| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Paul88
Regular Member
USA
31 Posts |
 Posted - 02 Jan 2004 : 05:31:55
|
I didn't completely stop on a stop sigh. He pulled me over and gave me 5 tickets and arrested me. 1 for not having driver lic, 1 for not having insurance papers, 1 for not having registration papers, and 1 for stop sigh, and 1 not sure for what nothing is checked. He arrested me because there was a warrant for my arrest for unpaid ticket, and he also towed my vehicle. I am so pissed off because i was handcuffed and treated like some type of a criminal!!!! I am so sick of this **** and I cannot take it anymore, please everyone tell me what steps should I take now.
Thank You so much.
P.S. After this I am totally ready to fight them till the end!
|
|
|
DanielJacob
Advanced Member
USA
138 Posts |
Posted - 02 Jan 2004 : 10:21:36
|
Paul,
Read and try to understand Brother Caleb's posts on his similar situation. One thing that you should accept: if you are going to move about without the marks of the world you are going to be persecuted by those whose who "presume" that one must have those marks.
May the Peace of our Lord, Christ Jesus, be with you. |
 |
|
|
God is Love
Senior Member
uSA
53 Posts |
Posted - 04 Jan 2004 : 16:07:36
|
Here is some additional info that may be of help:
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:
by lawfully amending the constitution, or
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:
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.
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.
Source: By Jack McLamb (from Aid & Abet Newsletter)
"We now know that the unborn child is an aware, reacting human being who from the sixth month on (and perhaps even earlier) leads an active emotional life."----The Secret Life of the Unborn Child |
|
|
|
Paul88
Regular Member
USA
31 Posts |
Posted - 04 Jan 2004 : 22:18:57
|
quote:
Originally posted by God is Love
Here is some additional info that may be of help:
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:
by lawfully amending the constitution, or
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:
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.
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.
Source: By Jack McLamb (from Aid & Abet Newsletter)
"We now know that the unborn child is an aware, reacting human being who from the sixth month on (and perhaps even earlier) leads an active emotional life."----The Secret Life of the Unborn Child
Thank you for this reminder that it’s our right NOT privilege. I will first send the following documents to the court and the cop who wrote the tickets.
1. Affidavit for traffic ticket
2. Affidavit_Denial_Traveling_In_Commerce
If this doesn't work and I have to go to court, I will use the above court cases, and information. What are your thoughts on this?
Thank you.
|
|
|
|
DanielJacob
Advanced Member
USA
138 Posts |
|
|
Inactive
deleted
uSA
1 Posts |
Posted - 13 Jan 2004 : 13:13:37
|
quote:
Originally posted by Paul88
Thank you for this reminder that it’s our right NOT privilege. I will first send the following documents to the court and the cop who wrote the tickets.
1. Affidavit for traffic ticket
2. Affidavit_Denial_Traveling_In_Commerce
If this doesn't work and I have to go to court, I will use the above court cases, and information. What are your thoughts on this?
Thank you.
I can't blame you for trying, but the judge will likely either get very irritated with you or will listen to you only for his own amusement and not take you seriously. He and the police officer have a job to do, and that does not include bucking the system. You do not have the money or the power to fight it.
But you will likely be fined, hopefully not incarcerated again. If you don't pay the fine, then you will be incarcerated again.
I'm assuming you don't have a lot of cash. Try and talk to the prosecutor before court, and work out the best plea bargain that you can. Be humble and sincere. Emphasize the fact that you want to cooperate with them and get this taken care of, but you need time to pay the fines. Don't make any false statements, and don't make any promises that you don't intend to keep. If the prosecutor is willing to give you probation, which includes paying fees and staying out of trouble, choose that option if you're able to live up to it. If you can't, accept the fines instead.
You must be in some kind of trouble, financially. If you can, try and make some life changes:
1. Bail your car out of the pound ASAP!!!!! They charge you by the day. As soon as you get it out, sell it ... you need the cash.
2. Stop driving! - Eventually you'll get this taken care of, get your license back, etc. But in the mean time, take the bus and car pool whenever possible.
