Page 1 of 6 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 139

Thread: OUR RIGHT TO TRAVEL---Defined Legal style

  1. #1
    Regular Member Motofixxer's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Somewhere over the Rainbow
    Posts
    964

    OUR RIGHT TO TRAVEL---Defined Legal style

    Ok some of this is State specific but most of it is general. It's a compilation of multiple sources. If you want to us this as a format and do something similar, feel free. Just have to customize it to your location. Or just us it as a resource. So grab some popcorn and a soda and get ready for some light reading.

    Popcorn.....................check
    Soda.........................check
    Candy Dots and M&M's..check

    Ready....Set....Go

    RIGHT TO TRAVEL Without taxation or licensing with Case Cites and info

    Brief and Memorandum of Law
    AFFIDAVIT OF TRUTH
    ACTUAL AND CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE



    It has come to my attention, via several legal and constitutional sources, that the State of Colorado is illegally and unconstitutionally enforcing the Motor Vehicle statutes, as described below. This is my Evidence in Fact of my conclusions based on the following conclusions of Case and Constitutional Law.

    I have several times written to the Secretary of State, Department of Revenue/Motor Vehicle Division, under CORA laws, on these issues but have not received any written acknowledgment or response to these legal requests, in violation of CORA laws.

    I am requesting a response to this Affidavit of Truth, and Notice, (each and every point brought up), in rebuttal to these conclusions, and where it is in error, to provide documentation so I may understand and obey the true law. If no rebuttal is forthcoming within 30 days, this will be accepted as Evidence in Fact for my position and will permanently relieve me from any traffic enforcement harassment or compulsion to contract with the State of Colorado in any matter against my will.

    Case Law in support of this challenge:

    The State of Colorado has a "Higher Duty" to know the Constitution and law, and to convey the truth of the law to its citizens. To do otherwise suggests fraud...

    "Silence can only be equated with fraud where there is a legal or moral duty to speak, or where an inquiry left unanswered would be intentionally misleading. . . We cannot condone this shocking behavior... This sort of deception will not be tolerated and if this is routine it should be corrected immediately." U.S. v. Tweel, 550 F.2d 297, 299. See also U.S. v. Prudden, 424 F.2d 1021, 1032; Carmine v. Bowen, 64 A. 932.

    "The parties are entitled to know the findings and conclusions on all of the issues of fact, law, or discretion presented on the record." citing Butz v. Economou 438 U.S. 478, 98 S. Ct. 2894, 57 L. Ed. 2d 895, (1978). FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION v. SOUTH CAROLINA STATE PORTS AUTHORITY et al. certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the fourth circuit No. 01-46. 2.535 U.S. 743, 122 S. Ct. 1864, 152 L. Ed. 2d 962, (2002). Argued February 25, 2002--Decided May 28, 2002. See also FRCPA Rule 52(a) and United States v. Lovasco 431 U.S. 783 (06/09/77), 97 S. Ct. 2044, 52 L. Ed. 2d 752, and Holt v. United States 218 U.S. 245 (10/31/10), 54 L. Ed. 1021, 31 S. Ct.

    "Persons dealing with the government are charged with knowing government statutes and regulations, and they assume the risk that government agents may exceed their authority and provide misinformation." Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, Lavin v Marsh, 644 f.2D 1378, (1981).


    Case Law in Support:

    Case # 1 - "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. NOT a privilege that requires permission i.e.- licensing, mandatory insurance, vehicle registration, etc.)
    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 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 conclusively that Citizens of the states have a right to travel, without approval or restriction (license), and that this right is protected under the U.S. Constitution. Here are other court decisions that expound the same facts:
    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 5th Amendment." -*Kent v Dulles, 357*U.S. 116, 125.
    Case # 4 - "Undoubtedly the right of locomotion, the right to remove from one place to another according to inclination, is an attribute of personal Iiberty, and the right, ordinarily, of free transit from or through the territory of any State is a right secured by the l4th Amendment and by other provisions of the Constitution." - Schactman v Dulles, 96 App D.C. 287, 293.

    "A license when granting a privilege, may not, as the terms of its possession, impose conditions which require the abandonment of constitutional rights." Frost Trucking Co. v. Railroad Commission, 271, US 583, 589, (1924); Terral v. Burke Construction Company, 257 US 529, 532 (1922).

    "The acceptance of a license, in whatever form, will not impose upon the licensee an obligation to respect or to comply with any provision of the statute or with the regulations prescribed that are repugnant to the Constitution of the United States." W. W. CARGILL CO. v. STATE OF MINNESOTA, 180 U.S. 452 (1901) 180 U.S. 452

    "The 'liberty' guaranteed by the constitution must be interpreted in the light of the common law, the principles and history of which were familiar and known to the framers of the constitution. This liberty denotes the right of the individual to engage in any of the common occupations of life, to locomote, and generally enjoy those rights long recognized at common law as essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men." Mere v. Nebraska 262 US 390, 399; US v. Won Kim Ark 169 US 649, 654.

    "It (the legislature or statutory laws) may not violate constitutional prohibits or guarantees OR AUTHORIZE OTHERS TO DO SO." Lockard v. Los Angeles 33 Cal2d 553; Cert den 337 US 939.

    "It is clear that a license relates to qualifications to engage in profession, business, trade or calling; thus when merely traveling without compensation or profit, outside of business enterprise or adventure with the corporate state, no license is required of the natural individual traveling for personal business, pleasure and transportation." Wingfield v. Fielder (1972) 29 CA3d 213.

    "No statutory duty lies to apply for, or to possess a drivers' license for personal travel and transportation as defendant is not within the 'class of persons for whose benefit or protection the statute was enacted." Routh v Quinn, 20 Cal2d 488

    The case of Hertado v.*California, 110*U.S. 516. states very plainly: "The State cannot diminish rights of the people."
    "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*U.S. 22, 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*U.S. 436, 491.
    "The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime. - Miller v.*U.S., 230 F 2d 486, 489.
    "There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of this exercise of Constitutional rights."- Sherar v. Cullen, 481 F. 945.
    Under Constitutional and common law, my right to travel cannot be infringed. Supreme Court Case law provides that all sovereigns have the right to freely travel in the 50 states unencumbered, requiring no "license" to do so, and as long as there is no injured party, there can be no sanctions (speeding fine or license points) against me. No "drivers' license" is required save for commercial driving applications. It is unconstitutional for the State to demand and require a drivers' license from anyone of age, and also cannot legally tax for such right to travel. Since a license to travel is unconstitutional, it stands that where no injury has occurred... no injured party involved with any legal action, there can be no sanctions for operating a private vehicle save for common law violations involving a damaged or injured party.

    Section 241, USC Title 42, Section 1983, 1985, 1986, of the unhampered use of all navigable waters and all common law highways, roadways, and byways which are used for transport either private, public, or commerce anywhere in these United 50 States of America.

    All Courts and Legislatures are held to the Constitution of the United States of America:

    "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... The Senators and Representatives and members of the State legislature, and all executive and judicial officers of the United States and the several States, shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding." The Constitution of the united States of America, Article VI, Cl 2, 3.

    "The United States is entirely a creature of the Constitution. Its power and authority have no other source. It can only act in accordance with all the limitations imposed by the Constitution." Reid v Covert 354 US l, 1957.

    Americans' "freedom to travel throughout the United States has long been recognized as a basic right under the Constitution," according to multiple cases including Williams v Fears, 179 US 270, 274; 21 S Ct 128; 45 L Ed 186 (1900); Twining v New Jersey, 211 US 78, 97; 29 S Ct 14; 53 L Ed 97 (1908), as listed in the case of United States v Guest, 383 US 745; 86 S Ct 1170; 16 L Ed 2d 239 (1968), a case involving criminally prosecuting people for obstructing the right (obstruction is a federal crime pursuant to federal criminal law 18 USC 241).

