Freeman Freewoman Free Man Free Woman

Sovereign Truth (sovereign-truth.com)

https://www.sovereign-truth.com/?fb...XMrJSH36iiKVV41QJ4QE1cAt9vkCEBOLboYZY9BElU89o

 

View: https://youtu.be/ONjw3fQBvKI

 

Sovereign Citizen (book) (sovereign-truth.com)

https://www.sovereign-truth.com/sovereign-citizen

 

"Sovereign Citizen" by Mika of the Rasila Family
I've decided to make my book free to download from my website since Amazon wants government ID I won't be letting them know anything about me and since I don't have any anyway.
I will be cancelling my Amazon account today.
Check my site later today for your free PDF copy by clicking on the book cover. It should be done later today or you can just go get a copy tomorrow for sure.
I never wanted to charge for it anyway, It's bad karma to profit from the truth. The truth needs to be given freely, and what better payment can I get than showing the world how they can be rid of government tyranny for free?
If you want to donate something, I only ask that the next time you see someone on the street who is hungry, buy them a sandwich or something.
Love is all we can do anymore. I will never have a bank account again or any ID, so my life is determined by what I can provide and if that day ever comes that I can no longer support myself by helping people I will just die but as long as the book is being passed around I have hope that it will help a lot of people even after my time here is over.

DOWNLOAD YOUR FREE PDF COPY HERE!

 

SOVEREIGNTY BOOK
by MIKA OF THE FAMILY RASILA

ATTACHED
sovereigntybook.pdf

 

