Right to Travel

[PROPIA PERSONA]

Originally Posted by ndusa

I've said it once, I'll say it again, you do not have a right to travel on the hiways. The Federal government allows the states to regulate thier hiways and interstates.

You find me a State Judge that will let you off on your "right to travel", and I'll bend over backwards and kiss my own a**! Look to your supreme courts rulings, do a search on "right to travel" and READ the cases, you'll see this argument isn't worth your time. I wish it was, but its not that way.

This is an actual case WON using Jack and Margy Flynn's material (sent in at least 3 parts because of size). Look it up. Then start kissing.

STATE OF COLORADO
CITY OF COLORADO SPRINGS
IN THE COUNTY OF EL PASO COURT


STATE OF COLORADO
Plaintiff in Error,
Cit. Nos. 213625-0 & 213361-5

Vs.

JOSE MONDRAGON
Defendant in Error


CERTIFIED PETITION TO BE INFORMED OF THE NATURE AND CAUSE OF THE ACCUSATION and ACTUAL and CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE


COMES NOW, the Defendant in Error, Jose Mondragon, Party Injured, American Citizen, non-licensed attorney; and one of the holders of the inherent political power of the State of New Mexico and the Republic of these united States of America, hereinafter Accused, and makes his Certified Petition as a matter of right and not as a motion, as said holder, to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation , in the instant case.

AND HEREBY THIS PETITION gives actual and constructive notice to all parties proceeding in any capacity that Accused challenges their presumptions of subject matter jurisdiction and they must answer said challenge by proving their aforesaid presumptions have a lawfully verifiable case.

FURTHER, by such actual and constructive notice the judge, prosecuting attorney and accuser have each taken an Oath of Office in exchange for the public trust and filed a commercial bond to ensure the integrity and honor of the Citizens of Colorado not be placed in jeopardy by their actions; are hereby informed of their oath to uphold and defend the U.S. Constitution, Constitution and laws of Colorado.

AND FURTHER, Accused shall not accept the term “offense” to be exercised by this court while Accused is charged with a crime as the term, offense, is merely an exercise by the court for the purpose of extracting a civil penalty under the guise of a criminal proceeding.

AND WHEREAS, the Judge, Prosecuting Attorney, and accusing officer, as public officers, hence by mandate of their sworn oaths ; have no discretion but to answer all particulars of this challenge of their presumptions of subject-matter jurisdiction in the instant case. They are further reminded of their respective duties and obligations as expressly evidenced in the Colorado State Constitution and by and through Article XIV of the U.S. Constitution and as further evidenced by published Rules of Criminal Procedure, expressly to include Miranda v. Arizona.

AND WHEREAS, the Accused makes this Petition hereinall and in the particularities of his averments made as his sworn statements under penalty of perjury, as a Sovereign, holding Primacy of Position and positively can expect no less from the Judge, prosecuting attorney and accusing Police Officer than their sworn answers to the particulars of his averments.

WHEREFORE, the Accused states as follows:

1. It is an undisputable fact; that on 10/18/05 Accused was issued Cit. Nos. 213625-0 & 213361-5, hereafter Citations, of the Colorado Springs Police Department/Colorado
Division of Motor Vehicle Division of Colorado Department of Revenue (hereinafter CSPD/DMV/DR), by Officer Thomas, hereinafter Thomas, badge No. 11257. On said citation, Officer Thomas alleges Accused violated 1973 CRS as amended, (hereinafter (statutes).

2. It is an undisputed fact; CSPD/DMV/DR statutes are Colorado administrative law administered and enforced by CSPD and other agents of DMV/CDR, /by/through, an administrative agency of the Colorado state legislature.

3. It is an undisputed fact; Accused was engaged in no driving activity, or other activity, either regulateable or in fact Colorado administrative law, regulated by DMV/CDR, when Accused was stopped, detained, and ticketed, hence, it is an undisputed material fact that Accused is not subject to the administrative jurisdiction wherein DMV/CDR statutes may be enforced.


