• "Spreading the ideas of freedom loving people on matters regarding high finance, politics, constructionist Constitution, and mental masturbation of all types"

Right to Travel

Goldhedge

Moderator
Site Mgr
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
41,777
Likes
65,932
Location
Rocky Mountains
#1
Right to Travel


DESPITE ACTIONS OF POLICE AND LOCAL COURTS,
HIGHER COURTS HAVE RULED THAT AMERICAN CITIZENS
HAVE A RIGHT TO TRAVEL WITHOUT STATE PERMITS

By Jack McLamb (from Aid & Abet Newsletter)

For years professionals within the criminal justice system have acted on the belief that traveling by motor vehicle was a privilege that was given to a citizen only after approval by their state government in the form of a permit or license to drive. In other words, the individual must be granted the privilege before his use of the state highways was considered legal. Legislators, police officers, and court officials are becoming aware that there are court decisions that disprove the belief that driving is a privilege and therefore requires government approval in the form of a license. Presented here are some of these cases:

CASE #1: "The use of the highway for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege, but a common fundamental right of which the public and individuals cannot rightfully be deprived." Chicago Motor Coach v. Chicago, 169 NE 221.

CASE #2: "The right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit or permit at will, but a common law right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Thompson v. Smith, 154 SE 579.​

It could not be stated more directly or conclusively that citizens of the states have a common law right to travel, without approval or restriction (license), and that this right is protected under the U.S Constitution.

CASE #3: "The right to travel is a part of the liberty of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment." Kent v. Dulles, 357 US 116, 125.

CASE #4: "The right to travel is a well-established common right that does not owe its existence to the federal government. It is recognized by the courts as a natural right." Schactman v. Dulles 96 App DC 287, 225 F2d 938, at 941.​

As hard as it is for those of us in law enforcement to believe, there is no room for speculation in these court decisions. American citizens do indeed have the inalienable right to use the roadways unrestricted in any manner as long as they are not damaging or violating property or rights of others. Government -- in requiring the people to obtain drivers licenses, and accepting vehicle inspections and DUI/DWI roadblocks without question -- is restricting, and therefore violating, the people's common law right to travel.

Is this a new legal interpretation on this subject? Apparently not. This means that the beliefs and opinions our state legislators, the courts, and those in law enforcement have acted upon for years have been in error. Researchers armed with actual facts state that case law is overwhelming in determining that to restrict the movement of the individual in the free exercise of his right to travel is a serious breach of those freedoms secured by the U.S. Constitution and most state constitutions. That means it is unlawful. The revelation that the American citizen has always had the inalienable right to travel raises profound questions for those who are involved in making and enforcing state laws. The first of such questions may very well be this: If the states have been enforcing laws that are unconstitutional on their face, it would seem that there must be some way that a state can legally put restrictions -- such as licensing requirements, mandatory insurance, vehicle registration, vehicle inspections to name just a few -- on a citizen's constitutionally protected rights. Is that so?

For the answer, let us look, once again, to the U.S. courts for a determination of this very issue. In Hertado v. California, 110 US 516, the U.S Supreme Court states very plainly:

"The state cannot diminish rights of the people."​

And in Bennett v. Boggs, 1 Baldw 60,

"Statutes that violate the plain and obvious principles of common right and common reason are null and void."​

Would we not say that these judicial decisions are straight to the point -- that there is no lawful method for government to put restrictions or limitations on rights belonging to the people? Other cases are even more straight forward:

"The assertion of federal rights, when plainly and reasonably made, is not to be defeated under the name of local practice." Davis v. Wechsler, 263 US 22, at 24

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

"The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime." Miller v. US, 230 F 486, at 489.

There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of this exercise of constitutional rights." Sherer v. Cullen, 481 F 946​

We could go on, quoting court decision after court decision; however, the Constitution itself answers our question - Can a government legally put restrictions on the rights of the American people at anytime, for any reason? The answer is found in Article Six of the U.S. Constitution:

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof;...shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or laws of any State to the Contrary not one word withstanding."​

In the same Article, it says just who within our government that is bound by this Supreme Law:

"The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution..."
Here's an interesting question. Is ignorance of these laws an excuse for such acts by officials? If we are to follow the letter of the law, (as we are sworn to do), this places officials who involve themselves in such unlawful acts in an unfavorable legal situation. For it is a felony and federal crime to violate or deprive citizens of their constitutionally protected rights. Our system of law dictates that there are only two ways to legally remove a right belonging to the people. These are:

  1. by lawfully amending the constitution, or
  2. by a person knowingly waiving a particular right.


Some of the confusion on our present system has arisen because many millions of people have waived their right to travel unrestricted and volunteered into the jurisdiction of the state. Those who have knowingly given up these rights are now legally regulated by state law and must acquire the proper permits and registrations. There are basically two groups of people in this category:

  1. Citizens who involve themselves in commerce upon the highways of the state. Here is what the courts have said about this: "...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...as a place for private gain. For the latter purpose, no person has a vested right to use the highways of this state, but it is a privilege...which the (state) may grant or withhold at its discretion..." State v. Johnson, 245 P 1073. There are many court cases that confirm and point out the difference between the right of the citizen to travel and a government privilege and there are numerous other court decisions that spell out the jurisdiction issue in these two distinctly different activities. However, because of space restrictions, we will leave it to officers to research it further for themselves.
  2. The second group of citizens that is legally under the jurisdiction of the state are those citizens who have voluntarily and knowingly waived their right to travel unregulated and unrestricted by requesting placement under such jurisdiction through the acquisition of a state driver's license, vehicle registration, mandatory insurance, etc. (In other words, by contract.) We should remember what makes this legal and not a violation of the common law right to travel is that they knowingly volunteer by contract to waive their rights. If they were forced, coerced or unknowingly placed under the state's powers, the courts have said it is a clear violation of their rights. This in itself raises a very interesting question. What percentage of the people in each state have applied for and received licenses, registrations and obtained insurance after erroneously being advised by their government that it was mandatory?

Many of our courts, attorneys and police officials are just becoming informed about this important issue and the difference between privileges and rights. We can assume that the majority of those Americans carrying state licenses and vehicle registrations have no knowledge of the rights they waived in obeying laws such as these that the U.S. Constitution clearly states are unlawful, i.e. laws of no effect - laws that are not laws at all. An area of serious consideration for every police officer is to understand that the most important law in our land which he has taken an oath to protect, defend, and enforce, is not state laws and city or county ordinances, but the law that supersedes all other laws -- the U.S. Constitution. If laws in a particular state or local community conflict with the supreme law of our nation, there is no question that the officer's duty is to uphold the U.S. Constitution.

Every police officer should keep the following U.S. court ruling -- discussed earlier -- in mind before issuing citations concerning licensing, registration, and insurance:

"The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime." Miller v. US, 230 F 486, 489.​

And as we have seen, traveling freely, going about one's daily activities, is the exercise of a most basic right.

http://www.land.netonecom.net/tlp/ref/right2travel.shtml
 
Joined
Apr 21, 2010
Messages
1,049
Likes
424
#2
Very interesting and thought provoking. Have there been any recent court cases which have challenged the current transportation regs?
 
Joined
May 1, 2012
Messages
2,977
Likes
1,466
#4
This must have been written at least twenty years ago, and while the parts of it are correct, you can't just take it as a whole and run with it. There is too much more that you will need to know.

Google around on the right to travel. You'll find more, both good and bad.
 

Goldhedge

Moderator
Site Mgr
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
41,777
Likes
65,932
Location
Rocky Mountains
#5
Right to Travel
By Stephen on November 10th, 2013

What is a right? Simple question, isn’t it? More importantly, where do your rights come from? Let’s get straight to the point I want to make here. A right is something you inherited. It is an action you are allowed to perform free from restrictions as a free man or woman.

You are allowed to breath, eat, come and go as you please, work or labor for your own self-improvement, etc.

So who gives you permission to carry out these actions? Your creator bestowed these RIGHTS upon you at birth. No one can ‘give’ you a right. It’s not there’s to give. Knowing and understanding what your rights are, and where they come from is a necessity for all free men.

Often times I see people mistake a right for a privilege. A right is something that cannot be regulated, taxed, restricted, penalties imposed or controlled in any manner. No one has the authority to regulate the amount of air you breathe, or tax you if you breathe in too much air. They don’t have the authority to dictate this because it’s a right, given to you by god. It is not a privilege bestowed on you by some legislation.

What is different about your right to travel? Are you not granted the right to come and go as you please, by any modern conveyance of the day? Why would you assume anyone had the authority to restrict your travel in any way? Did you not buy your automobile through lawful means? Is it not your rightful property? When then must you ask permission to use your own property? You don’t ask permission to use your bicycle do you? Of course not, but what’s the difference? If it’s a right, and not a privilege, who then has the authority to regulate it, tax it, restrict it or impose penalties for breaking specific rules?

Your right to use your own property and to travel from one place to another is not only a natural right, but it is also recognized and protected by the constitution. The higher courts and even the Supreme Court have ruled many times on this matter.

