No Drivers License Common-Law "TRAVEL" Antecedent To Constitutions Free people have a common law and constitutional right to travel

on the roads and highways that are provided by their government for that purpose. Licensing of drivers cannot be required of free people because taking on the restrictions of a license requires the surrender of an inalienable right;(2) In England in 1215, the right to travel was enshrined in Article 42 of Magna Carta: 42. It shall be lawful in future for anyone (excepting always those imprisoned or outlawed in accordance with the law of the kingdom, and natives of any country at war with us, and merchants, who shall be treated as if above provided) to leave our kingdom and to return, safe and secure by land and water, except for a short period in time of war, on grounds of public policyreserving always the allegiance due to us. In U.S. v Guest, 383 U.S. 745 (1966), the Court noted, "It is a right that has been firmly established and repeatedly recognized." In fact, in Shapiro v Thompson, 394 U.S. 618 (1969), Justice Stewart noted in a concurring opinion that "it is a right broadly assert-able against private interference as well as governmental action. Like the right of association, ... it is a virtually unconditional personal liberty, guaranteed through the Constitutions to us all." It is interesting to note that the Articles of Confederation had an explicit right to travel; it is now thought that the right is so fundamental that the Framers may have thought it unnecessary to include it in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. COMMON-LAW defined: As distinguished from statutory law created by the enactment of legislatures, the common law comprises the body of those principles and rules of action, relating to the government and security of persons and property, which derive their authority solely from usages and customs of immemorial antiquity, or from the judgments and decrees of the courts recognizing, affirming, and enforcing such usages and customs; and, in this sense, particularly the ancient unwritten law of England. In general, it is a body of law that develops and derives through judicial decisions, as distinguished from legislative enactments. The "common law" is all the statutory and case law background of England and the American colonies before the American revolution. People v. Rehman, 253 C.A.2d 119, 61 Cal. Rptr. 65, 85. It consists of those principles, usage and rules of action applicable to government and security of persons and property, which do not rest for their authority upon any express and positive declaration of the will of the legislature. Bishop v. U. S., D.C.Tex., 334 F.Supp. 415, 418. As distinguished from ecclesiastical law, it is the system of jurisprudence administered by the purely secular tribunals. Calif. Civil Code, Section 22.2, provides that the "common law of England, so far as it is not repugnant to or inconsistent with the Constitution of the United States, or the Constitution or laws of this State, is the rule of decision in all the courts of this State." In a broad sense, "common law" may designate all that part of the positive law, juristic theory, and ancient custom of any state or nation which is of general and universal application, thus marking off special or local rules or customs. For Federal common law, see that title. As a compound adjective "common-law" is understood as contrasted with or opposed to "statutory," and sometimes also to "equitable" or to "criminal." Blacks Law Dictionary Sixth Edition (page 276)

Whereas defined pursuant to Supreme Court Annotated Statute; Chicago Motor Coach v. Chicago, 169 NE 221: "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." As the Supreme Court notes in Saenz v Roe, 98-97 (1999), the Constitution does not contain the word "travel" in any context, let alone an explicit right to travel (except for members of Congress, who are guaranteed the right to travel to and from Congress. The right to travel, however, is firmly established in U.S. law and precedent. STARE DECISIS defined: to abide by, or adhere to, decided cases. policy of courts to stand by precedent and not to disturb settled point. [Neff v. George, 364 Ill. 306, 4 N.E.2d 388, 390, 391.] Doctrine that, when court has once laid down a principal of law as applicable to a certain state of facts, it will adhere to that principle, and apply it to all future cases, where facts are substantially the same; regardless of whether the parties and property are the same. [Horne v. Moody, Tex.Civ.App., 146 S.W.2d 505, 509, 510.] Under doctrine a deliberate or solemn decision of court made after argument on question of law fairly arising in the case, and necessary to its determination, is an authority, or binding precedent in the same court, or in other courts of equal or lower rank in subsequent cases where the very point is again in controversy. [State v. Mellenberger, 163 Or. 233, 95 P.2d 709, 719, 720.] Doctrine is one of policy, grounded on theory that security and certainty require that accepted and established legal principle, under which rights may accrue, be recognized and followed, though later found to be not legally sound, but whether previous holding of court shall be adhered to, modified, or overruled is within court's discretion under circumstances of case before it. [Otter Tail Power Co. v. Von Bank, 72 N.D. 497, 8 N.W.2d 599, 607.] Under doctrine, when point of law has been settled by decision, it forms precedent, which is not afterwards to be departed from, and, while it should ordinarily be strictly adhered to, there are occasions when departure is rendered necessary to vindicate plain, obvious principals of law and remedy continued injustice. The doctrine is not ordinarily departed from where decision is of long-standing and rights have been acquired under it, unless considerations of public policy demand it. [Colonial Trust Co. v. Flanagan, 344 Pa. 556, 25A.2d 728, 729.] The doctrine is limited to actual determinations in respect to litigated and necessarily decided questions, and is not applicable to dicta or obiter dicta. Black's Law Dictionary Sixth Edition (page 1406) Whereas defined pursuant to Supreme Court Annotated Statute; Chicago Motor Coach v. Chicago, 169 NE 221: "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." Whereas defined pursuant to Supreme Court Annotated Statute; Thompson v. Smith, 154 SE 579: "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."

