[administrating-your-public-servants] Re: BAR Members 9 Livestream

From: "Don Mashak" <dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> (Redacted sender "donmashak" for DMARC)
To: "administrating-your-public-servants@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <administrating-your-public-servants@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 4 Jun 2021 02:40:05 +0000 (UTC)

Hello all:
Here is the thing.... Natural Law and Natural Rights are not granted by the
government.
Natural Rights are innate and/or inherent in every individual human. Many view
themas gifts from their God.

America was founded upon Natural Law (see first paragraph, Declaration of
Independence.)
Natural Law is settled Metaphysics
Natural Law is to Metaphysics as the Laws of Physics are to Physics.
The Metaphysics of Natural Law was settled during the Enlightenment
1650-1800ad(Note the American Revolution and Declaration of Independence 1776.)
The US Founders even debated if a Bill of Rights was necessary.They felt the
Laws of Nature were so well known (at the time) that there wasno need to reduce
them to writing. But they decided to do so anyway.

Nor were all of every individual rights reduced to writing in the
Bill of Rights.
The 9th Amendment reminds us that all of our Natural Rightsare preserved, even
if not specifically included in the Bill of Rights.
Ergo, The Natural Right against unreasonable searches and seizureshas applied
to all States and Territories of the USA sincethe Signing of the Declaration of
Independence.

"...the separate and equal Station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s
God entitle them, a decent Respect to the Opinions of Mankind requires that
they should declare the causes which impel them to the Separation.
          We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all [People] are
created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable
Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness..."
So, to hell with Judges ESTABLISHING TRUTH as the Kings did under the forced
Metaphysics of the Divine Right of Kings,the ESTABLISHED TRUTH IS that all
Natural Rights exist without being reduced to writing.
The Scholars of the Enlightenment specifically reminded everyone that the Law
of Nature have always existedand they were merely reducing them to writing....
So the States, as the Federal Government, have always been bound to protect and
uphold theNatural Rights of the Individual....

Those were my thoughts.

Thank you for your time.

In Liberty,
Don Mashak
The Cynical Patriot

    On Thursday, June 3, 2021, 7:54:44 PM CDT, NELSON DICE
<nelsondice@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

#yiv8189432656 P {margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0;}The constitutional
proscription against unreasonable searches and seizures is made applicable to
the States by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United
States Constitution. Mapp v. Ohio,367 U.S. 643,81 S.Ct. 1684,6 L.Ed.2d 1081
(1961);United States ex rel. Dyton v. Ellingsworth, 306 F.Supp. 231
(D.Del.1969).

From: administrating-your-public-servants-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<administrating-your-public-servants-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> on behalf of J_B
<tf4624@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, June 3, 2021 3:52 PM
To: administrating-your-public-servants@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<administrating-your-public-servants@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; rickparis23@xxxxxxxxx
<rickparis23@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [administrating-your-public-servants] Re: BAR Members 9 Livestream
Have a look at this Supreme court caselaw: "NOTICE the use of the word
"motorist", not "traveler".

