News Ticker

Template Documents

We are grateful to David Roach for giving everyone these documents and we thank Rene Powers of One Mom on a Borough for clarifying the process as outlined by David

AFFIDAVIT OF AGE OF MAJORITY AND AFFIDAVIT OF DOMICILE/thank you David-James:Roach

April 28, 2015 at 4:32pm

Reported by Rene’ Powers: One Mom on A Borough

investigative journalist

AND aside from my journalism side under my family name: private-civilian/American National

Until you claim your birthrights you do not get them in this nation, why? Because you have been used through your birth certificate and social security number to deceive you into staying a slave. You can change your status and be recognized as an American National. This is done through the secretary of state Vital Statistics. You must send affidavits, notarized and take your rightful status. You have steps for your offspring as well.

This is not hard, but can be confusing, that is how the government wants to keep it too.

There is a team of American men and women who have “taken it for the team”, our American Team of the people. We have been mistreated by the agencies, lied to and have had to be tenacious in this effort to file the paperwork needed for us to be seen as the free, living, breathing, American Nationals we are, and our work to pave the road for you has been eventful and drawn us to the conclusion that THIS MUST BE DONE!

Our journey through this part of town is one that takes a lot of U-Turns and stops for gas, but we are finding success and as more and more of the people take this stop along the way we become more in control of our lives. This stop also requires you to take a break at the social security office and the IRS office to give copies of this paperwork after recorded at the SOS Vital Records ad to make sure they know you have been a victim of identity and property theft and used for the crooks to steal from the Treasury, social security and IRS funds. (oh, and, you want your property back!)

This stops the federal jurisdiction, this stops the courts from being able to use you and abuse you, gives you the right to collect the interest on your “business they created” and this makes you alive and of own free will. This also makes the corporation unhappy, but hey, “it’s your life”, and they had no right to take it from you. Now, let’s come out of that coffin called legal fiction and be free, what do you think?

Your ALL caps name is the US CITIZEN your lower case is your non-citizen American National/private civilian

http://famguardian.org/subjects/taxes/citizenship/CitizensVNationals.htm

Age of Majority

The age at which a person, formerly a minor or an infant, is recognized by law to be an adult, capable of managing his or her own affairs and responsible for any legal obligations created by his or her actions.

A person who has reached the age of majority is bound by any contracts, deeds, or legal relationships, such as marriage, which he or she undertakes. In most states the age of majority is eighteen, but it may vary depending upon the nature of the activity in which the person is engaged. In the same state the age of majority for driving may be sixteen while that for drinking alcoholic beverages is twenty-one.

Another name for the age of majority is legal age.

affidavit of domicile (the template is the second one)

notarized document that verifies where a deceased person resided at the time of death. This document is required to transfer ownership of property out of the deceased individual’s name.

Read more: http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/affidavit-of-domicile.html#ixzz3YdeMykmH

Here are the templats you can use. THERE IS A REASON THINGS ARE SPELLED AS THEY ARE IT IS THE SYNTAX OF THE DOCUMENT SO DO NOT CHANGE THEM UNLESS THEY APPLY TO YOUR PERSONAL INFORMATION. Just replace the name with yours properly written and follow the upper, lower case for proper notice. This is NOT legal advice and only being shared for educational purposes, you MUST do your own research and know what and why you are making these kinds of decisions. i am NOT giving legal advice, merely sharing information. consult counsel of your own for clarity.

you need to attach a certified copy of your birth certificate and mail to the secretary of state VITAL STATISTICS of your state. We are told the State Recorders office is the Constitutionally recognized recorder for your state and this is where it must be done. AFTER RECORDING GO TO SECRETARY OF STATE AND GET IT AUTHENTICATED/CERTIFIED.

COAT OF ARMS: When you sign you sign on the right hand side, with your family coat of arms on the right of your name and i put my right thumb print in red as well. if you do not have a coat of Arms then google and make one for yourself.  you will use it the size of a passport picture.
PICTURE: put a picture, the size of a passport picture up on the right corner of the affidavits for your identification, we found this was something we thought would show better for clarification.
DON’T MAIL THEM-WALK THEM IN FOR RECORDING AND AUTHENTICATION AFTER RECORDING: those sending their documents are being given the run around, lied to, documents returned as if they don’t know what to do with them and more. It is BEST to walk them in and make sure they get recorded, then walk over to SOS and get them authenticated.
GET CERTIFIED COPIES: you can send copies to the agencies, but some need certified copies.
AFTER COMPLETION OF RECORDING AND AUTHENTICATING WITH SECRETARY OF STATE: send copies to all the agencies giving notice of your status, you can even do a legal notice in the newspaper. Chief of Police, Sheriff, Governor, Local courts, Tax Assessor (get your PROPERTY out of the tax roll as it is NOT real estate it is private property but you have to do this if you want it recognized), US Marshalls, US postmaster, US Treasury, Department of Transportation (for your private tags and registration for your AUTOMOBILE) any and all you can think of! (remember, this is just experience of what others have done, nothing says you have to do it and it is your responsibility to verify the facts)

TEMPLATE……………………………………………………………………………………………….

David Roach

47 mins ·

Affidavit of David-James: Roach
Indico for Age of Majority

Indiana state
Montgomery County

The undersigned,David-James: Roach, being duly sworn, hereby deposes and says:

  1. I David-James: Roach,am over the age of 18, and domiciled on the state, known as Indiana. I have personal knowledge of the facts herein, and, if called as a witness, could testify completely thereto.
  2. I David-James: Roach suffer no legal disabilities and have personal knowledge of the facts set forth below.

