Traffic Stop Notice
Police Officer, Sheriff, or Law Enforcement Officer, Peace Officer, please take notice of the below information:
The Sovereign presenting this information to you is doing so in an attempt to protect you from yourself. I have a good
deal of respect for the public service job you are doing and understand how difficult it is to seek out and prosecute
criminals. However, this document is presented at a traffic stop.
Where an Sovereign is detained, without a warrant and without having committed a crime (traffic infractions are not
crimes), the detention is a false arrest and false imprisonment. Damages awarded; Treavant v. City of Tampa, 241F.2d. 336
(11th CIR.1984) Motorist illegally held for 23 minutes in a traffic charge was awarded $25,000 in damages. The above case
sets the foundation for $75,000 dollars per hour, or $1,800,000 dollars per day.
"The Fifth Amendment provides that no person shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a
witness against himself in a criminal prosecution but also privileges him not to answer official
questions put to him in any other proceeding, civil or criminal, formal or informal, where the
answers might incriminate him in future criminal proceedings."
[Lefkowitz v. Turley, 94 S. CT. 316, 414 U.S. 70 (1973)]
"The privilege is not ordinarily dependent upon the nature of the proceeding in which the
testimony is sought or is to be used. It applies alike to civil and criminal proceedings, wherever
this might tend to subject to criminal responsibility on him who gives it. The privilege protects a
mere witness as fully as it does one who is a party defendant."
[McCarthy v. Arnstein, 266 U.S. 34, 40, 45 S.CT. 16, 17, 69 L.ED. 158 (1924)]
"where the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination is involved the court has always
construed its protection to ensure that an individual is not compelled to produce evidence which
later may be used against him as an accused in a criminal action The protection does not merely
encompass evidence which may lead to criminal conviction, but includes information which would
furnish a link in the chain of evidence that could lead to prosecution, as well as evidence which an
individual reasonably believes could be used against him in a criminal prosecution."
[Hoffman v. United States, 341 U.S. 479, 486, 71 S.CT.814, 95L.Ed. 1, 18 (1951)]
"in Kastigar v. United States, 406 U.S. 441, 92 S. CT. 1653, 32 L. Ed. 212(1972), we recently
reaffirmed the principle that the privilege against self incrimination can be asserted in any
proceeding, civil or criminal, administrative or judicial, investigatory or adjudicatory. Id., at 444,
92 S. Ct. AT 1656; “
[Lefkowitz v. Turley, 414 U.S. 70, 94 S. CT.316, 322, 38 L. Ed. 274 (1973)]
"WE have recently noted that the privilege against self-incrimination --- the essential mainstay of
our adversary systemis founded in a complex of values To maintain a fair state individual balance,
to require the government to shoulder the entire load to protect the inviolability of the human
personality, our accusatory system of criminal justice demands that the government seeking to
punish an individual produce the evidence against him by its own independent labors, rather than
by the cruel, simple expedient of compelling it form his own mouth In sum, the privilege is fulfilled
only when the person is guaranteed the right to remain silent unless he chooses to speak in the
unfettered exercise of his own will."
". . .there can be no doubt that the Fifth Amendment privilege is available outside of criminal
court proceedings and serves to protect persons in all settings in which their freedom of action is
curtailed in any significant way from being compelled to incriminate themselves."
[Miranda v. Arizona, 86 S. CT. 1602, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) ]
Please also NOTE: the above, as stated by the Supreme Court, are rights and privileges as guaranteed by the Constitution,
and anyone (including judges) who knowingly violates those rights may be civilly and criminally liable under several
federal statutes. Please see: United States Code, Title 18 Section 241 (Conspiracy against Rights), and Section 242
(Deprivation of Rights under Color of Law); Title 42 Section 1983, 1985, 1986 (Civil Rights)
"There, every man is independent of all laws, except those prescribed by nature. He is not bound
by any institutions formed by his fellowman without his consent."
[Cruden v. Neale, 2 N.C. 338 (1796) 2 S.E.]
Understand this. If one the individual man, that is does not give his consent, no rule made by any institution (all are fictions
of man) is a law placed upon the man. The majority means nothing to human rights and freedom blessed upon us by our
Creator; only rights may prevail without government interference in the real America. This has been stated in this opinion
made about 190 years after Chisholm opinion.
All codes, rules and regulations are applicable to the government authorities only, not
human/Creators in accordance with God’s laws. All codes, rules and regulations are
unconstitutional and lacking in due process Rodriques v Ray Donavan (U.S. Department of
Labor), 769 F. 2d 1344, 1348 (1985) (Bold added)
Sheriffs ignore the fact their job is to protect the rights of the people by in fact controlling artificial entities known as
county and municipal officials. They violate their oaths of office on a regular systematic basis by doing the unlawful
bidding of other officials.
All act under color of authority and commit treason against any American who meets not only his duty as an American to
inform of massive wrongdoing, but also reporting that is required by Title 18, Sections 4 and 2382.
"If the legislatures of the several states may, at will, annul the judgments of the courts of the
United States, and destroy the rights acquired under those judgments, the constitution itself
becomes a solemn mockery"
[United States v. Peters, 5 Cranch 115, 136. ]
If he [the Governor] had such power, said Chief Justice Hughes, in 1932, also for a unanimous Court,
"it is manifest that the fiat of a state Governor, and not the Constitution of the United States,
would be the supreme law of the land; that the restrictions of the Federal Constitution upon the
exercise of state power would be but impotent phrases"
[Sterling v. Constantine, 287 U.S. 378, 397-398 (My emphasis) ]
Every state legislator and executive and judicial officer is solemnly committed by oath taken pursuant to Art. VI, cl. 3, to
support this Constitution. Chief Justice Taney, speaking for a unanimous Court in 1859, said that this requirement reflected
the framers' anxiety to preserve it [the Constitution] in full force, in all its powers, and to guard against resistance to or
evasion of its authority, on the part of a State . . . . Ableman v. Booth, 21 How. 506, 524. (Quote copied from Cooper v
Aaron, 358 U.S. 1, 1958)
Cops are actually private mercenary armies hired by corporate governments to enforce the rules of the corporation they are
part of. As such, they may only enforce the rules on the corporate entities or their creations that are in essence an extension
of the government corporation.
