Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

More on Tickets Hearing

Expand Messages
  • Julie Nowman
    Thanks to everyone for their helpful suggestions re my traffic tickets hearing plan. Someone suggested I say I can t find counsel, a requirement under the
    Message 1 of 19 , Jul 21, 2003
    • 0 Attachment

      Thanks to everyone for their helpful suggestions re my traffic tickets hearing plan.

      Someone suggested I say I can't find counsel, a requirement under the Sixth Amendment. Won't they then just appoint me a lawyer?

      Someone else said Motions to Dismiss automatically acknowledge jurisdiction of the court. He said one should Demand dismissal. Aren't Motions the proper way to state a demand in writing? Jim Woods said a challenge to subject matter jurisdiction has to be answered before any court can begin proceedings and he provided several case citations. He said one must object to any attempts to proceed without first proving jurisdiction. I'm concerned that by objecting too much the judge may find me in contempt of court. Can anyone tell me the rules re contempt? I don't remember seeing them in the Illinois rules of court.

      Woods said such ideas as capital letters indicating fictional persons and zip codes indicating federal ownership etc are Patriot mythology. He denies conspiracy, but acknowledges wide-spread corruption. I find conspiracy likely, but not to the extent many Patriots seem to believe. Anton Chaitkin's book, Treason in America, showed that Britain has been the chief corruptor of American government ever since the Revolution. Lincoln's purpose in the Civil War was to prevent Britain's scheme, which was to divide the U.S. and to defeat republicanism, in order to have an imperial monopoly for world control. Britain was behind both the abolitionists who advocated splitting the nation and the Southern secessionists, as per the Knights of the Golden Circle [which became the KKK] in association with Satanic-Mason Albert Pike, a co-leader of the new Masons connected with the P2 Lodge of Italy, which created the Mafia. [By the way, Skousen's book, The Making of America, showed that The Articles of Confederation were not violated when the Founders created the Constitution, because the Articles had become void when all of the states failed to abide by them ever since their "adoption"]. Whatever corporationist schemes and the like may have occurred around the time of the Civil War and whatever evidences there is of Lincoln's treason should be considered from the standpoint that British Intelligence has a long history of promoting effective propaganda and schemes for subverting moral government everywhere. The British even printed the first Bibles of the Hindus and Muslims in India, using the most radical versions of each, in order to divide the people as much as possible and create maximum strife, so they could be manipulated by the British. It shouldn't be hard for conspiracy buffs to imagine that conspirators were and are behind the propaganda against Lincoln and in favor of the Southern secession. I think we need to get our history straight before we can get our legal activities straight. Don't we?


      Do you Yahoo!?
      SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
    • Bowman7a
      Are you using you automobile to conduct commercial trade? Do you use your motor vehicle to haul paying passengers? Are you paid by the mile to transport
      Message 2 of 19 , Jul 21, 2003
      • 0 Attachment
        Are you using you automobile to conduct "commercial trade?" Do you use your "motor vehicle" to haul paying passengers? Are you paid by the mile to transport tangible goods across state lines?  Do you a contract with the Judge of that Court? No you do not....THe judge will say; ''ll hold you in comtempt of court.'  Your honor do you and I have a contract? He /she will say NO! I'll cite you with contempt of court...       Ask is that Civil or Criminal?  Your honor you know that only a real human of flesh and blood can bring charges. Not some 'strawman' a phony, made up entity.  The Judge will turn beet red, but most likely will go to his chambers....You continue and state the facts......now its a matter of record.....All charges should be dropped.


        The following argument has been used in at least three states (Pennsylvania, Ohio, and West Virginia) as a legal brief to support a demand for dismissal of charges of "driving without a license." It is the argument that was the reason for the charges to be dropped, or for a "win" in court against the argument that free people can have their right to travel regulated by their servants.

        The forgotten legal maxim is that free people have a right to travel on the roads which are provided by their servants for that purpose, using ordinary transportation of the day. Licensing cannot be required of free people, because taking on the restrictions of a license requires the surrender of a right. The driver's license can be required of people who use the highways for trade, commerce, or hire; that is, if they earn their living on the road, and if they use extraordinary machines on the roads. If you are not using the highways for profit, you cannot be required to have a driver's license.



        BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF NOTICE FOR DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION

        NOW, comes the Accused, appearing specially and not generally or voluntarily, but under threat of arrest if he failed to do so, with this "BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF NOTICE FOR DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION," stating as follows:



        ARGUMENT

        If ever a judge understood the public's right to use the public roads, it was Justice Tolman of the Supreme Court of the State of Washington. Justice Tolman stated:

        "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, by more or less rapid encroachment."

        Robertson vs. Department of Public Works, 180 Wash 133, 147.


        The words of Justice Tolman ring most prophetically in the ears of Citizens throughout the country today as the use of the public roads has been monopolized by the very entity which has been empowered to stand guard over our freedoms, i.e., that of state government.



        RIGHTS

        The "most sacred of liberties" of which Justice Tolman spoke was personal liberty. The definition of personal liberty is:

        "Personal liberty, or the Right to enjoyment of life and liberty, is one of the fundamental or natural Rights, which has been protected by its inclusion as a guarantee in the various constitutions, which is not derived from, or dependent on, the U.S. Constitution, which may not be submitted to a vote and may not depend on the outcome of an election. It is one of the most sacred and valuable Rights, as sacred as the Right to private property ... and is regarded as inalienable."

        16 C.J.S., Constitutional Law, Sect.202, p.987


        This concept is further amplified by the definition of personal liberty:

        "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 horsedrawn 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."

        II Am.Jur. (1st) Constitutional Law, Sect.329, p.1135


        and further ...

        "Personal liberty -- consists of the power of locomotion, of changing situations, of removing one's person to whatever place one's inclination may direct, without imprisonment or restraint unless by due process of law."

        Bovier's Law Dictionary, 1914 ed., Black's Law Dictionary, 5th ed.;
        Blackstone's Commentary 134; Hare, Constitution__Pg. 777


        Justice Tolman was concerned about the State prohibiting the Citizen from the "most sacred of his liberties," the Right of movement, the Right of moving one's self from place to place without threat of imprisonment, the Right to use the public roads in the ordinary course of life.

        When the State allows the formation of a corporation it may control its creation by establishing guidelines (statutes) for its operation (charters). Corporations who use the roads in the course of business do not use the roads in the ordinary course of life. There is a difference between a corporation and an individual. The United States Supreme Court has stated:

        "...We are of the opinion that there is a clear distinction in this particular between an individual and a corporation, and that the latter has no right to refuse to submit its books and papers for examination on the suit of the State. 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 duty to the State or to his neighbors to divulge his business, or to open his doors to investigation, so far as it may tend to incriminate him. He owes no such duty to the State, since he receives nothing therefrom, beyond the protection of his life, liberty, and property. His Rights are such as the law of the land 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 the refusal to incriminate himself, and the immunity of himself and his property from arrest or seizure except under warrant of law. He owes nothing to the public so long as he does not trespass upon their rights.

        "Upon the other hand, the corporation is a creature of the state. It is presumed to be incorporated for the benefit of the public. It receives certain special privileges and franchises, and holds them subject to the laws of the state and the limitations of its charter. Its rights to act as a corporation are only preserved to it so long as it obeys the laws of its creation. There is a reserved right in the legislature to investigate its contracts and find out whether it has exceeded its powers. It would be a strange anomaly to hold that the State, having chartered a corporation to make use of certain franchises, could not in exercise of its sovereignty inquire how those franchises had been employed, and whether they had been abused, and demand the production of corporate books and papers for that purpose."

        Hale vs. Hinkel, 201 US 43, 74-75


        Corporations engaged in mercantile equity fall under the purview of the State's admiralty jurisdiction, and the public at large must be protected from their activities, as they (the corporations) are engaged in business for profit.

        "...Based upon the fundamental ground that the sovereign state has the plenary control of the streets and highways in the exercise of its police power (see police power, infra.), may absolutely prohibit the use of the streets as a place for the prosecution of a private business for gain. They all recognize the fundamental distinction between the ordinary Right of the Citizen to use the streets in the usual way and the use of the streets as a place of business or a main instrumentality of business for private gain. The former is a common Right, the latter is an extraordinary use. As to the former, the legislative power is confined to regulation, as to the latter, it is plenary and extends even to absolute prohibition. Since the use of the streets by a common carrier in the prosecution of its business as such is not a right but a mere license of privilege."

        Hadfield vs. Lundin, 98 Wash 516


        It will be necessary to review early cases and legal authority in order to reach a lawfully correct theory dealing with this Right or "privilege." We will attempt to reach a sound conclusion as to what is a "Right to use the road" and what is a "privilege to use the road". Once reaching this determination, we shall then apply those positions to modern case decision.

        "Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them."

        Miranda vs. Arizona, 384 US 436, 491


        and ...

        "The claim and exercise of a constitutional Right cannot be converted into a crime."

        Miller vs. U.S., 230 F. 486, 489


        and ...

        "There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of this exercise of constitutional Rights."

        Snerer vs. Cullen, 481 F. 946


        Streets and highways are established and maintained for the purpose of travel and transportation by the public. Such travel may be for business or pleasure.

        "The use of the highways for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege, but a common and fundamental Right of which the public and the individual cannot be rightfully deprived."

        Chicago Motor Coach vs. Chicago, 169 NE 22;
        Ligare vs. Chicago, 28 NE 934;
        Boon vs. Clark, 214 SSW 607;
        25 Am.Jur. (1st) Highways Sect.163


        and ...

        "The Right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by horse drawn carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city can prohibit or permit at will, but a common Right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

        Thompson vs. Smith, 154 SE 579


        So we can see that a Citizen has a Right to travel upon the public highways by automobile and the Citizen cannot be rightfully deprived of his Liberty. So where does the misconception that the use of the public road is always and only a privilege come from?

        "... For 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 for private gain. For the latter purpose, no person has a vested right to use the highways of the state, but is a privilege or a license which the legislature may grant or withhold at its discretion."

        State vs. Johnson, 243 P. 1073;
        Cummins vs. Homes, 155 P. 171;
        Packard vs. Banton, 44 S.Ct. 256;
        Hadfield vs. Lundin, 98 Wash 516


        Here the court held that a Citizen has the Right to travel upon the public highways, but that he did not have the right to conduct business upon the highways. On this point of law all authorities are unanimous.

        "Heretofore the court has held, and we think correctly, that 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."

        Willis vs. Buck, 263 P. l 982;
        Barney vs. Board of Railroad Commissioners, 17 P.2d 82


        and ...

        "The right of the citizen to travel upon the highway and to transport his property thereon, in the ordinary course of life and business, differs radically and obviously from that of one who makes the highway his place of business for private gain in the running of a stagecoach or omnibus."

        State vs. City of Spokane, 186 P. 864


        What is this Right of the Citizen which differs so "radically and obviously" from one who uses the highway as a place of business? Who better to enlighten us than Justice Tolman of the Supreme Court of Washington State? In State vs. City of Spokanesupra, the Court also noted a very "radical and obvious" difference, but went on to explain just what the difference is:

        "The former is the usual and ordinary right of the Citizen, a common right to all, while the latter is special, unusual, and extraordinary."


        and ...

        "This distinction, elementary and fundamental in character, is recognized by all the authorities."

        State vs. City of Spokane, supra.


        This position does not hang precariously upon only a few cases, but has been proclaimed by an impressive array of cases ranging from the state courts to the federal courts.

        "the right of the Citizen to travel upon the highway and to transport his property thereon in the ordinary course of life and business, differs radically and obviously from that of one who makes the highway his place of business and uses it for private gain in the running of a stagecoach or omnibus. The former is the usual and ordinary right of the Citizen, a right common to all, while the latter is special, unusual, and extraordinary."

        Ex Parte Dickey, (Dickey vs. Davis), 85 SE 781


        and ...

        "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 conveyances of the day, and under the existing modes of travel, includes the right to drive a horse drawn carriage or wagon thereon or to operate an automobile thereon, for the usual and ordinary purpose of life and business."

        Thompson vs. Smith, supra.;
        Teche Lines vs. Danforth, Miss., 12 S.2d 784


        There is no dissent among various authorities as to this position. (See Am. Jur. [1st] Const. Law, 329 and corresponding Am. Jur. [2nd].)

        "Personal liberty -- or the right to enjoyment of life and liberty -- is one of the fundamental or natural rights, which has been protected by its inclusion as a guarantee in the various constitutions, which is not derived from nor dependent on the U.S. Constitution. ... It is one of the most sacred and valuable rights [remember the words of Justice Tolman, supra.] as sacred as the right to private property ... and is regarded as inalienable."

        16 C.J.S. Const. Law, Sect.202, Pg. 987


        As we can see, the distinction between a "Right" to use the public roads and a "privilege" to use the public roads is drawn upon the line of "using the road as a place of business" and the various state courts have held so. But what have the U.S. Courts held on this point?

        "First, it is well established law that the highways of the state are public property, and their primary and preferred use is for private purposes, and that their use for purposes of gain is special and extraordinary which, generally at least, the legislature may prohibit or condition as it sees fit."

        Stephenson vs. Rinford, 287 US 251;
        Pachard vs Banton, 264 US 140, and cases cited;
        Frost and F. Trucking Co. vs. Railroad Commission, 271 US 592;
        Railroad commission vs. Inter-City Forwarding Co., 57 SW.2d 290;
        Parlett Cooperative vs. Tidewater Lines, 164 A. 313


        So what is a privilege to use the roads? By now it should be apparent even to the "learned" that an attempt to use the road as a place of business is a privilege. The distinction must be drawn between ...

        1. Travelling upon and transporting one's property upon the public roads, which is our Right; and ...
        2. Using the public roads as a place of business or a main instrumentality of business, which is a privilege.

          "[The roads] ... are constructed and maintained at public expense, and no person therefore, can insist that he has, or may acquire, a vested right to their use in carrying on a commercial business."

          Ex Parte Sterling, 53 SW.2d 294;
          Barney vs. Railroad Commissioners, 17 P.2d 82;
          Stephenson vs. Binford, supra.


          "When the public highways are made the place of business the state has a right to regulate their use in the interest of safety and convenience of the public as well as the preservation of the highways."

          Thompson vs. Smith, supra.


          "[The state's] right to regulate such use is based upon the nature of the business and the use of the highways in connection therewith."

          Ibid.


          "We know of no inherent right in one to use the highways for commercial purposes. The highways are primarily for the use of the public, and in the interest of the public, the state may prohibit or regulate ... the use of the highways for gain."