I David-James: Roach, do hereby, present: my “CERTIFICATE OF BIRTH”, as stated by Minnesota rule 220, showing I David-James: Roach, has reached the Age of Majority.
I David-James: Roach, doe hereby present/claim my Family Crest/seal.
I David-James: Roach, has come to Age of Majority, doe hereby claims my birth-right; which includes any; &all: past, present; and future interest, land patents, equitable worth, personal-property, & real property belonging to, I David-James: Roach, through Blood, and/or Marriage.
I David-James: Roach, hereby notice officials of, I I David-James: Roach, has the, liberties/rights of holding: all titles, in an allodial state, free of registration with the state,& hereby demand: all certificates of origin, land patent, & patents in general, real-property, & personal-property titles etc… be returned: in just such an allodial state.
I David-James: Roach hereby give public notice; by way of this, Indico for Age of Majority, so the truth: of the matter; may be known: by all, that I, David-James: Roach, am, de jure solum et naturale; one of the people/a natural-person.
“Natural Person: Any human being, who as such, is not a legal-entity /Government employee, as distinguished: from an artificial-person; like a corporation, which derives its status: as a legal; entity from being recognized: in law.“Natural Person, means human-being, not an artificial, or juristic-person”. Shawmut Bank, N.A. v. Valley Farms, 610 A. 2d. 652, 654; 222 Conn. 361.
” ‘In common usage, the term ‘person’ does not include the sovereign people, and statutes employing the (word person) are normally construed to exclude the sovereign people.’ Wilson v Omaha Tribe, 442 US653 667, 61 L Ed 2d 153, 99 S Ct 2529 (1979) (quoting United States v Cooper Corp. 312 US 600, 604, 85 L Ed 1071, 61 S Ct 742 (1941). See also United States v Mine Workers, 330 US 258, 275, 91 L Ed 884, 67 S Ct 677 (1947)” Will v Michigan State Police, 491 US 58, 105 L. Ed. 2d 45, 109 S.Ct. 2304 b)
The sovereign people are not a person in a legal sense” In re Fox, 52 N. Y. 535, 11 Am. Rep. 751; U.S.v.Fox, 94 U.S. 315, 24 L. Ed. 192.

We now know, what a person; is not, so let us see; what a person, is.The following definition of person; was found: in BLACKS LAW DICTIONARY 5TH EDITION PG 1028
Person. In general usage, a human being (i.e. natural person), though by statute term may include a firm, labor organizations, partnerships, associations, corporations, legal representatives, trustees, trustees in bankruptcy, or receivers. National Labor Relations Act, § 2(1). Bankruptcy Act. “Person” includes individual, part¬nership, and corporation, but not governmental unit. Sec. 101(30). Corporation. A corporation is a “person” within meaning of equal protection and due process provi¬sions of United States Constitution. Allen v. Pavach, Ind., 335 N.E.2d 219, 221; Borreca v. Fasi, D.C.Ha¬waii, 369 F.Supp. 906, 911. The term “persons” in statute relating to conspiracy to commit offense against United States, or to defraud United States, or any agency, includes corporation. Alamo Fence Co. of Houston v. U. S., C.A.Tex., 240 F.2d 179, 181. Foreign government. Foreign governments other¬ wise eligible to sue in U.S. courts are “persons” entitled to bring treble-damage suit for alleged anti¬ trust violations under Clayton Act, Section 4. Pfizer, Inc. v. Government of India, C.A.Minn., 550 F.2d 396. Illegitimate child. Illegitimate children are “persons” within meaning of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, Levy v. Louisiana, 391 U.S. 68, 88 S.Ct. 1509, 1511, 20 L.Ed.2d 436; and scope of wrongful death statute, Jordan v. Delta Drilling Co., Wyo., 541 P.2d 39, 48. Interested person. Includes heirs, devisees, children, spouses, creditors, beneficiaries and any others hav¬ing a property right in or claim against a trust estate or the estate of a decedent, ward or protected person which may be affected by the proceeding. It also includes persons having priority for appointment as personal representative, and other fiduciaries repre¬senting interested persons. The meaning as it relates to particular persons may vary from time to time and must be determined according to the particular pur¬poses of, and matter involved in, any proceeding. Uniform Probate Code, § 1-201(20). Municipalities. Municipalities and other government units are “persons” within meaning of 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983. Local government officials sued in their official capacities are “persons” for purposes of Sec¬tion 1983 in those cases in which a local govern¬ment would be sueable in its own name. Monell v. N.Y. City Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658, 98 S.Ct. 2018, 56 L.Ed.2d 611. See Color of law. Protected person. One for whom a conservator has been appointed or other protective order has been made Uniform, Probate Code § 5-101(3).

Now we must examine Supreme Court decisions, to get a definitive answer. Do the sovereign people have to pay filling fees; or are they entitled to free, access of the courts?
The courts must realize the sovereign people, are not bound: to pay filling fees, as the sovereign people, are not a person, or persons. The use of the word person, is the reason: the sovereign; people have been paying, for filing fees. It is the use: of the word person; in law, and the confusion, the word person; creates: for the average sovereign people, when used in law. A person; is a corporation/Government employee, that is why the Courts, are not to be charging, the sovereign people; to pay filing fees, falsely.
The Courts, state that under Title 28 sec 1914 that persons; or a person: must pay, so when the sovereign people, point out that only apply s to person: or persons; which is a corporation, and the sovereign people, need the law, that says the “people” or a natural person, is required to pay filing fees, or receive free access as ordered: by the Supreme Court. Take Mandatory Judicial Notice under (Federal Rules of Evidence 201 (d) that I David-James: Roach, has, a lawful: right/liberty, to proceed: in Court, without cost, based upon the following case law.

