Misc RM 17    Misc reference material

Reference Material - For Information Only!


Over time we have collected a lot of reference material.

We figured it would be better to share with all rather than just delete it.

If you want it, keep it, otherwise just delete it.  

Due to the volume it will take more than one mailing.




"No such license as a driver's license known to the law."


The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals:   "An information charging the driving of a motor vehicle upon a public highway without a drivers license charges no offense, as there is no such license as a driver's license known to the law."

Keith Brooks v. State, 158 Tex. Crim. 546: 258 S.W.2d 317: 1953  



The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals:   "This court has held that there is no such license known to Texas Law as a driver's license."

Frank John Callas v. State, 167 Tex. Crim.   375; 320 S.W.2d


Both cases are on the Class CD!   Text and Images!   Plus others!



The Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas :

This court has held that there is no such license known to Texas Law as a "driver's license."
Frank John Callas v. State, 167 Tex.Crim. 375; 320 S.W.2d 360


We have held that there is no such license as a driver's license known to our law.
Claude D. Campbell v. State, 160 Tex.Crim. 627; 274 S.W.2d 401


An information charging the driving of a motor vehicle upon a public highway without a driver's license charges no offense, as there is no such license as a driver's license known to the law.
Keith Brooks v. State, 158 Tex.Crim. 546; 258 S.W.2d 317


There being no such license as a "driver's" license known to the law, it follows that the information, in charging the driving of a motor vehicle upon a highway without such a license, charges no offense.
W. Lee Hassell v. The State, 149 Tex.Crim. 333; 194 S.W.2d 400




Damages Awarded: Trezevant v. City of Tampa, 241 F2d. 336 (11th CIR 1984)


Police Officer, Sheriff, or Law Enforcement Officer

Please take Notice of the below information.


The individual presenting this information to you is doing so in an attempt to protect you from yourself. I have a good deal of respect for the public service job you are doing and understand how difficult it is to seek out and prosecute criminals. However, this document is presented at a "traffic stop".


"Where an individual is detained, without a warrant and without having committed a crime (traffic infractions are not crimes), the detention is a false arrest and false imprisonment."

Damages Awarded: Trezevant v. City of Tampa, 241 F2d. 336 (11th CIR 1984)

Motorist illegally held for 23 minutes in a traffic charge was awarded $25,000 in damages. The above case sets the foundation for $75,000 dollars per hour, or $1,800,000 dollars per day.


"The Fifth Amendment provides that no person shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself.   The Amendment not only protects the individual against being involuntarily called as a witness against himself in a criminal prosecution but also privileges him not to answer official questions put to him in any other proceeding, civil or criminal, formal or informal, where the answers might incriminate him in future criminal proceedings." Lefkowitz v. Turley, 94 S.Ct. 316, 414 U.S. 70 (1973)


"The privilege is not ordinarily dependent upon the nature of the proceeding in which the testimony is sought or is to be used. It applies alike to civil and criminal proceedings, wherever the answer might tend to subject to criminal responsibility him who gives it. The privilege protects a mere witness as fully as it does one who is a party defendant." McCarthy v. Arndstein, 266 U.S. 34, 40, 45S.Ct.16, 17, 69 L.Ed. 158(1924)


",..where the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination is involved ... this court has always construed its protection to ensure that an individual is not compelled to produce evidence which later may be used against him as an accused in a criminal action... The protection does not merely encompass evidence which may lead to criminal conviction, but includes information which would furnish a link in the chain of evidence that could lead to prosecution, as well as evidence which an individual reasonably believes could be used against him in a criminal prosecution." Hoffman v. United States, 341 U.S. 479, 486,71 S.Ct. 814,95 L.Ed. 1, 18(1951)


"In Kastigar v. United State, 406 U.S. 441, 92 S.Ct. 1653, 32 L.Ed. 212(1972), we recently reaffirmed the principle that the privilege against self-incrimination can be asserted in any proceeding, civil or criminal, administrative or judicial, investigatory or adjudicatory. id., at 444, 92 S.Ct. At 1656; Lefkowitz v. Turley, 414 U.S. 70, 94 S.Ct. 316, 322, 38 L.Ed.2d 274 (1973)


"We have recently noted that the privilege against self-incrimination --- the essential mainstay of our adversary system is founded on a complex of values ... To maintain a fair state individual balance, to require the government to shoulder the entire load ... to protect the inviolability of the human personality, our accusatory system of criminal justice demands that the government seeking to punish an individual produce the evidence against him by its own independent labors, rather than by the cruel, simple expedient of compelling it from his own mouth... in sum, the privilege is fulfilled only when the person is guaranteed the right to remain silent unless he chooses to speak in the unfettered exercise of his own will."