          Robertson vs. Dept. of Public Works, supra.


        There should be considerable authority on a subject as important a this deprivation of the liberty of the individual "using the roads in the ordinary course of life and business." However, it should be noted that extensive research has not turned up one case or authority acknowledging the state's power to convert the individual's right to travel upon the public roads into a "privilege."

        Therefore, it is concluded that the Citizen does have a "Right" to travel and transport his property upon the public highways and roads and the exercise of this Right is not a "privilege."



        DEFINITIONS

        In order to understand the correct application of the statute in question, we must first define the terms used in connection with this point of law. As will be shown, many terms used today do not, in their legal context, mean what we assume they mean, thus resulting in the misapplication of statutes in the instant case.



        AUTOMOBILE AND MOTOR VEHICLE

        There is a clear distinction between an automobile and a motor vehicle. An automobile has been defined as:

        "The word `automobile' connotes a pleasure vehicle designed for the transportation of persons on highways."

        American Mutual Liability Ins. Co., vs. Chaput, 60 A.2d 118, 120; 95 NH 200


        While the distinction is made clear between the two as the courts have stated:

        "A motor vehicle or automobile for hire is a motor vehicle, other than an automobile stage, used for the transportation of persons for which remuneration is received."

        International Motor Transit Co. vs. Seattle, 251 P. 120


        The term `motor vehicle' is different and broader than the word `automobile.'"

        City of Dayton vs. DeBrosse, 23 NE.2d 647, 650; 62 Ohio App. 232


        The distinction is made very clear in Title 18 USC 31:

        "Motor vehicle" means every description or other contrivance propelled or drawn by mechanical power and used for commercial purposes on the highways in the transportation of passengers, or passengers and property.

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

        Clearly, an automobile is private property in use for private purposes, while a motor vehicle is a machine which may be used upon the highways for trade, commerce, or hire.



        TRAVEL

        The term "travel" is a significant term and is defined as:

        "The term `travel' and `traveler' are usually construed in their broad and general sense ... so as to include all those who rightfully use the highways viatically (when being reimbursed for expenses) and who have occasion to pass over them for the purpose of business, convenience, or pleasure."

        25 Am.Jur. (1st) Highways, Sect.427, Pg. 717


        "Traveler -- One who passes from place to place, whether for pleasure, instruction, business, or health."

        Locket vs. State, 47 Ala. 45;
        Bovier's Law Dictionary, 1914 ed., Pg. 3309


        "Travel -- To journey or to pass through or over; as a country district, road, etc. To go from one place to another, whether on foot, or horseback, or in any conveyance as a train, an automobile, carriage, ship, or aircraft; Make a journey."

        Century Dictionary, Pg. 2034


        Therefore, the term "travel" or "traveler" refers to one who uses a conveyance to go from one place to another, and included all those who use the highways as a matter of Right.

        Notice that in all these definitions, the phrase "for hire" never occurs. This term "travel" or "traveler" implies, by definition, one who uses the road as a means to move from one place to another.

        Therefore, one who uses the road in the ordinary course of life and business for the purpose of travel and transportation is a traveler.



        DRIVER

        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., Pg. 940


        Notice that this definition includes one who is "employed" in conducting a vehicle. It should be self-evident that this individual could not be "travelling" on a journey, but is using the road as a place of business.



        OPERATOR

        Today we assume that a "traveler" is a "driver," and a "driver" is an "operator." However, this is not the case.

        "It will be observed from the language of the ordinance that a distinction is to be drawn between the terms `operator' and `driver'; the `operator' of the service car being the person who is licensed to have the car on the streets in the business of carrying passengers for hire; while the `driver' is the one who actually drives the car. However, in the actual prosecution of business, it was possible for the same person to be both `operator' and `driver.'"

        Newbill vs. Union Indemnity Co., 60 SE.2d 658


        To further clarify the definition of an "operator" the court observed that this was a vehicle "for hire" and that it was in the business of carrying passengers.

        This definition would seem to describe a person who is using the road as a place of business, or in other words, a person engaged in the "privilege" of using the road for gain.

        This definition, then, is a further clarification of the distinction mentioned earlier, and therefore:

        1. Travelling upon and transporting one's property upon the public roads as a matter of Right meets the definition of a traveler.
        2. Using the road as a place of business as a matter of privilege meets the definition of a driver or an operator or both.



        TRAFFIC

        Having defined the terms "automobile," "motor vehicle," "traveler," "driver," and "operator," the next term to define is "traffic":

        "... Traffic thereon is to some extent destructive, therefore, the prevention of unnecessary duplication of auto transportation service will lengthen the life of the highways or reduce the cost of maintenance, the revenue derived by the state ... will also tend toward the public welfare by producing at the expense of those operating for private gain, some small part of the cost of repairing the wear ..."

        Northern Pacific R.R. Co. vs. Schoenfeldt, 213 P. 26


        Note: In the above, Justice Tolman expounded upon the key of raising revenue by taxing the "privilege" to use the public roads "at the expense of those operating for gain."

        In this case, the word "traffic" is used in conjunction with the unnecessary Auto Transportation Service, or in other words, "vehicles for hire." The word "traffic" is another word which is to be strictly construed to the conducting of business.

        "Traffic -- Commerce, trade, sale or exchange of merchandise, bills, money, or the like. The passing of goods and commodities from one person to another for an equivalent in goods or money ..."

        Bovier's Law Dictionary, 1914 ed., Pg. 3307


        Here again, notice that this definition refers to one "conducting business." No mention is made of one who is travelling in his automobile. This definition is of one who is engaged in the passing of a commodity or goods in exchange for money, i.e .., vehicles for hire.

        Furthermore, the word "traffic" and "travel" must have different meanings which the courts recognize. The difference is recognized in Ex Parte Dickey, supra:

        "...in addition to this, cabs, hackney coaches, omnibuses, taxicabs, and hacks, when unnecessarily numerous, interfere with the ordinary traffic and travel and obstruct them."

        The court, by using both terms, signified its recognition of a distinction between the two. But, what was the distinction? We have already defined both terms, but to clear up any doubt:

        "The word `traffic' is manifestly used here in secondary sense, and has reference to the business of transportation rather than to its primary meaning of interchange of commodities."

        Allen vs. City of Bellingham, 163 P. 18


        Here the Supreme Court of the State of Washington has defined the word "traffic" (in either its primary or secondary sense) in reference to business, and not to mere travel! So it is clear that the term "traffic" is business related and therefore, it is a "privilege." The net result being that "traffic" is brought under the (police) power of the legislature. The term has no application to one who is not using the roads as a place of business.



        LICENSE

        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.

        This position, however, would raise magnitudinous Constitutional questions as this position would be diametrically opposed to fundamental Constitutional Law. (See "Conversion of a Right to a Crime," infra.)

        In the instant case, the proper definition of a "license" is:

        "a permit, granted by an appropriate governmental body, generally for consideration, to a person, firm, or corporation, to pursue some occupation or to carry on some business which is subject to regulation under the police power."

        Rosenblatt vs. California State Board of Pharmacy, 158 P.2d 199, 203


        This definition would fall more in line with the "privilege" of carrying on business on the streets.

        Most people tend to think that "licensing" is imposed by the state for the purpose of raising revenue, yet there may well be more subtle reasons contemplated; for when one seeks permission from someone to do something he invokes the jurisdiction of the "licensor" which, in this case, is the state. In essence, the licensee may well be seeking to be regulated by the "licensor."

        "A license fee is a charge made primarily for regulation, with the fee to cover costs and expenses of supervision or regulation."

        State vs. Jackson, 60 Wisc.2d 700; 211 NW.2d 480, 487


        The fee is the price; the regulation or control of the licensee is the real aim of the legislation.

        Are these licenses really used to fund legitimate government, or are they nothing more than a subtle introduction of police power into every facet of our lives? Have our "enforcement agencies" been diverted from crime prevention, perhaps through no fault of their own, instead now busying themselves as they "check" our papers to see that all are properly endorsed by the state?

        How much longer will it be before we are forced to get a license for our lawn mowers, or before our wives will need a license for her "blender" or "mixer?" They all have motors on them and the state can always use the revenue.



        POLICE POWER

        The confusion of the police power with the power of taxation usually arises in cases where the police power has affixed a penalty to a certain act, or where it requires licenses to be obtained and a certain sum be paid for certain occupations. The power used in the instant case cannot, however, be the power of taxation since an attempt to levy a tax upon a Right would be open to Constitutional objection. (See "taxing power," infra.)

        Each law relating to the use of police power must ask three questions:

        "1. Is there threatened danger?

        "2. Does a regulation involve a Constitutional Right?

        "3. Is this regulation reasonable?

        People vs. Smith, 108 Am.St.Rep. 715;
        Bovier's Law Dictionary, 1914 ed., under "Police Power"


        When applying these three questions to the statute in question, some very important issues emerge.

        First, "is there a threatened danger" in the individual using his automobile on the public highways, in the ordinary course of life and business?

        The answer is No!  There is nothing inherently dangerous in the use of an automobile when it is carefully managed. Their guidance, speed, and noise are subject to a quick and easy control, under a competent and considerate manager, it is as harmless on the road as a horse and buggy.

        It is the manner of managing the automobile, and that alone, which threatens the safety of the public. The ability to stop quickly and to respond quickly to guidance would seem to make the automobile one of the least dangerous conveyances. (See Yale Law Journal, December, 1905.)

        "The automobile is not inherently dangerous."

        Cohens vs. Meadow, 89 SE 876;
        Blair vs. Broadmore, 93 SE 532


        To deprive all persons of the Right to use the road in the ordinary course of life and business, because one might, in the future, become dangerous, would be a deprivation not only of the Right to travel, but also the Right to due process. (See "Due Process," infra.)

        Next; does the regulation involve a Constitutional Right?

        This question has already been addressed and answered in this brief, and need not be reinforced other than to remind this Court that this Citizen does have the Right to travel upon the public highway by automobile in the ordinary course of life and business. It can therefore be concluded that this regulation does involve a Constitutional Right.

        The third question is the most important in this case. "Is this regulation reasonable?"

        The answer is No!  It will be shown later in "Regulation," infra., that this licensing statute is oppressive and could be effectively administered by less oppressive means.

        Although the Fourteenth Amendment does not interfere with the proper exercise of the police power, in accordance with the general principle that the power must be exercised so as not to invade unreasonably the rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution, it is established beyond question that every state power, including the police power, is limited by the Fourteenth Amendment (and others) and by the inhibitions there imposed.

        Moreover, the ultimate test of the propriety of police power regulations must be found in the Fourteenth Amendment, since it operates to limit the field of the police power to the extent of preventing the enforcement of statutes in denial of Rights that the Amendment protects. (See Parks vs. State, 64 NE 682.)

        "With regard particularly to the U.S. Constitution, it is elementary that a Right secured or protected by that document cannot be overthrown or impaired by any state police authority."

        Connolly vs. Union Sewer Pipe Co., 184 US 540;
        Lafarier vs. Grand Trunk R.R. Co., 24 A. 848;
        O'Neil vs. Providence Amusement Co., 108 A. 887


        "The police power of the state must be exercised in subordination to the provisions of the U.S. Constitution."

        Bacahanan vs. Wanley, 245 US 60;
        Panhandle Eastern Pipeline Co. vs. State Highway Commission, 294 US 613


        "It is well settled that the Constitutional Rights protected from invasion by the police power, include Rights safeguarded both by express and implied prohibitions in the Constitutions."

        Tiche vs. Osborne, 131 A. 60


        "As a rule, fundamental limitations of regulations under the police power are found in the spirit of the Constitutions, not in the letter, although they are just as efficient as if expressed in the clearest language."

        Mehlos vs. Milwaukee, 146 NW 882


        As it applies in the instant case, the language of the Fifth Amendment is clear:

        "No person shall be ... deprived of Life, Liberty, or Property without due process of law."

        As has been shown, the courts at all levels have firmly established an absolute Right to travel.

        In the instant case, the state, by applying commercial statutes to all entities, natural and artificial persons alike, has deprived this free and natural person of the Right of Liberty, without cause and without due process of law.



        DUE PROCESS

        "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 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


        and ...

        "The right to travel is part of the Liberty of which a citizen cannot deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment. This Right was emerging as early as the Magna Carta."

        Kent vs. Dulles, 357 US 116 (1958)


        The focal point of this question of police power and due process must balance upon the point of making the public highways a safe place for the public to travel. If a man travels in a manner that creates actual damage, an action would lie (civilly) for recovery of damages. The state could then also proceed against the individual to deprive him of his Right to use the public highways, for cause. This process would fulfill the due process requirements of the Fifth Amendment while at the same time insuring that Rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution and the state constitutions would be protected.

        But unless or until harm or damage (a crime) is committed, there is no cause for interference in the private affairs or actions of a Citizen.

        One of the most famous and perhaps the most quoted definitions of due process of law, is that of Daniel Webster in his Dartmouth College Case (4 Wheat 518), in which he declared that by due process is meant:

        "a law which hears before it condemns, which proceeds upon inquiry, and renders judgment only after trial."

        See also State vs. Strasburg, 110 P. 1020;
        Dennis vs. Moses, 52 P. 333


        Somewhat similar is the statement that is a rule as old as the law that:

        "no one shall be personally bound (restricted) until he has had his day in court,"

        by which is meant, until he has been duly cited to appear and has been afforded an opportunity to be heard. Judgment without such citation and opportunity lacks all the attributes of a judicial determination; it is judicial usurpation and it is oppressive and can never be upheld where it is fairly administered. (12 Am.Jur. [1st] Const. Law, Sect. 573, Pg. 269)

        Note:  This sounds like the process used to deprive one of the "privilege" of operating a motor vehicle "for hire." It should be kept in mind, however, that we are discussing the arbitrary deprivation of the Right to use the road that all citizens have "in common."

        The futility of the state's position can be most easily observed in the 1959 Washington Attorney General's opinion on a similar issue:

        "The distinction between the Right of the Citizen to use the public highways for private, rather than commercial purposes is recognized ..."

        and ...

        "Under its power to regulate private uses of our highways, our legislature has required that motor vehicle operators be licensed (I.C. 49-307). Undoubtedly, the primary purpose of this requirement is to insure, as far as possible, that all motor vehicle operators will be competent and qualified, thereby reducing the potential hazard or risk of harm, to which other users of the highways might otherwise be subject. But once having complied with this regulatory provision, by obtaining the required license, a motorist enjoys the privilege of travelling freely upon the highways  ..."

