The Right to Travel

well said, I applaud your bravery. It's high time we free men stand up to the idiocracy of bureaucracy. My idea of retirement is to have enough money to constantly spend going to courts and doing just what you are doing, fighting for my rights as a free person and not a citizen of some corporation or as you put it forced into contract.

reply to post by Greensage


It is my understanding that by Reserving All Rights and Benefits Without Prejudice entering into a contract can no longer be implicit but must have a "Mutual Understanding" between both parties. That being said, any contract they signed me up for when registering my vehicle becomes a contract that I entered into unvoluntarily and can be voided.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


well said, I also think that having them explain the law to you first puts the burden of proof onto them, and in most cases the law is so vague or unclear that you can use it to find endless loopholes. As for intentionally losing the case to appeal to a higher court, I don't think you need to try to lose, just go in and defend to the best of your ability, and if you lose, then you can appeal. I don't think anyone needs to intentionally try and lose when it comes to the (in)justice system since it is designed to make you lose.

reply to post by filosophia


I couldn't agree with you more. Losing in our Legal system is easy to do, it's the defending yourself that's the hard part.

In all sincerity, good luck. I've no advice but to keep your cool as I fear the bench will become hostile once your position becomes clear and try to bait you into a contempt charge. Where I live in Illinois, it's state law that drivers must be licensed.

I'll be curious how this turns out.

I have to admit that I don't understand why you have chosen this way to fight the establishment but will cheer you on just the same.

Best of luck.

reply to post by Wildbob77


I must say that the current issue truly is rather arbitrary, and of this I'm well aware. However, that's usually how change begins. It's a slow process. The more people that become aware of the system around them and how it operates; the better. If two people in the Courtroom in December pay attention to what I'm saying, and what's going on, and end up going home to educate themselves, I will consider it a victory. Even if I lose the case itself.

Originally posted by Namaste
reply to post by RestingInPieces

 

Now you're just arguing semantics. Especially considering responsible is an acceptable definition for accountable.

You're confusing synonymous words (i.e. words with contextual relationships) as meaning exactly the same thing.

Touche. You've raised a very valid argument. Perhaps make the classes compulsory in a grade that is itself compulsory. I do think that this is rather beside the point however; as I, and many others, had a good understanding of the street signs and how traffic functioned well before we were even eligible to obtain a Lisence.

No grades are compulsory, and I had a good understanding of mathematics before I got my degree...

On the note of Traveling vs. Driving. Is a trail a construct? Or must it be paved? Am I not traveling A to B when I go to work? Or on my way home? Is being detoured by a stop sign any different than being detoured by a rock on the trail? Is being detoured at a three-way intersection any different than coming to a fork on the trail? When I'm jogging the mountain path here in town and see a sign indicating a fork I should then deduce that I am "driving" because I saw an artificial sign? Hardly. Also, I understand that I am in fact currently arguing semantics after calling you out on doing the same, but you must understand; it has purpose, and is not just for the sake of argument. Within the Legal system words are binding. They mean everything. Driving vs. Travelling is a Legal pitfall in and of itself. Driving implies travel for commercial use, such as a delivery boy, or cab driver; in which case you do need to have some sort of Lisencing as there is an exchange of currency involved. Travelling does not denote commercial purposes. That is why the Law Enforcement Officer that detains you on the side of the road almost always asks "Where you were driving to, or driving from." The use of Drive is intentional for court purposes whether the LEO was consciously aware of it or not.

Words used in a legal context hardly ever have absolute meaning. The majority of the time, their meanings are given within the document that they are used. For other times, the common definition is used. You can almost 100% of the time find out what whichever word means in the context of the legal document that it was written.

For example, from the Florida 2010 Statutes Title 23, Chapter 322:

“Drive” means to operate or be in actual physical control of a motor vehicle in any place open to the general public for purposes of vehicular traffic.

You'll read this and then go on about what you think "motor vehicle" really means and repeat some stupid definition you got off of a "truth" site. Why not just read the actual definition within the document that it is used?

“Motor vehicle” means any self-propelled vehicle, including a motor vehicle combination, not operated upon rails or guideway, excluding vehicles moved solely by human power, motorized wheelchairs, and motorized bicycles

.. and then you'll probably go "Hey! well the term 'motor vehicle combination' is obviously a legal trap to make me give up my rights:

“Motor vehicle combination” means a motor vehicle operated in conjunction with one or more other vehicles.

