[Codee]

Originally Posted by cowboytroll

No disrespect but you are wrong the II Am.Jur. (1st) Constitutional Law, Sect.329, p.1135 Has decided otherwise!!!!!!!!!!!!

Didn't disrespect me. But your argument lacks Body, Citations, and other meaningful things like conlusuions and reasons.
1)Am. Jur. does not make decisions. It is a book collection.
2)Am. Jur. as a general rule does not apply to state law but applies rather to Fed. law.
3) Driver's licenses are instruments of the state.

Originally Posted by cowboytroll

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

1) What does "at will" mean to you? "Nothing"? This is the possition your argument takes. I believe by having extremely easy to pass tests, and hearings for denial of license, that the state in no way has revoked your right "At will" but rather according to "Due Process." By the way a research into what due process is will also lead you back to the fact that the fed constitution only affords you the bill of rights if you are a 14th amendment citizen. It up for the states to descide how to protect you while you are in the state. This is why there is Cal. Jur.

Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

But your argument contains even more errors.

Originally Posted by cowboytroll

All laws must be broken down to their most basic form so saying that heere goes:

Sounds nice. Where is your authority?

Originally Posted by cowboytroll

"Personal liberty largely consists of the Right of locomotion to go where and when one pleases, not a mere privilege which may be permitted or prohibited at will(ie DLs)but the common Right which he has under his Right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, while conducting himself in an orderly and decent manner, neither interfering with nor disturbing another's Rights, he will be protected, not only in his person, but in his safe conduct."

This is in quotes but I cannot find who said it. Is there a citation for this comment? Or is this an editted version of what you earlier posted? I esspecially don't understand how you can read "at will" and then put in parenthesis (DLs). Please elaborate on why issuing a license according to statute is "at will."

Originally Posted by cowboytroll

Also in another discussion about probable cause. There can be no arresrt or detention w/o a grand jury summons.

This again is a federal right and not aplicable to the states. The federal constitution does not tell the state courts how to opperate.

Originally Posted by cowboytroll

No unelected person has any power to stop you. Just because it happens does not mean it is legal.

Stop me? From what? What about citizen's arrest? This proceedure is well defined and existed all the way back to common law. Also you state that just because they do it doesn't make it legal. This is where you don't understand the definition of legal vs. lawful. If a cop pulls you over with color of law (legal) he most certainly "legaly" pulled you over, HOWEVER he may not have lawfully pulled you over.

P.C sec 837. Private persons; authority to arrest
ARRESTS BY PRIVATE PERSONS. A private person may arrest another:
1. For a public offense committed or attempted in his presence.
2. When the person arrested has committed a felony, although not in his presence.
3. When a felony has in fact been committed, and he has reasonable cause for believing the person arrested to have committed it.
West's Ann.Cal.Penal Code (2004), sec. 837.

Originally Posted by cowboytroll

Color of law is used all to often, make the prosacuting attorny or DA prove the court has jurisdiction. Akira has an exelant form outlining the 7 elements to juriisdiction. No state or federal agency has the right or athority to bring suit on a sovergn citizen.

As much as repect Akira and that those seven elements are needed, there is no authority for this contention given by you and I have not seen it from Akira yet either.

Originally Posted by cowboytroll

If a state or federal agency tries to bring suit aginst you ask for proof of jurisdiction first off, then ask the agency to produce an injured party by cause of your actions. I made the mistake of making a motion insted of demanding them to prove jurisdiction. If No injured party is produced, and jurisdiction is not proven then they have no case. And remember the officer issuing the summons(ticket)cannot testify aginst you.

WOW. I thought they were "notice of violation" with a built in "promise to appear." I had no Idea I could LEGALY make these tickets into summonses just by putting "ticket" next to "summons." Please tell me more about this proceedure in law. OH, I forgot as the sovereign you are the sorce of law!!! Please stop arguing about all these laws and just make an uber law that says "I can do what I want, F. U. and your societies laws." GOOD LUCK!!! YOULL NEEEEED IT.

Originally Posted by cowboytroll

They served the summons therefore according to the CRSF no perason serving a summons can testify aginst the summoned.

CRSF??? And where in this CRSF did you find this. Again it may be true, but am I to believe you?
1)You weren't summoned. A fiction was.
2)There was no summons, just a promise.
Please re-read the thread as you are the most in error in the whole thing.