        Washington A.G.O. 59-60 No. 88, Pg. 11


        This alarming opinion appears to be saying that every person using an automobile as a matter of Right, must give up the Right and convert the Right into a privilege. This is accomplished under the guise of regulation. This statement is indicative of the insensitivity, even the ignorance, of the government to the limits placed upon governments by and through the several constitutions.

        This legal theory may have been able to stand in 1959; however, as of 1966, in the United States Supreme Court decision in Miranda, even this weak defense of the state's actions must fall.

        "Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them."

        Miranda vs. Arizona, 384 US 436, 491


        Thus the legislature does not have the power to abrogate the Citizen's Right to travel upon the public roads, by passing legislation forcing the citizen to waive his Right and convert that Right into a privilege. Furthermore, we have previously established that this "privilege" has been defined as applying only to those who are "conducting business in the streets" or "operating for-hire vehicles."

        The legislature has attempted (by legislative fiat) to deprive the Citizen of his Right to use the roads in the ordinary course of life and business, without affording the Citizen the safeguard of "due process of law." This has been accomplished under supposed powers of regulation.



        REGULATION

        "In addition to the requirement that regulations governing the use of the highways must not be violative of constitutional guarantees, the prime essentials of such regulation are reasonableness, impartiality, and definiteness or certainty."

        25 Am.Jur. (1st) Highways, Sect. 260


        and ...

        "Moreover, a distinction must be observed between the regulation of an activity which may be engaged in as a matter of right and one carried on by government sufferance of permission."

        Davis vs. Massachusetts, 167 US 43;
        Pachard vs. Banton, supra.


        One can say for certain that these regulations are impartial since they are being applied to all, even though they are clearly beyond the limits of the legislative powers. However, we must consider whether such regulations are reasonable and non-violative of constitutional guarantees.

        First, let us consider the reasonableness of this statute requiring all persons to be licensed (presuming that we are applying this statute to all persons using the public roads). In determining the reasonableness of the statute we need only ask two questions:

        1. Does the statute accomplish its stated goal?

        The answer is No!

        The attempted explanation for this regulation "to insure the safety of the public by insuring, as much as possible, that all are competent and qualified."

        However, one can keep his license without retesting, from the time he/she is first licensed until the day he/she dies, without regard to the competency of the person, by merely renewing said license before it expires. It is therefore possible to completely skirt the goal of this attempted regulation, thus proving that this regulation does not accomplish its goal.

        Furthermore, by testing and licensing, the state gives the appearance of underwriting the competence of the licensees, and could therefore be held liable for failures, accidents, etc. caused by licensees.

        2. Is the statute reasonable?

        The answer is No!

        This statute cannot be determined to be reasonable since it requires to the Citizen to give up his or her natural Right to travel unrestricted in order to accept the privilege. The purported goal of this statute could be met by much less oppressive regulations, i.e., competency tests and certificates of competency before using an automobile upon the public roads. (This is exactly the situation in the aviation sector.)

        But isn't this what we have now?

        The answer is No!  The real purpose of this license is much more insidious. When one signs the license, he/she gives up his/her Constitutional Right to travel in order to accept and exercise a privilege. After signing the license, a quasi-contract, the Citizen has to give the state his/her consent to be prosecuted for constructive crimes and quasi-criminal actions where there is no harm done and no damaged property.

        These prosecutions take place without affording the Citizen of their Constitutional Rights and guarantees such a the Right to a trial by jury of twelve persons and the Right to counsel, as well as the normal safeguards such as proof of intent and a corpus dilecti and a grand jury indictment. These unconstitutional prosecutions take place because the Citizen is exercising a privilege and has given his/her "implied consent" to legislative enactments designed to control interstate commerce, a regulatable enterprise under the police power of the state.

        We must now conclude that the Citizen is forced to give up Constitutional guarantees of "Right" in order to exercise his state "privilege" to travel upon the public highways in the ordinary course of life and business.



        SURRENDER OF RIGHTS

        A Citizen cannot be forced to give up his/her Rights in the name of regulation.

        "... the only limitations found restricting the right of the state to condition the use of the public highways as a means of vehicular transportation for compensation are (1) that the state must not exact of those it permits to use the highways for hauling for gain that they surrender any of their inherent U.S. Constitutional Rights as a condition precedent to obtaining permission for such use ..."

        Riley vs. Laeson, 142 So. 619;
        Stephenson vs. Binford, supra.


        If one cannot be placed in a position of being forced to surrender Rights in order to exercise a privilege, how much more must this maxim of law, then, apply when one is simply exercising (putting into use) a Right?

        "To be that statute which would deprive a Citizen of the rights of person or property, without a regular trial, according to the course and usage of the common law, would not be the law of the land."

        Hoke vs. Henderson, 15 NC 15


        and ...

        "We find it intolerable that one Constitutional Right should have to be surrendered in order to assert another."

        Simons vs. United States, 390 US 389


        Since the state requires that one give up Rights in order to exercise the privilege of driving, the regulation cannot stand under the police power, due process, or regulation, but must be exposed as a statute which is oppressive and one which has been misapplied to deprive the Citizen of Rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution and the state constitutions.



        TAXING POWER

        "Any claim that this statute is a taxing statute would be immediately open to severe Constitutional objections. If it could be said that the state had the power to tax a Right, this would enable the state to destroy Rights guaranteed by the constitution through the use of oppressive taxation. The question herein, is one of the state taxing the Right to travel by the ordinary modes of the day, and whether this is a legislative object of the state taxation.

        The views advanced herein are neither novel nor unsupported by authority. The question of taxing power of the states has been repeatedly considered by the Supreme Court. The Right of the state to impede or embarrass the Constitutional operation of the U.S. Government or the Rights which the Citizen holds under it, has been uniformly denied."

        McCulloch vs. Maryland, 4 Wheat 316


        The power to tax is the power to destroy, and if the state is given the power to destroy Rights through taxation, the framers of the Constitution wrote that document in vain.

        "... It may be said that a tax of one dollar for passing through the state cannot sensibly affect any function of government or deprive a Citizen of any valuable Right. But if a state can tax ... a passenger of one dollar, it can tax him a thousand dollars."

        Crandall vs. Nevada, 6 Wall 35, 46


        and ...

        "If the Right of passing through a state by a Citizen of the United States is one guaranteed by the Constitution, it must be sacred from state taxation."

        Ibid., Pg. 47


        Therefore, the Right of travel must be kept sacred from all forms of state taxation and if this argument is used by the state as a defense of the enforcement of this statute, then this argument also must fail.



        CONVERSION OF A RIGHT TO A CRIME

        As previously demonstrated, the Citizen 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 Pg. 5, and:

        "The state cannot diminish Rights of the people."

        Hurtado vs. California, 110 US 516


        and ...

        "Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them."

        Miranda, supra.


        Indeed, the very purpose for creating the state under the limitations of the constitution was to protect the rights of the people from intrusion, particularly by the forces of government.

        So we can see that any attempt by the legislature to make the act of using the public highways as a matter of Right into a crime, is void upon its face.

        Any person who claims his Right to travel upon the highways, and so exercises that Right, cannot be tried for a crime of doing so. And yet, this Freeman stands before this court today to answer charges for the "crime" of exercising his Right to Liberty.

        As we have already shown, the term "drive" can only apply to those who are employed in the business of transportation for hire. It has been shown that freedom includes the Citnzen's Right to use the public highways in the ordinary course of life and business without license or regulation by the police powers of the state.



        CONCLUSION

        It is the duty of the court to recognize the substance of things and not the mere form.

        "The courts are not bound by mere form, nor are they to be misled by mere pretenses. They are at liberty -- indeed they are under a solemn duty -- to look at the substance of things, whenever they enter upon the inquiry whether the legislature has transcended the limits of its authority. If, therefore, a statute purported to have been enacted to protect ... the public safety, has no real or substantial relation to those objects or is a palpable invasion of Rights secured by the fundamental law, it is the duty of the courts to so adjudge, and thereby give effect to the Constitution."

        Mulger vs. Kansas, 123 US 623, 661


        and ...

        "It is the duty of the courts to be watchful for the Constitutional rights of the citizen and against any stealthy encroachments thereon."

        Boyd vs. United States, 116 US 616


        The courts are "duty bound" to recognize and stop the "stealthy encroachments" which have been made upon the Citizen's Right to travel and to use the roads to transport his property in the "ordinary course of life and business." (Hadfield, supra.)

        Further, the court must recognize that the Right to travel is part of the Liberty of which a Citizen cannot be deprived without specific cause and without the "due process of law" guaranteed in the Fifth Amendment. (Kent, supra.)

        The history of this "invasion" of the Citizen's Right to use the public highways shows clearly that the legislature simply found a heretofore untapped source of revenue, got greedy, and attempted to enforce a statute in an unconstitutional manner upon those free and natural individuals who have a Right to travel upon the highways. This was not attempted in an outright action, but in a slow, meticulous, calculated encroachment upon the Citizen's Right to travel.

        This position must be accepted unless the prosecutor can show his authority for the position that the "use of the road in the ordinary course of life and business" is a privilege.

        To rule in any other manner, without clear authority for an adverse ruling, will infringe upon fundamental and basic concepts of Constitutional law. This position, that a Right cannot be regulated under any guise, must be accepted without concern for the monetary loss of the state.

        "Disobedience or evasion of a Constitutional Mandate cannot be tolerated, even though such disobedience may, at least temporarily, promote in some respects the best interests of the public."

        Slote vs. Examination, 112 ALR 660


        and ...

        "Economic necessity cannot justify a disregard of Constitutional guarantee."

        Riley vs. Carter, 79 ALR 1018;
        16 Am.Jur. (2nd), Const. Law, Sect. 81


        and ...

        "Constitutional Rights cannot be denied simply because of hostility to their assertions and exercise; vindication of conceded Constitutional Rights cannot be made dependent upon any theory that it is less expensive to deny them than to afford them."

        Watson vs. Memphis, 375 US 526


        Therefore, the Court's decision in the instant case must be made without the issue of cost to the state being taken into consideration, as that issue is irrelevant. The state cannot lose money that it never had a right to demand from the "Sovereign People."

        Finally, we come to the issue of "public policy." It could be argued that the "licensing scheme" of all persons is a matter of "public policy." However, if this argument is used, it too must fail, as:

        "No public policy of a state can be allowed to override the positive guarantees of the U.S. Constitution."

        16 Am.Jur. (2nd), Const. Law, Sect. 70


        So even "public policy" cannot abrogate this Citizen's Right to travel and to use the public highways in the ordinary course of life and business.

        Therefore, it must be concluded that:

        "We have repeatedly held that the legislature may regulate the use of the highways for carrying on business for private gain and that such regulation is a valid exercise of the police power."

        Northern Pacific R.R. Co., supra.


        and ...

        "The act in question is a valid regulation, and as such is binding upon all who use the highway for the purpose of private gain."

        Ibid.

        Any other construction of this statute would render it unconstitutional as applied to this Citizen or any Citizen. The Accused therefore moves this court to dismiss the charge against him, with prejudice.

        June 10, 1986.

        This ends the legal brief.

        In addition:

        Since no notice is given to people applying for driver's (or other) licenses that they have a perfect right to use the roads without any permission, and that they surrender valuable rights by taking on the regulation system of licensure, the state has committed a massive construction fraud. This occurs when any person is told that they must have a license in order to use the public roads and highways.

        The license, being a legal contract under which the state is empowered with policing powers, is only valid when the licensee takes on the burdens of the contract and bargains away his or her rights knowingly, intentionally, and voluntarily.

        Few know that the driver's licen

        (Message over 64 KB, truncated)

      • Dessie Andrews
        Go to Ralph Winterrowd s web page, www.jusbelli.com and look at the difference between an assistance of counsel and an attorney. How can they appoint what
        Message 3 of 19 , Jul 22, 2003
        • 0 Attachment
          Message
          Go to Ralph Winterrowd's web page, www.jusbelli.com and look at the difference between an assistance of counsel and an attorney.  How can they appoint what they don't have?
          -----Original Message-----
          From: Julie Nowman [mailto:aipu2@...]
          Sent: Monday, July 21, 2003 2:38 PM
          To: tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com
          Subject: [tips_and_tricks] More on Tickets Hearing

          Thanks to everyone for their helpful suggestions re my traffic tickets hearing plan.

          Someone suggested I say I can't find counsel, a requirement under the Sixth Amendment. Won't they then just appoint me a lawyer?

          Someone else said Motions to Dismiss automatically acknowledge jurisdiction of the court. He said one should Demand dismissal. Aren't Motions the proper way to state a demand in writing? Jim Woods said a challenge to subject matter jurisdiction has to be answered before any court can begin proceedings and he provided several case citations. He said one must object to any attempts to proceed without first proving jurisdiction. I'm concerned that by objecting too much the judge may find me in contempt of court. Can anyone tell me the rules re contempt? I don't remember seeing them in the Illinois rules of court.

          Woods said such ideas as capital letters indicating fictional persons and zip codes indicating federal ownership etc are Patriot mythology. He denies conspiracy, but acknowledges wide-spread corruption. I find conspiracy likely, but not to the extent many Patriots seem to believe. Anton Chaitkin's book, Treason in America, showed that Britain has been the chief corruptor of American government ever since the Revolution. Lincoln's purpose in the Civil War was to prevent Britain's scheme, which was to divide the U.S. and to defeat republicanism, in order to have an imperial monopoly for world control. Britain was behind both the abolitionists who advocated splitting the nation and the Southern secessionists, as per the Knights of the Golden Circle [which became the KKK] in association with Satanic-Mason Albert Pike, a co-leader of the new Masons connected with the P2 Lodge of Italy, which created the Mafia. [By the way, Skousen's book, The Making of America, showed that The Articles of Confederation were not violated when the Founders created the Constitution, because the Articles had become void when all of the states failed to abide by them ever since their "adoption"]. Whatever corporationist schemes and the like may have occurred around the time of the Civil War and whatever evidences there is of Lincoln's treason should be considered from the standpoint that British Intelligence has a long history of promoting effective propaganda and schemes for subverting moral government everywhere. The British even printed the first Bibles of the Hindus and Muslims in India, using the most radical versions of each, in order to divide the people as much as possible and create maximum strife, so they could be manipulated by the British. It shouldn't be hard for conspiracy buffs to imagine that conspirators were and are behind the propaganda against Lincoln and in favor of the Southern secession. I think we need to get our history straight before we can get our legal activities straight. Don't we?


          Do you Yahoo!?
          SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!

