- Case Date:
- 3/3/2023
Background:
My girlfriend and I went to The Chocolate Moose to get ice cream on August 20th, 2022. I parked in a parking lot outside of Bedrak Café, which is a cafeteria that’s next to Chocolate Moose. The parking lot is in between Bedrak Café and iMechanic. We arrived at the parking lot at approximately 9:20 pm. Around 9:50 pm, we exited The Chocolate Moose. Right after exiting the shop, I noticed from approximately 50 meters away, that my car was lifted and was getting ready to be towed. All wheels were raised, the front wheels were on a dolly, the back ones were on a mechanical arm. I ran to the driver while shouting: “Hey.” I questioned as to why my car was being towed. The driver said that I was parking in iMechanic’s parking lot, and I was taking up two spots. In fact, I was not taking up two spots. The driver then said that the green lines on the ground indicated iMechanic’s parking. In fact, at night, it is very hard to determine the color of the line. I then asked: “What do I need to do for you to release my car.” He told me that I must pay him $160, cash or Venmo only. I then pulled out my phone and started taking pictures. He continued to put straps on my wheels while saying: “You can take as many pictures as you want, I already took them, but if I get these straps on these wheels, I’m towing your car and you won’t get it until tomorrow.” I then venmoed Stryker Towing $160, and he started to unhook my car. He lowered the mechanical arms to let down the rear wheels. He then kicked the dolly to remove the latch on my right front wheel, the car dropped abruptly. I said: “Dude, can you lower it slowly?” He said: “Why don’t you go ahead and put your hands under there and let your hands be crushed by 500 pounds.” He then said: “I do it 25 times a day and it doesn’t damage the vehicle, if you continue to have a shitty attitude, I am going to keep hooking it up and dropping it again and again.” I then said: “Okay, do it.” He then kicked the dolly to remove the latch on my left from wheel, and the car dropped abruptly again. He removed the pieces of the dolly, got into his car and said that he was going to wait until he saw me back out and leave. At one point, he also said that he was just going to hook it back up and tow it anyway, after I’ve already paid him. He then pulled out of the parking lot. Below are the pictures of my car when it was on the dolly.
We got into my car, and we realized that there was no signage in front my parking spot indicating that it’s a towaway zone. The closest sign indicating a towaway zone was two parking spots to the right of my spot. There was also a sign posted on the building behind my vehicle. The sign reads as “I-MECHANIC PARKING ONLY 9:00 AM – 7:00 PM; BIG RED PERMIT PARKING 24 HRS” I then took pictures of the signage and left the scene. There were also two women at the scene, they told Sheana that that had just happened to them as well. I was not given any sort of receipt.
I studied relevant statutes and I believe Stryker Towing unlawfully towed the two ladies' car and also tried to tow my car and unlawfully charged me $160. I also believe that they were engaging in predatory towing, which the City of Bloomington forbids. They were also in violation of multiple Bloomington Municipal Codes and Indiana Codes.
Discussion:
Stryker Towing is engaged in predatory towing, which the City of Bloomington forbids.
On February 19, 2020. The Bloomington City Council passed Ordinance 20-03. This ordinance amended Bloomington Municipal Code Title 4 by adding a new Chapter 4.32 to provide for the licensing and regulation of towing companies that engage in the practice of non-consensual tows. The ordinance provides that “while many companies engage in non-consensual towing in a fair and ethical way, others, especially in communities such as Bloomington where parking is limited, engage in non-consensual towing practices that might be deemed predatory. This includes, but is not limited to, refusing to release a vehicle to the owner before it has been removed from the private property. . . engaging in kickback arrangements, and charging exorbitant towing and storage fees. . . these predatory towing practices disproportionately harm the community’s most vulnerable residents. . . the City of Bloomington has a significant governmental interest in protecting the health, welfare, and safety of the community. . . .”
BMC 4.32.030 provides that “‘Non-consensual tow’ means the towing, by a tow business. . . without prior consent or authorization by the vehicle’s owner. . . .”
Stryker Towing is in violation of BMC 4.32.100.
