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 Colville, Washington 99114 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

e

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: July 30, 2015    From: Connie LaRue, a private woman    To: Timothy Rasmussen, criminally usurping the office of STEVENS COUNTY PROSECUTOR    Notice to Agent is Notice to Principle ‐ Notice to Principle is Notice to Agent   

U.S. Supreme Court says No License Necessary  To Drive Automobile On Public  Highways/Streets  U.S.  SUPREME  COURT  AND  OTHER  HIGH  COURT  CITATIONS  PROVING  THAT  NO  LICENSE  IS  NECESSARY FOR NORMAL USE OF AN AUTOMOBILE ON COMMON WAYS  “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  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  constitutional 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.” 

Page 1 of 6 

 

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,  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  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  any one 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  Page 2 of 6 

 

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. l 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 all.” –  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,  Page 3 of 6 

 

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  Ill.  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 “RIGHT — 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. “A 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  Page 4 of 6 

 

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  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.” Justice White, Hiibel “Automobiles have the right to use the  highways of the State on an equal footing with other vehicles.”  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 sole  condition that he will observe all those requirements that are known as the law of the road.”  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 Atl. 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  Ill.  200,  205;  See  also:  Christy  v.  Elliot,  216  Ill.  31;  Ward v. Meredith, 202 Ill. 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  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 Ill. 486; Smiley v. East St. Louis Ry. Co., 100 N.E.  157, 158. “A soldier’s personal automobile is part of his ‘household goods[.]’  Page 5 of 6 

 

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.  End of Addendum  ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐     

Page 6 of 6 

 

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

Notice of Intent‐ Fee Schedule 

Private Easements Schedule   

Penalty for Private Use   

 

 

 

 

$250,000.00 

 

 

 

 

$250,000.00 

 

 

Public Easements Schedule  Penalty for Public Use   

These fees will be mandated upon the informant listed on the traffic citation ticket(s), arrest warrants,  detention orders, seizure orders, charging instruments, Trustee/Fiduciary appointments, etc..  Produce trade name materials:   a.  Name 

$      500.00 

b. Driver License Number 

$      200.00 

c. Social Security Number 

$    1000.00 

d. Retinal Scans 

$    1500.00 

e. Fingerprinting 

$    2000.00 

f.

$    2000.00 

Photographing 

g. DNA 

$    2000.00 

1. Mouth swab 

 

2. Blood samples 

 

3. Urine samples 

 

4. Breathalyzer testing 

 

5. Hair samples 

 

6. Skin samples 

 

7. Clothing samples 

 

8.  Forced giving of fluids/samples 

 

  Issue Traffic citations and tickets of any traffic nature:  a. 

Citations 

 

 

 

 

 

$    600.00 

b. 

Warning issued on Paper Ticket  

 

 

$    250.00 

  Appearance in court because of traffic citations:    NOI-FS  

Page 2 of 7

Notice of Intent‐ Fee Schedule  a. 

Time in court   

 

 

 

$  1800.00/hr with 1 hour min. 

b. 

If Fine is imposed 

 

 

 

$  1000.00 in addition 

Use of trade name protected material under threat, duress, and/ or coercion:  a. 

Name written by the informant   

b. 

 

 

$  2500.00 

Driver License number written by informant 

 

$ 1500.00 

c. 

Social Security Number written by informant 

 

$ 1500.00 

d. 

Miscellaneous Material written by informant 

 

$TBA*  

* To be announced during time of interaction  Produce any personal information/property for any kind of business interaction:  a.  

Financial Information   

 

 

 

$ 1000.00 

b. 

Property inside of automobile   

 

 

$ 1500.00 

  Time Usage for traffic stops:   

a.  

30 minutes 

 

  

 

 

$   50.00/30 minutes minimum 

b. 

60 minutes 

 

 

 

 

$  150.00 

c. 