          To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
          tips_and_tricks-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



          Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

        • Bowman7a
          Here is a second page pertaining to the RIGHT to travel. The first page that I sent you has a brief. I used that brief on 3 occassions. Each and every
          Message 4 of 19 , Jul 22, 2003
          • 0 Attachment
            Here is a second page pertaining to the "RIGHT" to travel.  The first page that I sent you has a brief.  I used that brief on 3 occassions.  Each and every time the case was dismissed.  I no longer an hassled in that area with petty extortion.  I wrote the officers name on the document, dated it with the date the tickets were being issued,  and initialled it. 
             
            Cops have NO GOVERNMENTAL POWERS OF ANY KIND

            NOTICE!

            THIS IS WHAT "TRAFFIC" IS:

            "Traffic: COMMERCE, trade, sale or exchange of merchandise, bills, money and the like." (emphasis added) -Bouviers' Law Dictionary

            THIS IS WHAT A "DRIVER" IS:

            " 'Driver' means any person who drives, operates or is in physical control of a COMMERCIAL motor vehicle, or who is required to hold a COMMERCIAL driver's license" (emphasis added) -Conn. Gen. Stats. Title 14 sec. 1 # 20

            THIS IS WHAT A "MOTOR VEHICLE" IS:

            "'Motor vehicle' means every description of carriage or other contrivance propelled or drawn by mechanical power and USED FOR COMMERCIAL PURPOSES on the highways in the transportation of passengers, passengers and property, or property or cargo;" (emph. added) -U.S.C. Title 18 sec. 31

            THIS IS WHY "INSURANCE" (GAMBLING) IS *NOT* "MANDATORY":

            "A policy of Insurance is a maritime contract, and therefore of Admiralty Jurisdiction." -De Lovio v. Boit, 7 Fed. Cases Number 3, 776

            THIS IS WHY MY TRAVEL IS A RIGHT, NOT A "PRIVILEGE":

            "The right to travel on the public highways is a constitutional right." -Teche Lines v. Danforth, Miss. 12 So 2d 784, 787.

            "The right to travel is part of the 'liberty' that a citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law." -Kent v. Dulles 357 U.S. 116; U.S. v. Laub 385 U.S. 475

            "The use of the highways for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege, but a common and fundamental Right of which the public and the individual cannot be rightfully deprived." -Chicago Motor Coach vs. Chicago, 169 NE 22; Ligare vs. Chicago, 28 NE 934; Boon vs. Clark, 214 SSW 607; 25 Am.Jur. (1st) Highways Sect.163.

            "Operation of a motor vehicle upon public streets and highways is not a mere privilege but is a right or liberty protected by the guarantees of Federal and State constitutions." -Adams v. City of Pocatello 416 P2d 46

            "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." -Slusher v. Safety Coach Transit Co., 229 Ky 731, 17 SW2d 1012, affirmed by the Supreme Court in Thompson v. Smith 154 S.E. 579

            "The use of the automobile as a necessary adjunct to the earning of a livlihood 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)

            "Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them." -Miranda vs. Arizona, 384 US 436, 491. (yes, THAT Miranda.)

            "All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void." -Marbury vs. Madison, 5 US (2 Cranch) 137, 174, 176, (1803)

             

            FOR THE REST OF THE DOCUMENT;

             

            http://www.familyguardian.tzo.com/Subjects/Freedom/Travel/dmvbrief.htm

            http://www.reclaimyourpower.com/dmvbrief.htm


            Do you Yahoo!?
            Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
          • RotorRider
            Re: [tips_and_tricks] More on Tickets Hearing Bowman7a wrote: Are you using you automobile to conduct commercial trade? Do you use your motor vehicle to
            Message 5 of 19 , Jul 22, 2003
            • 0 Attachment
              Re: [tips_and_tricks] More on Tickets Hearing
               Bowman7a wrote:
               
              Are you using you automobile to conduct "commercial trade?" Do you use your "motor vehicle" to haul <snip>
               
              Rotor responds: Bowman is absolutely correct!  Read the following Law Cite:
               
              Excepting the right of personal passage, any and all use of the highway is a special and extraordinary use which, when allowed, is a privelege - not a vested right - and subject to regulation as such.   Thus the transportation of persons as passengers or their goods as freight is an extraordinary use and is therefore subject to regulations... @ 1 Tex Jur 2d (56) Highways, 235, p.765
               
              The RIGHT EXISTS but what they are regulating is EVERYTHING OUTSIDE that right.  (i.e.: traffic laws are all commercial use of the highway).  Anything personal/private is OUTSIDE of Administrative Law. 
               
              The transport of people as passengers or their goods as freight is an extraordinary use (commercial not personal/private) and therfore subject to regulation, licensing, etc.
               
              As defined in Blks Law, Traffic:  Traffic is trade, sale, and/or exchange of merchandise.  The exchange of goods and commodities from one to another for equal value.    The subjects of transportation on a route as passengers or goods in commerce using vehicles or vessels along a highway or waterway.
               
              As defined by statute:  A "motor vehicle" is used to TRANSPORT people (passengers) or goods (property as freight) for HIRE.
               
              As defined by statute:  A passenger is one who pays for a ride.
               
              Someone who does not pay for a ride is a guest.
               
              When you and your friend go to the store... is your friend a passenger (as that term is defined in law)?
               
              When you drive your car, is it a "motor vehicle" (as that term is defined in law)?
               
              If you are just out for a cruise all by yourself are you your own passenger, are you freight, are you traffic, is your car traffic (as those terms are defined in law)?  If you decide that you are not traffic, then, do traffic signs and traffic laws apply to you?
            • RotorRider
              Julie Nowman wrote: Thanks to everyone for their helpful suggestions re my traffic tickets Rotor responds: Jim Wood is correct. The following law cite
              Message 6 of 19 , Jul 22, 2003
              • 0 Attachment
                 Julie Nowman wrote:
                Thanks to everyone for their helpful suggestions re my traffic tickets <snip>
                 
                Rotor responds: Jim Wood is correct.  The following law cite proves that they have jurisdiction so go with the lack of jurisdiction and don't go off point.  Make 'em prove it, they can't.
                 
                Excepting the right of personal passage, any and all use of the highway is a special and extraordinary use which, when allowed, is a privelege - not a vested right - and subject to regulation as such.   Thus the transportation of persons as passengers or their goods as freight is an extraordinary use and is therefore subject to regulations... @ 1 Tex Jur 2d (56) Highways, 235, p.765
              • Advancepum@aol.com
                In a message dated 7/21/2003 11:13:20 PM Central Daylight Time, aipu2@yahoo.com writes:
                Message 7 of 19 , Jul 22, 2003
                • 0 Attachment
                  In a message dated 7/21/2003 11:13:20 PM Central Daylight Time,
                  aipu2@... writes:

                  <<
                  Someone suggested I say I can't find counsel, a requirement under the Sixth
                  Amendment. Won't they then just appoint me a lawyer?
                  That's not what it says: I just got this from our group.
                  INTRODUCTION
                  To Assistance of Counsel
                  An Assistance of Counsel being Learned in the Law, is required as secured in
                  the Sixth Amendment because NO ONE can represent your constitutionally secured
                  rights. Counsel can only assist you, help you formulate questions, and speak
                  for you with you totally in control. This can be seen in the Giles Jacob
                  English Law dictionary corrected and enlarged by T.E. Tomlins in 1811 publication.
                  See Trials in Volume VI on page 304.
                  An Attorney at Law will only "represent" you, which means to stand in your
                  place and act on your behalf while being totally in control of the case with
                  very minor exceptions in which you will be asked to waive your constitutionally
                  secured rights knowingly and intelligently. An attorney at law operates in the
                  statutory non-constitutional courts that evidence demonstrates are merely the
                  Roman Civil Law courts with praetors being in equity using commerce
                  [Admiralty] and minus our Constitution as a rule of law. In the Roman Civil Law the
                  State is the source of all rights with a minimum of a dual system of law being
                  composed of jus civile [leges] [our legislature] and trumpeted by the jus
                  honorarium [praetor edicts (judge made law), lex praetoria (equity rules and court
                  orders that are used as law and abolishing the common law writ of quo waranto,
                  etc.). This was accomplished by the process called codification. See the
                  Institutes. See also the Annotated Compiled Laws of Alaska of 1949 in Title 69. In
                  this civil law system as a corporate defendant, the judge will enter a plea of
                  NON GUILTY before you have Assistance of Counsel. See Title 66 for the stark
                  difference in preliminary examinations [not used today in Alaska] on Assistance
                  of Counsel and also see the arraignment in Title 66 versus the Title 69.
                  In our Constitutional Republic, only a limited delegation of Power is given
                  to the several States and a grant of Power to the United States. A citizen of
                  the United States of America is the sovereign capacity, with an American
                  citizen being the same as the citizens in the original States before the Articles of
                  Confederation being the beginning of the several States.
                  The other extremely important issue is that Assistance of Counsel is required
                  BEFORE the arraignment process begins and he will assist you understand the
                  nature and cause of the action, can challenge the judge’s qualification as we
                  have no public officers today, can challenge the court’s jurisdiction, will
                  validate of the charging documents are constitutionally correct, determine is
                  there was a judicial probable cause determination based upon evidence, and other
                  important functions to assist you with your constitutionally secured rights.
                  There is no longer any judicial determination of probable cause based upon
                  evidence as the true judiciary is non existence today. The beginning of the
                  criminal charges, whether a complaint, information or some combination thereof up
                  and through a grand jury is all Executive.
                  The copy of the complaint [commercial document] is used to gain jurisdiction,
                  being that the complaint itself is the actual probable cause and this is
                  usually found in criminal 5 of the court rules.
                  The Assistance of Counsel is secured in the Sixth Amendment as an integral
                  part of the Trial by Jury and is a law of the United States in the Judiciary Act
                  of 1789 in section 35. An Assistance of Counsel changes the venue to a court
                  of record, being a court of law arising under the Constitution of the United
                  States that assists the accused versus an Attorney at Law that only can
                  "represent" a client in the civil law courts. "In the most general sense that term
                  denotes an agent or substitute, or one who is appointed and authorized to act in
                  the place or stead of another." Sherts v. Fulton National Bank of Lancaster,
                  342 Pa 337, Blacks 4th Edition



                  Contract for Assistance of Counsel
                  Arising under the Sixth Amendment

                  I, , (hereafter Requesting Party) do request Assistance of Counsel in a
                  misdemeanor(s)/felony(s)/traffic charge(s) of in a State court in , Illinois
                  arising under the sixth Amendment of the Bill of Rights of the Constitution of the
                  United States arising under the adjudged decision of the Supreme Court of the
                  United States of Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961) stating the Bill of Rights
                  of the Constitution of the United States applies to the States as well as
                  Federal in criminal charges over-ruling Wolfe v. People of the State of Colorado,
                  338 U.S. 25 (1948). And further my constitutionally secured rights arise under
                  the Treaty with Russia at 15 Stat 539 of the year of 1867 containing the
                  Constitution of the United States and the Bill of Rights.
                  I, the Requesting Party, am entering into this Contract arising under right
                  to Contract as secured in Article 1 Section 10 of the Constitution of the
                  United States as lawfully amended by the qualified Electors of the several States
                  and the Right of Assistance of Counsel as secured sixth Amendment of the Bill
                  of Rights in the Constitution of the United States.

                  I, , (hereafter Assistance of Counsel) as a lawfully licensed lawyer/attorney
                  am empowered as Assistance of Counsel in the territorial boundaries of Alaska
                  do hereby agree to the following:
                  1. As the Assistance of Counsel, I will represent the Requesting Party;
                  and,
                  2. As the Assistance of Counsel, I will only represent the Requesting Party
                  in a Court in which the Constitution of the United States and the Laws which
                  shall be made pursuant thereof is the rule of law; and,
                  3. As the Assistance of Counsel, I will not represent the Requesting Party in
                  any Court which is a statutory non-constitutional court; and,
                  4. As the Assistance of Counsel, I will only represent the Requesting Party
                  in a Court where only a bona fide public officer [justice/judge/magistrate] of
                  the State of Alaska has an Oath of Office on file in a public forum that
                  arises under Article VI of the Constitution of the United States, 1 Stat 23 - being
                  a Law of the United States, and Article XII section 5 of the Constitution of
                  the State of Alaska and the Laws of Alaska; and,
                  5. As the Assistance of Counsel, I will only represent the Requesting Party
                  in a Court where only a bona fide public officer [justice/judge/magistrate] of
                  the State of Alaska with a true Civil Commission on file in a pubic forum as
                  mandated by the Laws of the United States, the decisions of the Supreme Court
                  of the United States, the Laws of Alaska, and the Constitution of the State of
                  Alaska; and,
                  6. As an Assistance of Counsel, I will only represent the Requesting Party in
                  a Court where only a bona fide public officer [justice/judge/magistrate] of
                  the State of Alaska has filed an Official Bond as mandated by the Laws of
                  Alaska as found codified in the copyrighted Alaska Statutes in ©AS 39.15 et seq.;
                  and,
                  7. As an Assistance of Counsel, I will advise Requesting Party of all of
                  his/her Constitutionally secured rights. As Assistance of Counsel, I will not
                  waive under color of law any of Requesting Party’s constitutionally secured rights
                  without the express written consent of the Requesting Party; and,
                  8. As the Assistance of Counsel, I will only represent the Requesting Party
                  in a true court of record with prescribed boundaries, a true seal of court, and
                  being a true constitutionally empowered Court with a judge, justice, or
                  magistrate that is not a member of the Alaska Bar pursuant to the Laws of Alaska as
                  found in the Alaska Bar Act of chapter 196 section 4 of the year of 1955.


                  As the Assistance of Counsel, I , have read the proceeding contract and
                  understanding same, do hereby agree to abide by all of the terms and conditions so
                  stated and to always abide by the Constitution of the United States and the
                  Laws which shall be made pursuant thereof which are not listed or enumerated in
                  this contract.



                  Someone else said Motions to Dismiss automatically acknowledge jurisdiction
                  of the court. He said one should Demand dismissal. Aren't Motions the proper
                  way to state a demand in writing? Jim Woods said a challenge to subject matter
                  jurisdiction has to be answered before any court can begin proceedings and he
                  provided several case citations. He said one must object to any attempts to
                  proceed without first proving jurisdiction. I'm concerned that by objecting too
                  much the judge may find me in contempt of court. objecting properly is not
                  ccontempt. you must keep your head. Can anyone tell me the rules re contempt? I
                  don't remember seeing them in the Illinois rules of court.