The US Supreme Court, has ruled that a natural individual; entitled to relief, is “entitled to “free access” to the natural peoples,“judicial tribunals, and public-offices”) in every State of the Union. (2 Black 620, see also Crandell v Nevada, 6 Wall 35).
Plaintiff (libellant) should not be charged fees, or costs, for the lawful, and Constitutional Right, to petition this court in this matter in which he/she is entitled to relief, as it appears that the filing fee rule was originally implemented for fictions and subjects of the State and should not be applied to the Plaintiff who is a natural individual and entitled to relief (Hale v Hinkel, 201 US 43, NAACP v Button, 371 US 415); United Mineworkers v Gibbs, 383 US 715; and Johnson v Avery, 89 S.Ct. 747 (1969).
I David-James: Roach, cannot be charged a fee, as no charge: can be placed, upon a citizen: as a condition/precedent to exercise his/her un-alienable liberties, his/her liberties/rights protected; by the Constitution.
A fee is a charge “fixed by law for services fixed by public officers; or for use of a privilege under control of government.” Fort Smith Gas Co. v Wisemen” 189 Ark.675 74 SW.2d 789,790, from Black’s Law Dictionary 5th Ed.
I, David-James: Roach, hereby ratify; this Indico for Age of Majority, on and for, the public record, to declare: my (David-James: Roach’s Birth Rights, and/or liberties).
I David-James: Roach, ratify, this document: Indico for Age of Majority, to establish the reality; of David-James: Roach’ status, as one of the people, & Beneficiary: of the public trust.
I David-James: Roach, hereby declares/ratify I, David-James: Roach, will obey the common law; that statutes, codes, & regulations are the law of Government officials/Legal-Persons. Statutes, codes and regulations are not law, merrily a point in fact of law, & statutes, codes, & regulations are the law of Government not man. Please see the following case cites.
“A “Code’ or Statute’ is not a Law,” (Flournoy v. First Nat. Bank of Shreveport, 197 La. 1067, 3 So.2d 244, 248),
A concurrent or ‘joint resolution ‘of legislature is not “Law,” (Koenig v. Flynn, 258 N.Y. 292, 179 N. E. 705, 707;
All codes, rules, and regulations are for government authorities only, not human/Creators in accord with God’s Laws.“All codes, rules, and regulations are unconstitutional and lacking due process of Law.”Ward v State, 176 Okl. 368, 56 P.2d 136, 137; State ex rel. Todd v. Yelle, 7 Wash.2d 443, 110 P.2d 162, 165).
lacking due process[of law], in that they are ‘void for ambiguity’ in their failure to specify the statutes’ applicability to ‘natural persons,’ otherwise depriving the same of fair notice, as their construction by definition of terms aptly identifies the applicability of such statutes to “artificial or fictional corporate entities or ‘persons’, creatures of statute, or those by contract employed as agents or representatives, departmental subdivisions, offices, officers, and property of the government, but not the ‘Natural Person’ or American citizen Immune from such jurisdiction of legalism.(Rodriques v. Ray Donavan, U.S. Department of Labor, 769 F.2d 1344, 1348 (1985)); …
“The Common Law is the real law, the Supreme Law of the land. The codes, rules, regulations, policy and statutes are “not the law.”
They are the law of government for internal regulation, not the law of man, in his separate but equal station and natural state, a sovereign foreign with respect to government generally.) (Self v. Rhay, 61 Wn2d 261),
With such overwhelming case law there is no question about the fact of the claim made here statutes are not law.
16AmJur2d,Sec177late 2d, Sec256:
The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any statute, to be valid, must be in agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows:
The General rule is that an un-constitutional statute, though having the form and name of law is in reality no law, but is wholly: void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as in operative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.
Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on any one, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it…..
A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law. Indeed, in so far as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby. No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.

I David-James: Roach, shall not cause harm to my fellow man, or my fellow man’s personal-property.
I David-James: Roach, an American-National; & a Foreign-Sovereign, to the UNITED STATES CORPORATION, AND ITS, COURTS. I David-James: Roach, is protected; by the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, Title 28 USC 1602-1611 (Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act) which allows the jurisdiction of a court to be challenged, and a demand of proper jurisdiction; to be stated: in written form: on, & for the record.
I David-James: Roach, gives notice of 8U.S. Code § 1481 – Loss of nationality by native-born or naturalized citizen; voluntary action; burden of proof; presumptions
(a) A person who is a national of the United States whether by birth or naturalization, shall lose his nationality by voluntarily performing any of the following acts with the intention of relinquishing United States nationality—
(1) obtaining naturalization in a foreign state upon his own application or upon an application filed by a duly authorized agent, after having attained the age of eighteen years;
8 USC § 1101(a)(21), [t]he term “national” means a person owing permanent allegiance to a state.” This law denotes: How I David-James: Roach, Have dual citizenship & owe allegiance to Indiana, one of the states; in the Union.
8 USC § 1101(B)(22), [t]he term “national of the United States” means
(A) a citizen of the United States, or
(B) a person who, though not a citizen of the United States, owes permanent allegiance to the United States. This is I, David-James: Roach, found at 8 U.S.C. § 1101 (B) meaning I David-James: Roach, am not subject to the jurisdiction, of the U.S. and/or the STATE OF INDIANA.
I David-James: Roach, gives notice of 8 U.S.C. § 1502 : Certificate of nationality issued by Secretary of State for person not a naturalized citizen of United States for use in proceedings of a foreign state.
The Secretary of State is authorized to issue, in his discretion and in accordance with rules and regulations prescribed by him, a certificate of nationality for any person not a naturalized citizen of the United States who presents satisfactory evidence that she is an AMERICAN NATIONAL, and that such certificate is needed for use in judicial, or administrative proceedings; in a foreign-state. Such certificate shall be solely for use in the case for which it was issued and shall be transmitted by the Secretary of State through appropriate official channels to the judicial or administrative officers of the FOREIGN STATE in which it is to be used.
19 Corpus Juris Secundum § 883, [t]he United States government is a FOREIGN CORPORATION with respect to a state.
American national ≠ national/citizen of the United States
These are TWO distinct status’ within the American system. The latter is a freeman, the former is a voluntary servant; subject to the jurisdiction thereof created by section 1 of the 14th Amendment. It is a FEDERALLY CREATED capacity/title that owes allegiance to it & is subject; to its jurisdiction.