3. Seek out friends and family who encourage you to get back on your feet. Avoid irresponsible friends who keep getting into trouble themselves.
4. Get your finances under control. Prioritize. This means getting the best paying job available for you, and reduce your expenses. Stick to the essentials. Pay these fines, then housing, then food, then taxes, then the rest of your debts when you're able. Negotiate with your creditors to compromise your debts PAID IN FULL. Don't be too proud to accept help. But beware that most credit counseling agencies are shams, even if they are non-profit agencies, especially if you have a lot of credit card debt.
5. Remember that you don't have the power to change the rest of the world, so don't fight it. But you do have power to change yourself.
6. Keep your chin up, and put all this behind you. It's not really all that bad ... you can get through it.
7. God bless you! |
|
|
|
Inactive
deleted
uSA
1 Posts |
Posted - 13 Jan 2004 : 13:21:39
|
quote:
Originally posted by Livefree
I'm signing my car over to an LLC. That way, if a police officer runs a check on my plates, my name won't be connected to it. Of course the LLC has to pay registration fees and insurance but they can't take the car if the LLC has no outstanding tickets.
Friend, what good is this going to do? You still have to pay the LLC fees, and if you don't keep them up the gubbermint can seize your car or block you from selling it.
God bless you all! |
|
|
|
Lewish
Advanced Member
uSA
496 Posts |
Posted - 13 Jan 2004 : 13:38:56
|
Greeting All,
In regards to DanielJacobs post, THEY might want to be careful about what they ask for. Suppose, for example, you pull up to the Roadblock, and you inform the good Officer of the fraud that Bank of America has perpetrated against you in your mortgage contract. Now you ask the good Officer what he is going to do about that. If he says "Nothing", then he will be guilty of a Misprison of Felony and you can file criminal charges against him.
Doing that would sure cause them some headaches.
Just a thought,
Lewis |
Edited by - Lewish on 13 Jan 2004 13:45:26 |
|
|
|
jstrongjr
New Member
USA
2 Posts |
Posted - 13 Jan 2004 : 21:13:42
|
Greetings Paul in the name of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
I came across this about four weeks ago, I hope this is helpful.
You might want to do what I am planning on doing and take it to or send it to the Sherrifs office and the local police station.
Remember, He who can control his spirit is mightier than a man who can conquer an entire city.
Traveling is a Right
For many years professionals within the criminal justice system have acted upon the belief that traveling by motor vehicle upon the roadway was a privilege that was gained by a citizen only after approval by their respective state governments in the form of a permit or drivers license.
Legislators, police officers, and court officials are being made aware that there are court decisions disproving the opinion that traveling is a privilege that requires government approval.
"Even the legislature has no power to deny to a citizen the right to travel upon the highway and transport his property in the ordinary course of his business or pleasure, though this right may be regulated in accordance with the public interest and convenience.
" Chicago Motor Coach v. Chicago, 169 NE 22.
("Regulated" here means traffic safety enforcement: stop lights, signs, etc.)
"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 at will, but a common right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Thompson v. Smith, 154 SE 179.
It could not be stated more conclusively that citizens of the states have a right to travel, without approval or restrictions (license), and that this right is protected under the U.S. Constitution. Here are other court decisions that expound the same facts:
"The right to travel is a part of the liberty of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the 5th Amendment." Kent v. Dulles, 357 US 116, 125.
"Undoubtedly the right of locomotion, the right to move from one place to another according to inclination, is an attribute of personal liberty, and the right, ordinarily, of free transit from or through the territory of any State is a right secured by the 14th amendment and by other provisions of the Constitution." Schactman v. Dulles, 96 App DC 287, 293.
As hard as it is for those in law enforcement to believe, there is no room for speculation in these court decisions. The American citizen does 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 file for drivers license, vehicle registrations, mandatory insurance, and demanding they stop for vehicle inspections, roadblocks, etc. are restricting and therefore violating the peoples’ common law right to travel.