                  Woods said such ideas as capital letters indicating fictional persons and
                  zip codes indicating federal ownership etc are Patriot mythology. He denies
                  conspiracy, but acknowledges wide-spread corruption. I find conspiracy likely, but
                  not to the extent many Patriots seem to believe. Anton Chaitkin's book,
                  Treason in America, showed that Britain has been the chief corruptor of American
                  government ever since the Revolution. Lincoln's purpose in the Civil War was to
                  prevent Britain's scheme, which was to divide the U.S. and to defeat
                  republicanism, in order to have an imperial monopoly for world control. Britain was
                  behind both the abolitionists who advocated splitting the nation and the Southern
                  secessionists, as per the Knights of the Golden Circle [which became the KKK]
                  in association with Satanic-Mason Albert Pike, a co-leader of the new Masons
                  connected with the P2 Lodge of Italy, which created the Mafia. [By the way,
                  Skousen's book, The Making of America, showed that The Articles of
                  Confederation were not violated when the Founders created the Constitution,
                  because the Articles had become void when all of the states failed to abide
                  by them ever since their "adoption"]. Whatever corporationist schemes and the
                  like may have occurred around the time of the Civil War and whatever evidences
                  there is of Lincoln's treason should be considered from the standpoint that
                  British Intelligence has a long history of promoting effective propaganda and
                  schemes for subverting moral government everywhere. The British even printed the
                  first Bibles of the Hindus and Muslims in India, using the most radical
                  versions of each, in order to divide the people as much as possible and create
                  maximum strife, so they could be manipulated by the British. It shouldn't be hard
                  for conspiracy buffs to imagine that conspirators were and are behind the
                  propaganda against Lincoln and in favor of the Southern secession. I think we need
                  to get our history straight before we can get our legal
                  activities straight. Don't we?
                  >>
                • Frog Farmer
                  ... Did more than one party have an equitable interest in the vehicle you were stopped in? Yes, more than one did own an equitable interest in the vehicle.
                  Message 8 of 19 , Jul 22, 2003
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Bowman7a wrote:

                    > Are you using you automobile to conduct "commercial
                    > trade?"

                    > Do you use your "motor vehicle" to haul paying
                    > passengers?

                    > Are you paid by the mile to transport tangible goods
                    > across state lines?


                    Did more than one party have an equitable interest in the
                    vehicle you were stopped in? Yes, more than one did own an
                    equitable interest in the vehicle. Have you ever taken time
                    to research your original statutes, or did you enter the
                    Equity Jurisdiction because of the Lemming
                    Principle?

                    > Do you a contract with the Judge of that Court? No you
                    > do not...


                    ...unless you promised to appear in his court in writing...hmmm?

                    > THe judge will say; ''ll hold you in comtempt of court.'


                    You cannot get contempt for asking a question. Memorize (and
                    understand) my poem on my webpage:

                    http://www.frogfarm.org

                    > Your honor


                    You just qualified a person who is most likely not qualified
                    any more than your next door neighbor. Do your neighbors
                    make your knees tremble?

                    > do you and I have a contract?


                    You have to ask that after signing a ticket and appearing?
                    If the court has no jurisdiction, why weren't you dragged in
                    kicking and screaming? (or bound and gagged??)

                    > He /she will say NO!


                    Maybe, if they're not clever enough to know.

                    > I'll cite you with contempt of court...


                    I want to know why you've gotten this far... I'd have
                    already disqualified him or her for cause.

                    > Ask is that Civil or Criminal? Your honor you know that
                    > only a real human of flesh and blood can bring charges.
                    > Not some
                    > 'strawman' a phony, made up entity. The Judge will turn
                    > beet red, but
                    > most likely will go to his chambers....

                    Or he'll say, "Officer Smedley is a human, he even has three
                    children."

                    > You continue and state the
                    > facts......now its a matter of record.....

                    Remember my poem. Will you state facts like, "The car I
                    THOUGHT was solely mine had state license plates attached,
                    and a Certificate of Title in the glovebox, for which
                    APPLICATIONS were made and FEES collected. And my license
                    expired for one reason or another. Until then I thought I
                    needed it, but then somebody on the Internet told me that
                    The People aren't REQUIRED to get license plates. Some
                    other guy said everyone was fooled into waiving their rights
                    in return for privileges because of a Principle named after
                    Lemmings. I had no idea that the above facts meant that I
                    shared an equitable interest in property. Is ignorance an
                    excuse?"

                    > All charges should be dropped.


                    If they are, it's not because you used the right argument.

                    > The following argument has been used in at least three
                    > states
                    > (Pennsylvania, Ohio, and West Virginia) as a legal brief
                    > to support a
                    > demand for dismissal of charges of "driving without a
                    > license."

                    It looks like my own brief filed in 1981. The difference
                    was, I didn't have a driver's license issued to me by the
                    state, and they had no equitable interest in my car.

                    > It is
                    > the argument that was the reason for the charges to be
                    > dropped, or for
                    > a "win" in court against the argument that free people can
                    > have their
                    > right to travel regulated by their servants.

                    You cannot be sure of the reason for any win. Maybe the
                    judge collected enough war reparations for one day and his
                    girlfriend was in the room and he wanted to appear kind and
                    just. You never know.

                    > The forgotten legal maxim is that free people have a right
                    > to travel on
                    > the roads which are provided by their servants for that
                    > purpose, using
                    > ordinary transportation of the day.

                    People indentured into a socialist wealth transfer scheme
                    cannot be said to be free. The roads that belong to the
                    People existed before any governments, and it is these that
                    are forever free. Highways (and toll roads) that are part
                    of the national defense infrastructure were not provided for
                    the right of the people to travel, but to enable tanks and
                    military vehicles to get quickly from one place to another.
                    The people can use them AS PERMITTED (since the nation is
                    in a state of perpetual declared emergency) (without
                    significant objection by the conquered people).

                    > Licensing cannot be required of
                    > free people, because taking on the restrictions of a
                    > license requires
                    > the surrender of a right.

                    Now we're getting somewhere. Can you remember back to when
                    you surrendered your rights? Did you take "driver's
                    education" in a public school? Did you walk into a DMV and
                    APPLY for a PERMIT?

                    > The driver's license can be required of people
                    > who use the highways for trade, commerce, or hire; that
                    > is, if they earn
                    > their living on the road, and if they use extraordinary
                    > machines on the
                    > roads. If you are not using the highways for profit, you
                    > cannot be
                    > required to have a driver's license.

                    But the whole reason you use evidences of debt in your
                    commerce is so that you can profit! (It's a guaranteed loss
                    to the other party!!) I'll bet the record will show that you
                    even traded equitable jurisdiction evidences of debt to
                    "purchase" your car! Or are you among the few who still
                    deal in substance at the common law where rights are traded
                    with lawful money?

                    > BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF NOTICE FOR DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF
                    JURISDICTION

                    Assumes the court has jurisdiction to decide the issue.

                    >
                    > NOW, comes the Accused, appearing specially and not
                    > generally or
                    > voluntarily, but under threat of arrest if he failed to do
                    > so, with this
                    > "BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF NOTICE FOR DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF
                    JURISDICTION,"
                    > stating as follows:

                    This looks like it was right out of my brief from 1981. It
                    wasn't until later that I realized that threats may be empty
                    lies. I then started to wait for the threat in writing ("a
                    warrant MAY issue for your arrest"), and then calling the
                    bluff. I never was arrested, but did turn back the dark
                    forces at the last second possible. Nothing that "worked"
                    can be transmitted to one who does not know his or her own mind.

                    > ARGUMENT

                    Assumes there's a real party to argue with. Why are you
                    willing to make these FALSE admissions and confessions when
                    so many people are discovering that their neighbors are
                    merely putting on a "power play" for the entertainment of
                    the true believers?

                    > "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.

                    Q. If you knew you had the right, why did you trade it for a
                    privilege?

                    A. Daddy told me to.
                    B. Mommy told me to.
                    C. Teacher told me to.
                    D. Everybody else does it.
                    E. I don't know. I'm an incompetent.
                    F. I studied the law and came to that conclusion
                    G. Other: ______________________________.

                    > The
                    > Right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways
                    > and to transport
                    > his property thereon, by horsedrawn carriage, wagon, or
                    > automobile, is
                    > not a mere privilege which may be permitted or prohibited
                    > at will,

                    Right - It takes several affirmative actions on the part of
                    the applying would-be subject!

                    > 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."

                    See that part, "neither interfering with nor disturbing
                    another's Rights"? When another party has an equitable
                    interest in property shared by you, it is no longer YOUR
                    property to do with as you please. You have entered into
                    commerce somewhere along the way, and while you may have
                    done it while sleepwalking, you are still responsible (or
                    you are not responsible and may be declared to be
                    incompetent to handle your own affairs. Which way would you
                    rather have it?)

                    > When the State allows the formation of a corporation it
                    > may control its
                    > creation by establishing guidelines (statutes) for its
                    > operation (charters). Corporations who use the roads in
                    > the course of
                    > business do not use the roads in the ordinary course of
                    > life. There is a
                    > difference between a corporation and an individual.

                    So why do individuals go in to apply for corporate
                    regulation when they know they don't have to do it?

                    > The United States Supreme Court has stated:
                    >
                    > "...We are of the opinion that there is a clear
                    > distinction in this
                    > particular between an individual and a corporation, and
                    > that the latter
                    > has no right to refuse to submit its books and papers for
                    > examination on
                    > the suit of the State. The individual may stand upon his
                    > Constitutional Rights as a Citizen.

                    Or, as is most often the case today, he may choose to waive
                    them for whatever reason.

                    > He is entitled to carry on his
                    > private business in his own way. His power to contract is
                    > unlimited.

                    You just can't stop some people! Some would contract away
                    their mother, to say nothing of their right to travel in
                    return for a privilege to drive.

                    > He
                    > owes no duty to the State or to his neighbors to divulge
                    > his business,
                    > or to open his doors to investigation, so far as it may
                    > tend to
                    > incriminate him.

                    ...until he applies to be regulated, and his application is
                    accepted.

                    > He owes no such duty to the State, since he receives
                    > nothing therefrom, beyond the protection of his life,
                    > liberty, and property.

                    See? There's the key point. Does that sound like you??
                    What's your SS # again?? How much did you "tender" for
                    those license plates again? Was your insurance bill low, or
                    high?

                    > His Rights are such as the law of the land 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 the refusal to
                    > incriminate himself, and the immunity of
                    > himself and his property from arrest or seizure except
                    > under warrant of law. He owes nothing to the public so
                    > long as he does not trespass upon their rights.

                    Then he should learn not to enter into equitable
                    jurisdictions with his neighbors and put their equitable
                    interests at risk.

                    > "Upon the other hand, the corporation is a creature of the
                    > state. It is presumed to be incorporated for the benefit
                    > of the public. It receives certain special privileges and
                    > franchises, and holds them subject to the
                    > laws of the state and the limitations of its charter.
                    > Its rights to act
                    > as a corporation are only preserved to it so long as it
                    > obeys the laws
                    > of its creation. There is a reserved right in the
                    > legislature to
                    > investigate its contracts and find out whether it has
                    > exceeded its
                    > powers. It would be a strange anomaly to hold that the
                    > State, having
                    > chartered a corporation to make use of certain franchises,
                    > could not in
                    > exercise of its sovereignty inquire how those franchises
                    > had been
                    > employed, and whether they had been abused, and demand the
                    > production of
                    > corporate books and papers for that purpose."
                    >
                    > Hale vs. Hinkel, 201 US 43, 74-75
                    >
                    > Corporations engaged in mercantile equity fall under the
                    > purview of the
                    > State's admiralty jurisdiction,

                    And so do people posing as corporations, if only due to the
                    Lemming Principle, or out of ignorance. Most would take
                    offense if you told them what they were doing.

                    > and the public at large must be
                    > protected from their activities, as they (the
                    > corporations) are engaged
                    > in business for profit.

                    They are insolvent upon the public credit. Are you too?
                    What substance in excess of your debts do you own? Don't
                    count property in which another party has an interest.


                    > "...Based upon the fundamental ground that the sovereign
                    state has the
                    > plenary control of the streets and highways in the
                    exercise of its
                    > police power (see police power, infra.), may absolutely
                    prohibit the use
                    > of the streets as a place for the prosecution of a
                    private business for
                    > gain. They all recognize the fundamental distinction
                    between the
                    > ordinary Right of the Citizen to use the streets in the
                    usual way and
                    > the use of the streets as a place of business or a main
                    instrumentality
                    > of business for private gain. The former is a common
                    Right, the latter
                    > is an extraordinary use. As to the former, the
                    legislative power is
                    > confined to regulation, as to the latter, it is plenary
                    and extends even
                    > to absolute prohibition. Since the use of the streets by a
                    > common carrier in the prosecution of its business as such
                    is not a right
                    > but a mere license of privilege."
                    >
                    > Hadfield vs. Lundin, 98 Wash 516

                    There's no argument here. The only problm is, today, due to
                    a plan using public education, Americans are incompetent to
                    know the ramifications of their actions that they take under
                    the provisions of the Law of Merchants, the Uniform
                    Commercial Code. They don't know their ass from their
                    elbow, so to speak. They cannot recognize when they leave
                    one jurisdiction and enter another. They cannot recognize
                    and distinguish a waiver from an exercise of a right.

                    > "Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved,
                    there can be no
                    > rule making or legislation which would abrogate them."
                    >
                    > Miranda vs. Arizona, 384 US 436, 491

                    Nobody's abrogating them - they are cajolling you into
                    waiving them due to your own ignorance.

                    > "The claim and exercise of a constitutional Right cannot
                    be converted
                    > into a crime."
                    >
                    > Miller vs. U.S., 230 F. 486, 489

                    But where you waive, instead of claiming or defending a
                    right, you can bargain away anything for anything, such as
                    freedom for a mess of pottage.

                    > and ...
                    >
                    > "There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one
                    because of this
                    > exercise of constitutional Rights."
                    >
                    > Snerer vs. Cullen, 481 F. 946

                    But community service can be given to the confused who mix
                    privileges with rights and don't properly know one from the
                    other.

                    >
                    > Streets and highways are established and maintained for
                    the purpose of
                    > travel and transportation by the public. Such travel may
                    be for business
                    > or pleasure.
                    >
                    > "The use of the highways for the purpose of travel and
                    transportation is
                    > not a mere privilege, but a common and fundamental Right
                    of which the
                    > public and the individual cannot be rightfully deprived."


                    The individual may deprive him or herself by his or her
                    actions and contracts and applications and ACCEPTANCE OF THE
                    TERMS.