"We hold, therefore, that a random stop of a motorist in the absence of
specific articulable facts which justify the stop by indicating a reasonable
suspicion that a violation of the law has occurred is constitutionally
impermissible and violative of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the
United States Constitution. It follows that a random stop solely for the
purpose of a documents check is an unreasonable and unconstitutional detention
of those in the stopped vehicle. Because the stop in the present case was
arbitrary, and not based on justifying facts, it was illegal, and the evidence
gathered as a result of the stop must be excluded from defendant\'s trial. The
Superior Court order granting defendant\'s motion to suppress was correct as a
matter of law.
AFFIRMED." -
https://casetext.com/case/state-v-prouse?passage=QSrS9l5YYfgLZ1PsTRX-yw
-----------------
Note about the Conveyance Bond (auto bond) -  The "Auto Bond‟, certainly
replaces typical "car insurance‟. State statutes state that one carries either
„insurance‟ or a „Bond‟. Keep in mind that since the U.S. Bankruptcy,1) all
property was pledged to the state,2) there is no lawful constitutional money in
circulation to pay for anything, and3) everything is insured or bonded! The
debtor-slave on the plantation goes to a state-licensed insurance company to
„get‟ car insurance, enters into an agreement with the insurance company
(co-business partner with the state) and you so-call pay with a check, credit
card or cash, which is reduced to or is „federal reserve notes‟.
Federal Reserve Notes, as stated by the Federal Reserve Bank states; “In the
The United States neither paper currency nor deposits have value as
commodities. Intrinsically, a dollar bill is just a piece of paper, deposits
merely book entries…” – Modern Money Mechanics – Federal Reserve Bank of
Chicago – page 3 – Revised 6-1992; and B.), and as stated by the IRS; Federal
Reserve Notes are valueless. (See IRS Codes Section 1.1001-1 (4657) C.C.H.) So
what did the debtor-slave tender for the insurance? Valueless pieces of paper,
or a piece a paper, a check, that is merely a bookkeeping entry somewhere that
may result in more valueless paper to be tendered and/or certainly more
bookkeeping entries sent somewhere. But what the debtor-slave tendered, he most
likely "labored‟ for and yet he received nothing of equal valuable
consideration (sweat labor for valueless pieces of paper). But in this
insurance transaction, the State stays in control of all parties. And for the
debtor-slave on the plantation, no insurance means at the traffic stop, a
citation… commercial punishment which means more revenue for the state! As for
the Secured Party Creditor, having laid the foundation of the knowledge and of
the money issue, being the „Private Banker‟, either by previous agreement with
the state, or otherwise can provide his own „Bond‟ as evidence if „Financial
Responsibility‟.
The Bond is an insurance policy… acting as "in the event of‟ (an accident) “I
promise to pay…” But Federal Reserve Notes are valueless „promises to pay‟, so
when are you going to pay and in what? The Bond say‟s “…Every obligation,
heretofore or hereafter incurred, whether or not any such provision is
contained therein or made with respect thereto, shall be discharged upon
payment, dollar for dollar, in any coin or currency which at the time of
payment is legal tender for public and private debts. Any such provisions
contained in any law(s) authorizing obligations to be issued by or under the
authority of the United States, is hereby repealed.” The Bond is „Evidence of
Financial Responsibility‟. Certainly the Secured Party Creditor will know how
to handle such situations and will know how to „discharge‟ any liability there
from via acceptance for value. Also note; at the traffic stop, the police
officer does not have a „License‟ to practice law and therefore cannot make a
legal determination as to the validity of the Bond. The Bond is to be recorded
into the Public making it recognizable in any administrative tribunal/court.

For many years Professionals within the criminal justice System have acted upon
the belief that traveling by motor vehicle upon the roadway was a privilege
that was gained by a citizen only after approval by their respective state
government in the form of the issuance of a permit or license to that
Particular individual. Legislators, police officers and court officials are
becoming aware that there are now court decisions that prove the fallacy of the
legal opinion that” driving is a privilege and therefore requires government
approval, i.e. a license”. Some of these cases are:
Case # 1 – “Even the legislature has no power to deny to a citizen theright to
travel upon the highway and transport his property in the ordinary course of
his business or pleasure, though this right may be regulated in accordance with
the public interest and convenience. –Chicago Motor Coach v Chicago 169 NE 22
(“Regulated” here means traffic safety enforcement, stop lights, signs, etc.
NOT a privilege that requires permission i.e.- licensing, mandatory insurance,
vehicle registration, etc.)

Case # 2 – “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 right
which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of
happiness.”-Thompson v Smith 154 SE 579.

It could not be stated more conclusively that Citizens of the states have
aright to travel, without approval or restriction (license), and that this
right is protected under the U.S. Constitution. Here are other court decisions
that expound the same facts:

Case # 3 – “The right to travel is a part of the liberty of which the citizen
cannot be deprived without due process of law under the 5th Amendment.” – Kent
v Dulles, 357 U.S. 116, 125.

Case # 4 – “Undoubtedly the right of locomotion, the right to remove from one
place to another according to inclination, is an attribute of personal Iiberty,
and the right, ordinarily, of free transit from or through the territory of any
State is a right secured by the l4th Amendment and by other provisions of the
Constitution.” –Schactman v Dulles, 96 App D.C. 287, 293.

FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT

As hard as it is for those of us in Law enforcement to believe, there is no
room for speculation in these court decisions. The American citizen does indeed
have the inalienable right to use the roadways unrestricted in any manner as
long as they are not damaging or violating property or rights of another.

Government, in requiring the people to file for “drivers licenses, vehicle
registrations, mandatory insurance, and demanding they stop for vehicle
inspections, DUI/DWI roadblocks etc. without question, are “restricting”, and
therefore violating, the Peoples common law right to travel.

