Freedom Dove

The following information is for educational purposes with the intention of alerting people to the fact that each of us has been enticed into transactions without being fully informed because we did not know where we stand with regard to our state of being and our standing. Additionally, this is a Public Notice to all government employees, licensees, contractors.

The Public Officers are only authorized to stop somebody using the public highways when their is an emergency or when an articulable crime has already happened and reported by a competent witness.

Even before you find yourself the owner of an automobile and get behind the wheel to use said automobile as a tool, as a convenient way to move about the town or city to go from point A to point B you have to first come into possession of this device of convenience and conveyance. Which bring up some thought provoking questions:

Have you ever wondered about the earth’s resources or how the resources are managed and how the manufactures get access to the earth’s resources?

1. So, how come you are going into the dealership to “purchase” an automobile that you intend to use only as a private conveyance? Do you realize you are not a ”purchaser”?

2. Have you ever wondered what is required for an automobile to be considered held under Statute? What is the magic that magically converts an “automobile” to a “motor vehicle”? Is a motor and an engine the same thing?

3. What makes you believe you must have a Driver’s License if you are not a statutory Driver?

4. Why do the agents at the Department of Licensing and the Law Enforcement Officers believe that everybody is required to carry or must hold a valid Driver’s License? Furthermore, these inadequately educated and inappropriately trained people performing their duties as a Public Official are mistaken when they believe that we are the “class of person” that they can speak to.

5. Why would we as a man or woman conducting our affairs in the private need to pay to use the Public Highways and Byways when the true owner is the beneficiary?

6. Are you interested in discovering when you qualify to receive a traffic ticket?

If the statements or questions above have perked your curiosity we suggest you go to the following Websites:

Freedom From Government website: https://www.freedomfromgovernment.org

&

Lawful Living website:
https://www.lawfulliving.com

All government actors are required to read the following Public Service Announcement very carefully:

The Superior Court of One Heaven

In the Office of the President of the United States

&

In The Office of the Prime Minister of Canada

Notice: Liability; Trustee Acknowledgment

Respondent’s name:
  Justin Pierre James Trudeau

To: Justin, Trudeau: Employment: Prime Minister of Canada
  Mailing address: Office of the Prime Minister, 80 Wellington Street, Ottawa, ON K1A 0A2, Telephone: 613-992-4211¹² © Fax: 613-941-6900,  Contact Us | The White House or send an email to justin.trudeau@parl.gc.ca

Respondent’s name:
 Joseph Robinette Biden Jr.

To:
 Mailing address: The White House, 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20500, Telephone: 202-456-1414 (Switchboard) or 202-456-1111 (Comments), © Fax: The White House does not accept fax messages The White House administration does not provide an Email address:  Contact Us | The White House to send an email to the president
  

NOTICE- All notices and challenges being non-statutory in nature, as much as possible, not to be construed as consent to (any/the Courts) jurisdiction, or a contractual agreement with (the Court or/any other party), not waiving any independence possessed by the man and woman herein named raymond-sophia of the shackelford-borgeson family (hereinafter Benefactor/ Beneficiary/Relator/Settlor of the Public Trust and Living Soul)

Dear Public: Agent(s)/Officer(s)/Servant(s) All Government: Employee(s)/Licensee(s)/Contractor(s) (Trustee(s) of the Public Trust),

We, raymond-sophia (sophia is known on the record as lorna lynne borgeson) of the shackelford-borgeson family and the soul at all times relevant a non-statutory husband and wife (each a face of God, one in spirit, mind, and body) conducting our private affairs, one of the sovereign people, in peace and with peaceful intentions come now to inform you that we both individually and jointly have been arrested illegally and unlawfully. We retroactively, take a stand claiming all our property and make claim to our beneficial interest in the resources and wealth of both Canada and the United States and all their franchises and licensees.

Notification of liability is the first essential element of due process of law. As silence is acquiescence under the law, silence can only be equated with fraud where there is a lawful or moral duty to speak, or where an inquiry left unanswered would be misleading, whether intentionally or not

Appointment Acknowledgment

We hereby acknowledge and confirm your appointment as trustee(s) of our Public Trust.

“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.

Personal Liability– The right or power of locomotion, of changing situation, of removing one’s person to whatsoever place one’s own inclination may direct, without imprisonment or restraint unless by due course of law [Black’s Law Dictionary, 4th ed.]