You have the freedom to use your car as you wish without government papers




Your RIGHT to travel
“The right to travel is part of the liberty of which a citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the 5th Amendment. This Right was emerging as early as the Magna Carta.” (1215 c.e.) Kent v Dules 357 US 116 (1958)
“Complete freedom of the highways is so old and well established a gzeroblessing that we have forgotten the days of the "Robber Barons" and toll roads,...” Robertson v. Department of Public Works, 180 Wn. 133
"The use of the highway for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege, but a common fundamental right of which the public and individuals cannot rightfully be deprived." Chicago Motor Coach v. Chicago, 169 NE 221.
"The right of a citizen to use the highways, including the streets of the city or town, for travel and to transport his goods, is an inherent right which cannot be taken from him." Florida Motor Lines v. Ward, 137 So. 163, 167; State v. Quigg, (Fla. - 1927), 114 So. 859, 862;
"Personal liberty largely consists of the Right of locomotion -- to go where and when one pleases -- only so far restrained as the Rights of others may make it necessary for the welfare of all other citizens. The Right of the 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 the common Right which he has under his Right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Under this Constitutional guarantee 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.” American Jurisprudence 1st Edition, Constitutional Law, Sect.329, p.1135.
“The Supreme Court has recognized that personal liberty includes 'the right of locomotion, the right to move from one place to another according to inclination.'" Davis v. City of Houston, (Tex. Civ. App., 1924), 264 S.W. 625, 629.
"The right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit or permit at will, but a common law right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Thompson v. Smith, 154 SE 579.
"No one may be required to obtain a license in order to speak. Thus, the State can no more license the Appellant's right to travel in his automobile than it could license his right to print or to speak, for they are all inalienable rights." Thomas v. Collins, (1944), 323 U.S. 516, 543,
"The right to operate a motor vehicle upon the public streets and highways is not a mere privilege, it is a right or 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.
"At Common Law there is no precise limit of speed. A traveler by automobile must adopt a reasonable speed." Gallagher v. Montplier, 52 ALR 744; 5 Am Jur. page 645.
“A “US citizen” upon leaving the District of Columbia becomes involved in “interstate commerce”, as a “resident” does not have the common-law right to travel, of a Citizen of one of the several States.” Hendrick v. Maryland S.C. Reporter’s Rd. 610-625. (1914)
"A license is a privilege granted by the state" and "cannot possibly exist with reference to something which is a right...to ride and drive over the streets". "If we allow the City of Chicago to require the licensing of horseless carriages, how long be the City of Chicago would want to require license to ride a horse or to walk upon the streets?“ City of Chicago v Cullens, et al, 51 N.E. 907, 910, etc. (1906)
“The better to secure and perpetuate mutual friendship and intercourse among the people of the different States in this Union, the free inhabitants of each of these States, paupers, vagabonds, and fugitives from justice excepted, shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of free citizens in the several States; and the people of each State shall have free ingress and regress to and from any other State…” Article IV of the Articles of Confederation
“(47) "Person" means any individual, partnership, corporation, joint venture or legal entity of whatever nature.” Delaware Code Title 21 § 101
“(16) "Person" and "whoever" respectively include corporations, companies, associations, firms, partnerships, societies and joint-stock companies, as well as individuals.” Delaware Code Title 1 § 302
“(42) "Operator" includes every person who is in actual physical control of a motor vehicle upon a highway,” Delaware Code Title 21 § 101
“(26) "License" means any license, temporary instruction permit or temporary license issued under the laws of this State pertaining to the licensing of persons to operate motor vehicles.” Delaware Code Title 21 § 101
“(a) No person shall drive a motor vehicle on a public street or highway of this State without first having been licensed under this chapter…”
Delaware Code Title 21 § 2701. Driving without a license; penalties
"Person" means an individual, firm, partnership, association, or corporation.” Texas Transportation Code Section 541.001 (4)
“"Person" includes corporation, organization, government or governmental subdivision or agency, business trust, estate, trust, partnership, association, and any other legal entity.” Texas Government Code 311.005 (2)
“"Operator" means, as used in reference to a vehicle, a person who drives or has physical control of a vehicle.” Texas Transportation Code Section 541.001 (1)
“"Police officer" means an officer authorized to direct traffic or arrest persons who violate traffic regulations.” Texas Transportation Code Section 541.002 (4)
Texas Trans. Code § 201.904. Speed Signs. The department shall erect & maintain on the highways & roads of this state appropriate signs that show the maximum lawful speed for commercial motor vehicles, truck tractors, truck trailers, truck semi-trailers & motor vehicles engaged in the business of transporting passengers for compensation or hire (buses).
Texas Trans. Code § 545.351. Maximum Speed Requirement. (a) An operator may not drive at a speed greater than is reasonable & prudent under the circumstances then existing. (b) An operator: (1) may not drive a vehicle at a speed greater than is reasonable & prudent under the conditions & having regard for actual & potential hazards then existing; & (2) shall control the speed of the vehicle as necessary to avoid colliding with another person or vehicle …
Texas Trans. Code § 521.001. Definitions. (a) In this chapter: (3) “Driver's license” means an authorization issued by the Dept. for the operation of a motor vehicle. The term includes: (A) a temporary license or instruction permit; & (B) occupational license.
“Person.- "Person" includes: (1) An individual, receiver, trustee, guardian, executor, administrator, fiduciary, or representative of any kind and any partnership, firm, association, public or private corporation, or other entity” Maryland Transportation Code § 1-101 (j)
“"Driver" means any individual who drives a vehicle.” Maryland Transportation Code 11-115
“In every enactment….For greater certainty, “Canada” includes the internal waters of Canada and the territorial sea of Canada;” Section 35(1) Canada Interpretation Act
"In every enactment….person , or any word or expression descriptive of a person, includes a corporation” Section 35(1) Canada Interpretation Act
“In Every Act and Regulation; “person” includes a corporation” Section 87 Legislation Act of Ontario
“In this Act; “driver” means a person who drives a vehicle on a highway” Section 1(1) Highway Traffic Act of Ontario
"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.
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.“ 18 USC § 31
“The statute creates a rebuttable presumption of residency for anyone who meets the following criteria: …. however no such person shall be considered a resident for purposes of this chapter unless such person is either a United States citizen or an alien with legal authorization from the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service.“ Jennifer Ammons, General Counsel, Georgia Department of Driver Services
“person” includes a corporation and the heirs, executors, administrators or other legal representatives of a person;” Section 28(1)(nn) Alberta Interpretation Act
““driver” means a person who is driving or in actual physical control of a vehicle…”
Section 1(1)(k) Traffic Safety Act of Alberta
“In an Enactment “person” includes a corporation and the heirs, executors, administrators or other legal representatives of a person; («personne»)” Section 27 (1) Saskatchewan Interpretation Act
“Subject to the other provisions of this Act and the regulations, a person or that person’s agent may apply for:
(a) a driver’s licence; or
(b) a duplicate driver’s licence to replace a driver’s licence that has been lost or destroyed.”
Section 40(1) Saskatchewan Traffic Safety Act
A Legislator contacted me about writing a Bill for Right to Travel asking for ideas on what to include
He told me that any Bill had to go through their legal department
“When the Parliament uses general terms like “all persons,” or “all residents” they are only talking about “persons,” or “residents” who are properly within their jurisdiction.” Worthington v Manitoba (1936) S.C.R. 48
************************************************************************************************************
Does a Statute apply to Private Travel
“Parliament can only implicate a Sovereign citizen by “express mention or clear implication.” CBC v Ontario (1959) S.C.R. 204
Case below:
The point to be determined is as to the meaning to be assigned to the language of subs. (15) of s.2 of the Criminal Code, insofar as it relates to Her Majesty. It reads that “person” includes Her Majesty. Does this mean that the Sovereign may be charged with any of the multitude of offenses described in the Criminal Code which she, as an individual, is capable of committing and summoned to appear before a tribunal charged with the duty of determining the guilt or innocence of persons infringing the criminal laws and, if guilty, imposing punishment?
The definition of “person” in its present form, as has been stated, appeared when the Criminal Code was first enacted in 1892. At that time and at present the state of the law in relation to the liability of the Sovereign to criminal proceedings appears to me to be accurately stated in Halsbury, 3rd ed., vol. 7, p. 223, in the following terms:
The person of the Sovereign is inviolable, since it is declared by statute to be the undoubted and fundamental law of the kingdom that neither the peers of this realm nor the Commons, nor both together, either in Parliament or out of Parliament, nor the people collectively or representative, nor any other persons whatsoever, ever had, have, or ought to have any coercive power over the persons of the Kings of this realm.
So also the person of the Sovereign is immune from all suits and actions at law, either civil or criminal.
There is no power or authority within her dominions capable of binding the Sovereign, save only the Sovereign herself in Parliament, and then only by express mention or clear implication.
I do not think that it is any longer right to say that the Queen can do no wrong, though in earlier times the immunity was so stated: Holdsworth’s History of English Law, vol. 3, p. 458.
The true ground appears to me to be correctly stated in the following passage from Russell on Crime, 11th ed., p. 103:
Notwithstanding the words of Hale “the law presumes, the king will do no wrong, neither indeed can do any wrong”; and of Blackstone, who carried this further by stating that the law “ascribes to the king, in his political capacity, absolute perfection” and that he “is not only incapable of doing wrong, but even of thinking wrong,” the doctrine of regal immunity really rests upon the fact that no British tribunal has jurisdiction under which the sovereign can be tried.
*************************************************************************************************************
“A Sovereign is not a person as far as a Statute is concerned.” Will v Michigan State Police 105 L. Ed. 2d 45 (1989)
A “person” is; “a variety of entities other than human beings.” Church of Scientology v U.S. Department of Justice, 612 F2d 417 (1979) at pg 418 “...foreigners, not citizens....” United States v Otherson, 480 F. Supp. 1369 (1979) at pg 1373.
A Sovereign is not a person as far as a Statute is concerned. " 'in common usage, the term 'person' does not include the sovereign, [and] statutes employing the [word] are normally construed to exclude it.' Wilson v Omaha Tribe, 442 US 653 667, 61 L Ed 2d 153, 99 S Ct 2529 (1979) (quoting United States v Cooper Corp. 312 US 600, 604, 85 L Ed 1071, 61 S Ct 742 (1941). See also United States v Mine Workers, 330 US 258, 275, 91 L Ed 884, 67 S Ct 677 (1947)" Will v Michigan State Police, 491 US 58, 105 L. Ed. 2d
“Residents, as distinguished from citizens, are aliens who are permitted to take up a permanent abode in the country. Being bound to the society by reason of their dwelling in it, they are subject to its laws so long as they remain there, and, being protected by it, they must defend it, although they do not enjoy all the rights of citizens. They have only certain privileges which the law, or custom, gives them. Permanent residents are those who have been given the right of perpetual residence. They are a sort of citizen of a less privileged character, and are subject to the society without enjoying all its advantages. Their children succeed to their status; for the right of perpetual residence given them by the State passes to their children.” The Law of Nations, Vattel, Book 1, Chapter 19, Section 213, p. 87
“One does not necessarily become a nonresident by absconding or absenting himself from his place of abode.” 52 Mo. App. 291
“DRIVER. One employed in conducting a coach, carriage, wagon, or other vehicle, with horses, mules, or other animals.” Bouvier’s Law Dictionary 1856 Edition, page 447 [emphasis added]
“DRIVER. One employed in conducting a coach, carriage, wagon, or other vehicle, with horses, mules, or other animals.” Black’s Law Dictionary 1st Edition, page 395 [emphasis added]
“DRIVER. One employed in conducting a coach, carriage. wagon, or other vehicle, with horses, mules, or other animals, or a bicycle, tricycle, or motor other motor car, though not a street, railroad car. See Davis v. Petrinovich, 112 Ala. 654, 21 South 344. 36 L. R. A. 615, Gen. St. Conn. 1902, § 2038; Isaacs v. Railroad Co., 47 N. Y. 122. 7 Am. Rep. 418.” Black’s Law Dictionary 2nd Edition, page 398 [emphasis added]
“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. A person actually doing driving, whether employed by owner to drive or driving his own vehicle. Wallace v. Woods, 340 Mo. 452, 102 S.W.2d 91, 97.” Black’s Law Dictionary 4th Edition, page 585 [emphasis added],
“OPERATE. This word, when used with relation to automobiles, signifies a personal act in working the mechanism of the automobile; that is, the driver operates the automobile for the owner, but the owner does not operate the automobile unless he drives it himself. Beard v. Clark, Tex.Civ. App., 83 S.W.2d 1023, 1025....” Black’s Law Dictionary 4th Edition page 1243 [emphasis added]
"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, [emphasis added],