BMC 4.32.100 provides that “It shall be unlawful for a licensed towing company or two truck operator to tow a vehicle from a parking lot unless the parking lot owner or the owner’s authorized agent, present at the time of the tow, signs a contemporaneous specific written authorization for the tow of the vehicle. . . a towing company owner or employee, or tow truck operator, may not act as the parking lot owner’s authorized agent.”
The code also provides that, “Notwithstanding the provisions above, a towing company owner or employee, or tow truck operator, may act as the parking lot owner’s authorized agent if: (1) The parking lot is for a multifamily rental dwelling which provides permit parking twenty-four (24) hours a day, seven days a week for its tenants or guests; (2) Tenant parking permits and/or guest parking permits, to be placed in vehicles, are provided to tenants at lease signing. The towing company shall obtain an affidavit from the property owner stating the same; (3) The parking permits are made to be easily identifiable and observable from outside the vehicle; and (4) Video or photographic documentation to attest to the propriety of the tow is made and kept for at least two (2) years as part of the authorization required under subsection (b) above”
In my case, the driver made the representation that he was towing my car on behalf of iMechanic, and the spot I parked in was iMechanic’s parking spot. Imechanic is a phone repair shop, therefore, the building is not a multifamily rental dwelling. The driver may not act as the parking lot owner’s authorized agent. Because the driver cannot be the parking lot owner’s authorized agent, and there was no owner nor any type of authorized agent present at the time of the tow, Stryker Towing is in violation of MBC 4.31.100.
Stryker Towing is in violation of BMC 4.32.110.
BMC 4.32.110 provides that “It shall be unlawful for any tow business or two truck operator to tow a vehicle unless the parking lot in which the vehicle is parked has signage, posted in plain view and visible to the public at each entrance and exit. . . .”
There was no signage at the entrance nor exit of the parking lot. Furthermore, the signage on the building says “I-MECHANIC PARKING ONLY 9:00 AM – 7:00 PM”. We went to get ice cream at 9:20 PM. Therefore, the towing of my car at that time is unlawful.
Stryker Towing is in violation of BMC 4.32.120.
BMC 4.32.120 provides that “A towing company and tow truck operator shall allow the vehicle’s owner a reasonable amount of time to inspect the vehicle or to remove or retrieve personal property or possessions that are not affixed from a vehicle. The inspection or retrieval of possessions may be at the scene of the tow or at the vehicle storage facility prior to payment. . . .”
In my case, the driver did not allow me a reasonable amount of time to inspect the vehicle. Upon arriving at the scene, he continued to strap my wheels, and said: “You can take as many pictures as you want, I already took them, but if I get these straps on these wheels, I’m towing your car and you won’t get it until tomorrow.”
Stryker Towing is in violation of BMC 4.32.120.
BMC 4.32.120 provides that “When the owner or operator of a motor vehicle is present and desires to instead personally operate and remove his/her own vehicle from a parking lot before the vehicle is in the process of being towed, the vehicle shall not be towed nor shall any fee be charged. However, when the owner or operator of a motor vehicle arrives at the location of the motor vehicle when it is already in the process of being towed, the towing company shall, pursuant to Indiana Code § 24-14-4-4, give the owner or operator either oral or written notification that the owner or operator may pay a fee in the amount that is not greater than half of the amount of the fee the towing company may normally charge for the immediate release of a motor vehicle. For purposes of this section, a motor vehicle is in the process of being towed when it is attached to the tow truck and at least two tires of the vehicle are off the ground.”
BMC 4.32.130 provides that “For the towing of a vehicle, the maximum fee shall be one hundred and thirty-five dollars ($135.00); fees for special treatment, including dollying, shall not exceed an additional twenty-five dollars ($25.00).
In my case, my car was in the process of being towed. According to the code, they may charge me for a fee that is “not greater than half of the amount of the fee the towing company may normally charge”. However, they charged me $160, which is the maximum amount of fee they can charge according to the code.
Stryker Towing is in violation of BMC 4.32.140; Indiana Code § 24-14-7-2; Indiana Code § 24-14-4-4.
BMC 4.32.140 provides that “A two business that tows a vehicle under this article shall accept payment for towing and storage fees pursuant to Indiana Code § 24-14-7-2.”
