Cody's Right To Travel

[Codee]

Further refrence the post I made concerning the states jurisdiction over persons and you will not see the power to prosecute for the violation of "unlawful acts." These are the definitions.

California Governmnet Code

201. The State may punish for crime.

[Codee]

I talked to my brother and and after hearing his questions I feel there is some confusion. A word appearing in the constitution CAN be redefined IF it is explicitly dome so. Like person. HOWEVER unlawful is never defined in California codified law. Which leads me to believe it does not fall under the authority to prosecute for with the "crimes" clause.

Cal. Penal Code

16. Crimes and public offenses include:
1. Felonies;
2. Misdemeanors; [I leave out infractions because they have been ruled not in this section despite the state's refusal to remove it]

I do not see unlawful acts here.

remember earlier on when all of those sitations referenced in one section "It is unlawful for..." And the other section "Any one who... is guilty of a misdemeanor." Look at the pairings. They always go together. I don't know about other states but California had some crafty M#($&* F(#)@$ write their laws.
Unlawful acts are usually not called misdemeanors. And the misdemeanors always apply to persons. but the unlawful acts without punishments clauses applies to "ones." What is the Sui Juris forum stance on "One?"

I see at the penal code HERE that crime is used thoughout, however unlawful is not used once.

And HERE in the vehicle code drunk driving statutes unlawful is used all over the place but the word "crime" does not appear once.

Here in those codes we have some one declared guilty of a misdemeanor...

23222. (a) No person shall have in his or her possession on his or
her person, while driving a motor vehicle upon a highway or on lands,
as described in subdivision (b) of Section 23220, any bottle, can,
or other receptacle, containing any alcoholic beverage which has been
opened, or a seal broken, or the contents of which have been
partially removed.
(b) Except as authorized by law, every person who possesses, while driving a motor vehicle upon a highway or on lands, as described in subdivision (b) of Section 23220, not more than one avoirdupois ounce
of marijuana, other than concentrated cannabis as defined by Section 11006.5 of the Health and Safety Code, is guilty of a misdemeanor

So I see that it does not apply to me.

(e) Any person convicted for a violation of subdivision (a) or (b)
is guilty of a misdemeanor and shall be punished upon conviction by
a fine of not more than one thousand dollars ($1,000) or by
imprisonment in the county jail for not more than six months, or by
both that fine and imprisonment.

How are they going to convict me when they need a misdemeanor FIRST, not after conviction, to have jurisdiction.

AGAIN GOOD LUCK. MORE TO COME....

[Big Al]

Codee, clean out your inbox if you want replys to your PM's.

[RICKO]

And for the love of God get some sleep will ya Codee!

[weishaupt1776]

Should this be "The Right To Light Up and Travel" ?

I remember back in the day, I thought that I was a more cautious "driver" when I'd light up; but . . .

I'd go about 20 miles past where i was sposda turn . . .

[Big Al]

Originally Posted by weishaupt1776

Should this be "The Right To Light Up and Travel" ?

I remember back in the day, I thought that I was a more cautious "driver" when I'd light up; but . . .

I'd go about 20 miles past where i was sposda turn . . .

Or reading the same page for two hours?

[Codee]

Originally Posted by RICKO

And for the love of God get some sleep will ya Codee!

ALright. See ya all monday Mail box empty. Sorry,,, "Light up and slumber for me..." once I smoked this joint on a cop car.....


Oh well that for another thread.

[Dillon Hunt]

deleted message

[Codee]

Originally Posted by Codee

California Civil Law.
Cal Civil Code

20. No statute, law, or rule is continued in force because it is consistent with the provisions of this Code on the same subject; but in all cases provided for by this Code, all statutes, laws, and rules heretofore in force in this State, whether consistent or not with the provisions of this Code, unless expressly continued in force by it, are repealed or abrogated. This repeal or abrogation does not revive any former law heretofore repealed, nor does it affect any right already existing or accrued, or any action or proceeding already taken, except as in this Code provided.

Here is why bench law is “no law.” It is procedure and evidence of law.

Cal Civil Code

22. Law is a solemn expression of the will of the supreme power of the State.

22.1. The will of the supreme power is expressed: (a) By the Constitution. (b) By statutes.

23.1. The provisions of any law passed at the 1872 Session of the Legislature which contravene or are inconsistent with the provisions of any of the four codes passed at the 1872 Session prevail.

Now I see all the above as saying if it is just in a code and is not law of the state, then it cannot be used to strip me of any decision making at the common law level while I am in “court.” Further it says that law wins over code (at leaste for the laws of 1872.) Just wanted to point out that code is not law and you have a right to a common law decision in a court where there is no state law disallowing it.

So now we have this again in contrast...
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.

NOw you might say that "But section 22.1. says "The will of the supreme power is expressed: (a) By the Constitution. (b) By statutes." and you would be focussing on that word while if you read it again and focus on the word I put in Magenta...

22.1. The will of the supreme power is expressed: (a) By the Constitution. (b) By statutes.

The above is a "willful" expression
Here again is section 22.0

22. Law is a solemn expression of the will of the supreme power of the State.

Merriam Webster's

Solemn

1 : marked by the invocation of a religious sanction <a solemn oath>

[Bulletproof Monk]

http://www.suijuris.net/forum/travel...cing+affidavit