"Study, Study, Study, and when you have studied well and would ask me what to study next, I would reply, -- Study yourselves " -- Noble Drew Ali
  • Right to Travel vs Driving


Horizontal Divider 12
Judicial Right to Travel - Mansur
Horizontal Divider 12


It is NOT the duty of the police to protect you.  Their job is to protect THE CORPORATION and arrest
code breakers.
(SAPP vs. Tallahassee, 348 So. 2nd. 363, Reiff vs. City of Phila. 477 F. 1262, Lynch vs. NC Dept. of Justice 376 S.E. 2nd. 247)

Horizontal Divider 12
United States Supreme Court Decisions - Stare Decisis
Horizontal Divider 12

As the Moors of Northwest Amexem - North America - North Gate begin to awaken and gain consciousness of who they really are. We Moors have taken a stand to regain our Unalienable Birthright and Nationality which has been 
fraudulently hidden from us. The below referenced case law against the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA CORPORATION and its various enclaves are being published to make aware to the Nations of the Earth our efforts to regain the Inheritance left to us by our ForeMothers and ForeFathers.


Horizontal Divider 12

United States Supreme Court Decisions - Stare Decisis:
(Original Jurisdiction – Article III: Rights of Travel / Substantive Rights)

 The Right to Travel; The Right to Mode of Conveyance; The Right to Locomotion are all absolute rights, and the Police can not make void the exercise of rights.  State v. Armstead, 60 s. 778, 779, and 781:

The right to Park or Travel is part of the Liberty of which the Natural Person, citizen cannot be deprived without “due process of law” under the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution. Kent v. Dulles 357 US 116, 125:

The State is prohibited from violating substantive rights. Owens v. City, 445 US 662 (1980); and it can not do by one power (eg. Police power) that which is, for example, prohibited expressly to any other such power (eg. Taxation / Eminent Domain) as a matter of law. US and UT v. Daniels, 22 p 159, nor indirectly that which is prohibited to it directly. Fairbanks v. US 181, US 283, 294, 300: 

Traveling in an automobile on the public roads was not a threat to the public safety or health and constituted no hazard to the public, and such a traveler owed nothing more than “due care” (as regards to tort for negligence) to the public and the owner owed no other duty to the public (eg. State), he / she and his / her auto, having equal rights to and on the roadways / highways as horses and wagons, etc.; this same right is still substantive rule, in that speeding, running stop signs, traveling without license plates, or registration are not threats to the public safety, and thus, are not arrestable offenses.  Christy v. Elliot, 216 I 131, 74 HE 1035, LRA NS 1905 – 1910: California v. Farley 98 CED Rpt. 89, 20 CA 3d 1032 (1971).

 “The Supreme Court has recognized that personal liberty includes ‘the right of locomotion’, the 
right to remove from one place to another according to inclination.
” Bauer v. Acheson, 106 F.
Supp. 445, 450 (1952)

 
 “The right to personal liberty is one of the most sacred and valuable rights of the People, and 
should not be regarded lightly.”
 State v. Zolantakis, 259 P. 1044, 1046, 70 Utah 296
 
 “A right which is free and open to all is not the subject of a license or tax.”
Chicago v Collins, 51 NE 907; Freeburg v Dawson 274 F 240.

 
 “No state shall convert a liberty into a privilege, license it, and attach a fee to it.”Murdock 
v. Penn., 319 US 105

 
 “If the state converts a liberty into a privilege, the citizen can engage in the right with 
impunity.”
 Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham, 373 US 262
 
 “The People must be free to travel throughout the United States uninhibited by statutes, rules or 
regulation.”
 Shapiro v. Thompson, 398 US 618, 89 S. Ct. 1322
 
 “This court has held that there is no such license known to Texas Law as a driver’s license.” 
Frank John Callas v. State, 167 Tex.Crim. 375; 320 S.W.2d 360.

 
 “We have held that there is no such license as a driver’s license known to our law.” 
Claude D.Campbell v. State, 160 Tex.Crim. 627, 274 S.W.2d 401.
 