90 minutes 

 

 

 

 

$  300.00 

Court Appearance Schedule    A deposit of $10,000 shall be advanced to me prior to any of the following appearances or other  use  of  materials.  Upon  depletion  of  the  deposit  amount,  the  balance  of  these  fees  MUST  be  paid  immediately after my case is finished. Failure to pay fines and fees will have an additional fee of $5,000.00  for breach of contract.  Demand for Appearance in court:  a. My Appearance  1. under Protest and Duress:   

$5000.00 

2. Voluntarily   

$2000.00 

 

 

  Use of trade name material  

NOI-FS  

Page 3 of 7

Notice of Intent‐ Fee Schedule  a. Name   1. under Protest and Duress:   

$2500.00 

2. Voluntarily   

 

$2000.00 

1. under Protest and Duress:   

$1500.00 

2. Voluntarily   

 

$1000.00 

1. under Protest and Duress:   

$1500.00 

2. Voluntarily   

 

b. Driver License   

 

c. Social Security Number   

 

 

$1000.00 

d. Miscellaneous Material   

 

$TBA* 

* To be announced during time of interaction  Produce any personal information for any kind of business interaction:  a. Financial Information   

 

 

$1000.00 

b. Driver License    

 

 

 

$1500.00 

c. Social Security Number   

 

 

$1500.00 

d. Any documents produced by me 

 

$1000.00 per document 

 

 

 

1. Under Protest and Duress 

 

$1000.00/30 minutes minimum 

2. Voluntarily 

Time usage for court appearances:  a. 30 minutes 

 

  

 

 

 

 

$ 500.00/30 minutes minimum 

 

 

 

 

1. Under Protest and Duress 

 

$2000.00 

2. Voluntarily 

 

$1500.00 

 

$3000.00 

b. 60 minutes 

 

 

 

c. 90 minutes or more  1. Under Protest and Duress 

NOI-FS  

Page 4 of 7

Notice of Intent‐ Fee Schedule  2. Voluntarily 

 

 

 

$2500.00 

 

                                                    Transgressions­Fee Schedule    Transgressions by public official(s), police officer(s), judge(s), attorney(s), and all other who desire to  contract:    

a. Failure to honor my Creator‐endowed Rights   

$250,000.00 

 

b. Failure to honor your Oath of Office   

 

$250,000.00 

 

c. Failure to honor your Constitutional Oath 

 

$250,000.00 

 

d. Failure to honor your Written and/or Oral Word 

$  25,000.00 

 

e. Silence/Dishonor/Default 

 

 

 

$ 25,000.00 

 

F. Failure to honor/No Bond 

 

 

 

$ 25,000.00 

 

g. Time waiting for scheduled service 

 

$100.00 minimum, or per hr. 

 

h. Detention from free movement and/or cuffed $2500.00 minimum, or per hr. 

 

i. Incarceration   

 

j. Failure to follow Federal and/or State Statutes 

 

 

 

k. Failure to State a Claim upon which relief can 

 

 

 

l.   Failure to Present a Living Injured Party 

 

 

 

Codes, Rules and/or Regulations 

be granted 

 

 

 

$3000.00 minimum, or per hr. 

 

$50.000.00 

 

$250,000.00 

 

$100,000.00 

m. Failure to Provide Contract Signed by the Parties      $100,000.00**  n. Default By Non Response or Incomplete Response  $100,000.00**  o. Fraud                                                                                   $250,000.00**   p. Racketeering                                                                 

$250,000.00** 

q. Theft of Public Funds                                                       $250,000.00**  r. NOI-FS  

Dishonor in Commerce                                                  $250,000.00**  Page 5 of 7

Notice of Intent‐ Fee Schedule  s. Failure to pay Counterclaim in full within (30) Thirty   calendar days of Default as set forth herein 

$250,000.00***  

u. Perversion of Justice Judgment                                          $1,000,000.00**   v. Use of Common‐law Trade‐name/Trade‐mark          after One Warning                               w. Forcing psychiatric evaluations 

 

   

$50,000.00 per each occurrence 

 

$500,000.00 per day 

x. Refusal to provide adequate and proper nutrition  (or Kosher if requested) while incarcerated 

$50,000.00 per day 

y. Refusal to provide proper exercise while  incarcerated       

 

 

 

$50,000.00 per day 

z. Refusal to provide proper dental care while  incarcerated 

 

 

 

 

$50,000.00 per day 

aa. Forced giving of body fluids   

 

 

