500 Years No Justice – Cease & Desist Brutality
It is now time to end these illegal and unlawful municipal police murders.
The Donation is getting the word out about this site…information on this site is very important for people to know.
First, there are a few facts that must be made known to the masses, and this page will expose those facts for you to research and verify…
Fact #1….“Remember also that ‘Ignorance of the law is no excuse”, It’s your responsibility and obligation to learn the law and know how it applies to you.
NOTE*** ….Police operate under “color of law”
Fact #2….Under federal law, Title 18 United States Code 242, it is illegal for anyone under the “color of law” to deprive any person of the rights (Unalienable & Human Rights), privileges or immunities secured by the U.S. Constitution, and under Title 18 United States Code 241, it is illegal to conspire to violate such rights. It is a felony punishable by up to 10 years in prison. This could be applied to local, state, or federal law enforcement or military personnel who abuse the rights of citizens. Every state has a similar law.
Title 18 United States Code § 242 – Deprivation of rights under color of law
Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.
Title 18 United States Code § 241 – Conspiracy against rights
NOTE***….the municipal federal government appears to have amnesia of their own laws, and fail to prosecute these “color of law” crimes.
DONATE….WE SHALL PROSECUTE….Restoration of the Mosaic Laws of God will be enforced.
Fact #3….Negros/Afro Descendants of the “de jure” Republic of these united States of America, according to the Highest legitimate court of the original Constitutional national government, the Supreme Court of the United States of America, in a verdict, handed down by Chief Justice Roger B. Taney, (Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857), stated that Negros/Afro Descendants free or enslaved can not be citizens of the states or federal government.
This made Negros/Afro Descendants non-citizen Nationals of these United states of America; therefore, non-citizen Nationals of these United states of America are exempt from state and federal taxes (including citizenship laws…they are non-Citizen).
While all U.S. citizens are U.S. nationals, not every U.S.A./U.S. national is a U.S. citizen.
Rights and Restrictions
U.S.A./U.S. Nationals cannot vote in any election or hold elected office
Allowed to work and reside anywhere in the U.S.A./U.S. without restrictions.
Eligible to apply for U.S.A. (no such thing as a U.S. passport) passport just like U.S. citizens, except non-Citizen U.S.A passport will have endorsement stating that passport holder is NOT a citizen of U.S.A./U.S.
EXAMPLE:…Non CITIZENSHIP of the North Carolina State Republic are “de jure” State Citizens and “de jure” non-Citizen Nationals of the united States of America (Afro-Descendants/Negros, Article 4, Article of Confederation Inhabitants) and defined in Title 8 United States Code 1101(a)(21), NON-CITIZEN NATIONAL of these United States of America …
The term “national” of the united States of America/United States is defined in section 101(a)(22) of the INA, and explained in detail in section 308 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA).”
“non Citizen nationals”, or “state nationals”, or “non Citizen nationals of the United States*** of America” under Title 8 United States Code §1101(a)(21)… if you were born in and are domiciled in a “de jure” state of the Union… NOT THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.
(a)(21) The term “national” means a person owing permanent allegiance to a “de jure” state.”….NOT THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.
The Negro/Afro Descendants non-citizen Nationals were elevated to the state of “king” sovereignty just like State Citizens of the Republic.
Negros/Afro Descendants non-citizen Nationals of these United states of America were freed from “plantation slavery” during the American Civil War 1861-1865.
However, freedom from slavery was short lived; due to a counterfeit 14th/15th Amendments of a counterfeit constitution, of a foreign control private corporate municipal federal government, “aka” United States; putting Negro/Afro Descendants “from cradle to grave” , into corporate debt/labor “perpetual chattel property slavery”, as “Human Resource” assets for the municipal corporate government of the “de facto” United States.
“The law subscribes to the king (in America, the people) the attribute of sovereignty; he is sovereign and independent within his own Dominion; and owes no kind of subjection to any other potentate upon earth. Hence, it is, that no suit or action can be brought against the king, even in civil matters, because no court can have jurisdiction over him; for all jurisdiction implies supremacy of power”.(Chisholm vs. Georgia, 2 Dall. 419,458.)