                    > "The Right of the Citizen to travel upon the public
                    highways and to
                    > transport his property thereon, either by horse drawn
                    carriage or
                    > by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city can
                    prohibit or
                    > permit at will, but a common Right which he has under the
                    right to life,
                    > liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."
                    >
                    > Thompson vs. Smith, 154 SE 579


                    Right! (Correct!) - "his property", not "their property".
                    His alone. Out of equity. In the common law. No contracts.

                    > So we can see that a Citizen has a Right to travel upon the
                    > public highways by automobile and the Citizen cannot be
                    rightfully
                    > deprived of his Liberty. So where does the misconception
                    that the use of
                    > the public road is always and only a privilege come from?

                    You got me! Street smarts? Lemming Lodge #52? Daddy? It
                    sure does not come from a reading of the first driver's
                    license statutes and subsequent amendments.

                    > Here the court held that a Citizen has the Right to
                    travel upon the
                    > public highways, but that he did not have the right to
                    conduct business
                    > upon the highways. On this point of law all authorities
                    are unanimous.


                    So why bring it up now?

                    >
                    > "Heretofore the court has held, and we think correctly,
                    that 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."

                    But at least two of the parties with an equitable interest
                    in the vehicle are doing it for a profit. Only you, the
                    driver, appears confused. You just don't recognize when
                    you're profiting, poor devil!

                    > "The right of the citizen to travel upon the highway and
                    to transport
                    > his property thereon, in the ordinary course of life and
                    business,


                    His property, not community property. The ordinary course
                    used to be to pay for things at law with substance, not to
                    discharge debts in equity via contracts. The monetary law
                    defining the dollar has never been repealed. Why do you
                    call a dollar that which is not a dollar?

                    >
                    > "This distinction, elementary and fundamental in
                    character, is
                    > recognized by all the authorities."


                    So is the difference between "at law" and "in equity".

                    > This position does not hang precariously upon only a few
                    cases, but has
                    > been proclaimed by an impressive array of cases ranging
                    from the
                    > state courts to the federal courts.


                    Same with the "at law vs. equity" difference. Show me a
                    college graduate who knows it on graduation day.

                    > "the right of the Citizen to travel upon the highway and
                    to transport
                    > his property


                    There it is again..."his property", not "shared property".

                    > There is no dissent among various authorities as to this
                    position.
                    > (See Am. Jur. [1st] Const. Law, 329 and corresponding Am.
                    Jur. [2nd].)


                    Ditto.


                    > As we can see, the distinction between a "Right" to use
                    the public roads
                    > and a "privilege" to use the public roads is drawn upon
                    the line of
                    > "using the road as a place of business" and the various
                    state courts
                    > have held so.


                    That's only one of the lines. I'm trying to make you aware
                    of another.

                    > "First, it is well established law that the highways of
                    the state are
                    > public property, and their primary and preferred use is for
                    > private purposes, and that their use for purposes of gain
                    is special and
                    > extraordinary which, generally at least, the legislature
                    may prohibit or
                    > condition as it sees fit."


                    Ask "your representative" who is sovereign regarding the
                    national defense highways.

                    > There should be considerable authority on a subject as
                    important a this
                    > deprivation of the liberty of the individual "using the
                    roads in the
                    > ordinary course of life and business." However, it should
                    be noted that
                    > extensive research has not turned up one case or
                    authority acknowledging
                    > the state's power to convert the individual's right to
                    travel upon the
                    > public roads into a "privilege."
                    >
                    > Therefore, it is concluded that the Citizen does have a
                    "Right" to
                    > travel and transport his property upon the public
                    highways and roads and
                    > the exercise of this Right is not a "privilege."


                    "Let the record show that this Certificate of title was
                    issued to this driver, along with these personalized license
                    plates, and that Lucky Louie's Insurance Company says
                    he's a good risk."

                    > DRIVER
                    >
                    > 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., Pg. 940
                    >
                    >
                    > Notice that this definition includes one who is
                    "employed" in conducting
                    > a vehicle. It should be self-evident that this individual
                    could not
                    > be "travelling" on a journey, but is using the road as a
                    place of business.
                    >

                    So explain why a person claiming a right has a driver's
                    license in his pocket and plates on the car, and a
                    registration and title all with his signature on them (or
                    were those affixed to defraud?)


                    > "Traffic -- Commerce, trade, sale or exchange of
                    merchandise, bills,
                    > money, or the like. The passing of goods and commodities
                    from one person
                    > to another for an equivalent in goods or money ..."
                    >
                    > Bovier's Law Dictionary, 1914 ed., Pg. 3307
                    >
                    >
                    > Here again, notice that this definition refers to one
                    > "conducting business." No mention is made of one who is
                    travelling in
                    > his automobile. This definition is of one who is engaged
                    in the passing
                    > of a commodity or goods in exchange for money, i.e ..,
                    vehicles for hire.


                    See "exchange...of bills..."


                    > In the instant case, the proper definition of a "license" is:
                    >
                    > "a permit, granted by an appropriate governmental body,
                    generally for
                    > consideration, to a person, firm, or corporation, to
                    pursue some
                    > occupation or to carry on some business which is subject
                    to regulation
                    > under the police power."
                    >
                    > Rosenblatt vs. California State Board of Pharmacy, 158
                    P.2d 199, 203


                    What makes this person APPLY if they don't want to have the
                    license? FEAR alone. False Evidence Appearing Real.

                    > In essence, the licensee may well be seeking to be
                    > regulated by the "licensor."


                    Duh!

                    > "A license fee is a charge made primarily for regulation,
                    with the fee
                    > to cover costs and expenses of supervision or regulation."


                    You asked for it, you got it! (Toyota!)

                    > Next; does the regulation involve a Constitutional Right?
                    >
                    > This question has already been addressed and answered
                    [incompletely]

                    > in this brief, and
                    > need not be reinforced other than to remind this Court
                    that this Citizen
                    > does have the Right to travel upon the public highway by
                    automobile in
                    > the ordinary course of life and business.


                    Only in a car he owns totally, with no equitable partners.

                    > It can therefore be concluded
                    > that this regulation does involve a Constitutional Right.


                    Maybe in the case of a few, but not in the case of most
                    Americans today who have waived their rights for whatever
                    reason.


                    > Although the Fourteenth Amendment does not interfere with
                    the proper
                    > exercise of the police power, in accordance with the
                    general principle
                    > that the power must be exercised so as not to invade
                    unreasonably the
                    > rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution, it
                    is established
                    > beyond question that every state power, including the
                    police power, is
                    > limited by the Fourteenth Amendment (and others) and by
                    the inhibitions
                    > there imposed.
                    >


                    I guess this guy doesn't care that the 14th amendment was
                    not lawfully ratified. There's another waiver for you who
                    are keeping score. Heck, most Americans would gladly claim
                    "14th amendment rights" (mere privileges again!!)

                    > "With regard particularly to the U.S. Constitution, it is
                    elementary
                    > that a Right secured or protected by that document cannot
                    be overthrown
                    > or impaired by any state police authority."


                    So why will people believe the lies that it can?

                    > This alarming opinion appears to be saying that every
                    person using an
                    > automobile as a matter of Right, must give up the Right
                    and convert the
                    > Right into a privilege. This is accomplished under the
                    guise of
                    > regulation. This statement is indicative of the
                    insensitivity, even the
                    > ignorance, of the government to the limits placed upon
                    governments by
                    > and through the several constitutions.


                    Actually, that citation only dealt with motor vehicle
                    operators which you had already defined above. A short
                    memory might cause one to think it meant "every person using
                    an automobile as a matter of Right" Not so.

                    > Thus the legislature does not have the power to abrogate the
                    > Citizen's Right to travel upon the public roads, by
                    passing legislation
                    > forcing the citizen to waive his Right and convert that
                    Right into
                    > a privilege.


                    Please show me this statute. I don't believe it exists.
                    Every one I've seen protects a private right and regulates
                    only equitable interests.

                    > Furthermore, we have previously established that
                    > this "privilege" has been defined as applying only to
                    those who are
                    > "conducting business in the streets" or "operating
                    for-hire vehicles."


                    How else do you define driving someone else's property?
                    It's unfortunate if you didn't know what you were doing when
                    you were "acting" the role of an adult when you APPLIED for
                    the PRIVILEGE.

                    >
                    > The legislature has attempted (by legislative fiat) to
                    deprive
                    > the Citizen of his Right to use the roads in the ordinary
                    course of life
                    > and business, without affording the Citizen the safeguard of
                    > "due process of law." This has been accomplished under
                    supposed powers
                    > of regulation.
                    >


                    The citizen must be confused, or not understanding the power
                    of legislatures, or the English language (current functional
                    illiteracy rate exceeds 60%).

                    > "Moreover, a distinction must be observed between the
                    regulation of an
                    > activity which may be engaged in as a matter of right and
                    one carried on
                    > by government sufferance of permission."
                    >
                    > Davis vs. Massachusetts, 167 US 43;
                    > Pachard vs. Banton, supra.


                    That should be "Packard" above. And it's so true. How can
                    you expect it though when it your cops all come from the
                    same graduating class as kids who cannot read their diplomas?

                    > SURRENDER OF RIGHTS
                    >
                    > A Citizen cannot be forced to give up his/her Rights in
                    the name
                    > of regulation.


                    A Citizen can be cajolled or induced.

                    > If one cannot be placed in a position of being forced to
                    > surrender Rights in order to exercise a privilege, how
                    much more must
                    > this maxim of law, then, apply when one is simply exercising
                    > (putting into use) a Right?
                    >
                    > "To be that statute which would deprive a Citizen of the
                    rights of
                    > person or property, without a regular trial, according to
                    the course and
                    > usage of the common law, would not be the law of the land."


                    Maybe if they make it so you have to apply for it to get it,
                    you might realize the foolishness and resist the high school
                    peer pressure to get it. Nah!

                    >
                    > "We find it intolerable that one Constitutional Right
                    should have to be
                    > surrendered in order to assert another."
                    >
                    > Simons vs. United States, 390 US 389
                    >


                    Notice they were talking about rights, not a right and a
                    privilege.


                    >
                    > Since the state requires that one give up Rights in order
                    to exercise
                    > the privilege of driving, the regulation cannot stand
                    under the
                    > police power, due process, or regulation, but must be
                    exposed as
                    > a statute which is oppressive and one which has been
                    misapplied to
                    > deprive the Citizen of Rights guaranteed by the United
                    States
                    > Constitution and the state constitutions.


                    No, they regulate equity, and you voluntarily entered into
                    it. I didn't, and they don't bother me. I can read and
                    understand the regulations and statutes. I can resist the
                    temptation to waive rights and enter into equity. Why
                    cannot more people do it? It must be like dieting.


                    > The views advanced herein are neither novel nor
                    unsupported by
                    > authority.


                    True, they're just not brought up in high school or college,
                    let alone grade school. It seems only home schoolers are
                    prepared for this stuff.

                    > CONVERSION OF A RIGHT TO A CRIME
                    >
                    > As previously demonstrated, the Citizen has the Right to
                    travel and to
                    > transport his property upon the public highways in the
                    ordinary course
                    > of life and business.


                    What if he's oblivious to the distinctions between law and
                    equity, between substance and credit, between exercise of a
                    right versus waiving a right? Will the ignorance of these
                    distinctions provide an adequate excuse for violations of
                    contracts and agreements made incompetently? Where were the
                    parents!?

                    > 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.


                    Not really. I took three years to prove it to myself three
                    times. Why anyone would say that is a mystery to me.

                    > This amounts
                    > to converting the exercise of a Constitutional Right into
                    a crime.


                    It would if it were true, but it's not, and it doesn't.

                    > Any person who claims his Right to travel upon the
                    highways, and so
                    > exercises that Right, cannot be tried for a crime of
                    doing so. And yet,
                    > this Freeman stands before this court today to answer
                    charges for
                    > the "crime" of exercising his Right to Liberty.


                    See, this brief applies to people of a certain lawful
                    status, one not widely shared. Most Americans are NOT
                    Freemen by training, programming, and choice, but not by
                    force. All the slaves applied to be regulated and waived
                    rights over their signatures. Sorry, but true.


                    > As we have already shown, the term "drive" can only apply
                    to those who
                    > are employed in the business of transportation for hire.


                    And yet all the slaves will gladly tell you what kind of car
                    they drive.

                    > CONCLUSION
                    >
                    > It is the duty of the court to recognize the substance of
                    things and not
                    > the mere form.


                    If only everyone could do it as well.

                    > "The courts are not bound by mere form, nor are they to
                    be misled by
                    > mere pretenses.


                    Like public high school graduates?

                    > The Accused therefore moves
                    > this court to dismiss the charge against him, with prejudice.


                    Thus the accused grants jurisdiction to decide, where there
                    was no real issue to be decided. Tsk! Tsk! Tsk!


                    > Few know that the driver's license is a contract without
                    which the
                    > police are powerless to regulate the people's actions or
                    activities.
                    >


                    WHY is that? Who is to blame for ignorance?

                    > Few (if any) licensees intentionally surrender valuable
                    rights. They are
                    > told that they must have the license.


                    Ny whom are they told this, first? Parents? Teachers?
                    Friends? Does the state send a man out to tell everyone?
                    Or do people just get the right answers to the wrong questions?

                    > No one in their right mind voluntarily surrenders
                    complete liberty and
                    > accepts in its place a set of regulations.


                    HAh! Wanna bet!?


                    > "The people never give up their liberties but under some
                    delusion."


                    Now I can agree with you. Americans are VERY deluded.


                    > Someone suggested I say I can't find counsel, a
                    requirement under
                    > the Sixth Amendment. Won't they then just appoint me
                    a lawyer?


                    I would suggest that you don't act like a sockpuppet saying
                    what someone tells you to say, and come to a realization of
                    your own whether or not you can find counsel. Who is the
                    "they" who will appoint you a lawyer? Isn't it ONE Man or
                    Woman? Will you have qualified them to sit in on your case?
                    If they appoint a lawyer, what will you do? What would you
                    do if they appointed a butcher?


                    > Someone else said Motions to Dismiss automatically
                    acknowledge
                    > jurisdiction of the court.


                    They do. Glad you got the message.

                    > He said one should Demand dismissal.
                    > Aren't Motions the proper way to state a demand in
                    writing?


                    No, they are different propositions. Think about it.

                    > Jim
                    > Woods said a challenge to subject matter jurisdiction
                    has to be
                    > answered before any court can begin proceedings and
                    he provided
                    > several case citations.


