Sui and the Secrets of the Law (or Masons or DMP, etc.)

[Prof]

Sui Club Member Finds the Silver Bullet:

steve762
Club Member


Cop does not have Standing.................

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

.................to write you citation. Have to be an attorney to represent a corporation.When you are pursued by the "STATE" it is a corporation. In fact a cop writing a citation is practicing law! You can do Motion to Dismiss: Lack of Standing. The second paragraph defines the practice of law.See below:

It has been the law for the better part of two centuries, for example, that a corporation may appear in the federal courts only through licensed counsel. Osborn v. Bank of the United States, 9 Wheat. 738, 829 (1824); see Turner v. American Bar Assn., 407 F. Supp. 451, 476 (ND Tex., 1975) (citing the "long line of cases" from 1824 to the present holding that a corporation may only be represented by licensed counsel), affirmance order sub nom. Taylor v. Montgomery, 539 F. 2d 715 (CA7 1976), and aff'd sub nom. Pilla v. American Bar Assn., 542 F. 2d 56 (CA8 1976). As the courts have recognized, the rationale for that rule applies equally to all artificial entities. Thus, save in a few aberrant cases, [n.5] the lower courts have uniformly held that 28 U.S.C. § 1654providing that "parties may plead and conduct their own cases personally or by counsel," does not allow corporations, partnerships, or associations to appear in federal court otherwise than through a licensed attorney. See, e. g., Eagle Associates v. Bank of Montreal, 926 F. 2d 1305 (CA2 1991) (partnership); Taylor v. Knapp, 871 F. 2d 803, 806 (CA9) (nonprofit corporation formed by prison inmates), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 868 (1989); Jones v. Niagara Frontier Transportation Authority, 722 F. 2d 20, 22 (CA2 1983) (corporation); Richdel, Inc. v. Sunspool Corp., 699 F. 2d 1366 (CA Fed. 1983) (per curiam) (corporation); Southwest Express Co. v. ICC, 670 F. 2d 53, 55 (CA5 1982) (per curiam) (corporation); In re Victor Publishers, Inc., 545 F. 2d 285, 286 (CA1 1976) (per curiam) (corporation); Strong Delivery Ministry Assn. v. Board of Appeals of Cook County, 543 F. 2d 32, 34 (CA7 1976) (per curiam) (corporation); United States v. 9.19 Acres of Land, 416 F. 2d 1244, 1245 (CA6 1969)

Administrative bodies are not authorized to regulate the practice of law, even within their own quasi-judicial proceedings. Where, as here, the actions of an administrative commission include the resolving of disputes of adjudicative facts, persons appearing in representative capacities in respect thereto are practicing law. See 1 Davis, Administrative Law Treatise 415, section 703, cited in Denver Bar Association v. Public Utilities Commission, 391 P.2d 467, 471, rehearing denied (Colo. 1964). In Denver Bar Association, the Colorado Supreme Court, sitting en banc, identified some circumstances where activities before administrative commissions rise to the practice of law: (1) instructions or advice, (2) preparation of a document based on substantive legal principles, (3) preparation of legal applications or other procedural papers, (4) appearance before an administrative tribunal, and (5) participation in the presentation of evidence. Denver Bar Association, 391 P.2d at 471-72; see also Washington State Bar Association v. Great Western Union Federal Savings and Loan Association, 586 P.2d 870, 875 (Wash. 1978). It is beyond question that the Respondent’s representative entered an appearance by signing and filing the Answer, even if she did not write it, and it may be presumed that she would represent the Respondent in the hearing.

This is not legal advice.It is legal strategy.

[Ragnar]

steve762 ,

Good luck with that tactic in court. You have tried it, haven't you?

[Lambkin]

This is not legal advice.It is legal strategy.

More like legal suicide.

I wonder if "steve762" is a reference to 7.62mm. (would that be NATO or Soviet?)

[Prof]

Sui is also working out the intricacies of JURISDICTION:

kingdolan
House Club Member
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 224
Downloads: 39
Uploads: 0


Re: Making Them Prove Jurisdiction

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

“Jurisdiction, once challenged, is to be proven, not by the court, but by the party attempting to assert jurisdiction. The burden of proof of jurisdiction lies with the asserter. The court is only to rule on the sufficiency of the proof tendered”. Se McNutt v. GMAC, 298 US 178. The origins of this doctrine of law may be found in Maxfield’s Lessee v Levy, 4 US 308.