4. It is an undisputed fact; Accused is, at best a traveler in his automobile, and not to be confused with a driver who is hired, contracted, or employed to drive a vehicle.

5. It is an undisputed fact; Accused is not an operator, nor does he operate a service involving a vehicle or vehicles used for transportation of passengers and property for hire.

6. It is an undisputed fact; Accused owns an automobile and not to be confused with a vehicle.

7. It is an undisputed fact; Accused has a common law unalienable right to use public roads without any form of licensure, a.k.a. permission, of any agency of his state government, for his personal pleasure and business as if common right without first receiving permission to use said roads as mere privilege granted by any officer of the aforesaid state government pursuant to any licensure scheme which may be conceived, devised, and enacted by state legislators, serving only as political trustees of the aforesaid state political trust, within offices of the state government, a legal fiction styled as the State of Colorado which can only be the people.

8. It is an undisputed fact; Officer Thomas has alleged no nexus connecting Accused to the instant case.

9. It is an undisputed fact; from the foregoing there is no nexus between Accused and the DMV/CDR in the instant case.

10. It is an undisputed fact; neither Officer Thomas nor any other DMV/CDR agent, nor any other accusing party ever made a verified complaint , information, indictment, affidavit, or any other form of verified statement alleging Accused committed a criminal act or any other matter of fact.

11. It is an undisputed fact; Officer Thomas had no prima facie probable cause to believe that the Accused was subject to the aforesaid administrative jurisdiction of the DMV/CDR at the time he was stopped, detained, and arrested.

12. It is an undisputed fact; the alleged charge was made on DMV/CDR Citations listed above, and not pursuant to any published rules for either a civil or criminal matter cognizable in a judicial power court of the people’s judicial branch of government.

13. It is an undisputed fact; no law enacted by state political trustees who sit in offices of the aforesaid state legislature is a duly enacted law unless it contains a mandated enacting clause which is a term and condition of the state political trust expressed in the aforesaid state Constitution.

14. It is an undisputed fact; Officer Thomas filed a statement of hearsay when she executed and filed said Citation 10/18/05, in a New Mexico state administrative law matter, it is prima facie fact that statutes/ordinances, listed above are merely evidence of law for in no case is it an enacted law of the officers of the aforesaid legislative body.

15. It is an undisputed fact; the Accused was cited with violating no law duly enacted by officers of the aforesaid state legislative body.

16. It is an undisputed fact; whenever any unauthorized change in language, structure, terms, phrases and/or any deletions in part or portion form a body of law are made, the subject law is modified and becomes null and void and unenforceable due to its unauthorized amendment.

17. It is an undisputed fact; this proceeding is not being conducted as a civil matter pursuant to the Constitution of these united States in a judicial power court having a civil jurisdictional authority which is prima facie evident from the form of citation and the fact that proceedings are not being conducted pursuant to the published Colorado Rules of Criminal Procedure.

18. It is an undisputed fact; this proceeding is not being conducted as a criminal matter pursuant to the National Constitution in a judicial power court having criminal jurisdiction authority which is prima facie evident from the form of citation and the fact that proceedings are not being conducted pursuant to the published Colorado Rules of Criminal Procedure.

19. It is an undisputed fact; this proceeding is not being conducted pursuant to published requirements of Administrative Procedures/Tribunals, notwithstanding in to circumstance can Accused be offered anything less than his unalienable right to full due process .

20. It is an undisputed fact; evident from the foregoing, Accused is compelled to appear in an ad hoc summary proceeding wherein the rules of court are unpublished; the nature of the proceeding is intentionally being withheld from the Accused, and Accused is unable to prepare his defense for want of knowledge of the nature and cause of the accusation, absolutely; yet is compelled to make his own appearance in what is prima
facie, an ad hoc, de facto jurisdiction under threat of loss of life, freedom and property pursuant to ad hoc, de facto police power, in violation of the due process, the police power provisions of his state and national constitutions, having no jurisdictional facts in evidence Accused is subject to the ad hoc, de facto jurisdiction presumed from the face of charging documents or any other part of the public record before this forum, nor the administrative jurisdiction evidenced from the face of the naked statute Accused is charged with allegedly violating.