Is this a new legal interpretation on this subject? Apparently not. The American Citizens and Lawmen Association, in conjunction with the U.S. Federal Law Research Center are presently involved in studies in several areas involving questions on constitutional law. One of the many areas under review is that of the citizen’s right to travel. A spokesman stated in an interview:
"Upon researching this subject over many months, substantial case law has presented itself that completely substantiates the position that the ‘right to travel unrestricted upon the nations highways’ is and always has been a fundamental right of every Citizen."
This means that the beliefs and opinions of our state legislators, the courts, and those of us involved in the law enforcement profession have acted upon for years have been in error.
Researchers armed with actual facts state that U.S. case law is overwhelming. To restrict in any fashion the movement of the individual American, in free exercise of the right to travel upon the roadways (excluding commerce, which the state legislatures are correct in regulating), is a serious breach of those freedoms secured by the U.S. Constitution, as well as most state constitutions.
Our system of law dictates that there is only one way to remove a right belonging to the people. That is by a person knowingly waiving a particular right.
Some of the confusion in our present system has arisen because many millions of people have waived their right to travel unrestricted, and opted into the jurisdiction of the state. Those who have knowingly given up these rights are legally regulated by state law, and must obtain permits, registrations, insurance, etc.
Every police officer should keep the following U.S. court ruling in mind before issuing citations:
"The claim and exercise of a Constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime." Miller v. U.S., F.2d 486, 489.
Reprinted from a special edition of "Aid and Abet" bulletin #11, P.O. Box 8787, Phoenix, AZ. 85066, by Officer Jack McLamb.
It is important to be aware of a different point of view about traffic since a near police state exists on America’s highways today. Traffic Support Services’ goal is to reestablish the RIGHT to travel!
Jess |
|
|
|
Livefree
Advanced Member
USA
270 Posts |
Posted - 13 Jan 2004 : 21:41:22
|
quote:
Originally posted by Loy
quote:
Originally posted by Livefree
I'm signing my car over to an LLC. That way, if a police officer runs a check on my plates, my name won't be connected to it. Of course the LLC has to pay registration fees and insurance but they can't take the car if the LLC has no outstanding tickets.
Friend, what good is this going to do? You still have to pay the LLC fees, and if you don't keep them up the gubbermint can seize your car or block you from selling it.
God bless you all!
They can't block you from selling your car, even if that car has 100 unpaid parking tickets. They can block me from registering another car if there are unpaid parking tickets on the old car though. If I signed the car over to the LLC the owner is annonymous. There's no way they find out who the owner of the LLC was. I'm only going to sign the car over to the LLC IF, by the time I have to register the car again in November, the Parking agencies haven't discharged the tickets, I will simply to sign the car over to the LLC, and move outa here.
Living in the city is the problem. Big city = parking tickets. |
Edited by - Livefree on 13 Jan 2004 21:44:42 |
|
|
|
Robert-James
Advanced Member
uSA
353 Posts |
Posted - 13 Jan 2004 : 22:00:08
|
Greetings All,
the rest of the story being; few qualify as being Americans, or state Citizens. Bearing false witness is un-Lawful, Father's law. His presence Being the King-Judge-Lawgiver.
A ss#, and one's attachment to it, makes one a ward of the STATE, and this is all voluntary. As Yahushua {aka Joshua} so aptly put it long ago, why stand ye between two opinions, serve YaHuWeH or baal.
Every cop-judge D.A. are AGENTS of a foreign power. The U.S. is a corporation. George Bush is the C.E.O.
The City...inner London, is where the ALL CAPITAL lettered name game was issued from. They know very well, they rule over the dead Body of messiah. "Where the dead Body is, there will the vultures be gathered together"...to feed off them.
I concur with Loy, most all leave Babylon one step at a time. Sit down and count the costs. Some will lose families-friends-jobs-reputations-banking privaleges-all licenses-all civil rights. Just read Hebrews chapter 11.
On the up side, your old man-nature will die. [you don't want him with you in the Kingdom anyway...do you?]