If in Common Law Jurisdiction, then a verified complaint from an injured victim claiming damage caused to the victim by Defendant must be produced.

If in Admiralty Jurisdiction, a contract that Defendant has violated must be produced.

If in “Statutory Jurisdiction”, the “Rules For Statutory Procedure” must be produced.

[Pottapaug1938]

Sui is also working out the intricacies of JURISDICTION:

“Jurisdiction, once challenged, is to be proven, not by the court, but by the party attempting to assert jurisdiction. The burden of proof of jurisdiction lies with the asserter. The court is only to rule on the sufficiency of the proof tendered”. Se McNutt v. GMAC, 298 US 178. The origins of this doctrine of law may be found in Maxfield’s Lessee v Levy, 4 US 308.

If in Common Law Jurisdiction, then a verified complaint from an injured victim claiming damage caused to the victim by Defendant must be produced.

If in Admiralty Jurisdiction, a contract that Defendant has violated must be produced.

If in “Statutory Jurisdiction”, the “Rules For Statutory Procedure” must be produced.

[/quote]

Rules of STATUTORY Jurisdiction?????

"A little learning is a dangerous thing;
drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring:
there shallow draughts intoxicate the brain,
and drinking largely sobers us again."

Alexander Pope, An essay on Criticism
English poet & satirist (1688 - 1744)

[Prof]

Some Sui Club members just do not have enough faith:

#1 (permalink) Today, 10:55 AM
teejay929
Junior Club Member
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 31
Downloads: 10
Uploads: 0


AFV Process

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sui Juris community....

I am reading many of the threads created on this topic but I have some specific questions. It seems many of you have had success with this process, but the "methods" seem to be varied.

I have also done internet searches on the process and found many methods:

One method: Send letter to Sec. of treasury establishing your Treasury acct.
Send letter to director of IRS establishing fiduciary.
Once the proper paperwork is filed, send your creditors their payment coupons with "accepted for value" written across the paper with instructions to SET OFF with Treasury acct (SSN) and ALL CAPS name.

With this method it seems like you have to FORCE the creditor to accept this type of payment. Maybe it would work it sent to the CFO of the credit company?

Another method: Similar to first you send letters to the Sec of Treasury establishing account (SSN) I believe.
With this method you actually include presentments (payment coupons?) to the Sec of treasury instructing them to pay the creditors.

Here are my Questions:

1. For those of you who have used AFV successfully, which method do you prefer? what materials did you use?

2. When using AFV do you have to already have established the treasury account with the Sec. of Treasury?


Note: I have already tried a suggested way to do this without setting up the account. I endorsed the payment coupon, used a 2 cent stamp signed it and sent in the payment. I did this on several types of credit accounts. All of them were either ignored, or returned to me with the explanation that a check was not included therefore no payment posted.

So if this method truly works (sounds like it has for many people on here) can you please share your story?

And yes, I totally understand the "no legal advice, blah blah blah". Not asking for that.......just tell me your story. Where did you find the info you used to make it work. I think those that have already paved the way can really help others. I in turn would want to share and help others on their journey.

Thanks to all who share what they have done. It makes learning so much easier!
TJ

Others have far too much faith:

Foreclosure Remedy - Karen Tappert Method

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Karen has over 100 SUCCESSES around the country and WITHOUT having to use the courts! This process may be used at just about any stage in the foreclosure predicament and also before an issue arises or even to "correct the mortgage" of the problems that already have been made at the initial signing of the note. Definitely a positive preemptive measure that also cancels the "debt".
Certain methods discussed could actually be used for any "debt" situation.

Karen Tappert on Mortgage Fraud - eSnips, share anything

Also one may go to; YOUR REMEDY IS IN THE LAW
Sign up, choose Archives, then choose the April 7th, 2009 MP3 download.

For those having difficulty recording documents with the county may file with nationalrepublicregistry.com as Karen does.