Indiana Code § 24-14-7-2 provides that “A towing company or storage facility, upon receiving payment for all costs and fees assessed against a motor vehicle, shall provide an itemized receipt that includes the information described under IC 24-14-5 if the information is available.”
Indiana Code § 24-14-4-4 provides that “Upon the owner’s or operator’s payment of the amount specified, the towing company shall: (1) release the motor vehicle to the owner or operator; and (2) give the owner or operator a receipt showing: (A) the full amount of the fee the towing company normally charges for the release of a motor vehicle; and (B) the amount of the fee paid by the owner or operator.”
In my case, I was not given any sort of receipt. Therefore, they violated BMC 4.32.140; IC 24-14-7-2; IC 24-14-4-4.
Conclusion:
Stryker Towing unlawfully towed two ladies' car and also tried to tow my car and unlawfully charged me $160. They were also in violation of multiple Bloomington Municipal Codes and Indiana Codes.
- Case Date:
- 2/28/2016
LAWFULLY CLAIMED.
I, Robierre Jomo Kenyatta McNeil, Hereby declare that Robierre Jomo Kenyatta McNeil am/a/are "sovereign" Hebrew Israelite(s) de jure American national(s) of one of the nation/state, originally born as a de jure national of one of the nation/state...
So called African-American, Negro, Black, Colored etc are fake nationalities with no languages of their own and no such nation of people exit.,
Africa is one continent with fifty (50) plus countries and is not a nationality nor does it has its own language. America is three continents, North, South, and Central American, they are not nationalities nor do they have their own language. Negro, Black, Colored etc are all labels, neither are nationalities and not one of them have its own language.
According to the United Nations Human Rights Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, everyone has the right to a nationality. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality.
States shall introduce safeguards to prevent statelessness by granting their nationality to persons who would otherwise be stateless and are either born in their territory or are born abroad to one of their nationals. States shall also prevent statelessness upon loss or deprivation of nationality.
http://www.ohchr.org/…/RuleOfLaw/Pages/RightNationality.aspx
So called African-American, Negro, Black, Colored etc is a fiction and stateless national people of the UNITED STATES Federal government democracy under the Fourteenth Amendment pursuant to the UNITED STATES CODE 8 USC § 1101(a)(22), The term "national" of the United States means
(A) a citizen of the United States, or
(B) a person who, though not a citizen of the United States, owes permanent allegiance to the United States.
A nation of Sovereign Hebrew Israelite American Nationals republics are being murdered everyday in the streets with impunity under disguise of so called African-American, Negro, Black, Colored etc slaves by Europeans inquisition occupying foreign land acting outside of the organic constitutional fold of government under color of law
So called African-American, Negro, Black, Colored etc are now declaring their true and rightful status as Sovereign Hebrew Israelite American Nationals republics individually and collectively as a nation free born of the several union states of the United States of America republic pursuant to UNITED STATES CODE 8 USC § 1101(a)(21), The term “national” means a person owing permanent allegiance to a state”
I, Robierre Jomo Kenyatta McNeil, Hereby declare that Robierre Jomo Kenyatta McNeil am/a/are "sovereign" Hebrew Israelite(s) de jure American national(s) of one of the nation/state, originally born as a de jure national of one of the nation/state...
"COUNTRY: By country is meant the state of which one is a member. Every man's country is in general the state in which he happens to have been born." Bouvier's Law, 1856, Title 8, USC 1101(a)(21), 1984 U.S. government Style manual, chapter 5.22/5.23, Law of Nations.
Country: "The portion of earth's surface occupied by an independent nation or people, or the inhabitants of such territory." Blacks Law Dictionary, 4th edition.
Country: "The territory occupied by an independent nation or people, or the inhabitants of such territory. In the primary meaning of "country" denotes the population, the nation, the state, or the government, having possession and dominion over a territory." Blacks Law Dictionary, 6th Edition.
"A nation-state is a specific form of state (a political entity), which exists to provide a sovereign territory for a particular nation (a cultural entity), and which derives its legitimacy from that function. The compact OED defines it as: "a sovereign state of which most of the citizens or subjects are united also by factors which define a nation, such as language or common descent." Typically it is a unitary state with a single system of law and government. It is almost by definition a sovereign state, meaning that there is no external authority above the state itself." Wikipedia Encyclopedia.