Then I suspect you'll give me some crap about what "vehicle" means. Well, just take a look at what it means:

“Vehicle” means every device in, upon, or by which any person or property is or may be transported or drawn upon a public highway or operated upon rails or guideway, except a bicycle, motorized wheelchair, or motorized bicycle.

Then you lot go on about the difference between commercially driving (even though it's been defined already) and blah blah blah...

“Driver’s license” means a certificate that, subject to all other requirements of law, authorizes an individual to drive a motor vehicle and denotes an operator’s license as defined in 49 U.S.C. s. 30301.

“Commercial driver’s license” means a Class A, Class B, or Class C driver’s license issued in accordance with the requirements of this chapter.

“Commercial motor vehicle” means any motor vehicle or motor vehicle combination used on the streets or highways, which:
(a) Has a gross vehicle weight rating of 26,001 pounds or more;
(b) Is designed to transport more than 15 persons, including the driver; or
(c) Is transporting hazardous materials and is required to be placarded in accordance with Title

It's all there. It's clear as day. Look it up in any state. Go ahead.

I suspect you'll voluntarily "forget" the definition of other words there in order to fit your world view.

Originally posted by Namaste
Any questions, comments, concerns; feel free to reply. No post is too large or too small. Except maybe one liners?

I would like very much to know the outcome of this. Could you post what happens?

Well you deserve an Applause even if this does not work in your favor. I am certain this Judge will only require the payment of the ticket, after all he cannot take your license.

I really am on your side, one day soon the World is going to "crack wide open" and machines, the roads, and any other thing that rolls by will be of our own volition.

I am so Cheering for you on this end!! I really am!

My little brother when he was young, never got driver license and never rented or owned property.
We considered him a mooch.
But one day he was driving drunk without a license was detain and went to court.
At the arraignment the judge released him told him to go get a driver license and give a address of where he lived.
They set up a court date at that time.
He went to that court date but never got a driver license told the judge he still lived on the streets of America and the court dismissed the case because he never entered into a contract to agree to be bound by State laws with the State.
So I learned to look at him not as a mooch but maybe more intelligent then me, as he never entered into a contract with the State.
He later got in more trouble caved in, and entered into contracts that have screwed him after that.

reply to post by RestingInPieces


I think that at this point, the best thing to do is allow my day in court to pass before you should decide to pass any more judgements upon me. I truly do not appreciate your decision to assume where I have gathered any information or your decision to lump me into whichover "lot" you have so chosen.

Originally posted by Namaste
reply to post by RestingInPieces

 

I think that at this point, the best thing to do is allow my day in court to pass before you should decide to pass any more judgements upon me. I truly do not appreciate your decision to assume where I have gathered any information or your decision to lump me into whichover "lot" you have so chosen.

I am not making any judgments, I think the I do not understand defense maybe the best one.
And if you are in WY, say hi to my little brother but I would not recommend having a drink with him in any Cheyenne Bars.

Originally posted by Namaste
If two people in the Courtroom in December pay attention to what I'm saying, and what's going on, and end up going home to educate themselves, I will consider it a victory. Even if I lose the case itself.

You will lose,and the 2 people you educate will go home and tell others of the bloke who believed what a damn fool conspiracy site said, and the trouble he got into!

reply to post by dereks


Lol The worst "trouble" he can get into is losing the case and having to pay the ticket.

Good luck OP, I'm rooting for you!

I too do not understand where the State is involved, when it comes to using your property: i.e your means of conveyance... (motorized vehicle), and the forced Licsensing, and insuring/inspection of your property to use how the states sees fit. I have heard of the state issued, certified copy of the vehicle title, being a surrerder of certain rights... as you some what forfiet, actual ownership. not too sure how the UCC plays that one out: i would hate for the court to bring up evidence that you have been in "contract" with the state, because of the certificate of title, issued by the state... They use this document to prove legal ownership, where your FIRST and LAST name appears on this document, usually address, and the vin number of your automobile... however, i have done a small amout of research on the MSO (Manufacturer's Statement of Origin), being the true TITLE of the vehicle.

As if the dealerships are set up to surrender the MSO, to the state, so when a car is sold the state has some involment in the transaction, which would then give them some from of jurisdiction over you and the vehicle you possess... however you did mention voiding previous contracts, by unknowing parties, as the terms of the contract have not been fully understood by both, or maybe in this case all three parties...