    The Supreme Court in Guest says of the "right to travel" that "Its explicit recognition as one of the federal rights protected by what is now 18 USC 241 goes back at least as far as 1904. United States v Moore, 129 F 630, 633 [Circ Ct ND Ala, 1904]. We reaffirm it now." As we see, the Michigan Supreme Court had already recognized it in 1889, and Crandall v Nevada had alluded to the concept in 1867. The earliest known case working towards developing the concept was Smith v Turner, 48 US 283 (1849).

    One of Americans' basic "Bill of Rights" rights is "the basic constitutional right to travel," upheld as long ago as in cases such as Crandall v Nevada, 73 US 35; 18 L Ed 745 (1868), Pinkerton v Verberg, 78 Mich 573; 44 NW 579 (1889), and once again reaffirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court in so many words, "right to travel," in Dunn v Blumstein, 405 US 330; 92 S Ct 995; 31 L Ed 2d 274 (1974), and in the following cases:

    "Undoubtedly the right of locomotion, the right to remove 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 l4th Amendment and by other provisions of the Constitution." - Schactman v Dulles, 96 App D.C. 287, 293.

    "The right to travel is part of the Liberty of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment." Kent v. Dulles 357 U.S. 116, 125. Reaffirmed in Zemel v. Rusk 33 US 1.

    "Where activities or enjoyment, natural and often necessary to the well being of an American citizen, such as travel, are involved, we will construe narrowly all delegated powers that curtail or dilute them... to repeat, we deal here with a constitutional right of the citizen..." Edwards v. California 314 US 160 (1941).

    "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" - Chicago Motor Coach v Chicago, 169 NE 22

    "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 right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Thompson v Smith, 154 SE 579.

    "If the state converts a liberty into a privilege the citizen can engage in the right with impunity" Shuttlesworth v Birmingham , 373 USs 262

    The right to travel is protected by the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.

    "Right to travel is constitutionally protected against private as well as public encroachment." Volunteer Medical Clinic, Inc. V. Operation Rescue, 948 F2d 218; International Org. Of Masters, Etc. V. Andrews, 831, F2d 843; Zobel v. Williams, 457 US 55, 102 Sct. 2309.

    "The right to make use of an automobile as a vehicle of travel along the highways of the state, is no longer an open question. The owners thereof have the same rights in the roads and streets as the drivers of horses or those riding a bicycle or traveling in some vehicle." House v. Cramer, 1 12 N. W. 3; 134 Iowa 374 (1907).

    "Personal liberty, which is guaranteed to every citizen under our constitution and laws, consists of the right to locomotion, to go where one pleases, and when, and to do that which may lead to one's business or pleasure, only so far restrained as the rights of others may make it necessary for the welfare of all other citizens. . . .

    "Any law which would place the keeping and safe conduct of another in the hands of even a conservator of the peace, unless for some breach of the peace committed in his presence, or upon suspicion of felony, would be most oppressive and unjust, and destroy all the rights which our Constitution guarantees." Pinkerton v Verberg, 78 Mich 573, 584; 44 NW 579, 582-583 (1889).

    "...those things which are considered as inalienable rights which all citizens possess cannot be licensed since those acts are not held to be a privilege." City of Chicago v. Collins, 51 N.E. 907, 910.

    "The State cannot diminish rights of the people." Hertado v. California, 110 U.S. 516

    "Under our system of government upon the individuality and intelligence of the citizen, the state does not claim to control him/her, except as his/her conduct to others, leaving him/her the sole judge as to all that affects himself/herself." Mugler v. Kansas 123 U.S. 623, 659-60.

    "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 U.S. 22, 24.

    "The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void and ineffective for any purpose, since its unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment... In legal contemplation, it is as inoperative as if it had never been passed... Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no right, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection and justifies no acts performed under it... A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing law. Indeed insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, (the Constitution JTM) it is superseded thereby. No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it." Bonnett v. Vallier, 116 N.W. 885, 136 Wis. 193 (1908); NORTON v. SHELBY COUNTY, 118 U.S. 425 (1886). See also Bonnett v Vallier, 136 Wis 193, 200; 116 NW 885, 887 (1908); State ex rel Ballard v Goodland, 159 Wis 393, 395; 150 NW 488, 489 (1915); State ex rel Kleist v Donald, 164 Wis 545, 552-553; 160 NW 1067, 1070 (1917); State ex rel Martin v Zimmerman, 233 Wis 16, 21; 288 NW 454, 457 (1939); State ex rel Commissioners of Public Lands v Anderson, 56 Wis 2d 666, 672; 203 NW2d 84, 87 (1973); and Butzlaffer v Van Der Geest & Sons, Inc, Wis, 115 Wis 2d 539; 340 NW2d 742, 744-745 (1983). .

    Laws that interfere with "fundamental rights" are "suspect" and demand "close scrutiny" by courts. Laws cannot simply be passed on whimsy, but there must be a "compelling state interest." Any law that would "chill" exercising a right is "patently unconstitutional." It is a well established right of the people "to be free to travel throughout the length and breadth of our land uninhibited by statutes, rules, or regulations which unreasonably burden or restrain this movement." Shapiro v Thompson, 394 US 618 (1969).

    Unconstitutional enactments are treated as though they had never existed. For example, in one state alone, here are examples: Bonnett v Vallier, 136 Wis 193, 200; 116 NW 885, 887 (1908); State ex rel Ballard v Goodland, 159 Wis 393, 395; 150 NW 488, 489 (1915); State ex rel Kleist v Donald, 164 Wis 545, 552-553; 160 NW 1067, 1070 (1917); State ex rel Martin v Zimmerman, 233 Wis 16, 21; 288 NW 454, 457 (1939); State ex rel Commissioners of Public Lands v Anderson, 56 Wis 2d 666, 672; 203 NW2d 84, 87 (1973); and Butzlaffer v Van Der Geest & Sons, Inc, Wis, 115 Wis 2d 539; 340 NW2d 742, 744-745 (1983).

    2. Further, under CRS 42-2-101, it states;

    Licenses for drivers required.

    (1) Except as otherwise provided in part 4 of this article for commercial drivers, no person shall drive any motor vehicle upon a highway in this state unless such person has been issued a currently valid driver's or minor driver's license or an instruction permit by the department under this article.

    This statute states it involves commercial drivers, NOT private citizens NOT driving for hire or driving commercial vehicles. Either this statute is void for vagueness, because NO statutory declaration is made regarding NON-commercial vehicles and NO presumption can be made with what ISN'T written, or it is clearly stating the facts... that ONLY commercial "drivers" are required to be licensed for the privilege of driving on public roads for commercial purposes, and the State allows the fraud to continue for financial gain (RICO violations-see below) and control of citizens.

    3. In addition to a drivers' license NOT being required to have the right to drive a private vehicle for private business, the State of Colorado is illegally and unconstitutionally taxing its citizens for licensing and registrations of these rights. All legal taxes must fall under one of two classes of taxation... direct, according to apportionment, or indirect, according to uniformity. The tax paid for drivers' licenses and registrations must be either direct taxes, requiring apportionment amongst the population, or indirect, (excise taxes), which must be uniform across the state. Although a drivers' license could fall under the category of excise taxation if taxation of a right was constitutionally allowed, the law states that such a tax for a right is NOT allowed and that right cannot be infringed without any violation of the rights of others (damaged party) and only through Due Process. In addition, registration fees for private property which private vehicles are, is NOT uniformly taxed and is clearly unconstitutional.

    Constitutional and Case Law in support of this position:

    The Constitution clearly defines only TWO forms of taxation:

    Article I, Section 2, Clause 3; Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers.