John Bunyon spent twelve years in prison for not submitting to LICENSURE to preach. Ten men were whipped to death before the American's turning the world rightside up again. Patrick Henry saw one of these men in stocks, being beaten to death a couple days before his famous speech about Liberty or death. Patrick was not a coward.
Folks today are so blind, Citizen vs. citizen. JOHN DOE vs. John Doe.
I know a man who was arrested for no tags-license-insurance and was taken to jail in TENNESSEE. For an hour he had cops, 7-8 of them, screaming at him for a LAST NAME. He politely offered his sir name {family name}, and they would not receive the information. The proof is in the pudding. In all honesty, if a man can not spell his given and sir name properly, he needs to be a ward of the STATE.
John, in one of his letters, stated three maturity levels of believers: little children-young men-father's.
Want to grow? Eat well...the messiah's words are bread indeed.
Would not an earthly Dad be so sad, if his son's became cowards. For our admonition, 599,998 out of 600,000 Israelite men, in the wilderness story, were cowards...lacking faith. I remember the names of the two, Yahushua and Caleb...who trusted YHWH...their Father. Now what was the names of the 599,998?
The word testimony has in American-English, for its root...testes. Now, there is no comdemnation to those in messiah...but face the truth, boys are not men. It takes awhile to grow up.
Ben Franklin {freeman} stated, "We gave you a Republic, if you can keep it". |
|
|
|
DanielJacob
Advanced Member
USA
138 Posts |
Posted - 14 Jan 2004 : 01:08:26
|
I don't know how it is other parts of the country but the Police are overjoyed here with this most recent finding of the SC. They are really licking their lips here. It seems that they have viewed this just I suspected they would. Let the roadblocks begin!!, they don't have to go after so-called "criminals" anymore. They just sit and wait for you to pull up. Gives a whole new meaning to "drive up service". There was one particular statistic that they had on the news here. That the roadblocks that they had already been running around here this past year had produced 66000+ speeding tickets. How do you get a speeding ticket stopping at a road block? It was interesting also that the court did say that roadblocks to check for drugs was an invasion of privacy. Talk about double minded.
Peace to all... |
|
|
|
Suzie
deleted
uSA
1 Posts |
Posted - 14 Jan 2004 : 19:07:18
|
What state? You are guilty for not having drivers license, for not having insurance papers if state law requires it, you are guilty for not having registration, and . . . stop sign not stopping - did you or didn't you stop? And, he couldn't of, wouldn't of, arrested you if you did not hae a warrant for previous unpaid ticket! Which means - YOU ARE IRRESPONSIBLE! And, of course, he had to tow your vehicle - couldn't just leave it where you got caught!
What should you be - take ownership of your actions!
I didn't completely stop on a stop sigh. He pulled me over and gave me 5 tickets and arrested me. 1 for not having driver lic, 1 for not having insurance papers, 1 for not having registration papers, and 1 for stop sigh, and 1 not sure for what nothing is checked. He arrested me because there was a warrant for my arrest for unpaid ticket, and he also towed my vehicle. I am so pissed off because i was handcuffed and treated like some type of a criminal!!!! I am so sick of this **** and I cannot take it anymore, please everyone tell me what steps should I take now.
|
|
|
|
gsgkill
Regular Member
USA
30 Posts |
Posted - 17 Jan 2004 : 02:52:23
|
I have a friend whom would get tickets on purpose. He had a system and for fun he would speed down I-35 here in Missouri... He would go to court and ask 3 questions to the judge. He would bring a notary to court with him and introduce his notary to the court. I forget the 3 question. But I'll find out. And post it.
He said the Judge would attempt to avoid answering the question by saying if you what to know those answers you will have to hire an attorney. Then he would tell the notory to make a note that the laws are secret and known only to attorneys and judges. Which is a violation of his due process. Any way he would get the Judge to admit that the tickets were civil and not criminal the fines are criminal fines. He would then ask the court to dismiss the criminal charges since it was civil and henceforth the fines as went as well. He said after a few times of that he was the last guy they called and he had to wait all day. He said then they just sent his tickets back to him with the tickets stamped dismissed. He didn't to go to court any more.
