NO LICENSE - PERFECTED LEGAL ARGUEMENT

[Codee]

Originally Posted by Codee

There are so many other ways around this issue then consistantly and intentionally ignoring "At will" and "without due process." These terms gut your arguments and are found in almost EVERY cite on this subject. AGAIN if I am wrong it should not be hard for this forum to easily prove it.

Since you did not adress this I will assume you have no real argument for it. Please keep analyzing me when you don't know me and please take comfort that you called me scared. These things seem to be more important to you than discussing the issue at hand. Here,,, I'll make it clear for you

You are intentionally ignoring "At will" and "without due process."

Originally Posted by sabredrivr

i can see you saying that to a p.e.o."the state cannot take my privilage away at will" as he/she/it takes you into custody.

I have never been taken into costody "at will." There is at least color of law. At will means for NO reason. I have been taken into custodial arrest mabey a dozen or more times. I was succesfully prosecuted once. I do not think your arguments will keep you out of jail. but that is for you to find out.

Originally Posted by sabredrivr

so, because you are frghtened you run to "mama" government to protect you?
i assume this irrationale fear stems from the government sponsored statistical propaganda
that falsely claims that speed kills?or some similar fear generating propaganda?
why then, are you not more fearful of dieing under the care of a doctor?
they kill lots more people per year than speed or car accidents according to statistics.
from your postings it would be logical to assume you desire not freedom but safety.

No I do not think it is LOGICAL to ASSUME the way someone values their personal feelings and DESIRES. Well I can say for certain you are not the authority on how I feel. What you have done is not a logical deduction but rather made a irrational, conculsionary, wrong statement founded on little writing I posted. I hope your future assumptions are founded on more than your own beliefs.
1) Did I ever say I wasn't scared of the care of "a doctor." Mabey I "choose" which doctor I see and which I don't. 2) Can I choose who I drive with? NOPE. 3) Did I argue that doctors were not dangerous? NOPE. And yes, I do desire saftey because freedom is meaningless when you are dead. I had seven friends die in one year of highschool. 13 dead by graduation,,, all from car accidents. I had none die from medical malpractice, nor none die from obtaining a license.
Like I said, I have been arrested for sticking up for my friends in situations where I was not even targeted dozens of times and lots were costodial arrests. I had the local newspaper running articles on my fight with the police until the police chief theatend the editor's life. further when arguing in an interigation room with an officer he told me he would put me in a trash can in the trunk of his car, drive me out to a meadow and empty his entire clip into it. Did I start crying or acting like a baby? NOPE. I then turned up the heat and forced the early retirement of the City attorney Claud Biddle after demonstrating he had violated 1200 misdemeanors and that he was liable for 600 yrs in jail and $1,200,000 in fines. That guy dont hang out in my county no more. If you think I am some scared baby who runs to the government just because I think your idea is worth crap is your own problem. I have a personal rule for me that the Grass Valley police will not arrest me on less than a felony. The mayor wrote me a letter of recomendation (I think I was nineteen) after beating up on her police department. I have stopped no less than four illeagal searches of people's cars in the downtown area. The City of Grass Valley held special meeting to put the muni. code up to the "Cody" test, resulting in three articals (not sections) being ammended as I suggested. I have stopped the enforcement of the "loitering" law, and many other ACTUAL things. I have reopened parks that the youth were banned from. I would say I have been in the forefront and arrested more times than anyone else in this forum. You do not know of anything you speak about when you speak of me. I hope for your own sake you7 have a long record of being right while in the system and that you are n ot this cocky from armchair quarterbacking.

Originally Posted by sabredrivr

i believe the fear you speak of is exaktly what the powers that be want us all to feel.
fear is a great tool for controling someone.

as posted previously, this all boils down to responsibility.
without us being responsible there can be no freedom.
you are unwilling to be responsible for your own safety thus, you surrender your liberty for the safety the government promises yet fails to deliver.

Oh yeah, I forgot, I'm a big cry baby. That one is hard to argue.

Originally Posted by sabredrivr

if licensing is such a great use of the states "police power" tell us why so many deaths still occur upon the highways & biways that you fear will be your own undoing?

