Affidvit of Tarhaka Amaana El Bey

Affidvit of Tarhaka Amaana El Bey

My Name is___________________________________ I am 61 years young, am working as

I am employed as a private teacher of culture and Biblical law, Canon law, Contract law retired

And I currently Domiciled 6438 North, Pearl Street

Jacksonville territory

Florida Common Law Land Republic

I declare that, to the best of my knowledge and belief, the information herein is true, correct

And complete.

This Affidavit is in Admiralty Jurisdiction

NOTICE to AGENT is NOTICE to PRINCIPAL/NOTICE to PRINCIPAL is NOTICE to AGENT Tarhaka Amaana El Bey, third party interest representing the all Caps franchise FELDER OSCAR GENE

My statement of fact under penalty of Perjury

January 5th, 2015

Dear: Sheriff John H. Rutherford

501 East Bay Street
Jacksonville Florida 32202

Mr Rutherford my name is Tarhaka Amaana El Bey a Moorish National of the Moorish

Government and a citizen of that Government my reason for sending you this Affidavit

is to settle a very serious matter informally, which involves two private contractors under

your watch and administration one Mr, CM. WELPPERT badge #7829 and car #397.

And Mr, MC. BLANTON badge #68028 car# 309 both men told me at the time of the

police stop they worked for the Jacksonville Sheriff Department and that they had no

bond, yet they had weapons on their side neither man presented me with a delegation

of Authority order issued by United States Congress yet I was abducted which has led

to this affidavit I am seeking a lawful response in rebuttal form within 14 days (fourteen

days) to each point contained herein

Point one: Whereas it is my understanding that it is unlawful to convert a right into a crime, please provide proof of claim of the signed original bill of exchange or contract I,Tarhaka Amaana El Bey have with Jacksonville Sheriff Department which could justify a debt of any kind for exercising my freedom of right to travel.

Point two: "Personal liberty largely consists of the Right of locomotion -- to go where and when one pleases -- only so far restrained as the Rights of others may make it necessary for the welfare of all other citizens. 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." [emphasis added] II Am.Jur. (1st) Constitutional Law,Sect.329, p.1135. Please provide proof of claim a copy of the signed contract from

The Florida Highway safety and motor vehicles which should clearly state all rights granted including

My freedom of right to travel has been made void and replaced by a privilege to drive under law.

Point three: The term "driver" in contradistinction to "traveler,": is defined as:
"Driver -- One employed in conducting a coach, carriage, wagon, or other vehicle..." Bovier's Law Dictionary, 1914 ed., p. 940.
Notice that this definition includes one who is "employed" in conducting a vehicle. It should be self-evident that this person could not be "Traveling" on a journey, but is using the road as a place of business. Please provide proof of claim the name and address of the company that paid me Tarhaka Amaana El Bey for driving during alleged incident which would have demanded a drivers license be presented to Policeman, contractor's CM, WELPPERT and MC, BLANTON.

Point four: It seems only proper to define the word "license," as the definition of this word will be extremely important in understanding the statutes as they are properly applied:
"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 in this case, the state would have to take up the position that the exercise of a Constitutional Right to use the public roads in the ordinary course of life and business is illegal, a trespass, or a tort, which the state could then regulate or prevent. Please

Provide proof of claim that a drivers license was presented to private contractors, policemen at the time of the alleged incident resulting in justification for Abduction, Fraud, Hostage taking, Hostage Holding,

By passing a magistrates office during business hours, Aggravated hostage Taking, Attempted Murder

Etc, Etc,

Point five: As previously demonstrated, a man or woman has the Right to travel and to transport his property upon the public highways in the ordinary course of life and business. However, if one exercises this Right to travel (without first giving up the Right and converting that Right into a privilege) the Citizen is by statute, guilty of a crime. This amounts to converting the exercise of a Constitutional Right into a crime.
Recall the Miller vs. U.S. and Snerer vs. Cullen quotes from p.5, and,
"The state cannot diminish Rights of the people." Hurtado vs. California, 110 US 516. Please provide a copy of the law which clearly shows the above Supreme Court rulings have been overturned.