$5,000,000.00 per day 

bb. Forced injections/inoculations, vaccines 

 

$5,000,000.00 per day 

cc. Forced separation from marriage contract 

 

$1,600,000.00 per day 

 

 

$1,600,000.00 per day 

 

 

$1,600,000.00 per day 

dd. Confiscation/kidnapping of a body not a US  citizen   

 

 

ff.   Failure to provide Full Disclosure 

gg.   Attempted extortion of funds from birth   certificate account, Social security account   or any other associated accounts by  fraud, deception and/or Forgery by  any agent, entity or corporation              $6,000,000.00 per count or charge 

NOI-FS  

hh. Attempted extortion of signature 

             $6,000,000.00 per count or charge 

ii. Attempted forgery of signature 

              $6,000,000.00 per count or charge 

Page 6 of 7

Notice of Intent‐ Fee Schedule  jj.    Breach of Trustee/Fiduciary duty                    $6,000,000.00 per count or charge             *Per Occurrence and Includes any Third Party Defendant  *** All claims are stated in US Dollars which means that a US Dollar will be defined, for this purpose as a One Ounce  Silver Coin of .999 pure silver or the equivalent par value as established by law or the exchange rate, as set by the US  Mint, whichever is the higher amount, for a certified One Ounce Silver Coin (US Silver Dollar) at the time of the first  day of default as set forth herein; if the claim is to be paid in Federal Reserve Notes, Federal Reserve Notes will only be  assessed at Par Value as indicated above.    Total damages will be assessed as the total amount of the damages as set forth herein times three (3) for a total of  all damages as set forth in subsections a‐w added to three (3) times the damages for punitive or other additional  damages.     

Kidnapping  (If  an  officer  removes  free  soul  more  than  5  feet  from  free  soul’s  property without just cause, it IS kidnapping)        $10,000,000.00                      Services to others and/or Corporation(s):  a. Studying 

 

 

 

 

 

$300.00 per hour 

b. Analyzing                                                                         

$300.00 per hour 

c. Research                                                                          

$300.00 per hour 

d. Preparing Documents                                                    

$300.00 per hour 

e. Answering Questions                                                

$300.00 per hour 

f. Providing Information                                                   

$300.00 per hour 

If invoiced, payment is due 15 days after receipt date.   Make all checks payable to:                     Connie LaRue™  1045 Kitt Narcisse Rd.  Colville, Washington 99114 

NOI-FS  

Page 7 of 7

Connie LaRue

1045 Kitt Narcisse Rd.

Colville, Washington 99114

(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

1045 Kitt Narcisse Rd.

Colville, Washington 99114

(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. 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,

I

Impunity: exemption from punishment or freedom from the injurious consequences of an action.

Revocation/Rescission of Driver License and Driver Status

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.

2

Revocation/Rescission of Driver License and Driver Status

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 Revocation/Rescission of Driver License and Driver Status

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".

7

Revocation/Rescission of Driver License and Driver Status

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>

t

_..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-.. '. ~..

8

,rt:.t

',\ "'" "....

.7.,

".~

r'

Revocation/Rescission of Driver License and Driver Status

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. . ." Revocation/Rescission of Driver License and Driver Status

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). Revocation/Rescission of Driver License and Driver Status

"...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

Revocation/Rescission of Driver License and Driver Status

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 Revocation/Rescission of Driver License and Driver Status

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 Revocation/Rescission of Driver License and Driver Status

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 Revocation/Rescission of Driver License and Driver Status

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.

Revocation/Rescission of Driver License and Driver Status

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.

Revocation/Rescission of Driver License and Driver Status

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

Revocation/Rescission of Driver License and Driver Status

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)

o

Restricted Delivery Fee (Endorsement Required)

o

~

-

l o r . ,:.\

Certified Fee

1-------1= I 1-

-1

-

~ark)~ :~: I ~

.~ ?:... (0 .., •

1--------1 Total POsti"u>...&.-"""''''-'--'''--------'----

....=l ....=l

&in/To

o

sfre-eCApr

r'­

or PO Box f

Ci&-;Siai';::

------,

Director's Office Pat Kohler, Agency Director Department of Licensing 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