Notice of Travel Package To Rasmussen - 7-30-15

Scanned by CamScanner
No Trespassing EXEMPT plates

This property is in the peaceable possession of a private Citizen
Connie LaRue
1045 Kitt Narcisse Rd.
Colville, Washington 99114
July 30, 2015

Timothy Rasmussen
c/o STEVENS COUNlY PROSECUTOR'S OFFICE
215 S. Oak
In Re: Your relayed offer to drop charges in State of Washington v. CONNIE LARUE P7944.
Dear Mr. Rasmussen:
This morning around 7:00AM I received a phone call from Attorney Robert Simeone informing
me that the Stevens County Prosecutor's Office was willing to drop all charges against me if I
would, in effect, just go away. I informed Mr. Simeone that I was very upset when I found out
that you, Mr. Rasmussen, criminal usurper of the office of STEVENS COUNlY PROSECUTOR, had
set me up in the first place in which I was harassed, arrested, jailed, extorted, etc, because I
1
was, as you told me, "a member of that NEAR group".
As you are probably aware of by now, I filed Complaints for Disbarment against you, Jessica
Taylor, and Nick Force (and requested that you all be referred for criminal prosecution) with the
Washington State Bar Association's Office of Disciplinary Counsel and the Washington Supreme
Court for criminally usurping public offices and impersonating public officials. Among the facts
2
on the sworn complaint was your participation in a criminal RIC0 enterprise operation in
STEVENS COUNlY that is still using threats, duress and coercion to extort others and me of time
and money.
Simeone relayed to me that I was going to get arrested and jailed for driving without a license
or license suspended. What I did not relay to Simone was that I VOIDed the CONNIE LARUE
1 NEAR group - Neighborhood Emergency Action and Response group, a government watchdog group that has
researched and proven that you are a usurper and intruder into public office, having failed to "duly qualify"
BEFORE assuming the duties of that office.
2 RICO: The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, commonly referred to as the RICO Act or
simply RICO, is a United States federal law that provides for extended criminal penalties and a civil cause of
action for acts performed as part of an ongoing criminal organization. The RICO Act focuses specifically
on racketeering, and it allows the leaders of a syndicate to be tried for the crimes which they ordered others to
do or assisted them, closing a perceived loophole that allowed a person who instructed someone else to, for
example, murder, to be exempt from the trial because he did not actually commit the crime personally.[l] RICO
was enacted by section 901(a) of the Organized Crime Control Act of 1970 (Pub.L. 91-452, 84 Stat. 922, enacted
October 15, 1970), and is codified at 18 U.s.c. ch. 96 as 18 U.S.c. 1961-1968.
Page 1 of 2
Driver License and returned it Certified Mail back to the Pat Kohler, Agency Director for the
Washington Department of Licensing along with my Revocation/Rescission of Driver License
and Driver Status by Certified Mail #7011 35000001 8625 5646 and received by DOL in Olympia
3
on July 20,2015 at 8:43AM. As you know, CONNIE LARUE is not me.
I, the living woman, Connie LaRue, am not required to obtain and carry a Driver License or any
"driver" status because I am not engaged in any commercial activity upon the highways in
Washington or any other state. If I was engaged in a for-hire or for-profit business upon the
4
highways, I would certainly get a license
I, Connie LaRue, will exercise my right to travel unimpeded and unrestricted upon the roads,
highways and byways on Washington or any other State of the Union. The Washington
Department of Licensing has been so Noticed and is required to notify all state agencies of my
non-driver status. See enclosed Revocation/Rescission of Driver License and Driver Status sent
to Washington Department of Licensing.
I am attaching to this letter an ADDENDUM entitled U.S. Supreme Court says No License
Necessary To Drive Automobile On Public Highways/Streets. That Addendum is incorporated by
reference as if it were quoted herein verbatim.
Fair l\Iotice. Any infringement upon my unalienable and constitutionally protected rights and
conduct will be subject to the enclosed Notice of Intent - Fee Schedule.
All Rights Reserved.
Cunn \ e
laJ:< u
Connie LaRue, a Private Woman