It could not be stated more directly or conclusively the people of the 50 Union states have common-law right to travel, without approval or restriction (license), and that this right is protected under the organic Constitution. Whereas defined pursuant to Supreme Court Annotated Statute; Kent v. Dulles, 357 US 116, 125: "The right to travel is a part of the liberty of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment." Whereas defined pursuant to Supreme Court Annotated Statute; Schactman v. Dulles 96 App DC 287, 225 F2d 938, at 941: "The right to travel is a well-established common right that does not owe its existence to the federal government. It is recognized by the courts as a natural right." As hard as it is for those corporate police employees within law departments to believe, there is no room for speculation in these court decisions. Americans do indeed have un-a-lien-able rights to use the roadways unrestricted in any manner as long as they are not damaging or violating property or rights of others. STATE corporations -- in suggesting the people to obtain drivers licenses, and accepting vehicle inspections and DUI/DWI roadblocks without question -- is restricting, and therefore violates, the people's common-law right to travel. Actual facts state that case law is overwhelming in determining that there shall be no restriction of movement of freeborn people in exercise of our right to travel. Let us look, once again, to the U.S. courts for a determination of this very issue. In Hertado v. California, 110 US 516, the U.S Supreme Court states very plainly: "The state cannot diminish rights of the people." And in Bennett v. Boggs, 1 Baldw 60, "Statutes that violate the plain and obvious principles of common right and common reason are null and void." Would we not say that these judicial decisions are straight to the point -- that there is no lawful method for government to put restrictions or limitations on rights belonging to the people? Other cases are even more straight forward: "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 US 22, at 24 "Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them." Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US 436, 491. "The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime." Miller v. US, 230 F 486, at 489. There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of this exercise of constitutional rights." Sherer v. Cullen, 481 F 946

We could go on, quoting court decision after court decision; however, the Constitution itself answers our question - Can a government legally put restrictions on the rights of the American people at anytime, for any reason? The answer is found in Article Six of the U.S. Constitution: "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States be made in Pursuance thereof;... shall be the supreme and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, Constitution or laws of any State to the Contrary not withstanding." which shall Law of the Land; any Thing in the one word

In the same Article, it says just who within our government 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..." 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 who involve themselves in such unlawful acts in an 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 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 on our present system has arisen because many millions of people have waived their right to travel unrestricted and volunteered into the jurisdiction of the state. Those who have knowingly given up these rights are now legally regulated by state law and must acquire the proper permits and registrations. There are basically two groups of people in this category: 1. Citizens who involve themselves in commerce 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...as a place for private gain. For the latter purpose, no person has a vested right to use the highways of this state, but it is a privilege...which the (state) may grant or withhold at its discretion..." State v. Johnson, 245 P 1073. There are many court cases that confirm and point out the difference between the right of the citizen to travel and a government privilege and there are numerous other court decisions that spell out the jurisdiction issue in these two distinctly different activities. However, because of space restrictions, we will leave it to officers to research it further for themselves. 2. The second group of citizens that is legally under the