1) Because there are still unlicensed drivers
2) Some *******s drive while drunk
3) Some people pass the test who shouldn't (Because its so easy!!! and the state is hesitant to deny)
4) Cell phones (used illeagaly)
5) Unatentive children runninbg into the street.
6) Accidents of nature.
7) Poor condition of vehicles (Which should not have been allowed to drive
8) People driving while mad
9) Showing off on the road
10) Road rage
11) High speed pursuits
12) driving while tired

Originally Posted by sabredrivr

surely enough time has passed with these perverted licensing practices in place that any sane, rational being could logically conclude it is a dismal failure.
especially considering it's stated purpose of "public safety"
dead men tell no tales or they would be the first to tell you "it doesn't work!".

had the licensing scheme been a success we would have alot larger population.
with this in mind you continue to support the illogical conclusion that travelling is a privilage.
hmm.

you seem to think that if licensing doesn't fix ALL problems then it doesn't help at all. I cannot argue with such a premissis. It is contrary to logic and stream of thought type thinking. I know a fellow who crashed a car seven times in one year. Finally a doctor realised he was having sesures and sent a letter to the DMV. This fellow is not allowed to drive anymore, altough he would if he could. Now that five years have passed this guy know it is best that he doesn't drive. So please again, why should I have to share a road with an idiot having siesures behind the wheel? HE CRASHED 7 TIMES in one year (that I know of !!!)

[enemy_of_the_state]

This is off-topic, I know, however, somewhat illustrative regarding the "police power" excuse for licensure. The local municipality where I live had passed a business license ordiance. I was told, because I work out of my house, that I needed to procure said license. I went to City Hall and asked to see the license ordiance. I was refused, and told to submit a FOIA request. I capitulated and tendered said FOIA request. I soon thereafter received an unsolicited Business License Application in the mail. Subsequently, following a front page newspaper story chronicling the ensuing debate, I spoke with corporate counsel regarding my refusal to submit, following my reading and understanding of the ordinance, and who the language embraced as subjects.
The ordiance defined "person" as "...individual, corporation, sole propietorship,...or other legal entity."
The attorney was probably more forthcoming than he wishes he had been, but in essence he admitted that the word "person" did not embrace "people", as the context used applied to creatures of the State, and therefore subject to its control and regulation.
Although the City allowed me to proceed unfettered, they persisted in perpetuating the "business license" notion upon the ignorant and acquiescent populace. I calculated my accruing of over $344,000 in fines over time, based on $750 per day of violation, and openly challenged the City during a council meeting which aired on local television.
Corporate counsel and the mayor both admitted verbally on the record, that I was not considered a "business" and my activities of self-employment did not arise to a licensable activity under the ordinance, and that there would be no assessment of any fines.
I always believed that the "It's not what you say, but the words you use to say it" doctrine was effective, but until I saw it applied in a real-world situation, I had only vicarious respect for it.
If the statutes rely upon definitions to express their intent, then the legislatures avoidance of the common import of the wording is conspicuous and telling.

[Big Al]

Removed by Big Al

[Akira]

Awesum find..

Thanks to some motivation from another SJ member, I found Carl Millers "KNOW YOUR CONSTITUTION". The 6 hour audio tape set is available at http://www.theamericanvoice.com/miller.htm for only $45 for the 6 tape set !

I also found one hour of audio from his tapes, in mp3 format, for download... here's the link !


For HIS Glory,
Akira

[marksgirl]

(comment removed by marksgirl)

[Codee]

Has anyone ever just argued that the state never gave itself jurisdiction over infractions or civil remedies. This is the entire California Government Code section on "rights over persons." I do not see anything in there about infractions nor civil suits where the state is a party.
What about in your state?

200. The State has the rights prescribed in this article over
persons within its limits, to be exercised in the cases and in the
manner provided by law.


201. The State may punish for crime.



202. The state may imprison or confine for the protection of the
public peace or health or of individual life or safety.



203. The State may establish custody and restraint of:
(a) Mentally ill persons, insane persons, chronic inebriates, and
other persons of unsound mind.
(b) Paupers for the purposes of their maintenance.
(c) Minors for the purposes of their education, reformation, and
maintenance.


204. The State may require services of persons, with or without
compensation: In military duty; in jury duty; as witnesses; as town
officers; in highway labor; in maintaining the public peace; in
enforcing the service of process; in protecting life and property
from fire, pestilence, wreck, and flood; and in other cases provided
by statute.