"In regard to the protection of our citizens in their rights at home and abroad we have no law which divides them into classes, or makes any difference whatever between. A native and a naturalized American may, therefore, go forth with equal security over every sea and through every land under heaven, including the country in which the latter was born." 9 Op. (US) Att.-Gen. 360 (1859).
All 50 states of the union are "nations" according to law, and hold sovereign rights above any "United States government" nation rights. All nationals of these nation/states are sovereign and hold all rights of common law and the organic Constitution.
The 14th Amendment created a "Federal nation" as compared to the sovereign "state nations" comprised of the 50 sovereign states of the union. This Amendment created a de facto citizenship which every Israelite American "became" through unwitting acquiescence, thereby placing them under "privilege" of such citizenship and also allegiance to, and subject under the laws to same. Case law supports this premise.
Section. 1. (Clause one) All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they "reside." (Clause two) No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; (Clause three) nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
1. Section. 1. (Clause one) All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
This clearly creates a de facto "dual citizenship" status never before existing for the sovereign state citizens:
Dual Citizenship: Citizenship in two different countries. Status of citizens of the United States who reside within a state; i.e. persons who are born or naturalized in the United States are citizens of the United States and the State wherein they reside." Blacks Law Dictionary, 6th edition.
Naturalized: "To grant full citizenship to (one of foreign birth). American Heritage Dictionary
Prior to the 14th Amendment "citizens of the United States" meant a "citizen" of one of the United States of America, however, this was NOT defined by Congress.** Because this phrase is NOW used in the 14th amendment, this sets forth a specific terminology and can no longer mean anything else, other than a "citizen of the federal government..." a "United States Citizen" naturalized as such at birth without informed consent.
**Previous court case law touched on this de facto entity, the "Citizen of the United States," in Ex Parte- Frank Knowles, California Supreme Court, July term - 1885. In this case the court stated that there was no such thing as a "citizen of the United States," that is, to say, there was no such thing as a citizen of the Federal State, only a citizen of one of the united states.
"... This section (section 1) contemplates two sources of citizenship and two sources only: birth and naturalization. The persons declared to be citizens are "All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof." The evident meaning of these last words is, not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction and owing them direct and immediate allegiance..." Elk v Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 (1884).
The use of the words, "their" and "them" indicates a de facto power created to be ABOVE the Israelite American People, something NO Israelite American willingly accepts and no organic law supports.
"... and whereas it is claimed that such American citizens, with their descendants, are subjects of foreign states, (foreign to the United States) owing allegiance to the governments (of the states) thereof; and whereas it is necessary to the maintenance of public peace that this claim of foreign allegiance "should" be promptly and finally disavowed." Preamble of the Expatriation Act.
Case law prior to 14th Amendment passage:
("Should" indicates no such legal requirement exists, but is what they want all de jure citizens to do.)
"... for it is certain, that in the sense in which the word "Citizen" is used in the federal Constitution, "Citizen of each State," and "Citizen of the United States," are convertible terms; they mean the same thing; for the "Citizens of each State are entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States," and "Citizens of the United States" are, of course, Citizens of all the United States." [44 Maine 518 (1859) Hathaway, J. dissenting] Italics in original, underlines and C's added]
Case law AFTER passage of the 14th Amendment:
"It is quite clear, then, that there is a citizenship of the United States and a citizenship of a State, which are distinct from each other and which depend upon different characteristics or circumstances in the individual." [Slaughter House Cases, 83 U.S. 36] (1873)
"The first clause of the fourteenth amendment made so called African-Americans, Negroes,, Black People Black Folks, Colored People, Colored Folks, etc citizens of the United States, and citizens of the State in which they reside, and thereby created two classes of citizens, one of the United States and the other of the state." Cory et al. V. Carter, 48 Ind. 327 1874 head note 8 - emphasis added.
"We have in our political system a Government of the United States and a government of each of the several States. Each one of these governments is distinct from the others, and each has citizens of its own...." U.S. v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 1875. Emphasis added.