I David-James: Roach, is not part of the body-politic, and is not bound thereby; nor do I David-James: Roach, consent to be so bound.
I David-James: Roach, has attached a true certified copy; of the Birth/trust certificate, in which. I David-James: Roach, now claim my liberty/right to take control: over said Trust, since I David-James: Roach, has reached: the Age, of Majority. I David-James: Roach, now claim my liberty/right to take control: over said trust, as the executor/beneficiary, of the trust.
To ‘certify’ is to testify; to in writing: to make known, or establish, as a fact. The word: (certified) is not essential to a ‘certificate’. – State v. Schwin, 65 Wis. 213 (1886)
I, David-James: Roach, do hereby certify, the Birth-certificate attached is a true, and correct document.
I David-James: Roach, notices all officials of the following, State of Minnesota Rule 220.Birth Certificates(The Registrar of Titles is authorized to receive for registration of memorials upon any outstanding certificate of title an official birth certificate pertaining to a registered owner named in said certificate of title showing the date of birth of said registered owner, providing there is attached to said birth certificate an affidavit of an affiant who states that he/she is familiar with the facts recited, stating that the party named in said birth certificate is the same party as one of the owners named in said certificate of title; and that thereafter the Registrar of Titles shall treat said registered owner as having attained the age of the majority at a date 18 years after the date of birth shown by said certificate).
I David-James: Roach, also notices all officials of Mills v. Duryee, 1t1 U.S. (7 Cranch) 481 (1813), the United States Supreme Court, ruled: that the merits; of a case, as settled: by courts; of one state, must be recognized: by the courts, of other states; state courts; may not re-open cases, which have been conclusively-decided: by the courts, of another state. Later, Chief Justice John Marshall; suggested: that the judgment of one state court, must be recognized by other states’ courts; as final..
I David-James: Roach, also notices all officials of, Article 4, of the U.S. Constitution;it states: that each state, shall give full faith, and credit: to the other states laws.
I David-James: Roach, here;& now, respectfully Demand: this Indico for Age of Majority, be placed: on the record, & I David-James: Roach, respectfully Demand: all funds, claimed: from the minor-account,& other sources, now be placed in a primary-account upon which I, David-James: Roach; shall be given, access: as I David-James: Roach, is the Beneficiary: of the minor-account/public-trust.

I, David-James: Roach, has the liberty; of travel, in any: personal/private, mode of locomotion/automobile, without a license, insurance, registration,& plates.
Traveler – Blacks 3rd One who passes from place to place, whether for pleasure, instruction ,business or health. Lockett v. State, 47 Ala. 45; 10 C.B.N.S. 429. The term is used to designate those who patronize inns; the distance which they travel is not material. Walling v. Potter, 35 Con. 185.
Traveler – Blacks 6thOne who passes from place to place, whether for pleasure, instruction,business or health.
American Jurisprudence 2nd 1964 vol. 16§ 359 Elements
Personal liberty largely consists of the right of locomotion – to go where and when one pleases – only so far restrained as the rights of others may make it necessary for the welfare of all other citizens. 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. Pg. 686
American Jurisprudence, Constitutional Law, section 329, page 1135 “The right of a 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 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
The words ‘operator’ ‘owner’ ‘driver’ 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
“The use of the highway for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege, but a common fundamental right of which the public and individuals cannot rightfully be deprived.” Chicago Motor Coach v. Chicago, 169 NE 221.
“The right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit or permit at will, but a common law right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” Thompson v. Smith, 154 SE 579.
“The right to travel is a part of the liberty of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment.” Kent v. Dulles, 357 US 116, 125.
“The right to travel is a well-established common right that does not owe its existence to the federal government. It is recognized by the courts as a natural right.” Schactman v. Dulles 96 AppDC 287, 225 F2d 938, at 941.
It could not be stated more directly or conclusively that citizens of the states have a common law right to travel, without approval or restriction (license), and that this right is protected under the U.S Constitution.
“… The right of the citizen to drive on a public street with freedom from police with out interference… is a fundamental constitutional protected right” -White, 97 Cal.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,along 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.
I David-James: Roach, herby gives notice; to officials of the following,& aforementioned; by which I, David-James: Roach, made this determination: on I, David-James: Roach’, liberties of travel.
Driver – Black’s 3rd
One employed in conducting or operating a coach, carriage, wagon, or other vehicle, with horses, mules, or other animals, or a bicycle, tricycle, or motor car, though not a street railroad car .See Davis v. Petrinovich, 112 Ala. 654, 21 So. 344, 36 L.R.A. 615; Isaacs v. Railroad Co., 7 Am. Rep. 418, 47 N.Y. 122.), &
Title 18 sec 31 Definitions
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 in the transportation of passengers, passengers and property, or property or cargo

The word and in law means, (required) so we must include the term, (Used for commercial purposes).

Title 18 sec 31 Definitions
Used for commercial purposes.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.
Traffic – Bouvier’s (1856)
Commerce, trade, sale; or exchange of merchandise, bills, money, and the like.
Blacks, Law Dictionary (Passenger)A person whom a common carrier has contracted to carry from one place to another, and has, in the course of PASSIAGIARIU9 880 PATENT the performance of that contract, received under his care either upon the means of conveyance, or at the point of departure of that means of conveyance. Bricker v. Philadelphia & It. It. Co., 132 Pa. 1, 18 Atl. 983, 19 Am. St. Rep. 5S5; Schepers v. Union I)e- 0 pot It. Co., 120 Mo. 005, 29 S. W. 712; Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Price, 90 Pa. 250; Tlie Main v. Williams, 152 U. S. 122, 14 Sup. Ct 4S0, 38 L. Ed. 3S1 ; Norfolk & W. It. Co. v. Tanner, 100 Va. 379, 41 S. E. 721. P
All, of the instances; in which a license, registration, & plates, are required: are commercial; in nature. These statutes also include, but aren’t limited to; the use, of a seat-belt.
I David-James: Roach, do not operate: my “private” mode of locomotion/automobile, commercially; thus the motor-vehicle statutes, don’t apply.
I David-James: Roach, has the “liberty/right” of contract, to perform; & enter contracts; to rescind a contract, or refuse a contract, these actions are of, I David-James: Roach’s, choosing: when, & where.
American Jurisprudence 2nd 1964 vol. 16§ 373 Rights of Contract
Liberty of contract involves, as one of its essential attributes, the right to terminate contracts, ….Valid contracts are property, and as such are protected; from being taken without just compensation, ….The United States Supreme Court has stated that freedom to contract is the essence of freedom from undue restraint on the right to contract. Other courts have stated that the liberty to make contracts includes the corresponding right to refuse to accept a contract or to assume such liability as may be proposed.The right of liberty of contract is inherent and inalienable. It belongs to every citizen by the law of the land; every man has the right freely to deal, or to refuse to deal, with his fellow men. Pg. 706 – 707
I David-James: Roach, rescind my signature on all contracts; known, or unknown, contracts. Contracts’ that, are assumed, or presumed, are hereby also void for lack of full, complete, & whole disclosure. Contracts rescinded would include, but not be limited to; the use SS#, or holding of documentation; of government-property, such as Social Security Card; creating: jurisdiction, or any other such state contract, in which there may, or may not be, a presumption; or assumption, of jurisdiction.
Jurisdiction can be challenged at any time and must be proven not assumed.(Basso v Utah power & light company 495, F 2d 906 910)
The court must prove on the record all jurisdiction facts related to the jurisdiction asserted.(Latana v Hopper 102 2d 188) (Chicago v New York 37 F SUPP 150)
A judgment rendered by a court without personal jurisdiction over the defendant is void. It is a nullity. Joyce v. U.S. 474 2D 215.
(A judgment shown to be void for lack of personal service on the defendant is a nullity.] Sramek v. Sramek, 17 Kan. App. 2d 573, 576-77, 840 P.2d 553 (1992), rev. denied 252 Kan. 1093 (1993). (8)
“A court cannot confer jurisdiction where none existed and cannot make a void proceeding valid. It is clear and well established law that a void order can be challenged in any court”, Old Wayne Mut. L. Assoc. v. McDonough, 204 U. S. 8, 27 S. Ct
Thus, where a judicial tribunal has no jurisdiction of the subject matter on which it assumes to act, its proceedings are absolutely void in the fullest sense of the term.” Dillon v. Dillon, 187 P 27.3
If any Tribunal (court) finds absence of proof of jurisdiction over a person and subject matter, the case must be dismissed. (See Louisville v. Motley 2111 US 149, 29S. CT 42.. 236 (1907).
“The laws of congress in respect to those matters do not extend into the territorial limits of the states, but have force only in the District of Columbia, and other places that are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the national government.”
CAHA v. U.S. , 152 U.S. 211 (1894)
When a Tribunal; claims to have jurisdiction, and I mean, the opposing party, was giving Full, and Whole, Disclosure to the matter, which they were not, and a decision is imposed by that Tribunal, it’s void. That’s of course if you challenge it right.Elliot v Piersol, 1 Pet 328, 340, 26 U.S. 328, 340 (1828). This one had no jurisdiction.
I David-James: Roach, intend to, present gifts’ to the United States treasury pursuant to Title 31§ 3113 (a) & (d) (e) (1), Which is also pursuant; with H.J.R. 192, in which the UNITED STATES, agreed to be liable for all,(all means: every debt or obligation; that may have been incurred, in any past, present, or future, deals; and/or contracts) obligations; of public-debt. This public-debt is to be dis-charged, pursuant; to public law, 73-10. These obligations would include, but are not limited to, gas, water, sewage, electric, cable, internet, phone,(both home, & cellular phone), clothing, & housing needs, as well as transportation needs/automobiles, & food, you will find obligations of the U.S., at, 18U.S.C § 8 defines obligations; of the UNITED STATES.
I David-James: Roach, notice; officials of, 31U.S. Code 5118 to insure; I David-James: Roach’s, liberty/right to receive: payment, in Gold, or Silver.
I David-James: Roach, gives notice that all rights/liberties are retained, & any right/liberty herein not claimed does not constitute the Right/liberty, to be invalid.
I,David-James: Roach, gives notices that I, David-James: Roach’s, Rights/liberties, are what I,David-James: Roach, claims my rights/liberties to be, so long as I David-James: Roach, don’t cause harm; to another living man or woman. I, David-James: Roach, hereby revokes, & invalidates any, & all, “powers of attorney”.
The people of the state are entitled to all rights which formerly belong to the king, by his prerogatives. Lansing v Smith 4 Wendell 9,20 (N.Y.) (1829)
A sovereign is exempt from suit, not because of any formal conception or obsolete theory, but on the logical and practical ground that there can be no legal right as against the authority that makes the law on which the right depends. Kawananakoa v Polyblank 205 U.S. 349, 353 27 S. Ct. 526, 527, 51 L. Ed. 834 (1907)
It is a general rule that the sovereign, cannot be sued in his own court without consent and hence no direct judgment can be rendered against him therein for cost, except in the manner and on the condition he has proscribed. 40 La. Ann. 856,” Bouvier’s Law Dictionary Vol. 1(1897)
Sovereignty it self, is of course not subject to law, for it is the author and source of law, but in our system, while sovereign authority is delegated to agencies of Government, sovereignty itself remains with the people by whom and for whom all Government exist and acts.Yick Wo v Hopkins 118 U.S. 356, at pg 370
I David-James: Roach, hereby gives notice to any, and all officials, that if this document (Indico for Age of Majority), is not rebutted: in seven, to ten days, from the day filed; then this document (Indico for Age of Majority), shall be law.
I David-James: Roach, hereby gives notice to any, and all officials/public-servants, that each; and every Trespass against, I David-James: Roach, will activate: my fee schedule of 5,000.00 Dollars, per Trespass, and 1,000.00 per day I David-James: Roach, am unlawfully jailed, for statutes, codes, & regulations.
I David-James: Roach, am a man, one of the people, I David-James: Roach, am (Sui Juris:“Of his own right; possessing full social and civil rights; not under any legal disability to act for one’s self.(See Emancipation:Majority)[Black’s Law Dictionary,6thEd., pg. 1434)
I David-James: Roach, am not a “United States” citizen subject to U.S. jurisdiction. The United States is an entity; created by the U.S. Constitution: With jurisdiction, as described on the following pages of this Affidavit. I David-James: Roach, am not a “resident of, and “inhabitant of a “franchise of, a “subject of, a “ward of, the “property of, the “chattel of, or “liable to the jurisdictions of “any communal federal government, collective state government, incorporated county government, common city government, or corporate municipal body politic created with the authority of the U.S. Constitution. I David-James: Roach, am not liable: To any legislation, department, or agency created by such authorities, nor to the jurisdiction of any employees, officers, or agency deriving their authority there from. Further, I David-James: Roach, is not a subject of the Administrative, and Legislative: Article II Courts, of the several states, or Article I, Courts of the United States, or bound by precedents of such courts, deriving their jurisdiction; from said authorities.
Take Notice, that I David-James: Roach, hereby revoke, cancel and make void ab-initio any such instrument, or any presumed election, made by any of the several states, or the United States government; or any agency, or department thereof, that I David-James: Roach, am or ever have been, a voluntary elected official. To be treated as a United States citizen: Subject to its jurisdiction, or a resident, of any territory, possession, instrumentality; or voluntarily serving, under the sovereignty; or exclusive jurisdiction, of any of the several states: or the United States, as defined in the U.S. Constitution in Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 and Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2.