jurisdiction of the state are those citizens who have voluntarily and knowingly waived their right to travel unregulated and unrestricted by requesting placement under such jurisdiction through the acquisition of a state driver's license, vehicle registration, mandatory insurance, etc. (In other words, by contract.) We should remember what makes this legal and not a violation of the common law right to travel is that they knowingly volunteer by contract to waive their rights. If they were forced, coerced or unknowingly placed under the state's 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 applied for and received licenses, registrations and obtained insurance 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 and rights. We can assume that the majority of those Americans carrying state licenses and vehicle registrations 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 - laws that are not laws at all. An area of serious consideration for every police officer is to understand that the most important law in our land which he has taken an oath to protect, defend, and enforce, is not state laws and city or county ordinances, but the law that supersedes all other laws -- the U.S. Constitution. If laws in a particular state or local community conflict with the supreme law of our nation, there is no question that the officer's duty is to uphold the U.S. Constitution. Every police officer should keep the following U.S. court ruling -discussed earlier -- in mind before issuing citations concerning licensing, registration, and insurance: "The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime." Miller v. US, 230 F 486, 489. And as we have seen, traveling freely, going about one's daily activities, is the exercise of a most basic right. Robin v. Hardaway 1790. Biblical Law at "Common Law" supersedes all laws, and "Christianity is custom, custom is Law." The people themselves have it in their power effectually to resist usurpation, without being driven to an appeal in arms. An act of usurpation is not obligatory: It is not law; and any man may be justified in his resistance. Let him be considered as a criminal by the general government: yet only his fellow citizens can convict him. They are his jury, and if they pronounce him innocent, not all powers of congress can hurt him; and innocent they certainly will pronounce him, if the supposed law he resisted was an act of usurpation. See: 2 Elliot's Debates, 94; 2 Bancroft, History of the Constitution, 267. In this state, as well as in all republics, it is not the legislation, however transcendent its powers, who are supreme but the people and to suppose that they may violate the fundamental law is, as has been most eloquently expressed, to affirm that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the

representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves: that the men acting by virtue of delegated powers may do not only what then- powers do not authorize, but what they forbid. See: Warning v. the Mayor of Savannah, 60 Georgia, P. 93. "Personal liberty, or the Right to enjoyment of life and liberty, is one of the fundamental or natural Rights, which has been protected by its inclusion as a guarantee in the various constitutions, which is not derived from, or dependent on, the U.S. Constitution, which may not be submitted to a vote and may not depend on the outcome of an election. It is one of the most sacred and valuable Rights, as sacred as the Right to private property ... and is regarded as inalienable." 16 C.J.S., Constitutional Law, Sect.202, p.987 Sovereignty itself is. of course, not subject to law, for it is the author and source of law; but in our system, while sovereign powers are delegated to the agencies of government, sovereignty itself remains with the people, by whom and for whom all government exists and acts. And the law is the definition and limitation of power. For the very idea that one man may be compelled to hold his life, or the means of living, or any material right essential to the enjoyment of life, at the mere will of another, seems to be intolerable in any country where freedom prevails., as being the essence of slavery itself. (Yick Wo vs. Hopkins, U.S. 356 (1886). "...The Congress cannot revoke the Sovereign power of the people to override their will as thus declared." Perry v. United States, 294 U.S. 330, 353 (1935). "In the United States, Sovereignty resides in the people, who act through the organs established by the Constitution." Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 Dall 419, 471; Penhallow v. Doane's Administrators, 3 Dall 54, 93; McCullock v. Maryland, 4 Wheat 316,404,405; Yick Yo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356, 370. "The rights of the individuals are restricted only to the extent that they have been voluntarily surrendered by the citizenship to the agencies of government." City of Dallas v Mitchell, 245 S.W. 944 Supreme Court Justice Brandeis spoke, in the case of Olmstead v. United States when he said: "Decency, security and liberty alike demand that government officials shall be subjected to the same rules of conduct that are commands to the citizen. In a government of laws, existence of the government will be imperiled if it fails to observe the laws scrupulously. Our government is the potent omnipresent teacher. For good or ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for the law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. To declare that in the administration of criminal laws the end justifies the means to declare that the government may commit crimes in order to secure the conviction of a private criminalwould bring terrible retribution. Against that pernicious doctrine this Court should resolutely set its face. ...And so should every law enforcemnt student, practitioner, supervisor, and adminstrator " 424 F.2d 1021UNITED STATES v.Horton R. PRUDDEN,No. 28140. . United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit April 1970 Silence can only be equated with fraud where there is a legal or moral duty to speak or where an inquiry left unanswered would be intentionally misleading.