Others, not enough faith:

Thanks EZ,

I just got back from eSnips (joined).
Not a glowing review there.

I posted the same as above and added another observation.

She also claims to have passed a pear [sic] review from the New York Bar. I have searched for this review on the NYSBA site and nothing, ziltch, nada. Though this 'sounds' good it smells like fraud.

Here are her documents;
Attached Files NOTICE OF REVOCATION OF POWER OF ATTORNEY.doc (20.5 KB, 84 views)
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO CANCEL.doc (33.5 KB, 74 views)
POA REVOKE - REMOVAL - AFF(2).doc (58.0 KB, 69 views)

__________________

And so it goes in the world of sovereign legal analysis.

[Brandybuck]

What so sad about those idiots, is that it's easy to win in traffic court. 80% (iirc) of people who fight their tickets in traffic court will win. You can't fight the 90mph-in-school-zone, but you can fight the ordinary everyday tickets.

Many times the citing cop will not show up, and you win by default. But even if he shows you have a lot of avenues. When was the radar last calibrated? Was traffic busy so that the radar might have clocked someone else? Etc. Accident tickets are the easiest, because the cop was not a witness, and the other driver will not be there to present his side of things.

[Prof]

Then, there is always another magic bullet in the ol' Sui arsenal -- revoke the power of attorney that holds you in thrall:

EZrhythm
Distinguished Club Member
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 704
Downloads: 4
Uploads: 12


An Important First Step In All Situations

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The agencies that come against our corporate person and attempt to get us to attach ourselves to their process presume that they have Power Of Attorney over us. Especially if we have given them evidence of such by applying for licenses of all kinds, registrations, signing agreements, etc. Learning to revoke that power of attorney can be essential and is having positive effects.
Rule of Law Radio
Download, July 13th, "Special Guest ‘C’ discusses revocation of power of attorney."

Successes are included in the notes.
Taken from; Yahoo! Groups

"...to the IRS. I have killed, three, maybe four "Notices" (Notice of Levy) like this. They won't tell you anything. It will just 'go away'."

"...I don't speak lightly either. When I say watch them run like hell, I have tested this with prosecutors, judges and a few deputies."

"I've done the RPOA on my HOA and they leave me strictly alone now. Their
attorney even called to ask if I'd personally let him know if they hassled
me by mistake or if he could do anything else to let him know."

"...was pulled over this evening. He thought that he was going to jail. Instead, his 'record' came back clear."
Attached Files

[Judge Roy Bean]

What should be alarming about all of these things is they're not anything new and they just keep getting resurrected, regurgitated and re-posted as if the cut-and-paste junkie has discovered the Dead Sea scrolls.

I can remember some of the same goofy theories from way before the 'net became a techno-geek wet dream. Over the years, the local judiciary has almost always treated them with rather benign disdain and far too many have thus gotten away with what we now see as ludicrous behavior.

Traditionally, 'hold my beer and watch this' brought on dire results; nowadays it seems the same crowd has been able to do avoid the consequences and love to extol others into trying it.

[dr poormouth]

I am stupefied by the things people will do to make a very small, minor situation/irritant into a gigantic, gaping pit of trouble, and do so in a childish, crude manner. And then they wonder and complain why life is so tough for them.

You haven't met the doctor's ex-wife.

The woman is a "type specimen" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_type for the mindset exhibited by the group in question - TDs, birfers, et al. Not lacking in intelligence (very intelligent, in fact; the doctor did not marry her for her sweater puppies), she is wholly unable to grasp the significance and utility of many tasks considered practical and routine.
I have, I believe, by close acquaintance earned an intimate, though subjective, insight into this form of behavior, and believe it to be - in part - a mental or neurological pathology.

Layman's opinion and anecdotal. Take it for a talking point, or take it for walkies if it tries to soil the carpet.

[Blup]

Thanks for this thread. I WISH, oh how I WISH I could see these loons in court. My schadenfreude would be fulfilled for a whole year and I wouldn't have to watch fat people falling down on youtube anymore.

[Prof]

"Licenses? Licenses? We don't need no stinkin' licenses!"

