NO LICENSE - PERFECTED LEGAL ARGUEMENT - Page 5

Akira · #41 06-16-2006, 11:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Codee

I do not know where the notion that Carl Miller won 99% of his cases came from. I have heard of the fellow for almost ten years but have never heard that.

No notion... Carl released a 6 hour video tape on the Constitution and common law, where he said so himself.

You might still be able to find a copy of the video. I have the audio portion on several cassettes... somewhere.. lol

For HIS Glory,
Akira

Codee · #42 06-16-2006, 11:06 AM

Was that constitution 101?
I guess I missed it. Thank you for clearing it up. By the way did Carl die?

Akira · #43 06-16-2006, 11:29 AM

Codee,

It wouldn't surprise me.. I know his health was beginning to fail him at the time of the taping, and I heard shortly thereafter that he had gotten worse.

Someone still has a website up in his name called Carl Miller's Corner, but it hasn't been updated since 2001. There are a few good docs there though.

Heh.. the biography on the site says 90+% win rate... I'm certain the tape says 99%.. oh well... sue me.. lol

For HIS Glory,
Akira

snowy1 · #44 06-20-2006, 12:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shoonra

There is sufficient "probable cause" in the fact that the person at the wheel, or at least the person most likely to be at the wheel of this particular car, already has a track record for driving w/o a license or DUI or some other chronic moving violation.

Well for me there was no probable cause period . I had a perfect driving record for years . You obviously haven't seen what I'm talking about. I had older vehicles for myself & newer ones for my wife.
Just because they looked like a "beaters" I would be followed & pulled over for a made up excuse . Even the town I currently live in it happened with every officer in town until they knew my vehicles & knew I had insurance etc. After a year or two it finally stopped
Since 2000 I have started driving vehicles less than 5 years old & have never had a problem since.

thank you Codee for coming to my "defense" . In small towns I see things like this happen a lot.

Codee · #45 06-20-2006, 01:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Akira

Codee,

Heh.. the biography on the site says 90+% win rate... I'm certain the tape says 99%.. oh well... sue me.. lol

For HIS Glory,
Akira

Thanks for the info and I decline your offer to sue. I just don't think there is a court ready for a Codee-Akira square off.

Take care, God bless

Cody

cowboytroll · #46 06-28-2006, 05:58 PM

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

"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."

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

Also in another discussion about probable cause. There can be no arresrt or detention w/o a grand jury summons. No unelected person has any power to stop you. Just because it happens does not mean it is legal. 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. 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. They served the summons therefore according to the CRSF no perason serving a summons can testify aginst the summoned.

Codee · #47 06-28-2006, 06:55 PM

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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?

Quote:

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."

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

Codee · #48 06-28-2006, 07:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by free_martha

"The right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by a carriage or automobile, is not a mere privilege which a City may prohibit or permit at will, but a common right which he has under the right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of happiness." Thompson v. Smith 154 SE 579.

At will means somethiing. It means that if thet state has proceedure that is not arbitrarily deciding if you get to drive or not. Most states do meet this requirement. The state will only not give you a license after offering you a hearing where they tell you why your license is not happening. PLEASE do not just dismiss this "at will" since it is in virtually every cite I have seen on "right to travel" Please compare to this cite for "commercial driving"

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scootterdog

"... For while a Citizen has the Right to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, that Right does not extend to the use of the highways, either in whole or in part, as a place for private gain. For the latter purpose, no person has a vested right to use the highways of the state, but is a privilege or a license which the legislature may grant or withhold at its discretion."

State vs. Johnson, 243 P. 1073;
Cummins vs. Homes, 155 P. 171;
Packard vs. Banton, 44 S.Ct. 256;
Hadfield vs. Lundin, 98 Wash 516

See, "not at will" and "at its discretion." These are the most overlooked terms in the driving bebate. They take alot of case out of the picture so that they don't need to keep getting cited.

Quote:

Originally Posted by free_martha

"The right to travel is part of the Liberty of which the Citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment." Kent v. Dulles 357 U.S. 116, 125.