"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
“Automobile purchased for the purpose of transporting buyer to and from his place of employment was ``consumer goods'' as defined in UCC §9-109.” Mallicoat v Volunteer Finance & Loan Corp., 3 UCC Rep Serv 1035; 415 S.W.2d 347
“Under UCC §9-109 there is a real distinction between goods purchased for personal use and those purchased for business use. The two are mutually exclusive and the principal use to which the property is put should be considered as determinative.” James Talcott, Inc. v Gee, 5 UCC Rep Serv 1028; 266 Cal.App.2d 384, 72 Cal.Rptr. 168 (1968).
“The classification of goods in UCC §9-109 are mutually exclusive.” McFadden v Mercantile-Safe Deposit & Trust Co., 8 UCC Rep Serv 766; 260 Md 601, 273 A.2d 198 (1971).
“Automobile purchased for the purpose of transporting buyer to and from his place of employment was ``consumer goods'' as defined in UCC §9-109.” Mallicoat v Volunteer Finance & Loan Corp., 3 UCC Rep Serv 1035; 415 S.W.2d 347 (Tenn. App., 1966).
“The provisions of UCC §2-316 of the Maryland UCC do not apply to sales of consumer goods (a term which includes automobiles, whether new or used, that are bought primarily for personal, family, or household use).” Maryland Independent Automobile Dealers Assoc., Inc. v Administrator, Motor Vehicle Admin., 25 UCC Rep Serv 699; 394 A.2d 820, 41 Md App 7 (1978).
“Under UCC §9-109 there is a real distinction between goods purchased for personal use and those purchased for business use. The two are mutually exclusive and the principal use to which the property is put should be considered as determinative.” James Talcott, Inc. v Gee, 5 UCC Rep Serv 1028; 266 Cal.App.2d 384, 72 Cal.Rptr. 168 (1968).
“The classification of goods in UCC §9-109 are mutually exclusive.” McFadden v Mercantile-Safe Deposit & Trust Co., 8 UCC Rep Serv 766; 260 Md 601, 273 A.2d 198 (1971).
By operation of law, U.C.C. ARTICLE 9 PART 1 § 9109 mirrored by, for example, PA TITLE 13 SUBCHAPTER A § 9102 eliminates any obligation or constraints by commercial regulation. See your State’s UCC for the same.
U.C.C. - ARTICLE 9 (1) “consumer goods”; UCC filings are to give notice on the public side collateral rights-CONSUMER PRODUCT per U.C.C. ARTICLE 9 (1) “consumer goods”; CONSUMER GOODS ARE NOT REQUIRED TO BE REGISTERED
§ 9102. Definitions: "Consumer goods." Goods which are used or bought for use primarily for personal, family or household purposes.
"All household goods owned by the user thereof and used solely for noncommercial purposes shall be exempt from taxation, and such person to such exemption shall not be required to take any affirmative action to receive the benefit from such exemption." Ariz. Const. Art. 9,2
“Whenever [the Uniform Commercial Code] creates a "presumption" with respect to a fact, or provides that a fact is "presumed," the trier of fact must find the existence of the fact unless and until evidence is introduced that supports a finding of its nonexistence.” UCC § 1206 Presumptions [emphasis added]
“(a) In an action with respect to an instrument, the authenticity of, and authority to make, each signature on the instrument are admitted unless specifically denied in the pleadings. If the validity of a signature is denied in the pleadings, the burden of establishing validity is on the person claiming validity, but the signature is presumed to be authentic and authorized unless the action is to enforce the liability of the purported signer and the signer is dead or incompetent at the time of trial of the issue of validity of the signature.” Uniform Commercial Code § 3.308 Proof of Signatures and Status as Holder in Due Course [emphasis added]
“The following rules apply in an action on a certificated security against the issuer:
(1) Unless specifically denied in the pleadings, each signature on a security certificate or in a necessary indorsement is admitted.
(2) If the effectiveness of a signature is put in issue, the burden of establishing effectiveness is on the party claiming under the signature, but the signature is presumed to be genuine or authorized.” Uniform Commercial Code § 8.114 Evidentiary Rules Concerning Certificated Securities [emphasis added]
They presume that because a vehicle has a State Plate on it, then you are one of the slaves
"(h) DEFINITION’s. …. "(3) MOTOR VEHICLE.-The term 'motor vehicle' means a self-propelled vehicle which is registered for highway use under the laws of any State or foreign country. "(4) SECURITY.-The term 'security' means any bond, debenture, note, or certificate or other evidence of indebtedness, issued by a corporation or a government or political subdivision thereof, with interest coupons or in registered form, share of stock, voting trust certificate, or any certificate of interest or participation in, certificate of deposit or receipt for, temporary or interim certificate for, or warrant or right to subscribe to or purchase any of the foregoing: negotiable instrument: or money.” Federal Tax Lien Act of 1966 at Public Law 89-719 at 80 Stat. 1130-1131
"We therefore decline to overrule the opinion of Chief Justice Marshall: We hold that the District of Columbia is not a state within Article 3 of the Constitution. In other words cases between citizens of the District and those of the states were not included of the catalogue of controversies over which the Congress could give jurisdiction to the federal courts by virtue of Article 3. In other words Congress has exclusive legislative jurisdiction over citizens of Washington District of Columbia and through their plenary power nationally covers those citizens even when in one of the several states as though the district expands for the purpose of regulating its citizens wherever they go throughout the states in union" National Mutual Insurance Company of the District of Columbia v. Tidewater Transfer Company, 337 U.S. 582, 93 L.Ed. 1556 (1948)
“INTERNATIONAL LAW RULE: Adopted for areas under Federal legislative jurisdiction” “Federalizes State civil law, including common law.--The rule serves to federalize not only the statutory but the common law of a State. STATE AND FEDERAL VENUE DISCUSSED: The civil laws effective in an area of exclusive Federal jurisdiction are Federal law, notwithstanding their derivation from State laws, and a cause arising under such laws may be brought in or removed to a Federal district court under sections 24 or 28 of the former Judicial Code (now sections 1331 and 1441 of title 28, United States Code), giving jurisdiction to such courts of civil actions arising under the "* * *laws * * * of the United States"…” Jurisdiction over Federal Areas Within the States – Report of the Interdepartmental Committee for the Study of Jurisdiction over Federal Areas Within the States, Part II, A Text of the Law of Legislative Jurisdiction Submitted to the Attorney General and Transmitted to the President June 1957, page 158-165
"But individuals, when acting as representatives of a collective group, cannot be said to be exercising their personal rights and duties, nor be entitled to their purely personal privileges. Rather they assume the rights, duties and privileges of the artificial entity or association of which they are agents or officers and they are bound by its obligations." Brasswell v. United States 487 U.S. 99 (1988) quoting, United States v. White 322 U.S. 694 (1944),
They forge your signature onto a contract and then presume it is valid and if you do not object…. They sell you into slavery
". . . (E)very taxpayer is a cestui qui trust having sufficient interest in the preventing abuse of the trust to be recognized in the field of this court's prerogative jurisdiction . .” In Re Bolens (1912), 135 N.W. 164.
“A “citizen of the United States” is a civilly dead entity operating as a co-trustee and co-beneficiary of the PCT (Public Charitable Trust), the constructive, cestui que trust of US Inc. under the 14th Amendment, which upholds the debt of the USA and US Inc.” Congressional Record, June 13 1967, pp. 15641-15646
“Yet still it was found difficult to set bounds to ecclesiastical ingenuity; for when they were driven out of all their former holds, they devised a new method of conveyance, by which the lands were granted, not to themselves directly, but to nominal feoffees to the use of the religious houses; thus distinguishing between the possession and the use, and receiving the actual profits, while the seisin of the lands remained in the nominal feoffee, who was held by the courts of equity (then under the direction of the clergy) to be bound in conscience to account to his cestui que use for the rents and emoluments of the estate: and it is to these inventions that our practitioners are indebted for the introduction of uses and trusts, the foundation of modern conveyancing.” Tomlins Law Dictionary 1835 edition, Volume 2 under the definition of Mortmain
“…the reason for the initial detention, speeding & running a red light are not a breach of the peace.” Perkins v Texas, 812 S.W. 2d 326
If there is no breach of the peace, and you are not carrying passengers or property for hire, then it is an unlawful arrest
“Any restraint, however slight, upon another’s liberty to come and go as one pleases, constitutes an “arrest.” Swetnam v. W.F. Woolworth Co., 318 P.2d 364, 366, 83 Ariz. 189.
“DETENTION. The act of retaining a person or property, and preventing the removal of such person or property.” Bouvier’s Law Dictionary 1856 Edition ,
“An illegal arrest is an assault and battery. The person so attempted to be restrained of his liberty has the same right to use force in defending himself as he would in repelling any other assault and battery.” State v. Robinson, 145 ME. 77, 72 ATL. 260.
“One may come to the aid of another being unlawfully arrested, just as he may where one is being assaulted, molested, raped or kidnapped. Thus it is not an offense to liberate one from the unlawful custody of an officer, even though he may have submitted to such custody, without resistance.” Adams v. State, 121 Ga. 16, 48 S.E. 910.
“Similarly, a person cannot be convicted of resisting a peace officer in the execution of his duty unless the officer was acting strictly within the limits of his powers and duty. If the officer makes an unlawful arrest, then there is a common law right to resist that arrest.” Police Manual of Arrest, Seizure and Interrogation, 8th Edition, by The Honorable Roger E. Salhany, page 96
The standard procedure is to drag you into a kangaroo court because it is statutes that they are enforcing "...judges who become involved in enforcement of mere statutes (civil or criminal in nature and otherwise), act as mere "clerks" of the involved agency..." K.C. Davis, ADMIN. LAW, Ch. 1 (CTP. West's 1965 Ed.) [emphasis added]
"A judge ceases to set as a judicial officer because the governing principals 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 their substituting their judgments for that of the agency." AISI v US, 568 F2d 284.
"It is the accepted rule, not only in state courts, but, of the federal courts as well, that when a judge is enforcing administrative law they are described as mere 'extensions of the administrative agency for superior reviewing purposes' as a ministerial clerk for an agency..." 30 Cal 596; 167 Cal 762. [emphasis added]
Judges in these Kangaroo Courts are actually NOT judges but Clerks and they have no immunity whatsoever
“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
“Judge loses his absolute immunity from damage actions only when he acts in clear absence of all jurisdiction or performance of an act which is not judicial in nature.” Schucker v. Rockwood, 846 F.2d 1202
Qualified Immunity “protects governmental officials from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate ‘clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’” Weise v. Casper, 593 F.3d 1163, 1166 (10th Cir. 2010)(quoting Pearson v. Callahan, __ U.S. __, 129 S.Ct. 808, 815 (2009) and Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982)).
"Qualified immunity defense fails if public officer violates clearly established right because a reasonably competent official should know the law governing his conduct" Jones vs Counce 7-F3d-13598th Cir 1993; Benitez v Wolff 985-F3d 662 2nd Cir 1993
Everything is under a military occupation:
See the Texas and other American States are under a Military Occupation video
See the Alberta and other Canadian States are under a Military Occupation video
I can show that almost every country on the planet is under a military occupation in one way or another
"There are two ways to conquer and enslave a nation. One is by the sword. The other is by debt." John Adams 1826
Serve the Judge, the Prosecutor, and the Chief of Police with a Notice and Demand designed to take away their presumptions
They will probably assign a different Judge
Serve the Chief Judge with a Notice and Demand
If possible get the name of every possible Judge and serve each of them (Registered Mail)
See the D.I.Y. Estoppel Certificates video
Be prepared to file a lawsuit and the issue is citizenship and forgery
They have to established the cestui que trust before they can proceed
"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." Chisholm v Georgia, 2 Dal. 419 at p 455 "A state like a merchant makes a contract. A dishonest state, like a dishonest merchant willfully refuses to discharge it." Chisholm v Georgia, 2 Dal. 419 at p 456Your RIGHT to travel
“The right to travel is part of the liberty of which a citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the 5th Amendment. This Right was emerging as early as the Magna Carta.” (1215 c.e.) Kent v Dules 357 US 116 (1958)
“Complete freedom of the highways is so old and well established a gzeroblessing that we have forgotten the days of the "Robber Barons" and toll roads,...” Robertson v. Department of Public Works, 180 Wn. 133
"The use of the highway for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege, but a common fundamental right of which the public and individuals cannot rightfully be deprived." Chicago Motor Coach v. Chicago, 169 NE 221.
"The right of a citizen to use the highways, including the streets of the city or town, for travel and to transport his goods, is an inherent right which cannot be taken from him." Florida Motor Lines v. Ward, 137 So. 163, 167; State v. Quigg, (Fla. - 1927), 114 So. 859, 862;
"Personal liberty largely consists of the Right of locomotion -- to go where and when one pleases -- only so far restrained as the Rights of others may make it necessary for the welfare of all other citizens. The Right of the 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 the common Right which he has under his Right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Under this Constitutional guarantee 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.” American Jurisprudence 1st Edition, Constitutional Law, Sect.329, p.1135.
“The Supreme Court has recognized that personal liberty includes 'the right of locomotion, the right to move from one place to another according to inclination.'" Davis v. City of Houston, (Tex. Civ. App., 1924), 264 S.W. 625, 629.