“Complete freedom of the highways is so old and well established a blessing that we have forgotten the days of the Robber Barons and toll roads, and yet, under an act like this, arbitrarily administered, the highways may be completely monopolized, if, through lack of interest, the people submit, then they may look to see the most sacred of their liberties taken from them one by one, more or less by rapid encroachment.”
[Robertson v. Department of Public Works, 180 Wash 133, 147 (1934)]

“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 139 A2d 869, 872 (1958) We believe this statement to be misleading and derogatory since no man should be required to “earn a livelihood” and in fact is being induced into “slave labor” and is in fact being denied his wealth.

MOTORCYCLE. A bicycle propelled by a gasoline engine located in the frame between the wheels. Ellett v. Klein, C.C.A.Pa., 252 F. 805, 806, certio rari denied Harley-Davidson Motor Co. v. Ellett, 39 S.Ct. 8, 248 U.S. 563, 63 L.Ed. 423; Bonds v. State, 16 Ga.App. 401, 85 S.E. 629, 630.

Apparently, some judge got through the years of school indoctrination while retaining an “interest in realism”.

49 usc 31301 proof DOT not Dmv has so called authority on traffic violations

Police and Sheriff’s are not agencies of the State…All traffic infractions must go through the department of transportation (federal)…these cops are debt collectors 15 USC 1692 (e)(1) The false representation or implication that the debt collector is vouched for, bonded by, or affiliated with the United States or any State, including the use of any badge, uniform, or facsimile thereof.

FAILURE TO PROTECT PROVISIONS IS A CRIME

“Provisions of claimed contract clearly cannot be ignored. This would be a crime itself by not protecting the supreme law of the land that you are to protect. Count 1-Title 18 US Code Sec. 2381: In the presence of two or more witnesses of the same overt act, or in an open court of law, if you fail to timely move to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States and honor your oath of office, you are subject to the charge of capital felony treason. Count 2-Title 5 US Code Sec. 556(d), Sec. 557, Sec.706: Courts lose jurisdiction if they do not follow Due Process Law

American jurisprudence 16 constitutional law section 2d. section 97; we interpret the following as giving favor to the agents and officers rather than We The People: “Then a constitution should receive a literal interpretation in favor of the Citizen, is especially true, with respect to those provisions which were designed to safeguard the liberty and security of the Citizen in regard to person and property.” Bary v. United States 273 US 128; “constitutional provisions intended to confer a benefit should be literally construed in favor in the clearly intended and expressly designated beneficiary”

We the people, the benefactor, are named in the preamble of the Constitution, and We the people are the clearly intended and expressly designated beneficiaries of the United States of America’s Constitution (not as a US citizen of the UNITED STATES Federal corporation 28 USC 3002 (15)(a) (15)“United States” means—(A)a Federal corporation; (B) an agency, department, commission, board, or other entity of the United States; or(C)an instrumentality of the United States.

United States 28 USC 1746 (1) Because US citizens can only be artificial governmental actors that are paid employees for a service for the Federal corporation and are bound by statutes, rules, codes and regulations Rodriguez versus Ray Donovan 1985KOLENDER V LAWSON 461 US 352, 1983

A Police Officer is in violation of his/her fiduciary duties as a trustee when he arrests one of the Sovereign People for refusing to present identification without probable cause that a crime has already taken place. There is no such law called “Failure to Identify”…

OWEN V. INDEPENDENCE , 100 S.C.T. 398, 445 US 622

Officers of the Court shall be held liable for they have no qualified immunity when violating a constitutionally protected right, “ignorance of the law is no excuse”; in other words: you are deemed to know the law…. title 18 usc subsection 4…..also title 18 usc 2381 cannan # 7……………………………………. Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425 (1886)
“ An unconstitutional act is not law. It confers no rights, it imposes no duties, it affords no protections, it creates no office. It is in legal contemplation as inoperative as though it has never been passed .”
Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 1 137 137 (1803)

“No provision of the Constitution is designed to be without effect,” “Anything that is in conflict is null and void of law”, “Clearly, for a secondary law to come in conflict with the supreme Law was illogical, for certainly, the supreme Law would prevail over all other laws and certainly our forefathers had intended
that the supreme Law would be the bases of all law and for any law to come in conflict would be null and void of law, it would bare no power to enforce, in would bare no obligation to obey, it would purport to settle as if it had never existed, for unconstitutionality would date from the enactment of such a law, not from the date so branded in an open court of law, no courts are bound to uphold it, and no Citizens are bound to obey it. It operates as a near nullity or a fiction of law.”