Here it is! Secrets revealed! YOU DON'T NEED A DRIVER'S LICENSE! Sui tells all and gives you a brief, for free!

http://www.suijurisclub.net/court/6285- ... ction.html

[Prof]

Long, involved, and nonsensical tho it may be:

Brief in Support of Notice For Dismissal For Lack of Jurisdiction

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DRIVER'S LICENSE DEFENSE BRIEF -- Chapter 1

Driver Licensing vs. the Right to Travel -- Part 1
The entirety of what you find below is transcribed exactly from what was sent to me by a fellow liberty-minded person. It is itself a transcription of a brief, not a direct, per-character copy of the brief. This is unfortunate, but I'm trying to nail down some of the references, and especially some of the cases in which this particular brief was used.

Karl Kleinpaste, March 14, 1995.

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

The forgotten legal maxim is that free people have a right to travel on the roads which are provided by their servants for that purpose, using ordinary transportation of the day. Licensing cannot be required of free people, because taking on the restrictions of a license requires the surrender of a right. The driver's license can be required of people who use the highways for trade, commerce, or hire; that is, if they earn their living on the road, and if they use extraordinary machines on the roads. In other words, if you are not using the highways for profit, you cannot be required to have a driver's license. This brief or the right it demonstrates is no substitute for either being safe on the road or for learning the subject of rights versus regulations thoroughly before attempting to use or act upon this information.

BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF NOTICE FOR DISMISSAL
FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION
written by Glen Bronstein of Spokand, Washington

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

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

"Complete freedom of the highways is so old and well established a blessing that we have forgotten the days of the Robber Barons and toll roads, and yet, under an act like this, arbitrarily administered, the highways may be completely monopolized, if, through lack of interest, the people submit, then they may look to see the most sacred of their liberties taken from them one by one, by more or less rapid encroachment." Robertson vs. Department of Public Works, 180 Wash 133, 147.

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

RIGHTS

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

"Personal liberty, or the Right to enjoyment of life and liberty, is one of the fundamental or natural Rights, which has been protected by its inclusion as a guarantee in the various constitutions, which is not derived from, or dependent on, the U.S. Constitution, which may not be submitted to a vote and may not depend on the outcome of an election. It is one of the most sacred and valuable Rights, as sacred as the Right to private property...and is regarded as inalienable." 16 C.J.S., Constitutional Law, Sect.202, p.987.

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

"Personal liberty largely consists of the Right of locomotion to go where and when one pleases only so far restrained as the Rights of others may make it necessary for the welfare of all other citizens. The Right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, by horsedrawn carriage, wagon, or automobile, is not a mere privilege which may be permitted or prohibited at will, but the common Right which he has under his Right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Under this Constitutional guarantee one may, therefore, under normal conditions, travel at his inclination along the public highways or in public places, and while conducting himself in an orderly and decent manner, neither interfering with nor disturbing another's Rights, he will be protected, not only in his person, but in his safe conduct." [emphasis added] II Am.Jur. (1st) Constitutional Law, Sect.329, p.1135.

and further...

"Personal liberty consists of the power of locomotion, of changing situations, of removing one's person to whatever place one's inclination may direct, without imprisonment or restraint unless by due process of law." 1 Blackstone's Commentary134; Hare, Constitution__.777; Bovier's Law Dictionary , 1914 ed., Black's Law Dictionary, 5th ed.

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

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


"...We are of the opinion that there is a clear distinction in this particular between an individual and a corporation, and that the latter has no right to refuse to submit its books and papers for examination on the suit of the State. The individual may stand upon his Constitutional Rights as a Citizen. He is entitled to carry on his private business in his own way. His power to contract is unlimited. He owes no duty to the State or to his neighbors to divulge his business, or to open his doors to investigation, so far as it may tend to incriminate him.

He owes no such duty to the State, since he receives nothing therefrom, beyond the protection of his life, liberty, and property. His Rights are such as the law of the land long antecedent to the organization of the state, and can only be taken from him by due process of law, and in accordance with the Constitution. Among his Rights are the refusal to incriminate himself, and the immunity of himself and his property from arrest or seizure except under warrant of law. He owes nothing to the public so long as he does not trespass upon their rights.