U.S. v. Tweel, 550 F. 2d. 297, 299, 300 (1977): Silence can only be equated with fraud when there is a legal and moral duty to speak or when an inquiry left unanswered would be intentionally misleading. We cannot condone this shocking conduct... If that is the case we hope our message is clear. This sort of deception will not be tolerated and if this is routine it should be corrected immediately. Morrison v. Coddington, 662 P. 2d. 155, 135 Ariz. 480(1983): Fraud and deceit may arise from silence where there is a duty to speak the truth, as well as from speaking an untruth. Norman v. Zieber, 3 Or at 202-03: In regard to courts of inferior jurisdiction, if the record does not show upon its face the facts necessary to give jurisdiction, they will be presumed not to have existed. US v Will, 449 US 200,216, 101 S Ct, 471, 66 LEd2nd 392, 406 (1980) Cohens V Virginia, 19 US (6 Wheat) 264, 404, 5LEd 257 (1821) When a judge acts where he or she does not have jurisdiction to act, the judge is engaged in an act or acts of treason. A bill of attainder is defined to be a legislative Act which inflects punishment without judicial trial In re De Giacomo, (1874) 12 Blatchf. (U.S.) 391, 7 Fed. Cas No. 3,747, citing Cummings v. Missouri, (1866) 4 Wall, (U.S.) 323. ...where the legislative body exercises the office of judge, and assumes judicial magistracy, and pronounces on the guilt of a party without any of the forms or safeguards of a trial, and fixes the punishment. [U.S. v. Anderson, 60 F.Supp. 649 (D.C.Wash. 1945)]: Jurisdiction of court may be challenged at any stage of the proceeding, and also may be challenged after conviction and execution of judgment by way of writ of habeas corpus. CRUDEN vs. NEALE, 2 N.C. 338 2 S.E. 70: "The state citizen is immune from any and all government attacks and procedure, absent contract." see, Dred Scott vs. Sanford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393 or as the Supreme Court has stated clearly, every man is independent of all laws, except those prescribed by nature. He is not bound by any institutions formed by his fellowmen without his consent. FRAUD BY GOVERNMENT McNally v. U.S., 483 U.S. 350, 371-372 (1987), Quoting U.S. v. Holzer, 816 F.2d. 304, 307: Fraud in its elementary common law sense of deceit - and this is one of the meanings that fraud bears in the statute, see United States v. Dial, 757 F.2d 163, 168 (7th Cir. 1985) - Includes the deliberate concealment of material information in a setting of fiduciary obligation. A public official is a fiduciary toward the public, including, in the case of a judge, the litigants who appear before him, and if he deliberately conceals material information from them he is guilty of fraud. BURDEN OF PROOF "The law creates a presumption, where the burden is on a party to prove a material fact peculiarly within his knowledge and he fails without