                    Great. That's when you have a properly set court with a
                    genuine case and not a mere sham intended to delude. First
                    things first, unless you're really in a hurry to skip over
                    all your rights.

                    > He said one must object to any attempts to
                    > proceed without first proving jurisdiction.


                    That's not a first order of business. You may waive proper
                    qualifications for those attempting to punish you, if you wish.

                    > I'm concerned that by
                    > objecting too much the judge may find me in contempt
                    of court.


                    Then you've already lost. Failure to object timely is
                    fatal. If your opponents give you an opportunity to object
                    and you fail to object, the record will show your waiver.
                    Appeals are only based upon objections. You DO need to know
                    WHY you are objecting. I think there are 20-30 recognized
                    valid objections. There's even a computer game you can get
                    that teaches you about them, so I read somewhere recently.
                    I learned from reading a book about objections. Maybe doing
                    that might benefit you too.

                    > Can
                    > anyone tell me the rules re contempt? I don't remember
                    seeing them
                    > in the Illinois rules of court.


                    You cannot get contempt for asking a question. Read my poem
                    AGAIN - it's only a few lines, but I used it as a cheat
                    sheet in my own court appearances, and I stand by it.

                    > He denies conspiracy, but acknowledges wide-spread
                    > corruption.


                    How do you have corruption without conspiracy?

                    > Whatever corporationist schemes and the like may have
                    > occurred around the time of the Civil War and
                    whatever evidences
                    > there is of Lincoln's treason should be considered
                    from the
                    > standpoint that British Intelligence has a long
                    history of promoting
                    > effective propaganda and schemes for subverting moral
                    government
                    > everywhere.


                    "The Devil Made Me Do It" Defense?? Not Acceptable.

                    >

                    > The British even printed the first Bibles of the Hindus
                    > and Muslims in India, using the most radical versions
                    of each, in
                    > order to divide the people as much as possible and
                    create maximum
                    > strife, so they could be manipulated by the British.
                    It shouldn't be
                    > hard for conspiracy buffs to imagine that
                    conspirators were and are
                    > behind the propaganda against Lincoln and in favor of
                    the Southern
                    > secession. I think we need to get our history
                    straight before we can
                    > get our legal activities straight. Don't we?


                    You sure do!

                    What's really hard is for Americans to face the facts
                    regarding their own history and see through the propaganda.

                    Regards,

                    FF




                    -------------------------------------
                    A Free Forum for Free People
                    The Frog Farm Discussion List
                    http://www.frogfarm.org
                    -------------------------------------
                  • Don Schwarz
                    Fraud tolls from the time it is made aware of. Laws only have standing to the point of where the law no longer performs a function. see JACOBS Vs MASSACHUSETTS
                    Message 9 of 19 , Jul 23, 2003
                    • 0 Attachment

                      Fraud tolls from the time it is made aware of.

                      Laws only have standing to the point of where the law no longer performs a function.

                      see JACOBS Vs MASSACHUSETTS  197 US 11,  about the exercise of police powers.
                      "..beyond what is reasonably required....beyond necessity...[law] has no real or substantial relation...
                      plain,palpable invasion of rights secured by the fundamental law.....

                      Should a state enact a law that is superfluous, then that law is without standing, should it
                      be challenged.

                      Bowman7a ,  when a law has no effect, it loses its authority under the law.

                      When we find out we've been a victim of fraud, that under JACOBSON, a law is beyond
                      what is reasonably required to address an "evil", then that law becomes unconstitutional.



                      At 11:08 PM 7/22/03 -0700, you wrote:
                      >Bowman7a wrote:
                      >
                      > > Are you using you automobile to conduct "commercial
                      > > trade?"
                      >
                      > > Do you use your "motor vehicle" to haul paying
                      > > passengers?
                      >
                      > > Are you paid by the mile to transport tangible goods
                      > > across state lines?
                      >
                      >
                      >Did more than one party have an equitable interest in the
                      >vehicle you were stopped in?  Yes, more than one did own
                      an
                      >equitable interest in the vehicle.  Have you ever taken
                      time
                      >to research your original statutes, or did you enter the
                      >Equity Jurisdiction because of the Lemming
                      >Principle?
                      >
                      > > Do you a contract with the Judge of that Court? No you
                      > > do not...
                      >
                      >
                      >...unless you promised to appear in his court in
                      writing...hmmm?
                      >
                      > > THe judge will say; ''ll hold  you in comtempt of
                      court.'
                      >
                      >
                      >You cannot get contempt for asking a question. Memorize (and
                      >understand) my poem on my webpage:
                      >
                      >http://www.frogfarm.org
                      >
                      > > Your honor
                      >
                      >
                      >You just qualified a person who is most likely not qualified
                      >any more than your next door neighbor.  Do your neighbors
                      >make your knees tremble?
                      >
                      > > do you and I have a contract?
                      >
                      >
                      >You have to ask that after signing a ticket and appearing?
                      >If the court has no jurisdiction, why weren't you dragged in
                      >kicking and screaming? (or bound and gagged??)
                      >===========================================snipped
                      =============
                    • Bowman7a
                      Here is another way to look at this....Where is yourr recorded acceptance of a contract between you and the officer that gave you the citation? Where is your
                      Message 10 of 19 , Jul 23, 2003
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Here is another way to look at this....Where is yourr recorded acceptance of a contract between you and the officer that gave you the citation? Where is your recorded acceptance of a contract between you and the Judge? 
                         
                        Ask the court if anyone has a valid claim against ( First - 2nd Name : Last name) that being your name spelled in the proper sense.  The hyphen and colon serve a very specific function.  It demotes that you are of the human family, not a 'STRAWMAN' or straw person as they would like you to think of yourself as. 
                         
                        They play big on peoples ignorance and they play it for all it is worth.

                        It is very important to know the law and how to use their laws against them.  If you don't know the laws, then you are totally at their mercy,  as well as that shyster lawyers mercy.


                        Do you Yahoo!?
                        Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
                      • Bowman7a
                        These should be in your top 100 questions.. 1) Do you have a claim against Me? 2) Does the Judge want the creditor or the debtor to appear in court? 3)
                        Message 11 of 19 , Jul 23, 2003
                        • 0 Attachment
                          These should be in your top 100 questions..
                           
                          1)     Do you have a claim against Me?
                          2)     Does the Judge want the creditor or the debtor to appear in court?
                          3)     I demand to know the value of the case.
                          4)    * Are you profiting from My name and My property?
                          5)     What phone number are you calling from?
                          6)     What is your drivers license number?
                          7)     What is your Social Security number?
                           
                          8)     Are Pre Trial Services Officers required to have a Bond and if so where is yours being held?
                          9)     What is your Billing Address?
                          10)  What is your Home Address?
                          11)   What city do you live in?
                          12)  What county do you live in?
                          13) * Do you own any property outside the state of California?
                          14)  If you want Me to call Dan Stark the member of mankind you will need to provide Me with a private phone number and your private cell number so that I can reach you when you are not (DBA) (insert Esq. name) exampl  DAN STARK.
                          15)  List all secured private property and accounts that you have or own under the name (Insert Esq. Name) example DAN STARK.  This applies to all officers of the proceedings.

                          All this information is important for future action that will be necessary later on.
                           
                           
                          Bo


                          Do you Yahoo!?
                          Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
                        • Dessie Andrews
                          Do you mean to tell me that you can t see that this says, when you engage in commerce you lose the right to travel and must be licensed? That hardly gives them
                          Message 12 of 19 , Jul 24, 2003
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Message
                            Do you mean to tell me that you can't see that this says, when you engage in commerce you lose the right to travel and must be licensed?  That hardly gives them jurisdiction if you are not carrying passengers or hauling goods as freight does it?
                            -----Original Message-----
                            From: RotorRider [mailto:RotorRider@...]
                            Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2003 4:59 PM
                            To: tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com
                            Subject: Re: [tips_and_tricks] More on Tickets Hearing

                             Julie Nowman wrote:
                            Thanks to everyone for their helpful suggestions re my traffic tickets <snip>
                             
                            Rotor responds: Jim Wood is correct.  The following law cite proves that they have jurisdiction so go with the lack of jurisdiction and don't go off point.  Make 'em prove it, they can't.
                             
                            Excepting the right of personal passage, any and all use of the highway is a special and extraordinary use which, when allowed, is a privelege - not a vested right - and subject to regulation as such.   Thus the transportation of persons as passengers or their goods as freight is an extraordinary use and is therefore subject to regulations... @ 1 Tex Jur 2d (56) Highways, 235, p.765


                            To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                            tips_and_tricks-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



                            Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
                          • RotorRider
                            You read it correctly, they only have jurisdiction when you are using the roads in commerce (i.e.: commercial operation of a motor vehicle). if you are merely
                            Message 13 of 19 , Jul 24, 2003
                            • 0 Attachment
                              You read it correctly, they only have jurisdiction when you are using the roads in commerce (i.e.: commercial operation of a motor vehicle).  if you are merely traveling privately in your car there is no jurisdiction.
                               
                              Dessie Andrews <dessieandrews@...> wrote:
                               
                              Do you mean to tell me that you can't see that this says, when you engage in commerce you lose the right to travel and must be licensed?  That hardly gives them jurisdiction if you are not carrying passengers or hauling goods as freight does it?
                            • Don Schwarz
                              Tips and Tricks, Further, if a State is entitled to justice in the federal court, against a citizen of another State, why not such citizen against the State,
                              Message 14 of 19 , Jul 25, 2003
                              • 0 Attachment
                                Tips and Tricks,


                                "Further, if a State is entitled to justice in the federal court, against a citizen of another State, why not such citizen against the State, when the same language equally comprehends both? The rights of the individual and the justice due to them are as dear and precious as those of the States. Indeed the latter are founded upon the former, and the great end and object of them must be to secure and support the rights of individuals, or else vain is government. ---  
                                @ 468   CUSHING, J.
                                CHISHOLM, EXECUTOR Vs GEORGIA, 2 US 419

                                "Government exists to secure and support the rights of individuals".

                                The "licensing" of Americans in the constitutional use of their pubic right-of-ways, can only secure and support
                                the right of travel, which has existed as a right since before the creation of this nation.

                                If it is not now a right, when did that right cease to exist?

                                Show me the constitutional amendment that has specifically revoked this right!

                                If constitutional users of the public right-of-ways are not "licensed", what direct and immediate,
                                provable threat to public safety would this create?

                                Show me the facts of the need of "licensing" the non-commercial users of the public right-of-ways!

                                If these facts do not exist, then the need for licensing does not exist.

                                YOU MAY have your private form  of locomotion "registered" for usage for commercial purposes,
                                but that doesn't mean that every time you are using your locomotion, that you are under
                                "traffic" regulations for commercial vehicles.

                                It is beyond comprehension, that ALL users of the pubic right-of-ways would be subject to
                                commercial regulations, and that all constitutional uses of the public right-of-ways, have been
                                revoked and nullified.

                                Do not argue the statute, argue that your rights have been infringed.

                                If you argue the "statute", you give it authority over you. If you argue
                                constitutional rights, you give these authority over you.

                                "The motor vehicle statute does not apply to me, for I was not performing
                                any commercial operations. I was only exercising a constitutional right. The right of free travel.
                                Do not the public right-of-ways exist for the free travel of all Americans?
                                If not, when was this right revoked by a constitutional amendment? "


                                Challenge the law enforcers, to prove they have jurisdiction over you as within
                                constitutional principles.

                                Just some thoughts -----------------------------   Don






                                At 09:21 PM 7/24/03 -0400, you wrote:
                                You read it correctly, they only have jurisdiction when you are using the roads in commerce (i.e.: commercial operation of a motor vehicle).  if you are merely traveling privately in your car there is no jurisdiction.

                                 
                                Dessie Andrews <dessieandrews@...> wrote:
                                 
                                Do you mean to tell me that you can't see that this says, when you engage in commerce you lose the right to travel and must be licensed?  That hardly gives them jurisdiction if you are not carrying passengers or hauling goods as freight does it?

                                Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
                                ADVERTISEMENT

                                To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                                tips_and_tricks-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



                                Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
                              • hobot
                                I argree with your views and references Don and travel privately on pulbic roads w/o lic for over a decade now, not w/o facing challenges by uniformed armed
                                Message 15 of 19 , Jul 27, 2003
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  I argree with your views and references Don and travel privately
                                  on pulbic roads w/o lic for over a decade now, not w/o facing challenges
                                  by uniformed armed people staging a fake emergency with flashing lights
                                  acting like real sheriffis 'serving' process, acting as a bailiff too demanding
                                  a bond and appearence etc etc and on and on. Interesting aside,
                                  I don't own any vehicles in my name [trusts] as they were last registered
                                  in TX 5 yr ago but not in AR, which gets noticed at times but has never
                                  ever been a ticket or court issue in the 'legal' attacks. Don't know
                                  status in your or other's STATES but in AR I found this in the regs on
                                  driver lic. case notes and is a thorn in the pants confusion to me yet,
                                  especially with language in the AR Const. states Natural Persons are
                                  Residents along with the rest of the aritifical persons.
                                  Of course when you dig deep into orgin of various statures there's
                                  always a stated emergency at the base of the 'authortiy'.

                                  In General - Arrest - Driving without license.
                                  The state has the police power to promulgate regulations calculated to
                                  promote saftety in the use of highways. Driving a motor vehicle on a
                                  priviilege, and not an unrestrained, natural right, and the state may
                                  require a license of those who exercise the privilege.
                                  Satterlee v. State, 289 Ark. 450, 711 S.W.2d 827 (1986)

                                  Regards,
                                  Steve Shiver
                                   

                                  Tips and Tricks,
                                   

                                  "Further, if a State is entitled to justice in the federal court, against a citizen of another State, why not such citizen against the State, when the same language equally comprehends both? The rights of the individual and the justice due to them are as dear and precious as those of the States. Indeed the latter are founded upon the former, and the great end and object of them must be to secure and support the rights of individuals, or else vain is government. ---
                                  @ 468   CUSHING, J.
                                  CHISHOLM, EXECUTOR Vs GEORGIA, 2 US 419

                                  "Government exists to secure and support the rights of individuals".

                                  The "licensing" of Americans in the constitutional use of their pubic right-of-ways, can only secure and support
                                  the right of travel, which has existed as a right since before the creation of this nation.

                                  If it is not now a right, when did that right cease to exist?

                                  Show me the constitutional amendment that has specifically revoked this right!

                                  If constitutional users of the public right-of-ways are not "licensed", what direct and immediate,
                                  provable threat to public safety would this create?