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

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

"..Based upon the fundamental ground that the sovereign state has the plenary control of the streets and highways in the exercise of its police power (see police power, infra.), may absolutely prohibit the use of the streets as a place for the prosecution of a private business for gain. They all recognize the fundamental distinction between the ordinary Right of the Citizen to use the streets in the usual way and the use of the streets as a place of business or a main instrumentality of business for private gain. The former is a common Right, the latter is an extraordinary use. As to the former the legislative power is confined to regulation, as to the latter it is plenary and extends even to absolute prohibition. Since the use of the streets by a common carrier in the prosecution of its business as such is not a right but a mere license of privilege." Hadfield vs. Lundin, 98 Wash 657l, 168, p.516.

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

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

and...

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

and...

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

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


Page 2

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

and...

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

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

"...For while a Citizen has the Right to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, that Right does not extend to the use of the highways, either in whole or in part, as a place for private gain. For the latter purpose no person has a vested right to use the highways of the state, but is a privilege or a license which the legislature may grant or withhold at its discretion."State vs. Johnson, 243 P. 1073; Hadfield, supra; Cummins vs. Homes, 155 P. 171; Packard vs. Banton, 44 S.Ct. 256;

and other cases too numerous to mention.

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

"Heretofore the court has held, and we think correctly, that while a Citizen has the Right to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, that Right does not extend to the use of the highways, either in whole or in part, as a place of business for private gain." Barney vs. Board of Railroad Commissioners, 17 P.2d 82; Willis vs. Buck, 263 P.l 982.

and...

"The right of the citizen to travel upon the highway and to transport his property thereon, in the ordinary course of life and business, differs radically and obviously from that of one who makes the highway his place of business for private gain in the running of a stagecoach or omnibus." State vs. City of Spokane, 186 P. 864.


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

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

and...

"This distinction, elementary and fundamental in character, is recognized by all the authorities." State vs. City of Spokane, supra.

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

"the right of the Citizen to travel upon the highway and to transport his property thereon in the ordinary course of life and business, differs radically and obviously from that of one who makes the highway his place of business and uses it for private gain in the running of a stagecoach or omnibus. The former is the usual and ordinary right of the Citizen, a right common to all, while the latter is special, unusual, and extraordinary." Ex Parte Dickey, (Dickey vs. Davis), 85 SE 781.

and...

"The right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, in the ordinary course of life and business, is a common right which he has under the right to enjoy life and liberty, to acquire and possess property, and to pursue happiness and safety. It includes the right, in so doing, to use the ordinary and usual conveyances of the day, and under the existing modes of travel, includes the right to drive a horse drawn carriage or wagon thereon or to operate an automobile thereon, for the usual and ordinary purpose of life and business." Teche Lines vs. Danforth, Miss., 12 S.2d 784; Thompson vs. Smith, supra.

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

"Personal liberty or the right to enjoyment of life and liberty is one of the fundamental or natural rights, which has been protected by its inclusion as a guarantee in the various constitutions, which is not derived from nor dependent on the U.S. Constitution... It is one of the most sacred and valuable rights [remember the words of Justice Tolman, supra.] as sacred as the right to private property...and is regarded as inalienable." 16 C.J.S. Const. Law, Sect.202, p.987.

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

"First, it is well established law that the highways of the state are public property, and their primary and preferred use is for private purposes, and that their use for purposes of gain is special and extraordinary which, generally at least, the legislature may prohibit or condition as it sees fit." Stephenson vs. Rinford, 287 US 251; Pachard vs Banton , 264 US 140, and cases cited; Frost and F. Trucking Co. vs. Railroad Commission, 271 US 592; Railroad commission vs. Inter-City Forwarding Co., 57 SW.2d 290; Parlett Cooperative vs. Tidewater Lines, 164 A. 313.

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

Travelling upon and transporting one's property upon the public roads, which is our Right;


and...

Using the public roads as a place of business or a main instrumentality of business, which is a privilege.


Page 3

"[The roads]...are constructed and maintained at public expense, and no person therefore, can insist that he has, or may acquire, a vested right to their use in carrying on a commercial business." Ex Parte Sterling, 53 SW.2d 294; Barney vs. Railroad Commissioners, 17 P.2d 82; Stephenson vs. Binford, supra.

