Our Lost Right to Travel by Automobile

If you are observant, you've noticed that some cars have license plates. And some drivers have licenses. Don't be fooled. According to courts: no state can require a driver's license to travel in a private vehicle. As we shall see, driver licenses are only for commercial purposes. Everyone has a right to travel on public roads, yet no one has a right to use public roads to make a profit.

A license plate is proof that the government owns the car. A "Certificate of Title" is not a title. A Certificate of Title is a statement by the owner stating that title exists. Those who have overthrown your government now own "your" car. Unfortunately, you exchanged ownership of the vehicle for the plates that they force you to put on their car. The Manufacturer's Statement of Origin was the title, but you surrendered it in order to be a “registered owner” or “Legal Owner”.

Don't be fooled by lawyer weasel words. Phrases like "Legal Title" and "Legal Owner" DO NOT recognize any "beneficial interest in the property, another person being equitably entitled thereto". You don't have rights to their car except those few rights that you can enforce in their courts.

legal title

legal owner

The term "legal owner" did not show up in Black's Law Dictionary until the 1979 edition. Notice that "the title may actually carry no rights to the property."

Since they own the car, their police can pull over their car for any reason and demand proof that that you are complying with the rules that you agreed to. You can even be handcuffed and jailed for failing to wear a seatbelt in their car. People have been tasered for not wearing a seatbelt. They can impound their car for almost any reason and force you to pay the impound fees, because you pre-agreed to pay when you registered their car.

Since they own the car, their agents can go into your driveway and put a GPS tracking device on "your" car, without a warrant and without your knowledge. The Fourth Amendment privacy does not apply to "your" car in your driveway. Click here.

Since they own the car, their police can arrest innocent people standing near it who do not have ID (which would otherwise be abhorrent in the United States according to the Aptheker case quoted below).Hiibel v. Nevada

Since they own the car, some states have a mandatory 90-day impound of any car driven by someone without a license. Courts don't get involved unless the 'owner' wants to prove that he didn't know the driver was unlicensed. Otherwise it will cost you thousands of dollars in impound fees.

Note: a lawyer's contrary opinion about the Manufacturer’s Certificate of Origin can be found at

http://home.hiwaay.net/~becraft/MCOs.htm.

He quotes Colorado law on other purposes of the MCO, and he quotes federal regulations that show that MCOs can be used for export tariff purposes. Then he jumps to a conclusion that MCO is not a title. And that, somehow, merely suggesting the MCO is proof of government title is a "wild and groundless theory"

If he is correct, then States would accept a notarized copy as proof of ownership, and they would return the manufacturer's certificate (just the same way that they return your birth certificate).

If he is correct, then States would need judicial authority to impound a car for 90 days without any recourse by the "owner". How come it is a "wild and groundless theory" for me to suggest the state owns the car, but a silent presumption if the state implies it?

Certainly an MCO is proof that the vehicle is used in commerce, which makes it a government regulated privilege. No one has a right to use public roads for commercial purposes. Yet everyone has a right to travel on public roads. (just like an arm is not a firearm until it gets a serial number and is registered in commerce. Everyone has a right to keep an bear arms, NO ONE has a right to keep or bear firearms.)

He also fails to mention the difference between equitable title from legal title.

The real erosion of basic human rights began with driver licenses. Large cities, not states, were enforcing Rules of the Road since 1903, long before driver licenses existed, and before there were any paved highways between cities. But the politically powerful wanted to control everyone, so they had to trick you into waiving your rights.

The definition of Liberty IS the definition of travel. It is the same right. Black's Law Dictionary, first edition gives us the definition of personal liberty as it had always existed:

personal liberty

This was the definition of personal liberty that exists in the received law-of-the-land. The lawyers then changed their definition in the1933 edition of Black's Law Dictionary -- long after the thirteenth amendment -- to a definition of liberty that they claim is guaranteed by the thirteenth amendment.