“The right to travel; the right to mode of conveyance; the rights to locomotion are all absolute rights, and the police cannot make void the exercise of rights” State v. Armstead, 60 s. 778,779, and 781:

“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 natural beings cannot be rightfully deprived.’’ Chicago Motor Coach v. Chicago 337 Illinois 200, 169

“The right of a citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport one’s property thereon, either by carriage or automobile, is not a mere privilege, which a city may prohibit or permit at will, but a common right, which he/she has under the right to live, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” Thompson v. Smith 154 SE 579:

I could literally go on all day with case law citations on the right to travel, but I think you get the point. This brings up quite a few questions I’m sure! At least it did for me! “Is it not the ‘law’ to register my ‘vehicle’?” “is it not ‘law’ for me to be licensed to ‘drive’ and am I not obligated to follow all traffic ‘laws’?’’ “How can a right be regulated through the means of taxation, registration, licensing and imposed penalties for failing to perform or adhere?’’

Well what if I told you these ‘laws’ were not laws at all but rather statutes and they don’t apply to you!? That’s right! They don’t apply to you unless of course you engage in commercial activity on the public roadways, in which case you would not be exercising a right but a privilege to profit. That’s another subject all together, but the main point here is, unless you are on the roads for hire ie: taxis, truck driver, or bus driver, then these statues do not apply to you.

Let’s look at the legal definitions of the words “driver” and “vehicle” for a second. If you are to assume a statute applies to you, isn’t it important to know the definitions of the words in that statute?

“The word ‘automobile’ connotes a pleasure vehicle designed for the transportation of persons on highways.” American Mutual Liability Ins. Co. vs. Chaput, 60 A.2nd 118, 120; 95 NH 200.

“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

“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, p.2034

“Driver: One employed in the conducting a coach, carriage, wagon, or other vehicle…” Bovier’s Law Dictionary, 1914 ed., 940.

As you can see, there is a huge difference between driver and traveler, as well as vehicle and automobile. So what does all this mean? The ‘Motor vehicle code’ does not apply to those who are not operating a vehicle. If you are simply traveling from one place to another, then you have no lawful obligation to obtain a state DL or to register your automobile. The Statute simply does not apply to you.

Understanding this is very important if you are going to start living free. So how do these states, cities and municipalities get away with fining and penalizing people for breaking rules that don’t apply to them? I’m pretty sure the Supreme Court has ruled on penalties imposed for exercising constitutionally protected rights…

“The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime.’’ Miller v. U.S., 230 F 2d 486, 489

“There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of this exercise of constitutional rights.’’ Sherar v. Cullen, 481 F. 945.

I don’t think there is any arguing the fact that a ticket, fine for failing to perform or obtain a ‘license’ or for breaking a traffic rule is a penalty on a constitutional right! How can they get away with this?

They get away with this because you consented to have your rights converted into privileges. Let’s understand one thing here, every single time your rights are sacrificed it is done so through your written consent! Your own wet signature was necessary for your rights to be converted into mere privileges.

You registered your automobile voluntarily! Ask yourself if it wasn’t voluntary but rather an obligation of law, then why did they require your signature? I bet no signature was needed for you to agree not to murder or steal, right? No consent is necessary to enforce common law. It’s very simple; you can’t violate the rights or freedoms of another. There is no need for your consent to enforce these laws, because an actual victim or complaining party would be the result of you breaking these laws.

However, if you fail to stop at a stop sign, and no one was injured or damage caused to property occurred as a result, then there is no victim. That means no crime was committed. Corpus Delecti stipulates a complaining party MUST be an element of every crime! Unless there is a victim there can be no crime!

So how can they prosecute you for breaking traffic laws when no complaining party/or victim exists as a result of breaking these traffic laws? Well this has been done though Maritime Admiralty Law or simply put, contract law. You registered your automobile. Then you entered into a contract by applying for a driver’s license. This contract stipulated that you abide by traffic laws while DRIVING in your VEHICLE. Law enforcement and courts assume you are engaging in commercial activity because you never disputed this fact. In law, a presumption undisputed is fact and/or consent.

This means when you are ticketed and you appear in court, you are appearing for breaking the terms of a contract. You agreed to allow your commercial activity to be regulated on the roads, and the court assumes if you’re on the roads, then you’re engaging in commercial activity.

Seems like a lot of assumption huh!? Seems like fraud though, doesn’t it? ABSOLUTELY! They presented registration as an obligation of law, which is a lie. Then they present licensing as an obligation of law, which is a lie. The fact is, when you register, what you are actually doing is signing property rights over. It is now the states automobile, and in order for you to use their property, they require you be licensed. You gave your property over to the state consensually, so now it’s their property and for them to allow you to use their property they can mandate you obtain a license. It is their property after all. You gave it to them consensually.

Does any of this sound like fraud yet? I’m sure the terms of these contracts and the true legal definitions of these words like register, vehicle, driver, etc. were not fully disclosed were they? Through fraud, and your ignorance, they convinced you to first sign your property rights over, then enter into a contract without knowing the terms and conditions of that contract. They then tricked you through legalese to believe you were subject to allowing your rights to be converted into privileges.

I’m sure many of you are reading this and saying to yourself, we need traffic laws to ensure public safety. We need rules for people to follow to ensure the safety, order, and well-being of the whole. To that I would argue, good people don’t need laws in order to be good, and bad people don’t follow laws anyway. If this theory actually worked, there wouldn’t be any drugs on the streets would there? There wouldn’t be any theft or murder.

The fact is, good sensible people don’t need laws to behave sensibly. Bad, irrational people don’t follow laws. I would also argue by allowing one infringement on your right, you leave the door wide open for further infringements. Had the American people stood up at the first sign of traffic laws and said, “No, I do not consent!” how likely do you think nationwide checkpoints would be today? How likely do you think the TSA would violate your 4th amendment? How likely do you think the state would use the people to generate billions in revenue for exercising their constitutional rights?

I’m not writing this to tell you you’re allowed to drive like an asshole, or to operate your automobile with complete disregard to others on the roads. I’m simply informing you that you have rights. As long as you’re not violating the rights of another, then you have done nothing morally wrong.

It’s time we, as a whole, learn what our rights are. It’s time to exercise them and learn how to defend them in a court of law! Yes, you can enter a court room and defend yourself against this fraud and you can win! Just imagine what society would be like if everyone knew how to defend their rights in court! I bet law enforcement officers would be forced to focus on actual crimes instead of focusing on generating revenue at the expense of the people. Consider these things the next time you renew your registration or DL.

Let’s discuss possible methods to defending your right to travel. Let’s first understand that this starts with your first altercation with a revenue enhancement officer. He is likely ignorant of the law and his duty to uphold it. So you can’t depend on him to protect your right to travel. In fact his job is not to protect the people or their rights, it’s to protect the corporation and to arrest code breakers.

“It is not the duty of the police to protect you. Their job is to protect the Corporation and arrest code breakers.” Sapp v. Tallahasee, 348 So. 2nd. 363, Reiff v. City of Philadelphia, 477 F.Supp. 1262, Lynch v. N.C. Dept of Justice 376 S.E. 2nd. 247.

So when you make the decision to opt out of registering your automobile and obtaining a DL you will undoubtedly receive some attention from law enforcement. They are only doing what they are told and they are just as ignorant of the law as you were before you learned what your rights were. But let’s not forget who has the guns and clubs, and cages! You can quickly end up in a jail cell for exercising your rights!

This is what I do; when I see emergency lights in my rear view, I pull over in a public place if possible. If your automobile is registered, it actually belongs to the state. You signed that property right over when you signed the registration form. So pulling over into a private parking lot prevents them from towing their ‘vehicle’.

Anyway, you are pulled over in a public but private property such as a parking lot. If need be turn your flashers on and slow your speed while making a motion with your hands that your intentions are to pull over as soon as it is safe to do so. This is perfectly lawful.

Once pulled over, if you have not already, pull out your smart phone and start recording! Once the officer walks up to your window, immediately state your concern: “officer, I noticed your emergency lights and blacks law dictionary defines the use of emergency lights for an emergency that threatens life, limb or property and needs an immediate remedy. What is the emergency and how can I help?”

Obviously this will take him off guard but that’s ok. You have stated for the record that you know what the law says, and your willing to cooperate with any lawful request from the officer. You obviously do not portray or display any threatening characteristics.

He will likely ignore your statements and demand to see your DL, registration, proof of insurance etc. to which you should respond: “what lawful obligation do I have to obtain such documentation? Are you willing to swear under commercial liability that I’m obligated by law to obtain such a license or registration?”

He will likely not swear to anything and he will no doubt recite some motor vehicle code or statute or act that obligates you to perform these actions. At this point simply inform him that you’re not engaging in commercial activity. Any references to your “vehicle” or your “driving” should be immediately corrected.