21. It is an undisputable fact; evident from the foregoing, Accused is denied his right to plenary right to due process of law and is being deprived of his freedom.

[PROPIA PERSONA]

[quote=PROPIA PERSONA]This is an actual case WON using Jack and Margy Flynn's material (sent in at least 3 parts because of size). Look it up. Then start kissing.

22. It is an undisputed fact; the Accused is being denied his right to due process of law on grounds the court is commencing action without evidence of a Complaint in the required form.

23. It is an undisputed fact; among his unalienable rights is the right of the Accused to unabridged, full, plenary, due process of law in a judicial power court of general jurisdiction pursuant to the Constitution and laws of the aforesaid people and their aforesaid political trust, in the event any person charges him with any alleged crime.

24. It is an undisputed fact; Accused did not freely affix his signature to the citation in fear of his life, freedom and property even when faced with being bodily thrown in jail if he refused to sign the citation.

25. It is an undisputed fact; Officer Thomas, pursuant to his Oath, failed to make disclosure of the truth at the time she attempted to coerce, intimidate and force Accused to affix his signature to citation while at the same time not acknowledging guilt of a criminal violation.

26. It is an undisputed fact; the Judge presiding in the instant case, pursuant to his or her Oath given in exchange for public trust, is witness to the Accuser acting as a police officer not making full disclosure of the truth in attempting to compel Accused to affix his signature under the threat of being jailed.

27. It is an undisputed fact; the prosecuting attorney prosecuting the instant case, pursuant to his or her Oath, given in exchange for the public trust, is witness to the Accuser acting as a police officer not making full disclosure of the truth in attempting to compel Accused to affix his signature under threat of being jailed.

28. It is an undisputed fact; the unalienable rights and freedom of the People of America are not limited, abbreviated, or any manner diminished to only those rights expressly declared in the National and State Constitutions, inasmuch as the people are, themselves, without power and authority to derogate or abrogate their unalienable rights.

29. It is an undisputed fact; the aforesaid people of America, have no authority to convert any of their unalienable rights or the unalienable rights of their fellow citizens into privileges, or otherwise derogate or abrogate said rights .

30. It is an undisputed fact; 1973 CRS as amended, its statutes and its provisions are evidence of administrative laws enacted by officers of said state legislature body with intent that said laws be administered and enforced by the DMV/CDR.

31. It is an undisputed fact; the administrative laws charged to the DMV/CDR, with administration and enforcement are a licensure scheme in the nature of a traffic regulatory scheme wherein persons upon whom this scheme is imposed are required to obtain various permits and permissions and be subject to the scheme’s licensure provisions in order to use the public roadways.

32. It is an undisputed fact; provisions of the aforesaid Colorado statutes may not derogate or abrogate the unalienable rights of the aforesaid people or create new classes of crimes which said provisions may classify as misdemeanors or offenses or the like by licensure schemes and the like by officers of said legislative body.

33. It is an undisputed fact; any Colorado court, when hearing a matter charging an American Citizen with violation of any provision of statutes in 1973 CRS as amended, as aforesaid is at best sitting as a legislative court, hence a quasi judicial power court and not as a judicial power court and the officer sitting on the bench is at best sitting in a ministerial office and a quasi judicial power office and not a judicial power office and most commonly sits as a state actor conducting ad hoc summary proceedings.

34. It is an undisputed fact; any Colorado court when hearing a matter charging an American Citizen with violation of any provision of statutes in 1973 CRS as amended, as aforesaid has no subject-matter jurisdiction to hear and rule upon the cause in the second instance, if the accused person is not subject to the administrative jurisdiction of the DMV/CRD in the first instance.