cc.
Nick Force
Jessica Taylor (Reeves)
Enclosures:
Addendum
Fee Schedule
Revocation/Rescission of Driver License and Driver Status package
Capitis Diminutio (meaning the diminishing of status through the use of capitalization) In Roman law. A
diminishing or abridgment of personality; a loss or curtailment of a man's status or aggregate of legal attributes
and qualifications. Black's Law Dictionary 4th Edition, 1968; capitis Diminutio Media (meaning a medium loss of
status through the use of capitalization, e.g. John DOE) - A lessor or medium loss of status. This occurred where a
man loses his rights of citizenship, but without losing his liberty. It carried away also the family rights. Black's Law
Dictionary 4th Edition, 1968; "Capitis Diminutio Maxima (meaning a maximum loss of status through the use of
capitalization, e.g. JOHN DOE or DOE JOHN) - The highest or most comprehensive loss of status. This occurred
when a man's condition was changed from one of freedom to one of bondage, when he became a slave. It swept
away with it all rights of citizenship and all family rights." Black's Law Dictionary 4th Edition, 1968.
4 "The object of a license is to confer a right or power, which does not exist without it." Blatz Brewing Co. v. Collins,
160 P.2d 37, 39; 69 Cal. A. 2d 639.
3
Page 2 of 2
ADDENDUM
Date:July30,2015
From:ConnieLaRue,aprivatewoman
To:TimothyRasmussen,criminallyusurpingtheofficeofSTEVENSCOUNTYPROSECUTOR
NoticetoAgentisNoticetoPrincipleNoticetoPrincipleisNoticetoAgent
U.S.SupremeCourtsaysNoLicenseNecessary
ToDriveAutomobileOnPublic
Highways/Streets
U.S. SUPREME COURT AND OTHER HIGH COURT CITATIONS PROVING THAT NO LICENSE IS
NECESSARYFORNORMALUSEOFANAUTOMOBILEONCOMMONWAYS
Therightofacitizentotraveluponthepublichighwaysandtotransporthispropertythereon,
byhorsedrawncarriage,wagon,orautomobile,isnotamereprivilegewhichmaybepermitted
orprohibitedatwill,butacommonrightwhichhehasunderhisrighttolife,libertyandthe
pursuit of happiness. Under this constitutional guaranty 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
anothersrights,hewillbeprotected,notonlyinhisperson,butinhissafeconduct.
Thompson v.Smith, 154 SE 579, 11 American Jurisprudence, Constitutional Law, section 329,
page 1135 The right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his
propertythereon,intheordinarycourseoflifeandbusiness,isacommonrightwhichhehas
under the right to enjoy life and liberty, to acquire and possess property, and to pursue
happiness and safety. It includes the right, in so doing, to use the ordinary and usual
conveyances of the day, and under the existing modes of travel, includes the right to drive a
horsedrawncarriageorwagonthereonortooperateanautomobilethereon,fortheusualand
ordinarypurposeoflifeandbusiness.
Thompson vs. Smith, supra.; Teche Lines vs. Danforth, Miss., 12 S.2d 784 the right of the
citizen to drive on a public street with freedom from police interference is a fundamental
constitutionalrightWhite,97Cal.App.3d.141,158Cal.Rptr.562,56667(1979)citizenshave
a right to drive upon the public streets of the District of Columbia or any other city absent a
constitutionallysoundreasonforlimitingtheiraccess.
Page1of6
CaneishaMillsv.D.C.2009Theuseoftheautomobileasanecessaryadjuncttotheearningof
alivelihoodinmodernliferequiresusintheinterestofrealismtoconcludethattheRIGHTto
use an automobile on the public highways partakes of the nature of a liberty within the
meaningoftheConstitutionalguarantees...
Berberianv.Lussier(1958)139A2d869,872,Seealso:Schecterv.Killingsworth,380P.2d136,
140;93Ariz.273(1963).Therighttooperateamotorvehicle[anautomobile]uponthepublic
streetsandhighwaysisnotamereprivilege.Itisarightofliberty,theenjoymentofwhichis
protectedbytheguaranteesofthefederalandstateconstitutions.
Adamsv.CityofPocatello,416P.2d46,48;91Idaho99(1966).Atravelerhasanequalrightto
employ an automobile as a means of transportation and to occupy the public highways with
othervehiclesincommonuse.
Campbellv.Walker,78Atl.601,603,2Boyce(Del.)41.Theownerofanautomobilehasthe
samerightastheownerofothervehiclestousethehighway,***Atraveleronfoothasthe
samerighttotheuseofthepublichighwaysasanautomobileoranyothervehicle.
Simeonev.Lindsay,65Atl.778,779;Hanniganv.Wright,63Atl.234,236.TheRIGHTofthe
citizen to DRIVE on the public street with freedom from police interference, unless he is
engagedinsuspiciousconductassociatedinsomemannerwithcriminalityisaFUNDAMENTAL
CONSTITUTIONALRIGHTwhichmustbeprotectedbythecourts.Peoplev.Horton14Cal.App.
3rd667(1971)Therighttomakeuseofanautomobileasavehicleoftravellongthehighways
of the state, is no longer an open question. The owners thereof have the same rights in the
roadsandstreetsasthedriversofhorsesorthoseridingabicycleortravelinginsomeother
vehicle.
Housev.Cramer,112N.W.3;134Iowa374;Farnsworthv.TampaElectricCo.57So.233,237,
62Fla.166.Theautomobilemaybeusedwithsafetytoothersusersofthehighway,andinits
properuseuponthehighwaysthereisanequalrightwiththeusersofothervehiclesproperly
uponthehighways.Thelawrecognizessuchrightofuseupongeneralprinciples.
Brinkman v Pacholike, 84 N.E. 762, 764, 41 Ind. App. 662, 666. The law does not denounce
motor carriages, as such, on public ways. They have an equal right with other vehicles in
commonusetooccupythestreetsandroads.Itisimpropertosaythatthedriverofthehorse
hasrightsintheroadssuperiortothedriveroftheautomobile.Bothhavetherighttousethe
easement.
IndianaSpringsCo.v.Brown,165Ind.465,468.Ahighwayisapublicwayopenandfreeto
anyonewhohasoccasiontopassalongitonfootorwithanykindofvehicle.Schlesingerv.
CityofAtlanta,129S.E.861,867,161Ga.148,159;
Hollandv.Shackelford,137S.E.2d298,304,220Ga.104;Stavolav.Palmer,73A.2d831,838,
136Conn.670Therecanbenoquestionoftherightofautomobileownerstooccupyanduse
Page2of6
thepublicstreetsofcities,orhighwaysintheruraldistricts.Liebrechtv.Crandall,126N.W.69,
110 Minn. 454, 456 The word automobile connotes a pleasure vehicle designed for the
transportationofpersonsonhighways.
AmericanMutualLiabilityIns.Co.,vs.Chaput,60A.2d118,120;95NH200MotorVehicle:18
USCPart1Chapter2section31definitions:(6)Motorvehicle.Thetermmotorvehicle
meanseverydescriptionofcarriageorothercontrivancepropelledordrawnbymechanical
power and used for commercial purposes on the highways 10) 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. A motor vehicle or automobile for hire is a motor
vehicle, other than an automobile stage, used for the transportation of persons for which
remunerationisreceived.
InternationalMotorTransitCo.vs.Seattle,251P.120Thetermmotorvehicleisdifferentand
broaderthanthewordautomobile.
CityofDaytonvs.DeBrosse,23NE.2d647,650;62OhioApp.232Thusselfdrivenvehiclesare
classified according to the use to which they are put rather than according to the means by
whichtheyarepropelledExParteHoffert,148NW20
The Supreme Court, in Arthur v. Morgan, 112 U.S. 495, 5 S.Ct. 241, 28 L.Ed. 825, held that
carriageswereproperlyclassifiedashouseholdeffects,andweseenoreasonthatautomobiles
shouldnotbesimilarlydisposedof.
Hillhouse v United States, 152 F. 163, 164 (2nd Cir. 1907). a citizen has the right to travel
upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon State vs. Johnson, 243 P.
1073;Cumminsvs.Homes,155P.171;Packardvs.Banton,44S.Ct.256;Hadfieldvs.Lundin,98
Wash516,Willisvs.Buck,263P.l982;
Barney vs. Board of Railroad Commissioners, 17 P.2d 82 The use of the highways for the
purposeoftravelandtransportationisnotamereprivilege,butacommonandfundamental
Rightofwhichthepublicandtheindividualcannotberightfullydeprived.
ChicagoMotorCoachvs.Chicago,169NE22;Ligarevs.Chicago,28NE934;Boonvs.Clark,214
SSW 607; 25 Am.Jur. (1st) Highways Sect.163 the right of the Citizen to travel upon the
highwayandtotransporthispropertythereonintheordinarycourseoflifeandbusinessis
theusualandordinaryrightoftheCitizen,arightcommontoall.
ExParteDickey,(Dickeyvs.Davis),85SE781EveryCitizenhasanunalienableRIGHTtomake
useofthepublichighwaysofthestate;everyCitizenhasfullfreedomtotravelfromplaceto
place in the enjoyment of life and liberty. People v. Nothaus, 147 Colo. 210. No State
government entity has the power to allow or deny passage on the highways, byways, nor
waterwaystransportinghisvehiclesandpersonalpropertyforeitherrecreationorbusiness,
Page3of6
butbybeingsubjectonlytolocalregulationi.e.,safety,caution,trafficlights,speedlimits,etc.
Travelisnotaprivilegerequiringlicensing,vehicleregistration,orforcedinsurances.
Chicago Coach Co. v. City of Chicago, 337 Ill. 200, 169 N.E. 22. Traffic infractions are not a
crime.Peoplev.BattlePersonsfacedwithanunconstitutionallicensinglawwhichpurportsto
require a license as a prerequisite to exercise of right may ignore the law and engage with
impunityinexerciseofsuchright.
Shuttlesworthv.Birmingham394U.S.147(1969).Thewordoperatorshallnotincludeany
personwhosolelytransportshisownpropertyandwhotransportsnopersonsorpropertyfor
hireorcompensation.
StatutesatLargeCaliforniaChapter412p.83Highwaysarefortheuseofthetravelingpublic,
and all have the right to use them in a reasonable and proper manner; the use thereof is an
inalienablerightofeverycitizen.Escobedov.State35C2d870in8CalJur3dp.27RIGHTA
legalRIGHT,aconstitutionalRIGHTmeansaRIGHTprotectedbythelaw,bytheconstitution,
butgovernmentdoesnotcreatetheideaofRIGHTororiginalRIGHTS;itacknowledgesthem...
BouviersLawDictionary,1914,p.2961.Thosewhohavetherighttodosomethingcannot
belicensedforwhattheyalreadyhaverighttodoassuchlicensewouldbemeaningless.
CityofChicagovCollins51NE907,910.Alicensemeansleavetodoathingwhichthelicensor
couldprevent.BlatzBrewingCo.v.Collins,160P.2d37,39;69Cal.A.2d639.Theobjectofa
licenseistoconferarightorpower,whichdoesnotexistwithoutit.
Paynev.Massey(19__)196SW2nd493,145Tex273.Thecourtmakesitclearthatalicense
relatestoqualificationstoengageinprofession,business,tradeorcalling;thus,whenmerely
travelingwithoutcompensationorprofit,outsideofbusinessenterpriseoradventurewiththe
corporatestate,nolicenseisrequiredofthenaturalindividualtravelingforpersonalbusiness,
pleasureandtransportation.
Wingfield v. Fielder 2d Ca. 3d 213 (1972). If [state] officials construe a vague statute
unconstitutionally,thecitizenmaytakethemattheirword,andactontheassumptionthatthe
statuteisvoid.
Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham 394 U.S. 147 (1969). With regard particularly to the U.S.
Constitution, it is elementary that a Right secured or protected by that document cannot be
overthrownorimpairedbyanystatepoliceauthority.Donnollyvs.UnionSewerPipeCo.,184
US540;Lafariervs.GrandTrunkR.R.Co.,24A.848;ONeilvs.ProvidenceAmusementCo.,108
A. 887. The right to travel (called the right of free ingress to other states, and egress from
them)issofundamentalthatitappearsintheArticlesofConfederation,whichgovernedour
societybeforetheConstitution.
(Paul v. Virginia). [T]he right to travel freely from State to State is a right broadly
assertable against private interference as well as governmental action. Like the right of
Page4of6
association,itisavirtuallyunconditionalpersonalright,guaranteedbytheConstitutiontous
all.(U.S.SupremeCourt,Shapirov.Thompson).EDGERTON,ChiefJudge:Ironcurtainshave
noplaceinafreeworld.Undoubtedlytherightoflocomotion,therighttoremovefromone
place to another according to inclination, is an attribute of personal liberty, and the right,
ordinarily, of free transit from or through the territory of any State is a right secured by the
Constitution.
Williamsv.Fears,179U.S.270,274,21S.Ct.128,45L.Ed.186.Ournationhasthrivedonthe
principle that, outside areas of plainly harmful conduct, every American is left to shape his
ownlifeashethinksbest,dowhathepleases,gowherehepleases.Id.,at197.
Kent vs. Dulles see Vestal, Freedom of Movement, 41 Iowa L.Rev. 6, 1314. The validity of
restrictions on the freedom of movement of particular individuals, both substantively and
procedurally, is precisely the sort of matter that is the peculiar domain of the courts.
Comment, 61 Yale L.J. at page 187. a person detained for an investigatory stop can be
questionedbutisnotobligedtoanswer,answersmaynotbecompelled,andrefusaltoanswer
furnishesnobasisforanarrest.JusticeWhite,HiibelAutomobileshavetherighttousethe
highwaysoftheStateonanequalfootingwithothervehicles.
CumberlandTelephone.&TelegraphCo.vYeiser141Kentucy15.Eachcitizenhastheabsolute
right to choose for himself the mode of conveyance he desires, whether it be by wagon or
carriage,byhorse,motororelectriccar,orbybicycle,orastrideofahorse,subjecttothesole
conditionthathewillobserveallthoserequirementsthatareknownasthelawoftheroad.
SwiftvCityofTopeka,43Kansas671,674.TheSupremeCourtsaidinU.S.vMersky(1960)361
U.S.431:Anadministrativeregulation,ofcourse,isnotastatute.Atraveleronfoothasthe
samerighttouseofthepublichighwayasanautomobileoranyothervehicle.
Cecchiv.Lindsay,75Atl.376,377,1Boyce(Del.)185.Automotivevehiclesarelawfulmeansof
conveyanceandhaveequalrightsuponthestreetswithhorsesandcarriages.
Chicago Coach Co. v. City of Chicago, 337 Ill. 200, 205; See also: Christy v. Elliot, 216 Ill. 31;
Wardv.Meredith,202Ill.66;Shinklev.McCullough,116Ky.960;Butlerv.Cabe,116Ark.26,
2829.automobilesarelawfulvehiclesandhaveequalrightsonthehighwayswithhorsesand
carriages.Dailyv.Maxwell,133S.W.351,354.
Matson v. Dawson, 178 N.W. 2d 588, 591. A farmer has the same right to the use of the
highwaysofthestate,whetheronfootorinamotorvehicle,asanyothercitizen.
Draffin v. Massey, 92 S.E.2d 38, 42. Persons may lawfully ride in automobiles, as they may
lawfullyrideonbicycles.Dohertyv.Ayer,83N.E.677,197Mass.241,246;
Molwayv.CityofChicago,88N.E.485,486,239Ill.486;Smileyv.EastSt.LouisRy.Co.,100N.E.
157,158.Asoldierspersonalautomobileispartofhishouseholdgoods[.]
Page5of6
U.S.vBomar,C.A.5(Tex.),8F.3d226,23519AWordsandPhrasesPermanentEdition(West)
pocketpart94.[I]tisajuryquestionwhetheranautomobileisamotorvehicle[.]
UnitedStatesvJohnson,718F.2d1317,1324(5thCir.1983).
Otherrighttouseanautomobilecases:
EDWARDSVS.CALIFORNIA,314U.S.160
TWININGVSNEWJERSEY,211U.S.78WILLIAMSVS.FEARS,179U.S.270,AT274CRANDALL
VS.NEVADA,6WALL.35,AT4344THEPASSENGERCASES,7HOWARD287,AT492U.S.VS.
GUEST,383U.S.745,AT757758(1966)
GRIFFINVS.BRECKENRIDGE,403U.S.88,AT105106(1971)CALIFANOVS.TORRES,435U.S.
1,AT4,note6
SHAPIROVS.THOMPSON,394U.S.618(1969)CALIFANOVS.AZNAVORIAN,439U.S.170,AT
176 (1978) Look the above citations up in American Jurisprudence. Some citations may be
paraphrased.
EndofAddendum
Page6of6
Notice of Intent- Fee Schedule
To Whom It May Concern:

The annexed Notice of Intent - Fee Schedule is a schedule of mandatory fees instated by the
GrantorjBeneficiary. Connie LaRue, and Authorized Signatory Attorney-in-fact on behalf of CONNIE
LARUE, Ens Legis. I, Connie LaRue'M, do hereby set forth fees to be instated in any business dealing
with CONNIE LARUE for any business conducted relevant to this schedule. Fees are due and MUST
be paid before said business can commence. In the event that invoicing becomes necessary, invoiced
amounts are due fifteen days after day of receipt.
If said fees are not met, it is the right of the
Grantor/Beneficiary, Connie LaRue, to refuse or void any form of business interaction and/or
transaction. Fees are subject to change at any time without prior notice. GrantorjBeneficiary, Connie
LaRue, is the only authorized personnel to alter, void, and/or enforce said fees and may do so at any
time.
Without Prejudice,
.....
~;, ~ 2~1.L!.
Connie LaRue, a private woman and Authorized Signatory