HOW TO RESPOND TO 'CONTEMPT' IN THE COURTROOM
by Pamela Gaston
Here it is - EVERYONE should keep this - it could save you - it WORKS, we have used it in court many times and if used properly it will back a raging dragon judge right back down in his chair docile....... believe me it is not easy to do that ..... "KNOW RIGHTS OR NO RIGHTS" William Mayhar How to Respond to Contempt of Court, Judicial Attack
We cringe for people going into court, dealing with the "sons of vipers, offspring of serpents" in these outlaw courts today. So many people write to us and call us, as they are being rendered in the money machine every day, liquidated to the Funding Streams for the elite. The rendering is in the PROCESS and most people do not have experience to understand or recognize corrupt process when they are in the middle of it.
Attorneys do - they created it and don't let everyone in on the "secret" (wink wink) while you and your children are destroyed. To help all the people in courts right now who are discovering Sui Juris process and going in without attorneys, they need to know what to say when the judge turns into a raging dragon because they dared to ask a question or try to make the record, and to help keep from being arrested. These tools in particular are used and shared with many thanks to our friends Milt and Darlene Mitcheck, who were the researchers behind the "Vultures" compilations that exposed the false judicial oaths in Oregon in September 2001, Research that can be also found at our website www.avoiceforchildren.com.
If you know the right words, they back down right now - they may still have you arrested, but you have said the right words on the record to descredit him in his contemptuous acts against you, and you will use this record in any appeal or future hearings as you go. The main thing is you DISCREDIT HIM and IMPEACH HIM IN HIS OWN COURTROOM if you say the right things. This can be used in any court in any setting, at any level, all the same basic process. I think in any country, with slight variations.
Sui Juris process is simple and common law, as "any reasonable people would understand" and bridges all forms of courts or dealing with public authorities. One of the main TOOLS they use to arrest you in a courtroom is "CONTEMPT OF COURT". Contempt is an instant six months in jail or a year sentence, potentially that is what you face. They use this for any or no reason, mainly for intimidation, and this is where they will (have already) use a stun belt or gun on a defendant who "irritates" the court asking for our rights.
When they do this to you, and it happens so fast it makes your head spin, if you have this written down, and can keep your wits about you enough to remember to say it, (you should practice it ! It is THAT important !) here is what you say: "IS THAT CIVIL CONTEMPT OR CRIMINAL CONTEMPT JUDGE?" (You wait for a response on the record - do not talk until he answers and if they pause this LONG pause is on the record that he cannot answer you - the silence of a witness answering a question is an admission of truth in a court record and the longer the pause the better.
All you want on the record is to make them COMMIT and then you go on, and now you have them caught in the permanent record)
If he says "CRIMINAL CONTEMPT" - you say "WHO MAKES THE CLAIM, WHAT IS THE CRIME AND WHO IS THE INJURED PARTY?" and wait again as long as it takes for him to say something.
If he says "CIVIL CONTEMPT" you say "WHERE IS THE CONTRACT BETWEEN ME AND YOU? I DON'T AGREE TO THE TERMS OF THE CONTRACT", JUDGE. NOW you have him acting CRIMINALLY OUTSIDE OF ANY LAWFUL JURISDICTION AND OUT OF IMMUNITY in his own courtroom on the record and heres why. In civil court, EVERYTHING is a CONTRACT and nothing can be done that is not a form of a contract. And ONLY HUMANS CAN LAWFULY CONTRACT. Every citation, money exchange, order, anything at all is an exchange - a contract - between two humans. The constitution is a contract with the Children of a Creator with Inherent Rights and the Constitutionally Sovereign People in the state, bonded by the JUDICIAL OATH - their contract.
Anyway, when you say to him "I don't agree to the terms of the contract" he KNOWS he does not have a contract with you and if you have committed no crime he has no authority to arrest you or even be conducting the hearing - he is OUT of his lawful jurisdiction and OUT of his IMMUNITY.