35. It is an undisputed fact; ad hoc summary proceedings against a Citizen are a violation of all due process of law with willful intent to irreparably harm, damage, injure and destroy the Accused.

36. It is an undisputed fact; Accused has the right to choice of counsel, a constitutionally protected right .

WHEREFORE, Accused, to ensure this Honorable Court fully understands his Petition, informs all members of the prosecuting party be and are hereby informed, the following Word Definitions, regardless they may be used in the singular and/or combination, are hereby Incorporated into, bound and made integral to, the Accused’s Petition, and said Word Definitions apply throughout Accused’s Petition. To wit:

WORD DEFINITION

(the male gender used herein is generic, the female gender is included as appropriate)

administrative agency; an entity, created by the political trustees holding offices in the
State legislature, to administer and enforce administrative law against those
Within such jurisdiction.
administrative law; law created for administering and enforcement against those within
such jurisdiction.

administrative proceeding; a proceeding by an administrative agency conducted by a public officer in a forum not cognizable as a constitutional forum to try a Citizen
charged with an alleged violation of administrative law.

Agent Principal; a person, having taken an oath of office, and appoints, hires or contracts
another person to represent said Principal in matters requiring the agent to have knowledge of the law.

Agent Principal Oath; the oath of a public officer who appoints, hires or contracts other
persons to represent him and performs under his oath, attests to these persons
having knowledge of the law.

American Citizen; synonymous with Citizen; one who retains full rights, including Bill
of Rights, in the U.S. Constitution and enjoys the benefits thereof, and not to
be confused with the word person.

automobile; a mechanical conveyance used for, and by, the Citizen conducting personal
business and not to be confused with the word; vehicle.

certified petition; an affidavit setting forth a statement of undisputed facts before the
court, without admitting or accepting jurisdiction of the court nor the
administrative law the Accused is charged with allegedly violating.

challenge of jurisdiction; an act by a Citizen, by filing particular Briefs in the forum
where Citizen is compelled to appear, challenges the presumption of jurisdiction
held by public officers to administer and enforce their administrative law against
him. The law requires the providing of verifiable proof of jurisdiction before the
court can reach merits of the case.

choice of counsel; the Accused retains the right to choice of counsel, not limited to a
licensed attorney, but rather, the right to choose any Citizen who maintains and
exercises, in the opinion of the Accused, an integrity and character necessary to
assist the Accused in his defense and/or counter-complaint and which right is
protected by his two Constitutions and law.

civil penalty; a monetary fine imposed by an administrative agency of the State against an
American Citizen, while charging said Citizen with an alleged violation of law.

constructive trust; a trust construed to bind the trustee and treat the trustee as if a partner
in a general partnership and therefore acquiring the same liabilities imposed on
the trust.

contract; two independent acts by Citizens obligating themselves to do something.
driver; a person, hired, employed, or otherwise paid, to drive a vehicle or other
conveyances.

fraud; synonymous with unfaithful, infidelity, turbidity, unfairness; an intentional
perversion of the truth for the purpose of including another in reliance, to part
with some valuable thing belonging to him or to surrender a legal right; a false
representation of a matter of fact, whether by words or by conduct, by false or
misleading allegations or by concealment of that which should have been
disclosed, which deceived and is intended to deceive anther so that he acts upon it
to his legal detriment.

injury; a deprivation of a Citizen’s Rights and undue infliction of pain and penalty
imposed on a Citizen through, and by, the actions, and/or lack of actions, by
public officers in a course of conduct undertaken while charging and holding the
said Citizen to an alleged violation of criminal law.

judicial court; an administrative hearing forum converted to judicial, wherein the Citizen
retains full constitutional rights and enjoys the benefits thereof.

Judicial Notice; a court filed instrument, consisting of case captioned Notice attached to a
certified copy of oath taken by the presiding Judge in the case; by which an
administrative court is converted to Judicial.