“The people, or the Sovereign are not bound by general words in statutes, restrictive of prerogative rights, titles or interests, unless expressly named. Acts of limitation do not bind at the King, nor the people. The people have been ceded all the rights of the king, the former Sovereign. It is a maxim of the common-law that when an act of parliament is made for the public good, the advancement of religion and Justice, and to prevent injury and wrong, the king shall be bound by such an act, though not named; but when a statute is General, and any prerogative rights, titles or interests would be divested or taken from the king (or the people) in such case he shall not be bound”. The People vs. Herkimer, 15 American Decisions 379, 4 Cowen (NY 345, 348 (1825)).
The Civil War bankrupted the Nation of the United States of America, Congress sought loans from International Bankers to rebuild the Nation, but was denied; for the National Government owned no collateral land or assets, except for forts, and military installations ceded to them by some state governments. Land was own by individuals and natives of the continent. There was no lawful gold and silver as the constitution required for wages/debts/commerce. Public Officials and Congress could not get paid.
On February 23, 1871, Traitors of the 41st Congress (Section 34, Session III, chapters 61 and 62), using 1787 Constitution Article I, Section 8, and the Residence Act of 1790, and also, the District of Columbia Organic Act of 1871, which established a new territorial government for the whole District of Columbia (Restricted to 10 square miles of the District of Columbia…not Authority over the Republic States of the Union, as the people have been mislead).
These Legislative Acts authorized and restricted the Federal Government, authority, power and physical presents to the District of Columbia…and not beyond the District, to the States.
Elected Public officials and Congress “covertly” abandoned the Peoples “de jure” State Republics and original Constitutional National Government, and created a “de facto” foreign owned and control municipal government , not telling the people that their Republic form of government has been altered.
This “covert” move made Congress, Board of Directors, and the President, Chief Executive Officer (CEO/Dictator); of the International Bankers foreign owned corporate municipal federal government for the District of Columbia; “aka” United States.
In a Congressional “coup et tat”, February 23, 1871, hidden in this creation of federal government for the District of Columbia, is a foreign private corporate municipal federal government restricted to District of Columbia; a “private” foreign corporation named United States, that created its counterfeit Constitution (Constitution of the United states, instead the original Constitution for the United States of America), and counterfeit version of American flag, now with gold military fringes); this private corporation the United States created a network ABC corporations (FBI, CIA, DEA, DMV, IRS, TSA, etc,) and “foreign” private corporations (Federal Reserve, Internal Revenue Service, IRS; the IRS is a foreign private corporation of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and is the private “army” of the Federal Reserve (Fed), to steal the wealth, labor, life and property of the people and inhabitants of North America.
The Internal Revenue Service is considered to be a Bureau of the Department of the Treasury; however, like the Federal Reserve, it is not part of the Federal Government (see Diversified Metal Products v. IRS et al. CV-93-405E-EJE U.S.D.C.D.I.; Public Law 94-564; Senate Report 94-1148, pg. 5967; Reorganization Plan No. 26; Public Law 102-391), and in fact was incorporated in Delaware in 1933.
The United States is a District of Columbia corporation. In Volume 20: Corpus Juris Sec. § 1785 we find “The United States government is a foreign corporation with respect to a State” (see: NY re: Merriam 36 N.E. 505 1441 S. 0.1973, 14 L. Ed. 287). Since a corporation is a fictitious “person” (it cannot speak, see, touch, smell, etc.), it cannot, by itself, function in the real world. It needs a conduit, a transmitting utility (Strawman=Nom de guerre), a liaison of some sort, to “connect” the fictional person, & fictional world in which it exists, to the real world. (US Supreme Court)
Police Brutality Crimes – (Conspiracy against rights – Deprivation of rights under color of law)
Crimes that are committed against Unalienable & Human Rights Holders by constitutional oath takers operating under “color of law”; depriving Rights and violating United States Codes, Constitution and Supreme Court rulings, as they commit assaults and murder; as revenue agents, pirates, terrorist, traitors and mercenaries for “de facto” municipal governments, while pretending of being “lawful” officers of law enforcement.
These videos show THEY (Law Enforcement) ARE OUT OF CONTROL; and are traitors, pirates, terrorist, mercenaries to be feared… and many will be scared, run, and fight as self defense for sexual assault, violations of unalienable & Human Rights, under bogus “color of crime” laws.
Notice…most of their victims are unarmed…but are confront with massive terrorist force.