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

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

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

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

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

DEFINITIONS

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

AUTOMOBILE AND MOTOR VEHICLE

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

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

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

"A motor vehicle or automobile for hire is a motor vehicle, other than an automobile stage, used for the transportation of persons for which remuneration is received." International Motor Transit Co. vs. Seattle, 251 P. 120.

The term 'motor vehicle' is different and broader than the word 'automobile.'"; City of Dayton vs. DeBrosse, 23 NE.2d 647, 650; 62 Ohio App. 232.

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

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

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

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

TRAVEL

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

"The term 'travel' and 'traveler' are usually construed in their broad and general sense...so as to include all those who rightfully use the highways viatically (when being reimbursed for expenses) and who have occasion to pass over them for the purpose of business, convenience, or pleasure." [emphasis added] 25 Am.Jur. (1st) Highways, Sect.427, p.717.

"Traveler One who passes from place to place, whether for pleasure, instruction, business, or health." Locket vs. State, 47 Ala. 45; Bovier's Law Dictionary, 1914 ed., p. 3309.

"Travel: To journey or to pass through or over; as a country district, road, etc. To go from one place to another, whether on foot, or horseback, or in any conveyance as a train, an automobile, carriage, ship, or aircraft; Make a journey." Century Dictionary, p.2034.

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


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

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

DRIVER

The term "driver" in contradistinction to "traveler" is defined as:

"Driver One employed in conducting a coach, carriage, wagon, or other vehicle..." Bovier's Law Dictionary, 1914 ed., p. 940.

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

OPERATOR

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

"It will be observed from the language of the ordinance that a distinction is to be drawn between the terms 'operator' and 'driver'; the 'operator' of the service car being the person who is licensed to have the car on the streets in the business of carrying passengers for hire; while the 'driver' is the one who actually drives the car. However, in the actual prosecution of business, it was possible for the same person to be both 'operator' and 'driver.'" Newbill vs. Union Indemnity Co., 60 SE.2d 658.

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

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

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

Travelling upon and transporting one's property upon the public roads as a matter of Right meets the definition of a traveler.

Using the road as a place of business as a matter of privilege meets the definition of a driver or an operator or both.

TRAFFIC

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


"...Traffic thereon is to some extent destructive, therefore, the prevention of unnecessary duplication of auto transportation service will lengthen the life of the highways or reduce the cost of maintenance, the revenue derived by the state...will also tend toward the public welfare by producing at the expense of those operating for private gain, some small part of the cost of repairing the wear..." Northern Pacific R.R. Co. vs. Schoenfeldt, 213 P. 26.

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

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

"Traffic Commerce, trade, sale or exchange of merchandise, bills, money, or the like. The passing of goods and commodities from one person to another for an equivalent in goods or money..."; Bovier's Law Dictionary, 1914 ed., p. 3307.

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

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

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

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


"The word 'traffic' is manifestly used here in secondary sense, and has reference to the business of transportation rather than to its primary meaning of interchange of commodities." Allen vs. City of Bellingham, 163 P. 18.

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

[Prof]

I only lurk; I never post at that board. Too many of those folks take themselves far too seriously.

[Blup]

I simply cannot fathom the mindset that would come up with something like the above.

[Prof]

Here's another Sui success story:

Winn


Still On the Way

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Today turned out in some ways, better than expected, but after court I am trying to assess where I am and where to go.

For those new continue on, others drop down to TODAY.
Last Oct I was cited for driving on suspended license. I served DA common law default. The arraignment in Jan was by a new judge. I could not get him to deal with jurisdiction, I had a "hangover" from new meds. Judge got angry and never asked for a plea, just set for bench trial in associate court. I revoked the DA's Information. Even the verification signature was missing....