    These include taxes directly upon people or personal property. "...all duties, imposts and excises [indirect taxes], shall be uniform throughout the United States."[See Article I, Section 8, Clause 1.]. This is consistent with the Supreme Court's ruling in Knowlton v. Moore, 178 U.S. 41 (1900).

    Section 8 Clause 1: "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States: but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States."

    Section 9, clause 4; No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census of Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.

    "Thus, in the matter of taxation, the Constitution recognizes the two great classes of direct and indirect taxes, and lays down two rules by which their imposition must be governed, namely: the rule of apportionment as to direct taxes and the rule of uniformity as to duties, imposts and excises." Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. 158, U.S. 601, at 637 (1895).

    "A tax levied upon property because of its ownership is a direct tax, whereas one levied upon property because of its use is an excise, duty or impost." - Manufactures' Trust Co. vs. U.S., 32 F. Supp. 289.

    "The requirement to pay [excise] taxes involves the exercise of privilege." Flint v. Stone Tracey Company, 220 U.S. 107, 108 (1911).

    "Ordinarily, all taxes paid primarily by persons who can shift the burden upon some one else, or who are under no legal (read Constitutional-JTM) compulsion to pay them, are considered indirect [excise] taxes. Pollock v. Farmers Loan & Trust, 157 U.S. 429 and 158 U.S. 601 (1895).

    "A license when granting a privilege, may not, as the terms of its possession, impose conditions which require the abandonment of constitutional rights." Frost Trucking Co. v. Railroad Commission, 271, US 583, 589, (1924); Terral v. Burke Construction Company, 257 US 529, 532 (1922).

    "The acceptance of a license, in whatever form, will not impose upon the licensee an obligation to respect or to comply with any provision of the statute or with the regulations prescribed that are repugnant to the Constitution of the United States." W. W. CARGILL CO. v. STATE OF MINNESOTA, 180 U.S. 452 (1901) 180 U.S. 452

    "A license when granting a privilege, may not, as the terms of its possession, impose conditions which require the abandonment of constitutional rights." Frost Trucking Co. v. Railroad Commission, 271, US 583, 589, (1924); Terral v. Burke Construction Company, 257 US 529, 532 (1922).

    "The 'liberty' guaranteed by the constitution must be interpreted in the light of the common law, the principles and history of which were familiar and known to the framers of the constitution. This liberty denotes the right of the individual to engage in any of the common occupations of life, to locomote, and generally enjoy those rights long recognized at common law as essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men." Mere v. Nebraska 262 US 390, 399; US v. Won Kim Ark 169 US 649, 654.

    "It (the legislature or statutory laws) may not violate constitutional prohibits or guarantees OR AUTHORIZE OTHERS TO DO SO." Lockard v. Los Angeles 33 Cal2d 553; Cert den 337 US 939.

    "It is clear that a license relates to qualifications to engage in profession, business, trade or calling; thus when merely traveling without compensation or profit, outside of business enterprise or adventure with the corporate state, no license is required of the natural individual traveling for personal business, pleasure and transportation." Wingfield v. Fielder (1972) 29 CA3d 213.

    "No statutory duty lies to apply for, or to possess a drivers' license for personal travel and transportation as defendant is not within the 'class of persons for whose benefit or protection the statute was enacted." Routh v Quinn, 20 Cal2d 488

    A citizen being "required" to obtain a "driver's license," according to case and constitutional law, is being indirectly taxed for the "privilege" of having State authority to do what is a NATURAL RIGHT, and is illegal. The right to freely travel in private vehicles for private business or pleasure is NOT a privilege, but it is being taxed as a privilege. The law is being violated and Colorado citizen's rights are being violated without full disclosure... contract fraud.

    The requirement to yearly "register" our private vehicles, along with paying another tax is also illegal and unconstitutional for similar reasons. Registration fees are being enforced as direct taxation on our personal property, whether these vehicles are driven or not, which requires apportionment. If this registration is purely because of the "activity of driving," (a natural right, not privilege) then it would be an indirect tax which requires uniformity, which is NOT how it is being enforced.

    Speed limits and other traffic control devices, being non-fact-based, are simply an unlawful tax or impost on travel, and thus unconstitutional. See Crandall v Nevada, 73 US 35; 18 L Ed (1867).

    3. The compulsory requirement for insurance, and seat belt use is also unconstitutional and illegal. Common Law requires an injured party before a crime can exist. If there is no injured party, no damages done, in the process of driving a private vehicle, the de facto, "color of law" statute which requires performance, and then strips finances from citizens where no damage has been done when these hoops have been ignored, is fraud.

    Case Law in Support of this position:

    "For a crime to exist, there must be an injured party. There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of this exercise of Constitutional rights."- Sherar v. Cullen, 481 F. 945.

    "THE CLAIM AND EXERCISE OF A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT CANNOT BE CONVERTED INTO A CRIME." - Miller v U.S., 230 F 2d 486. 489.

    "...all laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void." Marbury v Madison, 5 US 1803 (2 Cranch) 137, 174, 170.

    "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 withstanding." Article six of the U.S. Constitution.

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

    4. All violations which receive citations claim that the "Peace and Dignity of the People of the State of Colorado" has been violated. There has never been ANY "Evidence in Fact" of this claim. Further more, I have NEVER provided authority for the State of Colorado to represent me, as one of "The People of the State of Colorado," in the thousands of such hearings and trials monthly. I reject such presumption, and claim that ONLY the "peace and dignity" of myself and other Colorado citizens has been and IS BEING damaged where such predatory, domestic terrorism exists to create fear and intimidation for financial gain, absent any real, tangible and proven damage and crime existing.

    5. Manual for Uniform Traffic Control Devices mandates that ALL speed limit zones be scientifically, medically and safety engineered via studies to determine best speeds for road and area. This is NOT being complied with by most areas in Colorado in violation of law.

    Speed laws are presumed to be for safety. Presumption is NOT a basis for any statutory law and is void. Speed laws MUST be sound, reasonable and have facts supporting them.

    Case Law in Support of this position:

    Constitutionally, "a statutory presumption cannot be sustained if there be no rational connection between the fact proved and the ultimate fact presumed." Tot v United States, 319 US 463, 467; 63 S.Ct. 1241, 1245, 87 L.Ed.2d 1519 (1943).

    Traffic infractions are NOT crimes. Traffic charges are ex parte (From a one-sided or strongly biased point of view) and do not support the presumption that speeding is unsafe. See Jim Crockett Promotion, Inc v City of Charlotte, 706 F2d 486, 490-491 (CA 4, 1983).

    "A rule cannot be simply invented or retained when challenged. It must be shown valid, or be struck down." Fox TV Station, Inc v FCC, Case No. 00-1222; _ US App DC _; 280 F3d 1027, 1034; 2002. US App LEXIS 2575; 30 Media L Rep 1705 (19 Feb 2002).

    When laws such as invented maximum numeric limits lack rational basis, they are invalid, and must be stricken. See Industrial Union Department v American Petroleum Institute, 448 US 607; 100 S Ct 2844; 65 L Ed 2d 1010 (1980).

    6. Montana Traffic fatalities and speed limit studies: The National Motorists Association conducted a 7 year study in which the showed that traffic fatalities doubled across the board for interstate highways and state highways where speed limits were imposed. During the 4 previous years of no speed limits, traffic fatalities were half that of the following 3 years where speed limits were unscientifically imposed. It seems obvious that speed limits are for revenue generation primarily, and with little or no real scientific, safety or engineering basis for them on highways. The year following this study (2002) Montana had the highest traffic fatalities in 20 years. Is this what Colorado leaders want for the citizens they serve? Is revenue worth killing people over?