 “There being no such license as a driver’s license known to the law, it follows that the
information, in charging the driving of a motor vehicle upon a highway without such a license, 
charges no offense.”
 W. Lee Hassell v. The State, 149 Tex.Crim. 333; 194 S.W.2d 400.

 You are not required to show identification unless there is an investigation and you 
are part of it.

 in which the United States Supreme Court ruled that a police officer could not arrest a citizen 
merely for refusing to present identification.”
 Kolender v. Lawson (461 U.S. 352, 1983)
 
 If you use your automobile for personal reasons and not for wages or salary, it is 
not considered a motor vehicle; it is considered a privately owned vehicle (P.O.V.)
.
“A carriage is peculiarly a family or household article. It contributes in a large degree to the 
health, convenience, comfort, and welfare of the householder or of the family.”
 
Arthur v. Morgan, 113 U.S. 495, 500, 5 S.Ct. 241, 243 S.D. NY 1884.

 
 “…..the exemptions provided for in section 1 of the Motor Vehicle Transportation License Act of 
1925 (Stats. 1925, p. 833) in favor of those who solely transport their own property or employees, 
or both, and of those who transport no persons or property for hire or compensation, by motor 
vehicle, have been determined in the Bacon Service Corporation case to be lawful exemptions.”
 
In re Schmolke (1926) 199 Cal. 42, 46
.
 
 The term ‘Motor Vehicle’ as defined by the United States Code Title 18, Part 1, 
Chapter 2, Section 31 (a)(6)(10) states the following:(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 in the 
transportation of passengers, passengers and property, or property or cargo.(10) Used 
for commercial purposes – 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.

 
 Here are some definitions from a Black’s Law Dictionary 4th Edition concerning the driver’s 
license and the misconceptions that many people have.

 
 DRIVER – One employed in conducting or operating a coach, carriage, wagon, or other 
vehicle, with horses, mules, or other animals, or a bicycle, tricycle, or motor car, 
though not a street railroad car. (page 585)

 
 TRAVELER – One who passes from place to place, whether for pleasure, instruction, 
business or health. (page 1671)

 
 PASSENGER – A person whom a common carrier has contracted to carry from one place to 
another, and has, in the course of the performance of that contract, received under his 
care either upon the means of conveyance, or at the point of departure of that means of 
conveyance. (page 1280)

 
 GUEST – A “guest” in an automobile is one who takes ride in automobile driven by 
another person, merely for his own pleasure or on his own business, and without making 
any return or conferring any benefit on automobile driver. (page 835)

NOTE:
 You are considered a traveler and a person riding along is considered a guest while
you are driving your privately owned vehicle (P.O.V.). Here are some additional 
misconceptions concerning your P.O.V.

 
 “A policy of insurance is a maritime contract, and therefore of Admiralty Jurisdiction.” 
De Lovio v. Bolt, 7 Fed. Cases Number 3, 776.

 
 “A state cannot impose restrictions on the acceptance of a license that will deprive the licensee 
of his constitutional rights.”

Ruckenbrod v. Mullins, 102 Utah 548, 133 P.2d. 325, 144 ALR 839.

 
 “Traffic infractions are not a crime.” 
People v. Battle, 50 Cal. App. 3, step 1, Super, 123 Cal.Rptr. 636, 639
.
 
 “A court cannot acquire jurisdiction to try a person for an act made criminal only by an 
unconstitutional law, and thus, an offense created by an unconstitutional statute, is no longer a 
crime and a conviction under such statute cannot be a legal cause for imprisonment.”
 
State v. Benzel, 583 N.W.2d 434, 220 Wis.2d 588 (1998).
 
 “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)
 
 “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, 227 Ill. 200, 169 N.E. 22.

 
 “This right of the people in the [use of] streets and highways of the State, whether inside or 
outside the municipalities thereof, is a paramount right.”
 
Peoples Gas, Light & Coke Co. v. City of Chicago, 109 N.E.2d 777, 781; 413 Ill. 457 (1952).
 
 “Public ways, as applied to ways by land, are usually termed “highways” or “public roads,” and 
are such ways as every human being has a right to use.
 Kripp v. Curtis, 11 P. 879; 71 Cal. 62.
 