excuse to testify, that his testimony, if introduced, would be adverse to his interests." citing Meier v. CIR, 199 F 2d 392, 396 (8th Cir. 1952) quoting 20 Am Jur, Evidence, Sec 190, page 193 Notification of legal responsibility is "the first essential of due process of law." See also: U.S. v. Tweel, 550 F.2d.297. "Silence can only be equated with fraud where there is a legal or moral duty to speak or when an inquiry left unanswered would be intentionally misleading. Clearfield Doctrine "Governments descend to the Level of a mere private corporation, and take on the characteristics of a mere private citizen...where private corporate commercial paper [Federal Reserve Notes] and securities [checks] is concerned. ... For purposes of suit, such corporations and individuals are regarded as entities entirely separate from government." - Clearfield Trust Co. v. United States 318 U.S. 363-371 (1942) "When governments enter the world of commerce, they are subject to the same burdens as any private firm or corporation" -- U.S. v. Burr, 309 U.S. 242 See: 22 U.S.C.A.286e, Bank of U.S. vs. Planters Bank of Georgia, 6L, Ed. (9 Wheat) 244; 22 U.S.C.A. 286 et seq., C.R.S. 11-60103 TREZEVANT CASE DAMAGE AWARD STANDARD "Evidence that motorist cited for traffic violation was incarcerated for 23 minutes during booking process, even though he had never been arrested and at all times had sufficient cash on hand to post bond pending court disposition of citation, was sufficient to support finding that municipality employing officer who cited motorist and county board of criminal justice, which operated facility in which motorist was incarcerated, had unconstitutionally deprived motorist of his right to liberty. 42 U.S.C.A. Sec. 1983." Trezevant v. City of Tampa (1984) 741 F.2d 336, hn. 1 "Jury verdict of $25,000 in favor of motorist who was unconstitutionally deprived of his liberty when incarcerated during booking process following citation for traffic violation was not excessive in view of evidence of motorist's back pain during period of incarceration and jailor's refusal to provide medical treatment, as well as fact that motorist was clearly entitled to compensation for incarceration itself and for mental anguish that he had suffered from entire episode. 42 U.S.C.A. Sec. 1983." Trezevant v. City of Tampa (1984) 741 F.2d 336, hn. 5 Mattox v. U.S., 156 US 237,243. (1895) "We are bound to interpret the Constitution in the light of the law as it existed at the time it was adopted." S. Carolina v. U.S., 199 U.S. 437, 448 (1905). "The Constitution is a written instrument. As such, its meaning does not alter. That which it meant when it was adopted, it means now." SHAPIRO vs. THOMSON, 394 U. S. 618 April 21, 1969 . Further, the Right to TRAVEL by private conveyance for private purposes upon the Common way can NOT BE INFRINGED. No license or permission is required for

TRAVEL when such TRAVEL IS NOT for the purpose of [COMMERCIAL] PROFIT OR GAIN on the open highways operating under license IN COMMERCE. Marbury v. Madison, 5 US 137,(1803) "The Constitution of these United States is the supreme law of the land. Any law that is repugnant to the Constitution is null and void of law." Murdock v. Penn., 319 US 105, (1943) "No state shall convert a liberty into a privilege, license it, and attach a fee to it." Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham, 373 US 262, (1969) "If the state converts a liberty into a privilege, the citizen can engage in the right with impunity." Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, (1966) "Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation, which would abrogate them." Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425, (1886) "An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed." Miller v. U.S., 230 F.2d. 486,489 "The claim and exercise of a Constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime." Brady v. U.S., 397 U.S. 742, 748,(1970) "Waivers of Constitutional Rights, not only must they be voluntary, they must be knowingly intelligent acts done with sufficient awareness." Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1, 78 S.Ct. 1401 (1958). "No state legislator or executive or judicial officer can war against the Constitution without violating his undertaking to support it." The constitutional theory is that we the people are the sovereigns, the state and federal officials only our agents." Colten v. Kentucky (1972)407 U.S. 104@122. 92 S.Ct. 1953; Dissent by Douglas"If the nation comes down from its position of sovereignty and enters the domain of commerce, it submits itself to the same laws that govern individuals therein. It assumes the position of an ordinary citizen and it cannot recede from the fulfillment of its obligations;" 74 Fed. Rep. 145, following 91 U.S. 398. HAGAR v. RECLAMATION DIST. NO. 108, 111 U.S. 701 1884). "Acts of Congress making the notes (paper) of the United States a legal tender do not apply to EXACTIONs (taxes) made under state law NO IMMUNITY Sovereign immunity does not apply where (as here) government is a lawbreaker or jurisdiction is the issue. Arthur v. Fry, 300 F.Supp. 622 Knowing failure to disclose material information necessary to prevent statement from being misleading, or making representation despite knowledge that it has no reasonable basis in fact, are actionable as fraud under law. Rubinstein v. Collins, 20 F.3d 160, 1990

