no less a property than the possession
of real or monetary property!

"The right to contract is unlimited as too is the right to NOT contract (indentured?)!"

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."

In Thompson v Smith, 154 SE 583.

“When acting to enforce a statute and its subsequent amendments to the present date, the judge
of the municipal court is acting as an administrative officer and not in a judicial capacity;
courts in administering or enforcing statutes do not act judicially, but merely ministerially.”

“No statutory duty lies to apply for., or possess a driver's license for personal travel and
transportation as defendant is not within the 'class of persons for whose benefit or protection
the statute was enacted.” Routh v Quinn, 20 Cal2d 488

In Rescue Army v. Municipal Court of Los Angeles, 171 P2d 8; 331 US 549, 91 L. ed. 1666, 67 S.Ct. 1409.
“A court has no jurisdiction to determine its own jurisdiction, for a basic issue in any case
before a tribunal is its power to act, and a court must have the authority to decide that question in
the first instance.”

Title 5, US Code Sec. 556(d), Sec. 557, Sec.706:

“Courts lose jurisdiction if they do not follow Due Process Law.”

Page 14 of 20
Under current law, the Congress continues to base its definition of a motor vehicle on commercial use:
"'Motor vehicle' means every description of carriage or other contrivance propelled or drawn by
mechanical power and USED FOR COMMERCIAL PURPOSES on the highways in the
transportation of passengers, passengers and property, or property or cargo;" Title 18, U.S.C.
sec. 31.

The socialists tried early on to step beyond their limits of regulating commercial travel. This conversion of
the citizen's rights through a compelled licensing scheme was initially stopped by the courts:

"Where a private statute exists of which the intent is regulation of commercial common
carriers, the particular agency enforcing that private statute, shall not apply it by trickery and
deceit, to persons who are not noticed by the statute as persons regulated and taxed, nor should
it permit any party to do so in violation of a person's right to stay out of compelled
license/contract, when he is not a person subject to the statute, unless clearly within its
words." State v. Ebershart, 179 P 853, 246 P 2d 1011.

The ultimate “oxymoron” is the use of “Penal Codes” to criminalize the assertion of the Rights, such as the
RIGHT to Remain Silent, Guaranteed under the Constitution of the United States of America and those of the
States and Commonwealths to protect people from being compelled to providing assistance to find and collect
information which can and will be used and misused against one in some future court proceeding. Yet with the
assistance of computers today all one needs is the smallest bit of personal information to find that which would
and could be used or misused against one. The clear intent is not safety but unquestioned obedience to a Master!
Perhaps one could use the Motor Vehicle Code to compel people to randomly open the doors of their houses
to inspections by Police? How about requiring “Passwords” or “Bank Accounts”? Why then would we need
Warrants or any other instrument which might impede government agents from randomly invading the lives and
privacy of anyone? Currently, if you have not “mowed your Lawn” in a “Timely manner” or “Taken in your
Trash Cans” one can face Suspension of their “Driving Privileges”, fines and even imprisonment in many
States which use “Penal” Motor Vehicle Codes in their Administrative “Traffic” Courts to exercise that Power!
Additionally one could be jailed for the heinous “crime” of “not using a turn signal” on a vacant road!

Actually resent (2018) Federal Court Cases have reestablished the fact that one does not, ever, lose their
Constitutionally Protected Rights, no matter what the the condition or environment one may find themselves
in! Or to be even more specific, The expectation of “privacy”, and ALL Constitutional Protections, is to be
recognized even within the space of the Automobile as must all RIGHTS! Over turning all other assertions to
the contrary!

“The intent of the legislators constitutes the law.”

Steward v Kahn, 11 Wall, 78 U.S. 493, 504
Today we assume that a "traveler" is a "driver," and a "driver" is an "operator." However, this is not the case.

"It will be observed from the language of the ordinance that a distinction is to be drawn between
the terms 'operator' and 'driver'; the 'operator' of the service car being the person who is
licensed to have the car on the streets in the business of carrying passengers for hire; while the
'driver' is the one who actually drives the car. However, in the actual prosecution of business, it
was possible for the same person to be both 'operator' and 'driver.'"
Newbill vs. Union Indemnity Co., 60 SE.2d 658.
To further clarify the definition of an "operator" the court observed that this was a vehicle "for hire" and that it
was in the business of carrying passengers.

Page 15 of 20
 TRAFFIC

Having defined the terms "automobile," "motor vehicle," "traveler," "driver," and "operator," the next term
to define is "traffic":
"...Traffic thereon is to some extent destructive, therefore, the prevention of unnecessary
duplication of auto transportation service will lengthen the life of the highways or reduce the cost
of maintenance, the revenue derived by the state...will also tend toward the public welfare by
producing at the expense of those operating for private gain, some small part of the cost of
repairing the wear..." Northern Pacific R.R. Co. vs. Schoenfeldt, 213 P. 26.
Note: In the above, Justice Tolman expounded upon the key of raising revenue by taxing the "privilege" to use
the public roads "at the expense of those operating for gain."
In this case, the word "traffic" is used in conjunction with the unnecessary Auto Transportation Service, or in
other words, "vehicles for hire." The word "traffic" is another word which is to be strictly construed to the
conducting of business.
"Traffic: Commerce, trade, sale or exchange of merchandise, bills, money, or the like. The
passing of goods and commodities from one person to another for an equivalent in goods or
money..."; Bovier's Law Dictionary, 1914 ed., p. 3307.
Here again, notice that this definition refers to one "conducting business." No mention is made of one who is
traveling in his automobile. This definition is of one who is engaged in the passing of a commodity or goods in
exchange for money, i.e.., vehicles for hire.
Furthermore, the word "traffic" and "travel" must have different meanings which the courts recognize. The
difference is recognized in Ex Parte Dickey, supra:
"..in addition to this, cabs, hackney coaches, omnibuses, taxicabs, and hacks, when unnecessarily
numerous, interfere with the ordinary traffic and travel and obstruct them."
The court, by using both terms, signified its recognition of a distinction between the two. But, what was the
distinction? We have already defined both terms, but to clear up any doubt:
"The word 'traffic' is manifestly used here in secondary sense, and has reference to the
business of transportation rather than to its primary meaning of interchange of commodities."
Allen vs. City of Bellingham, 163 P. 18.
Here the Supreme Court has defined the word "traffic" (in either its primary or secondary sense) in reference to
business, and not to mere travel! So it is clear that the term "traffic" is business related and therefore, it is a
"privilege." The net result being that "traffic" is brought under the (police) power of the legislature. The term
has no application to one who is not using the roads as a place of business.
LICENSE
It seems only proper to define the word "license," as the definition of this word will be extremely important in
understanding the statutes as they are properly applied:
"a permit, granted by an appropriate governmental body, generally for consideration, to a person,
firm, or corporation, to pursue some occupation or to carry on some business which is subject
to regulation under the police power." [emphasis added] Rosenblatt vs. California State Board
of Pharmacy, 158 P.2d 199, 203.

Page 16 of 20
 POLICE POWER
The confusion of the police power with the power of taxation usually arises in cases where the police power has
affixed a penalty to a certain act, or where it requires licenses to be obtained and a certain sum be paid for
certain occupations. The power used in the instant case cannot, however, be the power of taxation since an
attempt to levy a tax upon a Right would be open to Constitutional objection. (See "taxing power,")
It is asserted that by definition, probable cause can only exist in relation to criminal conduct. It follows that
civil disputes cannot give rise to probable cause.
Illinois v Gates, 462 US 213 (1983) (test for police officer's sufficient basis for probable
cause -- did the officer have a sufficient basis to make a "practical, common sense" decision that
a "fair probability of crime existed," -- once the officer's actions fail to satisfy this test, it may
appear that no reasonable objective officer could have believed that probable cause existed
to make an arrest);
Allen v City of Portland, 73 F.3d 232 (9th Cir. 1995), the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (citing
cases from the US Supreme Court, Fifth, Seventh. Eighth and Ninth Circuits) held that "by
definition, probable cause can only exist in relation to criminal conduct; civil disputes
cannot give rise to probable cause;
Paff v Kaltenbach, 204 F. 3d 425, 435 (3rd Cir. 2000) (Fourth Amendment prohibits law enforcement
officers from arresting citizens without probable cause (citations omitted);
New Jersey District Court cases and other nearby district courts, Santiago v City of Vineland, 107 F,Supp. 2d
512, 562-62, 564 (D.N.J. 2000);
Hill v Algor, 85 F.Supp.2d 391, 397-98 (D.N.J. 2000) (arrest made without probable cause violates the
Fourth Amendment);
Rzayeva v Foster, 134 F.Supp. 2d 239, 248-49 (D.Conn. 2001) (holding involuntary civil
confinement is a "massive curtailment of liberty", is tantamount to the infringement of being
arrested and can be made only upon probable cause, citing Citek v Jones, 455 US 480, 491, 100
S.Ct. 1254, 63 L.Ed.2d 552 (1980); Schneider v Simonini, 749 A.2d 336, 163 NJ 336, 361-65
(2000) (detailed explanation of probable cause in New Jersey).
In Schneider, the New Jersey Supreme Court set the standard for probable cause. It shows us that
probable cause to arrest;
"requires a showing that both a crime has been, or is being committed, and that the person
sought to be arrested committed the offense". Schneider, 163 NJ at 363.
It was further held that a probable cause determination could not be made if a warrant had a
"supporting affidavit, as supplemented by sworn testimony before the issuing judge that is
recorded contemporaneously". Id. At 363.
In order to satisfy the requirements of the Fourth Amendment, an arrest must be supported by probable cause to
believe that a crime has been committed. Probable cause can only exist in relation to criminal conduct. It
follows that civil disputes/civil matters cannot give rise to probable cause. Over thirty years ago, the United
States Supreme Court warned of the danger and the threat to liberty if the requirement of probable cause is not
strictly abided by:
"The history of the use, and not infrequent abuse of the power to arrest cautions that a
relaxation of the fundamental requirements of probable cause would "leave law-biding citizens

Page 17 of 20
 at the mercy of the officers' whim or caprice' " Wong Sun v United States, 371 US 471, 476 9
L. Ed 2d 441, 83 S.Ct 407 (1963).
"The automobile is not inherently dangerous." Cohens vs. Meadow, 89 SE 876; Blair vs.
Broadmore, 93 SE 532.
"Traffic infractions are not a crime." People v. Battle, 50 Cal. App. 3, step 1, Super, 123 Cal.
Rptr. 636, 639.
"The police power of the state must be exercised in subordination to the provisions of the
U.S. Constitution." [emphasis added] Panhandle Eastern Pipeline Co. vs. State Highway
Commission, 294 US 613; Bacahanan vs. Wanley, 245 US 60.
"It is well settled that the Constitutional Rights protected from invasion by the police power,
include Rights safeguarded both by express and implied prohibitions in the Constitutions."
Tiche vs. Osborne, 131 A. 60.
"As a rule, fundamental limitations of regulations under the police power are found in the
spirit of the Constitutions, not in the letter, although they are just as efficient as if expressed
in the clearest language." Mehlos vs. Milwaukee, 146 NW 882.
"The right to travel is part of the Liberty of which a citizen cannot deprived without due
process of law under the Fifth Amendment. This Right was emerging as early as the Magna
Carta." Kent vs. Dulles, 357 US 116
"Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or
legislation which would abrogate them." Miranda vs. Arizona, 384 US 436, 491.
"Moreover, a distinction must be observed between the regulation of an activity which may
be engaged in as a matter of right and one carried on by government sufferance of
permission." Davis vs. Massachusetts, 167 US 43; Pachard vs. Banton, supra.
"Courts enforcing mere statutes do not act judicially merely ministerial, having thus no
judicial immunity, and unlike courts of law do not obtain jurisdiction by service of process
nor even arrest and compelled appearance." Boswell v. Otis, 9 Howard 336, 348.
“Service of a traffic ticket imposes no compulsion on him, and no penalty attached for
failure to heed it... Purpose of traffic ticket is to secure the motorist's voluntary appearance.”
Colville v. Bennett, 293 NYS 2d 685. The common threat of warrant is coercive invalidating
any semblance of “voluntary compliance”!
New Jersey statute, N.J.S.A. 40A:14-152, (as well as similar statutes around the country) expressly forbids
police officers from arresting people in civil causes:
"...police officers shall have the power to serve and execute process issuing out of the courts
having local criminal jurisdiction in the municipality and shall have the powers of a constable
in all matters other than in civil causes arising in such courts".
State, county and/or municipal law enforcement officers are only empowered to act for the arrest, detection,
investigation, conviction, detention or rehabilitation of persons violating the criminal laws of the State. Pursuant
to N.J.S.A. 40A:14-152.2 states:
"As used in this section, "law enforcement officer" means any person who is employed as a
permanent full-time member of any State, county or municipal law enforcement agency,

Page 18 of 20
 department, or division of those governments who is statutorily empowered to act for the
detection, investigation, arrest, conviction, detention, or rehabilitation of persons violating the
criminal laws of this State and statutorily required to successfully complete a training course
approved by, or certified as being substantially equivalent to such an approved course, by the
Police Training Commission pursuant to P.L.1961, c. 56 (C.52:17B-66 et seq.).
"Law enforcement agency" means any public agency, other than the Department of Law and
Public Safety, any police force, department or division within the State of New Jersey, or any
county or municipality thereof, which is empowered by statute to act for the detection,
investigation, arrest, conviction, detention, or rehabilitation of persons violating the criminal
laws of this State." [Bold-face and underline added]
The law is clear. Arresting someone in a civil matter is unconstitutional and unlawful, notwithstanding a
fraudulent "Order for arrest warrant" issued by purported Administrative Officers, aka JMC, allegedly
acting as Judges.
If a person is arrested on less than probable cause, the United States Supreme Court has long recognized that the
aggrieved party has a cause of action under 42 U.S.C. §1983 for violation of Fourth Amendment rights.
Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547, 87 S.Ct. 1213 (1967). Law Enforcement officers cannot claim "objective
reasonableness" in these actions. The law is clearly established regarding arresting and imprisoning a person in
a civil debt matter where there is no probable cause:
"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.
“A court lacking jurisdiction cannot render judgment but must dismiss the cause at any stage
of the proceedings in which it becomes apparent that jurisdiction is lacking.” Bradbury v.
Dennis, 310 F.2d 73 (10th Cir. 1962)
When it clearly appears that the court lacks jurisdiction, the court has no authority to reach the
merits. In such a situation the action should be dismissed for want of jurisdiction.” Melo v.
United States, 505 F. 2d 1026
Court must prove on the record, all jurisdiction facts related to the jurisdiction asserted.
Latana v. Hopper, 102 F. 2d 188; Chicago v. New York, 37 F Supp. 150
No officer can acquire jurisdiction by deciding he has it. The officer, whether judicial or
ministerial, decides at his own peril." Middleton v. Low, 30 C. 596, citing Prosser v. Secor, 5
Barb.(N.Y) 607, 608
A court has no jurisdiction to determine its own jurisdiction, for a basic issue in any case
before a tribunal is its power to act, and a court must (first) have the authority to decide that
question in the first instance." Rescue Army v. Municipal Court of Los Angeles, 171 P2d 8; 331
US 549, 91 L. ed. 1666, 67 S.Ct. 1409 [parenthesis added for clarity]
"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,

Page 19 of 20
 aspect, court, etc. can concern itself with anything other than corporate, artificial persons and the
contracts between them." S.C.R. 1795, Penhallow v. Doane’s Administrators 3 U.S. 54; 1 L.Ed.
57; 3 Dall. 54; i.e. Absent the contract establishing a “Nexus” also absent is jurisdiction!
"waivers of Constitutional Rights, not only must they be voluntary, they must be knowingly
intelligent acts done with sufficient awareness." Brady v. U.S., 397 U.S. 742, 748, (1970)
A long standing, well established fact of LAW is;
"The Constitution of these United States is the supreme law of the land. Any law that is
repugnant to the Constitution is null and void of law." Marbury v. Madison, 5 US 137,(1803)
“A state, like a merchant, makes a contract. A dishonest state, like a dishonest merchant,
willfully refuses to discharge it.” Chrisholm v Georgia, 2 Dal. 419 at p456
“Decency, security, and liberty alike demand that Government officials shall be subjected to
the same rules of conduct that are the commands to the citizen. In a Government of laws,
existence of the Government will be imperiled if it fails to observe the law scrupulously.
Our Government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher.
For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the
Government becomes a law-breaker, it breads contempt for the law; it invites every man to
be a law unto himself. It invites anarchy. To declare that, in the admission of the law, the end
justifies the means would bring a terrible retribution. Against that pernicious doctrine, the
court should resolutely set its face.” Olmstead v. U.S. 277 US 438, 48 S. Ct. 564, 575; 72 L Ed
944
This begs the question that if the State of New Jersey which the Governor has openly claimed to be a
“Sanctuary State” in its objective to be a “law breaker” of the laws of our nation why then should anyone else
be subject to obey the State of New Jersey?
Still EVIDENT!
“A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An
enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves
amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of
government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he
wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He
rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he
infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to fear.” - Marcus Tullius Cicero

“If you don’t know the words you can’t ask the questions.
If you can’t ask the questions you will never find the answers!”
“To none will we sell, to none deny or delay, right or justice.” Magna Carta +40.

Page 20 of 20