I put in a Petition for Trial by Jury and in May case moved to circuit and told I would be notified of court dates. After a month I wrote clerk to find out what was going on. Heard nothing. And learned long time later an arraignment was held in my absence. Then a second hearing was held with no notice. Not knowing, I wrote another letter to clerk to ask in writing what was up. Heard nothing. Finally I "heard" when the sheriff and 5 state thugs beat on my door. [This was my notice]. I was arrested and held in solitary for 8 weeks. Four days ago I was released on PR bond, and today was the first to see court in almost 9 weeks. [PROF'S COMMENT: NOTE HOW THIS IS WORKING OUT FOR WINN--FREE ROOM AND BOARD FOR 8 WEEKS!!!]TODAY
It was Law Day with a judge from another venue. Not much was done, except the roll call and a few didleys. FTA warrants were issued right and left. When called, I spoke loudly, "I am here for that matter."

After an opening 15 min roll call, judge called recess for 30 mins. [I left after 60 and he had not returned.] However, DA's clerk came to me with 'memo' to sign for a pre-trial conference in early December and Jury Trial in late January. I asked her what about the unresolved jurisdictional issues from associate court, so sh also put on the memo the all issues from beginning would be taken up in December.

Now I still have the DA on the original default of no jurisdiction, misidentity, and default on Notice and Demand, showing no jurisdiction. Also sent ROPA and RCOC to the entities closest to me. No visible results on those.

At the moment I am assessing how to proceed and thankful to my Heavenly Father I am not in a cage. DA before today said that was a possibility.....

Winn
__________________
For the Son of Man came to seek and to save the lost. --Luke 19:10


Winn
#2 (permalink) Yesterday, 11:35 PM
glcapp


Re: Still On the Way

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Winn
Today turned out in some ways, better than expected, but after court I am trying to assess where I am and where to go.

For those new continue on, others drop down to TODAY.
Last Oct I was cited for driving on suspended license. I served DA common law default. The arraignment in Jan was by a new judge. I could not get him to deal with jurisdiction, I had a "hangover" from new meds. Judge got angry and never asked for a plea, just set for bench trial in associate court. I revoked the DA's Information. Even the verification signature was missing....

I put in a Petition for Trial by Jury and in May case moved to circuit and told I would be notified of court dates. After a month I wrote clerk to find out what was going on. Heard nothing. And learned long time later an arraignment was held in my absence. Then a second hearing was held with no notice. Not knowing, I wrote another letter to clerk to ask in writing what was up. Heard nothing. Finally I "heard" when the sheriff and 5 state thugs beat on my door. [This was my notice]. I was arrested and held in solitary for 8 weeks. Four days ago I was released on PR bond, and today was the first to see court in almost 9 weeks.

TODAY
It was Law Day with a judge from another venue. Not much was done, except the roll call and a few didleys. FTA warrants were issued right and left. When called, I spoke loudly, "I am here for that matter."

After an opening 15 min roll call, judge called recess for 30 mins. [I left after 60 and he had not returned.] However, DA's clerk came to me with 'memo' to sign for a pre-trial conference in early December and Jury Trial in late January. I asked her what about the unresolved jurisdictional issues from associate court, so sh also put on the memo the all issues from beginning would be taken up in December.

Now I still have the DA on the original default of no jurisdiction, misidentity, and default on Notice and Demand, showing no jurisdiction. Also sent ROPA and RCOC to the entities closest to me. No visible results on those.

At the moment I am assessing how to proceed and thankful to my Heavenly Father I am not in a cage. DA before today said that was a possibility.....

Winn

So you appeared generally today? I'm not sure how that would not be a waiver of the jurisdictional issue. If my impression is correct, then it may still be recoverable, but probably not for long. But you may have submitted your rights to their interpretation on several points. I'm using thoughts and logic there and not statutes nor procedure, so you may be fine from a statutory or procedural point.


glcapp


#3 (permalink) Today, 09:46 AM
Winn


Re: Still On the Way

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As I indicated, hizzoner only read the docket. I saw no indication, since I have never seen one of these memos, to do anything else. Since the DA and judge both were to sign after me, I did not know yes or no IF they would have signed, had I changed or added anything.

I did sign:
All Rights Reserved
by: Winn XXXXX, Agent

I cannot explain everything about the [by:] or "agent" but it was accepted by 'them." Except I don't think I am "locked in." The more learned on her may explain more detail.