Grantor/Beneficiary
Attorney-in-fact on behalf of
CONNIE LARUE, Ens Legis,
Trademark Nineteen Hundred Sixty Six
(year of 18th birthday)
Acknowledgement
The State of Washington
) Scilicet
Stevens County
Notary
My Commission expires: 0;1.- On~ ;2.f2/5
NOI-FS
"'4'''''':
\ ..
I' ,
r ~
'It"
*'1 ........
110
Page 10f7
NoticeofIntentFeeSchedule
PrivateEasementsSchedule
PenaltyforPrivateUse
$250,000.00
$250,000.00
PublicEasementsSchedule
PenaltyforPublicUse
Thesefeeswillbemandatedupontheinformantlistedonthetrafficcitationticket(s),arrestwarrants,
detentionorders,seizureorders,charginginstruments,Trustee/Fiduciaryappointments,etc..
Producetradenamematerials:
a. Name
$500.00
b. DriverLicenseNumber
$200.00
c. SocialSecurityNumber
$1000.00
d. RetinalScans
$1500.00
e. Fingerprinting
$2000.00
f.
$2000.00
Photographing
g. DNA
$2000.00
1. Mouthswab
2. Bloodsamples
3. Urinesamples
4. Breathalyzertesting
5. Hairsamples
6. Skinsamples
7. Clothingsamples
8. Forcedgivingoffluids/samples
IssueTrafficcitationsandticketsofanytrafficnature:
a.
Citations
$600.00
b.
WarningissuedonPaperTicket
$250.00
Appearanceincourtbecauseoftrafficcitations:
NOI-FS
Page 2of 7
a.
Timeincourt
$1800.00/hrwith1hourmin.
b.
IfFineisimposed
$1000.00inaddition
Useoftradenameprotectedmaterialunderthreat,duress,and/orcoercion:
a.
Namewrittenbytheinformant
b.
$2500.00
DriverLicensenumberwrittenbyinformant
$1500.00
c.
SocialSecurityNumberwrittenbyinformant
$1500.00
d.
MiscellaneousMaterialwrittenbyinformant
$TBA*
*Tobeannouncedduringtimeofinteraction
Produceanypersonalinformation/propertyforanykindofbusinessinteraction:
a.
FinancialInformation
$1000.00
b.
Propertyinsideofautomobile
$1500.00
TimeUsagefortrafficstops:
a.
30minutes
$50.00/30minutesminimum
b.
60minutes
$150.00
c.
90minutes
$300.00
CourtAppearanceSchedule
Adepositof$10,000shallbeadvancedtomepriortoanyofthefollowingappearancesorother
use of materials. Upon depletion of the deposit amount, the balance of these fees MUST be paid
immediatelyaftermycaseisfinished.Failuretopayfinesandfeeswillhaveanadditionalfeeof$5,000.00
forbreachofcontract.
DemandforAppearanceincourt:
a. MyAppearance
1. underProtestandDuress:
$5000.00
2. Voluntarily
$2000.00
Useoftradenamematerial
NOI-FS
Page 3of 7
a. Name
$2500.00
2. Voluntarily
$2000.00
$1500.00
2. Voluntarily
$1000.00
$1500.00
2. Voluntarily
b. DriverLicense
$1000.00
d. MiscellaneousMaterial
$TBA*
*Tobeannouncedduringtimeofinteraction
Produceanypersonalinformationforanykindofbusinessinteraction:
a. FinancialInformation
$1000.00
b. DriverLicense
$1500.00
$1500.00
d. Anydocumentsproducedbyme
$1000.00perdocument
1. UnderProtestandDuress
2. Voluntarily
Timeusageforcourtappearances:
a. 30minutes
$2000.00
2. Voluntarily
$1500.00
$3000.00
b. 60minutes
c. 90minutesormore
NOI-FS
Page 4of 7
2. Voluntarily
$2500.00
TransgressionsFeeSchedule
Transgressionsbypublicofficial(s),policeofficer(s),judge(s),attorney(s),andallotherwhodesireto
contract:
a.FailuretohonormyCreatorendowedRights
$250,000.00
b.FailuretohonoryourOathofOffice
$250,000.00
c.FailuretohonoryourConstitutionalOath
$250,000.00
d.FailuretohonoryourWrittenand/orOralWord
$25,000.00
e.Silence/Dishonor/Default
$25,000.00
F.Failuretohonor/NoBond
$25,000.00
g.Timewaitingforscheduledservice
$100.00minimum,orperhr.
h.Detentionfromfreemovementand/orcuffed$2500.00minimum,orperhr.
i.Incarceration
j.FailuretofollowFederaland/orStateStatutes
k.FailuretoStateaClaimuponwhichreliefcan
l.FailuretoPresentaLivingInjuredParty
Codes,Rulesand/orRegulations
begranted
$3000.00minimum,orperhr.
$50.000.00
$250,000.00
$100,000.00
m. FailuretoProvideContractSignedbytheParties $100,000.00**
n. DefaultByNonResponseorIncompleteResponse$100,000.00**
o. Fraud$250,000.00**
p. Racketeering
$250,000.00**
q. TheftofPublicFunds $250,000.00**
r.
NOI-FS
DishonorinCommerce $250,000.00**
Page 5of 7
s. FailuretopayCounterclaiminfullwithin(30)Thirty
calendardaysofDefaultassetforthherein
$250,000.00***
u.PerversionofJusticeJudgment $1,000,000.00**
v.UseofCommonlawTradename/Trademark
afterOneWarning
w.Forcingpsychiatricevaluations
$50,000.00pereachoccurrence
$500,000.00perday
x.Refusaltoprovideadequateandpropernutrition
(orKosherifrequested)whileincarcerated
$50,000.00perday
y.Refusaltoprovideproperexercisewhile
incarcerated
$50,000.00perday
z.Refusaltoprovideproperdentalcarewhile
incarcerated
$50,000.00perday
aa.Forcedgivingofbodyfluids
$5,000,000.00perday
bb.Forcedinjections/inoculations,vaccines
$5,000,000.00perday
cc.Forcedseparationfrommarriagecontract
$1,600,000.00perday
$1,600,000.00perday
$1,600,000.00perday
dd.Confiscation/kidnappingofabodynotaUS
citizen
ff.FailuretoprovideFullDisclosure
gg.Attemptedextortionoffundsfrombirth
certificateaccount,Socialsecurityaccount
oranyotherassociatedaccountsby
fraud,deceptionand/orForgeryby
anyagent,entityorcorporation $6,000,000.00percountorcharge
NOI-FS
hh.Attemptedextortionofsignature
$6,000,000.00percountorcharge
ii.Attemptedforgeryofsignature
$6,000,000.00percountorcharge
Page 6of 7
jj.BreachofTrustee/Fiduciaryduty $6,000,000.00percountorcharge
*PerOccurrenceandIncludesanyThirdPartyDefendant
***AllclaimsarestatedinUSDollarswhichmeansthataUSDollarwillbedefined,forthispurposeasaOneOunce
SilverCoinof.999puresilverortheequivalentparvalueasestablishedbylawortheexchangerate,assetbytheUS
Mint,whicheveristhehigheramount,foracertifiedOneOunceSilverCoin(USSilverDollar)atthetimeofthefirst
dayofdefaultassetforthherein;iftheclaimistobepaidinFederalReserveNotes,FederalReserveNoteswillonlybe
assessedatParValueasindicatedabove.
Totaldamageswillbeassessedasthetotalamountofthedamagesassetforthhereintimesthree(3)foratotalof
alldamagesassetforthinsubsectionsawaddedtothree(3)timesthedamagesforpunitiveorotheradditional
damages.
Kidnapping (If an officer removes free soul more than 5 feet from free souls
propertywithoutjustcause,itISkidnapping)$10,000,000.00
Servicestoothersand/orCorporation(s):
a.Studying
$300.00perhour
b.Analyzing
$300.00perhour
c.Research
$300.00perhour
d.PreparingDocuments
$300.00perhour
e.AnsweringQuestions
$300.00perhour
f.ProvidingInformation
$300.00perhour
Ifinvoiced,paymentisdue15daysafterreceiptdate.
Makeallcheckspayableto:
ConnieLaRue
1045KittNarcisseRd.
Colville,Washington99114
NOI-FS
Page 7of 7
Connie LaRue
(509) 684-2627
July 15, 2015

Certified Mail # 7011 3500 0001 8625 5646
TO:
Director's Office
Pat Kohler, Agency Director
Department of Licensing
PO Box 9020
Olympia, WA 98507-9020
Phone: 360.902.3600
Ref: Revocation/Rescission of Driver License and Driver Status

Ms. Kohler:
Please find enclosed an original autographed document referenced above for you to take action. It is
your duty per your oath of office to forward the contents of the enclosed document either by mail,
fax or by any other electronic means to all law enforcement databases in Washington and the several
states of the union; to all agency directors, highway patrol, county sheriffs and city or other municipal
law enforcement organizations.
I am a single woman and I will not allow myself to be targeted and stopped on a dark highway at
night by anyone with flashing lights. I will exercise my right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of
happiness by traveling to a well-lit area before stopping. This is for my own safety because Stevens
County has a reputation for rapist cops (see attached Affidavit of Leonard Stonecipher) and a
"Sheriff" who has, to put it mildly, taken indecent liberties while himself a police officer before
becoming a "Sheriff" who doesn't have a timely taken or properly filed Oath of Office in full
compliance with State Law. Stevens County is without a bona fide County Prosecutor and no justice
can be had in this county when the imposter prosecutor will not prosecute.
If you suggest I take it to court, well let me just say, the courts and other county officials, in
conspiracy with state officials, are conducting a criminal RICO enterprise. There is no remedy in the
courts of this state. For those reasons I am revoking the Driver License for CONNIE LARUE and
rescinding any driver status.
From this day forward, I will exercise all the Rights given to me by my Creator (GOD) - which are
protected by the Constitution for the State of Washington and the Constitution for the United States
of America- including the Right to Travel upon the roads and highways of this state and the several
states of the union unimpeded and unfettered.
All Rights Reserved
Connie LaRue - a private woman
Connie LaRue
(509) 684-2627
July 15, 2015

Certified Mail # 7011 3500 0001 8625 5646
TO:
Director's Office
PO Box 9020
Olympia, WA 98507-9020
Phone: 360.902.3600
Ref: Revocation/Rescission of Driver License and Driver Status

Ms. Pat Kohler:
CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE
Notice to Agent is Notice to Principle - Notice to Principle is Notice to Agent