Is this a new legal interpretation on this subject of the right to travel?
Apparently not. The American Citizens and Lawmen Association in conjunction
with The U.S. Federal Law Research Center are presently involved in studies in
several areas involving questions on constitutional law. One of the many areas
under review is the area of “Citizens right to travel.” In an interview a
spokesmen stated: “Upon researching this subject over many months, substantial
case law has presented itself that completely substantiates the position that
the “right to travel unrestricted upon the nations highways” is and has always
been a fundamentalright of every Citizen.”

This means that the “beliefs and opinions” our state legislators, the courts,
and those of as involved in the law enforcement profession have acted upon for
years have been in error. Researchers armed with actual facts state that U.S.
case law is overwhelming in determining that – to restrict, in any fashion, the
movement of the individual American in the free exercise of their right to
travel upon the roadways, (excluding “commerce” which the state Legislatures
are correct in regulating), is a serious breach of those freedoms secured by
the U.S. Constitution, and most state Constitutions, i.e –it is Unlawful.

THE REVELATION THAT THE AMERICAN CITIZEN HAS ALWAYS HAD THE INALIENABLE RIGHT
TO TRAVEL RAISES PROFOUND QUESTIONS TO THOSE WHO ARE INVOLVED IN MAKING AND
ENFORCING STATE LAWS.

The first of such questions may very well be – If the States have been
enforcing laws that are unconstitutional on their face, it would seem that
there must be some way that a state can legally put restrictions, such as –
licensing requirements, mandatory insurance, vehicle registration, vehicle
inspections, D.W.I. roadblocks, to name just a few, on a Citizens
constitutionally protected right. Is that not so?

For the answer to this question let us Iook, once again, to the U.S. courts for
a determination on this very issue.

The case ofHertado v. California, 110 U.S. 516. states very plainly: “The State
cannot diminish rights of the people.”

“the assertion of federal rights, when plainly and reasonably made, is not to
be defeated under the name of local practice.”-Davis v. Wechsler, 263 U.S. 22,
24.

Would we not say that these judicial decisions are straight to the point – that
there isno lawful method for government to put restrictions or Iimitations on
rights belonging to the people?

Other cases are even more straight forward:

“Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule
making or legislation which would abrogate them.”
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 491.

“The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a
crime.· –Miller v. U.S., 230 F 2d 486, 489.

“There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of this exercise
of Constitutional rights.”-Sherar v. Cullen, 481 F. 945. ( There is no question
that a citation/ticket issued by a police officer, for no drivers license, no
current vehicle registration, no vehicle insurance etc. which carries a fine or
jail time, is a penalty or sanction, and is indeed “converting a Right into a
crime”.)

We could go on, quoting court decision after court decision, however, In
addition, the Constitution itself answers our question- “Can a
governmentlegally put restrictions on the rights of the American people at
anytime, for any reason”? (Such as in this particular case – when the
government believes it to be for the safety and welfare of the people).

The answer is found inARTICLE SIX of the U.S. Constitution:

“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in
Pursuance thereof;..shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the judges in
every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of
any State to the Contrary not withstanding”. (This tells us that the U.S.
Constitution is to be upheld over any state, county, or city Iaws that are in
opposition to it.)

In the same Article it goes on to say justwho it is within our governments that
is bound by this Supreme Law:

“The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the
several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of
the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or
Affirmation, to support this Constitution;”. –ART. 6 U.S. CONST.

We know that Police officers, are a part of the Executive branch. We are
“Executive Officers”.

Article 6 above, is called the SUPREMACY CLAUSE, and it clearly states that,
under every circumstance, the above listed officials in these United Statesmust
hold this documents tenets supreme over any other laws, regulations, or orders.
Every U.S. Police officer knows that they have sworn a oath to the people of
our nation that we will not only protect their lives and property, but, that we
will uphold, and protect their freedoms and rights under the Supreme laws of
this nation, – the U. S. Constitution.

In this regard then, we must agree that those within government that restrict a
Citizens rights, (such as restricting the peoples right to travel,) are acting
in violation of his or her oath of office and are actually committing a crime
against such Citizens. Here’s an interesting question. Is ignorance of these
laws an excuse for such acts by officials?

If we are to follow the “letter of the law (as we are sworn to do), this places
officials that involve themselves in such unlawful acts in a unfavorable legal
situation. For it is a felony and federal crime to violate, or deprive citizens
of their Constitutionally protected rights.