I David-James: Roach, is NOT a legal “person” born or naturalized in the “United States,” & therefore NOT subject to the jurisdiction of the legislative democracy, or the federal “United States,” (e.g. District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, U.S. Virgin Island, Guam, American Samoa) or any other territory, area or enclave “within the United States.” The term “United States” and “U.S.” is NOT to be construed or assumed under any circumstances to imply or include the sovereign “50 states” or the “united states of America.” I David-James: Roach, is NOT a “U.S. citizen” described in 26 CFR 1.1-1 ©, or 46 U.S. Code § 50501 – Entities deemed citizens of the United States and the 14 th Amendment. Furthermore, and in reference to the 14 th Amendment of the Constitution maintaining privileges over right is invalid. Therefore, I David-James: Roach, an American National, with respect to the federal “United States.”
I David-James: Roach, am described in 8 USC § 1101(a)(21), [t]he terms “national” means a person owing permanent allegiance to a state.” This law denotes: How I David-James: Roach, has dual citizenship & owe allegiance to Indiana, one of the states; in the Union.
8 USC § 1101(B)(22), [t]he termed “national of the United States” means
(A) a citizen of the United States, or
(B) a person who, though not a citizen of the United States, owes permanent allegiance to the United States. This is I, David-James: Roach, found at 8 U.S.C. § 1101 (B) meaning I David-James: Roach, am not subject to the jurisdiction, of the U.S. and/or the STATE OF INDIANA.
I David-James: Roach, does not fall into, 26 USC § 865 (g) (1) (B) “non-resident alien,” with respect: to the “United States”. I David-James: Roach, am not. Therefore, as described in 26 CFR 1.871-2 and 25 USC § 7701 (b), a “non-resident alien” with respect: to the “United States” and am outside the general venue and jurisdiction of the “United States”.
I David-James: Roach, am not. Therefore, presumed to be a “non-resident alien” defined within Title 26, USC § 1.871-4, the internal Revenue Code (IRC). However, different “non-resident alien” defined within the IRC pursuant to Title 42, USC § 41 1 (b). My income is NOT derived from sources “within the federal United States, “nor am I effectively connected to the performance of the function of a public office “within the United States.” My wages are part of my “foreign estate” pursuant to Title 26, USC § 7701 (a) (31). (Note the “Right to Property” clause of the Fifth Amendment.)
I David-James: Roach, do not live “within” the geographical areas of exclusive federal jurisdiction as defined in the Federal Area Chart. I David-James: Roach, do not live “within” ANY of the ten (10), regional federal areas, territories, or enclaves identified by the numerical, postal zip code. I David-James: Roach, am a “nonresident alien” outside both general and tangential venue and jurisdiction of Title 26, United States Code (USC). I David-James: Roach, am also NOT a “resident” of the incorporated “STATE of INDIANA, and “WASHINGTON, D.C.” as it furthermore, under the jurisdiction of the federal “UNITED STATES”.
I David-James: Roach, am NOT, and never have been, as described in 26 USC § 3401, an “officer”, an “employee”, a “transferee” or an “elected official” of the “United States”, of a “State” or of any government subdivision thereof, nor an “elected official” of the “United States”, of a “State” or of any governmental subdivision thereof, or of the District of Columbia, nor of ” domestic ‘ corporation earning ‘ wages earning “wages” from an “employer.” As a “nonresident alien”, I David-James: Roach, derived no “gross income from sources within the United States”, either “impressively connected” or “not efficiently connected to the conduct of a trade or business in the United States” as described in 26 USC § 872 (a).
I David James:-Roach, declare swear and affirm under penalty of perjury