The Agency Director of the Department of Licensing is required to copy and distribute this
correspondence to the Governor, Attorney General, all County Prosecutors, all County Sheriffs, the
Director and Officers of the Washington Highway Patrol, the judges of every county district and
superior court, and any other municipal, city, county or law-enforcement agencies, and note this
Rescission of Driver Status in the various electronic databases that law enforcement uses in this state
or in the United States to check the status of drivers in Washington State. Your failure to comply will
constitute an abrogation of your duties as Agency Director and you can be sued in your individual
copacity with unlimited liability. As a government agency and an employee of the State, you are
required to have an Oath of Office and a surety bond and provide a copy of each, forthwith to the
sender of this correspondence.
Most public servants simply do not have the basic understanding of how their Oath of Office is their
solemn binding commitment to support, protect, defend and insure that the People they serve and the
Peoples' Creator-endowed, unalienable Rights are to remain inviolate. There is no public servant in
America in general, and Washington in particular, that possesses the authority to devalue, diminish,
abrogate, subjugate, subordinate, usurp, invade, or violate the Peoples' Creator-endowed rights,
period! The Oath actually forbids the Oath-taker, public servant from attempting or even thinking of
attempting to injure a right of the People. At the very least, you should be made aware that violating
this Oath is felony perjury, insurrection sedition, and treason against the Constitution and the People
for whom it was written to protect.
I, Connie LaRue, will be monitoring, maintaining a record and evaluating any and all communications
and actions by all parties specific to this matter. Should any infringement of my guaranteed and
secured rights occur, on your part or by any party with whom affiliation with you is claimed, I will
scrutinize said infringements and any injury there from pursuant to 42 USC 1983 and 18 USC 241
242 at minimum, and I will proceed accordingly.
Revocation/Rescission of Driver License and Driver Status
Page 1 of 15
The People of this state do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies that serve them. The People, in
delegating authority, do not give their public servants the right to decide what is good for the People
to know and what is not good for them to know. The People insist on remaining informed so that they
may maintain control over the instruments that they have created. This chapter shall be liberally
construed and its exemptions narrowly construed to promote this public policy and to assure that the
public interest will be fully protected. In the event of conflict between the provisions of this chapter
and any other act, the provisions of this chapter shall govern. [RCW 42.56.030]
Should you decide to challenge the Declaration/Asseveration of Status of Connie LaRue herein below,
you have ten days from constructive receipt plus three days for service to rebut those statements of
fact with your own sworn affidavit with facts, evidence and law that would impeach the veracity of
LaRue's attestations herein. If you do not rebut the Declaration/Asseveration of Status of Connie
LaRue within the time allotted, you will be in default and barred by the doctrine of estoppel from any
future claim. You are so noticed.
NOTICE OF RESCISSION OF DRIVER LICENSE AND DRIVER STATUS
This letter is lawful notification to you that you are corresponding with one of the People of these
United States of America; Washington State, Stevens County in particular.
This is your Notice that I revoke your Driver License sent to CONNIE LARUE (which is not me) and
return it to you marked REVOKED. I am also rescinding any related Driver Status that requires a
license. I, the flesh and blood woman, am not engaged in any commercial activity upon the highways
that would require such licensure. I do not consent to any act or actions on your part that infringe or
impede my ability to freely exercise my Creator-endowed and constitutionally protected conduct and
Right to Ufe, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness, including but not limited to, the unalienable right
to freely travel in Washington and the several states of the states of the union with impunit/.
As one of the People, I was endowed by my Creator with certain unalienable rights; the Right to Life,
Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. It is important that you know and understand that my Creator
endowed unalienable Rights are protected and guaranteed by the federal and state Constitutions and
the Amendments specific to the Bill of Rights and respective Declaration of Rights.
"The state cannot diminish Rights of the people." Hurtado vs. California, 110 US 516.
"Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or
legislation which would abrogate them." Miranda vs. Arizona, 384 US 436, 491.
"State courts must follow interpretations of the federal constitution made by the
United States Supreme Court." State v. Laviollette, 118 Wn.2d 670, 826 P.2d 685 [No.
58076-0, En Banc.] March 19, 1992,
Impunity: exemption from punishment or freedom from the injurious consequences of an action.
Page 2 of 15
"Decisions of the United States Supreme Court are controlling over conflicting case law
and statutory law of this state./J State v. Counts, 99 Wn.2d 54, 659 P.2d 1087 [ Nos.
47687-0,48239-1 En Bane] February 24, 1983.
These are but a few of many such rulings that boldly proclaim that all state and federal actors, elected
or appointed, are required to maintain a "Hands-Off-the-Peoples' Rights" policy or face criminal
prosecution for deprivation of rights under federal law codified at 18 USC 241 & 242 and civil
liability under 42 USC 1983.
After considerable research, it appears that the Agency Director and agents known as WASHINGTON
DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING (DOL), are knowingly and willingly participating, adopting and enforcing
2
3
statutes/codes that are not law and do not apply to the People
Your participation, active involvement or tacit approval to recommend, adopt, implement and/or
enforce any statutes/codes upon me, Connie LaRue, that in any way, shape or form, infringe upon my
Creator-endowed unalienable Rights to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness (Property) will be
treated as an attempt to commit a deliberate criminal act of rights deprivation under color of law and
will be referred for criminal prosecution upon criminal complaint to the appropriate authorities.
DECLARATION/ASSEVERATION OF STATUS
Comes now the undersigned, Connie LaRue, a private woman and Declarant, being of lawful age and
4
competent to testify, by way of this Declaration/Asseveration and avers that the following
statements are true and factual based upon Declarant's personal knowledge, belief and
comprehension concerning the status of Declarant as one of the People on Stevens county on
Washington state.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Be it known to all governments, government subdivisions, courts, and other parties, that I,
Connie LaRue, Declarant herein, am a natural, freeborn woman; a People in possession of
the birthright as described in 4 Wheat 402.
Declarant's sovereign appellation as one of the sovereign People on Washington is Connie
LaRue.
Declarant is a private woman - a creation of her God.
Declarant is only subordinate to her Creator and none other.
Declarant was charged by her Creator with the duty to exercise dominion over the earth.
Declarant neither dominates, nor is dominated by another man/woman.
Declarant declares her status to be that of one of the sovereign People, and rejects all
others.
"The act before us does not purport to amend a section of an act, but only a section of a compilation entitled "Revised
Code of Washington," which is not the law." PAROSA v. CITY OF TACOMA, 57 Wn.2d 409 (1960), 357 P.2d 873.
3 "To mankind in their natural state. There, 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." Cruden v. Neale, 2 N.C. 338 (1796) 2 S.E. 70.
4 Asseveration: The proof which a man gives of the truth of what he says, by appealing to his conscience as a witness. It
differs from an oath in this, that by the latter he appeals to his Creator as a witness of the truth of what he says, and
invokes him, as the avenger offalsehood and perfidy, to punish him if he speak not the truth.
Page 3 of 15
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
Declarant, as one of the sovereign People, does not yield her sovereignty to the
instruments of her creation or the agencies that serve her.
Declarant, as one of the People, insists on remaining informed so that she may maintain
control over the instruments of her creation.
Declarant, as one of the sovereign People, does not grant consent to any thing or anyone
without full disclosure and full knowledge of the consequences of granting that consent.
As one of the sovereign People on Washington, recognized and acknowledged in RCW
42.56.030; RCW 42.30.010; RCW 42.17A.001; RCW 9.02.100; and WAC 44-14-01003,
Declarant requires all challengers to Declarant's status as a People to provide all
documents, evidence and law that clearly establish exactly how a sovereign People on
Washington, namely Declarant, is somehow subordinate (i.e. "person"s status) to the
instruments of her own creation. Statutes applying to persons always exclude "man",
"woman", and "People". Expressio Unius Est Exclusio Alteriul.
Declarant states that "... courts must presume that a legislature says in a statute what it
means and means in a statute what it says there. II See, e. g., United States v. Ron Pair
Enterprises, Inc., 489 U. S. 235, 241-242 (1989); United States v. Goldenberg, 168 U. S. 95,
102-103 (1897); Oneale v. Thornton. 6 Cranch 53, 68 (1810) and that statutes must be
written clearly so that men and women of common intelligence all derive the same
meaning.
Declarant states that "[Wjhen the words of a statute are unambiguous, then this first
canon is also the last: Judicial inquiry is complete. OJ Rubin v. United States, 449 U. S. 424,
430 (1981); see also Ron Pair Enterprises, supra, at 241." Connecticut National Bank v.
Germain, 503 US 117, L. Ed 2nd 391[1992].
Declarant states that the Law Forms governing Declarant and her property are the
Scriptures, the Ten Commandments and the Common Law as it applies to Declarant's
private status and venue.
Declarant states that the People are the fountain of Sovereignty. The whole was originally
with them as their own. The state governments are but trustees acting under a derived
authority, and had no power to delegate what is not delegated to them. But the People, as
the original fountain, might take away what they have lent and entrust to whom they
please.
Declarant is without evidence that any level of government may make any law repugnant
to the Constitution.
Declarant is without evidence that any level of government may make any laws infringing
upon the natural Creator-endowed unalienable rights of People born on the Several
States.
RCW 1.16.080 "Person" - Construction of "association," "unincorporated association," and "person, firm, or
corporation" to include a limited liability company. (1) The term "person" may be construed to include the United States,
this state, or any state or territory, or any public or private corporation or limited liability company, as well as an
individual. (2) Unless the context clearly indicates otherwise, the terms "association," "unincorporated association," and
"person, firm, or corporation" or substantially identical terms shall, without limiting the application of any term to any
other type of legal entity, be construed to include a limited liability company.
6 Expressio unius est excJusio alteriu5 is a Latin phrase that means express mention of one thing excludes all others. This is
one of the rules used in interpretation of statutes. The phrase indicates that items not on the list are assumed not to be
covered by the statute. When something is mentioned expressly in a statute it leads to the presumption that the things
not mentioned are excluded. This is an aid to construction of statutes. Quote from USLEGAL.COM
Page 4 of 15
18.
19.
Declarant is without evidence that any level of government is forbidden to make laws
applying to 'persons', therein consisting only of government-created legal fictions in law
7
which include the term "individuaI ".
Declarant states, "persons" are not "People" as substantiated in Spooner v. McConnell, 22
F. 939 wherein it states, "The sovereignty of a state does not reside in the persons who fill
the different departments of its government, but in the People, from whom the
government emanated; and they may change it at their discretion. Sovereignty, then, in
this country, abides with the constituency, and not with the agent; and this remark is true,
both in reference to the federal and state governments. "
20.
21.
22.
Declarant removes or otherwise retracts all expressed or implied consent from all agencies
that cannot provide written evidence that Declarant was provided full disclosure and that
Declarant had full comprehension of the consequences of granting said consent.
Declarant states that any person or citizen of the United States that desires to challenge
Declarant's status must first establish standing and jurisdiction, and thereafter, submit all
valid documentation with proof of full disclosure of the consequences of Declarant
autographing such documents that would or might suggest or intimate that Declarant is
anything other than a People; all such documents must come with a "signed-under
penalty-of-perjury", notarized affidavit that the documents are true, accurate and
complete, not containing elements of fraud and not misleading.
Declarant states the foregoing position is in accordance with the U.S. Supreme Court
decision of Brady v. U.S., 379 U.S. 742 at 748 (1970): "Waivers of Constitutionally
protected Rights not only must be voluntary, they must be knowingly intelligent acts, done
with sufficient awareness of the relevant circumstances and consequences. "
23.
24.
25.
26.
Declarant states that any person who attempts to threaten, compel, coerce or intimidate
Declarant to adhere or otherwise comply with any color of law, statute, code, rule,
regulation, ordinance or any other device of any person or citizen of the United States
shall be charged with treason and punished according to the Common Law.
Declarant requires any person desiring to communicate with Declarant by any means shall
first submit a rights-impact statement on how such correspondence will in no way
interfere with, diminish or otherwise injure Declarant's Creator-endowed, unalienable
Rights.
Declarant states: (ITo mankind in their natural state. There, 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." Cruden v. Neale, 2 N.C. 338 (1796) 2 S.E. 70.
Be it known to all that even though Declarant recognizes and respects those collectively
held limited powers granted to governments, Declarant reserves those individually held
Maxim of Law "EJUSDEM GENERIS. Of the same kind, class, or nature. In the construction of laws, wills, and other
instruments, the "ejusdem generis rule" is, that where general words follow an enumeration of persons or things, by
words of a particular and specific meaning, such general words are not to be construed in their widest extent, but are to
be held as applying only to persons or things of the same general kind or class as those specifically mentioned. Black,
Interp. of Laws, 141; Goldsmith v. U. S., C.C.A.N.Y., 42 F.2d 133, 137; Aleksich v. Industrial Accident Fund, 116 Mont. 69,
151 P.2d 1016, 1021." Black's Law Dictionary 4th Edition, Page 608 Example: if a law refers to automobiles, trucks,
tractors, motorcycles and other motor-powered vehicles, "vehicles" would not include airplanes, since the list was of
land-based transportation. The term "individual" as defined in RCW 1.16.080 is in a class of other fictional entities,
corporations, associations, etc. But not in a class of persons or things like man, woman or people. See Maxim of Law
"EJUSDEM GENERIS".
Page 5 of 15
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
prerogative rights of action not to be compelled to perform under any contract or

disabilitl that was not entered into with full disclosure; knowingly, voluntarily, and
intentionally.
Declarant states that the hidden or unrevealed contracts that supposedly create
obligations to perform, for persons of subject status, are inapplicable to Declarant, as one
of the People who does not yield her sovereignty to the agencies/governments that serve
her, and are null and void acts when applied to Declarant.
Declarant states any participation of any of the supposed "benefits" associated with these
hidden contracts that Declarant has participated in was done so under duress from
coercion, misinformation, and/or ignorance of Declarant's true nature and rightful power.
Declarant, as one of the sovereign People, is without evidence that she resides or works in
any federal territory of the "District" United States, or that United States codes, statutes
or regulations have any authority over Declarant.
Declarant hereby revokes, rescinds, and make void ab initio, all powers of attorney signed
by Declarant or any Informant, as they pertain to the Social Security number, birth
certificate, marriage, driver, any business license, or any other licenses or certificates
issued by any government or quasi-governmental entities that would adversely effect
Declarant's dominion over Declarant's own Creator-endowed unalienable Rights and
property.
Declarant demands that all monies of whatever character which have been paid to such
government or quasi-government entities in Declarant's name be returned without
further delay.
Further Declarant sayeth naught.