Maine v. Thiboutot, 448 U.S. 1 (1980)
“The right of action created by statute relating to deprivation under color of law, of a right secured by the constitution and the laws of the United States and comes claims which are based solely on statutory violations of Federal Law and applied to the claim that claimants had been deprived of their rights, in some capacity, to which they were entitled.”

“ Officers of the court have no immunity when violating constitutional right, from liability ” 16Am Jur 2d., Sec. 256:

“ The general rule is that a unconstitutional statute, whether Federal or State, though having the form and name of law as in reality no law, but is wholly void and ineffective for any purpose since unconstitutionality dates from the enactment and not merrily from the date of the decision so braining it .

An unconstitutional law in legal contemplation is as inoperative as if it never had been passed . Such a statute lives a question that is purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not ever been enacted.

No repeal of an enactment is necessary, since an unconstitutional law is void . The general principles follows that it imposes no duty, converse no rights, creates no office, bestows no power of authority on anyone, affords no protection and justifies no acts performed under it . A contract which rests on a unconstitutional statute creates no obligation to be impaired by subsequent legislation. No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law. No courts are bound to enforce it. Persons convicted and fined under a statute subsequently held unconstitutional may recover the fines paid. A void act cannot be legally
inconsistent with a valid one and an unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede an existing valid law . Indeed, in so far as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby. Since an unconstitutional statute cannot repeal, or in anyway effect an existing one, if a
repealing statute is unconstitutional, the statute which it attempts to repeal, remains in full force and effect and where a statute in which it attempts to repeal remains in full force and effect and where a clause repealing a prior law is inserted in the act, which act is unconstitutional and void, the provision of the
repeal of the prior law will usually fall with it and will not be permitted to operate as repealing such prior law. The general principle stated above applied to the constitution as well as the laws of the several states insofar as they are repugnant to the constitution and laws of the United States .”

Bryer’s v United States 273 U.S. 28. In other words it‟s supposed to be liberally enforced in favor of the citizen for the protections of their rights and property. Any10constitutional provision intended to confer a benefit should be liberally construed in favor of the clearly intended and expressly designated beneficiary

5th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution
1. an amendment to the US Constitution stating that no person may be compelled to testify against himself and that no person may be tried for a second time on a charge for which he has already been acquitted
2. (US) take the fifth, take the fifth amendment, to refuse to answer a question on the grounds that it might incriminate oneself. Notice To All Law Enforcement U.S. Supreme Court decisions, res judicata:
Noticed agent is noticed principle notice to principle is notice to agent

“Where a person is not at the time a license of the particular agency, his license having expired and he not having asked its renewal, neither the agency nor any other officer has jurisdiction of said person,” O’Neil versus Department of professions and vocations, 7 CA.2d 398, Elsman versus Dougherty, 6 CA 783.

“The right to travel by private conveyance For private purposes upon the common way cannot be infringed. No license or permission is required for travel when such travel is not for the purpose of commercial profit or gain on the open highways operating under license in commerce.” Shapiro versus Thompson 394 US 618.

“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 conveyance of the day, and under the existing mode of travel, includes the right to travel by a horse-drawn carriage or wagon there on or to operate an automobile they’re on, for the usual and ordinary purpose of life in business” Thompson vs. Smith, Supra.; Teche Lines vs. Danforth, Miss., 12 S.2d 784

“The claim and exercise of a constitutional Right cannot be converted into a crime.” Miller vs. U.S., 230 F. 486, 489 “It cannot be gainsaid that 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.” Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347, 373, 96 S.Ct. 2673, 49 L.Ed.2d 547 (1976) 40.01 (22) of the [Wisconsin]Vehicle Code which, in its definitions of words and phrases, states: “Highway’ means all public ways and includes the entire width between the boundary lines of every way open to the use of the public thoroughfares and bridges on the same. It as a matter of right for the purposes of vehicular travel....” Weiss v. Holman, 207 NW 2d 660 – Wis: Supreme Court 1973 Sec. 12-465. Definitions “‘Public highways’ includes every way or place generally open to the use of the public as a matter of right.“
Maxims of Equity:

Equity acts in personam: Equity acts on the duties of people, not objects, or “[e]quity acts in personam, not in rem.” Diallo v. Redwood Invs., LLC, Case No. 18-cv-1793 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 6, 2019). Today, the term “people” includes legal entities like corporations.\

Equity will not suffer a wrong to be without a remedy: “The equitable power of a court is not bound by cast0iron rules but exists to do fairness and is flexible and adaptable to particular exigencies so that relief will be granted when, in view of all the circumstances, to deny it would permit one party to suffer a gross wrong at the hands of the other.” PCS Nitrogen, Inc. v. Ross Dev. Corp., 126 F. Supp. 3d 611, 642 (D.S.C. 2015) (quoting Hooper v. Ebenezer Sr. Servs. & Rehab. Ctr., 386 S.C. 108 (2009)).

Equity regards as done what ought to be done: “It is a fiction of equity designed to effectuate the obvious intention of the parties and to promote justice.” Rodeck v. U.S., 697 F. Supp. 1508 (D. Minn. 1988).

Equity will not allow a statute to be used as a cloak for fraud: “Courts of equity, independently of any statute, will relieve against fraud, if proceedings are seasonably brought after its discovery. Indeed, to use the language of Lord Cottenham, a court of equity will wrest property fraudulently acquired, not only from the perpetrator of the fraud, but ‘from his children and his children’s children,’ or, as was said in another English case, ‘from any person to whom he may have parcelled out the fruits of his fraud.’” Citizens Bank v. Leffler, 228 Md. 262, 269 (Md. 1962).

Equity will not allow a statute to be used as a cloak for fraud: “Courts of equity, independently of any statute, will relieve against fraud, if proceedings are seasonably brought after its discovery. Indeed, to use the language of Lord Cottenham, a court of equity will wrest property fraudulently acquired, not only from the perpetrator of the fraud, but ‘from his children and his children’s children,’ or, as was said in another English case, ‘from any person to whom he may have parcelled out the fruits of his fraud.’” Citizens Bank v. Leffler, 228 Md. 262, 269 (Md. 1962).

Equity will not allow a trust to fail for want of a trustee: “Even if a trustee dies before the creation of a testamentary trust, for example, or if the trustee is incompetent at the time she accepts the position, these failures would not cause the creation of the trust to fail.” See, e.g., Fulk & Needham, Inc. v. U.S., 288 F. Supp. 39, 44 (M.D.N.C. 1968).

Equity regards the beneficiary as the true owner: Another historical maxim that no longer applies—common law once provided no action by the beneficiary of a trust against the trustee, but that has since changed with the common law claim for breach of fiduciary duty.

Trust identification/Trust directive:

Public Trust Indentures – The Holy Bible NIV, Privacy Act of United States/Canada, Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA) ,Telecommunications Act (S.C. 1993, c. 38), United States/Canadian Bill of Rights, State/Provincial and Federal Constitution, Law of Fiduciary Obligation, UCC Financing Statement Addendum (served on the Treasury on the alleged sixteenth [16th] day of the twelfth [12th] month December the alleged year two thousand twenty-three [2023] see enclosure below) and all other trust agreements as per the provisions set forth in the governing trust instrument. We express confidence in your ability to fulfill your fiduciary duties and responsibilities in the best interests of the trust and its beneficiaries.

Trustee(s) Name: Justin Pierre James Trudeau: Employment: Prime Minister of Canada and Member of Parliament; Joseph Robinette Biden Jr.: Employment: President of the United States; and all previously noticed and named Public Agent(s)/Officer(s)/Servant(s) all Government: Employee(s)/Licensee(s)/Contractor(s) and those yet to be named by us.

Further, be it therefore known by these presents, that we, raymond-sophia, do hereby and herein give formal Notice of Acceptance of the mandated Oath of Office of the above named Public Servant(s), Justin Pierre James Trudeau and Joseph Robinette Biden Jr.. 

The said Oath of Office being your open, binding and irrevocable offer, to which our acceptance does  hereby ratify into a firm and binding, private, multi-lateral contract between us, by which you agree to uphold alll laws as they are written with the Constitution of the United States of America with the Bill of Rights, and to perform all of your duties as a Public Servant(s), and to uphold and to protect all of our rights, by which we agree to receive the said, and the implied protections and provisions of that Law, and of our rights, both as and of the services of your office, as the valuable consideration passing between us that consummates the acceptance of the contract as it was offered. 

In order to ensure unequivocal clarity, and to effect the removal of any and all assumptions and  presumptions, you are hereby put on notice that this notification is not directed to the legal fictional person,  “Prime Minister of Canada and or the President of the United States but to you, Justin Pierre James Trudeau and Joseph Robinette Biden Jr., in your private capacity as a  non-fictional man who has sworn an Oath of Office, and who, by virtue of that Oath, has a mandate duty and obligation to uphold the law and uphold the constitution instituted to protect the rights of the People.   