 

 

 

 

TEMPLATE FOR AFFIDAVIT OF DOMICILE: (send with your Affidavit of Age of Majority or separately, but both have been sent to do this process by others, others only include the birth certificate with the Affidavit of Age of Majority not with the Domicile.) There is a place that needs numbers in it, the Birth Certificate number is the one in red at the bottom left of your live birth, if you do not have that then there is a number within the description for the #, The ss# is self explanatory and account number is the one in red on the back of your SS card. The Drivers License # is self explanatory, the transaction number is underneath your signature on your Drivers License and usually pretty small. (this may vary with different state identifications)

David Roach

54 mins ·

Indico Affidavit of Domicile
Indiana state
Montgomery County

I David-James: Roach domiciled at Non-Domestic address 20 Center Drive Crawfordsville, Indiana, one of the states in the Union, being first duly sworn state as follows.
I David-James: Roach is the executor of the estate of DAVID JAMES ROACH the (decedent) who died on 4/12/1989 at the time of death, which was upon, I, David-James: Roach reached 18 years of age also known as the Age of Majority.
The decedent’s domicile was Montgomery County in the State of Indiana, and the decedent has resided in the state of Indiana for at least 18 years prior to death, and was not a resident of any other state of the United States at the time of death. The decedent did not claim, any state of domicile; other than the State of Indiana on any instrument, or will, executed; with-in two years: prior to death; at the time of death, the decedent possessed the Birth bond receipt certificate #_________ Attached & SS # _________ account __________ also DLN # _________ with transaction # ______________.
I David-James: Roach, Notice; officials of, 31U.S. Code 5118 to insure; I David-James: Roach’s, liberty/right to receive: payment, in Gold, or Silver.
I David-James: Roach, gives notice that all rights/liberties are retained, & any right/liberty herein not claimed does not constitute the Right/liberty, to be invalid.
I, David-James: Roach, gives notices that I, David-James: Roach’s, Rights/liberties, are what I, David-James: Roach, claims my rights/liberties to be, so long as I David-James: Roach, don’t cause harm; to another living man or woman. I, David-James: Roach, hereby revokes, & invalidates any, & all, “powers of attorney”.
The people of the state are entitled to all rights which formerly belong to the king, by his prerogatives. Lansing v Smith 4 Wendell 9,20 (N.Y.) (1829)
A sovereign is exempt from suit, not because of any formal conception or obsolete theory, but on the logical and practical ground that there can be no legal right as against the authority that makes the law on which the right depends. Kawananakoa v Polyblank 205 U.S. 349, 353 27 S. Ct. 526, 527, 51 L. Ed. 834 (1907)
It is a general rule that the sovereign, cannot be sued in his own court without consent and hence no direct judgment can be rendered against him therein for cost, except in the manner and on the condition he has proscribed. 40 La. Ann. 856,” Bouvier’s Law Dictionary Vol. 1(1897)
Sovereignty it’s self, is of course not subject to law, for it is the author and source of law, but in our system, while sovereign authority is delegated to agencies of Government, sovereignty itself remains with the people by whom and for whom all Government exist and acts. Yick Wo v Hopkins 118 U.S. 356, at pg 370
I David-James: Roach, hereby gives notice to any and all officials, that if this document (Indico Affidavit of Domicile), is not rebutted: in seven, to ten days, from the day filed; then this document (Indico Affidavit of Domicile), shall be law.
I David-James: Roach, hereby gives notice to any, and all officials/public-servants, that each; and every Trespass against, I David-James: Roach, will activate: my fee schedule of 5,000.00 Dollars, per Trespass, and 1,000.00 per day I David-James: Roach, am unlawfully jailed, for statutes, codes, & regulations.
I David-James: Roach, am a man, one of the people, I David-James: Roach, am (Sui Juris:“Of his own right; possessing full social and civil rights; not under any legal disability to act for one’s self.(See Emancipation: Majority)[Black’s Law Dictionary,6thEd., pg. 1434)
I David-James: Roach, am not a “United States” citizen subject to U.S. jurisdiction. The United States is an entity; created by the U.S. Constitution: With jurisdiction, as described on the following pages of this Affidavit. I David-James: Roach, am not a “resident of, and “inhabitant of a “franchise of, a “subject of, a “ward of, the “property of, the “chattel of, or “liable to the jurisdictions of “any communal federal government, collective state government, incorporated county government, common city government, or corporate municipal body politic created with the authority of the U.S. Constitution. I David-James: Roach, am not liable: To any legislation, department, or agency created by such authorities, nor to the jurisdiction of any employees, officers, or agency deriving their authority there from. Further, I David-James: Roach, is not a subject of the Administrative, and Legislative: Article I Courts, of the several states, or Article I, Courts of the United States, or bound by precedents of such courts, deriving their jurisdiction; from said authorities.
