In today’s complex legal and administrative landscape, asserting individual sovereignty and the right to travel is more important than ever. This article explores the significance of self-executing contracts and security agreements, examining their role in preserving personal freedoms, ensuring due process, and protecting fundamental rights. Using the case of ™KEVIN WALKER© ESTATE, ™KEVIN LEWIS WALKER©, ™KEVIN WALKER© IRR TRUST, represented by attorney-in-fact Kevin Walker, this piece highlights the legal principles, precedents, and doctrines underpinning these critical instruments in protecting the right to travel.This article also emphasizes that if this matter is not promptly settled, it will result in a $900,000,000,000.00 USD (billion) lawsuit filed for summary judgment as a matter of law, invoking contract law, the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), and legal maxims, including silent acquiescence, tacit agreement, tacit procuration, and binding contracts.
The change from using the term “chauffeur” to “driver” is not just about vocabulary; it’s a shift that allows states to regulate private vehicle use as commercial activity. This adjustment has significant implications for citizens, especially regarding the fundamental right to travel, which has been protected by the Supreme Court in numerous rulings. Let’s break down how this shift affects the distinction between private travel and state-regulated commercial driving.
"Under the color of law" refers to actions taken by government Officials or Agents that appear to be within the bounds of their lawful authority but are, in fact, abuses of power or violations of an private citizen/non-citizen national‘s constitutional rights. This phrase is often used in legal contexts to describe situations where "law enforcement Officers" or other public officials misuse their positions to commit unlawful acts of injustice and/or or discrimination, such as unlawful arrests, excessive force, unlawful and illegal foreclosures (since all foreclosures are fraud since Executive Order 6102 and House Joint Resolution 192 of June 5, 1933, public law 73-10), unlawful repossessions/thefts, or illegal searches and seizures.