Remember, a presumption in law left uncorrected stands as truth. You are not in a vehicle, you are in an automobile. You’re not driving, you’re traveling. There is a clear difference in legal definitions so make it clear on and for the record that you are simply exercising your constitutional right to travel. You are NOT exercising the privilege to drive as you are not engaging in commercial activity in any way.

At this point the officer will probably either let you off with a warning because you have displayed your knowledge of the law, and he doesn’t want the hassle; or more likely, he will be offended at your challenge to his authority and be quick to teach you a lesson by issuing you a ticket, citation, or some other bill of exchange. That’s all it is by the way, a bill.

Accept the bill, and sign your name and under duress after your name. Or you can write, all rights reserved, etc. I’ve seen many different theories on this, but I’m not going to get into that at this time. Do your own research and see what makes most the sense to you. The point I want to make is the ticket is actually a bill.

Let’s think about that for a minute. If I sent you a bill for some violation I made up, how likely are you to respond with payment? Not so much right! Why? Because I have no lawful authority to demand you pay me for breaking my rules. This court your ticket ends up in has no lawful authority either! They rely solely on intimidation and ignorance to rack in their revenue!

There are a few options you have when faced with a bill. You can just pay it, and I’m sure they would live this response.

You can dispute it. You can enter a not guilty plea which is basically saying I agree that you have the authority to drag me down here but I’m not going to pay your fine/bill. This option puts you in dishonor with the court and creates conflict. You can look this up for yourself, but you basically lose as soon as you enter the plea. This is why contracting an attorney is not the best idea as they are bound by oath to follow the rules of the court.

You can enter a guilty plea and hope the court shows mercy! Good luck!

Or, you can accept their bill conditionally. Basically notice the court, offer discussion as to avoid conflict, and accept their bill on the conditions that they provide proof of your lawful obligation to pay. This is the option they don’t want you to know about. They can’t produce any such proof because there is no lawful obligation for you to pay their bill! The proof they would need to produce is a signed contract by you agreeing to allow your right to travel to be converted into a privilege and subject to regulation! Obviously no such contract exists unless you’re a licensed driver engaging in commercial activity on the roads.

Once you send this notice, they will probably refuse to answer, or if they do answer they will do so incorrectly. Send a notice of dishonor stating they have dishonored your attempts at discussion to avoid conflict, therefore creating conflict. This puts them in dishonor and any judge SHOULD see this and immediately dismiss the case. (Don’t count on it though!)

Inform them that their failure to respond implies consent. Remember an assumption in law undisputed is consent! Give them another 10 days or so to respond and dispute your claims that you have no lawful obligation to comply or pay.

When they fail once again to respond send a final notice of protest for non-acceptance. Basically state, “I have tried to engage in discussion on the matter and you have dishonored my attempts. By your failure to respond I assume we are in agreement on the matter.” Take these notices to your notary and get a default judgment. Problem solved, slam dunk, unless of course you live in my home town. No notary really understands their proper authority or duty. So good luck getting them to issue a default judgment.

So what now? At this point the court is probably trying to figure out how to get you for failure to appear or some other charge. If you are like me, you put a fee schedule in your final notice. “Any actions by this court are null and void, and if I’m to continue to fight this frivolous matter I charge $500.00/hr for my time” this is a lawful fee schedule and while I have not personally collected on this fee I know a few others in the common law community who have. It is a lawful bill and their failure to respond is consent. This is the law!

“The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and the name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void and ineffective for any purpose since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it; an unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed … An unconstitutional law is void.”
(16 Am. Jur. 2d, Sec. 178)

“An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as it had never been passed.” Norton v. Shelby County.” 118 U.S. 425

“No State legislator or executive or judicial officer can war against the Constitution without violating his undertaking to support it.”
Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1, 78 S.Ct. 1401 (1958).

“The claim and exercise of Constitutional Rights cannot be converted into a crime.” Miller v. Kansas 230 F 2nd 486, 489:

“If the State converts a liberty into a privilege, the citizen can engage in the right with impunity.” Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham, 373 US 262

“State Police Power extends only to immediate threats to public safety, health, welfare, etc.,” Michigan v. Duke 266 US, 476 Led. At 449:

So at this point you probably still have an open case, depending on the level of corruption of the court you’re dealing with. You can take several different avenues.

I personally make a special appearance, which is other than general to challenge jurisdiction. I’ll post all the citations from the Supreme Court on challenging jurisdiction, but let’s explain what that actually means.

You’re basically in court for exercising your constitutional right to travel. No penalty can be imposed for exercising a constitutional right, so the court itself lacks the authority to proceed. You’re going to challenge the authority of the court to even hear the case. Trust me, if you make the right argument, it’s a slam dunk! The burden of proof to produce evidence that jurisdiction exists is on the prosecutor.

In order to do this, they would need to provide a contract signed by you, or an injured party making a claim against you, therefore an actual crime would have been committed. The prosecutor can produce neither of these. The courts rulings are null and void, therefore they must dismiss! If they ignore your lawful presentment of the facts, you would have quite a lawsuit against them for conspiring against you to deny you your constitutional rights. They would be denying you your right to due process of law, as well as many others! In this case, get creative! Appeal the ruling to a federal court and be sure to add a suit against the judge and prosecutor for conspiring against you.

Look over these case law citations for yourself and see what the actual law is. Take these citations and expand your understanding of the law and how to lawfully present your argument in court. You are the only one who will defend your rights! Remember, you are going to challenge jurisdiction, so you can not enter a plea under any circumstances!

They will do their best to demand you enter a plea therefore submitting to their jurisdiction or their authority. You will not consent. They have no right to drag you there in the first place, and until the prosecutor presents evidence of a contract or an injured party, there are no lawful charges to plea on. They have no right to drag you in there in the first place! You are simply there to challenge this authority, don’t submit to this authority under any circumstance!

CORPUS DELECTI

“For a crime to exist, there must be an injured party (Corpus Delicti) There can be no sanction or penalty imposed on one because of this Constitutional right.” Sherer v. Cullen 481 F. 945:

Supreme courts ruled “Without Corpus delicti there can be no crime” “In every prosecution for crime it is necessary to establish the “corpus delecti”, i.e., the body or elements of the crime.” People v. Lopez, 62 Ca.Rptr. 47, 254 C.A.2d 185.

“In every criminal trial, the prosecution must prove the corpus delecti, or the body of the crime itself-i.e., the fact of injury, loss or harm, and the existence of a criminal agency as its cause. ” People v. Sapp, 73 P.3d 433, 467 (Cal. 2003) [quoting People v. Alvarez, (2002) 27 Cal.4th 1161, 1168-1169, 119 Cal.Rptr.2d 903, 46 P.3d 372.].

“As a general principal, standing to invoke the judicial process requires an actual justiciable controversy as to which the complainant has a real interest in the ultimate adjudication because he or she has either suffered or is about to suffer an injury. ” People v. Superior Court, 126 Cal.Rptr.2d 793.

“Without standing, there is no actual or justifiable controversy, and courts will not entertain such cases. (3 Witlen, Cal. Procedure (3rd ed. 1985) Actions § 44, pp 70-72.) “Typically, … the standing inquiry requires careful judicial examination of a complaint’s allegations to ascertain whether the particular plaintiff is entitled to an adjudication of the particular claims asserted. ” (Allen v. Wright, (1984) 468 U.S. 737, 752…Whether one has standing in a particular case generally revolved around the question whether that person has rights that may suffer some injury, actual or threatened. ” Clifford S. v. Superior Court, 45 Cal.Rptr.2d 333, 335.

As you can see they need a victim or an injured party to prosecute you criminally. Use this information to your advantage; ask for a complaining party!

In my case the prosecutor said the State of Texas was the complaining party, to which I responded “thank you, let the record show the state of Texas is a party to the case, we are in the wrong court. The State of Texas can not be a party to the case, the prosecutor and the judge. We have a conflict of interest, therefore I cannot receive a fair trial. This case needs to be moved to federal court or be dismissed.”

Obviously there are case law citations out there on the state, which can not be a complaining party as it can not sustain an injury. You could also present the argument that the state is a fiction. It only exist in the minds. You can not touch or feel a state. Or you could present the argument that the state is a sub-corporation of the UNITED STATES INC., which is also a fiction. It exists on paper, it could in no possible way be an injured party making a sworn statement against you claiming injury, loss, or damage to property. Whichever argument you choose to use, do your research and have your facts ready! It’s very simple, no crime exists because there is not a victim!

Challenge Jurisdiction

“Once jurisdiction is challenged, the court cannot proceed when it clearly appears that the court lacks jurisdiction, the court has no authority to reach merits, but, rather, should dismiss the action.” Melo v. US, 505 F2d 1026.

“The law requires proof of jurisdiction to appear on the record of the administrative agency and all administrative proceedings.” Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U. S. 533.

A judgment rendered by a court without personal jurisdiction over the defendant is void. It is a nullity. [A judgment shown to be void for lack of personal service on the defendant is a nullity.] Sramek v. Sramek, 17 Kan. App. 2d 573, 576-77, 840 P.2d 553 (1992), rev. denied 252 Kan. 1093 (1993).