Responses to this notice that are immaterial or irrelevant to the subject matter, or that are generally non substantive, will be treated merely as a provision of information, and lawfully as a non-response, with willful intent to defraud, trustee malfeasance and trustee fraud.  

Public office is a public trust. A Public Officer is therefore a trustee and raymond-sophia of the family shackelford-borgeson are two of the public whose rights are protected in the governing trust indenture.  Rights violations, as identified within the case(s), herein referred, are against public policy and can be considered a federal crime. The trust indentures are put into place in preservation of the res. according to the Uniform Trust Code. The Uniform Trust Code (UTC) is a model law in the United States created by the Uniform Law Commission and which is a set of laws that governs trusts in the State. The UTC provides a comprehensive set of rules for the creation, administration, and termination of trusts. The UTC is designed to provide a uniform framework for trust law across the United States.  

**Arkansas Code § 28-73-813** outlines the duties of a trustee to keep the qualified beneficiaries of the trust reasonably informed about the administration of the trust and of the material facts necessary for them to protect their interests. It also details the trustee’s responsibilities to inform and report to the beneficiaries.- **Arkansas Code § 28-73-602** discusses the revocation or amendment of a revocable trust. Unless the terms of a trust expressly provide that the trust is irrevocable, the settlor may revoke or amend the trust. This section also provides methods by which a settlor may revoke or amend a revocable trust.  

“A Public official is a fiduciary toward the public, including in the case of a judge, the litigants who appear before him and if he deliberately conceals material information from them he is guilty of fraud” U.S. v Folzer 816 F. 2d 304, 307 (1987). Public officials are also “trustee[s] and servant[s] of the people”. George Department v Sistrunk 291 S.E. 2d 524, 526 (1982). “‘Public office is a public trust or agency for the benefit of the people to be administered under legislative control in the interest of the people.” State ex rel Nagle v Sulliven 40 P.2d 995, 997, Supreme Court of Montana (1935).  Pursuant to CFR Title 5 § 2635.101, “Basic obligation of public service (a) Public service is a public trust, and any act in violation by Public Servant, the Trustee, is Trustee Malfeasance”.

Your public office and license requires you as a public servant and trustee of the public trust to act according to your official delegation and duties under statute and to investigate the crimes herein identified and provide raymond and sophia and every man with what is now being demanded. 

You might ask, “When can I sue you as a trustee for negligence, mismanagement, fraud, or malfeasance?” 

In the United States, you can sue a trustee for negligence, mismanagement, fraud, or malfeasance if they have failed to competently do their job, breached their fiduciary duties, or caused harm to the trust through misconduct or negligence. Here are some common reasons for suing a trustee:

– Failing to comply with trust instructions.
– Being unable to perform their duties.
– Exposing trust property to foolish and unnecessary risks.
– Wasting trust property.
– Commingling personal assets with trust assets.
– Benefiting personally from trust assets.
– Making questionable gifts using trust funds.
– Fraud, coercion, forgery, or duress.
– Embezzlement or theft of trust property.

If a trustee violates the terms of a trust, they can be removed as allowed by the trust document or by the probate court.

Additionally, the following enclosed document is served and hereby enacted see link below:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1X2t8mG06xW6o85-ztkgknr9QoIIXJ_UnqT4f0lLAlkc/edit?usp=sharing

We stand firm on our right to life and right of Self-Determination as living soul.

We  ‘Affirm’ that all statements, facts, and information presented in this petition are correct and true and are presented as evidence “for the record”. For said exhibit, evidence, information, and facts shall be placed in evidence in all case, as we reserve the right to ‘Present’ our own ‘Proper Self’ as living soul and verify to the best of our comprehension and knowledge these words are true and faithful under the ever-present equalizing harmonizing observer, the Mighty I Am Presence, the Infinite Intelligence, the Divine Spirit/the Christ Within, under the Superior Court of One Heaven (where court is always in session 24/7 with everything recorded as it is). God is our witness. [Revelations 21:5,  Revelation 22:6 KJV]

Respectfully,

Also known as raymond-dale and sohia-taniah-lorna-lynne
of the shackelford–borgeson family
Benefactor, Beneficiary, Settlor, Relator
On this the alleged sixteenth [16th] day of the twelfth [12th] month December
the alleged year two thousand twenty-three [2023]

Enclosure:

Inspired by Wayne Sigsby