"...there can be no doubt that the Fifth Amendment privilege is available outside of criminal court proceedings and serves to protect persons in all settings in which their freedom of action is curtailed in any significant way from being compelled to incriminate themselves." Miranda v. Arizona, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 384 U.S. 436 (1966)


Please also Note: The above, as stated by the Supreme Court, are rights and privileges as guaranteed by the Constitution, and anyone (including judges) who knowingly violates those rights may be civilly and criminally liable under several federal statutes. Please see: United States Code, Title 18 Section 241 (Conspiracy against Rights), and Section 242 (Deprivation of Rights under Color of Law); Title 42 Section 1983, 1985, 1986 (Civil Rights)


Officer, I cannot and will not provide you with any information that may later be used against me in a civil or criminal proceeding. This includes producing any documents that may or may not be in my possession. If there is some important information that you wish to impart upon me, please do so in a respectful manner. I do hope you will have a wonderful day.


Respectfully submitted,








Wells Fargo Bank

A friend was just in Wells Fargo Bank in
Renton , Washington
.  He went in to cash a check.  The lady helping him asked if he had an account.  He explained that he did not because he had no SSN.  She asked him if he would be interested in opening an account if she could do that for him without an SSN.  He said, "Yes," and he opened an account with no hassles whatsoever.

The Wells Fargo employee who helped him was Angie Saladis, Asst. Vice-President.  The Wells Fargo bank branch is in the Safeway Market, 17230 - 140th SE,
Renton , Washington 98058. 

Phone number is (425) 204-7995; FAX (425) 204-8332.

Apparently, Wells Fargo Bank has branches in 26 western states.  One would assume that this policy is uniform among those branches, and anyone encountering any difficulty opening an account without an SSN can have their local branch contact the above branch to confirm the
Renton branch experience.




Flag Law

Is this where the feds snuck in the gold fringed flags?


4 USCS § 1                                                                                                            FLAG, SEAL, ETC

"(b) So far as practicable. (1) the actions of the Secretary of Defense under the provisions of section 24(a) of this order, as they relate to the various organizational elements of the Department of Defense, shall be coordinated, and (2) the Secretary and the Administrator shall mutually coordinate their actions under that section.

"Sec. 25. Subject to such limited exceptions as the Secretary of Defense in respect of the Department of Defense, and the Administrator of General Services in respect of executive agencies other than the Department of Defense, may approve, all national flags and union jacks now in the possession of executive agencies, or hereafter acquired by executive agen­cies under contracts awarded prior to the date of this order, including those so possessed or so acquired by the General Services Administration, for distribution to other agencies, shall be utilized until unserviceable.

"PART 111 — General PROVISIONS

"Sec. 31. The flag prescribed by Executive Order No. 10798 of January 3, 1959, shall be the official flag of the United States until July 4, 1960, and on that date the flag prescribed by Part I of this order shall become the official flag of the United States; but this section shall neither derogate from section 24 or section 25 of this order nor preclude the procurement, for executive agencies, of flags provided for by or pursuant to this order at any time after the date of this order.

"Sec. 32. As used in this order, the term "executive agencies" means the executive depart­ments and independent establishments in the executive branch of the Government, includ­ing wholly-owned Government corporations.

"Sec. 33. Executive Order No. 10798 of January 3, 1959, is hereby revoked."


Is this where the feds snuck in the gold fringed flags?


     4 USC Sec. 1                                              

    Sec. 1. Flag; stripes and stars on


      The flag of the United States shall be thirteen horizontal     stripes, alternate red and white; and the union of the flag shall
     be forty-eight stars, white in a blue field.