Good luck, i think you'll beat this case...

Originally posted by Namaste
reply to post by Greensage

 

That being said, any contract they signed me up for when registering my vehicle becomes a contract that I entered into unvoluntarily and can be voided.

You are being as presumptuous as they are!

You really need to do some deeper research. If you are planning on being a "freeman" doesn't that come with responsibilities not to infringe on the rights of others? Are you not infringing by driving on the highways and behaving in a flagrant manner? What about insurance if you hurt someone else?

And in the meantime I would suggest finding a better way to get around---carpool, bus, bicycle, etc.



Edit to add:

Originally posted by Namaste


That being said, any contract they signed me up for when registeri

THEY signed you up? What? Did they hold your hand and move it around for you to sign your name? You can't even take responsibility for your own actions in doing that??? Nobody "signed you up" but YOU! It was your own free will choice.

Originally posted by Namaste
reply to post by tigpoppa

 

How does the U.C.C. not apply to Lousiana? It's a Federal issue.

Louisiana uses a different commercial code due to their french roots in law.

First thought. The charge.

Driving or Operating a motor vehicle without a valid license.

Driving what is the legalese definition of driving? Or the operating a motor vehicle?

First off, as both you and JPZ have postulated is that to even plea, is to admit jurisdiction. Further, is the very ticket or violation given an admission of jurisdiction.

Tell me OP, did you sign the ticket with the 1-207 disclaimer? Or the all rights reserved or the myriad other forms?

By the way, I too have gone this route. Two years now but no violations so. Will be doing the same as you when it happens. But I will be applying the jurisdictional aspect when confronted by the officer of the court, AKA LEO. I will state my name, address and birthdate. I will inform the officer by my knowledge of law any and all further communication could be considered evidence in a court of law. Being as such, I do not give permission to the officer of the court, to engage me in anymore conversation. I ask for assistance of council if they want any further communication. Now, by just asking for assistance has not placed me into jurisdiction. Later if I am stupid enough to sign any agreement with said council, then it could so I will ask for assistance with no said contract of agreement.

Anyway back to the court. First off, anything that is mentioned or agreed upon by a defendant, is said to be factual in a court of law. Even the existence of jurisdiction of the court. I agree on the jurisdictional questions first. First the court has to prove their jurisdiction, next the state would have to prove that they actually represent the state (society) which is "supposedly" the aggrieved party to the said contract. This of course is the next step if the jurisdictional argument does not work. The state is presenting evidence when they state they represent the said aggrieved party, correct?

What I am getting at here is when in the presentment of a case in front of a jury, an objection can be raised to the prosecutor presenting evidence that has not been proven. Let us say that the prosecution stands and begins to talk.

You :I object.
Judge: What is your objection.
You: The prosecution is attempting to state as fact, that which has not been presented.
Judge: And what is that evidence?
You: That the prosecution represents the aggrieved party.

One component I have been researching lately.

Will be paying attention to thread. Keep us informed.

reply to post by Namaste


I might say... I like your courage. First things first however. When entering the courtroom, your showing up to defend your sovereign
lf, however, strawman theory would suggest that showing up at all is admission to strawman, so when in court
Verbally say you are "uppercase J lower case o, lower case h lower case n" etc with your full name. As of a 2nd thing, blacks law dictionary states a driver as one that uses the roads for revenue. And that's a main key in a loop hole. Since, you make no money from the highways assuming. Get your affidavits in order to proclaim your status and revecation of adhesion contracts. Might I also add that Johnny Liberty has a fantastic book called "the global sovereign" downloadable for free. Very good info in it. I've not yet tried what you are doing, because my license is revoked and I'm not sure where that leaves me. Aside from the state breaking their own contract, which is illegal to begin with. I truly will keep you in my positive conscious. I've been studying ucc law and such for 2 years. Not many people know about it. Feel free to network with me. I have TONS of resources on this subject alone. Hopefully more and more people will start seeing the truth before its too late and defending ourselves. Oh, as well, the courts do not AT all like people like you "outting" the system. Try to send in the ticket you have as of now replying ucc 1-207 before you go in. Keep a copy of course. I have used that for a friends ticket to make the courts aware of his status. And it did work. But make sure it works so you don't allow a warrant to be issued.