"The right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit or permit at will, but a common law right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Thompson v. Smith, 154 SE 579.
"No one may be required to obtain a license in order to speak. Thus, the State can no more license the Appellant's right to travel in his automobile than it could license his right to print or to speak, for they are all inalienable rights." Thomas v. Collins, (1944), 323 U.S. 516, 543,
"The right to operate a motor vehicle upon the public streets and highways is not a mere privilege, it is a right or 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.
"At Common Law there is no precise limit of speed. A traveler by automobile must adopt a reasonable speed." Gallagher v. Montplier, 52 ALR 744; 5 Am Jur. page 645.
“A “US citizen” upon leaving the District of Columbia becomes involved in “interstate commerce”, as a “resident” does not have the common-law right to travel, of a Citizen of one of the several States.” Hendrick v. Maryland S.C. Reporter’s Rd. 610-625. (1914)
"A license is a privilege granted by the state" and "cannot possibly exist with reference to something which is a right...to ride and drive over the streets". "If we allow the City of Chicago to require the licensing of horseless carriages, how long be the City of Chicago would want to require license to ride a horse or to walk upon the streets?“ City of Chicago v Cullens, et al, 51 N.E. 907, 910, etc. (1906)
“The better to secure and perpetuate mutual friendship and intercourse among the people of the different States in this Union, the free inhabitants of each of these States, paupers, vagabonds, and fugitives from justice excepted, shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of free citizens in the several States; and the people of each State shall have free ingress and regress to and from any other State…” Article IV of the Articles of Confederation
“(47) "Person" means any individual, partnership, corporation, joint venture or legal entity of whatever nature.” Delaware Code Title 21 § 101
“(16) "Person" and "whoever" respectively include corporations, companies, associations, firms, partnerships, societies and joint-stock companies, as well as individuals.” Delaware Code Title 1 § 302
“(42) "Operator" includes every person who is in actual physical control of a motor vehicle upon a highway,” Delaware Code Title 21 § 101
“(26) "License" means any license, temporary instruction permit or temporary license issued under the laws of this State pertaining to the licensing of persons to operate motor vehicles.” Delaware Code Title 21 § 101
“(a) No person shall drive a motor vehicle on a public street or highway of this State without first having been licensed under this chapter…”
Delaware Code Title 21 § 2701. Driving without a license; penalties
"Person" means an individual, firm, partnership, association, or corporation.” Texas Transportation Code Section 541.001 (4)
“"Person" includes corporation, organization, government or governmental subdivision or agency, business trust, estate, trust, partnership, association, and any other legal entity.” Texas Government Code 311.005 (2)
“"Operator" means, as used in reference to a vehicle, a person who drives or has physical control of a vehicle.” Texas Transportation Code Section 541.001 (1)
“"Police officer" means an officer authorized to direct traffic or arrest persons who violate traffic regulations.” Texas Transportation Code Section 541.002 (4)
Texas Trans. Code § 201.904. Speed Signs. The department shall erect & maintain on the highways & roads of this state appropriate signs that show the maximum lawful speed for commercial motor vehicles, truck tractors, truck trailers, truck semi-trailers & motor vehicles engaged in the business of transporting passengers for compensation or hire (buses).
Texas Trans. Code § 545.351. Maximum Speed Requirement. (a) An operator may not drive at a speed greater than is reasonable & prudent under the circumstances then existing. (b) An operator: (1) may not drive a vehicle at a speed greater than is reasonable & prudent under the conditions & having regard for actual & potential hazards then existing; & (2) shall control the speed of the vehicle as necessary to avoid colliding with another person or vehicle …
Texas Trans. Code § 521.001. Definitions. (a) In this chapter: (3) “Driver's license” means an authorization issued by the Dept. for the operation of a motor vehicle. The term includes: (A) a temporary license or instruction permit; & (B) occupational license.
“Person.- "Person" includes: (1) An individual, receiver, trustee, guardian, executor, administrator, fiduciary, or representative of any kind and any partnership, firm, association, public or private corporation, or other entity” Maryland Transportation Code § 1-101 (j)
“"Driver" means any individual who drives a vehicle.” Maryland Transportation Code 11-115
“In every enactment….For greater certainty, “Canada” includes the internal waters of Canada and the territorial sea of Canada;” Section 35(1) Canada Interpretation Act
"In every enactment….person , or any word or expression descriptive of a person, includes a corporation” Section 35(1) Canada Interpretation Act
“In Every Act and Regulation; “person” includes a corporation” Section 87 Legislation Act of Ontario
“In this Act; “driver” means a person who drives a vehicle on a highway” Section 1(1) Highway Traffic Act of Ontario
"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.
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.“ 18 USC § 31
“The statute creates a rebuttable presumption of residency for anyone who meets the following criteria: …. however no such person shall be considered a resident for purposes of this chapter unless such person is either a United States citizen or an alien with legal authorization from the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service.“ Jennifer Ammons, General Counsel, Georgia Department of Driver Services
“person” includes a corporation and the heirs, executors, administrators or other legal representatives of a person;” Section 28(1)(nn) Alberta Interpretation Act
““driver” means a person who is driving or in actual physical control of a vehicle…”
Section 1(1)(k) Traffic Safety Act of Alberta
“In an Enactment “person” includes a corporation and the heirs, executors, administrators or other legal representatives of a person; («personne»)” Section 27 (1) Saskatchewan Interpretation Act
“Subject to the other provisions of this Act and the regulations, a person or that person’s agent may apply for:
(a) a driver’s licence; or
(b) a duplicate driver’s licence to replace a driver’s licence that has been lost or destroyed.”
Section 40(1) Saskatchewan Traffic Safety Act
A Legislator contacted me about writing a Bill for Right to Travel asking for ideas on what to include
He told me that any Bill had to go through their legal department
“When the Parliament uses general terms like “all persons,” or “all residents” they are only talking about “persons,” or “residents” who are properly within their jurisdiction.” Worthington v Manitoba (1936) S.C.R. 48
************************************************************************************************************
Does a Statute apply to Private Travel
“Parliament can only implicate a Sovereign citizen by “express mention or clear implication.” CBC v Ontario (1959) S.C.R. 204
Case below:
The point to be determined is as to the meaning to be assigned to the language of subs. (15) of s.2 of the Criminal Code, insofar as it relates to Her Majesty. It reads that “person” includes Her Majesty. Does this mean that the Sovereign may be charged with any of the multitude of offenses described in the Criminal Code which she, as an individual, is capable of committing and summoned to appear before a tribunal charged with the duty of determining the guilt or innocence of persons infringing the criminal laws and, if guilty, imposing punishment?
The definition of “person” in its present form, as has been stated, appeared when the Criminal Code was first enacted in 1892. At that time and at present the state of the law in relation to the liability of the Sovereign to criminal proceedings appears to me to be accurately stated in Halsbury, 3rd ed., vol. 7, p. 223, in the following terms:
The person of the Sovereign is inviolable, since it is declared by statute to be the undoubted and fundamental law of the kingdom that neither the peers of this realm nor the Commons, nor both together, either in Parliament or out of Parliament, nor the people collectively or representative, nor any other persons whatsoever, ever had, have, or ought to have any coercive power over the persons of the Kings of this realm.
So also the person of the Sovereign is immune from all suits and actions at law, either civil or criminal.
There is no power or authority within her dominions capable of binding the Sovereign, save only the Sovereign herself in Parliament, and then only by express mention or clear implication.
I do not think that it is any longer right to say that the Queen can do no wrong, though in earlier times the immunity was so stated: Holdsworth’s History of English Law, vol. 3, p. 458.
The true ground appears to me to be correctly stated in the following passage from Russell on Crime, 11th ed., p. 103:
Notwithstanding the words of Hale “the law presumes, the king will do no wrong, neither indeed can do any wrong”; and of Blackstone, who carried this further by stating that the law “ascribes to the king, in his political capacity, absolute perfection” and that he “is not only incapable of doing wrong, but even of thinking wrong,” the doctrine of regal immunity really rests upon the fact that no British tribunal has jurisdiction under which the sovereign can be tried.
*************************************************************************************************************
“A Sovereign is not a person as far as a Statute is concerned.” Will v Michigan State Police 105 L. Ed. 2d 45 (1989)
A “person” is; “a variety of entities other than human beings.” Church of Scientology v U.S. Department of Justice, 612 F2d 417 (1979) at pg 418 “...foreigners, not citizens....” United States v Otherson, 480 F. Supp. 1369 (1979) at pg 1373.
A Sovereign is not a person as far as a Statute is concerned. " 'in common usage, the term 'person' does not include the sovereign, [and] statutes employing the [word] are normally construed to exclude it.' Wilson v Omaha Tribe, 442 US 653 667, 61 L Ed 2d 153, 99 S Ct 2529 (1979) (quoting United States v Cooper Corp. 312 US 600, 604, 85 L Ed 1071, 61 S Ct 742 (1941). See also United States v Mine Workers, 330 US 258, 275, 91 L Ed 884, 67 S Ct 677 (1947)" Will v Michigan State Police, 491 US 58, 105 L. Ed. 2d
“Residents, as distinguished from citizens, are aliens who are permitted to take up a permanent abode in the country. Being bound to the society by reason of their dwelling in it, they are subject to its laws so long as they remain there, and, being protected by it, they must defend it, although they do not enjoy all the rights of citizens. They have only certain privileges which the law, or custom, gives them. Permanent residents are those who have been given the right of perpetual residence. They are a sort of citizen of a less privileged character, and are subject to the society without enjoying all its advantages. Their children succeed to their status; for the right of perpetual residence given them by the State passes to their children.” The Law of Nations, Vattel, Book 1, Chapter 19, Section 213, p. 87
“One does not necessarily become a nonresident by absconding or absenting himself from his place of abode.” 52 Mo. App. 291
“DRIVER. One employed in conducting a coach, carriage, wagon, or other vehicle, with horses, mules, or other animals.” Bouvier’s Law Dictionary 1856 Edition, page 447 [emphasis added]
“DRIVER. One employed in conducting a coach, carriage, wagon, or other vehicle, with horses, mules, or other animals.” Black’s Law Dictionary 1st Edition, page 395 [emphasis added]
“DRIVER. One employed in conducting a coach, carriage. wagon, or other vehicle, with horses, mules, or other animals, or a bicycle, tricycle, or motor other motor car, though not a street, railroad car. See Davis v. Petrinovich, 112 Ala. 654, 21 South 344. 36 L. R. A. 615, Gen. St. Conn. 1902, § 2038; Isaacs v. Railroad Co., 47 N. Y. 122. 7 Am. Rep. 418.” Black’s Law Dictionary 2nd Edition, page 398 [emphasis added]
“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. A person actually doing driving, whether employed by owner to drive or driving his own vehicle. Wallace v. Woods, 340 Mo. 452, 102 S.W.2d 91, 97.” Black’s Law Dictionary 4th Edition, page 585 [emphasis added],
“OPERATE. This word, when used with relation to automobiles, signifies a personal act in working the mechanism of the automobile; that is, the driver operates the automobile for the owner, but the owner does not operate the automobile unless he drives it himself. Beard v. Clark, Tex.Civ. App., 83 S.W.2d 1023, 1025....” Black’s Law Dictionary 4th Edition page 1243 [emphasis added]
"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, [emphasis added],
"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
“Automobile purchased for the purpose of transporting buyer to and from his place of employment was ``consumer goods'' as defined in UCC §9-109.” Mallicoat v Volunteer Finance & Loan Corp., 3 UCC Rep Serv 1035; 415 S.W.2d 347
“Under UCC §9-109 there is a real distinction between goods purchased for personal use and those purchased for business use. The two are mutually exclusive and the principal use to which the property is put should be considered as determinative.” James Talcott, Inc. v Gee, 5 UCC Rep Serv 1028; 266 Cal.App.2d 384, 72 Cal.Rptr. 168 (1968).
“The classification of goods in UCC §9-109 are mutually exclusive.” McFadden v Mercantile-Safe Deposit & Trust Co., 8 UCC Rep Serv 766; 260 Md 601, 273 A.2d 198 (1971).
“Automobile purchased for the purpose of transporting buyer to and from his place of employment was ``consumer goods'' as defined in UCC §9-109.” Mallicoat v Volunteer Finance & Loan Corp., 3 UCC Rep Serv 1035; 415 S.W.2d 347 (Tenn. App., 1966).
“The provisions of UCC §2-316 of the Maryland UCC do not apply to sales of consumer goods (a term which includes automobiles, whether new or used, that are bought primarily for personal, family, or household use).” Maryland Independent Automobile Dealers Assoc., Inc. v Administrator, Motor Vehicle Admin., 25 UCC Rep Serv 699; 394 A.2d 820, 41 Md App 7 (1978).
“Under UCC §9-109 there is a real distinction between goods purchased for personal use and those purchased for business use. The two are mutually exclusive and the principal use to which the property is put should be considered as determinative.” James Talcott, Inc. v Gee, 5 UCC Rep Serv 1028; 266 Cal.App.2d 384, 72 Cal.Rptr. 168 (1968).
So you think that you are free ?