Texas Traffic Regulations





Please be advised that the Texas Traffic Regulations are contained within the Civil Statutes and not the Texas Penal Code and therefore do not fall within the Jurisdiction of a Municipal Court pursuant to the Acts of the 59th Texas Legislature (1965), vol. 2, page 317, ch. 722. The issuance of a Traffic Citation is a Civil. Complaint and must be filed in a Court of appropriate Civil Jurisdiction.


If you insist on pursuing this action without proper jurisdiction you are in violation of both State and Federal Laws specifically:


Texas Statutes, Title 8, Section 39.02 "Official Oppression" United States Code, Title 18, Sections 241 and 242


THEREFORE, YOU ARE HEREBY GIVEN NOTICE THAT YOU MAY BE ABOUT TO COMMIT A CRIMINAL ACT AGAINST THIS PRIVATE CITIZEN UNDER COLOR OF LAW. You must understand that charges may be brought against you PERSONALLY since you are operating outside the bounds of your authority. The State offers no protection to its agents when they operate outside the bounds of their jurisdiction.


Please acknowledge receipt of this NOTICE and attach it to your copy of the Traffic Citation. Your signature is an acknowledgement of the. receipt of this information which will be introduced as evidence in any legal proceeding and is not an admission of any guilt:


Officers Name & Badge Number__________________________________


Signature & Date______________________________________________________












Dear Sirs:


The purpose of the form W-4 is for me to figure out how much income tax, if any, is appropriate to be withheld. I then tell you, and the IRS, what the correct amount is.


If someone other than I were given this right by law it would then be unnecessary f or me to fill out a form; the person making the determination would fill out any applicable form.


Your only legal authority to withhold any taxes from my pay is my written permission on form W-4 or the equivalent. I have not given this permission.


The only legal authority for withholding income taxes at the source on wages is found in Section 3402 of Chapter 24 or Title 26 of the United States Code.


Section 3402 is divided into nineteen paragraphs, labeled 'a' through "s", respectively. There are nineteen separate divisions within Section 3402 because Congress in adopting the law realized that not all individuals have the same status and not all have the same liability.


The Section of 3402 that is appropriate in my case is 3402(n). Line six of the W-4 form is based upon 3402(n).


I realize that there are three parties to any withholding dispute, the worker, the company, and the IRS. When there is a question, or a dispute, no one of the three (including IRS) may arbitrarily demand to make the decision. That is what the federal courts are for.


The matter of the W-4 form of the employee has already gone to the United States Supreme Court. The Court said ~... the employer is not authorized to alter the form or to dishonor the employee's claim. The certificate goes into effect automatically in accordance with certain standards enumerated in 3402(f) (3)." United States v. John Paul l4alinowski, 347 F. Supp. 352 (1972).


IRS Section 3402(n) has remained virtually unchanged since that time, having been neither amended nor repealed. The United States Supreme Court has not heard any other cases on this matter, nor is there any legal reason to think they will in the future.


The information on my current W—4 form is correct and was submitted under penalty of perjury. There is no reason f or me to submit another form since it would show the same information. Neither you nor the IRS has my permission to change or dishonor the form.


Section 3402(p) states that the W-4 form is a voluntary agreement between you and I.  If you were allowed to coerce me that would not be a "voluntary" agreement.


The Secretary of the Treasury (or by delegation the IRS) may "by regulations provide for the increases or decreases in the amount of withholding." HOWEVER, that is ONLY "in cases where the employee REQUESTS such changes". Clearly, Congress intended the EMPLOYEE, not the IRS to make the determination (Section 3402(i).


Section 3402(f) (4) provides "A withholding exemption certificate...shall continue in effect with respect to the employer until another such certificate takes effect under this section."


You will find by reviewing the relevant federal statutes that I am correct as a matter of law. I have been, and remain, EXEMPT pursuant to 3402(n) et. seq.


I trust this resolves the matter to your satisfaction and that my valid W-4 EXEMPT will remain in effect. If you need additional information, please feel free to contact me again.




[send in after w-4 if it was not accepted]

[for those of you still filing w-4 forms]

[proper form for non-resident alien is the w-8]






§ 79.31.   Characters of Print Acceptable in Names


(a) Entity names may consist of letters of the Roman alphabet, Arabic numerals, and certain symbols capable of being reproduced on a standard English language typewriter, or combination thereof.