“A court cannot confer jurisdiction where none existed and cannot make a void proceeding valid. It is clear and well established law that a void order can be challenged in any court” OLD WAYNE MUT. L. ASSOC. v. McDONOUGH, 204 U. S. 8, 27 S. Ct. 236 (1907).

“There is no discretion to ignore lack of jurisdiction.” Joyce v. U.S. 474 2D 215.

“Court must prove on the record, all jurisdiction facts related to the jurisdiction asserted.” Latana v. Hopper, 102 F. 2d 188; Chicago v. New York, 37 F Supp. 150.

“The law provides that once State and Federal Jurisdiction has been challenged, it must be proven.” Main v. Thiboutot, 100 S. Ct. 2502 (1980).

“Jurisdiction can be challenged at any time.” and “Jurisdiction, once challenged, cannot be assumed and must be decided.” Basso v. Utah Power & Light Co., 495 F 2d 906, 910.

“Defense of lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter may be raised at any time, even on appeal.” Hill Top Developers v. Holiday Pines Service Corp., 478 So. 2d. 368 (Fla 2nd DCA 1985)

“Once challenged, jurisdiction cannot be assumed, it must be proved to exist.” Stuck v. Medical Examiners, 94 Ca 2d 751. 211 P2d 389.

“There is no discretion to ignore that lack of jurisdiction.” Joyce v. US, 474 F2d 215.

“The burden shifts to the court to prove jurisdiction.” Rosemond v. Lambert, 469 F2d 416.

“A universal principle as old as the law is that a proceedings of a court without jurisdiction are a nullity and its judgment therein without effect either on person or property.” Norwood v. Renfield, 34 C 329; Ex parte Giambonini, 49 P. 732.

“Jurisdiction is fundamental and a judgment rendered by a court that does not have jurisdiction to hear is void ab initio.” In Re Application of Wyatt, 300 P. 132; Re Cavitt, 118 P2d 846.

“Thus, where a judicial tribunal has no jurisdiction of the subject matter on which it assumes to act, its proceedings are absolutely void in the fullest sense of the term.” Dillon v. Dillon, 187 P 27.

“A court has no jurisdiction to determine its own jurisdiction, for a basic issue in any case before a tribunal is its power to act, and a court must have the authority to decide that question in the first instance.” Rescue Army v. Municipal Court of Los Angeles, 171 P2d 8; 331 US 549, 91 L. ed. 1666, 67 S.Ct. 1409.

“A departure by a court from those recognized and established requirements of law, however close apparent adherence to mere form in method of procedure, which has the effect of depriving one of a constitutional right, is an excess of jurisdiction.” Wuest v. Wuest, 127 P2d 934, 937.

It should be clear at this point that the burden of proof to prove the court has the authority to move forward falls on the prosecutor. You can challenge this authority at any time! Challenge it immediately! Ask the court to prove it has jurisdiction to move forward. “Can this court move on facts not in evidence?” Of course they will respond with a big NO, they can not! If that’s the case then demand the prosecutor formally enter into evidence the proof giving the court jurisdiction to proceed! They can not!

This article is not legal advice but merely a presentment of facts that you can use for educational purposes. What you do with this information is up to you.

By: Mathew Wolfe

http://progressivelibertarian.org/2013/11/10/right-to-travel/
 

Goldhedge

Moderator
Site Mgr
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
41,777
Likes
65,932
Location
Rocky Mountains
#6
Found this on line. Posted for informational/educational purposes.

Not legal advice!



Clay Adam Carey
c/o 192 Bethel Road
Long Lane, Missouri [65590]
E-mail: dallascounty@live.com

Date: January 28, 2013

BY: FAX TO # 573-751-1495

To: Governor Jay Nixon
State Capitol
Jefferson City, Missouri, 65102

Mr. Nixon:

I hope this letter finds you and your family doing well. It is with much regret that I find myself forced to avail myself upon you and disrupt your day, as I know you are kept very busy by your duties in office. This correspondence has been directed to your attention, as it appears specific violations of law and my Rights have been perpetrated by those that serve under you. Therefore, this Affidavit has been prepared requiring your review. My family’s wellbeing is at stake and time is critical. I thank you for your attention concerning this matter.

This letter is lawful notification to you that you are corresponding with one of the People of these united States of America, (see attached Affidavit). I will be monitoring and evaluating any and all communications and actions by all parties specific to this matter pursuant to my God granted rights secured and guaranteed by the Federal Constitution specific to the Bill of Rights and the Missouri State Constitution and the associated Bill of Rights.

Should any infringement of my guaranteed and secured rights occur, on your part or by any party with whom you claim any affiliation, I will scrutinize said infringements and any injury therefrom pursuant to 42 USC §1983 and 18 USC §241-242 at minimum, and I will proceed accordingly.

AFFIDAVIT OF FACTS

A month or so ago, I received two traffic citations by an officer of the city of Conway, Missouri. I have not been able to identify the alleged officer yet as my copies of the citations were not readable, (see attached). They did not contain sufficient information from which any reasonable person could determine probable cause or prepare for an appearance, had it been required.

“Courts enforcing mere statutes do not act judicially merely ministerial, having thus no judicial immunity, and unlike courts of law do not obtain jurisdiction by service of process nor even arrest and compelled appearance”. Boswell v. Otis, 9 Howard 336, 348.

“Service of a traffic ticket on a motorist does not give the court jurisdiction over his person... Service of a traffic ticket imposes no compulsion on him, and no penalty attached for failure to heed it... Purpose of traffic ticket is to secure the motorist's voluntary appearance”. Colville v. Bennett, 293 NYS 2d 685.

An accusatory instrument is the only document that can commence a criminal action, and an appearance ticket is not an accusatory instrument (see, Preiser, Practice Commentaries, McKinney's Cons Laws of NY, Book 11A, CPL 150.10, at 678, citing CPL 1.20 [1]-[8], [17]).

The Missouri Rules of Criminal Procedure would seem to support this.

21.02. Misdemeanors - Information - Prosecuting Attorney

The prosecuting attorney may file an information charging the commission of a misdemeanor based upon the prosecutor's information and belief that the offense was committed. The information shall be supported by a statement of probable cause as prescribed by Rule 21.04.

(Adopted June 13, 1979, eff. Jan. 1, 1980. Amended Jan. 28, 2002, eff. Jan. 1, 2003.)
21.03. Misdemeanors - Summons or Warrant of Arrest - When Issued

(a) When an information is filed pursuant to Rule 21.02, a summons shall be issued unless the court finds that sufficient facts have been stated to show probable cause that a misdemeanor has been committed and that there are reasonable grounds to believe that:
(1) The defendant will not appear upon the summons; or
(2) The defendant poses a danger to a crime victim, the community, or any other person.

If the court so finds, a warrant for the arrest of the defendant may be issued.

37.42 -- Summons -- Contents
The summons shall:
(a) Be in writing and in the name of the prosecuting county or municipality;
(b) State the name of the person summoned and the address, if known;
(c) Describe the ordinance violation charged;
(d) Be signed by a judge or by a clerk of the court when directed by a judge; and
(e) Command the person to appear before the court at a stated time and place in response thereto.

(Adopted May 14, 1985, eff. Jan. 1, 1986. Amended December 23, 2003, eff. July 1, 2004.)

Mark Rector and Larry Winfree, also acted in violation of;

23.10. Misdemeanors or Felonies - Indictment or Information - Two or More For Same Offense

(a) Offense that can be Commenced in More than one County. If a criminal proceeding is commenced in a court having jurisdiction thereof, no other action for the same offense shall be commenced in a court in a different county so long as the criminal proceeding first commenced is pending. (I am currently discussing the same actions in Dallas County).

On January 10, 2013, alleged prosecutor, Mark Rector, filed the tickets with the Laclede County Court, on behalf of the city of Conway. He did so without the complaint in this matter being supported by any accusing instrument, accusatory instrument, affidavit of probable cause, or ANY instrument from which any reasonable person could determine probable cause, thereby initiating the court's jurisdiction. NO person can be brought before the court in any civil or criminal matter without a proper affidavit being presented of someone having FIRSTHAND KNOWLEDGE as the foundation of the complaint! Without an affidavit there is no evidence or facts before the court. Some person having firsthand knowledge via a duly sworn, signed, and properly completed Affidavit has to be liable for the accusation and their actions! If the AFFIDAVIT IS NOT THERE, then there is no affidavit determinant, there is no matter before the court and the court has no lawful jurisdiction to proceed and therefore cannot proceed!!!!