Our system of law dictates the fact that there are only two ways to legally
remove a right belonging to the people. These are – #1 – by lawfully amending
the constitution, or #2 – by a person knowingly waiving a particular right.

Some of the confusion in our present system has arisen because many millions of
people have waived their right to travel “unrestricted” upon the roadways of
the states and opted into the jurisdiction of the state for various reasons.
Those who have knowingly given up these rights are now legally regulated by
state law, the proper courts, and “sworn, constitutionally empowered
officers-of-the-law,” and must acquire proper permits, registrations,
insurance, etc.

There are basically two groups of people in this category:

#1 – Any citizen that involves themselves in “commerce,” (business for private
gain), upon the highways of the state.

Here is what the courts have said about this:

“…For while a citizen has the right to travel upon the public highways and to
transport his property thereon, that right does not extend to the use of the
highways, either in whole or in part, as a place for private gain. For the
latter purpose no person has a vested right to use the highways of the state,
but is a privilege or license which the legislature may grant or withhold at
its discretion…” – State v Johnson, 243 P. 1073, 1078.

Other U.S. court cases that confirm and point out the difference between the
“right” of the citizen to travel and a government “privilege” are – Barney v
Board of Railroad Commissioners; State v City of Spokane, 186 P. 864.; Ex Parte
Dickey (Dickey v Davis), 85 S.E. 781.; Teche Lines v Danforth, 12 So.2d 784.

There are numerous other court decisions that spell out theJURISDICTION issue
In these two distinctly different activities. However, because of space
restrictions we will leave it up to officers to research it further for
themselves. (See last page for additional references).

#2 – The second group of citizens that are legally under the jurisdiction of
the state is the individual citizen who has voluntarily andknowingly waived
their right to travel “unregulated and unrestricted” by requesting placement
under such jurisdiction through the acquisition of a state – drivers license,
vehicle registration, mandatory insurance, etc. (In other words “by contract
only”.)

We should remember what makes this “legal,” and not a violation of the
individuals common law right to travel “unrestricted” is that theyknowingly
volunteer, freely, by contract, to waive their right. If they were forced,
coerced or unknowingly placed under the states powers, the courts have said it
is a clear violation of their rights.

This in itself raises a very interesting question. What percentage of the
people in each state have filed, and received, licenses, registrations,
insurance etc. after erroneously being advised by their government that it was
mandatory?

Many of our courts, attorneys and police officials are just becoming informed
about this important issue and the difference between “Privileges vs. Rights”.
We can assume that the majority of those Americans carrying state licenses,
vehicle registrations etc., have no knowledge of the rights they waived in
obeying laws such as these that the U.S. Constitution clearly states are
unlawful, i.e. “laws of no effect”. In other words – “LAWS THAT ARE NOT LAWS AT
ALL.“

OUR SWORN DUTY

An area of serious consideration for every police officer, is to understand
that the most important law in our land he has taken an oath to protect,
defend,AND ENFORCE, is not state laws, nor city or county ordinances, but, that
law that supersede all other laws in our nation, – the U.S. Constitution. If
laws in a particular police officer’s state, or local community are in conflict
with the SUPREME LAW of our nation, there Is no question that the officer’s
duty is to “uphold the U.S. Constitution.”

What does this mean to the “patrol officer” who will be the only sworn
“Executive Officer” on the scene, when knowledgeable Citizens raise serious
objections over possession of insurance, drivers licenses and other
restrictions? It definitely means these officers will be faced with a hard
decision. (Most certainly if that decision effects state, city or county
revenues, such as the issuing of citations do.)

Example: If a state legislator, judge or a superior tells a police officer to
proceed and enforce a contradictory, (illegal), state law rather than the
Supreme Law of this country, what is that “sworn officer” to do? Although we
may not want to hear it, there is but one right answer, – “the officer is duty
bound to uphold his oath of office” and obey the highest laws of the
nation.THIS IS OUR SWORN DUTY AND IT’S THE LAW!

Such a strong honest stand taken by a police officer, upholding his or her oath
of office, takes moral strength of character. It will, without question,
“SEPARATE THE MEN FROM THE BOYS.” Such honest and straight forward decisions on
behalf of a government official have often caused pressure to be applied to
force such officers to set aside, or compromise their morals or convictions.