                                  Show me the facts of the need of "licensing" the non-commercial users of the public right-of-ways!

                                  If these facts do not exist, then the need for licensing does not exist.

                                  YOU MAY have your private form  of locomotion "registered" for usage for commercial purposes,
                                  but that doesn't mean that every time you are using your locomotion, that you are under
                                  "traffic" regulations for commercial vehicles.

                                  It is beyond comprehension, that ALL users of the pubic right-of-ways would be subject to
                                  commercial regulations, and that all constitutional uses of the public right-of-ways, have been
                                  revoked and nullified.

                                  Do not argue the statute, argue that your rights have been infringed.

                                  If you argue the "statute", you give it authority over you. If you argue
                                  constitutional rights, you give these authority over you.

                                  "The motor vehicle statute does not apply to me, for I was not performing
                                  any commercial operations. I was only exercising a constitutional right. The right of free travel.
                                  Do not the public right-of-ways exist for the free travel of all Americans?
                                  If not, when was this right revoked by a constitutional amendment? "
                                   

                                  Challenge the law enforcers, to prove they have jurisdiction over you as within
                                  constitutional principles.

                                  Just some thoughts -----------------------------   Don
                                   

                                • Frog Farmer
                                  ... It sounds to me like you re pulling over to talk (without forcing the issue to see if they ll stop you - they ve never stopped me, as I know there is no
                                  Message 16 of 19 , Jul 27, 2003
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    hobot wrote:

                                    > I argree with your views and references Don and travel privately
                                    > on pulbic roads w/o lic for over a decade now, not w/o facing challenges
                                    > by uniformed armed people staging a fake emergency with flashing lights
                                    > acting like real sheriffis 'serving' process, acting as a bailiff too
                                    > demanding
                                    > a bond and appearence etc etc and on and on.


                                    It sounds to me like you're pulling over to talk (without
                                    forcing the issue to see if they'll stop you - they've never
                                    "stopped" me, as I know there is no such thing as a
                                    psychological tractor beam weapon). Twice, when I didn't
                                    respond to the fake emergency, it was called off without me
                                    stopping. Of course I did smile. Maybe it was the smiley
                                    face that did it.

                                    If they were to actually STOP ME, I'd wait for them to
                                    impersonate an officer and arrest them for the felony
                                    committed in my presence. Otherwise, wouldn't I become an
                                    accomplice to a felony? It must not be happening that way in
                                    other parts of this wide country. Of course, if they never
                                    tried to impersonate an officer, I'd have other claims
                                    against mere neighbors misbehaving.


                                    > Interesting aside,
                                    > I don't own any vehicles in my name [trusts] as they were last registered
                                    > in TX 5 yr ago but not in AR, which gets noticed at times but has never
                                    > ever been a ticket or court issue in the 'legal' attacks.


                                    They don't feel that they have to do a good job because they
                                    figure you're an average American.

                                    > Don't know
                                    > status in your or other's STATES but in AR I found this in the regs on
                                    > driver lic. case notes and is a thorn in the pants confusion to me yet,
                                    > especially with language in the AR Const. states Natural Persons are
                                    > Residents along with the rest of the aritifical persons.


                                    Yes, TX and AR are both artificial too. Why not decide to
                                    live in Texas or Arkansas instead?


                                    > Of course when you dig deep into orgin of various statures there's
                                    > always a stated emergency at the base of the 'authortiy'.


                                    At a base closer to the ground there are qualifications
                                    whereby mere neighbors become able to act as officers. Any
                                    person may waive the qualifications in their own particular
                                    cases (kind of like self-committment).


                                    > In General - Arrest - Driving without license.
                                    > The state has the police power to promulgate regulations calculated to
                                    > promote saftety in the use of highways.


                                    Granted, of course!

                                    > Driving a motor vehicle on a
                                    > priviilege, and not an unrestrained, natural right,


                                    Correct again. Do you think we could get the average
                                    American to confess to the term of art, which never existed
                                    in the law until the definitions of "operator" and
                                    "chauffeur" were blended into "driver"?? What I don't get
                                    is, the day before they blended the two regulated classes of
                                    operator and chauffeur, there were MANY Americans who knew
                                    they didn't need a license to go downtown in their own cars.
                                    Travelling in your own car was widely shared experience.
                                    The state had no equitable interest in their cars, but there
                                    were still people going into the DMV who wanted to give them
                                    one. And now today those people make up the vast majority.

                                    Back then (I remember the 1950's) the two classes of license
                                    were blended into one, to eliminate redundancy, and
                                    suddenly, a whole bunch of people who weren't regulated
                                    under either of the former classes now somehow came to the
                                    conclusion that they were now regulated. Of course many did
                                    not, and many still exist today without the new "street
                                    smarts" that "everybody knows". It would almost be funny if
                                    it wasn't so tragic that even those who want to be free
                                    imprison themselves by their inability to read, and the
                                    resulting admissions and confessions they can be cajolled
                                    into making out of ignorance. Of course, peer group
                                    pressure is more powerful than is widely admitted.

                                    > and the state may
                                    > require a license of those who exercise the privilege.
                                    > Satterlee v. State, 289 Ark. 450, 711 S.W.2d 827 (1986)


                                    That's right! "May". Reminds me of the time I got a notice
                                    saying that unless I turned myself in, "a warrant may be
                                    issued for your arrest." After I read that, I decided to
                                    find out if "may" also means "may not". It did. You may
                                    understand this. And you may not.

                                    > The "licensing" of Americans in the constitutional use of their pubic
                                    > right-of-ways, can only secure and support
                                    > the right of travel, which has existed as a right since before the
                                    > creation of this nation.


                                    It is not happening. It appears to be happening, for the
                                    gullible, and those who cannot read or write adequately.

                                    > If it is not now a right, when did that right cease to exist?


                                    It ceases to exist as soon as you define a right with a word
                                    that obviously means a privilege, which you might know if
                                    you were lucky enough to actually read the laws in order of
                                    their authority (Constitutions first, statutes second,
                                    regulations third, public opinion a.k.a. "street smarts"
                                    last if at all).

                                    > Show me the constitutional amendment that has specifically revoked this
                                    > right!


                                    There isn't one, but your own use of words makes it so for
                                    you. If you could only use the correct terms, and not admit
                                    to driving (despite the marketing efforts of Chevrolet) you
                                    wouldn't be admitting to being regulated.


                                    > If constitutional users of the public right-of-ways are not "licensed",
                                    > what direct and immediate,
                                    > provable threat to public safety would this create?


                                    None. Ask them. Ask me or the others that do it. We're
                                    probably actually safer than somebody with limited liability
                                    insured for collision. How many people on this list
                                    understand the implications of limited liability and what it
                                    does to one's "free" status? Raise your hands please.


                                    > Show me the facts of the need of "licensing" the non-commercial users of
                                    > the public right-of-ways!


                                    Show me where it's done. I look at the statutes and see the
                                    opposite. Do you think that a vegetarian member of PETA
                                    would be dissuaded by a bureaucrat from buying a
                                    deer-hunting license? Why would anyone stop you from
                                    getting a license for something you'd never do? They need
                                    the revenue! And if you want go and apply and pay for
                                    something you don't need and would never use, who will stop
                                    you? Nobody.


                                    >
                                    > If these facts do not exist, then the need for licensing does not exist.


                                    Maybe now it's becoming more clear...

                                    > YOU MAY have your private form of locomotion "registered" for usage for
                                    > commercial purposes,
                                    > but that doesn't mean that every time you are using your locomotion,
                                    > that you are under
                                    > "traffic" regulations for commercial vehicles.


                                    Yes, it does, because you yourself made the number of
                                    equitable interests plural instead of singular. The
                                    Certificate of Title you ACCEPTED is the proof of it.


                                    > It is beyond comprehension, that ALL users of the pubic right-of-ways
                                    > would be subject to commercial regulations,


                                    But apparently it is not beyond the comprehension of the
                                    over 60% functionally illiterate Americans.

                                    > and that all constitutional uses of the public
                                    > right-of-ways, have been revoked and nullified.


                                    I know. What IS it that makes the majority of Americans
                                    BELIEVE these lies and misinterpretations?! I believe it is
                                    due to a program widely referred to as "dumbing down".

                                    > Do not argue the statute, argue that your rights have been infringed.


                                    If you want to argue. If you don't want to argue (and thus
                                    traverse), DISQUALIFY as many "contenders" as you can!
                                    Don't skip any for expedience or convenience!

                                    > If you argue the "statute", you give it authority over you. If you argue
                                    > constitutional rights, you give these authority over you.


                                    But you advised it above....??

                                    > "The motor vehicle statute does not apply to me, for I was not performing
                                    > any commercial operations. I was only exercising a constitutional right.
                                    > The right of free travel.


                                    And the kindly old officer explained to the recently
                                    graduated youngster, "but sir! The placing of state placards
                                    upon your vehicle is an admission and confession YOU chose
                                    to make. Sorry!"


                                    > Do not the public right-of-ways exist for the free travel of all Americans?


                                    It exists for all who don't waive the right in return for
                                    privileges of limited liability, dealing in debt, and
                                    applying to be regulated.

                                    > If not, when was this right revoked by a constitutional amendment? "


                                    The whole constitution was revoked March 27, 1861, when the
                                    quorum to conduct business under it was lost. Congress
                                    abandoned the House and Senate without setting a date to
                                    reconvene. Under parliamentary law of Congress, the session
                                    was closed, and because there was no provision for
                                    reconvening the assembly again, the adjournment dissolved
                                    the assembly. Congress ceased to exist as a lawful
                                    deliberative body. I dare say nobody can tell me when the
                                    constitution was restored to supremacy, or how.

                                    A new substitute congress was convened under the military
                                    conquering power which put up a sham for the populace to
                                    follow. It too exists to this day under the military
                                    authority of the Commander-in-Chief operating under
                                    executive orders (the King's decree) and public policy, not
                                    the constitution and law.

                                    The point is, Congress knew the rules of parliamentary law
                                    and knew that it could have adjourned lawfully, but instead
                                    chose a method that would destroy the law-making power of
                                    Congress.


                                    > Challenge the law enforcers, to prove they have jurisdiction over you as
                                    > within constitutional principles.


                                    Nothing says you can't prove it for them by your own words
                                    and actions, and that's how it is mostly proven on the
                                    record, by the words and actions of the accused, often in
                                    answers to clever questions designed to elicit admissions
                                    and confessions on the record.

                                    > Just some thoughts ----------------------------- Don


                                    Just some facts ----------------- FF
                                  • Don Schwarz
                                    ... Steve, be very careful with words as they appear in a decision as above. What is a motor vehicle ?, Highway ? Driving ? Privilege ? Yes, driving for
                                    Message 17 of 19 , Jul 27, 2003
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      At 11:15 AM 7/27/03 -0500, you wrote:
                                      I argree with your views and references Don and travel privately
                                      on pulbic roads w/o lic for over a decade now, not w/o facing challenges
                                      by uniformed armed people staging a fake emergency with flashing lights
                                      acting like real sheriffis 'serving' process, acting as a bailiff too demanding
                                      a bond and appearence etc etc and on and on. Interesting aside,
                                      I don't own any vehicles in my name [trusts] as they were last registered
                                      in TX 5 yr ago but not in AR, which gets noticed at times but has never
                                      ever been a ticket or court issue in the 'legal' attacks. Don't know
                                      status in your or other's STATES but in AR I found this in the regs on
                                      driver lic. case notes and is a thorn in the pants confusion to me yet,
                                      especially with language in the AR Const. states Natural Persons are
                                      Residents along with the rest of the aritifical persons.
                                      Of course when you dig deep into orgin of various statures there's
                                      always a stated emergency at the base of the 'authortiy'.

                                      In General - Arrest - Driving without license.
                                      The state has the police power to promulgate regulations calculated to
                                      promote saftety in the use of highways. Driving a motor vehicle on a
                                      priviilege, and not an unrestrained, natural right, and the state may
                                      require a license of those who exercise the privilege.
                                      Satterlee v. State, 289 Ark. 450, 711 S.W.2d 827 (1986)

                                      Steve, be very careful with words as they appear in a decision as above.
                                      What is a "motor vehicle"?, "Highway"? "Driving"? "Privilege"?

                                      Yes, "driving" for hire a commercial "motor vehicle" for purposes of deriving
                                      a salary off the use of the "highway", is a "privilege".

                                      BUT, "traveling" in a motorized form of "locomotion" for all constitutional purposes
                                      upon the public "right-of-ways", is a right, which to the best of my knowledge,
                                      has never been revoked.

                                      Was it an unalienable right to travel upon the public right-of-ways in 1776?

                                      If "YES", When was this right revoked?

                                      See the problem? Let the government tell you when the right was revoked and how it was.

                                      ------------------------------  Don



                                      Regards,
                                      Steve Shiver
                                       

                                      Tips and Tricks,
                                       

                                      "Further, if a State is entitled to justice in the federal court, against a citizen of another State, why not such citizen against the State, when the same language equally comprehends both? The rights of the individual and the justice due to them are as dear and precious as those of the States. Indeed the latter are founded upon the former, and the great end and object of them must be to secure and support the rights of individuals, or else vain is government. ---
                                      @ 468   CUSHING, J.
                                      CHISHOLM, EXECUTOR Vs GEORGIA, 2 US 419

                                      "Government exists to secure and support the rights of individuals".

                                      ================================================  snip

                                    • bowman7a
                                      Only my interpretation of the statute. In other words if you choose to exercise the priviledge of doing commerce, the act of doing business, using the state
                                      Message 18 of 19 , Jul 28, 2003
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        Only my interpretation of the statute.

                                        In other words if you choose to exercise the 'priviledge' of doing
                                        commerce, the act of doing business, using the state public roads,
                                        then you are required to license said 'motor vehicle', which come
                                        under scrutiny of the 'legal term' for 'motor vehicle' Boucier's Law
                                        Dictionary,

                                        Transporting ones own self,private property, or even a guest
                                        passenger (non paying) does not bring one into the scope of (dba)as a
                                        Corporate entity. Nor does it come under the 'Motor Carrier Act'.
                                        This act was repealed in 1983 when 'Motor Carriers' became
                                        deregulated.
                                      • WW011@aol.com
                                        Some say that the police do not have jurisdiction to arrest you (pull you over) and issue a notice to appear. Any thing to that
                                        Message 19 of 19 , Aug 1 8:33 PM
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          Some say that the police do not have jurisdiction to arrest you (pull you
                                          over) and issue a notice to appear. Any thing to that
                                        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.