Couple the above with:

20. It is unlawful to use a false or fictitious name, or to
knowingly make any false statement or knowingly conceal any material fact in any do***ent filed with the Department of Motor Vehicles or the Department of the California Highway Patrol.

Really? Is it actually a crime for the DMV to be using fictitious names. Uh Oh. But please look at "any do***ent filed with DMV" If you take one of those ticket slayer docs (default) and use it on the DMV, you can file it onto the record of your license. Now that filing or affidavit should stick in there for a long time.

GOOD LUCK ALL!!!

[Akira]

CODEE !

I nearly forgot !

Apparently, Carl Miller is alive and well on The American Voice internet radio.

Broadcast Schedule here

Sunday 12 noon EST and Tuesday 10PM EST

I have heard some hosts monitoring the sites chatroom while broadcasting and answering questions posted there... not sure if Carl does... but I'm anxious to find out !! I'm excited to think we can talk to him directly ! A potential SJ member?


For HIS Glory,
Akira

[Big Al]

Thanks for the link to American Radio.

[enemy_of_the_state]

If I may so impose upon the more litigously versed in the group, I am filing a motion for a Bill of Particulars for my no DL charge, and would like any input on the content. I think I have the Tort and Criminal thing nailed, but as far as Equity and Administrative law, I've seen some nice posts by others that may provide more insight. I'm supposed to appear on the 25th, but presently have a motion for an extension of time in which to appear or answer. The only other motions allowed, that do not aver to an appearance of answer, are the Objection to Venue/Jurisdiction and the Bill of Particulars.

This alleged offense occurred in Illinois.

(725 ILCS 5/Art. 111 heading)
ARTICLE 111. CHARGING AN OFFENSE

(725 ILCS 5/111‑1) (from Ch. 38, par. 111‑1)
Sec. 111‑1. Methods of prosecution.
When authorized by law a prosecution may be commenced by:
(a) A complaint;
(b) An information;
(c) An indictment.
Upon commencement of a prosecution for a violation of Section 11‑501 of The Illinois Vehicle Code, or a similar provision of a local ordinance, or Section 9‑3 of the Criminal Code of 1961, as amended, relating to the offense of reckless homicide, the victims of these offenses shall have all the rights under this Section as they do in Section 4 of the Bill of Rights for Victims and Witnesses of Violent Crime Act.
Pursuant to the Code of Criminal Procedure, Charging an Offense, the applicable section reads as follows:

(725 ILCS 5/111‑6) (from Ch. 38, par. 111‑6)
Sec. 111‑6. Bill of particulars.
When an indictment, information or complaint charges an offense in accordance with the provisions of Section 111‑3 of this Code but fails to specify the particulars of the offense sufficiently to enable the defendant to prepare his defense the court may, on written motion of the defendant, require the State's Attorney to furnish the defendant with a Bill of Particulars containing such particulars as may be necessary for the preparation of the defense. At the trial of the cause the State's evidence shall be confined to the particulars of the bill.
(Source: Laws 1963, p. 2836.)

and as such applies to the contents of the Complaint:

(725 ILCS 5/111‑3) (from Ch. 38, par. 111‑3)
Sec. 111‑3. Form of charge.
(a) A charge shall be in writing and allege the commission of an offense by:
(1) Stating the name of the offense;
(2) Citing the statutory provision alleged to have
been violated;

(3) Setting forth the nature and elements of the
offense charged;

(4) Stating the date and county of the offense as
definitely as can be done; and

(5) Stating the name of the accused, if known, and
if not known, designate the accused by any name or description by which he can be identified with reasonable certainty.

Also, there is no Discovery in Illinois for a misdemeanor. The Bill of Particulars comes under the Code of Criminal Procedure, and my last motion for an extension of time in which to answer is from the Code of Civil Procedure. I'm trying to box them in as to what kind of court and what rules will govern.