On January 22, 2013, I filed a Notice to Abate, stating in short, to issue a proper summons and I would appear. On the morning of January 23, 2013, I sent to the court a notice that if my presence was necessary to hear the Motion to Abate, to please schedule the hearing for after the 1st of the month as I live on a fixed income of only 700.00 a month and had no way to get to the court until then. The court entered it as a Request for a Continuance, which it was not. On this same day in blatant negligence to his position as a servant to the People, which is felony perjury of his Oath, (see 4th Amendment, U.S. Constitution and Art. 1 section 15 of the Missouri Constitution) alleged Judge, Larry Winfree, issued a Bench Warrant for me and set bail at 500.00, cash only. Given the fact that I support a family of four on ONLY 700.00 a month, this is a clear violation of the 8th Amendment and an act of maliciousness.

The alleged Judge, Larry Winfree, having been certified by the Missouri BAR, knew or should have known that he is patently and unambiguously and wholly without jurisdiction in that there was no accusing instrument, accusatory instrument, affidavit of probable cause, or ANY instrument from which any reasonable person could determine probable cause in the first instance, thereby invoking the court’s jurisdiction.

The alleged prosecutor, Mark Rector, having been certified by the Missouri BAR, knew or should have known that he is patently and unambiguously acting in fraud and misrepresentation by filing a complaint without any accusing instrument, accusatory instrument, affidavit of probable cause, or ANY instrument from which any reasonable person could determine probable cause in the first instance, thereby invoking the court’s jurisdiction.

In addition, because the court had no jurisdiction to hear the matter, the judge could not even offer a plea without putting fraud upon the court... THERE WAS/IS NO MATTER BEFORE THE COURT supported by foundational factual information or any lawfully compliant documents. ALL CASES WITHOUT SUPPORTING AFFIDAVIT ARE VOID AB INITIO; VOID ON THEIR FACE!

Blythe v. Tompkins, 2 Abb. Pr. 468; “If such warrant is not valid on its face the justice who issues and the officer who executes it are liable for assault and battery and false imprisonment at the suit of the person upon it. The justice is liable in such case, although he acted in “good faith” and although there was before him sufficient proof to have authorized him to issue a valid warrant. All officers who act ministerially must see that the processes they execute are valid on their face or they are liable for their acts under them. The statutes of this state require that all criminal warrants shall show the offense with which the accused is charged. They must recite the accusation or they are void.

The judge has a duty to continually inspect the record of the case, and if subject-matter jurisdiction does not appear at any time from the record of the case, then he has the duty to dismiss the case lacking subject-matter jurisdiction. Should a judge act in any case in when he does not have subject-matter jurisdiction, he is acting unlawfully, U.S. v. Will, 449 U.S. 200, 216, 101 S. Ct. 471, 66 L.Ed.2d 392, 406 (1980): Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. (6 Wheat) 264, 404, 5 L.Ed. 257 (1821), and without any judicial authority.

The court had no authority to issue a warrant for the arrest of the alleged defendant for failure to appear because no reasonable person could determine that this person could be brought before the court for summons, arrested or otherwise, without an affidavit of probable cause.

As one of the people of these united States I am guaranteed equal protection of the law pursuant to the state and federal constitutions. On January 24, 2013, I entered a motion to Quash the bench warrant, citing the above Rules of Criminal Procedure. I have been told by the Clerk of the Laclede County Court that my motion would not be seen by the judge until late February, as the City of Conway only holds court once a month; an apparent violation of my right of access to the courts. Brenda, the secretary for alleged Prosecutor, Mark Rector, told me “to get an attorney”. Obviously, I cannot afford that.

This unlawful warrant has adversely affected my day to day activities, brought shame to my family name, caused duress to the point of making me physically sick, not from threat of being locked up, but out of fear and concern for the wellbeing of my family. I would lose my disability payment during a time when even a flat tire constitutes a financial obstacle of great magnitude.

Mr. Nixon, in your official capacity as Governor of the State of Missouri, the great Republic that she is, you are required pursuant to your oath to see that the laws of our state are faithfully executed. I am asking/demanding that you involve yourself in this matter as there are several parties colluding and conspiring to take my property using the ‘color of law’, theft by deception using a fraudulent process in complete violation clearly established law, specifically the 4th, 5th, and 7th amendments, which is a felony. This bogus and fraudulent process is wholly and unambiguously in complete violation of my rights guaranteed and secured by the Federal and State Constitution’s and is a sham on its face.

Thank you for your timely intervention.

I exercise my God given right as protected by the Constitution, and 18 USC part 1, chapter 2, section 31, to travel.

All Rights Reserved,

______________________________
Clay Adam Carey, American Citizen

Attachments: Affidavit of Status
Travel Brief
Citations
Cc:
1. File
2. Lt. Governor, Peter Kinder @ 573-751-9422
3. Sec. of State, Jason Kinder @ 573-526-4903
4. Attorney General, Chris Koster @ 573-751-0774
5. Senator, Michael Parson @ 573-526-8793
6. Mo. Supreme Court Chief justice, Richard Teitelman @ 573-751-7514
7. Mo. BAR, Patrick Starke @ 573-635-2811
8. State Courts Administrator, Greg Linhares @ 573-522-6152
9. Commission on R.R. & D. of Judge’s, David Dowd @ 314-966-0076
10. State HWY Patrol troop ‘D’@ 417-895-6877
11. Laclede Co. Sheriff @ 417-532-6719
12. U.S. Dept. of Justice (FBI) @ 417-882-5647
13. Alleged Judge Larry Winfree, c/o Laclede Co. Crt. @ 417-532-3683
14. City of Conway, c/o Alleged Prosecutor, Mark Rector @ 417-532-9600
 
Joined
May 1, 2012
Messages
2,977
Likes
1,466
#7
Right to Travel
By Stephen on November 10th, 2013

What is a right? Simple question, isn’t it? More importantly, where do your rights come from? Let’s get straight to the point I want to make here. A right is something you inherited. It is an action you are allowed to perform free from restrictions as a free man or woman.

You are allowed to breath, eat, come and go as you please, work or labor for your own self-improvement, etc.

So who gives you permission to carry out these actions? Your creator bestowed these RIGHTS upon you at birth. No one can ‘give’ you a right. It’s not there’s to give. Knowing and understanding what your rights are, and where they come from is a necessity for all free men.

Often times I see people mistake a right for a privilege. A right is something that cannot be regulated, taxed, restricted, penalties imposed or controlled in any manner. No one has the authority to regulate the amount of air you breathe, or tax you if you breathe in too much air. They don’t have the authority to dictate this because it’s a right, given to you by god. It is not a privilege bestowed on you by some legislation.

What is different about your right to travel? Are you not granted the right to come and go as you please, by any modern conveyance of the day? Why would you assume anyone had the authority to restrict your travel in any way? Did you not buy your automobile through lawful means? Is it not your rightful property? When then must you ask permission to use your own property? You don’t ask permission to use your bicycle do you? Of course not, but what’s the difference? If it’s a right, and not a privilege, who then has the authority to regulate it, tax it, restrict it or impose penalties for breaking specific rules?

Your right to use your own property and to travel from one place to another is not only a natural right, but it is also recognized and protected by the constitution. The higher courts and even the Supreme Court have ruled many times on this matter.

“The right to travel; the right to mode of conveyance; the rights to locomotion are all absolute rights, and the police cannot make void the exercise of rights” State v. Armstead, 60 s. 778,779, and 781:

“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 natural beings cannot be rightfully deprived.’’ Chicago Motor Coach v. Chicago 337 Illinois 200, 169

“The right of a citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport one’s property thereon, either by carriage or automobile, is not a mere privilege, which a city may prohibit or permit at will, but a common right, which he/she has under the right to live, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” Thompson v. Smith 154 SE 579:

I could literally go on all day with case law citations on the right to travel, but I think you get the point. This brings up quite a few questions I’m sure! At least it did for me! “Is it not the ‘law’ to register my ‘vehicle’?” “is it not ‘law’ for me to be licensed to ‘drive’ and am I not obligated to follow all traffic ‘laws’?’’ “How can a right be regulated through the means of taxation, registration, licensing and imposed penalties for failing to perform or adhere?’’

Well what if I told you these ‘laws’ were not laws at all but rather statutes and they don’t apply to you!? That’s right! They don’t apply to you unless of course you engage in commercial activity on the public roadways, in which case you would not be exercising a right but a privilege to profit. That’s another subject all together, but the main point here is, unless you are on the roads for hire ie: taxis, truck driver, or bus driver, then these statues do not apply to you.

Let’s look at the legal definitions of the words “driver” and “vehicle” for a second. If you are to assume a statute applies to you, isn’t it important to know the definitions of the words in that statute?

“The word ‘automobile’ connotes a pleasure vehicle designed for the transportation of persons on highways.” American Mutual Liability Ins. Co. vs. Chaput, 60 A.2nd 118, 120; 95 NH 200.

“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

“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, p.2034

“Driver: One employed in the conducting a coach, carriage, wagon, or other vehicle…” Bovier’s Law Dictionary, 1914 ed., 940.

As you can see, there is a huge difference between driver and traveler, as well as vehicle and automobile. So what does all this mean? The ‘Motor vehicle code’ does not apply to those who are not operating a vehicle. If you are simply traveling from one place to another, then you have no lawful obligation to obtain a state DL or to register your automobile. The Statute simply does not apply to you.