    Statutory presumptions have NO basis in scientific, medical or engineering facts, and are unconstitutional. The above study reveals the truth about speed limit laws.

    7. It is a fact that the State of Colorado has well over 6.5 Billion Tax dollars which belong to The People. These funds are hidden from the public in CAFR accounts which exist to create even more money for the State coffers through investments. The State does not NEED to unconstitutionally tax its citizens via de facto motor vehicle statutes, or most other statutes. This is a crime of fraud, and this "cooking of the books" continues yearly. This fact exists in ALL 50 states and is known by millions of people and growing. This will be made public soon, via a movie documentary, and all those accountable will be charged with violating the public trust and other charges.

    Supporting Evidence of CAFR accounts:

    http://cafrman.com/Articles/Art-CO-S1.htm, and http://CAFR1.com">http://CAFR1.com

    If the State were honest in its fiscal, fiduciary duties, taxation on Colorado citizens would not exist and the standard of living level would rise considerably.

    8. It appears that extortion and bribery are involved in the 20 day "offer" to reduce the point penalty on drivers if admission of guilt and payment is made within 20 days of citation date, and prior to any Court hearing. Why is said offer not applicable up to the Court date, allowing time to determine all legal issues and standings; i.e. what statutory documentation exists authorizing the Court or State to delay a speedy hearing well beyond the "grace" period for reducing the "point" penalty, thereby not allowing a hearing before any expiration of the offer for point reduction. It is costly for person's who are presumed to be innocent to take time to defend themselves against charges, but the State has manipulated "action" so as to almost force people to admit guilt even where guilt is not evident in order to save money. Who benefits here?

    9. The government of the State of Colorado is a servant government, first and foremost. It is dedicated to the true God of the universe whose laws supersede any man made laws...

    Preamble: "We, the people of Colorado, with profound reverence for the Supreme Ruler of the Universe, in order to form a more independent and perfect government; establish justice; insure tranquility; provide for the common defense; promote the general welfare and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this constitution for the 'State of Colorado.'"

    Human government in Colorado is "Of the People, By the People and For the People...

    Article II, Section 1. Vestment of political power. "All political power is vested in and derived from the people; all government, of right, originates from the people, is founded upon their will only, and is instituted solely for the good of the whole."

    The motor vehicle code is NOT complying with this element of the Colorado Constitution, and is therefore void in truth and law. (Other issues will be raised in due course). The statutory laws regarding driving created by the legislature are NOT for the good of the whole People, and are self-serving, fraudulent and serve primarily ONLY the State and its interests, the public servant, which has become overgrown and an outlaw agency in its present form of business conduct. The illegal license taxation against Colorado citizens is proof in point.

    Colorado State must change to comply with the Constitutions, both State and U.S., or be at risk of abolishment as provided for in the Constitution. Colorado state has become a microcosm of the U.S. government in its illegal and unconstitutional control making Colorado citizens slaves (instead of sovereigns as they rightfully are) in their own "free" state...

    Section 2. People may alter or abolish form of government proviso. "The people of this state have the sole and exclusive right of governing themselves, as a free, sovereign and independent state; and to alter and abolish their constitution and form of government whenever they may deem it necessary to their safety and happiness, provided, such change be not repugnant to the constitution of the United States."

    The present actions of Colorado state government are far from the intent of the founders of this country, and this Great state. Millions in Colorado will be preparing to bring this to the public consciousness in the near future, and I am asking... the People of Colorado are asking, that all who receive this Notice act according to their oath of office, and support the Constitution of the U.S. and Colorado, or be held legally liable as provided by law.

    In conclusion, it is a violation of law to compel any citizen into a contract, or acceptance of any license for rights, where it is not legally required or is unconstitutional to do so. If private people freely contract with the State of Colorado and accept a "drivers' license," that is their right, but it MUST be done with FULL disclosure of the fact that in so doing they bind themselves to the statutory laws regarding driving which the license demands they comply with or be punished.

    I am rescinding any such contract with the State of Colorado in the form of any license I have been fraudulently compelled to obtain without full disclosure, and retain and hold all rights to travel freely in this state. I require an Apostille (or equivalent acknowledgment of my sovereignty) from the State of Colorado to the affect that I am free to travel in Colorado and that I require no license to do so as a free, private traveler, and that my state record will reflect this for any future traffic stops. It is understood under Common Law that where sufficient probable cause exists for a stop, or injured party complains, or a valid crime has occurred that I have been involved in causing, I am personally responsible.

    This is a free nation, and a free, sovereign State, and a sovereign people, where these "People" rule, NOT the state. Our State Constitution so states, and I so stand as one who took an oath of office to defend and uphold the Constitution of the United states of America, and thus, the Colorado state constitution. Freedom MUST be defended since it cannot defend itself. This is Official Notice of these crimes, and where they are not refuted, all parties receiving this public notice are required to act on this Evidence in Fact or become criminally complicit.

    Affidavit of Truth

    I, (given name), do hereby certify the following:

    1. That I have not received any documentation, nor can I locate in state statutory records, any law which requires a private citizen to be required to obtain and use a Colorado drivers' license, even despite two separate requests to the DMV, under the Colorado Open Records Act, which I received no written response to.

    2. I have not received any documentation proving that driving is a privilege, and is NOT a right, and that a so-called "drivers' license" can be legally and constitutionally required and taxed in order to travel in these united States.

    3. I have not received any documentation showing legal rights for the state to register my personal property, which I use in my personal capacity, and to charge another tax for this.

    4. I have not received any documentation showing that the taxes being extracted for license and registration are, in fact, legal and constitutional.

    5. I have not received any documentation refuting my UCC 1 filing, regarding the illegal use of my copyrighted name in ALL CAPS, as (Name all Caps), which is NOT my real, flesh and blood name, and is the name used on the drivers' license I applied for in ignorance of my rights under the law.

    6. I have not received any documentation showing that statutory laws overrule Constitutional law or Common Law.

    7. I have not received any documentation showing the State of Colorado has the legal authority to represent me, one of the "People of" Colorado State (whose "peace and dignity has supposedly been damaged by traffic infractions), in any court in Colorado for ANY traffic infraction against other Colorado citizens, and I refute such authority.

    8. I have not received any documentation proving that I am NOT one of the "People of" Colorado State, where I may be a defendant in such a traffic action, thereby being, legally, plaintiff AND defendant, which is illegal and improper, and reveals the fraud and "show" traffic enforcement has become.

    Notice of RICO Violations

    18 U.S.C. 1961(1)

    Section 1341 (relating to mail fraud),
    section 1503 (relating to obstruction of justice),
    section 1951 (relating to interference with commerce, robbery, or extortion),
    section 1952 (relating to racketeering),
    section 1957 (relating to engaging in monetary transactions in property derived from specified unlawful activity)

    The State of Colorado obtains large financial gain from these unfair, unethical and unconstitutional statutory procedures, in way of not only the license and registration fees, but the fines where violations of these and other de facto laws have been supposedly violated, yet where no damaged party exists. Judges are biased employees of the State and receive financial consideration for supporting traffic citations. Because of this, the State of Colorado's actions in demanding and enforcing statutes for private motor vehicles is in violation of my civil rights, and is in violation of the RICO (Racketeering) laws, fulfilling the four requirements for a RICO crime to exist as follows:

    a). Association In Fact; two people acting together (knowingly or unknowingly) which affects Interstate Commerce...

    The actions in private motor vehicle statutes and enforcement clearly constitute financial fraud, which is supported by multiple layers of "associations" with the primary intent of taking assets from citizens and profiting the State where NO damage to any party has occurred, OR NO damage to the "peace and dignity" of Colorado Citizens has been proven in the slightest. This commerce affect need only be $1.00 in loss which could be used for commerce elsewhere in the country to fulfill this requirement.

    b). Two or more similar acts of fraud, mail fraud or extortion having occurred...