..--t\,.,
Dated this }~ -day of -"';:~!""",,:,,-~~_..-)' 20 1::l
\
All Rights Reserved,
Connie LaRue, Private Woman
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
On Stevens county, on Washington state, I, the undersigned Notary, do certify that I know or
have satisfactory evidence that Connie LaRue, Declarant herein, is the woman who appeared before
me under penalty for perjury and acknowledges that she signed this Declaration/Asseveration of
Status to be her free and voluntary act for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument.
DATED
'1-
15-~oIC
tf;'~'l>
_..N....-Ir"'1Un lZ'":l. I J I.,

~,
"
Notary Public for" w~~

My appointment ~$f
e'soi tf3'J:. !.f'J7f5
c-~-<>;-.::
.~
0'1'.
GT0N"'~:: ~:.~.
'......
..
.~. ..A-.. '.

~..
,rt:.t
',\ "'" "....
.7.,
".~
r'
II
..rr
.'.~.:
~
......... ,. .... ~"
A compelled state license to use one's property upon the public right of way is ~h~~~t1y"
.
..- ::.
~J i':~
~::
"'l
... ~~
,sMm y'.
~! ~ ~
."'
Page 6 of 15
STATE AND FEDERAL COURT RULINGS

U.S. SUPREME COURT AND OTHER HIGH COURT CITA TlONS
PROVING THAT NO LICENSE IS NECESSARY FOR NORMAL USE
OF AN AUTOMOBILE ON COMMON WA YS
"The right of a citizen to travel upon the public

highways and to transport his property thereon, by
horsedrawn carriage, wagon, or automobile, is not a
mere privilege which may be permitted or
prohibited at will, but a common right which he has
under his right to life, liberty and the pursuit of
happiness. Under this constitutional guaranty 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."
Thompson v. Smith, 154 SE 579, 11 American
Jurisprudence, Constitutional Law, section 329, page
1135
"The right of the Citizen to travel upon the public
highways and to transport his property thereon, in
the ordinary course of life and business, is a common
right which he has under the right to enjoy life and
liberty, to acquire and possess property, and to
pursue happiness and safety. It includes the right, in
so doing, to use the ordinary and usual conveyances
of the day, and under the existing modes of travel,
includes the right to drive a horse drawn carriage or
wagon thereon or to operate an automobile
thereon, for the usual and ordinary purpose of life
and business." - Thompson V5. Smith, supra.; Teche
Lines vs. Danforth, Miss., 12 S.2d 784
"... the right of the citizen to drive on a public street
with freedom from police interference... is a
fundamental constitutional right" -White, 97
CaI.App.3d.141, 158 Cal.Rptr. 562, 566-67 (1979)
"citizens have a right to drive upon the public streets
of the District of Columbia or any other city absent a
constitutionally sound reason for limiting their
access." Caneisha Mills v. D.C. 2009
"The use of the automobile as a necessary adjunct to
the earning of a livelihood in modern life requires us
in the interest of realism to conclude that the RIGHT
to use an automobile on the public highways
partakes of the nature of a liberty within the
meaning of the Constitutional guarantees. . ."
Berberian v. Lussier (1958) 139 A2d 869, 872, See

also: Schecter v. Killingsworth, 380 P.2d 136, 140; 93
Ariz. 273 (1963).
"The right to operate a motor vehicle [an
automobile] upon the public streets and highways is
not a mere privilege. It is a right of 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; 91 Idaho
99 (1966).
"A traveler has an equal right to employ an
automobile as a means of transportation and to
occupy the public highways with other vehicles in
common use." Campbell v. Walker, 78 Atl. 601, 603,
2 Boyce (Del.) 41.
"The owner of an automobile has the same right as
the owner of other vehicles to use the highway, * * *
A traveler on foot has the same right to the use of
the public highways as an automobile or any other
vehicle." Simeone v. Lindsay, 65 Atl. 778, 779;
Hannigan v. Wright, 63 Atl. 234, 236.
"The RIGHT of the citizen to DRIVE on the public
street with freedom from police interference, unless
he is engaged in suspicious conduct associated in
some manner with criminality is a FUNDAMENTAL
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT which must be protected by
the courts." People v. Horton 14 Cal. App. 3rd 667
(1971)
"The right to make use of an automobile as a vehicle
of travel long the highways of the state, is no longer
an open question. The owners thereof have the
same rights in the roads and streets as the drivers of
horses or those riding a bicycle or traveling in some
other vehicle." House v. Cramer, 112 N.W. 3; 134
Iowa 374; Farnsworth v. Tampa Electric Co. 57 So.
233, 237, 62 Fla. 166.
''The automobile may be used with safety to others
users of the highway, and in its proper use upon the
highways there is an equal right with the users of
other vehicles properly upon the highways. The law
recognizes such right of use upon general
principles." Brinkman v Pacholike, 84 N.E. 762, 764,
411nd. App. 662, 666.
Page 7 of 15
"The law does not denounce motor carriages, as

such, on public ways. They have an equal right with
other vehicles in common use to occupy the streets
and roads. It is improper to say that the driver of the
horse has rights in the roads superior to the driver of
the automobile. Both have the right to use the
easement." Indiana Springs Co. v. Brown, 165 Ind.
465,468.
"A highway is a public way open and free to anyone
who has occasion to pass along it on foot or with any
kind of vehicle." Schlesinger v. City of Atlanta, 129
S.E. 861, 867, 161 Ga. 148, 159; Holland v.
Shackelford, 137 S.E. 2d 298, 304, 220 Ga. 104;
Stavola v. Palmer, 73 A.2d 831, 838, 136 Conn. 670
"There can be no question of the right of automobile
owners to occupy and use the public streets of cities,
or highways in the rural districts." Liebrecht v.
Crandall, 126 N.W. 69,110 Minn. 454, 456
"The word 'automobile' connotes a pleasure vehicle
designed for the transportation of persons on
highways."-American Mutual Liability Ins. Co., vs.
Chaput, 60 A.2d 118, 120; 95 NH 200 Motor Vehicle:
18 USC Part 1 Chapter 2 section 31 definitions: "(6)
Motor vehicle. - The term "motor vehicle" means
every description of carriage or other contrivance
propelled or drawn by mechanical power and used
for commercial purposes on the highways ... " 10) 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. "A motor vehicle or
automobile for hire is a motor vehicle, other than an
automobile stage, used for the transportation of
persons for which remuneration is received."
International Motor Transit Co. vs. Seattle, 251 P.
120
The term 'motor vehicle' is different and broader
than the word 'automobile.'" -City of Dayton vs.
DeBrosse, 23 NE.2d 647, 650; 62 Ohio App. 232
"Thus self-driven vehicles are classified according to
the use to which they are put rather than according
to the means by which they are propelled" - Ex Parte
Hoffert, 148 NW 20 "
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 (2nd Cir. 1907).
"...a citizen has the right to travel upon the public

highways and to transport his property thereon ... "
State vs. Johnson, 243 P. 1073; Cummins vs. Homes,
155 P. 171; Packard vs. Banton, 44 S.Ct. 256;
Hadfield vs. Lundin, 98 Wash 516, Willis vs. Buck,
263 P. I 982; Barney vs. Board of Railroad
Commissioners, 17 P.2d 82
"The use of the highways for the purpose of travel
and transportation is not a mere privilege, but a
common and fundamental Right of which the public
and the individual cannot be rightfully deprived."
Chicago Motor Coach VS. Chicago, 169 NE 22; Ligare
vs. Chicago, 28 NE 934; Boon vs. Clark, 214 SSW 607;
25 Am.Jur. (1st) Highways Sect.163
"the right of the Citizen to travel upon the highway
and to transport his property thereon in the ordinary
course of life and business... is the usual and
ordinary right of the Citizen, a right common to aiL"
Ex Parte Dickey, (Dickey vs. Davis), 85 SE 781
"Every Citizen has an unalienable RIGHT to make use
of the public highways of the state; every Citizen has
full freedom to travel from place to place in the
enjoyment of life and liberty." People v. Nothaus,
147 Colo. 210.
"No State government entity has the power to allow
or deny passage on the highways, byways, nor
waterways ... transporting his vehicles and personal
property for either recreation or business, but by
being subject only to local regulation i.e., safety,
caution, traffic lights, speed limits, etc. Travel is not a
privilege requiring licensing, vehicle registration, or
forced insurances." Chicago Coach Co. v. City of
Chicago, 337 III. 200, 169 N.E. 22.
"Traffic infractions are not a crime." People v. Battle
"Persons faced with an unconstitutional licensing
law which purports to require a license as a
prerequisite to exercise of right. .. may ignore the law
and engage with impunity in exercise of such
right."Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham 394 U.S. 147
(1969).
"The word 'operator' shall not include any person
who solely transports his own property and who
transports no persons or property for hire or
compensation."Statutes at Large California Chapter
412 p.83
"Highways are for the use of the traveling public, and
all have the right to use them in a reasonable and
proper manner; the use thereof is an inalienable
right of every citizen." Escobedo v. State 35 C2d 870
in 8 Cal Jur 3d p.27
Page 8 of 15
/fRIGHT -- A legal RIGHT, a constitutional RIGHT