Understanding this is very important if you are going to start living free. So how do these states, cities and municipalities get away with fining and penalizing people for breaking rules that don’t apply to them? I’m pretty sure the Supreme Court has ruled on penalties imposed for exercising constitutionally protected rights…

“The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime.’’ Miller v. U.S., 230 F 2d 486, 489

“There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of this exercise of constitutional rights.’’ Sherar v. Cullen, 481 F. 945.

I don’t think there is any arguing the fact that a ticket, fine for failing to perform or obtain a ‘license’ or for breaking a traffic rule is a penalty on a constitutional right! How can they get away with this?

They get away with this because you consented to have your rights converted into privileges. Let’s understand one thing here, every single time your rights are sacrificed it is done so through your written consent! Your own wet signature was necessary for your rights to be converted into mere privileges.

You registered your automobile voluntarily! Ask yourself if it wasn’t voluntary but rather an obligation of law, then why did they require your signature? I bet no signature was needed for you to agree not to murder or steal, right? No consent is necessary to enforce common law. It’s very simple; you can’t violate the rights or freedoms of another. There is no need for your consent to enforce these laws, because an actual victim or complaining party would be the result of you breaking these laws.

However, if you fail to stop at a stop sign, and no one was injured or damage caused to property occurred as a result, then there is no victim. That means no crime was committed. Corpus Delecti stipulates a complaining party MUST be an element of every crime! Unless there is a victim there can be no crime!

So how can they prosecute you for breaking traffic laws when no complaining party/or victim exists as a result of breaking these traffic laws? Well this has been done though Maritime Admiralty Law or simply put, contract law. You registered your automobile. Then you entered into a contract by applying for a driver’s license. This contract stipulated that you abide by traffic laws while DRIVING in your VEHICLE. Law enforcement and courts assume you are engaging in commercial activity because you never disputed this fact. In law, a presumption undisputed is fact and/or consent.

This means when you are ticketed and you appear in court, you are appearing for breaking the terms of a contract. You agreed to allow your commercial activity to be regulated on the roads, and the court assumes if you’re on the roads, then you’re engaging in commercial activity.

Seems like a lot of assumption huh!? Seems like fraud though, doesn’t it? ABSOLUTELY! They presented registration as an obligation of law, which is a lie. Then they present licensing as an obligation of law, which is a lie. The fact is, when you register, what you are actually doing is signing property rights over. It is now the states automobile, and in order for you to use their property, they require you be licensed. You gave your property over to the state consensually, so now it’s their property and for them to allow you to use their property they can mandate you obtain a license. It is their property after all. You gave it to them consensually.

Does any of this sound like fraud yet? I’m sure the terms of these contracts and the true legal definitions of these words like register, vehicle, driver, etc. were not fully disclosed were they? Through fraud, and your ignorance, they convinced you to first sign your property rights over, then enter into a contract without knowing the terms and conditions of that contract. They then tricked you through legalese to believe you were subject to allowing your rights to be converted into privileges.

I’m sure many of you are reading this and saying to yourself, we need traffic laws to ensure public safety. We need rules for people to follow to ensure the safety, order, and well-being of the whole. To that I would argue, good people don’t need laws in order to be good, and bad people don’t follow laws anyway. If this theory actually worked, there wouldn’t be any drugs on the streets would there? There wouldn’t be any theft or murder.

The fact is, good sensible people don’t need laws to behave sensibly. Bad, irrational people don’t follow laws. I would also argue by allowing one infringement on your right, you leave the door wide open for further infringements. Had the American people stood up at the first sign of traffic laws and said, “No, I do not consent!” how likely do you think nationwide checkpoints would be today? How likely do you think the TSA would violate your 4th amendment? How likely do you think the state would use the people to generate billions in revenue for exercising their constitutional rights?

I’m not writing this to tell you you’re allowed to drive like an asshole, or to operate your automobile with complete disregard to others on the roads. I’m simply informing you that you have rights. As long as you’re not violating the rights of another, then you have done nothing morally wrong.

It’s time we, as a whole, learn what our rights are. It’s time to exercise them and learn how to defend them in a court of law! Yes, you can enter a court room and defend yourself against this fraud and you can win! Just imagine what society would be like if everyone knew how to defend their rights in court! I bet law enforcement officers would be forced to focus on actual crimes instead of focusing on generating revenue at the expense of the people. Consider these things the next time you renew your registration or DL.

Let’s discuss possible methods to defending your right to travel. Let’s first understand that this starts with your first altercation with a revenue enhancement officer. He is likely ignorant of the law and his duty to uphold it. So you can’t depend on him to protect your right to travel. In fact his job is not to protect the people or their rights, it’s to protect the corporation and to arrest code breakers.

“It is not the duty of the police to protect you. Their job is to protect the Corporation and arrest code breakers.” Sapp v. Tallahasee, 348 So. 2nd. 363, Reiff v. City of Philadelphia, 477 F.Supp. 1262, Lynch v. N.C. Dept of Justice 376 S.E. 2nd. 247.

So when you make the decision to opt out of registering your automobile and obtaining a DL you will undoubtedly receive some attention from law enforcement. They are only doing what they are told and they are just as ignorant of the law as you were before you learned what your rights were. But let’s not forget who has the guns and clubs, and cages! You can quickly end up in a jail cell for exercising your rights!

This is what I do; when I see emergency lights in my rear view, I pull over in a public place if possible. If your automobile is registered, it actually belongs to the state. You signed that property right over when you signed the registration form. So pulling over into a private parking lot prevents them from towing their ‘vehicle’.

Anyway, you are pulled over in a public but private property such as a parking lot. If need be turn your flashers on and slow your speed while making a motion with your hands that your intentions are to pull over as soon as it is safe to do so. This is perfectly lawful.

Once pulled over, if you have not already, pull out your smart phone and start recording! Once the officer walks up to your window, immediately state your concern: “officer, I noticed your emergency lights and blacks law dictionary defines the use of emergency lights for an emergency that threatens life, limb or property and needs an immediate remedy. What is the emergency and how can I help?”

Obviously this will take him off guard but that’s ok. You have stated for the record that you know what the law says, and your willing to cooperate with any lawful request from the officer. You obviously do not portray or display any threatening characteristics.

He will likely ignore your statements and demand to see your DL, registration, proof of insurance etc. to which you should respond: “what lawful obligation do I have to obtain such documentation? Are you willing to swear under commercial liability that I’m obligated by law to obtain such a license or registration?”

He will likely not swear to anything and he will no doubt recite some motor vehicle code or statute or act that obligates you to perform these actions. At this point simply inform him that you’re not engaging in commercial activity. Any references to your “vehicle” or your “driving” should be immediately corrected.

Remember, a presumption in law left uncorrected stands as truth. You are not in a vehicle, you are in an automobile. You’re not driving, you’re traveling. There is a clear difference in legal definitions so make it clear on and for the record that you are simply exercising your constitutional right to travel. You are NOT exercising the privilege to drive as you are not engaging in commercial activity in any way.

At this point the officer will probably either let you off with a warning because you have displayed your knowledge of the law, and he doesn’t want the hassle; or more likely, he will be offended at your challenge to his authority and be quick to teach you a lesson by issuing you a ticket, citation, or some other bill of exchange. That’s all it is by the way, a bill.

Accept the bill, and sign your name and under duress after your name. Or you can write, all rights reserved, etc. I’ve seen many different theories on this, but I’m not going to get into that at this time. Do your own research and see what makes most the sense to you. The point I want to make is the ticket is actually a bill.

Let’s think about that for a minute. If I sent you a bill for some violation I made up, how likely are you to respond with payment? Not so much right! Why? Because I have no lawful authority to demand you pay me for breaking my rules. This court your ticket ends up in has no lawful authority either! They rely solely on intimidation and ignorance to rack in their revenue!

There are a few options you have when faced with a bill. You can just pay it, and I’m sure they would live this response.

You can dispute it. You can enter a not guilty plea which is basically saying I agree that you have the authority to drag me down here but I’m not going to pay your fine/bill. This option puts you in dishonor with the court and creates conflict. You can look this up for yourself, but you basically lose as soon as you enter the plea. This is why contracting an attorney is not the best idea as they are bound by oath to follow the rules of the court.

You can enter a guilty plea and hope the court shows mercy! Good luck!

Or, you can accept their bill conditionally. Basically notice the court, offer discussion as to avoid conflict, and accept their bill on the conditions that they provide proof of your lawful obligation to pay. This is the option they don’t want you to know about. They can’t produce any such proof because there is no lawful obligation for you to pay their bill! The proof they would need to produce is a signed contract by you agreeing to allow your right to travel to be converted into a privilege and subject to regulation! Obviously no such contract exists unless you’re a licensed driver engaging in commercial activity on the roads.