As a solace for those brave souls in uniform that will stand up for law and
justice, even when it’s unpopular, or uncomfortable to do so…let me say this.
In any legal stand-off over a sworn official “violating” or “upholding” their
oath of office, those that would side with the “violation” should
inevitablelose.

Our Founding Fathers assured us, on many occasions, the following: Defending
our freedoms in the face of people that would for “expedients sake,” or behind
the guise, “for the safety and welfare of the masses,” ignore peoples rights,
would forever demand sacrifice and vigilance from those that desired to remain
free. That sounds a little like – “Freedom is not free!”

Every police officer should keep the following court ruling, that was covered
earlier, in mind before issuing citations in regard to “mandatory licensing,
registration and insurance” – verses – “the right of the people to travel
unencumbered”:

“THE CLAlM AND EXERCISE OF A CONSTITUTIONAL RlGHT CANNOT BE CONVERTED INTO A
CRIME.” –Miller v U.S., 230 F 2d 486. 489.

And as we have seen, “traveling freely,” going about ones daily activities, is
the exercise of amost basic right.

On Thu, Jun 3, 2021 at 1:44 PM Mike <leatherlips1@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Get in contact with your state depart. of motor vehicles and request the state
regulation Z plates. Every state is required to make them available but they
don’t tell anyone about this. It may take you some effort to get it. Once you
get them you go onto the do not detain list. This info was in one of David
Straight’s videos.  From: Rick Paris (Redacted sender "rickparis23" for DMARC)
Sent: Thursday, June 03, 2021 10:57 AMTo:
administrating-your-public-servants@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject:
[administrating-your-public-servants] Re: BAR Members 9 Livestream Good day to
everyone! My vehicle registration is due, and I would like to stop paying it.
Does anyone have any advice? Is this something you do and then fight it in
court if I get stopped, or is there Some other recourse? ThanksRick

On Jun 3, 2021, at 9:36 AM, Bill (Redacted sender "billdealsre" for DMARC)
<dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: Requesting of information addressed to the
person in charge of holding/retaining/keeping such records.
Adjust to your information and state requirements. (FOIA is for federal, the
state has a different one to follow)

   -
  On Tuesday, June 1, 2021, 01:49:15 PM CDT, J_B <tf4624@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Bill. .upload the form you send and to who please so we can do it correctly..
*keep out personal info :-)
On Tue, Jun 1, 2021 at 1:21 PM Bill <dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Here in Texas, I have sent many foia requests for oath of office and bond info.
I have received it every time. However the bond info never came, because they
are not bonded. If  they are bonded, it will show at the bottom of the oath.
You can also go to the county recorders office and get one. They are public
info. On Tuesday, June 1, 2021, 12:05:44 PM CDT, Paul M
<dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:  How can We The People demand a certified
and notarized copy of a Lawyer\attorneys BAR Card but mostly their OATH of
Office to support and defend the Constitutions
On Monday, May 31, 2021, 9:30:47 PM CDT, Me <dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:  When tomorrow 1 June 2021 at 12pm noon
Do you have a problem and I don't care what kind of a problem because BAR
members will be behind it!!! Any kind of problem will ALWAYS, ALWAYS, ALWAYS
have BAR members behind it. BAR Members 8

|
|
|
|  |  |

|

|
|
|  |
BAR Members 8

|

|

|

   Please circulate this far and wide!!!! Best Regards, Glenn
<FOIAsample.doc>
With Life, Liberty, and Happiness,

Rick Sousarickparis23@xxxxxxxxx

References:
- [administrating-your-public-servants] BAR Members 9 Livestream
  - From: Me
- [administrating-your-public-servants] Re: BAR Members 9 Livestream
  - From: Paul M
- [administrating-your-public-servants] Re: BAR Members 9 Livestream
  - From: Bill
- [administrating-your-public-servants] Re: BAR Members 9 Livestream
  - From: J_B
- [administrating-your-public-servants] Re: BAR Members 9 Livestream
  - From: Bill
- [administrating-your-public-servants] Re: BAR Members 9 Livestream
  - From: Rick Paris
- [administrating-your-public-servants] Re: BAR Members 9 Livestream
  - From: Mike
- [administrating-your-public-servants] Re: BAR Members 9 Livestream
  - From: J_B
- [administrating-your-public-servants] Re: BAR Members 9 Livestream
  - From: NELSON DICE

[administrating-your-public-servants] Re: BAR Members 9 Livestream

Other related posts: