Dismissed! 2 Counts of NO Lic, Reg, Tags, Insp. Sticker

[David Merrill]

Originally Posted by Right to the Castle

That is weird. It says that the "verdict" was Not Guilty.

However there was no arraignment date.

If the charges were not filed then there should be no verdict. If charges were filed then there should be an arraignment.

What happened?

Also the Docket indicated No Insurance which is not one of the charges listed in the title to this thread.

Interesting observation. At first blush I would say that your description of process came from a news reporter and that is likely where the discrepancy occurred.

However like I pointed out to a large list of Lawdog's referrals:

Dear Suitors;


You may recall I prodded a NY Assistant District Attorney about his non-published oath of office. He encouraged me to subpoena any of the 75 other officials at his Ceremony if I wanted proof he had verbally sworn into his office. My argument was that his oath must be available in writing from an unbiased clerk, certified copy. I uncovered evidence I am correct but the "legal memory" is basically on his side of the argument. The conclusion about this unconstitutional policy boiled down to municipal home rule in the Five Boroughs - the five counties of NY that are urbanite-covered and replaced by municipal electors. That is to say municipal sprawl can cover an entire county and replace the state/county electorate with a municipal electorate - METRO/City of XXXXXXX.

http://www.ecclesia.org/forum/images...esignation.gif

Most important to my point here is that in this research with the NY ADA I uncovered the purpose of the NY constitution, like all state constitutions and the Constitution is to provide a governmental template that promotes self-governance. That point in mind, I believe this may be the reason a fellow has had all charges dismissed in the case attached and newspaper article here:

You suitors, as a group, may be the only people who are in a position to understand this concept - holding court daily at your kitchen tables as you go through the daily contents of your mailboxes. I have a feeling Mr. Sullivan in the article stumbled across it inadvertently but understands fully now.



Regards,

David Merrill.

You observe that when charges are filed in the traffic court there is an arraignment. An arraignment is an Answer - I understand the nature and cause of these charges.

Very likely Donald James never answered. He just kept saying that he has a right to self-governance. The "judge" assigned the case saw that it would be futile to proceed, to force arraignment so he dismissed the case and the news got hold of the matter.



Regards,

David Merrill.

[Lawdog]

Sick of the government micromanaging his life, Mr. Sullivan staged a unique form of protest. There's no state issued license plate on his truck. You won't find an inspection sticker either.

Sullivan says he doesn't need them and he's been driving around without them for the last year and a half.

Sullivan said, "I wanted to get a ticket, and I wanted to have the vehicle impounded, and I wanted to be arrested, because you have to be standing in a court to pursue these kinds of questions."

He finally got his wish. A trooper pulled Mr. Sullivan over in January, and the case was recently heard in court.

The judge denied Mr. Sullivan's motions regarding the court's jurisdiction over him, but found him not guilty of the driving offenses in question. Mr. Sullivan says it was a huge victory, and says the next time he's pulled over, all he has to do is show the officers the paperwork with the court's not guilty finding, and he is off the hook.

But the lawyer we asked said, not so fast.

Attorney Griff Anderson said, "The court made a determination, for whatever reason, that the state had not proved beyond a reasonable doubt, that which they had to prove to prove someone guilty."

"What happened in this case is particular only to this case -- what occurred on the roadway when the trooper cited him. What happened in this courtroom has no bearing whatsoever on what could happen in any future instance on the road," said Anderson.

While Mr. Sullivan raises some interesting questions about individual liberties, Attorney Griff Anderson says it was a very unusual case, and when it comes to driving, the law is clear.

"This has been challenged in the courts, and routinely, North Carolina courts, US courts, other states have upheld the right of the state to regulate the way people travel. They can't prohibit people from traveling on public roads, but they can regulate it by requiring licenses, license plates and insurance," said Anderson.

We're not sure exactly how Mr. Sullivan got off the hook in court, but attorneys tell us being found not guilty is very different than having a case thrown out. Any number of technicalities can cause a case to unravel.

In case you're wondering, despite his distaste for traffic laws, Mr. Sullivan concedes that car insurance is a good idea.

Interesting story, I admit. The attorney quoted is correct...that Mr. Sullivan was let off the hook by a judge once is no bar to being cited again in the future. He is also correct that every appellate court that his considered the issue (including the U.S. Supreme Court) has ruled that laws requiring licenses, insurance, etc. of drivers are valid, constitutional and enforceable. This being a trial court ruling, it has no precedential value at all, in North Carolina or anywhere else.

Perhaps the judge decided to let this guy off with a warning. It's hard to tell exactly what happened. It is interesting to note that the judge REJECTED his argument that the court lacked jurisdiction over him. Many of you are big fans of jurisdictional challenges, but rarely are such challenges effective, especially in criminal cases (including traffic offense cases). In any event, I wouldn't recommend anyone follow in this guy's footsteps, in any state. You might not be so lucky.

It would interesting to see signed orders from the judge rather than what was posted, which looks like printouts of computer screens. However, I do salute you for posting some actual evidence of what you claim. DiM and ThomPaine have never done that. So you're head and shoulders above them. Good job!

[aksis]

Traveling via the Way is without a doubt, a right. For some proper foundation:

A Treaties on the Law of the Highways

Very strange how this common right has become obfuscated over the years.

If the Administrator [Judge?] had proceeded, would this have been a deprivation of rights under color of law? In fact, a felony:

US Code - Title 18 - Part I - Chapter 13 - § 241 and § 242

Pensively,

Christopher Theodore: Rhodes

[po0rg33k]

ColesLawPitYorkie; (an encoded nick

This is easy to resolve mathematically:

"ExecutiveOrder" != Court "Order" != Law != (public policy == statute)
(these are all empowered by "Color of law", meaning that there is a law that authorises the administrative, executive, judicial "statement" but that those statements MUST be congruent to some legislative enactment signed by a chief executive governor or president)

In other words, CommonLaw != Equity == Admiralty.

and Again, Maritime == Admiralty != Law,
but, Admiralty == Private International(*) Contract!!!

N. B. "(*)" meaning that "international" aspect of private contract refers to a NON-LOCAL contract with parties-signatories whose locality crosses the national boundary.

What this means is that not only can parties BE multi-national BUT ALSO multi-state (as in D. C., Florida, NewYork, etc)

Hope this helps.

[jeagas68]

Originally Posted by po0rg33k

ColesLawPitYorkie; (an encoded nick

This is easy to resolve mathematically:

"ExecutiveOrder" != Court "Order" != Law != (public policy == statute)
(these are all empowered by "Color of law", meaning that there is a law that authorises the administrative, executive, judicial "statement" but that those statements MUST be congruent to some legislative enactment signed by a chief executive governor or president)

In other words, CommonLaw != Equity == Admiralty.

and Again, Maritime == Admiralty != Law,
but, Admiralty == Private International(*) Contract!!!

N. B. "(*)" meaning that "international" aspect of private contract refers to a NON-LOCAL contract with parties-signatories whose locality crosses the national boundary.

What this means is that not only can parties BE multi-national BUT ALSO multi-state (as in D. C., Florida, NewYork, etc)

Hope this helps.

This all depends on though whether your in interstate commerce ---> At Sea (covenants with man)

or

Declaring the right to your own governance and State of Mind --> On the land. (covenants with nobody)