 
 Probable cause - Reasonable cause. (State v. Baltes, 183 Wis. 545, 198 N.W. 282, 284.
Having more evidence for than against. (
Ex parte Souza, 65 Cal.App. 9, 222 P. 869, 870.) A 
reasonable ground for belief in the existence of facts warranting the proceedings complained of. 
(
Owens v. Graetzel, 149 Md. 689, 132 A. 265, 267.) An apparent state of facts found to exist 
upon reasonable inquiry, (that is, such inquiry as the given case renders convenient and proper,) 
which would induce a reasonably intelligent and prudent man to believe, in a criminal case, that the 
accused person has committed the crime charged, or, in a civil case, that a cause of action existed. 
(
Brand v. Hinchman, 68 Mich. 590, 36 N.W. 664, 13 Am. St.Rep. 362; Cook v. Singer Sewing 
Mach. Co., 138 Cal.App. 418, 32 P.2d 430, 431.
Black’s Law Dictionary 4th Edition page 
1365.

 
 As you can see; that person is conducting an investigation, it has been already settled in Federal 
Court 
(Federal Court decisions and federal laws trump state ordinances, rules, regulations, etc.) that traffic infractions are NOT crimes. In order for there to be an investigation, there has to be a crime.
 
 After a crime is committed, there has to be 3 things; (1) a complaint, (2) a sworn 
affidavit with the complaint, and (3) an injured party that filed the complaint and 
affidavit. If you know that you were speeding or you ran a red light, or whatever, the
 person conducting the investigation will not have a complaint, an affidavit, or an 
injured party for what you did.

 
 The word “officer,” as used in state statutes or constitutions, is sometimes held to refer only
to elected officers; 
(Cunningham v. Rockwood, 222 Mass. 574, 111 N.E. 409, 411, Ann.Cas.1917C, 1100); 
and sometimes to both appointive and elective officers; 
(State v. Campbell, 94 Ohio St. 403, 115 N.E. 29, 31.
Black's Law Dictionary 4th Edition page 1235.

 
 Sheriffs are elected, city cops and state police are NOT elected. Do you see? Someone 
is committing fraud.

 
 Traffic tickets are actually lawsuits against you.
 
 Traffic courts are unconstitutional.
 
 Lawyers are officers of the court and their loyalty is with the B.A.R. Association (British 
Acredit Registry
), NOT with you. While you're broke and have to work overtime to pay them, these 
lawyers are in the bar drinking up your money, playing golf, and taking little Jenny to the Bahamas.

 
(The U.S. is not a nation, it is a corporation.)

If you see the star spangled banner in the courtroom and it has gold fringes around it, 
that is a military (flag) and this courtproceeding is a military tribunal
therefore 
every court officer should be in full military uniform and they must show that they are 
active duty military when asked
The gold fringes also mean admiralty laws.

Horizontal Divider 12


AFFIDAVITS vs. MOTIONS

When filing 
documents in the Courts, be sure that all instruments filed are 'AFFIDAVITS' (or Writs), NOT MOTIONS. Reason being, Motions are privileges given by said Courts; they are based on privilege. It is not an exercise of Rights. When it comes to Unalienable Rights and matters of the Light Form, it does not involve privileges; it involves Rights-Secure! Rights-Secure needs no permission from any judge. They (the Court) have no option to accept or reject an Affidavit; they only have only one option in Law, and that is to fulfill their duty to protect it.

As the Moors of Northwest Amexem - North America - North Gate begin to awaken and gain consciousness of who they really are. We Moors have taken a stand to regain our Unalienable Birthright and Nationality which has been fraudulently hidden from us. The below referenced law suits against the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA CORPORATION and its various enclaves are being published to make aware to the Nations of the Earth our efforts to regain the Inheritance left to us by our ForeMothers and ForeFathers. 


An Affidavit becomes an an integral part of the action and must be rebutted; if not rebutted it remains factual and 'stands as law'. A Motion, on the other hand, is a request and it is up to the discretion of the court ('Judge') to accept or reject such motions.

                       
Horizontal Divider 12


Website Builder