Now, if he says "CRIMINAL CONTEMPT", like one judge did to me, judge Robert Walberg, with no lawful oath by the way, he made a FOOL of himself ! He said "IF YOU ASK THAT AGAIN I AM HOLDING YOU IN CONTEMPT OF COURT" I said "IS THAT CRIMINAL OR CIVIL CONTEMPT WALBERG?" and he raged and said CRIMINAL'. I said "WHAT CRIME HAVE I COMMITTED AND WHO MAKES THE CLAIM? WHO IS THE INJURED PARTY?' He went nuts and started yelling "THE STATE OF OREGON", "THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM", "THE COURT"..... I said "YOU KNOW THAT ONLY A HUMAN CAN MAKE A CLAIM AND THERE IS NO CRIME AND NO INJURED PARTY - YOU KNOW THAT THE STATE OF OREGON CANNOT MAKE A CLAIM" he backed down and sat there red faced (he had already arrested me about three times for speaking before this contempt attempt) and it shut him down.
This was on the third day of the battle in his courtroom/sham jury trial last January - so after this confrontation backed him down he sat WAY BACK in his chair for three hours and let me make the record, while the jury waited in the back. MAKING THE RECORD WAS MY ONLY GOAL ANYWAY TO UPDATE THE RECORD IN OUR CASE.
Unfortunately for us, the juries do not understand anything at all, and these confrontations scare them, so all the knowledge of court process and higher law goes right over their heads and they do EXACTLY what the judge LETS them do by the way he manipulates the instructions. This judge held his finger to his upper lip and looked like a cadaver for three hours, listening to the record of the crimes of our evidence against the state and his own treason as I outlined what has happened. That is how you make the Record.
You have to use another trick called "OFFER OF PROOF". When they fight you and attack you, and rage, and say you cant say anything in front of the jury, and the DA interrupt literally EVERY sentence to stop you from speaking for days (I have gone through this !)... you tell the judge "I AM GOING TO MAKE AN OFFER OF PROOF FOR MY APPEAL". He sometimes will go in the back room altogether and leave the record on, or he will sit way back and listen while you make the record of your facts without the jury present.
Another trick process word is "OFFER INTO EVIDENCE" they will let you go around for days and be denied because you don't say it that way ...... they are insane, but if you do use their words they know that they have to acknowledge that this is their process and they use it so you have to be able to use it too.
Another important phrase to use is RUSH TO JUDGEMENT. After going around with them to a certain point and being blocked at all points, you say 'ARE YOU TRYING TO RUSH ME TO JUDGEMENT?" WOW - it works - boy they sit back so fast and shut up you would not believe - you would think they were shot -supposedly four times in a hearing saying that gets a reversal, but with us they don't give us anything, so I am not sure. But it is an important TOOL, you say this and it means they are preventing you from putting on your evidence as a lawful court and judicial due process requires, and for you to say this as they are doing it is like shooting them in their chair.
I hope people will write these things down in front of them when they are terrified in court - everyone is terrified in the court, even the attorneys, especially when you are bringing truth of this magnitude in there - we say where the truth meets the lie there is fallout - like a neutron bomb, you definitely stir up the hornest nest when you speak the truth in their courtrooms.
The rest of the Process for the People to Access the Courts is in the book we wrote. We learned these tools more recently and they are an "addition" to the information in the Sui Juris Book. This is what REALLY happens when you are in there, not what we think will happen or hope will happen.
And learning these tools, you are prepared to meet this present evil face to face.
If you are not in court, save this information and pass it on to friends who need it ...
I forgot to keep tracl of the web-site this came from
|
|
|
|
gsgkill
Regular Member
USA
30 Posts |
Posted - 18 Jan 2004 : 13:44:47
|
the 3 questions
what is the nature of the charge?
what is the cause of the charge?
what is the jurisdiction of the charge?
he said you can also say this.
Judge asks how do you plea?
you say I'm not prepared to enter a plea at this time.
judge says well I'll plead you not guilty
you ask is that plea administrative or judicial?
you ask is that plea administrative or judicial?