Winn
__________________
For the Son of Man came to seek and to save the lost. --Luke 19:10


Winn



Katrina


Re: Still On the Way

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hey Winn or somebody--


Quote:
I did sign:
All Rights Reserved
by: Winn XXXXX, Agent

I see this "by:" done by a lot of people with their signature, and mentioned on David Rideout's videos, but no explanation. What is it's purpose? David says to never sign your name without it. But he does not explain!

Oh... and why should someone sign, "agent"? Agent for who? ---K
__________________


Katrina


David Merrill


Re: Still On the Way

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Winn
Today turned out in some ways, better than expected, but after court I am trying to assess where I am and where to go.

For those new continue on, others drop down to TODAY.
Last Oct I was cited for driving on suspended license. I served DA common law default. The arraignment in Jan was by a new judge. I could not get him to deal with jurisdiction, I had a "hangover" from new meds. Judge got angry and never asked for a plea, just set for bench trial in associate court. I revoked the DA's Information. Even the verification signature was missing....

I put in a Petition for Trial by Jury and in May case moved to circuit and told I would be notified of court dates. After a month I wrote clerk to find out what was going on. Heard nothing. And learned long time later an arraignment was held in my absence. Then a second hearing was held with no notice. Not knowing, I wrote another letter to clerk to ask in writing what was up. Heard nothing. Finally I "heard" when the sheriff and 5 state thugs beat on my door. [This was my notice]. I was arrested and held in solitary for 8 weeks. Four days ago I was released on PR bond, and today was the first to see court in almost 9 weeks.

TODAY
It was Law Day with a judge from another venue. Not much was done, except the roll call and a few didleys. FTA warrants were issued right and left. When called, I spoke loudly, "I am here for that matter."

After an opening 15 min roll call, judge called recess for 30 mins. [I left after 60 and he had not returned.] However, DA's clerk came to me with 'memo' to sign for a pre-trial conference in early December and Jury Trial in late January. I asked her what about the unresolved jurisdictional issues from associate court, so sh also put on the memo the all issues from beginning would be taken up in December.

Now I still have the DA on the original default of no jurisdiction, misidentity, and default on Notice and Demand, showing no jurisdiction. Also sent ROPA and RCOC to the entities closest to me. No visible results on those.

At the moment I am assessing how to proceed and thankful to my Heavenly Father I am not in a cage. DA before today said that was a possibility.....

Winn


[DMVP CHIMES IN:]
You Refused for Cause the presentment, right?

However you are getting entrenched.

I am here for that matter. There was a trustee appearing to construct the trust on the docket in ALL UPPER CASE.

It is difficult to assess properly but from the details above they waited for you to get impatient. They had their eye on you. It sounds like the clerk caught you in the hallway. They desperately need you to plead into the jurisdiction and less importantly they desperately need to convict you to absolve themselves of eight weeks false imprisonment/kidnapping. - All over traffic infractions?

They needed you to sign that presentment and agree to continue on as the trustee for the construction you began when you handed them a driver license for identification. If you had only known to say:

I am only giving you this driver license for competency purposes officer. I am not showing it to you to identify myself; you can see from it though, my name is First Middle.

You see? It was you who announced the constructive trust.



Regards,

David Merrill.

[Blup]

yikes. Poor idiot

At least he's already done the time. Can't imagine they'd give you more than a fine for a first offense driving-while-suspended, certainly not more than 2 months in jail. Now it's almost not even worthwhile for them to go through with the trial. Time served.

[Brandybuck]

A heap load of trouble and weeks in the clink, versus a couple hundred dollar fine...

To rephrase an old saying, "is this the molehill you want to die on?"

[Blup]

what do you want to bet that the DA drops the charges because he's already done far more time than he'd get if he were convicted, and the freemen/sovereigns chalk it up as a "victory"...

[Judge Roy Bean]

yikes. Poor idiot

At least he's already done the time. Can't imagine they'd give you more than a fine for a first offense driving-while-suspended, certainly not more than 2 months in jail. Now it's almost not even worthwhile for them to go through with the trial. Time served.

Methinks there will be more to it, including fines and at least one or two opportunities for contempt.

And again we see Van Pelt's classic 'if you had only done it my way' nonsense.

These people must really get some kind of bizarre pleasure out of being laughed at.