    The actions have been ongoing, as proven by the millions of licenses and registrations which are issued yearly, via U.S. Mail, and which many more than "two similar acts" have occurred to me personally.

    c). Money or property deprivation...

    This is self evident in correspondence, license and registration fees, court proceedings, fines, costs of time and lose of work income, etc.

    d). Pattern is likely to continue.

    Pattern has been continuing for many decades and is growing worse. The only way it will stop is for the Rule of Law to be enforced and for Constitutional rights to be enforced... In other words, people's oath of office must be obeyed and not violated, which simply creates even more criminal events in the way of treason against the American People.

    See also 18 USC Sec. 241 01/19/04 TITLE 18- CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - PART I - CRIMES CHAPTER 13 - CIVIL RIGHTS Sec. 2414 Conspiracy against rights. If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same. . . They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both;

    All rights reserved, UCC 1-207/308
    _____________________________________
    (Given Name),
    c/o Address

    CC:
    Senator Wayne Allard
    954 East 2nd Avenue, Suite 107
    Durango, CO 81301
    Cert Mail # 7006 2760 0002 1142 0736

    Senator Ken Salazar
    835 East 2nd Avenue, Suite 203
    Durango, CO 81301
    Cert Mail # 7006 2760 0002 1142 0743

    Congressman John Salazar
    813 Main Avenue, Suite 300
    Durango, CO 81301
    Cert Mail # 7006 2760 0002 1142 0750

    Attorney General John Suthers
    1525 Sherman St., 7th floor
    Denver, CO 80203
    Cert Mail # 7006 2760 0002 1142 0767

    Certified Verification

    I declare under penalty of perjury that the identified sovereign individual named above appeared before me with picture identification, and acknowledged this 13 page document before me, consisting of Brief and Memorandum of Law, Affidavit of Truth, Actual and Constructive Notice - Brief and Memorandum of RICO (Racketeering), on; Date: __________________ /s/
    ____________________________________________
    (NOTARY PUBLIC'S JURAT) (Notary signature and stamp)


    Certificate of Mailing

    I, (Given Name), do certify that I mailed this original certified document consisting of Brief and Memorandum of Law, Affidavit of Truth, Actual and Constructive Notice - Brief and Memorandum of RICO (Racketeering) Crimes to the Colorado Department of Revenue, certified mail # 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000, and copies of original to the above named individuals, certified mail #'s listed above, all mailed on (Date).

    ____________________________________
    Last edited by Motofixxer; 03-28-2011 at 09:28 PM.
    Click Here for New to WI Open Carry Legal References and Informational Videos--- FAQ's http://Tinyurl.com/OpenCarry-WI

    The Armed Badger A WI site dedicated to Concealed Carry in WI

    "To disarm the people... was the best and most effectual way to enslave them." -- George Mason, Speech of June 14, 1788

    http://Tinyurl.com/New-To-Guns to DL useful Info

  2. #2
    Regular Member Motofixxer's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Somewhere over the Rainbow
    Posts
    964
    So what does this mean to our officers on the street? Well here are the words and understanding of one.

    As hard as it is for those of us 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 another.
    Government, in requiring the people to file for "drivers Iicenses, vehicle registrations, mandatory insurance, and demanding they stop for vehicle inspections, DUI/DWI roadblocks etc. without question, are "restricting", and therefore violating, the Peoples common law right to travel.*
    Is this a new legal interpretation on this subject of the right to travel? 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 the area of "Citizens right to travel." In an interview a spokesmen stated: "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 has always been a fundamental right of every Citizen."
    This means that the "beliefs and opinions" our state legislators, the courts, and those of as 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 in determining that - to restrict, in any fashion, the movement of the individual American in the free exercise of their 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, and most state Constitutions, i.e - it is Unlawful.
    THE REVELATION THAT THE AMERICAN CITIZEN HAS ALWAYS HAD THE INALIENABLE RIGHT TO TRAVEL RAISES PROFOUND QUESTIONS TO THOSE WHO ARE INVOLVED IN MAKING AND ENFORCING STATE LAWS.
    The first of such questions may very well be - 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, D.W.I. roadblocks, to name just a few, on a Citizens constitutionally protected right. Is that not so?
    For the answer to this question let us Iook, once again, to the*U.S. courts for a determination on this very issue.
    The case of Hertado v.*California, 110*U.S. 516. states very plainly: "The State cannot diminish rights of the people."
    "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*U.S. 22, 24.
    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 Iimitations on rights belonging to the people?
    Other cases are even more straight forward:
    "Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them."
    - Miranda v.*Arizona, 384*U.S. 436, 491.
    "The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime. - Miller v.*U.S., 230 F 2d 486, 489.
    "There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of this exercise of Constitutional rights."- Sherar v. Cullen, 481 F. 945. ( There is no question that a citation/ticket issued by a police officer, for no drivers license, no current vehicle registration, no vehicle insurance etc. which carries a fine or jail time, is a penalty or sanction, and is indeed "converting a Right into a crime".)
    We could go on, quoting court decision after court decision, however, In addition, the Constitution itself answers our question- "Can a government legally put restrictions on the rights of the American people at anytime, for any reason"? (Such as in this particular case - when the government believes it to be for the safety and welfare of the people).
    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 withstanding". (This tells us that the U.S. Constitution is to be upheld over any state, county, or city Iaws that are in opposition to it.)
    In the same Article it goes on to say just who it is within our governments 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;". - ART. 6*U.S. CONST.
    We know that Police officers, are a part of the Executive branch. We are "Executive Officers".
    Article 6 above, is called the SUPREMACY CLAUSE, and it clearly states that, under every circumstance, the above listed officials in these United States must hold this documents tenets supreme over any other laws, regulations, or orders. Every U.S. Police officer knows that they have sworn a oath to the people of our nation that we will not only protect their lives and property, but, that we will uphold, and protect their freedoms and rights under the Supreme laws of this nation, - the U. S. Constitution.
    In this regard then, we must agree that those within government that restrict a Citizens rights, (such as restricting the peoples right to travel,) are acting in violation of his or her oath of office and are actually committing a crime against such Citizens. 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 that involve themselves in such unlawful acts in a 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 the fact that there are only two ways to legally remove a right belonging to the people. These are - #1 - by lawfully amending the constitution, or #2 - by a person knowingly waiving a particular right.
    Some of the confusion in our present system has arisen because many millions of people have waived their right to traveI "unrestricted" upon the roadways of the states and opted into the jurisdiction of the state for various reasons. Those who have knowingly given up these rights are now legally regulated by state law, the proper courts, and "sworn, constitutionally empowered officers-of-the-law," and must acquire proper permits, registrations, insurance, etc.
    There are basically two groups of people in this category:
    #1 - Any citizen that involves themselves in "commerce," (business for private gain), 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, 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 license which the legislature may grant or withhold at its discretion..." - State v Johnson, 243 P. 1073, 1078.
    Other U.S. court cases that confirm and point out the difference between the "right" of the citizen to travel and a government "privilege" are - Barney v Board of Railroad Commissioners; State v City of Spokane, 186 P. 864.; Ex Parte Dickey (Dickey v Davis), 85 S.E. 781.; Teche Lines v Danforth, 12 So.2d 784.
    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 up to officers to research it further for themselves. (See last page for additional references).
    #2 - The second group of citizens that are legally under the jurisdiction of the state is the individual citizen who has voluntarily and knowingly waived their right to travel "unregulated and unrestricted" by requesting placement under such jurisdiction through the acquisition of a state - drivers license, vehicle registration, mandatory insurance, etc. (In other words "by contract only".)
    We should remember what makes this "legal," and not a violation of the individuals common law right to travel "unrestricted" is that they knowingly volunteer, freely, by contract, to waive their right. If they were forced, coerced or unknowingly placed under the states 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 filed, and received, licenses, registrations, insurance etc. 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 vs. Rights". We can assume that the majority of those Americans carrying state licenses, vehicle registrations etc., 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". In other words - "LAWS THAT ARE NOT LAWS AT ALL."