So you think you are free?
I watch people who say that they are free who drive around in their cars knowing that the only reason they are doing this is because they were granted permission from the government to use a car to travel, they take that car to a job where they had to use a Social security or Social insurance number to be able to get permission to work. That card and number then allows them to work, also allows the state to inform the tax collectors that you have made a certain amount of money for your labor that they now can take from you, those taxes that they take from you are now used to buy surveillance cameras and fund police departments that are in place to make sure that you follow the rules set up by the government that issued you permission to work in the first place.
You need a license to fish, to hunt, to get married, to run a business, to sell things, to use your car, to work in certain trades, and to run a farm.
You need a permit to use your car , to own a pet , to build onto your house, to own a gun, to use a gun, to help the needy, and most disturbing of all to hold a protest or to congregate among your peers in public.
You are told to declare your earnings and file a tax return and you are told that you must fill out a census to inform on your family and friends.
You need to go through an indoctrination program called school which gives you a diploma so that you can get a higher level of indoctrination in college or university and without this certificate, you are considered unemployable to those people who take your money in the form of taxation.
When you are born you are given a certificate to become a citizen and that certificate identifies you as a “person” who is “subject” to the laws and rules of that society.
If you choose to revoke these contracts with the government or question the motives of these contracts for any reason you will have police sent out to either assault you, fine you, steal from you, or worst case they will kill you.
If for any reason you decide to travel abroad and do not have a government-issued passport Vaxx pass, birth certificate, or citizenship card with you as a good and obedient card-carrying slave you will be denied your right to travel the world. If you do happen to have these things you will be insulted, interrogated, searched have some of your property stolen without due process of law, and scanned with radiation until those with perceived authority deem you worthy of travel. A perfect slave is allowed these concessions.
You are not allowed access to your own body in the way of health. If you wish to remain healthy on your own terms that is considered anti-social behavior, The state requires that you inject poisons into your body, drink fluoride, and if you choose to use natural healing products to rid yourself of pesky diseases created by the government's own health agencies and policy like chemical aerosol spraying and GMO’s. you will be arrested for using alternative natural methods such as cannabis, hemp, or if you promote raw foods or alternative treatments such as apricot kernels, DCA, or other things that the government does not want you to know about you will be put on a list of suspected terrorism and or raided in the middle of the night by mercenaries.
If you choose to oppose the war , If you speak out against government policy, the obvious lies of 911, or Israel you will be arrested for hate crimes or called anti-semitic or a racist and persecuted to the point of exile .
So you think you are free ? think again