(b) Only upper case or capitol letters, with no distinction as to type face or font, will be recognized.

(c) Arabic numerals include 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9.

(d) The symbols recognized as part of a name may include  ! " $   %  ' (   ) *  ? #  =   @  [  ]  /  +  &  and  -  .


Source:  The provisions of this §79.31 adopted to be effective January 1, 1976: amended to be effective September 15, 1981, 6 TexReg 3249; amended to be effective January 2, 1992, 16 TexReg 7469.





Lawful money taxed at face value and not trade value


 The first case, Ling Su Fan v. U.S., 218 US 302 (1910) establishes the legal distinction of a coin bearing the "impress" of the sovereign:

 "These limitations are due to the fact that public law gives to such coinage a value which does not attach as a mere consequence of intrinsic value. Their quality as a legal tender is an attribute of law aside from their bullion value. They bear, therefore, the impress of sovereign power which fixes value and authorizes their use in exchange." 


The second case, Thompson v. Butler, 95 US 694 (1877), establishes that the law makes no legal distinction between the values of coin and paper money used as legal tender:

"A coin dollar is worth no more for the purposes of tender in payment of an ordinary debt than a note dollar. The law has not made the note a standard of value any more than coin. It is true that in the market, as an article of merchandise, one is of greater value than the other; but as money, that is to say, as a medium of exchange, the law knows no difference between them."





The practice of law is an occupation of Common Right ," as per Sims v. Ahrens, 277 S.W.  720 (1925) and upheld that "they [attorneys] cannot represent any private citizen nor any business as the State cannot license the practice of law " as per the ruling of the Supreme Court in Schware v. Board of Examiners. 353 U.S. 238. 239.

The only statutes found for the "unauthorized practice of law" deal with such issues as "A lawyer shall not aid a non-lawyer in the unauthorized practice of law" or  "practice law in a Jurisdiction where to do so would be in violation of the regulations of the profession in that jurisdiction."

"Congress, in enacting the Administrative Procedure Act, refused to limit the right to practice before the administrative agencies to lawyers."

"A Person engages in the 'practice of law' by maintaining an office where he is held out to be an attorney, using a letterhead describing himself as an attorney, counseling clients in legal matters, negotiating with opposing counsel about pending litigation, and fixing and collecting fees for services rendered by his associate."





 This language should be included in the papers you write Sui Juris to the court.  The court will say anything to refuse to act or to dismiss your cases.  One of their favorite ruses is "denied for want of form". 
 This language, from the First Congress in 1789, clearly outlines the intent of what a court is to be and that the court is the one who is "deemed to know the law" and must assist sovereign people in our courts to plead our cases before a jury of our peers as we see fit to plead our cases, with counsel of out own choice.  The court works for us, and has NO discretion to refuse to hear cases of deprivation of rights and criminal injury.  They know it; they just get away with it as long as we let them.
 Use this language to shove it back in front of them and make them tell you this is NOT the law.  Then ask what jurisdiction they have you in if this does not apply.
 This IS the law and this stands.
 The Writ SHALL not be dismissed for lack of form or failure of process.  All the pleadings must be is as any reasonable man/woman would understand. Clearly written, affidavits of facts and law.  Use this under "jurisdiction" in the Complaints you write.
  "And be it further enacted.  That no summons, writ, declaration, return, process, judgment, or other proceedings in civil cases in any of the courts or the United States, shall be abated, arrested, quashed or reversed, for any defect or want of form, but the said courts respectively shall proceed and give judgment according as the right of the cause and matter in law shall appear unto them, without regarding any imperfections, defects or want of form in such writ, declaration, or other pleading, returns process, judgment, or course of proceeding whatsoever, except those only in cases of demurrer, which the party demurring shall specially sit down and express together with his demurrer as the cause thereof.  And the said courts respectively shall and may, by virtue of this act, from time to time, amend all and every such imperfections, defects and wants of form, other than those only which the party demurring shall express as aforesaid, and may at any, time, permit either of the parties to amend any defect in the process of pleadings upon such conditions as the said courts respectively shall in their discretion, and by   their rules prescribe (a)"
Judiciary Act of September 24, 1789, Section 342,  FIRST CONGRESS, Sess. 1, ch. 20, 1789




Insular Possessions


From the Public Records


It is evident from the Public Records of the Secretary of State of the State of Texas


All the Political Parties are insular possessions of the UNITED STATES.


