[TheBlackTruth]

<font color=darkblue face=verdana>Akira,



I will humbly chose to ignore your condescendence for now and formulate an articulate response to your comments.



You seem to exhibit a total misunderstanding of my response so after addressing your comments, I will try to restate my position in less uncertain terms.[/color]

<hr>

Originally Posted by Akira

Sadly, there was a time, not to long ago (15 years?), when this was all you needed to prevail in court.

<font color=darkblue face=verdana>

True statement. This also correlates with what I said: This brief will likely lose.[/color]

Originally Posted by Akira

The fact that you think it is inadaquate today, is not testimony against this arguement, as much as it is testmony in acknowledgement of the corruption of men, courts and (statuatory) law we witness today.

<font color=darkblue face=verdana>

Who CARES why it loses? My point was simply that it will likely lose and I gave valid points as to why. Why don't you try addressing my points directly? You don't do a good job of doing that below.[/color]

Originally Posted by Akira

It is still a very powerful tool. To bring it up to date, we only need anticipate the assumptions, and presumptions of the court, and accomidate those presumptions, to maintain a winning arguement.

<font color=darkblue face=verdana>

. . . Yet another implicit admission that this argument isn't "perfected" nor is it sufficient to win.[/color]

Originally Posted by Akira

I presented this arguement, (my very first post at Sui Juris) as a "dialog of what to say in court"..... originally authored by Carl Miller a Counselor at Law, with an, as mentioned, 99% success rate. From what I can gather, he retired, in the late 80's, when the court was still "mindfull of the law" and you could still get a 'reasonable' trial.

[. . . . . . . .]

Counselor Miller had been driving for years with no license or plate on his car and repeatedly used this arguement to get himself and others out of harms way.

<font color=darkblue face=verdana>I don't know Counselor Miller, nor have I seen any of his alleged "wins" documented so I can/will only take the argument you posted at face value.[/color]

Originally Posted by Akira

There is no conflict presented, because that is the idea of this approach. He is not out to attack the Judge, the court, or the prosecutor. He is not using his knowledge to intimidate, frustrate, or otherwise, aggravate the court. He is not targeting the fraud, or even noting dualistic citizenship. Why should he? They are of little concern to him. He knows who he is. He is saying exactly the same thing, you & I say today, in a nonadversarial, unconfrontational way, without the need of additional documents to negate the presumptions of men. His arguements are not based on these things, nor does he spend half his time saying who he is not... but do not presume for a second that he doesn't know how to defend himself.

<font color=darkblue face=verdana>

NO CONFLICT = SUMMARY JUDGMENT.

I don't even know how to begin to respond to this. First of all, you need to make clear at what type of court proceeding you are suggesting this "argument" be made. This is the sort of argument that, if effective, must be made before a plea is entered - before you become a "defendant". A "Defendant", by pleading not-guilty has already granted personal jurisdiction and tacitly agreed that the "charge" is not inappropriate.



". . .without the need of additional documents to negate the presumptions of men. . ." ??? Really, Akira, what planet are you on!? The presumption is there wether you rebut it or not. An unrebutted presumption will stand as truth in ANY proceeding. In a vehicle code case, the presumption is that the accused was driving at a certain time and certain place without a license. Plain and simple. If that presumption isn't satisfactorily and specifically rebutted, YOU WILL LOSE. It really doesn't get any simpler than that.[/color]

Originally Posted by Akira

As to your 5 "objections"



In maximâ potentiâ minima licentia. In the greater power is included the smaller license. Hob. 159.



The defendant has stated "I am an unenfranchised common law freeman.". It is up to the prosecution to show otherwise, and although, that is easily presumed, it is a monumental task to prove.



He does tactfully address the fraud here, but not so the average person would know it...

<font color=darkblue face=verdana>

This argument itself is insufficient simply because nobody is going to debate your present standing. You will have to establish that your current standing as "an unenfranchised common law freeman" is somehow preclusive to your commiting the offense in the instant case. Actually, it is quite possible to be "an unenfranchised common law freeman" and still drive a vehicle, so you are saying nothing at all by simply establishing who you are.

Originally Posted by Akira

"I'm not a participant in any tontine schemes, of limited liability on a joint venture for profit with an insurable interest requiring me to participate in these illegal corporate ponzi schemes."



Shapiro v. Thompson clearly establishes a right of travel.



Mur**** v. Penn, says the state CAN NOT CONVERT A CONSTUTIONALLY SECURED LIBERTY INTO A PRIVILEDGE AND ISSUE A LICENSE AND FEE FOR IT. It is prosecution duty to show he was "traveling in commerce" and getting paid, which can only be done by producing the contract, or providing a competent 3rd party witness that can testify, first hand, that the defendant was paid....

<font color=darkblue face=verdana>

It seems it is YOU who isn't reading critically. I already stated that this is an "excellent brief in support of the Right to Travel" so we are not in disagreement here. However, the Right to Travel isn't being specifically litigated in a traffic case unless you are skillfully able to steer the argument towards your right to travel. This brief doesn't do that. This brief doesn't take the necessary step of establishing a definition of "driving" as opposed to travelling.

Originally Posted by Akira

(BT, With all due respect dude... seriously...

This is the 3rd time in as many weeks.. I have had to rebutt your posts, because you are not reading them criticallly... I humbly suggest you go back and read the arguement, one more time... slowly.... please... It IS important to me that you understand this..)

<font color=darkblue face="verdana">

Akira, I appreciate your concern for the development of my reading skills. However, reading and writing happen to be skills i possess at a caliber better than most. I have a level of understanding of this subject-matter as good or better than anyone I've corresponded with on this forum to date. I welcome the questioning of my logic, arguments and accuracy, but I request you cease attacking me personally less I be forced to retaliate. I'm being as tactful as I possibly can about this point, but be certain the next time I read something like this from you, my response will be in colors far extending my habitual Blue.



I think i was "due" far more respect than that, but I'll let that go this round.[/color]

Originally Posted by Akira

In fact, per KT's arguement in the "Evidence of Law" thread.. once we have made the tribunal a court, and the magistrate a judge, by forcing the judge to take judicial notice of his Oath of Office... again... this arguement should be all we need to defend ANY of the 30+ rights listed in this thread.

<font color=darkblue face="verdana">You seem to be all but admitting that this argument can't stand on its own. Please explain to me how that isn't so![/color]

Originally Posted by Akira

(This is an old post. The only reason it has made it to the first page of the travel threads is because I, only now, updated the link to a proper copy of the arguement in the downloads section... )

<font color=darkblue face=verdana>Yes. I know. I read it several months ago and had the same opinion at that time too.[/color]

Originally Posted by Akira

Please excuse any percieved lack of patience, diplomacy or tact... my reserves are a bit low at the moment.

<font color=darkblue face=verdana>It has not and will not be excused. It has instead been noted.

<hr>

Now for my restatement:



When one is charged with a traffic offense (e.g. driving without a license), the officer who fills out the charging instrument (citation) is alleging that you were driving a vehicle at the time the traffic offense occurred. Given this allegation, if you repsond with the above-captioned brief, YOU WILL LIKELY LOSE. You can put together a brief on your Right to Travel as a free citizen that is so perfectly compiled that the supreme court justices weep on the bench. However, if you don't address the allegation - that you were DRIVING - then its all for not.



-BT[/color]