Add a comment
Notice to Castelgar provincial court re : April 6th appearance 26278-1

court file No: 26278-1

Notice of claim and extention to application for MIKA P RASILA
I Mika of the Rasila family acting as agent for the Deceased legal person MIKA P RASILA do truthfully and without vexation or forethought respond to the allegations of "Driving While Prohibited or License Suspended".
Information
First and foremost I am not licensed nor do I wish to contract or apply for such an unlawful licentious instrument. Among the charging instruments presented by the police was a fraudulent statutory instrument with the driver's license number 0007282 which I had not applied for nor did I contract for the use of. The police also wrote on their charging instruments that I was the "registered owner of a vehicle" which I am not I am the lawful owner of an E-350 van that was used as a carriage for my tools and also as a shelter and for private use.
Your officers unlawfully took into their possession 1 Chevy van and the contents of which I use for my work including power tools and other tools I use to earn a living, The cost of which exceeds 5000 dollars that I will not be able to retrieve due to the constraints of your legal requirements for government Identification which I do not have nor will I be applying for.
The property the officers seized was not in any way registered to any Canadian agency or entity and was held by me under allodial title and lawfully purchased by me. The Ford E350 van was a tool I use for work and it was also my home residence. It contained many private items that I can not recover including a letter I recieved after a 20 day long interrogation at the Innes jail by members of your itelligrnce community CSIS, RCMP, and one unknown agency. The letter detailed my exclusion and right of passage which was up until the incident in castelgar where the police took it upon themsleves to disregard said notice and steal my property, I was robbed, publicly humiliated, assaulted with shackles, and then left in a strange town without any means to continue my work as a traveling contractor/builder.
I am not a driver by definition and am not employed by anyone and I do not use a registered automobile so I do not work for the government of Canada as I lawfully use my allodial property.
a driver is One employed in conducting 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. See Davis v. Petrinovich, 112 Ala. 654, 21 South. 344, 36 L. R. A.615; Gen. St. Conn. 1902,
The statutory instrument provided had an erroneous and fraudulent (0007282) Drivers license number attached and I had not applied for nor would I acknowledge such a number to reference the Person known as MIKA P RASILA.
Whereas fraud vitiates all legal claims and charges I request this matter be dropped and all of my property returned to me without charge.
It was demanded of me to produce documents that I do not have and consequently, I was physically assaulted and placed in handcuffs when It is clear through your own provisions under the Canada evidence acts sections 50 and 50.2 that I am never required to.
Canada evidence act sections 50 and 50.2
Right of refusal to answer or produce document
50 (1) Any person examined under any order made under this Part has the like right to refuse to answer questions tending to criminate himself, or other questions, as a party or witness, as the case may be, would have in any cause pending in the court by which, or by a judge whereof, the order is made.
Nature of right
(2) No person shall be compelled to produce, under any order referred to in subsection (1), any writing or other document that he could not be compelled to produce at a trial of such a cause.
R.S., 1985, c. C-5, s. 501999, c. 18, s. 90
In the matter of the fraudulent "drivers license number 0007282"
Criminal Code (R.S.C., 1985, c. C-46)
Fraud
380 (1) Every one who, by deceit, falsehood or other fraudulent means, whether or not it is a false pretence within the meaning of this Act, defrauds the public or any person, whether ascertained or not, of any property, money or valuable security or any service,
(a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to a term of imprisonment not exceeding fourteen years, where the subject-matter of the offence is a testamentary instrument or the value of the subject-matter of the offence exceeds five thousand dollars; or
(b) is guilty
(i) of an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years, or
(ii) of an offence punishable on summary conviction,
where the value of the subject matter of the offense does not exceed five thousand dollars.
Whereas I have not consented to the use of the fraudulent license number 0007282 to be used against me, this entire incident is fraudulent and must be disregarded and the officers in question should be strongly disciplined for their crimes of fraud and theft.
Furthermore
Statutory Instruments Act section 4 pertaining to the use of a fraudulent statutory instrument
R.S.C., 1985, c. S-22
Doubt as to nature of proposed statutory instrument
4 Where any regulation-making authority or other authority responsible for the issue, making or establishment of a statutory instrument, or any person acting on behalf of such an authority, is uncertain whether a proposed statutory instrument would be a regulation if it were issued, made or established by that authority, it, or he shall cause a copy of the proposed statutory instrument to be forwarded to the Deputy Minister of Justice who shall determine whether or not the instrument would be a regulation if it were so issued, made or established.
R.S., 1985, c. S-22, s. 42015, c. 33, s. 3(F)
No conviction under unpublished regulation
(2) No regulation is invalid by reason only that it was not published in the Canada Gazette, but no person shall be convicted of an offence consisting of a contravention of any regulation that at the time of the alleged contravention was not published in the Canada Gazette unless
(a) the regulation was exempted from the application of subsection (1) pursuant to paragraph 20(c), or the regulation expressly provides that it shall apply according to its terms before it is published in the Canada Gazette; and
(b) it is proved that at the date of the alleged contravention reasonable steps had been taken to bring the purport of the regulation to the notice of those persons likely to be affected by it.
R.S., 1985, c. S-22, s. 11R.S., 1985, c. 31 (4th Supp.), s. 103
Proof of incorporated document, index, rate or number
18.5 (1) In any proceeding in which a document, index, rate or number — that is incorporated by reference in a regulation — is relevant, a certificate appearing to be issued by or on behalf of the regulation-making authority that includes any of the following statements is, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, presumed to be authentic and proof of the matters set out in those statements:
(a) a statement that the document attached to the certificate, or the index, rate or number set out in it, is the document, index, rate or number that was incorporated in the regulation on a specified date or during a specified period; or
(b) a statement regarding the manner in which the incorporated document, index, rate or number was accessible on that date or during that period.
No finding of guilt or administrative sanction
18.6 A person is not liable to be found guilty of an offense or subjected to an administrative sanction for any contravention in respect of which a document, index, rate or number — that is incorporated by reference in a regulation — is relevant unless, at the time of the alleged contravention, it was accessible as required by section 18.3 or it was otherwise accessible to that person.
Therefore Let it be known for the record that I mika of the rasila family am not a member of the corporation of Canada or any other organization I find reprehensible, intolerable, malicious, or otherwise criminal in its actions against the peaceful hard-working people that reside on this unceded land.
I claim only common law jurisdiction and waive the benefits of the court, but Regardless of which jurisdiction we are using in this matter the fact that I have not contracted with any such drivers license especially the one numbered 0007282 which was fraudulently and without my knowledge or consent issued by ICBC insurance corp.
I am an undocumented sovereign individual living peacefully and lawfully on the landmass known as Turtle island by those who are native to this land or North America and Canada as known by the colonialists who stole this land. The land known as British Columbia is as yet still unceded and the jurisdiction thereof is contested.
I am aware that in the year 2019 the issuing of tickets fines and summons was an 80 billion dollar a year industry for the corporation of Canada and with this latest covid agenda that number must be increasing exponentially, and I am certain that, that is its purpose, so I know that you will never stop instructing your officers to carry out these revenue collecting extortion and racketeering practices. I am however not a subject to this crime since I have not accepted any form of social contract that would compel my participation.
I request that the courts and your officers, once again leave me alone to carry out my lawful business of building and renovation, as was the case for the longest time after I had spoken to your courts, CSIS intelligence, OPP Intelligence and RCMP intelligence units back in Ontario when I was unlawfully detained at INNIS Jail in Ottawa Ontario for a period of 20 days of interrogation.

I am not a member of the corporation of Canada, and morally object to the unlawful confiscation of unregistered property.
I realize that I have to coexist within this legal framework among the registered and documented citizens of Canada and I also realize that your men have a job to do but as I am a foreign nation Sami Lapp sovereign I am not subject to the unlawful rules and policies of your Statutory legal society, nor am I subject to your Sachs Coburg Gotha german heritage queen masquerading as a british monarch.

I can only stand under the common law of the land and I waive the benefits of your court jurisdiction.
So in closing.......
What is the courts definition of theft? What is the courts definition of extortion? How about public humiliation? How about assault?
I'm sure the court would accept that these actions are criminal is this correct or so obvious that it does not need to be answered.
Is it the contention of the court that the commission of a crime is justified in the pursuit of a prosecution of a non crime?
Is it a crime to decline answering a question? is it a crime to refuse to volunteer information?

It is not my obligation to perform or to provide any evidence of anything, but three times in the last 4 years I was confronted, assaulted, publicly humiliated and robbed of my lawfully paid for property by costumed men who work for the corporation of Canada of which I am not a contracted member.

Is it not the crime of a despotic totalitarian regime that we have seen throughout history to forcefully compel people to show papers ?

I spoke with a few of the provinces lawyers and found that before they would accept me as a client I would first have to admit to something that simply is not true. I asked one of those lawyers how it was that It was being alleged that I had committed a criminal offence when I merely refused to participate in a licentious act by not providing Identification that no man can ever be required to or compelled to produce according to the corporations of canada's evidence sections 50 and 50.2?
The lawyer then told me that this legal statute was in her own words a "quasi-law" and it is my understanding that only is it a quasi-law but that a legal statute merely is a rule of a society given the force of law.
It is also my understanding that canada is still a common law jurisdiction meaning all things legal are arbitrary rules created by some entity that I have not contracted with since I am not a legal citizen of Canada or any other corporation.

As I was trying to get one these lawyers to accept my case It was clear that they wanted me to admit to legal offenses called "Operating a motor vehicle without a license and driving while prohibited" Neither of which are true.
Would the court have me lie to it to justify a reason to prosecute me? I deny all allegations and presumptions made against me by the british columbia police. I can only claim the common law and waive the benefits of any court that does not observe the common law.