Point six: "The essential elements of due process of law are...Notice and The Opportunity to defend." Simon vs. Craft, 182 US 427.
Yet, not one individual in the State of Florida has been given notice of the loss of his/her Right, let alone before signing the license (contract). Nor was the Citizen given any opportunity to defend against the loss of his/her 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. Please provide proof of claim your Sheriff department has the right to force payment or fine for Tarhaka Amaana El Bey a living breathing man and not

A corporate fiction, Person, 14th Amendment Corporate Person, Artificial Entity, Nom de Guerre, nor

Straw-man as written in all CAPITOL LETTERS while attempting to collect fiat currency from a fictitious Entity as shown as proof on the bogus documents see Exhibit ( A-1) presented to me if you will notice they contain the franchise title FELDER OSCAR GENE a person that never got a chance to live. A Child who was murdered July 8^th 1953 by the Duval Medical center even though his mother was given a live certificate of birth recipe in the form of a birth certificate the child was declared dead by the State of Florida every document his name appears on is always displayed in all capitol letters just like any man or woman tombstone reads in any Cemetery in the United States of America he is dead to the court, he is dead to the State, he is dead in commerce, but the franchise is owned by a man Tarhaka

Amaana El Bey.

Point seven: Please provide a complete and itemized statement from the date of the alleged violation

Until today’s date January 5th, 2015 your department claim including any and all mandatory insurance violations in regards to exercising freedom of right to travel assigned to the above alleged Man according to the fair debt collection practices act.

Point eight: Whereas it is my understanding if anyone does revoke or deny consent they exist free of government control and statutory restraints, and, Please provide proof of claim my right to travel has been revoked or consent denied in any way by the following living being Tarhaka Amaana El Bey.

Point nine: Whereas it is my understanding that I,Tarhaka Amaana El Bey have a right to use my personal automobile without having to pay for the use or enjoyment of it, when exercising freedom of right to travel please provide proof of claim I owe your County Court money of any kind threw conversion of my right into a crime.

Point ten: Whereas it is my understanding Policemen have a duty to distinguish between statutes and law and those who attempt to enforce statutes against Tarhaka Amaana El Bey a living breathing being and freeman-on-the-land are in fact breaking the law, Please provide proof of claim of injured party in writing that I,Tarhaka Amaana El Bey broke the law. By exercising freedom of right to travel which resulted in damages to your policemen, contractors, agents or Sheriff department which resulted in the act of abduction against a man.

Point eleven: Whereas permanent estoppels by acquiescence barring any Policeman or prosecutor from bringing charges against Tarhaka Amaana El Bey under any Act is created if this affidavit is not responded to in the stated fashion and time of 14 (214) days from January 5th, 2015

Therefore be it now known to any and all concerned and affected parties, that I, Tarhaka Amaana El Bey a Freeman-on-the-Land do hereby state clearly specifically and unequivocally my intent to peacefully and lawfully exist free of all statutory obligations restrictions and maintain all rights at law to trade, exchange or barter or exercise freedom of all rights to travel inside or outside the State of Florida.

Point twelve: Furthermore, I,Tarhaka Amaana El Bey claim that these actions are not outside my communities’ standards and will in fact support said community in our desire for truth and maximum freedom.

Furthermore, I,Tarhaka Amaana El Bey claim the right to engage in these actions and further claim that all property held by me is held under a claim of right as mentioned in the Criminal Code of the United States of America.

Point thirteen: Furthermore, I,Tarhaka Amaana El Bey claim that anyone who interferes with my lawful activities after having been served notice of this affidavit and who fails to properly dispute or make lawful counterclaim is breaking the law, cannot claim good faith or colour of right and that such transgressions will be dealt with in a properly convened court de jure. Furthermore, I Tarhaka Amaana El Bey claim that the courts in the United States are de-facto and bound by the Law and Equity Act and are in fact in the profitable business of conducting, witnessing and facilitating the transactions of security interests and I, further claim they require the consent of both parties prior to providing any such services.

Point fourteen: Furthermore, I,Tarhaka Amaana El Bey claim all transactions of security interests require the consent of both parties and I, do hereby deny consent to any transaction of a security interest issuing under any Act for as herein stated as a Freeman-on-the-Land I, am not subject to any Act.