Also, oddly enough, I am failing to find any penalty provision in Illinois for "driving without a license."
My charge specifically states "DL expired more then 6 months", which does not state a charge. Also, the Statute/Ordinance reference is not checked on the Citation, and what I presume to be an Ordinance cite is non-existent, since Collinsville IL repealed it's vehicle code in '95, and adopted by reference the Illionois Vehicle Code. I FOIA'd the city and the cite on my ticket doesn't exist (excellent fodder for motion to dismiss following the State's presentment of evidence at trial, if it goes that far). Anywho, I'm working all the pre-appearance motions and if unsuccessful, the pre-trial motions. I presently have a FOIA in to the Secy. of State, asking for ALL records pertaining to me or my expired DL number, so I may properly cancel them by affidavit.
Here's the motion. Please, be very critical. Thaks!


MOTION FOR BILL OF PARTICULARS

Comes now Accused, Joe Blow, and moves this court pursuant to 725 ILCS 5/111‑6, for an order directing the State’s Attorney to file a Bill of Particulars which sets forth sufficient facts to advise Accused of the particulars of the offenses charged in order for Accused to sufficiently prepare for his defense and avoid being placed twice in jeopardy.


1. Accused is charged by Complaint with “DL expired more than 6 months”.
2. The Complaint fails to advise Accused of sufficient facts to enable him to adequately prepare his defense.
3. Accused is unable to determine what illegal act or acts Accused is alleged to have committed regarding the alleged offense, or his participation therein, so as to sufficiently prepare his defense.
4. That failure to require that the CITY OF COLLINSVILLE set forth with particularity those allegations of fact which the CITY intends to prove, and must prove, would deny Accused the right to prepare his defense,
5. The Accused demands to know whether the nature of the Complaint arises from a cause in Equity, a Tortious Act, a Criminal Act, Administrative Infraction, or any other nature unbeknownst to the Accused.
6. The Accused demands to know, if there be a cause in Equity, the party(s) making such claim, the nature of any such Equitable relationship claimed, and the contract alleged to have been breached by the Accused.
7. The Accused demands to know, if there be a cause in Tort, the specific duty owed by the Accused, to whom such duty was owed, the identity of the damaged party(s), the damages alleged to have been incurred by the damaged party(s), the relationship between the Accused, and the damaged party( gs)iving rise to any such duty.
8. The Accused demands to know, if there be a cause arising from a Criminal Act, the identity of the injured party(s), and the Criminal Act alleged to have been committed by the Accused.
9. The Accused demands to know, if there be a cause arising from an Administrative Infraction, the nature of the relationship between the Accused and whatever Administrative Agency(s) making such allegation, the Statutory source and cite for any authority or jurisdiction over the Accused, the Statutory authority for any penalty, fine or punishment potentially assessed against the Accused.
10. The Accused demands to know, whether the cause of the allegation imposes, or potentially imposes, any criminal penalties upon a finding of guilt, and if so, the specifics and Statutory authority for such penalties and/or fines.
11. The Accused demands to know, if any criminal penalties attach pursuant to a finding of guilt, AND if the cause is not of a Criminal nature, from what Constitutional or Statutory authority are such penalties applicable to causes in Equity, Tort or Administration?
12. Failure to require the CITY OF COLLINSVILLE to set forth with particularity those allegations and facts which the THE CITY OF COLLINSVILLE must prove, would deny the Accused the right to prepare his defense, to present any affirmative defense, challenge the venue of the proceedings, to conduct an appropriate investigation of the witnesses, expose him to being placed twice in jeopardy, and deny him effective assistance of counsel.
WHEREEFORE, Accused requests this Court to enter its order directing that the STATE’S ATTORNEY file a Bill of Particulars in connection with the above-entitled cause.

I hope this makes things clearer now. Thanks again.

[Codee]

As far as I know a bill of particulars is a bill and not a motion. You do not use the court to issue a bill of particulars. It is very simmilar to discovery mixed with demmurer. In California one cannot use a bill of particulars in a criminal case.

A bill of particulars is used to "help" your opponent. If you file one you waive Personam Jurisdiction (sometimes.) What you are doing is saying:

"I got this bill/demand/request from you and it is not clear on all the points. Could you please state why this name is on the do***ent and why you think it is me." and then you preceed to ask for clarification on the subject."

Demmurers are not concidered urguing because you are helping your opponent fix the errors in his bill or demmand. This should be taken care of before your pleading and should feel like discovery.

Other than that go to pleading and practice books for your state and look there. Also put what state you are in and the help could be more helpful.