Does this court condone commiting multiple crimes against a lawful individual who has not committed a crime which evidently is the standard operating procedure for todays police officers and even though they do it nicely with tact and a smile it does not change the fact that these actions are criminal. It simply means that the people who trained them know the psychology of compliance.
It is my observation that all legal enforcement causes loss or harm based on fraudulent and grammatically incorrect use of capitol status making those actions inherently unlawful.
Does this court condone criminal actions by its officers in the pursuit of collecting fines and summons?
Does this court condone criminal actions against lawful individuals by instigating conflict where if they had not there would have been none?
Does this court no longer accept the common law and the lawful defense of the common man?
Does this court abide by its sworn oath to do right by all manner of people under the laws of canada and for the usages of the province without fear or favor, affection or ill will?

Therefore I challenge the courts jurisdiction and say that I am innocent of all charges,claims and allegations. Show me one instance of where I have contracted, complied with, acquiesced to, accepted the benefit of or supported the government of Canada.

Sincerely and without vexation, Mika of the Rasila family. In propria persona sui juris without prejudice
Notice and demand affidavit

Cease and desist order for vaccine passport mandate requests
Whereas a mandate is not a lawful order since only by the consent of the governed can a lawful order be executed.
Furthermore, if there is contention about this alleged mandate between any two parties then one has not consented to the order.
Whereas any medical procedure is done under duress or with fraud and coercion is void and unconscionable.
Whereas extortion is a legal crime and the act of using a mandate to coerce anyone to undergo a medical procedure against their will, or better understanding is a crime.
Whereas denying an employee his position of employment based on his medical record is also a crime of extortion.
Furthermore, the judicial oath of any legal judge or police officer is to do right by all manner of people under the laws of Canada and for the usages of the province without fear or favor affection or ill will.
Furthermore, While acting in a legal capacity all members of law enforcement are unable to exceed their oath by performing any action that goes against that oath.
Whereas covid 19 is an unproven and never isolated virus so everything that has taken place since March of 2020 has been a fraud and all of the government and its paid-for media is complicit in the fraud of covid 19.
Furthermore, any doctor who prescribes a life-threatening experimental RNA bioagent masquerading as a vaccine is guilty of committing the crime of conspiracy to commit manslaughter.
Whereas graphene oxide and ethylene oxide are both lethal chemical carcinogens and are present in large quantities in all experimental covid vaccines.
Furthermore, masks have been proven to cause many physical ailments due to additional graphene oxide and lack of life-giving oxygen.
Furthermore. lockdowns have caused much undue hardship for small businesses due to closures and restrictions.
-Furthermore, All of these draconian measures based on fraudulent emergency measures is a contrivance to usher in a totalitarian world order.
Whereas ignorance of the law is no excuse,
Whereas ignorance of the 1000's of deaths and 100's of thousands of adverse reaction statistics is a crime and desecration of the medical society's Hippocratic oath.
Therefore any and all actions taken against anyone based on the fraudulent condition known as covid 19 is a crime against humanity and a racketeering scheme designed by the pharmaceutical industry, the government, and the mainstream media, to not only limit and damage the lives of the people of the world but to sicken and kill those who were unaware of the crime being perpetrated against them.
Legal basis:
Canada evidence act section 50:
Right of refusal to answer or produce documents.
50 (1) Any person examined under any order made under this Part has the like right to refuse to answer questions tending to criminate himself, or other questions, as a party or witness, as the case may be, would have in any cause pending in the court by which, or by a judge whereof, the order is made.
Canada evidence act section 50.2
Nature of right
(2) No person shall be compelled to produce, under any order referred to in subsection (1), any writing or other document that he could not be compelled to produce at a trial of such a cause.
To whom these provisions apply
Application of this Part
52 This Part extends to the following classes of persons:
(a) officers of any of Her Majesty’s diplomatic or consular services while performing their functions in any foreign country, including ambassadors, envoys, ministers, charges d’affaires, counsellors, secretaries, attaches, consuls general, consuls, vice-consuls, pro-consuls, consular agents, acting consuls general, acting consuls, acting vice-consuls and acting consular agents;
(b) officers of the Canadian diplomatic, consular and representative services while performing their functions in any foreign country or in any part of the Commonwealth and Dependent Territories other than Canada, including, in addition to the diplomatic and consular officers mentioned in paragraph (a), high commissioners, permanent delegates, acting high commissioners, acting permanent delegates, counsellors and secretaries;
(c) Canadian Government Trade Commissioners and Assistant Canadian Government Trade Commissioners while performing their functions in any foreign country or in any part of the Commonwealth and Dependent Territories other than Canada;
(d) honorary consular officers of Canada while performing their functions in any foreign country or in any part of the Commonwealth and Dependent Territories other than Canada;
(e) judicial officials in a foreign country in respect of oaths, affidavits, solemn affirmations, declarations or similar documents that the official is authorized to administer, take or receive; and
(f) persons locally engaged and designated by the Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs or any other person authorized by that Deputy Minister while performing their functions in any foreign country or in any part of the Commonwealth and Dependent Territories other than Canada.
Canadian, Charter of rights and freedoms
Provision. 15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.
section 7 security of the person
Security of the person includes a person’s right to control his/her own bodily integrity. It will be engaged where the state interferes with personal autonomy and a person's ability to control his or her own physical or psychological integrity, for example by prohibiting assisted suicide or regulating abortion or imposing unwanted medical treatment (R. v. Morgentaler, [1988] 1 S.C.R. 30 at 56; Carter, supra; Rodriguez, supra; Blencoe, supra at paragraph 55; A.C., supra, at paragraphs 100-102). Where a criminal prohibition forces a person to choose between a legal but inadequate treatment and an illegal but more effective choice, the law will infringe security of the person (Smith, supra, at paragraph 18).
In closing therefore any request for a vaccine passport based on your acceptance of this notice is unlawful and your name and business card will be required for any subsequent legal action that we the people will be engaging in these Canadian courts against all violators of the human rights of the people of Canada.
If you do not accept this notice you have tacitly agreed to the terms and conditions of this notice forthwith.
Download PDF here
Letter to Adam of the RCMP

Letter to Adam of the RCMP in response to phone call from #RCMP on June 24th 2021.
So first you instigate conflict against me, where otherwise there would have been none, against a lawful contractor who was trying to get to work where I help people by using my vast knowledge of carpentry and building experience causing me to lose not only my property by conspiring with the tow company to steal my property, but also thousands of dollars in lawful work.
Once again, you ruined my opportunity to do the work I promised by stealing my van and tools, causing me great hardship and loss of work.
Then to add terrorism to your criminality you are now lying and saying that I have 3 warrants and have stated that I can be put in one of your jails if I do not go into one of your mafia government terrorism offices to settle some fantasy debt you created after stealing my property and causing me hardships not once, but multiple times in the last 20 years.
I always looked at your criminal legal gang members you call the police as people society simply has to be aware of and to avoid at all cost due to the exact reasons listed in this text message.
You likely want me to come to your courthouses in what you call "in person" since the only power you have over people are physical force and intimidation against the flesh but you can never do anything lawfully or intelligently anymore since you and your corrupt government entity is now a racketeering and extortion syndicate that does nothing more than steal from people who live lawfully and destroy lives and intelligent lucid discourse destroys your legal fallacies.
It is a fact that your crime syndicate stole 80 billion dollars in the year 2019 by way of enforcing unlawful arbitrary legal rules which have no force or effect unless you use your forced coercive and violent police tactics to collect the money you extort from people. Those numbers have likely tripled since the lies of covid turned Canada into a full-blown tyrannical police state crime spree.
You told me I should go talk to the courts to settle these warrants, but it is the people who employ you that are the ring leaders of your mafia syndicate crime spree.
I told you to never call me as I am trying to live my life in a lawful and dignified way amongst the unlawful legal society you have created and just want to be left alone, but I know you and your gang of criminal legal mercenaries will always be out there in the world stealing from and intimidating people, though your job in the past was to stop crime but now you create crime to justify its lucrative revenue-generating enforcement. It's hard to stop crime when you yourselves are the criminals and your bosses are the ones making out like kingpins from your compliance to enforcement of their tactics and unwillingness to listen to lawful excuse in lieu of collecting a paycheck.
You have now stolen 5 of the vans that I used to create a lawful existence for myself and now you intend to threaten me with your cages if I do not comply with your other tactics of unlawful licensing, permits, and the criminal racketeering scheme of compulsory automobile insurance.
I will never again in good faith contract with an organization that has become as criminally corrupt as the legal corporation of Canada and its clearly tyrannical, criminal liberal Trudeau government.
I am also aware that you will never allow any of this reality to be known to the public that you and your bosses have spent their entire lifetimes to convince the people that your criminal gang is somehow a useful and necessary force, which it has not been for a very long time.
I will continue to ply my trade in a positive way and I know that you will constantly attempt to steal from me and coerce me to contract with you, but that will never happen, I refuse your entire criminal world under a moral objection so what must happen will happen regardless of my lawful intent.
Sovereign Truth

Welcome to the first stage of your individual freedom from government statute and its overbearing legislation and oppressive revenue generating rules.
If you are unaware that licenses, fines, tickets and summons, are an 80 billion dollar a year industry, and then you can include automobile confiscations and proceeds of crime to make that amount much higher per year.
Do you really think the government does these things for your safety and well being?
The Government of Canada is a syndicated mafia on a national level crime spree.
Found within this website you will find many things, You will learn how to live without Identification, licenses, permits, and all other forms of government issued ID that have taken your freedoms and then sold them back to you with heavy restrictions and outrageous rules.
You never have to carry a single piece of Identification with you.
You never have to pay an income tax on your hard earned pay for work.
Do you intentionally want to support a government that cares nothing about you? It is best not to encourage these people with your compliance because every time you do they always find some other thing to make you comply to. It's all a money making control racket.
The courts and police services on Canada have been corrupted beyond repair for over 30 years. There is no way to fix the world we live in except to violently overthrow the government and it's police and military, so instead of attempting something so dangerous and futile, you can change yourselves.
You can learn to live lawfully sovereign and forget everything you ever thought you needed to do in their statutory legal world.
What court is this?