Point fifteen: Furthermore, I,Tarhaka Amaana El Bey claim my FEE SCHEDULE for any transgressions by Policemen, government principals, contractors or agents or justice system participants is FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS PER HOUR or portion thereof if being questioned, interrogated or in any way detained, harassed or otherwise regulated and TWO THOUSAND DOLLARS PER HOUR or portion thereof if I am handcuffed, transported, incarcerated or subjected to any adjudication process without my express written and Notarized consent.

Point sixteen: Furthermore, I,Tarhaka Amaana El Bey claims the right to use a Notary Public to secure payment of the aforementioned FEE SCHEDULE against any transgressors who by their actions or omissions harm me or my interests, directly or by proxy in any way. Furthermore I,Tarhaka Amaana El Bey claim the right to convene a proper court de jure in order to address any potentially criminal actions of any Policemen, contractors, government principals or agents or justice system participants who having been served notice of this affidavit fail to dispute or discuss or make lawful counterclaim and then interfere by act or omission with the lawful exercise of properly claimed and established rights and freedoms.

Point seventeen: Furthermore, I,Tarhaka Amaana El Bey claim the law of agent and principal applies and that service upon one is service upon both. Furthermore, I,Tarhaka Amaana El Bey claim the right to deal with any counterclaims or disputes publicly and in an open forum using discussion and negotiation and to capture on video tape said discussion and negotiation for whatever lawful purpose as I see fit.
Affected parties wishing to dispute the claims made herein or make their own counterclaims must respond appropriately within TWENTY (14) days of service of notice of this action. Responses must be under Oath or attestation, upon full commercial liability and penalty of perjury and registered in the Notary Office herein provided no later than twenty days from the date of original service as attested to by way of certificate of service.

Point eighteen: Whereas it is my understanding The United States of America is a common law jurisdiction, and, whereas it is my understanding equality before the law is paramount and mandatory, and,
whereas it is my understanding a statute is defined as a legislated rule of society which has been given the force of law, and, whereas it is my understanding a society is defined as a number of people joined by mutual consent to deliberate, determine and act for a common goal, and, whereas it is my understanding the only form of government recognized as lawful in The United States of America is a representative one, and, whereas it is my understanding representation requires mutual consent, and, whereas it is my understanding that in the absence of mutual consent neither representation nor governance can exist, and, whereas it is my understanding all Acts are statutes restricted in scope and applicability by the Constitution Act, and, whereas it is my understanding Section 32 of the Constitution Act limits it to members and employees of government,

Point nineteen: Failure to register a dispute against the claims made herein will result in an automatic default judgment and permanent and irrevocable estoppels by acquiescence barring the bringing of charges under any statute or Act against My Self Tarhaka Amaana El Bey a Freeman-on-the-Land.

Point twenty: First, let's consider the issue thus. Surely everybody would agree, we ought to ban any speed that would endanger life, limb or property of any person. That sounds like such a good law!! One state thought that would be a great thing to ban: ban operating a vehicle at a speed so as to endanger life, limb, or property of any man or woman. An American challenged the law as unconstitutional. Imagine that! The court agreed that the law is unconstitutional, and struck down the law. How could it do that?!!—demand the fanatics who say that every speed that endangers must be banned. The court answered. Such a law is truly meaningless because there is no such thing as a motor vehicle speed incapable of endangering life, limb, or property: That amounts to saying that if, under any circumstances, the driver is unable to bring his car to a stop without injuring someone or something, he is driving too fast." People v Firth, 3 NY2d 472; 168 NYS2d 949; 146 NE2d 682 (1957). Such laws are unconstitutional! The politician pretense of concern for safety got struck down. Such laws in effect, as the court realized, ban ALL driving! Similar cases include Empire L Ins Co v Allen, 141 Ga 413; 81 SE 120 (1914); Ladd v State, 115 Tex Crim 355; 27 SW2d 1098 (1930); People v Price, 16 Misc 2d 71; 1698 NYS2d 200 (1957) and Armondi v Johnson, 16 App Div 2d 712; 226 NYS2d 714 (1962).

Signed___________________________________________________

Date_____________________________________________________

Witnessed_________________________________________________

Notary____________________________________________________