    OUR SWORN DUTY
    An area of serious consideration for every police officer, is to understand that the most important law in our land he has taken an oath to protect, defend, AND ENFORCE, is not state laws, nor city or county ordinances, but, that law that supersede all other laws in our nation, - the U.S. Constitution. If laws in a particular police officer's state, or local community are in conflict with the SUPREME LAW of our nation, there Is no question that the officer's duty is to "uphold the U.S. Constitution."
    What does this mean to the "patrol officer" who will be the only sworn "Executive Officer" on the scene, when knowledgeable Citizens raise serious objections over possession of insurance, drivers licenses and other restrictions? It definitely means these officers will be faced with a hard decision. (Most certainly if that decision effects state, city or county revenues, such as the issuing of citations do.)
    Example: If a state legislator, judge or a superior tells a police officer to proceed and enforce a contradictory, (illegal), state law rather than the Supreme Law of this country, what is that "sworn officer" to do? Although we may not want to hear it, there is but one right answer, - "the officer is duty bound to uphold his oath of office" and obey the highest laws of the nation. THIS IS OUR SWORN DUTY AND IT'S THE LAW!
    Such a strong honest stand taken by a police officer, upholding his or her oath of office, takes moral strength of character. It will, without question, "SEPARATE THE MEN FROM THE BOYS." Such honest and straight forward decisions on behalf of a government official have often caused pressure to be applied to force such officers to set aside, or compromise their morals or convictions.
    As a solace for those brave souls in uniform that will stand up for law and justice, even when it's unpopular, or uncomfortable to do so...let me say this. In any legal stand-off over a sworn official "violating" or "upholding" their oath of office, those that would side with the "violation" should inevitable lose.
    Our Founding Fathers assured us, on many occasions, the following: Defending our freedoms in the face of people that would for "expedients sake," or behind the guise, "for the safety and welfare of the masses," ignore peoples rights, would forever demand sacrifice and vigilance from those that desired to remain free. That sounds a little like - "Freedom is not free!"*
    Every police officer should keep the following*U.S. court ruling, that was covered earlier, in mind before issuing citations in regard to "mandatory licensing, registration and insurance" - verses - "the right of the people to travel unencumbered":*
    "THE CLAlM AND EXERCISE OF A CONSTITUTIONAL RlGHT CANNOT BE CONVERTED INTO A CRIME." - Miller v*U.S., 230 F 2d 486. 489.
    And as we have seen, "traveling freely," going about ones daily activities, is the exercise of a most basic right.



    So, what does the Courts have to say on the issue? What officer on the street can argue with that?
    Last edited by Motofixxer; 03-27-2011 at 12:46 PM.
    Click Here for New to WI Open Carry Legal References and Informational Videos--- FAQ's http://Tinyurl.com/OpenCarry-WI

    The Armed Badger A WI site dedicated to Concealed Carry in WI

    "To disarm the people... was the best and most effectual way to enslave them." -- George Mason, Speech of June 14, 1788

    http://Tinyurl.com/New-To-Guns to DL useful Info

  3. #3
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    15,433
    Although I agree wholeheartedly with this assessment.

    I have read some of the above cases and and cannot find solid references or sources for the others. It is something that hasn't really been defined solidly in Supreme Courts, states are still calling it a privilege not a right.

    I have been fighting this for over a year now, my license keeps getting suspended without notice, and I am so far behind on the "bill" I owe, there is no way to catch up. I jump through the hoops repeatedly just to get it yanked again. And another criminal
    infraction, that I can't afford to fight and it gets plead down to traffic violation. No defense lawyers I see are willing to bring up these cases mentioned, and you would think a defense attorney would if they were appropriate.

    I am going to mention something extremely embarrassing for me to prove the point. I am a small time contractor (that mostly focuses on carpentry) who after a nasty divorce that used up all my funds and unfairly awarded my children and most of my savings to my vindictive ex. I duly paid my court ordered child support even though it was outrageous considering my income and the decline of the economy, when I objected the lawyers (mine included) said it is assumed I am making more than I stated in undeclared income and side jobs. In reality I was making much less since my ex was my book keeper and faked much income and didn't include much costs of running business. Meanwhile she has a county job, is remarried and doing quite well, while I am struggling to have a place to live and feed myself.

    The state is solely using this as a tool for monetary collection and holding my ability to make a living and to pay my obligations including child support hostage. Here is another way this is asinine, the court orders I must pick up my children in order to have visitation, yet how am I to do this if they yank my license? And yet I still try to comply with the licensing and other court requirements, but that and other "incidents" with the system has left this skeptic very jaded at our "justice" system, it is nothing more than a joke anymore in my opinion. One that has used my kids as a tool against their father who is tearing up at this very moment thinking of them.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  4. #4
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,093
    Well, you just go ahead and violate those statutes and present your post as a defense in court.

    Lemme know how that works for ya.

  5. #5
    Regular Member 1245A Defender's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    north mason county, Washington, USA
    Posts
    4,032

    well!

    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    Well, you just go ahead and violate those statutes and present your post as a defense in court.

    Lemme know how that works for ya.
    COMMENTS REMOVED BY ADMINISTRATOR: Personal attack

    i appreciate motofixers dedication and hard work in this thread and the other one.
    his participation in these forums have been much more useful for us,
    than you have ever been.

    moving on,,
    EMNofSeattle wrote: Your idea of freedom terrifies me. So you are actually right. I am perfectly happy with what you call tyranny.....

    If ever a time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in Government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin.

    Stand up for your Rights,, They have no authority on their own...

    All power is inherent in the people,
    it is their right and duty to be at all times ARMED!

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Newport News, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    477

    what

    eye95 said.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Alaska
    Posts
    216
    A license is commercial...that is why its a privilege.
    The application for a drivers license is a contract with the State Corporation.
    Life is tough, its tougher when your stupid.

    http://www.itsnotthelaw.com

    Feds: U.C.C. 1-308, State: U.C.C. 1-207, Both: U.C.C. 1-103.6

  8. #8
    Regular Member Motofixxer's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Somewhere over the Rainbow
    Posts
    964
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    Well, you just go ahead and violate those statutes and present your post as a defense in court.

    Lemme know how that works for ya.
    I will handle my own affairs the way I see fit. I posted the info as a resource to get people thinking and researching so they can learn for themselves how to handle their affairs. If you got nothing out of it. Fine, you got out of it, what you put into it. If you don't want to use it, then don't. But there may be somebody that needs the information.

    If you don't understand the info and your ignorant enough to think you can just print something and us it as a defense, then your the fool.
    Last edited by Motofixxer; 07-04-2011 at 06:01 PM.
    Click Here for New to WI Open Carry Legal References and Informational Videos--- FAQ's http://Tinyurl.com/OpenCarry-WI

    The Armed Badger A WI site dedicated to Concealed Carry in WI

    "To disarm the people... was the best and most effectual way to enslave them." -- George Mason, Speech of June 14, 1788

    http://Tinyurl.com/New-To-Guns to DL useful Info

  9. #9
    Regular Member Wolfgang1952's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Mt Hermon / Franklinton,La ,
    Posts
    144
    It was back in the late 40s and early 50s that the states started requiring a drivers license, auto insurance, and registration. They found buy doing that they had an unlimited amount of money coming into the states. They hoodwinked us into giving up our Constitutional Rights. Now is a little late to try to get them back. The States and Federal Government aint going for it. Unless you have a pocket full of money and dont mind giving it to some lawyer you are fighting a lost case. You would have to fight every state in the union on this one. They have two much money to lose.
    Pres. Florida Parishes Chapter of LOCAL www.laopencarry.org

    Take one of those small jump houses and add about 4 cups of extra virgin olive oil, 2 or more women with questionable morals and low self esteem (preferably with daddy issues), 2 or less bathing suits, and add 1 reason to fight over something (monetary prize, gift certificate, jewelry or my favorite an adult novelty toy) and you have The Ultimate Party Favor.