Government was created to protect rights. The Supreme Court keeps saying over and over again that the right to travel on the public roads cannot be regulated. Ever since Nevada tried to tax people in stage coaches in Crandall v. Nevada 73 US 35.

By getting a license, you waive your right to travel in their (or any) commercial vehicle. By getting a license you are no longer protected by the constitution.

The federal definition of Motor Vehicle: 18 USC Part 1 Chapter 2 section 31 definitions:

"(6) Motor vehicle. - The term "motor vehicle" means every description of carriage or other contrivance propelled or drawn by mechanical power and used for commercial purposes on the highways…"

"(10) "Used for commercial purposes." Means the carriage of persons or property for any fare, fee, rate, charge or other consideration, or directly or indirectly in connection with any business, or other undertaking intended for profit"

Your state will have a similar definition, but it will be hidden. Government is allowed to regulate commercial use of the roads, but cannot prohibit travel. Look for the all-important element of "commercial purpose" that makes "driving" a government regulated privilege instead of a right. This all-important element might be hidden in state laws behind the definition of the word carriage, or transport, or traffic. NO ONE has a right to profit from the public roads because driving-for-profit is a government granted privilege. Anything else would be a government restriction of liberty, and contrary to the purpose of government.

U.S. Supreme Court in Packard v. Banton, 264 U.S. 140, 144:

"The right to travel interstate by auto vehicle upon the public highways may be a privilege or immunity of citizens of the United States."

"A citizen may have, under the Fourteenth Amendment, the right to travel and transport his property upon them by auto vehicle. But he has no right to make the highways his place of business by using them as a common carrier for hire. Such use is a privilege which may be granted or withheld by the state in its discretion, without violating either the due process clause or the equal protection clause."

11 Am Jur, Constitutional Law, section 329, page 1135:

"The right of a 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 a common right which he has under his right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Under this constitutional guaranty one may, therefore, under normal conditions, travel at his inclination along the public highways or in public places, and while conducting himself in an orderly and decent manner, neither interfering with nor disturbing another's rights, he will be protected, not only in his person, but in his safe conduct."

That's right. Police must protect you in your safe conduct as you drive without a license. Don’t claim to live in a free country if you have never seen liberty.

The United States Supreme Court in Aptheker v. Secretary Of State, 378 U.S. 500 (1964):

At page 519:

"...the right to move freely from State to State is a privilege and immunity of national citizenship (see Edwards v. California, 314 U.S. 160, 178 ), none can be barred from exercising it, ... But the right remains sacrosanct, only illegal conduct being punishable.

Free movement by the citizen is of course as dangerous to a tyrant as free expression of ideas or the right of assembly and it is therefore controlled in most countries in the interests of security. … That is why the ticketing of people and the use of identification papers are routine matters under totalitarian regimes, yet abhorrent in the United States.”

Freedom of movement, at home and abroad, is important for job and business opportunities - for cultural, [378 U.S. 500, 520] political, and social activities - for all the commingling which gregarious man enjoys. Those with the right of free movement use it at times for mischievous purposes. But that is true of many liberties we enjoy. We nevertheless place our faith in them, and against restraint, knowing that the risk of abusing liberty so as to give rise to punishable conduct is part of the price we pay for this free society.

“Freedom of movement is kin to the right of assembly and to the right of association. These rights may not be abridged, ..."

“… Absent war, I see no way to keep a citizen from traveling within or without the country, unless there is power to detain him. Ex parte Endo, 323 U.S. 283 . And no authority to detain exists except under extreme conditions, e. g., unless he has been convicted of a crime or unless there is probable cause for issuing a warrant of arrest by standards of the Fourth Amendment. This freedom of movement is the very essence of our free society, setting us apart. Like the right of assembly and the right of association, it often makes all other rights meaningful - knowing, studying, arguing, exploring, conversing, observing and even thinking. Once the right to travel is curtailed, all other rights suffer, …”

The Declaration of Independence uses the phrase "sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people" as a legitimate reason to overthrow their government in 1776 -- and bring forth on this continent a new nation conceived in liberty. Today, most swarms of officers are untrained and more than willing to beat you like Rodney King if you do not surrender your car and your liberty.