"One may be a citizen of a State and yet not a citizen of the United States." Thomas v. State, 15 Ind. 449; Cory v. Carter, 48 Ind. 327 (17 Am. R. 738); McCarthy v. Froelke, 63 Ind. 507; In Re Wehlitz, 16 Wis. 443. McDonel v. State, 90 Ind. 320, 323, 1883.
I/we Israelites applied for no such dual citizenship of the insurgent United States de facto government, (created about the time of the so-called "civil" war, which was actually an International war against the sovereign nation/states of the union) apart from or in addition to, my/our natural born Israelite American de jure nationality received at birth. I/we Israelite(s) reject such de facto citizenship of the United States, and retain my/our de jure Israelite American nationality of the sovereign nation/state in which I/we Israelite(s) am/are domiciled at any given time, based on my/our original Israelite American de jure nation/state nationality. Law of Nations; Title 8 USC 1101 (a)(21)
Section 1, (Clause two) " No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States"
This portion of section 1 clearly defines that such "United States de facto citizens" do not have natural rights, but are "granted" privileges for being such a de facto citizen, thereby removing them from de jure status as Israelite American nationals of their respective states, including all natural rights such sovereigns would otherwise enjoy. Government does NOT grant natural rights, it is to UPHOLD them.
"... all naturalized citizens of the United States, while in "foreign states," (one of the several American Republics) shall be entitled to, and shall receive from this government, the same protection of persons and property that is accorded to native born citizens in like situations and circumstances." Expatriation Act, Section 2.
"The term "foreign states" includes outlying possessions of a foreign state, but self-governed dominions or territories under mandate or trusteeship shall be regarded as separate foreign states." Title 8 USC 1101(a)(14)
This is trying to imply that all de facto citizens of the de facto United Stated are being given all the same de jure rights that de jure citizens (read NON-citizens of the United States but citizens of de jure states) have, but this is NOT true as all U.S. citizens are under the jurisdiction of the United States and all "its" laws. These "privileges and immunities" are NOT the same as the ones secured by Article IV, Section 2 of the organic Constitution for NON-14th amendment citizens.
"Citizens are members of a political community who, in their associated capacity, have established or submitted themselves to the dominion of a government for the promotion of their general welfare and the protection of their individual as well as collective rights. The citizen cannot complain, because he has voluntarily submitted himself to such a form of government... he owes allegiance to the two departments, so to speak, and within their respective spheres must pay the penalties." U.S. v Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875).
This makes all 14th amendment states, dependencies of the federal government, and as such, "colonies of the same:
Colony. A dependent political community, consisting of a number of citizens of the same country who have emigrated therefrom to people another, and remain subject to the mother country. Territory attached to another nation, known as the mother country, with political and economic ties e.g. possessions or dependencies of the British Crown. (e.g. Original 13 colonies of the united states).
The Neutrality Act of 1939, Preamble, Title 8 USC and Title 22, USC all set forth two different jurisdictions; the de jure jurisdiction, under the constitution, and the de facto jurisdiction, under the 14th amendment.
Upon birth, under 14th amendment rules, all Israelite Americans are fictionally (by paper Birth Certificate) transported to Washington D.C., then fictionally (by paper Birth Certificate) transported back to the State wherein they "reside." This quick change of citizenship is done without knowing approval and by fraud, and takes all Israelites who submit to such, OUT of being a sovereign Israelites de jure American nationals of the state of their birth and INTO the de facto "residential" jurisdiction of the federal government and de facto United States within the several states.
If one is naturally born into a state/nation, he has NOT legally submitted to such. I/we Israelites have NOT knowingly accepted the "naturalized citizenship" of the 14th amendment related to the United States and reject this de facto fraud.
Usurpation, government. "The tyrannical assumption of the government by force contrary to and in violation of the constitution of the country." Bouvier's Law Dictionary, 1856.
The United States has accomplished this through legal fraud, deceit and Israelite American's unwitting acceptance of the same through ignorance. I/we Israelite(s) no longer wish to rebel against my/our nation/state and accept the de jure natural and common law jurisdiction which resides with the Israelite People.