If he says administrative which he wont he is practicing law from the bench 3 times of that and yuor removed from the bench and he also acts as your attorney. he most usually will say Judicial. When he does say thank you your honor for the acquittal and turn and walk out of the court room even if he says somthing to you, act as you don't hear him and walk on out.
|
|
|
|
spyboy
Occasional Poster
USA
12 Posts |
Posted - 19 Jan 2004 : 04:38:01
|
Greetings, and many blessings!
I have experienced a few on the street police encounters.
I have heard the details of many police encounters.
I have extensively studied (still do) the mechanics of police encounters.
I teach on the subject of "Knowing, Protecting, Exercising and Defending Rights in Police Encounters"
I only state this to establish a foundation to understand what I wish to share. I share this as general information only.
There are a number of ways to interact with the police in a traffic and/or street stop. There are a number of "theoretical" ways to protect and preserve rights in such situations (ways that should produce a certian type of result) There are very few ways that I can see at this point in time to practically and effectively protect yourself (legally) in such situations (ways that actually produce effective results).
Because of the ways in which law enforcement is trained and the attitudes encouraged and inculcated by such training, as well as the rarent "testilying" the has become almost routine in the courts by police officers, it is in effect a rigged game. (Note; police officers are individuals. Some are respectful, some are not. Some follow the law, some do not. Some follow the rules, some do not. I am generalizing here, based on my own direct personal experience and shared indirect experience)
When people ask me what I recommend as to how to most effectively protect themselves in a police encounter I tell them that the most important thing is the "quality" of the exchange on an energetic level. Attitude is important, but even more than that is the quality of energy that flows out from within you to the officer that will have the significant effect. Be a man of honor. Nothing can or will replace that in importance.
What does not work is attempting to educate the officers about the law! That is not relevant for them. They trust their training and believe that that training has told them all they need to know.
As to what one can say in such a situation, the less the better.
The single most effective stradegy (I believe) in a situation where one absolutely has to protect themself without quarter I suggest the question, to whatever is asked of you, "Excuse me sir, Can anything I say to you or anything I give to you be used as evidence against me in any criminal matter?" The answer is absolutely, yes, although there is no telling what response will come. It doesnt matter. Follow with, "Sir, I respectfully exercise my right to remain silent" then, KEEP QUIET, SHUT UP, and DONT SAY ANYTHING!!!!!!
One may choose to hand over their "papers" if it will not incriminate them, and then ask the question. This would be preferable if possible.
If you just cant keep that big mouth shut, repeat the question, repeat the statement. Do not be dragged off point. Do not be intimitated. Do not be emotional. Do not help them prosecute you.
"Excuse me sir, Can anything I say to you or any thing I give you be used against me in any criminal matter?" "Sir, I respectfully exercise my right to remain silent"
That is about the best you can do in a critically important situation. It is up to each one to decide how to handle themselves in their best interests. Use this suggestion as you will, or not at all, IT IS ENTIRELY UP TO YOU. YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR YOUR OWN ACTIONS.
May the force be with you. SpyBoy
PS I have found in a situation whare one is presented a citation it is best to Not argue, but to accept it and sign it with all rights reserved. No harm, no foul. There are effective ways to deal with those phoney charging instruments. Your goal is to protect yourself and get out of there as safely and as quickly you are able.
|
|
|
|
Paul88
Regular Member
USA
31 Posts |
Posted - 21 Jan 2004 : 11:25:25
|
| I called the court and asked them if I could use affidavit of special appearance. In the beginning she was very happy about it but than when I said I have a right to it, she said she would send it to me where I defend my self in it. I'm planning on attaching a lot of documents proving that I wasn't traveling in commerce, along with court cases. |
|
|
|
Walter
Advanced Member
USA
144 Posts |
Posted - 21 Jan 2004 : 15:57:12
|
quote:
Originally posted by Livefree
Traveling may be a right, but you are traveling in commerce if you have a driver's license-- suspended or not suspended.
DL = privilege, and privilege = commerce.
If I'm wrong, please let me know.