[a] Party in interest may become liable for fraud by mere silent acquiescence and partaking of benefits of fraud. Bransom v. Standard Hardware, Inc., 874 S.W.2d 919, 1994 Ex dolo malo non oritur actio. Out of fraud no action arises; fraud never gives a right of action. No court will lend its aid to a man who founds his cause of action upon an immoral or illegal act. As found in Black's Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, page 509. Fraud destroys the validity of everything into which it enters, Nudd v. Burrows, 91 U.S 426. Fraud vitiates everything Boyce v. Grundy, 3 Pet. 210 "Fraud vitiates the most solemn contracts, documents and even judgments." U.S. v. Throckmorton, 98 US 61 When a Citizen challenges the acts of a federal or state official as being illegal, that official cannot just simply avoid liability based upon the fact that he is a public official. In United States v. Lee, 106 U.S. 196, 220, 221, 1 S. Ct. 240, 261, the United States claimed title to Arlington, Lee's estate, via a tax sale some years earlier, held to be void by the Court. In so voiding the title of the United States, the Court declared: "No man in this country is so high that he is above the law. No officer of the law may set that law at defiance with impunity. All the officers of the government, from the highest to the lowest, are creatures of the law and are bound to obey it. It is the only supreme power in our system of government, and every man who by accepting office participates in its functions is only the more strongly bound to submit to that supremacy, and to observe the limitations which it imposes upon the exercise of the authority which it gives. "Shall it be said... that the courts cannot give remedy when the citizen has been deprived of his property by force, his estate seized and converted to the use of the government without any lawful authority, without any process of law, and without any compensation, because the president has ordered it and his officers are in possession? If such be the law of this country, it sanctions a tyranny which has no existence in the monarchies of Europe, nor in any other government which has a just claim to well-regulated liberty and the protection of personal rights." See Pierce v. United States ("The Floyd Acceptances"), 7 Wall. (74 U.S.) 666, 677 ("We have no officers in this government from the President down to the most subordinate agent, who does not hold office under the law, with prescribed duties and limited authority"); Cunningham v. Macon, 109 U.S. 446, 452, 456, 3 S.Ct. 292, 297 ("In these cases he is not sued as, or because he is, the officer of the government, but as an individual, and the court is not ousted of jurisdiction because he asserts authority as such officer. To make out his defense he must show that his authority was sufficient in law to protect him... It is no answer for the defendant to say I am an officer of the government and acted under its authority unless he shows the sufficiency of that authority"); and Poindexter v. Greenhow, 114 U.S. 270, 287, 5 S.Ct. 903, 912

10

WHEREAS, officials and even judges have no immunity (See, Owen vs. City of Independence, 100 S Ct. 1398; Maine vs. Thiboutot, 100 S. Ct. 2502; and Hafer vs. Melo, 502 U.S. 21; officials and judges are deemed to know the law and sworn to uphold the law; officials and judges cannot claim to act in good faith in willful deprivation of law, they certainly cannot plead ignorance of the law, even the Citizen cannot plead ignorance of the law, the courts have ruled there is no such thing as ignorance of the law, it is ludicrous for learned officials and judges to plead ignorance of the law therefore there is no immunity, judicial or otherwise, in matters of rights secured by the Constitution for the United States of America. See: Title 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983. "When lawsuits are brought against federal officials, they must be brought against them in their "individual" capacity not their official capacity. When federal officials perpetrate constitutional torts, they do so ultra vires (beyond the powers) and lose the shield of immunity." Williamson v. U.S. Department of Agriculture, 815 F.2d. 369, ACLU Foundation v. Barr, 952 F.2d. 457, 293 U.S. App. DC 101, (CA DC 1991). "Personal involvement in deprivation of constitutional rights is prerequisite to award of damages, but defendant may be personally involved in constitutional deprivation by direct participation, failure to remedy wrongs after learning about it, creation of a policy or custom under which unconstitutional practices occur or gross negligence in managing subordinates who cause violation." (Gallegos v. Haggerty, N.D. of New York, 689 F. Supp. 93 (1988). "The law requires proof of jurisdiction to appear on the record of the administrative agency and all administrative proceedings." Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U. S. 533 State citizenship: U.S. v. Anthony 24 Fed. 829 (1873) "The term Resident and Citizen of the United States is distinguished from a citizen of one of the several states, in that the former is a special class of citizen created by Congress."

11