Like I said before: Due process is fulfilled by giving you a hearing AND applying the law equally and non arbitrarilly. Both of these requirement are met by the State of California

Quote:

Originally Posted by free_martha

"Our system of government, based upon the individuality and intelligence of the Citizen, the state does not claim to control him, except as his conduct to others, leaving him the sole judge as to all that only affects himself." Mugler v. Kansas 123 U.S. 623, 659-60.

Quote:

Originally Posted by free_martha

'Our survey of the legal landscape as it existed in March 1989 indicates, that, in general, members of the public have no constitutional right to be protected by the State from harm inflicted by third parties. E.g., Fox v. Custis, 712 F.2d 84, 88 (4th Cir. 1983); Wells v. Walker, 852 F.2d 368, 370 (8th Cir. 1988), cert. denied, 489 U.S. 1012, 109 S.Ct. 1121, 103 L.Ed.2d 184 (1989); Ketchum v. Alameda County, 811 F.2d 1243, 1247 (9th Cir. 1987); Bowers v. DeVito, 686 F.2d 616, 618 (7th Cir. 1982).

This quote I feel is mabey taken out of context. There are alot of similar cases in California which say the same thing. HOWEVER all of these cases are referring to the individual members, That is why it says "MEMBERS of the public" and not just " the public" The state does have an obligation to protect the people as a whole. If they didn't then they would have no reason for "police powers" which every thing they pass stands upon.

I believe David Merrill posted this case: "Even the legislature has no power to deny to a Citizen the "RIGHT" to travel upon the highway and transport his property in the ordinary course of his business or pleasure, through this "RIGHT" might be regulated in accordance with the public interest and convenience. See: Chicago Motor Coach v. Chicago, 169 N.E. 22"

I have also seen on this thread people asserting that there is no right to conduct buisness on the roads and that all case law leads to this conclusion. I have not seen this conclusion from the posts here. What I see is that there is no fundamental right to make the street your "PLACE" of buisness. It is everybody's street and you can't claim part of it as yours (IE: park and occupy it while you sell stuff on the street.") I am not saying that this contention is correct, just that it remains unproven with the current posts.

Here the law in question (The washington stat.) clearly establishes that your conduct is threatening to others.

You may not agree with what the legislature found when they found driving threatening, HOWEVER, until you dispell that the state appears to have overcome all the obsticalls that I addressed here.

Someone please argue the "At will" argument. Until someone does I cannot see this tactic working.

Shoonra · #49 06-29-2006, 04:39 AM

A citation to Am.Jur.[1st] is a reference to a legal encyclopedia volume published at least 30 years ago. The current edition (Am.Jur.2d) contains a clear statement that states have the authority and right to insist that only licensed drivers can operate vehicles on the public roads. For all I know, the first edition said something similar.

The reference in Am.Jur.1st is to the "right to travel". But this NEVER included the "right" to insist upon being the operator of whatever mode of travel is used. Not one of the cases named in this thread ever upheld a "right" to unlicensed driving; most dealt with things like passports and monopolies granted to certain bus or trucking companies.

FreeFromContract · #50 06-29-2006, 11:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shoonra

A citation to Am.Jur.[1st] is a reference to a legal encyclopedia volume published at least 30 years ago. The current edition (Am.Jur.2d) contains a clear statement that states have the authority and right to insist that only licensed drivers can operate vehicles on the public roads. For all I know, the first edition said something similar.

The reference in Am.Jur.1st is to the "right to travel". But this NEVER included the "right" to insist upon being the operator of whatever mode of travel is used. Not one of the cases named in this thread ever upheld a "right" to unlicensed driving; most dealt with things like passports and monopolies granted to certain bus or trucking companies.

Please Shoonra: "Operator", "driving", "motor vehicle", "traffic" are but a few examples of terms of commerce! There are ample cites in the various posts in many of the threads on this site. (I can only guess you're tired of the mental beating you took on the OMB thread, so you're back to spread confusion on the Travel v. Driving subject - zzzzzzzzzzz)