All the elected officials city, county, State and United States are members of a Political Party making them a insular possession of the UNITED STATES.


Two plus Two: If all the elected officials are insular possessions of the UNITED STATES then the alleged city county and State Governments are insular possessions of the UNITED STATES.


If you are a registered Voter then you are also an insular registered possession of the UNITED STATES.


This should explain why there are no Texas ballots in Texas.







From the Public Records


It is evident from the Public Records of the Secretary of State of the State of Texas


The Texas Bar association is an insular possession of the UNITED STATES.


 Making all the Courts including the SUPREME COURT of Texas insular Courts of the UNITED STATES.


All of the Texas Courts require a Judge to be a member of the Texas Bar association an insular possession of the UNITED STATES.


Two plus Two: If the Judges of the Courts are members of an insular possession of the UNITED STATES then the Courts are insular possession of the UNITED STATES.






de facto government   Texas ballot  Blacks 8th


You are right and the idiots are going to get the kind of government they deserve. The "Government" (Criminal racketeering Cartel) are going to take all they own and put them in camps and if they bow to pray and ask God for deliverance have their head chopped off. Justice will be served and all accounts balanced. They will blame the Government instead of themselves. They voted for the wrong Government and rejected God's Government. Now judgment will now begin and woe to the unbelievers. Their act and their votes have cause harm and hurt to those that are true believers and know the truth.


Taken from Black's Law Dictionary 8th Edition - Page 716

 de facto government (di fak-toh).
1. A government that has taken over the regular government and exercises sovereignty over a nation. 2. An independent government established and exercised by a group of a country's inhabitants (VOTERS) who have separated themselves from die parent state. — Also termed government de facto.


de jure government. A functioning government that is legally established. — Also termed government de jure.


federal government. 1. A national government that exercises some degree of control over smaller political unitsEACH OF THE PEOPLE) that have surrendered some degree of power (VOTERS) in exchange for the right.ALL THE DE FACTO VOTER CITIZENS ONLY HAVE THE RIGHT TO VOTE NO OTHER RIGHTS READ THE 14TH AMENDMENT)  to participate in national political matters. — Also termed (in federal states) central government. 2. The U.S. government. — Also termed national government. [Cases:

United States    1. C. J.S. United States §§ 2-3.]


P.S. A true Republic de jure Ballot.


Taxes Ballot

Texas ballot, "A ballot that the voter marks for the candidates that he or she does not want elected."


If any don't understand this ballot I will try to explain. You can see it is not a ballot where you elect an agent that can bind you to something you don't agree with because you did not assign him/her your agent and power of attorney.


You stated "Well the people of the independent and republic State of Texas did not choose their present make-believe form of government"; they did choose it they voted in an agent and gave him the authority to act on their behalf.

They gave up their right to govern and turned that right over to an agent and the scum-bags has done them in.  But they still have the right and power to recall every one of them and I mean every one of them including the local scum-bags that have sold out to Satan.


I know this may sound real strong but sometime it takes strong medicine for the real sick and they are real sick satan has got them, and I am mad and sick of all these alleged patriots that are putting out false information and deceiving the unlearned including those gangs that claim to be the Republic of Texas that don't have a clue and are to brain dead to listen.
P.s. they also have a zero learning curve and are hopeless. Ken


Disclaimer: We are just people that get together and exchange information.
We are not a group or organization.
We are not a company or corporation or association. 
We sell nothing and we charge nothing.

To cancel your class e-mail click "reply" and type "stop messages".

The following web pages will provide much more information:

RM 01    RM 02    RM 03    RM 04    RM 05    RM 06    RM 07    RM 08    RM 09    RM 10    RM 11    RM 12    RM 13    RM 14    RM 15    RM 16    RM 17    RM 18    RM 19    RM 20    RM 21    RM 22    RM 23    RM 24    RM 25    RM 26    RM 39    RM 40   
We appreciate and thank all those people who contributed this information
and made it available to all who will take the time to review it and possibly use it.

We make no quarantees and no assurances as to any of its viability.
It is placed here for educational, reference, and information purposes only.