3. I/we am/are a sovereign, independent, sui juris live, breathing, flesh and blood Israelites man/woman, NOT having allegiance to the "United States" corporate structure NOR to federal jurisdiction, and not to "state" jurisdictional powers not afforded it by the organic Constitution.
sui juris: "One who has all the rights to which a free individual is entitled; one who is not under the power of another, as a slave, a minor, and the like." Bouvier's Law
sui juris: "Every one of full age is presumed to be sui juris. Of full capacity. In his own right; capable of entering into a contract. Ballentine's Law Dictionary.
"In common usage, the term "person" does not include the Sovereign, statutes employing the word person are ordinarily construed to exclude the Sovereign." Wilson v. Omaha Tribe, 442 U. S. 653, 667 (1979) (quoting United States v. Cooper Corp., 312 U. S. 600, 604 (1941)). See also United States v. Mine Workers, 330 U. S. 258, 275 (1947).
Supreme Court Case quotes:
"The idea that the word 'person' ordinarily excludes the Sovereign can also be traced to the familiar principle that the King is not bound by any act of Parliament unless he be named therein by special and particular words." Dollar Savings Bank v. United STATEs, 19 Wall. 227, 239 (1874).
As this passage suggests, however, this interpretive principle applies only to "the enacting Sovereign." United States v. California, 297 U. S. 175, 186 (1936). See also Jefferson County Pharmaceutical Assn., Inc. v. Abbott Laboratories, 460 U. S. 150, 161, n. 21 (1983).
Furthermore, as explained in United States v. Herron, 20 Wall. 251, 255 (1874), even the principle as applied to the enacting Sovereign is not without limitations: "Where an act of Parliament is made for the public good, as for the advancement of religion and justice or to prevent injury and wrong, the king is bound by such act, though not particularly named therein; but where a statute is general, and thereby any prerogative, Right, title, or interest is divested or taken from the king, in such case the king is not bound, unless the statute is made to extend to him by express words."
"A Sovereign is exempt from suit, not because of any formal conception or obsolete theory, but on the logical and practical ground that there can be no legal Right as against the authority that makes the law on which the Right depends." Kawananakoa v. Polyblank, 205 U. S. 349, 353, 27 S. Ct. 526, 527, 51 L. Ed. 834 (1907).
"The majority of American States fully embrace the Sovereign immunity theory as well as the federal government. See Restatement (Second) of Torts 895B, comment at 400 (1979)."
I/we Israelites shall have occasion incidentally to evince, how true it is, that States and governments were made for Israelite man/woman; and at the same time how true it is, that his creatures and servants have first deceived, next vilified, and at last oppressed their master and maker."
"... A STATE, useful and valuable as the contrivance is, is the inferior contrivance of man; and from his native dignity derives all its acquired importance. ... "
"Let a STATE be considered as subordinate to the people: But let everything else be subordinate to the STATE. The latter part of this position is equally necessary with the former. For in the practice, and even at length, in the science of politics there has very frequently been a strong current against the natural order of things, and an inconsiderate or an interested disposition to sacrifice the end to the means. As the STATE has claimed precedence of the people; so, in the same inverted course of things, the government has often claimed precedence of the STATE; and to this perversion in the second degree, many of the volumes of confusion concerning Sovereignty owe their existence. The ministers, dignified very properly by the appellation of the magistrates, have wished, and have succeeded in their wish, to be considered as the Sovereigns of the STATE. This second degree of perversion is confined to the old world, and begins to diminish even there: but the first degree is still too prevalent even in the several STATEs, of which our union is composed. By a STATE I mean, a complete body of free persons united together for their common benefit, to enjoy peaceably what is their own, and to do justice to others. It is an artificial person. It has its affairs and its interests: It has its rules: It has its Rights: and it has its obligations. It may acquire property distinct from that of its members. It may incur debts to be discharged out of the public stock, not out of the private fortunes of individuals. It may be bound by contracts; and for damages arising from the breach of those contracts. In all our contemplations, however, concerning this feigned and artificial person, we should never forget, that, in truth and nature, those who think and speak and act, are men. Is the foregoing description of a STATE a true description? It will not be questioned, but it is. ..."
"It will be sufficient to observe briefly, that the Sovereignties in Europe, and particularly in England, exist on feudal principles. That system considers the prince as the Sovereign, and the people as his subjects; it regards his person as the object of allegiance, and excludes the idea of his being on an equal footing with a subject, either in a court of justice or elsewhere. That system contemplates him as being the fountain of honor and authority; and from his grace and grant derives all franchise, immunities and privileges; it is easy to perceive that such a Sovereign could not be amenable to a court of justice, or subjected to judicial control and actual constraint. It was of necessity, therefore, that suability, became incompatible with such Sovereignty. Besides, the prince having all the executive powers, the judgment of the courts would, in fact, be only monitory, not mandatory to him, and a capacity to be advised, is a distinct thing from a capacity to be sued. The same feudal ideas run through all their jurisprudence, and constantly remind us of the distinction between the prince and the subject."
"No such ideas obtain here (speaking of America): at the revolution, the Sovereignty devolved on the people; and they are truly the Sovereigns of the country, but they are Sovereigns without subjects (unless the African slaves among us may be so called) and have none to govern but themselves; the citizens of America are equal as fellow citizens, and as joint tenants in the Sovereignty." Chisholm v. Georgia (February Term, 1793) 2 U. S. 419, 2 Dall. 419, 1 L. Ed 440.
"The individual may stand upon his constitutional Rights as a citizen. He is entitled to carry on his private business in his own way. His power to contract is unlimited. He owes no such duty [to submit his books and papers for an examination] to the STATE, since he receives nothing therefrom, beyond the protection of his life and property. His Rights are such as existed by the law of the land [Common Law] 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 a refusal to incriminate himself, and the immunity of himself and his property from arrest or seizure except under a warrant of the law. He owes nothing to the public so long as he does not trespass upon their Rights." Hale v. Henkel, 201 U. S. 43 at 47 (1905).
My/our Israelite rights of expatriation from "United States nationality" for recovery of my/our de jure Israelite American national several united states of America nationality is covered in Title 8 USC 1481 (a) and Title 8 USC 1502 which I/we hereby claim.
I/we declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed in the United States of America of the several states republic, the date of this petition or my own signed and dated :"DECLARATION OF SOVEREIGN HEBREW ISRAELITE AMERICAN NATIONAL STATUS TO THE WORLD" document.
Signature is in accord with UCC §§ 1-201 (39), UCC 3-401(b)
ELECTRONIC Signature ________ROBIERRE JOMO KENYATTA MCNEIL_______________________________ date _02/25/2016__2:01PM_______
Sovereign Hebrew Israelite American National name 28 U.S. Code § 1746(1)
LETTER TO
Governor of New Jersey Chris Christie
Governer of Ohio John Kasich
Governor Terry McAuliffe
and 56 others
Missouri Governor
Massachusetts Governor
Maryland Governor
Florida Governor
District Of Columbia Governor
Governor Dennis Daugaard
Governor Dannel Malloy
Governor Paul LePage
Governor Mark Dayton
Governor John Kitzhaber
Governor Matt Mead
Governor Brian Sandoval
North Dakota Governor
Pennsylvania Governor
Governor Asa Hutchinson
Governor Douglas Ducey
Governor Bill Walker
Governor Gina Raimondo
Governor Pete Ricketts
Governor Bruce Rauner
Governor David Ige
Virgin Islands Governor
Northern Mariana Islands Governor
Guam Governor
American Samoa Governor
Texas Governor
Governor Susana Martinez
Governor Rick Snyder
Governor Bill Haslam
Governor Nikki Haley
Governor Earl Tomblin
Governor Peter Shumlin
Governor Jay Inslee
Governor Margaret Hassan
Governor Steve Bullock
Governor Dewey Bryant
Governor Mike Pence
Governor C.L. Otter
Governor Sam Brownback
President Barack Obama
Governor Mary Fallin
Governor Steven Beshear
Governor Bobby Jindal
Governor Terry Branstad
Governor Scott Walker
Governor John Hickenlooper
Governor Andrew Cuomo
Governor Jerry Brown
Governor John Kasich
Governor Chris Christie
Governor Gary Herbert
Governor Jack Markell
Governor Alejandro Garcia Padilla
Governor Patrick McCrory
Governor Robert Bentley
Governor Nathan Deal
Lawfully to include but not limited to recognize the so called African-Americans, Negroes, Blacks, Coloreds, etc as Sovereign.