  10. #10
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,093
    Quote Originally Posted by Motofixxer View Post
    I will handle my own affairs the way I see fit. I posted the info as a resource to get people thinking and researching so they can learn for themselves how to handle their affairs...
    Sorry, but I don't believe that for a second. The post clearly is advocating the position that the State has no authority to regulate driving on the public highways.

    Once again, you go ahead and believe that. Try to drive on the public highways in ways that violate the law. Use your argument in court and see how far it gets you.

    Oh, and BTW, it is even worse if you are suggesting that others act on the information if you are not willing to take the risk yourself. Geez, that kinda puts me in mind of another group of people who sit back, do all the thinking, and then send others out to do the fatal stuff. Can you think of who that would be?

    Folks: People have been arguing that the State has no authority to regulate driving on the highways. Some poor souls have even tried to argue this in court. Have you noticed that the laws are still there? At best, such arguments have drawn chortles from the judge as he banged down the gavel on the defendant.

    That the State regulates driving on public roads does not impede any right to travel. It merely regulates one mode of travel on publicly owned property acquired for the purpose of making orderly travel possible. Such actually facilitates our ability to travel.

  11. #11
    Founder's Club Member protias's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    West Allis, WI
    Posts
    7,146
    eye95, I spoke with motofixxer today at the WCI annual meeting, and I do believe he is correct.
    No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. Thomas Jefferson (1776)

    If you go into a store, with a gun, and rob it, you have forfeited your right to not get shot - Joe Deters, Hamilton County (Cincinnati) Prosecutor

    I ask sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few politicians. - George Mason (father of the Bill of Rights and The Virginia Declaration of Rights)

  12. #12
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,093
    Quote Originally Posted by protias View Post
    eye95, I spoke with motofixxer today at the WCI annual meeting, and I do believe he is correct.
    Then you and he should put your words into action. Otherwise, I stand by my perception that the post is trying to convince others to take the chance.

    If you believe it, do it. Tear up your license. Drive whatever speed you wish. Drop your insurance. Drive whatever direction suits your purpose, regardless of lane markings. Break those laws that violate your right to travel. See where it gets you before either of you convince some other poor schlub to take the OP seriously and do something stupid.

  13. #13
    Regular Member Motofixxer's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Somewhere over the Rainbow
    Posts
    964
    Your entitled to your own opinion. I'm merely posting the info for others to use as they wish. I am not telling anyone to do anything. If you or someone chooses to use the information, then that was an individual choice. If you don't want too then fine...don't and let it go.
    Click Here for New to WI Open Carry Legal References and Informational Videos--- FAQ's http://Tinyurl.com/OpenCarry-WI

    The Armed Badger A WI site dedicated to Concealed Carry in WI

    "To disarm the people... was the best and most effectual way to enslave them." -- George Mason, Speech of June 14, 1788

    http://Tinyurl.com/New-To-Guns to DL useful Info

  14. #14
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Giles County, Virginia
    Posts
    10,983
    I'm not going to get into the sovereign citizen stuff. As interesting as it is, courts reject this stuff outright.

    Motofixxer, while I appreciate your drive and have no actual disagreement with any of your constitutional conclusions, it is my opinion that the charges against you were dropped because they were on their face not a valid application of the state's penal code, as written. In short, your claims related to sovereign citizenship had nothing to do with it. They simply didn't have a case, because you hadn't actually violated any California laws in the first place.

    Now, with that said, what I really want to comment on is this:

    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    That the State regulates driving on public roads does not impede any right to travel. It merely regulates one mode of travel on publicly owned property acquired for the purpose of making orderly travel possible. Such actually facilitates our ability to travel.
    Bwahahahahahaha!

    Folks, this right here is all the evidence you need to prove my regular assertion of eye95's insidious latent statism. Don't let his articulate arguments for the very few freedoms he supports fool you; the man is an apologist, nay, a shill, for the state, of the highest order. His cogent defense of the liberties relevant to this forum is little more than bait to seduce the unwary into blind acceptance of every element of the state not inimical to the aim of this forum. His preference for state tyranny to the exclusion federal tyranny doesn't make mitigate his statism in the slightest.

    Drivers' licensure facilitates our ability to travel!

    Bwahahahahahahaha! The guy would be a comedian if he didn't sincerely believe this tripe.


    Edit: Incidentally, illegals get away every day, for years on end, with traveling unlicensed upon the highways. They would find motofixxer's appeal to the constitution superfluous.

    The notion that state enforcement of drivers' licensure actually accomplishes its stated aims is a total farce. Licensure serves as nothing more than a boon to the "authority" of petty tyrants and parasitic tax-feeding productivity-grabbers everywhere.
    Last edited by marshaul; 03-28-2011 at 02:54 AM.

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    895
    Quote Originally Posted by Motofixxer View Post
    So what does this mean to our officers on the street? Well here are the words and understanding of one.

    As hard as it is for those of us 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 another.
    Government, in requiring the people to file for "drivers Iicenses, vehicle registrations, mandatory insurance, and demanding they stop for vehicle inspections, DUI/DWI roadblocks etc. without question, are "restricting", and therefore violating, the Peoples common law right to travel.*
    Is this a new legal interpretation on this subject of the right to travel? 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 the area of "Citizens right to travel." In an interview a spokesmen stated: "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 has always been a fundamental right of every Citizen."
    This means that the "beliefs and opinions" our state legislators, the courts, and those of as 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 in determining that - to restrict, in any fashion, the movement of the individual American in the free exercise of their 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, and most state Constitutions, i.e - it is Unlawful.
    THE REVELATION THAT THE AMERICAN CITIZEN HAS ALWAYS HAD THE INALIENABLE RIGHT TO TRAVEL RAISES PROFOUND QUESTIONS TO THOSE WHO ARE INVOLVED IN MAKING AND ENFORCING STATE LAWS.............................................. ...........

    For the love of god man, paragraphs are your friend. Please learn to use them.
    A wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government.- Thomas Jefferson March 4 1801

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    , South Carolina, USA
    Posts
    2,251
    I hope someone carries this to the SCOTUS so we can get a ruling on it one way or the other and settled once and for all. I would like to comment on some of the wording in the OP and how it is phrased for example:

    1. That I have not received any documentation, nor can I locate in state statutory records, any law which requires a private citizen to be required to obtain and use a Colorado drivers' license, even despite two separate requests to the DMV, under the Colorado Open Records Act, which I received no written response to
    One will never receive such documentation as it does not exist as requested in this paragraph. There is no law that requires a private citizen to obtain a drivers license. My wife's aunt is in her 80's and has never had a drivers license and I doubt that she ever will. She does not drive but she does travel and she does like to tell her children how to drive.

    I assume that the OP meant that a private citizen is required to obtain a drivers license to operate a motor vehicle on the public highway but that is not what he asked in the request.