Merely having a DL does not necessarily mean one is "driving" under it. One might have a Class A license to drive big rigs but not be using it while travelling in the family automobile to a movie, for example. This, I believe, is arguable down to a Class D (a chauffeur's license), but not, imho, to a Class E. A Class E is, imho, nothing less than a waiver for "driving" as a right in exchange for a privilege. I have notes on the subject of driving/travel (many and loosely organized) here:
http://home.earthlink.net/~walterk1/Patr/Traffic/Traffic.html
and the Class E here
http://home.earthlink.net/~walterk1/Patr/Traffic/TrafficFedDL.html
among others. |
|
|
|
Walter
Advanced Member
USA
144 Posts |
Posted - 21 Jan 2004 : 18:22:59
|
quote:
Originally posted by Livefree
So, if Paul was not ticketed for "traveling in commerce without a driver's license", his affidavit is moot, because it is unlawful to drive without a valid driver's license whereever you are driving.
I'm not sure I follow your point; let me clarify my understanding:
If Paul was ticketed for "driving" (technical term) a "motor vehicle" (technical term) for a commercial purpose without a license, and he was not doing that, he may be able to bring anough "pressure" (in the way of laws and court cases) to make them drop the charges. Merely traveling over the public rights of way in a horseless carriage, not being engaged in any regulated commercial activity, is a right of locomotion common to all Americans. (But not to citizens of the United States (federal children), btw.)
The Florida Statutes must be understood through the laws that made them, and the regulations that give them teeth. Just because the FS appear to rope everybody in, they do not. |
|
|
|
Robert-James
Advanced Member
uSA
353 Posts |
Posted - 21 Jan 2004 : 21:29:43
|
Livefree, if Paul was not traveling on a public highway...in what way was he traveling? Since you, yourself, feel all using FRN's are in traverse, and you yourself must be licensed-insured-taged-regulated, why do you even offer any response to the children seeking freedom? Since ecclesia.org is for those called out of the system, just what imput does your ilk have in even responding to those children of Faith-seeking good advise...and guidance. Does Livefree travel about without the privalege of STATE sanction? No tags-license-insurance? If not, please, and pretty please, shut up! Children should be seen and not heard.
Now, if, and I say, if, you have made the leap of Faith, then, again enter into the mix. Until then, please hush your conceits. You chased away David Merrill, with your pendantic accuacations...is that not enough for the rest of Us to suffer, on your behalf? Or, is that your job description...alas Judas?
These posts are for those "just arrested", and have you ever been arrested? If not, hush up! One more cretin's opinion, is not necessary.
To the rest... the ecclesia, make no mention of those who trouble you, for their folly shall be revealed with the coming of messiah Yahushuah, and to You that look for Him, shall He appear.
Messiah {Christ} in You, is the hope of glory.
|
|
|
|
Walter
Advanced Member
USA
144 Posts |
Posted - 21 Jan 2004 : 22:31:48
|
quote:
Originally posted by Livefree
Paul's affidavit is titled 'Truth Affidavit, Denial Traveling in Commerce'. Paul was NOT traveling on a public highway (in commerce) when he was arrested. So, his truth affidavit that he wasn't traveling in commerce is moot. It makes no sense to deny it because he wasn't traveling in commerce in the first place.
If he was travelling on a public highway (where the general public has the RIGHT to be), he need not have a license unless he was engaged in some regulated activity. He wrote that he 'ran' a stop sign, which implies the road was regulated by the State, implying a public right-of-way. General denial of commercial activity may be great - so I don't think such an affidavit moot -, but it would be better, imho, though maybe not necessary, if he could be ready to deny that he was engaged in any activity specifically regulated by the state wherein he inhabits. I believe it is best to know the laws of the state when dragged into their tribunals. (As I support the laws of the state over that of the feds in areas of State regulation.) For one innocent, it does make sense, to me, to deny regulated commercial activity when faced with prosecution for that under the law. There are various Florida cases where a company was defending itself against being brought under traffic laws; I see a man's case as no different. Imho, he needs to deny that he was violating that state's laws. |
Edited by - Walter on 21 Jan 2004 22:41:14 |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
I was just arrested!