[PROPIA PERSONA]

[quote=PROPIA PERSONA][quote=PROPIA PERSONA]This is an actual case WON using Jack and Margy Flynn's material (sent in at least 3 parts because of size). Look it up. Then start kissing.

jurisdiction; a power possessed by the court when the proper parties are present;
unchallenged power of the court, having a case before it, to hear the merits of the
case, make judgment and enforce the law allegedly violated and enter its
judgment.

licensure, license; a permission process, a permission instrument, promoted and advanced
by State agencies for the purpose and intent of regulating certain activities by
Citizens, which process is administered and enforced uniformly. Even upon those
not within such jurisdiction. A presumption by State agencies to make unlawful
via the process, of what they would otherwise consider unlawful activities.

licensure scheme; a State agency process to issue permission instruments by which to
regulate certain activities and to extract fees for such a privilege, under the
wrongful presumption of said agencies that these certain activities are regulatable
and such licensure scheme is uniformly applicable to all Citizens.

nexus; a link, connection, legal or otherwise, by which a Citizen may be connected to the
jurisdiction claimed by an administrative agency for the purpose of charging him
with violation of administrative law and consequently hold court to hear the
merits.

oath; synonymous with affirmation; a binding promise, a form of attestation by which a
person signifies he is bound in conscience to act or perform faithfully. An
affirmation of truth of a statement which one renders willfully asserting an untrue
statement is punishable by perjury.

offense; a new class of crime, not cognizable by the two Constitutions of a Citizen; which
is administered and enforced by an administrative agency of the State; for the
purpose of extracting a civil penalty while charging said Citizen with a criminal
violation. A charge of an offense deprives the said Citizen of a proper defense
due to the absence of Published Rules of Procedure upon which to build an
adequate and legal defense, cognizable as deprivation of Citizen Rights.

Operator; a person, under a license to operate as a service, and who prosecutes the
business of the mechanical conveyance by which to transport passengers or
passengers and property for hire.

Party Injured; a Citizen who is injured by, and through, the actions and/or lack of action
of public officers who, while being witness to a wrongful action by other public
officers, neglected or refused to correct or prevent such.

personal business; business conducted by a Citizen, not regulated nor regulatable by any
licensure scheme, nor requiring a license of the State or its agencies. Such
personal business includes the business of accepting and performing obligations
of contracts.

perjury of oath; an act by a public officer, having knowledge of the law, acted contrary to
his binding promise, the falsification, the false swearing to the oath that says that
they would uphold the law constitutes or gives rise to Title 18 USCA, section
1621.

presumption of jurisdiction; a posture, a belief, taken and held by public officers, certain
persons are within such jurisdiction and proceeding forward until such
presumption is challenged.

Principal Agent; a person, who is appointed, hired or contracted by a Principal for that
person to represent the said Principal in matters requiring the agent to have a
knowledge of the law.

public officer; any person holding public office, and in exchange for the public trust, has
taken an oath or assumed the oath of Agent Principal and by such oath or
assumption of Agent Principal oath, attest to having knowledge of the law.

regulated, regulatable; a process and procedure imposed on particular activities and
which process and procedure is enforced by State agencies against those persons
who have subscribed to and accepted the particular jurisdiction of such State
agencies.

traffic; n. Commerce; trade; the sale or exchange of goods, bills, and money.
trust indenture; a trust, converted from a constructive trust, having a named Trustee with
enumerated fiduciary duties and responsibilities for managing the trust and
severing his connections to any and all liabilities acquired by the trust.

Trustee; a Citizen named as Trustee, who has agreed and accepted the enumerated
fiduciary duties and responsibilities for managing the trust indenture and its assets
and having no connection to the liabilities of the trust.

Traveler; the Citizen who passes from place to place, whether for pleasure, instruction,
health or business and whether on foot, horseback, or in his automobile.

vehicle; a best definition is found under Title 18, USC 31: “Motor vehicle means every
description or other contrivance propelled or drawn by mechanical power and
used for commercial purposes on the highways in the transportation of
passengers, or passengers and property.” (emphasis added)

AND IN CONSEQUENCE, Accused petitions this court; pursuant to his unalienable right as an American Citizen, holding Primacy of Position in the State of New Mexico:

A. To be informed the nature and cause of the accusation in the instant case. Specifically, what is the nature of this jurisdiction, and its proceedings, and

B. How is he subject to it, in light of the foregoing undisputed jurisdictional facts in the record, in the instant case?

C. FURTHERMORE, what is the cause, if Accused is not subject to jurisdiction in the first instance?

D. That the Prosecutor, in the instant case, comply with Colorado Rules of Criminal Procedure, if the instant charges are alleged to be a misdemeanor or a felony crime and that he, or she, shall include in any information to which he, or she, shall swear his or her oath, pursuant to Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, Title 18 Rule 3, Section 10, that he, or she, has knowledge that the statutes are administrative law of the Colorado and that, if he or she shall fail to state whether statutes are, or are not administrative law, then he, or she, shall admit by his or her silence, the undisputed jurisdictional fact that Accused is being charged with violating administrative laws of the State of Colorado to which Accused is not subject for want of a nexus connecting Accused to
the administrative agency of said law, namely, the Division of Motor Vehicles/Colorado Department of Revenue in the first instance, and notwithstanding the want of the legislature of the State of Colorado to convert any unalienable right of the Accused into a privilege in any case.





ACTUAL AND CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE IN THE INSTANT MATTER:

HEREBY NOTICED, the presiding Judge in the instant case, the Accused has filed A Judicial Notice hereby Noticed this Court is now Judicial and not administrative, and
HEREBY NOTICED the court that the Accused is an American Citizen who retains full Constitutional Rights and therefore entitled to enjoy the benefits thereof, and

FURTHER NOTICED this court and all members of the prosecuting party all the Constitutional Rights of the accused are hereby invoked, and

MORE FURTHER NOTICED in the matter of your individual political trusteeships as public office holders in the gift of the people of the State of Colorado, if you fail to lawfully answer this Petition you will have no later defense that you were without knowledge of your duties and obligations to the people of the State of Colorado, and specifically to the Accused in the instant matter. It would be an understatement in the extreme to say “it is well settled” that the Accused has an unalienable right pursuant to his unwritten state constitution, the common law, a.k.a. the law of the land, protected by his written state and federal constitutions, respectively within their sovereign jurisdictions also known as organic law of the land, to have this Petition answered, and whereas, this Petition is a challenge of the above styled forum’s presumption of subject-matter jurisdiction. State and federal courts acknowledge a most solemn fundamental of American political theory upon which the body of American jurisprudence is absolutely and totally dependant.

DECLARATION UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY

I declare under the penalties of perjury that my statements in the foregoing Certified Petition are true and correct.

All Rights Reserved,
Dated this _____ day, July, 2005.

______________________________
Jose Mondragon, Party Injured
926 South Pacific
Las Vegas, New Mexico 87701










NOTARY STATEMENT


State of New Mexico )
) s.s.
County of San Miguel )


The above named person did subscribe to before me, a Notary Public in and for the

County Of San Miguel, State of New Mexico, on the ____ day of November, 2005.


My commission expires:____________ _________________________
Notary Public



Seal:

[ndusa]

I see no court order. I can't find this case threw the state. Don't think I'll pucker up just yet. And I doubt we will ever see an order from the state saying you have a right to drive, when you don't.

[fulltitle]

Without Prejudice

Originally Posted by ndusa

The Supreme Court in Montana won't even look at an appeal on this issue, it has been decided. There is no right to travel in Montana.

By this I mean driving without a DL, no tags on car, ect..