A 1979 California case, re White, 97 Cal.App.3d.141, 158 Cal.Rptr. 562, 566-67 (1979) determined that

"… the right of the citizen to drive on a public street with freedom from police interference… is a fundamental constitutional right"

Don't be fooled by the term motor vehicle

Ex Parte Hoffert, 148 NW 20:

"Thus self-driven vehicles are classified according to the use to which they are put rather than according to the means by which they are propelled"

The right to travel by foot on public roads was upheld by the US Supreme Court in a famous civil rights case where the City of Birmingham required protesters to get a parade permit; Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham 394 U.S. 147 (1969).

"Persons faced with an unconstitutional licensing law which purports to require a license as a prerequisite to exercise of right... may ignore the law and engage with impunity in exercise of such right."

A Supreme Court sidewalk case, US Supreme Court in Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 US 105 (1943) said that:

· "A state may not... impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the Federal constitution."

· "The power to tax the exercise of a privilege is the power to suppress its enjoyment. ... Those who can tax the exercise of this practice can make its exercise so costly as to deprive it of the resources necessary for its maintenance. Those who can tax the privilege ... can close the doors to all those who do not have a full purse."

Brookfield Const. Co. v. Stewart, 284 F.Supp 94:

"An officer who acts in violation of the Constitution ceases to represent the government."

U.S. Supreme Court in Wright v. Georgia, 373 U.S. 284, 291-2:

"Failure to obey the command of a police officer constitutes a traditional form of breach of the peace. Obviously, however, one cannot be punished for failing to obey the command of an officer if that command is itself violative of the constitution"

We should keep government off the streets. Paving the streets is not even a government function (except the Constitution allows public funds to "maintain" federal post roads). The first street paved in America was Stone Street in New York City. It was paved with cobblestones by local breweries to keep their delivery wagons from sinking in the mud. Again: Paving streets is not a governmental function.

Cars have license plates. They have license plates because they need government permission to be on the road. But they only need license plates if they are engaged in government regulated commerce -- to profit from the use of public roads. Once they are regulated in commerce (have a license plate), they never have the right of way. Pedestrians and bicyclists always have the right of way over licensed vehicles, because the right to travel is a liberty.

"The right of traffic or the transmission of property, as an absolute inalienable right, is one which has never existed since governments were instituted, and never can exist under government." Wynehamer v. NY, 13 N.Y. 378, 481.

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." According to Benjamin Franklin, November 11, 1755; Reply to the Governor. This is inscribed on a plaque in the stairwell of the Statute of Liberty.

US Supreme Court, Laird v. Tatum, 408 US 1, page 28:

"The Constitution was designed to keep the government off the backs of the people."

* "The citizen cannot complain, because he has voluntarily submitted himself to such a form of government." -- US Supreme Court 92 US@551

Report any factual errors to Steven D. Miller.

I have received the following information by email. I don't know how accurate they are, nor the original sources. I've edited them to remove some obvious errors. Please don't use anything until you verify the accuracy for yourself.

The following information is from this source

Americans have the constitutional right to travel which is protected by the U.S. Constitution; see

Crandall v. Nevada, 73 U.S. (6 Wall.) 35, 49 (1868)(“We are all citizens of the United States, and as members of the same community must have the right to pass and repass through every part of it without interruption, as freely as in our own states”);

Kent v. Dulles, 357 U.S. 116, 125, 78 S.Ct. 1113, 1118 (1958)("The right to travel is a part of the ‘liberty’ of which the citizen cannot be deprived without the due process of law under the Fifth Amendment");

United States v. Guest, 383 U.S. 745, 757, 86 S.Ct. 1170, 1178 (1966)(“The constitutional right to travel from one State to another, and necessarily to use the highways and other instrumentalities of interstate commerce in doing so, occupies a position fundamental to the concept of our Federal Union”);

Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618, 629, 89 S.Ct. 1322, 1329 (1969) (“This Court long ago recognized that the nature of our Federal Union and our constitutional concepts of personal liberty unite to require that all citizens be free to travel throughout the length and breadth of our land uninhibited by statutes, rules, or regulations which unreasonably burden or restrict this movement”);

Dunn v. Blumstein, 405 U.S. 330, 339, 92 S.Ct. 995, 1001 (1972)(“...since the right to travel was a constitutionally protected right, ‘any classification which serves to penalize the exercise of that right, unless shown to be necessary to promote a compelling governmental interest, is unconstitutional’”); and

Memorial Hospital v. Maricopa County, 415 U.S. 250, 254, 94 S.Ct. 1076, 1080 (1974)(“The right of interstate travel has repeatedly been recognized as a basic constitutional freedom”).

See also Schachtman v. Dulles, 225 F.2d 938,941 (D.C.Cir. 1955)("The right to travel, to go from place to place as the means of transportation permit, is a natural right subject to the rights of others and to reasonable regulation under law”); Worthy v. Herter, 270 F.2d 905, 908 (D.C.Cir. 1959)(“The right to travel is a part of the right to liberty”); Cole v. Housing Authority of City of Newport, 435 F.2d 807, 809 (1st Cir. 1970)(“...the right to travel is a fundamental personal right that can be impinged only if to do so is necessary to promote a compelling governmental interest”); King v. New Rochelle Municipal Housing Authority, 442 F.2d 646, 648 (2nd Cir. 1971)(“It would be meaningless to describe the right to travel between states as a fundamental precept of personal liberty and not to acknowledge a correlative constitutional right to travel within a state”); Demiragh v. DeVos, 476 F.2d 403, 405 (2nd Cir. 1973)(“...the right to travel... [is] a ‘fundamental’ one, requiring the showing of a ‘compelling’ state or local interest to warrant its limitation”); United States v. Davis, 482 F.2d 893, 912 (9th Cir. 1973)(“...it is firmly settled that freedom to travel at home and abroad without unreasonable governmental restriction is a fundamental constitutional right of every American citizen... At the minimum, governmental restrictions upon freedom to travel are to be weighed against the necessity advanced to justify them, and a restriction that burdens the right to travel ‘too broadly and indiscriminately’ cannot be sustained”); McLellan v. Miss. Power & Light Co., 545 F.2d 919, 923 n. 8 (5th Cir. 1977)(“The Constitutional right to travel is ‘among the rights and privileges of National citizenship’”); Andre v. Board of Trustees of Village of Maywood, 561 F.2d 48, 52 (7th Cir. 1977)(“The right to travel interstate, although nowhere expressed in the Constitution, has long been recognized as a basic fundamental right”); Wellford v. Battaglia, 343 F.Supp. 143, 147 (D.Del. 1972)(“The right to travel... is a right to intrastate as well as interstate migration”); Costa v. Bluegrass Turf Service, Inc., 406 F.Supp. 1003, 1007 (E.D.Ken. 1975)(“...pure administrative convenience, standing alone, is an insufficient basis for an enactment which ... restricts the right to travel”); Coolman v. Robinson, 452 F.Supp. 1324, 1326 (N.D.Ind. 1978)(“The right to travel is a very old and well established constitutional right”); Tetalman v. Holiday Inn, 500 F.Supp. 217, 218 (N.D.Ga. 1980)(the “constitutionally protected right to travel ... is basically the right to travel unrestricted by unreasonable government interference or regulation”); Bergman v. United States, 565 F.Supp. 1353, 1397 (W.D. Mich. 1983)(“The right to travel interstate is a basic, fundamental right under the Constitution, its origins premised upon a variety of constitutional provisions”); Lee v. China Airlines, Ltd., 669 F.Supp. 979, 982 (C.D.Cal. 1987)(“...the right to travel interstate is fundamental”); and Pottinger v. City of Miami, 810 F.Supp. 1551, 1578-79 (S.D.Fla. 1992).