Once you send this notice, they will probably refuse to answer, or if they do answer they will do so incorrectly. Send a notice of dishonor stating they have dishonored your attempts at discussion to avoid conflict, therefore creating conflict. This puts them in dishonor and any judge SHOULD see this and immediately dismiss the case. (Don’t count on it though!)

Inform them that their failure to respond implies consent. Remember an assumption in law undisputed is consent! Give them another 10 days or so to respond and dispute your claims that you have no lawful obligation to comply or pay.

When they fail once again to respond send a final notice of protest for non-acceptance. Basically state, “I have tried to engage in discussion on the matter and you have dishonored my attempts. By your failure to respond I assume we are in agreement on the matter.” Take these notices to your notary and get a default judgment. Problem solved, slam dunk, unless of course you live in my home town. No notary really understands their proper authority or duty. So good luck getting them to issue a default judgment.

So what now? At this point the court is probably trying to figure out how to get you for failure to appear or some other charge. If you are like me, you put a fee schedule in your final notice. “Any actions by this court are null and void, and if I’m to continue to fight this frivolous matter I charge $500.00/hr for my time” this is a lawful fee schedule and while I have not personally collected on this fee I know a few others in the common law community who have. It is a lawful bill and their failure to respond is consent. This is the law!

“The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and the name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void and ineffective for any purpose since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it; an unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed … An unconstitutional law is void.”
(16 Am. Jur. 2d, Sec. 178)

“An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as it had never been passed.” Norton v. Shelby County.” 118 U.S. 425

“No State legislator or executive or judicial officer can war against the Constitution without violating his undertaking to support it.”
Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1, 78 S.Ct. 1401 (1958).

“The claim and exercise of Constitutional Rights cannot be converted into a crime.” Miller v. Kansas 230 F 2nd 486, 489:

“If the State converts a liberty into a privilege, the citizen can engage in the right with impunity.” Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham, 373 US 262

“State Police Power extends only to immediate threats to public safety, health, welfare, etc.,” Michigan v. Duke 266 US, 476 Led. At 449:

So at this point you probably still have an open case, depending on the level of corruption of the court you’re dealing with. You can take several different avenues.

I personally make a special appearance, which is other than general to challenge jurisdiction. I’ll post all the citations from the Supreme Court on challenging jurisdiction, but let’s explain what that actually means.

You’re basically in court for exercising your constitutional right to travel. No penalty can be imposed for exercising a constitutional right, so the court itself lacks the authority to proceed. You’re going to challenge the authority of the court to even hear the case. Trust me, if you make the right argument, it’s a slam dunk! The burden of proof to produce evidence that jurisdiction exists is on the prosecutor.

In order to do this, they would need to provide a contract signed by you, or an injured party making a claim against you, therefore an actual crime would have been committed. The prosecutor can produce neither of these. The courts rulings are null and void, therefore they must dismiss! If they ignore your lawful presentment of the facts, you would have quite a lawsuit against them for conspiring against you to deny you your constitutional rights. They would be denying you your right to due process of law, as well as many others! In this case, get creative! Appeal the ruling to a federal court and be sure to add a suit against the judge and prosecutor for conspiring against you.

Look over these case law citations for yourself and see what the actual law is. Take these citations and expand your understanding of the law and how to lawfully present your argument in court. You are the only one who will defend your rights! Remember, you are going to challenge jurisdiction, so you can not enter a plea under any circumstances!

They will do their best to demand you enter a plea therefore submitting to their jurisdiction or their authority. You will not consent. They have no right to drag you there in the first place, and until the prosecutor presents evidence of a contract or an injured party, there are no lawful charges to plea on. They have no right to drag you in there in the first place! You are simply there to challenge this authority, don’t submit to this authority under any circumstance!

CORPUS DELECTI

“For a crime to exist, there must be an injured party (Corpus Delicti) There can be no sanction or penalty imposed on one because of this Constitutional right.” Sherer v. Cullen 481 F. 945:

Supreme courts ruled “Without Corpus delicti there can be no crime” “In every prosecution for crime it is necessary to establish the “corpus delecti”, i.e., the body or elements of the crime.” People v. Lopez, 62 Ca.Rptr. 47, 254 C.A.2d 185.

“In every criminal trial, the prosecution must prove the corpus delecti, or the body of the crime itself-i.e., the fact of injury, loss or harm, and the existence of a criminal agency as its cause. ” People v. Sapp, 73 P.3d 433, 467 (Cal. 2003) [quoting People v. Alvarez, (2002) 27 Cal.4th 1161, 1168-1169, 119 Cal.Rptr.2d 903, 46 P.3d 372.].

“As a general principal, standing to invoke the judicial process requires an actual justiciable controversy as to which the complainant has a real interest in the ultimate adjudication because he or she has either suffered or is about to suffer an injury. ” People v. Superior Court, 126 Cal.Rptr.2d 793.

“Without standing, there is no actual or justifiable controversy, and courts will not entertain such cases. (3 Witlen, Cal. Procedure (3rd ed. 1985) Actions § 44, pp 70-72.) “Typically, … the standing inquiry requires careful judicial examination of a complaint’s allegations to ascertain whether the particular plaintiff is entitled to an adjudication of the particular claims asserted. ” (Allen v. Wright, (1984) 468 U.S. 737, 752…Whether one has standing in a particular case generally revolved around the question whether that person has rights that may suffer some injury, actual or threatened. ” Clifford S. v. Superior Court, 45 Cal.Rptr.2d 333, 335.

As you can see they need a victim or an injured party to prosecute you criminally. Use this information to your advantage; ask for a complaining party!

In my case the prosecutor said the State of Texas was the complaining party, to which I responded “thank you, let the record show the state of Texas is a party to the case, we are in the wrong court. The State of Texas can not be a party to the case, the prosecutor and the judge. We have a conflict of interest, therefore I cannot receive a fair trial. This case needs to be moved to federal court or be dismissed.”

Obviously there are case law citations out there on the state, which can not be a complaining party as it can not sustain an injury. You could also present the argument that the state is a fiction. It only exist in the minds. You can not touch or feel a state. Or you could present the argument that the state is a sub-corporation of the UNITED STATES INC., which is also a fiction. It exists on paper, it could in no possible way be an injured party making a sworn statement against you claiming injury, loss, or damage to property. Whichever argument you choose to use, do your research and have your facts ready! It’s very simple, no crime exists because there is not a victim!

Challenge Jurisdiction

“Once jurisdiction is challenged, the court cannot proceed when it clearly appears that the court lacks jurisdiction, the court has no authority to reach merits, but, rather, should dismiss the action.” Melo v. US, 505 F2d 1026.

“The law requires proof of jurisdiction to appear on the record of the administrative agency and all administrative proceedings.” Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U. S. 533.

A judgment rendered by a court without personal jurisdiction over the defendant is void. It is a nullity. [A judgment shown to be void for lack of personal service on the defendant is a nullity.] Sramek v. Sramek, 17 Kan. App. 2d 573, 576-77, 840 P.2d 553 (1992), rev. denied 252 Kan. 1093 (1993).

“A court cannot confer jurisdiction where none existed and cannot make a void proceeding valid. It is clear and well established law that a void order can be challenged in any court” OLD WAYNE MUT. L. ASSOC. v. McDONOUGH, 204 U. S. 8, 27 S. Ct. 236 (1907).

“There is no discretion to ignore lack of jurisdiction.” Joyce v. U.S. 474 2D 215.

“Court must prove on the record, all jurisdiction facts related to the jurisdiction asserted.” Latana v. Hopper, 102 F. 2d 188; Chicago v. New York, 37 F Supp. 150.

“The law provides that once State and Federal Jurisdiction has been challenged, it must be proven.” Main v. Thiboutot, 100 S. Ct. 2502 (1980).

“Jurisdiction can be challenged at any time.” and “Jurisdiction, once challenged, cannot be assumed and must be decided.” Basso v. Utah Power & Light Co., 495 F 2d 906, 910.

“Defense of lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter may be raised at any time, even on appeal.” Hill Top Developers v. Holiday Pines Service Corp., 478 So. 2d. 368 (Fla 2nd DCA 1985)

“Once challenged, jurisdiction cannot be assumed, it must be proved to exist.” Stuck v. Medical Examiners, 94 Ca 2d 751. 211 P2d 389.

“There is no discretion to ignore that lack of jurisdiction.” Joyce v. US, 474 F2d 215.

“The burden shifts to the court to prove jurisdiction.” Rosemond v. Lambert, 469 F2d 416.

“A universal principle as old as the law is that a proceedings of a court without jurisdiction are a nullity and its judgment therein without effect either on person or property.” Norwood v. Renfield, 34 C 329; Ex parte Giambonini, 49 P. 732.

“Jurisdiction is fundamental and a judgment rendered by a court that does not have jurisdiction to hear is void ab initio.” In Re Application of Wyatt, 300 P. 132; Re Cavitt, 118 P2d 846.

“Thus, where a judicial tribunal has no jurisdiction of the subject matter on which it assumes to act, its proceedings are absolutely void in the fullest sense of the term.” Dillon v. Dillon, 187 P 27.