Without Prejudice

"No persons in Montana may exempt themselves from any law simply by declaring they do not consent to it applying to them." State v. Skurdal (1988) 235 Mont 291, 767 P2d 304

In the 1988 case it was stated "Skurdal" "...is a 'person' as defined by section 61-1-307, MCA, and bound by the statutes in Montana which he violated. Consent to laws is not a prerequisite to the enforceability against individuals."

61-1-307. Person. "Person" means an individual, corporation, partnership, association, firm, or other legal entity. "Person" as used in part 1, chapter 6, means every natural person, firm, partnership, association, or corporation.

MCA 61-1-307 has been repealed.

The case was styled as "STATE OF MONTANA vs. RODNEY O. SKURDAL".

[ndusa]

Here it is-

City of Billings v. Martin Becker, Case # 02-411

The court states-" The District Court noted that Beckmans argument on appeal was extremely unclear, but it appears that, basicall, he asserted that he has an absolute right to travel the public roads in Montana without a drivers license or insurance. Judge Garz rejected this argument on the basis of this Court's decision in State v. Skurdal..... wherein we acknowledge that requiring Montana's drivers to possess a valid license and liability insurance is a valid exercise of the State's police power.

And " IN Selacwek b. Ahrens(1974). 165 Mont. 479. 530 P.2d 424. we recognized the State's Authority, undder its police powers, to regulate the licensing of drivers in the interest of public safety.

Further more--" ...the statute requiring drivers to be licensed and statute requiring proof of liability insurance were unreasonable or a violations of a driver's constitutional rights. See also Skardal II, 235 Mont. at 295-96. 767 P2d at 307(holding that the constitutional right to travel does not encompass unrestrained use of highways; that the ability to drave a motor vehicle on a public highway is not a fundamental right, but rather is a revocable privilege that is granted upon compliance with statutory licensing procedures.." ect, ect....

You better stay out of montana if you believe this loony theory!

[ndusa]

Theres a ton of um! But I think you get the point, you have no right to drive without a DL, plain and simple.

Those are my type-o's, I was looking on another computer screen typing it. But, these cases are easy enough to find. Think someone else better state puckering up.

[ezrhythm]

Great post "Propia Persona" Thank You for sharing!
Be sure to post it in, Success Stories.

Welcome to the forum!


<<<"No persons in Montana may exempt themselves from any law simply by declaring they do not consent to it applying to them." State v. Skurdal (1988) 235 Mont 291, 767 P2d 304>>>

True! Notice that it states "persons" and, "simply by declaring they do not consent".
so then, what if they are not "persons" and use another method instead of, "simply by declaring they do not consent"?

[ndusa]

Every jury in montana that I can find has convicted on this crazy theory, and EVERY SINGLE APPEAL LOST!!!

These cases can be used by other state judges in other states, if they so desire.

[fulltitle]

Originally Posted by ezrhythm

<<<"No persons in Montana may exempt themselves from any law simply by declaring they do not consent to it applying to them." State v. Skurdal (1988) 235 Mont 291, 767 P2d 304>>>

True! Notice that it states "persons" and, "simply by declaring they do not consent".
so then, what if they are not "persons" and use another method instead of, "simply by declaring they do not consent"?

Without Prejudice.
You might be onto something. ;D

Montana was the 41st state to be admitted into the Union on November 8, 1889. For sixty years prior to establishment of the Territory of Montana in 1864, seven different territories of the western United States governed the area that was to become Montana. The portion of Montana located east of the Continental Divide belonged to Louisiana Territory (purchased from France in 1803), Missouri Territory (1812-1821), the so-called “Indian Country” (1821-1854), Nebraska Territory (1854-1861), and Dakota Territory (1861-1863). The western portion acquired from Great Britain in 1846 belonged to Oregon (1848-1853) and Washington (1853-1863) Territories until the entire future state was included in Idaho Territory in 1863.

Originally Posted by ndusa

Theres a ton of um! But I think you get the point, {ndusa has} no right to drive without a DL, plain and simple.

Thank you for letting us know.