means a RIGHT protected by the law, by the
constitution, but government does not create the
idea of RIGHT or original RIGHTS; it acknowledges
them ... Bouvier's Law Dictionary, 1914, p. 2961.
"Those who have the right to do something cannot
be licensed for what they already have right to do as
such license would be meaningless." City of Chicago
v Collins 51 NE 907, 910. /fA license means leave to
do a thing which the licensor could prevent." Blatz
Brewing Co. v. Collins, 160 P.2d 37, 39; 69 Cal. A. 2d
639.
"The object of a license is to confer a right or power,
which does not exist without it." Payne v. Massey
(19_) 196 SW 2nd 493,145 Tex 273.
"The court makes it clear that a license relates to
qualifications to engage in profession, business,
trade or calling; thus, when merely traveling without
compensation or profit, outside of business
enterprise or adventure with the corporate state, no
license is required of the natural individual traveling
for personal business, pleasure and transportation."
Wingfield v. Fielder 2d Ca. 3d 213 (1972).
"If [state] officials construe a vague statute
unconstitutionally, the citizen may take them at their
word, and act on the assumption that the statute is
void."
Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham 394 U.S. 147 (1969).
"With regard particularly to the U.S. Constitution, it
is elementary that a Right secured or protected by
that document cannot be overthrown or impaired by
any state police authority." Donnolly vs. Union
Sewer Pipe Co., 184 US 540; Lafarier vs. Grand Trunk
R.R. Co., 24 A. 848; O'Neil vs. Providence
Amusement Co., 108 A. 887.
"The right to travel (called the right of free ingress to
other states, and egress from them) is so
fundamental that it appears in the Articles of
Confederation, which governed our society before
the Constitution." (Paul v. Virginia).
"[T]he right to travel freely from State to State ... is a
right broadly assertable against private interference
as well as governmental action. Like the right of
association, it is a virtually unconditional personal
right, guaranteed by the Constitution to us all." (U.S.
Supreme Court, Shapiro v. Thompson). EDGERTON,
Chief Judge: "Iron curtains have no place in a free
world."
...'Undoubtedly the right of locomotion, the right to
remove from one place to another according to
/f
inclination, is an attribute of personal liberty, and

the right, ordinarily, of free transit from or through
the territory of any State is a right secured by the
Constitution.' Williams v. Fears, 179 U.s. 270, 274,
21 S.Ct. 128,45 L.Ed. 186.
"Our nation has thrived on the principle that, outside
areas of plainly harmful conduct, every American is
left to shape his own life as he thinks best, do what
he pleases, go where he pleases." Id., at 197. Kent
vs. Dulles see Vestal, Freedom of Movement, 41
Iowa L.Rev. 6, 13-14.
"The validity of restrictions on the freedom of
movement
of
particular
individuals,
both
substantively and procedurally, is precisely the sort
of matter that is the peculiar domain of the courts."
Comment, 61 Yale L.J. at page 187.
"a person detained for an investigatory stop can be
questioned but is "not obliged to answer, answers
may not be compelled, and refusal to answer
furnishes no basis for an arrest./lJustice White, Hiibel
"Automobiles have the right to use the highways of
the State on an equal footing with other vehicles./I
Cumberland Telephone. & Telegraph Co. v. Yeiser
141 Kentucy 15.
"Each citizen has the absolute right to choose for
himself the mode of conveyance he desires, whether
it be by wagon or carriage, by horse, motor or
electric car, or by bicycle, or astride of a horse,
subject to the sale condition that he will observe all
those requirements that are known as the law of the
road./I Swift v City of Topeka, 43 Kansas 671, 674.
The Supreme Court said in U.S. v Mersky (1960) 361
U.S. 431: An administrative regulation, of course, is
not a "statute." A traveler on foot has the same right
to use of the public highway as an automobile or any
other vehicle.
Cecchi v. Lindsay, 75 At!. 376, 377, 1 Boyce (Del.)
185.
Automotive vehicles are lawful means of conveyance
and have equal rights upon the streets with horses
and carriages. Chicago Coach Co. v. City of Chicago,
337 III. 200, 205; See also: Christy v. Elliot, 216 III. 31;
Ward v. Meredith, 202 III. 66; Shinkle v. McCullough,
116 Ky. 960; Butler v. Cabe, 116 Ark. 26, 28-29 .
...automobiles are lawful vehicles and have equal
rights on the highways with horses and carriages.
Daily v. Maxwell, 133 S.W. 351, 354. Matson v.
Dawson, 178 N.W. 2d 588, 591.
A farmer has the same right to the use of the
highways of the state, whether on foot or in a motor
Page 9 of 15
vehicle, as any other citizen. Draffin v. Massey, 92

S.E.2d 38,42.
Persons may lawfully ride in automobiles, as they
may lawfully ride on bicycles. Doherty v. Ayer, 83
N.E. 677, 197 Mass. 241, 246; Molway v. City of
Chicago, 88 N.E. 485, 486, 239 III. 486; Smiley v. East
St. Louis Ry. Co., 100 N.E. 157, 158.
"A soldier's personal automobile is part of his
'household goods[.]' U.S. v Bomar, C.A.5(Tex.), 8 F.3d
226, 235. "19A Words and Phrases - Permanent
Edition (West) pocket part 94.
"[I]t is a jury question whether .. , an automobile ... is
a motor vehicle[.]" United States v Johnson, 718 F.2d
1317,1324 (5th Cir. 1983).
Other right to use an automobile cases: - EDWARDS

VS. CALIFORNIA, 314 U.S. 160 - TWINING VS NEW
JERSEY, 211 U.S. 78 - WILLIAMS VS. FEARS, 179 U.S.
270, AT 274 - CRANDALL VS. NEVADA, 6 WALL. 35,
AT 43-44 - THE PASSENGER CASES, 7 HOWARD 287,
AT 492 - U.S. VS. GUEST, 383 U.S. 745, AT 757-758
(1966) - GRIFFIN VS. BRECKENRIDGE, 403 U.S. 88, AT
105-106 (1971) - CALIFANO VS. TORRES, 435 U.S. 1,
AT 4, note 6 - SHAPIRO VS. THOMPSON, 394 U.S. 618
(1969) - CALIFANO VS. AZNAVORIAN, 439 U.S. 170,
AT 176 (1978) Look the above citations up in
American Jurisprudence. Some citations may be
paraphrased.
Right to Travel
Personal liberty largely consists of the Right of
locomotion ... 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." II Am.Jur. (1st)
Constitutional Law, Sect.329, p.1135.
"Personal liberty . .. consists of the power of
locomotion ... without imprisonment or restraint
unless by due process of law." 1 Blackstone's
Commentary 134; Hare, Constitution_.777; Bovier's
Law Dictionary, 1914 ed., Black's Law Dictionary, 5th
ed.
There is a difference between an individual and a
corporation. The United States Supreme Court has
stated: "The individual may stand upon his
Constitutional Rights as a Citizen. He owes no duty

to the State or to his neighbors to divulge his
business, or to open his doors to investigation, so
far as it may tend to incriminate him. He owes no
such duty to the State, since he receives nothing
therefrom, beyond the protection 01 his 'ife, liberty,
and property. His Rights are such as the law of the
land long antecedent to the organization of the

state, and can only be taken from him by due
process of law, and in accordance with the
Constitution. Among his Rights are the refusal to
incriminate himselt and the immunity of himself
and his property from arrest or seizure except under
warrant of law. He owes nothing to the public so
long as he does not trespass upon their rights.
Hale vs. Hinkel,201 US 43, 74-75."
What is a "Right to use the Road?
"Where rights secured by the Constitution are
involved, there can be no rule making or legislation
which would abrogate them." Miranda vs. Arizona,
384 US 436, 491.
and ...
"The claim and exercise of a constitutional Right
cannot be converted into a crime." Miller vs. U.S.,
230 F. 486, 489.
and ...
"The Right of the Citizen to travel upon the public
highways and to transport his property thereon,
either by horse drawn carriage or by automobile, is
not a mere privilege which a city can prohibit or
permit at will, but a common Right which he has
under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of
happiness." Thompson vs. Smith, 154 SE 579.
"The right of the citizen to travel upon the highway
and to transport his property thereon, in the
ordinary course of life and business, differs radically
and obviously from that of one who makes the
Page 10 of 15
highway his place of business for private gain in the

running of a stagecoach or omnibus." State vs. City
of Spokane, 186 P. 864
and ...
"the right of the Citizen to travel upon the highway
and to transport his property thereon in the ordinary
course of life and business, .... a right common to
all, while the latter is special, unusual, and
extraordinary." Ex Parte Dickey, (Dickey vs. Davis), 85
SE 781.
There is no dissent among various authorities as to
this position. (See Am.Jur. [1st] Const. Law, 329 and
corresponding Am. Jur. (2nd].)
It is one of the most sacred
"Personal liberty -as sacred as the right to
and valuable rights
private property...and is regarded as inalienable." 16
c.J.5. Const. Law, Sect.202, p.987.
Extensive research has not turned up one case or
authority acknowledging the state's power to
convert the individual's right to travel upon the
public roads into a "privilege." .. and the exercise
of this Right is not a "privilege."
DEFINITIONS
AUTOMOBILE AND MOTOR VEHICLE: An
automobile is private property in use for private
purposes, while a motor vehicle is a machine which
may be used upon the highways for trade,
commerce, or hire.
TRAVEL: One who uses the road in the ordinary
course of life and business for the purpose of travel
and transportation is a traveler.
DRIVER: "One employed in conducting a coach,
carriage, wagon, or other vehicle ... " Bovier's Law
Dictionary, 1914 ed., p. 940.
LICENSE: "The permission, by competent authority
to do an act which without permission, would be
illegal, a trespass, or a tort." People vs. Henderson,
218 NW.2d 2,4.
"Leave to do a thing which licensor could prevent."
Western Electric Co. vs. Pacent Reproducer Corp., 42
F.2d 116, 118.
In order for these two definitions to apply, the state
would have to take up the position that the exercise
of a Constitutional Right to use the public roads in
the ordinary course of life and business is illegal, a
trespass, or a tort, which the state could then

regulate or prevent. This position, however, would
raise magnitudinous Constitutional questions as this
position would be diametrically opposed to
fundamental Constitutional Law.
POLICE POWER
Each law relating to the use of police power must
ask three questions:
"1. Is there threatened danger? Is there a
threatened danger in the individual using his
automobile on the public highways, in the ordinary
course of life and business?
The answer is No! There is nothing inherently
dangerous in the use of an automobile when it is
carefully managed. Their guidance, speed, and noise
are subject to a quick and easy control, under a
competent and considerate manager, it is as
harmless on the road as a horse and buggy.
To deprive all persons of the Right to use the road in
the ordinary course of life and business, because one
might, in the future, become dangerous, would be a
deprivation not only of the Right to travel, but also
the Right to due process.
2. Does a regulation involve a Constitutional Right?
This Citizen does have the Right to travel upon the
public highway by automobile in the ordinary course
of life and business. It can therefore be concluded
that this regulation does involve a Constitutional
Right.
3. Is this regulation reasonable? No!
Every state
power, including the police power, is limited by the
Fourteenth Amendment (and others) and by the
inhibitions there imposed.
Moreover, the ultimate test of the propriety of
police power regulations must be found in the
Fourteenth Amendment, since it operates to limit
the field of the police power to the extent of
preventing the enforcement of statutes in denial of
Rights that the Amendment protects. (See Parks vs.
State, 64 NE 682.)
"With regard particularly to the U.S. Constitution, it
is elementary that a Right secured or protected by
that document cannot be overthrown or impaired
by any state police authority." Connolly vs. Union
Sewer Pipe Co., 184 US 540; Lafarier vs. Grand Trunk
R.R. Co., 24 A. 848; O'Neil vs. Providence
Amusement Co., 108 A. 887.
Page 11 of 15
As has been shown, the courts at all levels have