Why is it that they are not interested or willfully disobey the laws and continue on with the same treasonous acts, often
seeking retribution against those who inform them of the truth? It is sometimes just ignorant men that unknowingly commit
treason and use terrorism against our people but it is flat out evil men that do so knowingly.
Not even the Sheriff of a county the only constitutional law enforcer in a county (and, hence, state) has jurisdiction over
the people. He is only in office to protect and preserve rights of the people. Thusly, he/she does have jurisdiction (authority)
over artificial entities namely, the other officials and corporations created or holding contracts with the chartered
corporations. (THE SHERIFF Powers and Responsibilities of Elected Peace Officers, presented by American Citizens
and Lawman Association)
Current officials including city, county, state and federal that have the simple task of protecting the rights of the people
instead use their offices and under color of authority to do anything but protect the rights of the people.
Fraud vital information left out and undisclosed to the people is a criminal act by officials that is also by definition treason
and usually invoking terrorism, as it is forced upon people through armed and extremely dangerous SOBs wearing badges
and the uniforms of the corporate government they serve.
Additionally, their mouthpieces bar attorneys are a heathen bunch of traitors that are concerned only with transferring as
much of the property of the people as they can to their own pockets and the rhetorical pockets of those they serve their King
and god, the State. In doing so, they serve Satan’s purpose as if they are in his direct employ.
"An illegal arrest is an assault and battery. The person so attempted to be restrained of his liberty
has the same right, and only the same right, to use force in defending himself as he would have in
repelling any other assault and battery."
[State v. Robinson 145 Me. 77,72 Atl. 2d 260, 262 (1950)]
"Uncontrolled search and seizure is one of the first and most effective weapons in the arsenal of
every arbitrary government."
[Brenninger V. U.S. 338 US 160]
"When officers detained defendant for the purpose of requiring him to identify himself, they
performed a "seizure" of his person subject to the requirements of the Fourth Amendment."
[Brown v. Texas, 443 US at 47]
"The offense of resisting arrest, both at common law and under statute, presupposes a lawful
arrest. It is axiomatic (self-evident) that every person has the right to resist an unlawful arrest. In
such case the person attempting the arrest stands in the position of a wrongdoer and may be
resisted by the use of force, as in self-defense."
[State v. Mobley 240 N.C. 476, 83 S.E. 2d 100,102 (1954)]
___________________________________________________________________________
"The usual rule is that a police officer may arrest without warrant one believed by the officer upon
reasonable cause to have been guilty of a felony , and that he may only arrest without a warrant
one guilty of a misdemeanor if committed in his presence. Kurtz v. Moffitt, 115 US 487; Elk v.
U.S., 117 US 529. The rule is sometimes expressed as follows:
"In cases of misdemeanor, a peace officer like a private person has at common law no power of
arresting without a warrant except when a breach of the peace has been committed in his
presence or there is reasonable ground for supposing that a breach of the peace is about to be
committed or renewed in his presence." Halsbury's Laws of England, Vol. 9 part III, 612. The
reason for arrest for misdemeanors without warrant at common law was promptly to suppress
breaches of the peace, 1 Stephen, History of Criminal Law, 193..."
[Carrol v. U.S., 267 US 132, 157]
"Though the police are honest and their aims worthy, history shows they are not appropriate
guardians of the privacy which the Fourth Amendment protects."
[Jones v. United States 362 U.S. 257, 273 (1959).]
"The point of the Fourth Amendment, which often is not grasped by zealous officers, is not that it
denies law enforcement the support of the usual inferences which reasonable men draw from
evidence. Its protection consists in requiring that those inferences be drawn by a neutral and
detached magistrate instead of being judged by the officer engaged in the often competitive
enterprise of ferreting out crime."
[Terry v. Ohio, 392 US 1, 34 (1968)]
"It must be recognized that whenever a police officer accosts an individual and restrains his
freedom to walk away, he has 'seized' that person."
[Terry v. Ohio, 392 US 1, 16 (1968)]
"Stopping an automobile and detaining its occupants constitute a "seizure" within meaning of the
Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments, even though purpose of stop is limited and resulting
detention is quite brief."
[Delaware v. Prouse, 440 US 648]
Now, to reinterate, I repeat two cite cases mentioned above. Please note:
"An illegal arrest is an assault and battery. The person so attempted to be restrained of his liberty
has the same right, and only the same right, to use force in defending himself as he would have in
repelling any other assault and battery."
[State v. Robinson 145 Me. 77,72 Atl. 2d 260, 262 (1950)]
"The offense of resisting arrest, both at common law and under statute, presupposes a lawful
arrest. It is axiomatic (self-evident) that every person has the right to resist an unlawful arrest. In
such case the person attempting the arrest stands in the position of a wrongdoer and may be
resisted by the use of force, as in self-defense."
[State v. Mobley 240 N.C. 476, 83 S.E. 2d 100,102 (1954)]
Officer, I cannot and will not provide you with any information that may later be used against me in a civil or criminal
proceeding. This includes producing documents that may or may not be in my possession. If there is some important
information that you wish to impart upon me, please do so in a respectful manner. I do hope you will have a good day.
Respectfully submitted,
___________________________________________________, Sui Juris
__________________________________________________