“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). (U.S. DOMESTIC LAW)
Colander v. Lawson (461 U.S. 352, 1983) in which the United States Supreme Court ruled that a police officer could not arrest a citizen merely for refusing to present identification. (U.S. DOMESTIC LAW)
“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.” 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. (U.S. DOMESTIC LAW)
“The police power of the state must be exercised in subordination to the provisions of the U.S. Constitution.” Bacahanan vs. Wanley, 245 US 60; Panhandle Eastern Pipeline Co. vs. State Highway Commission, 294 US 613 (U.S. DOMESTIC LAW)
“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 (U.S. DOMESTIC LAW)
“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 (U.S. DOMESTIC LAW)
“The claim and exercise of a constitutional Right cannot be converted into a crime.” Miller vs. U.S., 230 F. 486, 489 (U.S. DOMESTIC LAW)
“There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of this exercise of constitutional Rights.” Snerer vs. Cullen, 481 F. 946 (U.S. DOMESTIC LAW)
No state shall convert a liberty into a privilege, license it, and attach a fee to it.” Murdock v. Penn., 319 US 105 (U.S. DOMESTIC LAW)
“If the state converts a liberty into a privilege, the citizen can engage in the right with impunity.” Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham, 373 US 262 (U.S. DOMESTIC LAW)
“Traffic infractions are not a crime.” People v. Battle, 50 Cal. App. 3,step 1, 123 Cal.Rptr. 636,639. (U.S. DOMESTIC LAW)
“Speeding, driving without a license, wrong plates or no plates, no registration, no tags, etc., have been held to be “non-arrestable offenses” Cal V. Farley, 98 Cal. Rep. 89, 20 CA 3d 1032. (U.S. DOMESTIC LAW)
THESE ARE THE LAWS ON THE BOOKS THAT POLICE ROUTINELY IGNORE…AND COMMENCE CRIMES UNDER “COLOR OF LAW” AGAINST PEOPLE THAT ARE LAWFUL OUTSIDE THEIR JURISDICTION…….REMEMBER THE SUPREME COURT OF THE “DE JURE” UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, DECLARED THAT AFRO DESCENDANTS/NEGROS, FREE OR ENSLAVED, CAN NOT BE CITIZEN OF THE STATES OF FEDERAL GOVERNMENTS; THEREFORE, OUTSIDE THE JURISDICTION OF THESE LAWS MEANT FOR CITIZENS OF THE STATES OR FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.
A REAL LEGITIMATE CRIME IS A THAT INVOLVES A VICTIM OF FLESH AND BLOOD.
“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.” (Thompson v. Smith, 154 SE 579, 11 American Jurisprudence, Constitutional Law, section 329, page 1135) (U.S. DOMESTIC LAW)
“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 (U.S. DOMESTIC LAW)
“… 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) (U.S. DOMESTIC LAW)
“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 (U.S. DOMESTIC LAW)
“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). (U.S. DOMESTIC LAW)
“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). (U.S. DOMESTIC LAW)
“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. (U.S. DOMESTIC LAW)
“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.
(U.S. DOMESTIC LAW)
“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) (U.S. DOMESTIC LAW)
“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. (U.S. DOMESTIC LAW)
“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.
(U.S. DOMESTIC LAW)
“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. DOMESTIC LAW)
“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 (U.S. DOMESTIC LAW)
“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 (U.S. DOMESTIC LAW)
“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 (U.S. DOMESTIC LAW)
Motor Vehicle: Title 18 United States Code 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. (U.S. DOMESTIC LAW)
“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 (U.S. DOMESTIC LAW)
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 (U.S. DOMESTIC LAW)
“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 (U.S. DOMESTIC LAW)
“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). (U.S. DOMESTIC LAW)
“…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 (U.S. DOMESTIC LAW)
“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 (U.S. DOMESTIC LAW)
“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 (U.S. DOMESTIC LAW)
“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. (U.S. DOMESTIC LAW)
“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. (U.S. DOMESTIC LAW)
“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 (U.S. DOMESTIC LAW)
“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. (U.S. DOMESTIC LAW)
“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. (U.S. DOMESTIC LAW)
“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. (U.S. DOMESTIC LAW)
“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. (U.S. DOMESTIC LAW)
“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). (U.S. DOMESTIC LAW)
“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. (U.S. DOMESTIC LAW)
“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). (U.S. DOMESTIC LAW)
“[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). (U.S. DOMESTIC LAW)
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. (U.S. DOMESTIC LAW)
“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. (U.S. DOMESTIC LAW)
“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 Law Journal 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 (U.S. DOMESTIC LAW)
“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. (U.S. DOMESTIC LAW)
“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. DOMESTIC LAW)
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.” (U.S. DOMESTIC LAW)