firmly established an absolute Right to travel.
In the instant case, the state, by applying
commercial statutes to all entities, natural and
artificial persons alike, has deprived this free and
natural woman of the Right of Liberty, without
cause and without due process of law.
DUE PROCESS: liThe essential elements of due
process of law are...Notice and The Opportunity to
defend." Simon vs. Craft, 182 US 427.
Yet, not one man or woman has been given notice of
the loss of his Right, let alone before signing the
license (contract). Nor was the Citizen given any
opportunity to defend against the loss of his right to
travel by automobile, on the highways, in the
ordinary course of life and business. This amounts to
an arbitrary deprivation of Liberty.
There should be no arbitrary deprivation of Life or
Liberty... " Barbour vs. Connolly, 113 US 27, 31; Yick
Wo vs. Hopkins, 118 US 356.
and ...
"The right to travel is part of the Liberty of which a
citizen cannot be deprived without due process of
law under the Fifth Amendment. This Right was
emerging as early as the Magna Carta." Kent vs.
Dulles, 357 US 116 (1958).
Unless or until harm or damage (a crime) is
committed, there is no cause for interference in the
private affairs or actions of a Citizen.
Daniel Webster in his Dartmouth College Case (4
Wheat 518), declared that by due process is meant
"a law which hears before it condemns, which
proceeds upon inquiry, and renders judgment only
after triaL" (See also State vs. Strasburg, 110 P. 1020;
Dennis vs. Moses, 52 P. 333.)
No one shall be personally bound (restricted) until
he has had his day in court,". (12 Am.Jur. [1st] Const.
Law, Sect.573, p.269.)
What public servants ignorant of the law say: "Every
person using an automobile as a matter of Right,

must give up the Right and convert the Right into a
privilege." This is accomplished under the guise of
regulation. This statement is indicative of the
insensitivity, even the ignorance, of the government
to the limits placed upon governments by and
through the several constitutions.
Thus the legislature does not have the power to
abrogate the Citizen's Right to travel upon the
public roads, by passing legislation forcing the
citizen to waive his Right and convert that Right

into a privilege.
REGULATION: Let us consider the reasonableness of
this statute requiring all persons to be licensed.
1. Does the statute accomplish its stated goal? The
answer is No!
By testing and licensing, the state gives the
appearance of underwriting the competence of the
licensees, and could therefore be held liable for
failures, accidents, etc. caused by licensees.
2. Is the statute reasonable? The answer is No!
This statute cannot be determined to be reasonable
since it requires the Citizen to give up his natural
Right to travel unrestricted in order to accept the
privilege.
The real purpose of this license is much more
insidious. When one signs the license, he gives up his
Constitutional Right to travel in order to accept and
exercise a privilege. After signing the license (a
quaSi-contract), the Citizen has to give the state his
consent to be prosecuted for constructive crimes
and quasi-criminal actions where there is no harm
done and no damaged property. But this perceived
"consent" was induced by fraud and without full
disclosure, and thus consent could not have been
intelligently given.
SURRENDER OF RIGHTS: A Citizen cannot be forced
to give up his Rights in the name of regulation.
" ...the only limitations found restricting the right of
the state to condition the use of the public highways
as a means of vehicular transportation for
compensation are (1) that the state must not exact
of those it permits to use the highways for hauling
for gain that they surrender any of their inherent
U.S. Constitutional Rights as a condition precedent
to obtaining permission for such use... " Riley vs.
Laeson, 142 50.619; Stephenson vs. Binford, supra.
If one cannot be placed in a position of being forced
to surrender Rights in order to exercise a privilege,
how much more must this maxim of law, then apply
when one is simply exercising (putting into use) a
Right?
"We find it intolerable that one Constitutional Right
should have to be surrendered in order to assert
another. II Simons vs. United States, 390 US 389.
Since the state requires that one give up Rights in
order to exercise the privilege of driving, the
regulation cannot stand under the police power, due
Page 12 of 15
process, or regulation, but must be exposed as a

statute which is oppressive and one which has been
misapplied to deprive the Citizen of Rights
guaranteed by the United States Constitution and
the state constitutions.
TAXING POWER: Any claim that this statute is a
taxing statute would be immediately open to severe
Constitutional objections. If it could be said that the
state had the power to tax a Right, this would enable
the state to destroy Rights guaranteed by the
constitution through the use of oppressive taxation.
The question herein, is one of the states taxing the
Right to travel by the ordinary modes of the day, and
whether this is a legislative object of the state
taxation.
CONVERSION OF A RIGHT TO A CRIME: As
previously demonstrated, the Citizen has the Right
to travel and to transport his property upon the
public highways in the ordinary course of life and
business. One cannot be compelled or threatened
into giving up the Right to Travel in exchange for the
privilege of driving and thus subjecting himself to the
statutory penalties of having the license. This
amounts to converting the exercise of a
Constitutional Right into a crime. Miller vs. U.S. and
Snerer vs. Cullen quotes, "The state cannot diminish
Rights of the people." Hurtado vs. California, 110 US
516.
and ...
"Where rights secured by the Constitution are
involved, there can be no rule making or legislation
which would abrogate them." Miranda, supra.
Indeed, the very purpose for creating the state
under the limitations of the constitution was to
protect the rights of the People from intrusion,
particularly by the forces of government.
So we can see that any attempt by the legislature to

make the act of using the public highways as a
matter of Right into a crime, is void upon its face.
Any person who claims his Right to travel upon the
highways, and so exercises that Right, cannot be
tried for a crime of doing so. This free woman will
stand before any court to answer charges for the
"crime" of exercising her Right to Liberty.
The term "drive" can only apply to those who are
employed in the business of transportation for hire.
It has been shown that freedom includes the
Citizen's Right to use the public highways in the
ordinary course of life and business without license
or regulation by the police powers of the state.
CONCLUSION
It is the duty of the courts to so adjudge, and
thereby give effect to the Constitution." Mulger vs.
Kansas, 123 US 623, 661.
"It is the duty of the courts to be watchful for the
Constitutional rights of the citizen and against any
stealthy encroachments thereon." Boyd vs. United
States, 116 US 616.
This position must be accepted unless the
prosecutor can show his authority for the position
that the "use of the road in the ordinary course of
life and business" is a privilege.
The state has committed a massive construction
fraUd. This occurs when any person is told that he
must have a license in order to use the public roads
and highways.
Few if any licensees intentionally surrender
valuable rights. They are told that they must have
the license. As we have seen, this is not the case.
No one in his right mind voluntarily surrenders
complete liberty and accepts in its place a set of
regulations.
"The people never give up their liberties but under some delusion. "
--Edmund Burke, 1784.
Page 13 of 15
FEE SCHEDULE FOR DAMAGES TO
Connie LaRue, a private woman
The AUTHORITY FOR FINES (DAMAGES) CAUSED BY CRIMES BY GOVERNMENT OFFICERS. These
Damages were determined by GOVERNMENT itself for the violation listed (does not include punitive
damages which are in equal amount or greater).
Penalty
Breach
VIOLATION OF OATH OF OFFICE
DENIED PROPER WARRANT(S)
DENIED RIGHT OF REASONABLE
DEFENSE ARGUMENTS
$250,000.00
$250,000.00
DEFENSE EVIDENCE (RECORDS)
Authority
18 USC 3571
18 USC 3571
$250,000.00
$250,000.00
18 USC 3571
$250,000.00
18 USC 3571
$250,000.00
18 USC 3571
$250,000.00
$250,000.00
$1,000,000.00
$500.00
$10,000.00
$5,000.00
$5,000.00
$10,000.00
$10,000.00
$2,000.00
18 USC 3571
18 USC 3571
18 USC 1091
18 USC 3571
DENIED RIGHTTO TRUTH

IN EVIDENCE
SLAVERY (Forced Compliance
to contracts not held)
DENIED PROVISIONS IN THE
CONSTITUTION
TREASON (combined above actions).
GENOCIDE
MISPRISION OF FELONY
CONSPIRACY
EXTORTION
MAIL THREATS
FRAUD
FALSIFICATION OF DOCUMENTS
PERJURY
SUBORNATION OF PERJURY
$2,000.00
GRAND THEFT (18 USC 2112) each
$250,000.00
To determine multiply no. of counts by damage
RACKETEERING (Criminal)
RACKETEERING (Civil)
Wages Taken $ x 3
18
18
18
18
18
USC 4
USC 241
USC 872
USC 876
USC 1001
18 USC 1001
18 USC 1621
18 USC 1622
$25,000.00
18 USC 3571
18 USC 1963
5?
18 USC 1964
Dealing with claims of "immunity."

Any claim of "immunity" is a fraud because, if valid, it would prevent removal from office for crimes
against the People, which removal is authorized or even mandated under U.S. Constitution Article 2,
Section IV; as well as 18 USC 241, 42 USC 1983, 1985, 1986, and the state Constitutions. Precedents of
Law established by COURT cases, which are in violation of law, render violations of law legally
unassailable. Such a situation violates several specifically stated intents and purposes of the Constitution
set forth in the Preamble; to establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, and secure the-blessings of
liberty. This applies for JUDGES, or anyone in any branch of government.
Page 14 of 15
UNITED STATES CODE
TITLE 18 - CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
PART I - CRIMES
CHAPTER 13 - CIVIL RIGHTS
241. Conspiracy against rights
if two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any inhabitant of any
State, Territory, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him
by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same; or
If two or more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the premises of another, with intent to
prevent or hinder his free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege so secured
They shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if
death results, they shall be subject to imprisonment for any term of years or for life.
242. Deprivation of rights under color of law
Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any
inhabitant of any State, Territory, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities
secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or to different punishments,
pains, or penalties, on account of such inhabitant being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race,
than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined not more than $1,000 or imprisoned
not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results shall be fined under this title or
imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results shall be subject to imprisonment
for any term of years or for life.
42 USC 1983 - Civil action for deprivation of rights

Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or
Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United
States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or
immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at
law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a
judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer's judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not
be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable. For the
purposes of this section, any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be
considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia.
Dated this
\~ay of July, 2015.