Take Notice, that I David-James: Roach, hereby revoke, cancel and make void ab-initio any such instrument, or any presumed election, made by any of the several states, or the United States government; or any agency, or department thereof, that I David-James: Roach, am or ever have been, a voluntary elected official. To be treated as a United States citizen: Subject to its jurisdiction, or a resident, of any territory, possession, instrumentality; or voluntarily serving, under the sovereignty; or exclusive jurisdiction, of any of the several states: or the United States, as defined in the U.S. Constitution in Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 and Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2.
I David-James: Roach, is NOT a legal “person” born or naturalized in the “United States,” & therefore NOT subject to the jurisdiction of the legislative democracy, or the federal “United States,” (e.g. District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, U.S. Virgin Island, Guam, American Samoa) or any other territory, area or enclave “within the United States.” The term “United States” and “U.S.” is NOT to be construed or assumed under any circumstances to imply or include the sovereign “50 states” or the “united states of America.” I David-James: Roach, is NOT a “U.S. citizen” described in 26 CFR 1.1-1 ©, or 46 U.S. Code § 50501 – Entities deemed citizens of the United States and the 14 th Amendment. Furthermore, and in reference to the 14 th Amendment of the Constitution maintaining privileges over right is invalid. Therefore, I David-James: Roach, an American National, with respect to the federal “United States.”
I David-James: Roach, am described in 8 USC § 1101(a)(21), [t]he terms “national” means a person owing permanent allegiance to a state.” This law denotes: How I David-James: Roach, has dual citizenship & owe allegiance to Indiana, one of the states; in the Union.
8 USC § 1101(B)(22), [t]he termed “National of the United States” means
(A) a citizen of the United States, or
(B) a person who, though not a citizen of the United States, owes permanent allegiance to the United States. This is I, David-James: Roach, found at 8 U.S.C. § 1101 (B) meaning I David-James: Roach, am not subject to the jurisdiction, of the UNITED STATES, and/or the STATE OF INDIANA, which are both Federal Jurisdiction.
I David-James: Roach, does not fall into, 26 USC § 865 (g) (1) (B) “non-resident alien,” with respect: to the “United States”. I David-James: Roach, am not. Therefore, as described in 26 CFR 1.871-2 and 25 USC § 7701 (b), a “non-resident alien” with respect: to the “United States” and am outside the general venue and jurisdiction of the “United States”.
I David-James: Roach, am not. Therefore, presumed to be a “non-resident alien” defined within Title 26, USC § 1.871-4, the internal Revenue Code (IRC). However, different “non-resident alien” defined within the IRC pursuant to Title 42, USC § 41 1 (b). I David-James: Roach’s, does not have income, it is NOT derived from sources “within the federal United States, “nor am I effectively connected to the performance of the function of a public office “within the United States.” My wages are part of my “foreign estate” pursuant to Title 26, USC § 7701 (a) (31). (Note the “Right to Property” clause of the Fifth Amendment.)
I David-James: Roach, do not live “within” the geographical areas of exclusive federal jurisdiction as defined in the Federal Area Chart. I David-James: Roach, do not live “within” ANY of the ten (10), regional federal areas, territories, or enclaves identified by the numerical, postal zip code. I David-James: Roach, am not a “nonresident alien” outside both general and tangential venue and jurisdiction of Title 26, United States Code (USC). I David-James: Roach, am also NOT a “resident” of the incorporated “STATE of INDIANA, and “WASHINGTON, D.C.” as it furthermore, under the jurisdiction of the federal “UNITED STATES”.
I David-James: Roach, am NOT, and never have been, as described in 26 USC § 3401, an “officer”, an “employee”, a “transferee” or an “elected official” of the “United States”, of a “State” or of any government subdivision thereof, nor an “elected official” of the “United States”, of a “State” or of any governmental subdivision thereof, or of the District of Columbia, nor of ” domestic ‘ corporation earning ‘ wages earning “wages” from an “employer.” As a “nonresident alien”, I David-James: Roach, derived no “gross income from sources within the United States”, either “impressively connected” or “not efficiently connected to the conduct of a trade or business in the United States” as described in 26 USC § 872 (a).
I David-James: Roach, Now Demand the following, CERTIFICATE OF NON-CITIZEN, NON RESIDENTIAL STATUS PURSUANT TO U.N. 215/93, NIS 21/593
I David-James: Roach, declare swear and affirm under penalty of perjury