This is your life we are talking about , please note the severity of this post.
Would you be surprised if I told you that the entire legal system was created under a maritime admiralty jurisdiction of law and is the law of the sea and is in essence piracy?
Did you know that the true law of the land on most countries is the common law ( case law ) which is the only true law. Legal is an arbitrary construct created by governments to restrict and obstruct all true law to make money in taxes, fines, tickets, summons, proceeds of crime, licensing, permits, and every other rule that create to intentionally make your life so difficult to live that they can then charge you or arrest you for it making billions of dollars a year.
A true crime is something that will be observed as something causing loss or harm. If the police were to see you assaulting someone on the street they would simply arrest you and put you in a cage without question or worry about seeing any Identification. That is true police work. that is what is known as acting as a peace officer. He is then acting in accordance with the law.
When he is enforcing policy he is not acting in accordance with the law but in a legal capacity which means that in order to charge you he first needs to see a charging instrument of some kind, a license, a permit, an insurance policy or a government issued identification card of some type. Without one he can not make charges.
All things legal are unlawful because the enforcement of things called legal always cause loss and harm and are done fraudulently.
The definition of a legal statute is a rule of a society given the force of law. Therefore it is merely a rule that is enforced by men with guns using force to gain compliance and that is a crime against every human being that has ever been subjected to it.
Common law defined means : do no harm, cause no loss, do no fraud.
Every act of statutory law enforcement contains three things, a monetary ticket or fine causing loss, handcuffing, assault, tazering, murder which is harm, and even just loss of your time, and every ticket is a fraudulent contract since no one on their side is giving consideration and you are coerced under duress to accept and or sign it.
A name and date of birth ( berth ) why do cops always ask for it ?
Birth is another one of those words that will create joinder to the legal fiction all caps person.
You can give them your title as I do I was given the title of Mika and My family is the family of Rasila, What is my date of birth? any comment I would have on this is clearly hearsay since I was much too young at the time to verify that information and hearsay is inadmissible in any court, I was told I was born in the month of December in the year 1966 but that was a really long time ago and the people who told me this information are now all deceased.
But the point is the berth, It creates joinder to the legal person and you can never do that , that is also the simple reason you should never have any ID.... It is actionable. The police as you have seen with my long list of pullovers will not arrest or act on me physically since they NEED to see proof that I am in their legal jurisdiction.
Have you ever thought about hearings and trials ?
It seems to me that first they need to be able to hear you right ? I have gone to court and the judge has said that unless I am agent or principle in this matter that I cannot hear you. I'm sure you have heard this right ? maybe not ? well it is a thing.
So as a sovereign in their administrative admiralty jurisdiction courtrooms if I do not have any paperwork or contracts to prove that I am a person / citizen of the corporation Canada they can not hear me but if I did and this is what they have a hearing for to make sure that they can in fact hear me and to make sure that I am represented by a lawyer which I will not do, I always stand as agent for the person on the docket in propria persona sui juris without prejudice and claim common law jurisdiction andwaive the benefits of the court, Then once they have determined those two things they can take it to a place to try me and see what they can get away with and off we go to the next stage being a trial.
This is where they test your knowledge of law and statute to see if you have what it takes or know enough to not get charged or incarcerated.
Hearings ? Cant they hear you ?
Trials ? what can they get away with ?
Remember all statutory laws are arbitrary constructs written up on a whim to see how far they can push the governed public so they always need to "try" their cases to see if it will fly.
This again is what they are trying to do with this random breathalyser stuff if they can get away with it they will " try "
They are doing exactly this right now with all this COVID non issue hype, If you look at the CDC and World heath stats you will quickly realize you are being lied to in the worst possible way possible. They are using the ignorant masses to destroy even mmore of your rights and freedoms.
I wanted to try to simplify the point of claiming common law jurisdiction in an admiralty court and why it is necessary
A friend just messaged me that she got pulled over in her registered and licensed car and they stole her cigarettes coming off of the reserve in Ontario and then claim that she was buying them for the intent of selling them. If it is not bad enough to assume someone's intent? How can anyone ever assume your intentions?
But the point is this, You have to make your case in their courts and you have to first set up the playing field to get the type of court that can deal with what you have to say, never let them bring you back into their jurisdiction by letting them confuse you,
You have claimed common law and waived the benefits of the court .... period !!
So now you can tell the court that you wish to report a robbery, One of their costumed mercenaries took it upon himself to rob you of your lawful property and you have gone to their court to let them know that you would like your property back and that they had no right to detain you and rob you.
Once you have claimed the jurisdiction of the type of court that can help you with the robbery then you can tell them that you are there to report a robbery, give them the robber's name and details and stay in the common law.
Another so important point of law . please know this point of court procedure . the judge is not bound by oath if you ask him if he is , he has many oaths , you have to be specific. in canada ask this question while standing on the good side of the bar , The common side , where you still have standing .
" Is it not true that you are bound by fiduciary duty to her majesty the queen of england to do right by all manner of people under the laws of canada and for the usages of the province without fear or favor affection or ill will ? "
He must answer you or fall into dishonor. He is bound you are not but he knows he is bound to serve that that illegitimate queen entity.

A judge after being made to accept his judicial oath for the record a judge can not render a verdict if there is an unanswered question on that "same" record.
So you want to know the judges oath and state it clearly for the record as an answerable question. ( yes or no ) and then you are entitled to ask factual questions of the court.
Otherwise no facts are admissible to the record in court.
The reason this is important because until you have done this nothing in that court room is valid and the judge can and will do anything it wants to do at that moment because the court is not obligated to "do right" by you.
You first have to set the jurisdiction by claiming it by saying ( I claim common law jurisdiction ), You have to state that for the record or it is presumed that you accept their admiralty statutory jurisdiction.
I always also " waive the benefits of the court " and then I recite the judges oath as a question. ( judicial oath )
Typically at this point I will be told I am free to leave and I can then state for the " court of record " that the judge has dismissed all charges.
He won't say it, you have to say it.
If he leaves the court room and returns you have to do this all over again because when he returns the court has re-adjourned under a new jurisdiction.
first time is an exchequer, commercial revenue court , then second time he is reconvening an admiralty court then finally he comes in as a priest in Canon court. You must reassert YOUR Common law jurisdiction all three times.
Its a game and they respect you when you know how to play it.
There are thousands upon thousands of people being held in cages on fraudulent statutory charges by governments and courts who claim authority now listen please. These people did not know to ask the simple questions and stand on this simple court procedure .
What is the claim against me and who makes this claim against me ? Is this claim lawfully submitted and who is my accuser , Is there an injured party to this claim ?
These are questions you need to ask , your life and reputation is on the line.
Only an inured party can make a claim against you under the common law, someone who has been caused loss or harm by your actions whether it was malicious or accidental.
No police can make a claim against you, that is fraud, they work for the state and no matter how they present charges it is a conflict of interest since they work for the same people who's job it is to render verdict .
So who makes the claim against you ? have you hurt anyone ? been caught stealing from someone ? caused damage to property that is not yours ? reneged on a contract that you signed to provide a service ? If all those answers are NO then you need to see a valid reason why you have been summoned since these are the only reasons any court can say you have committed a crime.
They need to provide you with a lawful claim in writing or the accuser must be present to give testimony.
No administrative court can render verdict based on the accusations of police. That is a blatant conflict of interest based on hearsay by some guy they hired to collect summons . it is a conflict of interest and is inadmissible in any court.
You always need a valid lawfully admitted claim and an injured party otherwise they are just destroying your life to make money .
Nothing is acceptable when it causes loss or harm , even a parking ticket or jay walking infraction will ruin your life , you need clarification of terms , don't let them ruin your life .
I have never been charged because I have always known this .