“A court has no jurisdiction to determine its own jurisdiction, for a basic issue in any case before a tribunal is its power to act, and a court must have the authority to decide that question in the first instance.” Rescue Army v. Municipal Court of Los Angeles, 171 P2d 8; 331 US 549, 91 L. ed. 1666, 67 S.Ct. 1409.

“A departure by a court from those recognized and established requirements of law, however close apparent adherence to mere form in method of procedure, which has the effect of depriving one of a constitutional right, is an excess of jurisdiction.” Wuest v. Wuest, 127 P2d 934, 937.

It should be clear at this point that the burden of proof to prove the court has the authority to move forward falls on the prosecutor. You can challenge this authority at any time! Challenge it immediately! Ask the court to prove it has jurisdiction to move forward. “Can this court move on facts not in evidence?” Of course they will respond with a big NO, they can not! If that’s the case then demand the prosecutor formally enter into evidence the proof giving the court jurisdiction to proceed! They can not!

This article is not legal advice but merely a presentment of facts that you can use for educational purposes. What you do with this information is up to you.

By: Mathew Wolfe

http://progressivelibertarian.org/2013/11/10/right-to-travel/
Correct, but this citizen then goes and registers to become a corporation under the laws of the District of Columbia, and then registers for the driving privilege as a state resident, not a citizen.

See my point? He's no longer a state citizen, and he no longer has the right of travel in that state. He has made himself into a foreign corporation of a foreign government, enjoying a privilege that is taxed and licensed by the state.

The judge has this information in front of him, signed by our previous citizen, when he asks for a plea. How much do you think those claims to a sovereign's right to travel and lack of jurisdiction count in court, given those facts?

This is why you've been losing, dummies!
 
Joined
Mar 21, 2015
Messages
278
Likes
27
#8
Right to Travel


DESPITE ACTIONS OF POLICE AND LOCAL COURTS,
HIGHER COURTS HAVE RULED THAT AMERICAN CITIZENS
HAVE A RIGHT TO TRAVEL WITHOUT STATE PERMITS

By Jack McLamb (from Aid & Abet Newsletter)

For years professionals within the criminal justice system have acted on the belief that traveling by motor vehicle was a privilege that was given to a citizen only after approval by their state government in the form of a permit or license to drive. In other words, the individual must be granted the privilege before his use of the state highways was considered legal. Legislators, police officers, and court officials are becoming aware that there are court decisions that disprove the belief that driving is a privilege and therefore requires government approval in the form of a license. Presented here are some of these cases:

CASE #1: "The use of the highway for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege, but a common fundamental right of which the public and individuals cannot rightfully be deprived." Chicago Motor Coach v. Chicago, 169 NE 221.​
CASE #2: "The right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit or permit at will, but a common law right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Thompson v. Smith, 154 SE 579.​

It could not be stated more directly or conclusively that citizens of the states have a common law right to travel, without approval or restriction (license), and that this right is protected under the U.S Constitution.

CASE #3: "The right to travel is a part of the liberty of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment." Kent v. Dulles, 357 US 116, 125.​
CASE #4: "The right to travel is a well-established common right that does not owe its existence to the federal government. It is recognized by the courts as a natural right." Schactman v. Dulles 96 App DC 287, 225 F2d 938, at 941.​

As hard as it is for those of us in law enforcement to believe, there is no room for speculation in these court decisions. American citizens do indeed have the inalienable right to use the roadways unrestricted in any manner as long as they are not damaging or violating property or rights of others. Government -- in requiring the people to obtain drivers licenses, and accepting vehicle inspections and DUI/DWI roadblocks without question -- is restricting, and therefore violating, the people's common law right to travel.

Is this a new legal interpretation on this subject? Apparently not. This means that the beliefs and opinions our state legislators, the courts, and those in law enforcement have acted upon for years have been in error. Researchers armed with actual facts state that case law is overwhelming in determining that to restrict the movement of the individual in the free exercise of his right to travel is a serious breach of those freedoms secured by the U.S. Constitution and most state constitutions. That means it is unlawful. The revelation that the American citizen has always had the inalienable right to travel raises profound questions for those who are involved in making and enforcing state laws. The first of such questions may very well be this: If the states have been enforcing laws that are unconstitutional on their face, it would seem that there must be some way that a state can legally put restrictions -- such as licensing requirements, mandatory insurance, vehicle registration, vehicle inspections to name just a few -- on a citizen's constitutionally protected rights. Is that so?

For the answer, let us look, once again, to the U.S. courts for a determination of this very issue. In Hertado v. California, 110 US 516, the U.S Supreme Court states very plainly:

"The state cannot diminish rights of the people."​

And in Bennett v. Boggs, 1 Baldw 60,

"Statutes that violate the plain and obvious principles of common right and common reason are null and void."​

Would we not say that these judicial decisions are straight to the point -- that there is no lawful method for government to put restrictions or limitations on rights belonging to the people? Other cases are even more straight forward:

"The assertion of federal rights, when plainly and reasonably made, is not to be defeated under the name of local practice." Davis v. Wechsler, 263 US 22, at 24​
"Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them." Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US 436, 491.​
"The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime." Miller v. US, 230 F 486, at 489.​
There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of this exercise of constitutional rights." Sherer v. Cullen, 481 F 946​

We could go on, quoting court decision after court decision; however, the Constitution itself answers our question - Can a government legally put restrictions on the rights of the American people at anytime, for any reason? The answer is found in Article Six of the U.S. Constitution:

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof;...shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or laws of any State to the Contrary not one word withstanding."​

In the same Article, it says just who within our government that is bound by this Supreme Law:

"The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution..."
Here's an interesting question. Is ignorance of these laws an excuse for such acts by officials? If we are to follow the letter of the law, (as we are sworn to do), this places officials who involve themselves in such unlawful acts in an unfavorable legal situation. For it is a felony and federal crime to violate or deprive citizens of their constitutionally protected rights. Our system of law dictates that there are only two ways to legally remove a right belonging to the people. These are:

  1. by lawfully amending the constitution, or
  2. by a person knowingly waiving a particular right.


Some of the confusion on our present system has arisen because many millions of people have waived their right to travel unrestricted and volunteered into the jurisdiction of the state. Those who have knowingly given up these rights are now legally regulated by state law and must acquire the proper permits and registrations. There are basically two groups of people in this category:

  1. Citizens who involve themselves in commerce upon the highways of the state. Here is what the courts have said about this: "...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...as a place for private gain. For the latter purpose, no person has a vested right to use the highways of this state, but it is a privilege...which the (state) may grant or withhold at its discretion..." State v. Johnson, 245 P 1073. There are many court cases that confirm and point out the difference between the right of the citizen to travel and a government privilege and there are numerous other court decisions that spell out the jurisdiction issue in these two distinctly different activities. However, because of space restrictions, we will leave it to officers to research it further for themselves.
  2. The second group of citizens that is legally under the jurisdiction of the state are those citizens who have voluntarily and knowingly waived their right to travel unregulated and unrestricted by requesting placement under such jurisdiction through the acquisition of a state driver's license, vehicle registration, mandatory insurance, etc. (In other words, by contract.) We should remember what makes this legal and not a violation of the common law right to travel is that they knowingly volunteer by contract to waive their rights. If they were forced, coerced or unknowingly placed under the state's powers, the courts have said it is a clear violation of their rights. This in itself raises a very interesting question. What percentage of the people in each state have applied for and received licenses, registrations and obtained insurance after erroneously being advised by their government that it was mandatory?

Many of our courts, attorneys and police officials are just becoming informed about this important issue and the difference between privileges and rights. We can assume that the majority of those Americans carrying state licenses and vehicle registrations have no knowledge of the rights they waived in obeying laws such as these that the U.S. Constitution clearly states are unlawful, i.e. laws of no effect - laws that are not laws at all. An area of serious consideration for every police officer is to understand that the most important law in our land which he has taken an oath to protect, defend, and enforce, is not state laws and city or county ordinances, but the law that supersedes all other laws -- the U.S. Constitution. If laws in a particular state or local community conflict with the supreme law of our nation, there is no question that the officer's duty is to uphold the U.S. Constitution.

Every police officer should keep the following U.S. court ruling -- discussed earlier -- in mind before issuing citations concerning licensing, registration, and insurance:

"The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime." Miller v. US, 230 F 486, 489.​

And as we have seen, traveling freely, going about one's daily activities, is the exercise of a most basic right.

http://www.land.netonecom.net/tlp/ref/right2travel.shtml
Goldhedge,

This is how well these amateur legal theories actually work in the real world.

(BEGIN AT 10:55).





Snoop
 

Buck

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter
Joined
Apr 13, 2011
Messages
6,610
Likes
6,250
#9
If you don't go looking for trouble, usually none of it finds you...I know, I've been trouble free for two decades and I'm still somebody except nobody knows...

Stand for yourselves at the end of a gun barrel,,,really smrt