All Rights Reserved
Connie LaRue - Private Woman
Page 15 of 15
District Court
RECEIVED
Stevens County
The State'of Washington
NAR 2 6 2~:S
STEVENS COUNTY
PROSECUTING ATIORNEY
CITY OF CHEWELAH, Plaintiff

[No. SZ0133878j
v.
Connie LaRue, Abused
Affidavit of Leonard Stonecipher
Comes now, Leonard Stonecipher, your Affiant, being competent to testify and being over the
age of 21 years, according to law to tell the truth to the facts related herein and states that he has first
hand knowledge of the facts stated herein,
I Leonard Stonecipher, am the father of Tiffany Knickerbocker, who is one of several rape victims
assaulted by officer Rex Newport, who is now a convicted sex offender, I am swearing this information
is true and accurate, as reported in the joint investigation into the rapes by Stevens County law
enforcement officers, This investigation is being conducted by the Stevens County Prosecutor, Federal
Bureau of Investigation, State Attorney General's office and a Private Investigation firm ordered by
members of the Stonecipher family, lawyers and myself.
In this joint venture I have worked with Stevens County Prosecutor Tim Rasmussen, Victims' Advocate,
FBI, Womans' Coalition Abroad, and private investigators to unravel the events related to the rape of my
daughter. During these investigations (which are still ongoing) fourteen women were discovered to
have been sexually assaulted by Mr, Rex Newport and about fourteen others had claimed to have been
Page 1 of 4
similarly assaulted by other officers, namely officer and co-worker for Colville Police Department, Mr.
Scott Arms. Mr. Arms is now being prosecuted for first-degree rape of an eleven-year-old child.
Another victim of Mr. Scott Arms is a young lady who worked at the Beaver Lodge Resort on Highway
20, east of Colville. She stated that one year prior to our investigation she was tending bar at the lodge
and believes she was drugged. She awakened in her residence, to find Mr. Arms raping her. She was
threatened and beaten by Mr. Arms and until others came forward she was traumatized and remained
silent due to her fear for her life. This rape and others allegations were turned over to Mr. Rasmussen's
office. Due to time constraints and lack of physical evidence, no charges could be filed on Mr. Arms.
Thank God a brave young child ended this officer's reign of terror in Stevens County. As of the writing of
this affidavit, Mr. Arms is being prosecuted in Wenatchee, Washington, where he fled after threatening
a material witness in the Rex Newport case not to testify, and receiving a no-contact order. It was
discovered by FBI investigators who took over this case, that Mr. Newport and Mr. Arms were
networking and using police communications to profile their victims. An investigator into the squad-car
equipment proved that Rex Newport was profiling women. The squad-car computer turned up names
of several women who were then interviewed to find that they had been contacted by Mr. Newport. It
was also discovered through another witness that Scott Arms was aware of this rape and had been
shown pictures of it. This information was reported to Detective Duane Johnson, Colville Police
Department.
There was a witness that came forward stating that Rex Newport had been in the Conoco gas station
showing pictures of the rape to another officer, and this information was turned over to Detective
Duane Johnson. I was contacted by a retired Ferry County Police Officer shortly after my daughter's
assaults and was told by this officer, who must remain confidential, of other rapes and rape cover-ups
connected with the investigating detective Mr. Michael George, who has recently retired from the
Stevens County Sheriff Office.
During this joint investigation, this confidential officer and his wife worked with a global rescue
organization for exploited women. This officer explained that Mr. George, as Ferry County Sheriff, had
destroyed his report of a young girl having been raped by a police officer's son. Nir. George had re
written the report and forced the deputy to sign it. He further stated that he believed Mr. George had
murdered a woman's husband. This woman was a resident of Ferry County whom Mr. George was
blackmailing for sex. This incident was published as a murder/suicide-Iove-triangle gone bad. The
officer did note that the pathologist in the case determined that the victim could not have pulled the
trigger due to the length of the rifle with a bayonet, and must have used his toe. The officer then looked
at me and said, you know, that man had his boots on when we found him! The confidential officer then
told me that he believed Mr. George had murdered the husband of the woman who was part of the love
triangle. I had read about the affair and the so-called suicide years earlier in the paper. The informant
stated that he believed my daughter's life was in danger and convinced me to ask that the FBI get
Page20f4
involved and take this evidence away from the Stevens County Sheriff's department or it would be
covered up by Mr. George, and his co-worker, Mr. Kendall AI!en. [immediately contacted Mr. Tim
Rasmussen and was told he had already made the call to the FBI who did come to the Sheriff's Office
and took the two DNA samples of the victims of Mr. Newport against Mr. Allen's and Mr. George's
wishes, because these policemen wanted to send the samples in themselves.
During my meeting with Mr. Rasmussen I stated the interview with the confidential informant and what
he told me of Mr. George's sexual crimes. Mr. Rasmussen acknowledged that this was probably true but
as in the case of the rape victim at Beaver Lodge, so much time had elapsed, no physical evidence would
be obtainable. We also talked of yet another three victims of another still-working officer and how
fifteen years had elapsed since the molestation of these under-aged girls. The girls had reported the
events to their parents, who in turn talked with the then Prosecutor for Stevens County, Mr. Jerry
Wettle. The parents' pleas for justice fell on deaf ears and they were told, "My officer wouldn't do such
a thing", and were told to leave Wettle's office. The officer in question was Ron Maxey. Mr.
Rasmussen stated he had heard of such accusations over the years.
As of late, yet another officer (Tibbit) who replaced Mr. Rex Newport has been terminated. Officer Mike
Swim stated the firing was for sexual misconduct. So, there have been dozens of statements, allegations
and rumors put aside as un-provable, distant assaults on women and children by Stevens County officers
spanning decades, including the firing of our now-Sheriff Kendle Allen for sexual assaults some
seventeen years earlier. But the facts of recent cannot be denied!
Mr. Rex Newport being a convicted sex offender, Mr. Scott Arms currently at trial in Wenatchee, looking
at life in prison for raping a child, and the firing of Mr. Tibbit for sexual misconduct, make it undeniably
clear that half of our police officers are sexually exploiting our citizens and the other half is
knowledgeable and covering for their brother7 officers.
In conclusion, I believe there is a rampant and still-existing plague on our society. The odds of being
raped in this county are millions to one. When one looks at the number of reported rapes committed
per capita, the majority of them are being committed by cops.
In the opinion of scores of others familiar with these recent and old rapes and worse by officers of
Stevens County, NO veloman or child is safe around these officers, especially being pulled over in the
dark, miles outside of the jurisdiction of city limits by a city police officer when no apparent infraction
had taken place. This is the exact modus operandi of convicted sex offender Rex Newport.
Miss Connie LaRue is an outstanding citizen and very familiar with my family tragedy by the Stevens
County police officers and the related scores of victims associated with this case. She and every man,
woman and child has a right to defend himself against being targeted and/or raped, assaulted, or worse,
by an obviously out-of-control police force using its badges to commit heinous and deplorable felony
offenses against the innocent.
Page30f4
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that the foregoing is true and
correct.
DATED this
.2..(;!.!:: day of March, 2015 at Colville, Stevens County, Washington.
ofe~/.~
Leonard Stonecipher, Affiant

Submitted by Abused
All Rights Reserved
Connie laRue
1045 Kitt-Narcisse Road
Colville, Washington
208-818-2020
Page 4 of 4
...rJ
::t"
TM
CERTIFIED MAILTM RECEIPT

(Domestic Mail Only; No Insurance Coverage Provided)
z;m mm
lJl
n!J L....----===------=---=:,---=---=--=:.....,=--=--=;:--=-:,,...:::;...,..::s;-:--....J
..D
<0
/~
8
g
~~~~~~
(Endorsement Required)
Restricted Delivery Fee

(Endorsement Required)
l o r . ,:.\
Certified Fee
1-------1= I
1-
-1
~ark)~ :~: I
~
.~
?:... (0
..,
1--------1
Total POsti"u>...&.-"""''''-'--'''--------'----
....=l
....=l
&in/To
sfre-eCApr
r'
or PO Box f
Ci&-;Siai';::
------,
Director's Office
PO Box 9020
7/20/2015
English
USPS.com - USPS Tracking

Customer Serv ice
USPS Mobile
Register / Sign In
Customer Service
USPS Tracking
Have questions? We're here to help.
Get Easy Tracking Updates

Sign up for My USPS.
Tracking Number: 70113500000186255646
On Time
Expected Delivery Day: Monday, July 20, 2015
Product & Tracking Information

Postal Product:
Features:
First-Class Mail
Certified Mail
Available Actions
Text Updates
DATE & TIME
STATUS OF ITEM
LOCATION
July 20, 2015 , 8:43 am
Delivered
OLYMPIA, WA 98507
Email Updates
Your item was delivered at 8:43 am on July 20, 2015 in OLYMPIA, WA 98507.
July 20, 2015 , 7:49 am
Out for Delivery
OLYMPIA, WA 98501
July 20, 2015 , 7:39 am
Sorting Complete
OLYMPIA, WA 98501
July 20, 2015 , 6:44 am
Arrived at Unit
OLYMPIA, WA 98501
July 16, 2015 , 11:19 pm
Departed USPS Facility
TACOMA, WA 98413
July 16, 2015 , 4:07 pm
Arrived at USPS Origin

Facility
TACOMA, WA 98413
July 16, 2015 , 4:15 am
Departed USPS Facility
SPOKANE, WA 99224
July 15, 2015 , 9:27 pm
Arrived at USPS Origin

Facility
SPOKANE, WA 99224
July 15, 2015 , 5:44 pm
Departed Post Office
CHEWELAH, WA 99109
July 15, 2015 , 3:39 pm
Acceptance
CHEWELAH, WA 99109
Track Another Package
Manage Incoming Packages
Tracking (or receipt) number
Track all your packages from a dashboard.

No tracking numbers necessary.
Track It
https://tools.usps.com/go/TrackConfirmAction?qtc_tLabels1=7011%203500%200001%208625%205646
Sign up for My USPS
1/2

Notice of Travel Package To Rasmussen - 7-30-15

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Notice of Travel Package To Rasmussen - 7-30-15

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Scanned by CamScanner

No Trespassing EXEMPT plates

1045 Kitt Narcisse Rd.

Colville, Washington 99114

July 30, 2015

Connie LaRue, a Private Woman

Notice of Intent- Fee Schedule

To Whom It May Concern:

If said fees are not met, it is the right of the

Connie LaRue, a private woman and Authorized Signatory

(year of 18th birthday)

The State of Washington

1045 Kitt Narcisse Rd.

Colville, Washington 99114

July 15, 2015

Ref: Revocation/Rescission of Driver License and Driver Status

Connie LaRue - a private woman

1045 Kitt Narcisse Rd.

Colville, Washington 99114

July 15, 2015

Ref: Revocation/Rescission of Driver License and Driver Status

Notice to Agent is Notice to Principle - Notice to Principle is Notice to Agent

Revocation/Rescission of Driver License and Driver Status

Revocation/Rescission of Driver License and Driver Status

Revocation/Rescission of Driver License and Driver Status

prerogative rights of action not to be compelled to perform under any contract or

Further Declarant sayeth naught.

Dated this }~ -day of -"';:~!""",,:,,-~~_..-)' 20 1::l

Connie LaRue, Private Woman

_..N....-Ir"'1Un lZ'":l. I J I.,

Notary Public for" w~~

e'soi tf3'J:. !.f'J7f5

.~. ..A-.. '.

',\ "'" "....

Revocation/Rescission of Driver License and Driver Status

......... ,. .... ~"

STATE AND FEDERAL COURT RULINGS

PROVING THAT NO LICENSE IS NECESSARY FOR NORMAL USE

"The right of a citizen to travel upon the public

Berberian v. Lussier (1958) 139 A2d 869, 872, See

"The law does not denounce motor carriages, as

"...a citizen has the right to travel upon the public

/fRIGHT -- A legal RIGHT, a constitutional RIGHT

Revocation/Rescission of Driver License and Driver Status

inclination, is an attribute of personal liberty, and

not a "statute." A traveler on foot has the same right

to use of the public highway as an automobile or any

Cecchi v. Lindsay, 75 At!. 376, 377, 1 Boyce (Del.)

Automotive vehicles are lawful means of conveyance

and have equal rights upon the streets with horses

and carriages. Chicago Coach Co. v. City of Chicago,

Ward v. Meredith, 202 III. 66; Shinkle v. McCullough,

116 Ky. 960; Butler v. Cabe, 116 Ark. 26, 28-29 .

...automobiles are lawful vehicles and have equal

rights on the highways with horses and carriages.

Daily v. Maxwell, 133 S.W. 351, 354. Matson v.

Dawson, 178 N.W. 2d 588, 591.

A farmer has the same right to the use of the

highways of the state, whether on foot or in a motor

vehicle, as any other citizen. Draffin v. Massey, 92

Other right to use an automobile cases: - EDWARDS

Constitutional Rights as a Citizen. He owes no duty

land long antecedent to the organization of the