This right to travel is also a constitutional right under many state constitutions, embodied within various “liberty” provisions; see Joseph v. Randolph, 71 Ala. 499, 504-05 (1882)("There can be no denial of the general proposition that every citizen of the United States, and every citizen of each State of the Union, as an attribute of personal liberty, has the right, ordinarily, of free transit from, or through the territory of any State. This freedom of egress or ingress is guaranteed to all by the clearest implications of the Federal, as well as of the State constitution"). This constitutional right to travel is widely recognized; see State v. Wylie, 516 P.2d 142, 145-46 (Alaska 1973)(“...the freedom to travel throughout the United States ‘uninhibited by statutes, rules, or regulations which unreasonably burden or restrict this movement’ is a fundamental personal right under the United States Constitution ... [and] ‘any classification which serves to penalize the exercise of that right, unless shown to be necessary to promote a compelling governmental interest, is unconstitutional’”); People v. Horton, 14 CalApp.3d 930, 92 Cal.Rptr. 666, 668 (1971)(“...the right of the citizen to drive on a public street with freedom from police interference ... is a fundamental constitutional right”); In re White, 97 Cal.App.3d 141, 158 Cal.Rptr. 562, 566-67 (1979)(“...there is a constitutional right to intrastate travel”); Heninger v. Charnes, 200 Colo. 194, 613 P.2d 884, 887 (1980)(“...the right to travel interstate is without question a fundamental right under the United States Constitution”); Florida Motor Lines, Inc. v. Ward, 102 Fla. 1105, 137 So. 163, 167 (Fla. 1931)("The right of a citizen to use the highways, including the streets of the city or town, for travel and to transport his goods, is an inherent right which cannot be taken from him, but it is subject to reasonable regulation in the interest of the public good”); Hall v. King, 266 So.2d 33, 34 (Fla. 1972)(the right to travel “may be restricted only for a compelling state interest”); Chicago Motor Coach Co. v. City of Chicago, 337 Ill. 200, 169 N.E. 22, 25 (1929) ("Even the Legislature has no power to deny a citizen the right to travel upon the highway and transport his property in the ordinary course of his business or pleasure, though this right may be regulated in accordance with the public interest and convenience”); People v. Chambers, 32 Ill.App.3d 444, 335 N.E.2d 612, 617 (1975); Sturrup v. Mahan, 290 N.E.2d 64, 68 (Ind.App. 1972)(“...each citizen, adult or minor, has a fundamental right to move freely from State to State and from City to City within the State”); Swift v. City of Topeka, 43 Kan. 671, 23 P. 1075, 1076 (1890)("This right of the people to the use of the public streets of a city is so well established and so universally recognized in this country that it has become a part of the alphabet of fundamental rights of the citizen"); Manzanares v. Bell, 214 Kan. 589, 522 P.2d 1291,1301 (1974) (“...freedom to travel throughout this state and this nation is a fundamental right”); Town of Milton v. Civil Service Comm., 365 Mass. 368, 312 N.E.2d 188, 191 n. 2 (1974); State v. Moseng, 254 Minn. 263, 95 N.W.2d 6, 13 (1959)(“...one’s inalienable right to liberty and the pursuit of happiness is curtailed if he may be unreasonably kept off the highways maintained by him as a citizen and taxpayer ;... ‘the freedom to make use of one’s own property, here a motor vehicle, as a means of getting about from place to place, whether in pursuit of business or pleasure, is a ‘liberty’ which under the Fourteenth Amendment cannot be denied or curtailed by a state without due process of law.’ In any event, the right of a citizen to drive a motor vehicle upon the highways is to be safeguarded against the whim or caprice of police or administrative officers”); Davis v. Davis, 297 Minn. 187, 210 N.W.2d 221, 223 ( 1973)(“Freedom to travel throughout the United States has long been recognized as a basic right under the Constitution, and the freedom to travel includes the freedom to enter and abide in any state”); Teche Lines, Inc. v. Danforth, 195 Miss. 226, 12 So.2d 784, 787 (1943)(“The right of a 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 his right to enjoy life and liberty, to acquire and possess property, and to pursue happiness and safety.... The rights aforesaid, being fundamental, are constitutional rights, and while the exercise thereof may be reasonably regulated by legislative act in pursuance of the police power of the State, and although those powers are broad, they do not rise above those privileges which are imbedded in the constitutional structure”); State v. Johnson, 75 Mon. 240, 243 P. 1073, 1078 (1926)("...while a citizen has the right to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, that right does not extend to the use of the highways, either in whole or in part, as a place of business for private gain. For the latter purpose no person has a vested right in the use of the highways of the state, but is a privilege or license which the Legislature may grant or withhold in its discretion"); Donnelly v. City of Manchester, 111 N.H. 50, 274 A.2d 789, 791 (1971)(“The right of every citizen to live where he chooses and to travel freely not only within the state but across its borders is a fundamental right”); Gow v. Bingham, 107 N.Y.S. 1011, 1014 (1907)(“...the right of personal liberty ... includes ... absolute freedom to every one to go where and when he pleases”); State v. Dobbins, 277 N.C. 484, 178 S.E.2d 449, 456 (1971)(“...the right to travel upon the public streets of a city is a part of every individual’s liberty”); Fraternal Order of Police, Youngstown Lodge v. Hunter, 36 Ohio Misc. 103, 303 N.E.2d 103, 106 (1973)(“Any classification which serves to penalize the exercise of a constitutional right (freedom of movement across frontiers in either direction and inside frontiers as well) unless shown to be necessary to promote a compelling governmental interest, is unconstitutional”); Cummins v. Jones, 79 Or. 276, 155 P. 171, 172 (1916); Josephine County School District No. 7 v. Oregon School Activities Assoc., 15 Or.App. 185, 515 P.2d 431, 437 (1973)(“...the right to travel intrastate is a right protected from discriminatory regulation to the same extent as is his right to freedom of interstate movement”); Henry v. Cherry & Webb, 30 R.I. 13, 73 A. 97, 107 (1909)(“...the right of personal liberty include[s] .. the right to go where a persons please[s]”); Berberian v. Lussier, 87 R.I. 226, 139 A.2d 869, 872 (1958); Knowlton v. Board of Law Examiners, 513 S.W.2d 788, 790-91 (Tenn. 1974)(“The right to travel freely among the states is a fundamental, constitutionally protected right”); Thompson v. Smith, 155 Va. 367, 154 S.E. 579, 583 ( 1930)("The right of a 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 his right to enjoy life and liberty, to acquire and possess property, and to pursue happiness and safety... It is not a mere privilege...”); Hadfield v. Lundin, 98 Wash. 657, 168 P. 516, 518 (1917)(“They all recognize the fundamental distinction between the ordinary right of a citizen to use the streets in the usual way and the use of the streets as a place of business or main instrumentality of a business for private gain. The former is a common right, the latter an extraordinary use”); Eggert v. City of Seattle, 81 Wash.2d 840, 505 P.2d 801, 804 (1973)(“The right to travel is a right applicable to intrastate as well as interstate commerce... Both travel within and between states is protected”); Ex parte Dickey, 76 W.Va. 576, 85 S.E. 781, 782 (1915)(“The right of a citizen to travel upon the highway and transport his property thereon, in the ordinary course of life and business, differs radically and obviously from that of the one who makes the highway his place of business and uses it for private gain... The former is the usual and ordinary right of a citizen, a common right, a right common to all, while the latter is special, unusual, and extraordinary. As to the former, the extent of legislative power is that of regulation; but, as to the latter, its power is broader”); and Ervin v. State, 41 Wis.2d 194, 163 N.W.2d 207, 210 (1968)(“The freedom to move about is a basic right of citizens under our form of government”).

You can only keep your rights if you have never waived them. Your constitutional protections are guaranteed by the judges bond. Courts must uphold your rights that you never waived. Don't be fooled by programs promising to liberate you from traffic laws. Sites like www.BeatTheCourt.com rely on you swearing an affidavit that you are not subject to the traffic laws. Although they claim a high rate of success, their program is valid only for those who have kept their rights pure and undefiled from the world. If you have Never Been known as an ALL CAPITALIZED person (as, for example, NEVER signed any license, government ID card, car registration, marriage license, occupational license, or endorsed any government check -- and never even had any government deductions from a paycheck). AND you never had a contract with the state (as, for example, accepted a license, or participated in any government program, bail, parole, or attended public school, or had a dog license -- or perhaps not even had a prescription for medication). AND never been a person in the body politic (voter registration, library card, juror, or paid for electricity at a residential rate). AND have never been protected from your own contracts (by consumer protection laws, or FDIC insurance, or building permits, or by minimum wage laws, or unemployment insurance laws, or divorce laws, or by bankruptcy laws, or union membership, etc)

then you get to keep all your rights (that you never waived by becoming a socialist). Because you still live in freedom, it is your duty to control these criminals.

-- Psalm 19:13 keep thy servant from presumptuous sin, that they might not have dominion over me, and I shall remain innocent of the great transgression

-- You could sue the Police Chief's (or Sheriff's) bond in federal court for damages to your civil rights under color of law. Damages to your liberty are very precious, for example:

Trezevant v. Tampa, 741 F.2d 336 determined that damages to liberty in 1984 accrued at a rate of more than $1000 per minute, which is more than 1½ million dollars per day.

§ As was the case in Trezevant, there is no requirement that there be an arrest

§ As was the case in Trezevant, official policy or custom is the “moving force of the constitutional violation”

§ As was the case in Trezevant, governments are liable for any unconstitutional deprivation of liberty caused by government “custom” even if such custom has not received formal approval through governing body’s official decision making channels

§ As was the case in Trezevant, there is no requirement that the policy itself be unlawful

§ Your State’s definition of Kidnapping does not require any element of physical restraint, nor does your State definition of “Unlawful imprisonment”. Both are violations of liberty.

§ As in Trezevant, such award is not excessive

§ And as in Trezevant, such award is compensatory not punitive. To compensate for your loss of liberty, not to punish their crimes.

Also see the definition of terrorism.

Here is the Federal Criminal Law (Title 18, section 2331) that defines “domestic terrorism”:

5) the term ''domestic terrorism'' means activities that -

(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation

    of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;

(B) appear to be intended -

    (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;

    (ii) to influence the policy of a government by

         intimidation or coercion; or

    (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass

          destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and

(C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of

    the United States.

Crimes of terrorism “involve acts dangerous to human life”.

This involvement need not be direct involvement.

Dangerous need not be deadly.
And, as for the element of “acts” (as, for example, in Supreme Court decisions determining the crime of treason), “Acts” need not be overt criminal acts.

Is it terrorism – dangerous to human life – to promote beating of motorists like Rodney King? Or throw motorists into a cage without necessities of life?

Another element of the crime is that the crime “appear to be intended” to influence a policy of government or that it “appear to be intended” to intimidate a civilian population.

“appear to be intended” is the only burden of proof mentioned in this law
the jury determines what appears or does not appear to be intended.
Did the officer appear to be intended to intimidate a civilian population to get them to waive their rights?. Rights which government was created to protect.

And while you are at the federal courthouse, you could file a criminal complaint 18 USC 241 and 242. The bullies were disguised as law enforcement officers when they decided to commit the crime of conspiring to deprive you of your liberty.

Often the police even meet the federal definition of Criminal Street Gang in Title 18.