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Alaska
    Posts
    216
    I don't have a Drivers License....And I travel on the Public Highway....Which belongs to We the People.
    Look up Right to Travel in American Jurisprudence.
    A Constitutional Right is just that, I exercise my Constitutional Rights....if you don't thats your business.
    My country is the Republic known as the United States of America.....Not the Municipal Corporation known
    as the United States...Or any Corporate State.
    Last edited by Butch00; 03-28-2011 at 09:33 AM.
    Life is tough, its tougher when your stupid.

    http://www.itsnotthelaw.com

    Feds: U.C.C. 1-308, State: U.C.C. 1-207, Both: U.C.C. 1-103.6

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    SEMO, , USA
    Posts
    576
    Don't know if anyone here has seen this series of videos. There are several that all seem to about the subject.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jFRYr...eature=related

  19. #19
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,093
    Quote Originally Posted by Motofixxer View Post
    Your entitled to your own opinion. I'm merely posting the info for others to use as they wish. I am not telling anyone to do anything. If you or someone chooses to use the information, then that was an individual choice. If you don't want too then fine...don't and let it go.
    I am looking out for the poor schlub who is going to read your post, think that there is some there there, try to assert the right to travel by defying traffic laws (which it seems you won't), and pay a heavy price.

    I don't just post personal interpretations of the law and insist that OC is legal, I OC. Put your money where your mouth is.

    Folks, don't put your legal safety at risk because of some theoretical piece that the author won't put into action!

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Alaska
    Posts
    216
    It's amazing how so many people except SLAVERY in the GUISE of FREEDOM.
    The Government/Corporation only has the POWER/AUTHORITY you consent to.
    Life is tough, its tougher when your stupid.

    http://www.itsnotthelaw.com

    Feds: U.C.C. 1-308, State: U.C.C. 1-207, Both: U.C.C. 1-103.6

  21. #21
    Regular Member Gunslinger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Free, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    3,860
    Quote Originally Posted by PT111 View Post
    I hope someone carries this to the SCOTUS so we can get a ruling on it one way or the other and settled once and for all. I would like to comment on some of the wording in the OP and how it is phrased for example:



    One will never receive such documentation as it does not exist as requested in this paragraph. There is no law that requires a private citizen to obtain a drivers license. My wife's aunt is in her 80's and has never had a drivers license and I doubt that she ever will. She does not drive but she does travel and she does like to tell her children how to drive.

    I assume that the OP meant that a private citizen is required to obtain a drivers license to operate a motor vehicle on the public highway but that is not what he asked in the request.
    Colorado RSA 42-2-101 is pretty clear. Or is this some exercise in symantics: "you can't require me to get a DL because I have no intention of ever driving in CO." Maybe it's because it's monday and I have a headache, but where is this going?

  22. #22
    Regular Member Motofixxer's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Somewhere over the Rainbow
    Posts
    964
    How kind of you to look out for people who would ignorantly walk in to a situation unprepared. While on the surface that seems nice and noble. But what does it do to teach the individual. That there will be someone there to hold your hand so you don't get hurt. How about letting people be responsible for themselves. We are all accountable for our own actions. If you dumped the knowingly hot coffee on yourself, how is that someone else's fault??? Responsibility principles are best learned the hard way, trial and error. You learn best from making mistakes. Or from watching others make the mistakes.

    So many millions of people are brainwashed into a servant attitude. There will always be sheep that just want to follow the masses, right off the edge of the cliff. But there are also people who are willing to stand up and fight for our freedoms and Justice. That's how our country came to be, and now that we are turning from that, it's turning downhill quickly. If you remove the founding stones, the building will begin to fall. That can be good and it can be bad depending on the building.
    There will always be nay sayers in everything. I have run across quite a few of them. I know people that will claim to understand, believe and claim to live by something. Then turn around and do the complete opposite. Wherever 2 or more people are gathered together, there will be conflict.

    Just because one or two or 5 million don't believe something, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Or just because one judge or 5000 judges ignore the Law, and his oaths doesn't mean the truth facts and justice doesn't exist. It just means that he refuses to see it, and uphold it. I have seen it in person. If you have looked into the legal system at all. You would see the injustice that happens on a daily basis.

    The whole objective is to put the info out there for the people who want it and are looking for it. When the time is right, they will find it. Even if you don't want to believe any of it. Some of the case info is interesting. You can learn things from someone else's writing, even if you don't believe it. Every individual will take from it what they want. I simply put it out there for everyone to start thinking, discussing, and digging, if you so choose. Mission Accomplished!!!

    I recently read a quote by Thomas Jefferson I think that said something like, Any man with power, needs to be mistrusted. It's smart to question any authority who has no accountability, and directly receives benefits from that situation. Power corrupts all the time every time, that's proven through history. That's why there should always be checks and balances in the system.
    Last edited by Motofixxer; 03-28-2011 at 01:49 PM.
    Click Here for New to WI Open Carry Legal References and Informational Videos--- FAQ's http://Tinyurl.com/OpenCarry-WI

    The Armed Badger A WI site dedicated to Concealed Carry in WI

    "To disarm the people... was the best and most effectual way to enslave them." -- George Mason, Speech of June 14, 1788

    http://Tinyurl.com/New-To-Guns to DL useful Info

  23. #23
    Regular Member Gunslinger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Free, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    3,860
    [QUOTE=Motofixxer;1496226]Ok some of this is State specific but most of it is general. It's a compilation of multiple sources. If you want to us this as a format and do something similar, feel free. Just have to customize it to your location. Or just us it as a resource. So grab some popcorn and a soda and get ready for some light reading.

    Popcorn.....................check
    Soda.........................check
    Candy Dots and M&M's..check

    Ready....Set....Go

    RIGHT TO TRAVEL Without taxation or licensing with Case Cites and info

    Brief and Memorandum of Law
    AFFIDAVIT OF TRUTH
    ACTUAL AND CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE quote>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>


    What case is this brief in support of? No one says you do not have the right of peaceful transit anywhere in Colorado. No one says you have to get a driver's license, either. If you plan on 'driving' a motor vehicle, CO RSA 42-2-101 is the law of the land. Are you planning on getting arrested for DWOL and then appealing to the SCOCO based on your information and belief in this brief--if that's what it is? If so, good luck. You'll need it. While I may agree with you in principle, there are some battles that just can't be won. This is one of them. It is 'settled law.' And your brief is just plain wrong in many areas. E.g.:

    "2. Further, under CRS 42-2-101, it states;

    Licenses for drivers required.

    (1) Except as otherwise provided in part 4 of this article for commercial drivers, no person shall drive any motor vehicle upon a highway in this state unless such person has been issued a currently valid driver's or minor driver's license or an instruction permit by the department under this article.

    This statute states it involves commercial drivers, NOT private citizens NOT driving for hire or driving commercial vehicles."

    That is precisely what the section does NOT say. It excludes commercial drivers, doesn't include them. There are other examples, but you get my point. You spent a lot of time and effort in this, and I give you credit, but for what?
    Last edited by Gunslinger; 03-28-2011 at 01:41 PM.

  24. #24
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Giles County, Virginia
    Posts
    10,983
    Quote Originally Posted by Gunslinger View Post
    That is precisely what the section does NOT say. It excludes commercial drivers, doesn't include them. There are other examples, but you get my point. You spent a lot of time and effort in this, and I give you credit, but for what?
    That's the way I read it.

    To paraphrase, "licensure for commercial drivers is already defined elsewhere. Except for commercial drivers, no person shall...[drive on the highways without a license].
    Last edited by marshaul; 03-28-2011 at 01:59 PM.

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Alaska
    Posts
    216
    Quote Originally Posted by marshaul View Post
    That's the way I read it.

    To paraphrase, "licensure for commercial drivers is already defined elsewhere. Except for commercial drivers, no person shall...[drive on the highways without a license].
    Drive is a Commercial term....All licenses are commercial.
    Life is tough, its tougher when your stupid.

    http://www.itsnotthelaw.com

    Feds: U.C.C. 1-308, State: U.C.C. 1-207, Both: U.C.C. 1-103.6

Page 1 of 6 123 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •