Latest topics
» The Pagan Roots of Christmas
Today at 12:01 am by PurpleSkyz

» WHAT IS IT? Massive Lines RETURN Above Earth...
Yesterday at 10:06 pm by PurpleSkyz

» Body Language: The Bush Sr Funeral
Yesterday at 9:47 pm by PurpleSkyz

» Calling it "mammoth"! - Nearly 400,000 without power
Yesterday at 6:45 pm by PurpleSkyz

» Earthquake Swarm Strikes Off Vancouver Island Coast, Eastern Tennessee Activity
Yesterday at 6:41 pm by PurpleSkyz

» DeepMind’s AlphaZero now showing human-like intuition in historical ‘turning point’ for AI
Yesterday at 6:39 pm by PurpleSkyz

» Kabbalah Secrets Revealed! An Expose 2/2 Doreen Dotan
Yesterday at 6:23 pm by Consciousness Of Economic

» Kabbalah Secrets Revealed! An Expose 1/2 Doreen Dotan
Yesterday at 6:17 pm by Consciousness Of Economic

» Arrested Huawei CFO’s Bail “Couldn’t Be High Enough”
Yesterday at 5:03 pm by PurpleSkyz

» Bad-clown Rising - CHRISTMAS REPORT
Yesterday at 4:55 pm by PurpleSkyz

» Hypnosis, truth drugs and remote-operated dogs: Declassified papers on CIA’s 'mind control' research
Yesterday at 2:56 pm by Consciousness Of Economic

» Planetary electromagnetic pollution: it is time to assess its impact
Yesterday at 2:55 pm by Consciousness Of Economic

» Brexit: The Final Straight?
Yesterday at 12:41 pm by PurpleSkyz

» Canadian Rally Against Globalists UN Migration Compact (Parliament Building Ottawa)
Yesterday at 12:39 pm by PurpleSkyz

» France - This is NOT about Gas Prices
Yesterday at 12:35 pm by PurpleSkyz

» UFO News ~ UFO Caught On TV News In Texas plus MORE
Yesterday at 12:01 pm by PurpleSkyz

» Eyes Wide Shut
Yesterday at 11:22 am by PurpleSkyz

» Alien Researcher Discovers UFO and Owl Accounts That Defy Any Simple Explanation
Yesterday at 10:48 am by PurpleSkyz

» Quantum Healing - Solfeggio 528 Hz
Yesterday at 10:03 am by PurpleSkyz

» #Q Anon Drama Theater: D5 INDICTMENTS? TRAITORS! TREASON! JUSTICE! plus more
Yesterday at 9:54 am by PurpleSkyz

» Strange light CAPTIVATES two men as they watch it GLOW above Lake Ontario
Yesterday at 9:38 am by PurpleSkyz

» How to see Comet 46P/Wirtanen - The Christmas Comet
Yesterday at 9:34 am by PurpleSkyz

» Blue Chicken Cult Update - California WILDFIRE: David Wilcock Exposes the Scorching TRUTH, Exclusive Interview [Part 1/3]
Yesterday at 12:31 am by PurpleSkyz

» Dozens Of UFOs On Mars Captured By The Curiosity Rover
Yesterday at 12:28 am by PurpleSkyz

» Together with Oumuamua there are another 4 Extraterrestrial Visitors registered in the Solar System
Yesterday at 12:25 am by PurpleSkyz

» Easter Island and The Peruvian Red-Haired Elongated Skull Connection
Yesterday at 12:22 am by PurpleSkyz

» Popocatepetl volcano eruption December 8, 2018
Yesterday at 12:20 am by PurpleSkyz

» NIBIRU News ~ BEST PROOF PLANET X AND THE NIBIRU STAR SYSTEM ARE REALLY COMING! plus MORE
Yesterday at 12:17 am by PurpleSkyz

» E-mail from ZAP SCAMKOWSKI: STAFF
Sat Dec 08, 2018 7:22 pm by 4-truth


CLICK THE SUBSCRIBE BUTTON BELOW TO RECEIVE OUR DAILY NEWSLETTER

A 2ND EMAIL COMPLETES THE ACTIVATION PROCESS




CLICK THE PURPLE BUTTON TO VIEW OUR LATEST POSTS




You are not connected. Please login or register

Out Of Mind » THE INSANITY OF REALITY » GOVERNMENT & THE NEW WORLD ORDER » DRIVERS LICENSE VS RIGHT TO TRAVEL

DRIVERS LICENSE VS RIGHT TO TRAVEL

Go down  Message [Page 1 of 1]

1 DRIVERS LICENSE VS RIGHT TO TRAVEL on Wed Oct 30, 2013 6:57 am

PurpleSkyz

avatar
Admin
DRIVERS LICENSE VS RIGHT TO TRAVEL
 
 
 
 
 
 
1 Vote
Right to Travel
 
DESPITE ACTIONS OF POLICE AND LOCAL COURTS,
HIGHER COURTS HAVE RULED THAT AMERICAN CITIZENS
HAVE A RIGHT TO TRAVEL WITHOUT STATE PERMITS
By Jack McLamb (from Aid & Abet Newsletter)
For years professionals within the criminal justice system have acted on the belief that traveling by motor vehicle was a privilege that was given to a citizen only after approval by their state government in the form of a permit or license to drive. In other words, the individual must be granted the privilege before his use of the state highways was considered legal. Legislators, police officers, and court officials are becoming aware that there are court decisions that disprove the belief that driving is a privilege and therefore requires government approval in the form of a license. Presented here are some of these cases:
CASE #1: “The use of the highway for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege, but a common fundamental right of which the public and individuals cannot rightfully be deprived.” Chicago Motor Coach v. Chicago, 169 NE 221.
CASE #2: “The right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit or permit at will, but a common law right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” Thompson v. Smith, 154 SE 579.
It could not be stated more directly or conclusively that citizens of the states have a common law right to travel, without approval or restriction (license), and that this right is protected under the U.S Constitution.
CASE #3: “The right to travel is a part of the liberty of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment.” Kent v. Dulles, 357 US 116, 125.
CASE #4: “The right to travel is a well-established common right that does not owe its existence to the federal government. It is recognized by the courts as a natural right.” Schactman v. Dulles 96 App DC 287, 225 F2d 938, at 941.
As hard as it is for those of us in law enforcement to believe, there is no room for speculation in these court decisions. American citizens do indeed have the inalienable right to use the roadways unrestricted in any manner as long as they are not damaging or violating property or rights of others. Government — in requiring the people to obtain drivers licenses, and accepting vehicle inspections and DUI/DWI roadblocks without question — is restricting, and therefore violating, the people’s common law right to travel.
Is this a new legal interpretation on this subject? Apparently not. This means that the beliefs and opinions our state legislators, the courts, and those in law enforcement have acted upon for years have been in error. Researchers armed with actual facts state that case law is overwhelming in determining that to restrict the movement of the individual in the free exercise of his right to travel is a serious breach of those freedoms secured by the U.S. Constitution and most state constitutions. That means it is unlawful. The revelation that the American citizen has always had the inalienable right to travel raises profound questions for those who are involved in making and enforcing state laws. The first of such questions may very well be this: If the states have been enforcing laws that are unconstitutional on their face, it would seem that there must be some way that a state can legally put restrictions — such as licensing requirements, mandatory insurance, vehicle registration, vehicle inspections to name just a few — on a citizen’s constitutionally protected rights. Is that so?
For the answer, let us look, once again, to the U.S. courts for a determination of this very issue. In Hertado v. California, 110 US 516, the U.S Supreme Court states very plainly:
“The state cannot diminish rights of the people.”
And in Bennett v. Boggs, 1 Baldw 60,
“Statutes that violate the plain and obvious principles of common right and common reason are null and void.”
Would we not say that these judicial decisions are straight to the point — that there is no lawful method for government to put restrictions or limitations on rights belonging to the people? Other cases are even more straight forward:
“The assertion of federal rights, when plainly and reasonably made, is not to be defeated under the name of local practice.” Davis v. Wechsler, 263 US 22, at 24
“Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them.” Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US 436, 491.
“The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime.” Miller v. US, 230 F 486, at 489.
There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of this exercise of constitutional rights.” Sherer v. Cullen, 481 F 946
We could go on, quoting court decision after court decision; however, the Constitution itself answers our question – Can a government legally put restrictions on the rights of the American people at anytime, for any reason? The answer is found in Article Six of the U.S. Constitution:
“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof;…shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or laws of any State to the Contrary not one word withstanding.”
In the same Article, it says just who within our government that is bound by this Supreme Law:
“The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution…”
Here’s an interesting question. Is ignorance of these laws an excuse for such acts by officials? If we are to follow the letter of the law, (as we are sworn to do), this places officials who involve themselves in such unlawful acts in an unfavorable legal situation. For it is a felony and federal crime to violate or deprive citizens of their constitutionally protected rights. Our system of law dictates that there are only two ways to legally remove a right belonging to the people. These are:

  1. by lawfully amending the constitution, or
  2. by a person knowingly waiving a particular right.

Some of the confusion on our present system has arisen because many millions of people have waived their right to travel unrestricted and volunteered into the jurisdiction of the state. Those who have knowingly given up these rights are now legally regulated by state law and must acquire the proper permits and registrations. There are basically two groups of people in this category:
More- http://www.land.netonecom.net/tlp/ref/right2travel.shtml
===============================================================
Raymond Karczewski
DRIVERS LICENSE VS RIGHT TO TRAVEL
Thu Mar 29 14:52:35 2001
DRIVERS LICENSE VS RIGHT TO TRAVEL
George Lee McElroy wrote:
Raymond Karczewski wrote:
rk: I received Mr. McElroy’s letter to DA Clay Johnson (see below) and was given permission to repost it. May I suggest readers also repost it widely for whomever has the intelligence to understand the conversion of our Unalienable Rights and Freedoms into the slavery of governmental “Privilege” where an Inalienable Right can be transformed into a Crime.
rk: It would seem that some people are waking up to this Insurance Industry/Government Bureaucracy-instigated Driver’s Licensing “Construction Fraud” long perpetrated upon the gullible American People by its mind-controlling government.
rk: It appears that we are no longer a nation governed by Constitutional Law, but have slowly and incrementlly through mind control techniques (Propaganda) become a nation controlled and dominated by bureaucratic regulation which operates under the shadowy “color” of law. Such could not happen if the public “Traveller” who travels the public roadways in the “usual conveyance of the day,” i.e., private automobile, for nonbusiness, private purposes were not coerced into entering a contract without full disclosure of the contract’s terms being made at the
time. Signing that contract without full knowledge of its terms requires one to waive one’s Contitutional Rights and accept the full terms of a regulatory contract with penalties and sanctions designed to police the actions and conduct of those who use the public roadways for business or profit.
rk: It is through such nefarious manipulations that confusion regarding the relationship of a people and with its government emerges, wherein the Master — the people — become the Servant, and the Servant — the government — becomes the Master. Such is the transformation from Freedom to Tyranny when Rights are converted into Privileges.
rk: Here in the United States, isn’t it time we took back control of our country? Isn’t it time we took back control over our lives?
rk: How many reading this have been damaged psychologically and financially by such fraud through fines, incarceration, and or coercive participation in mental health program followup, and are up for joining in and launching a Class Action Law Suit against the government in this issue?
rk; Yes, folks, the curtain has been lifted and it’s about time YOU PAID ATTENTION to the WIZARD BEHIND IT.
Ray Karczewski
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Clay Johnson
District Attorney
Josephine County, Oregon
500 N.W. 6th Street / Courthouse
Grants Pass, Oregon 97526
Mr. Johnson,
Free people have a right to travel on the roads that are provided by their servants for that purpose, using ordinary transportation of the day. Licensing cannot be required of free people because taking on the restrictions of a license requires the surrender of a right. The drivers license can be required of people who use the highways for trade, commerce or hire; that is, if they earn their living on the road, and they use extraordinary machines on the roads. In other words, if you are not using the highways for profit, you cannot be required to have a drivers license.
Personal liberty consists of the power of locomotion, of changing situations, of removing one’s person to whatever place one’s inclination may direct, without imprisonment or restraint unless by due process of law. Streets and highways are established and maintained for the purpose of travel and transportation by the public. Such travel may be for business or pleasure. The use of the highways for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege, but a common and fundamental right of which the public and the individual cannot be rightfully deprived.
Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation that would abrogate them. The claim and exercise of a Constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime. There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of this exercise of Constitutional rights. I believe a great fraud has been perpetrated against the free people of the United States of America. Be advised that fraud vitiates the most solemn contract.
I do not make my living on the roads. I have never applied for a grant of driving privileges from the State of Oregon in the form of a license. I was, however, on 10/15/2000, charged with the offense of “No Operators License”. I was given a summons to appear in the Grants Pass Circuit Court. I was not required to sign the summons nor did I agree to appear. The state cannot produce any document signed by me granting an attachment of equity jurisdiction between the United States and me. The Josephine County court, without proper jurisdiction, has attached a liability to me in the amount of $218.75 and assigned it to the Oregon Department of Revenue for collection. I am being threatened with the issuance of a distraint warrant. The DMV has issued me a license number for tracking purposes so they can record a suspension of driving privileges. The state has converted my Constitutional right into a crime without due process of law.
At this time I respectfully demand that all records involving driving or operating privileges, all court records, all assignments, liabilities, and warrants having my name on them be destroyed. This communication, in addition to you, is also being sent to all the major newsgroups on the internet and other groups in the United States that are actively involved in restoring our sacred liberties that are being taken from us one by one by more or less rapid encroachment. I believe in the rule of law. I stand firmly against the abrogation of NATURAL RIGHTS endowed us by our creator.
Sincerely,
George Lee McElroy
Cc: Oregon Department of Revenue
Oregon Department of Motor Vehicles
Representative Carl Wilson
Representative Jason Atkinson
Ray Karczewski
Illinois Valley News
Grants Pass Daily Courier
Josephine County Sheriff, Dave Daniel
Oregon Attorney General, Hardy Meyers
United States Attorney General, John Ashcroft
 
============================
 
Raymond Karczewski
Re: Here’s your controlling law Raymond — OR IS IT???
Thu Mar 29 18:29:40 2001
Re: Here’s your controlling law Raymond — OR IS IT???
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2001 23:54:45 GMT
From: Immature and irresponsible (unknown)
unk: You’re incoherent
unk: Why do you think only drivers of commercial vehicles need demonstrate driving competence? Are other drivers any less dangerous? Why? And what are your legal references to support any of your claims? I see nothing in your posts to support your argument in logic or law.
rk: Then you are not only an ignoramus but a blind one at that!
In the strict Letter of the Word environment which pervades the the legislative/judicial aspects of government, do not Oregon Revised Statutes § 807.080 (1999) fall within the Maxim
Res Ipsa Loquitor, i.e., “It Speaks for Itself.”?
rk: If you would like to read it ONCE MORE and see what I mean, HERE IT IS AGAIN.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`
Oregon Revised Statutes § 807.080 (1999)
807.080. Driver competency testing certificates; waiver of demonstration test for persons certified; rules; fees.
(1) The Department of Transportation, by rule, shall provide for the following in a manner consistent with this section: (a) The issuance of driver competency testing certificates. (b) The regulation of persons issued driver competency testing certificates.
(2) A person issued a driver competency testing certificate under this section may certify, in a manner established by the department, the competency of drivers to safely exercise driving privileges granted only under one or more of the following:
(a) A Class A commercial driver license.
(b) A Class B commercial driver license.
(c) A Class C commercial driver license.
(3) The department may waive an actual demonstration of ability to operate a motor vehicle under ORS 807.070 for an applicant who is certified by the holder of a driver competency testing certificate as competent to exercise the driving privileges in the class of license sought by the applicant.
(4) The rules adopted by the department under this section may include any of the following:
(a) The rules may establish reasonable fees for the issuance of a certificate or as part of any program of regulating certificate holders that is established by the department.
(b) The department may make the certificate renewable upon any basis determined convenient by the department and may include provisions for cancellation, revocation or suspension of certificates or for probation of certificate holders.
(c) The department may provide for the issuance of certifications allowing the holder to certify competency in several classes or types of driving privileges or limiting the classes or types of driving privileges for which the holder may certify competency.
(d) The department may establish the forms of certificates to be issued.
(e) The department may establish and require forms that are to be used by certificate holders in certifying competency.
(f) The department may establish any qualifications or requirements for obtaining a certificate that the department determines necessary to protect the interests of persons seeking certification by certificate holders.
(g) The department may issue certificates to publicly owned and operated educational facilities to allow programs for certification of competency.
(h) The department may issue certificates to employers to allow the employers to establish programs primarily for the certification of employees’ competency. The department may provide that programs established under this paragraph may be operated without driver training school certificates under ORS 822.500 and without driver training instructor certificates under ORS 822.525.
(i) The department may establish any other provisions or requirements necessary to carry out the purposes of this section.
HISTORY: 1985 c.608 § 36; 1989 c.636 § 20
 
====================================
 
Raymond Karczewski
Here’s your controlling law Raymond — OR IS IT???
Thu Mar 29 17:34:43 2001
Here’s your controlling law Raymond — OR IS IT???
unk: Here’s your controlling law Raymond
Re: DRIVERS LICENSE VS RIGHT TO TRAVEL (Raymond Karczewski)
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2001 22:02:55 GMT
From: Maybe you’d like to actually read it? (unknown)
unk: Here is the legislation duly enacted by representatives of the people. You’ll notice, if you take the trouble to actually read the controlling law here, that teh purspoe of the license is to protect public safety, a compelling governmental interest that is upheld by appellate review.
rk: You will also notice that such legislation SPECIFICALLY applies ONLY TO “drivers” and commercially “driven” motor Vehicles, (check out legal definition of “driver” and “motor vehicle”) AND NOT to Travellers and their private automobiles used in noncommercial activities.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Oregon Revised Statutes § 807.080 (1999)
807.080. Driver competency testing certificates; waiver of demonstration test for persons certified; rules; fees.
(1) The Department of Transportation, by rule, shall provide for the following in a manner consistent with this section: (a) The issuance of driver competency testing certificates. (b) The regulation of persons issued driver competency testing certificates.
(2) A person issued a driver competency testing certificate under this section may certify, in a manner established by the department, the competency of drivers to safely exercise driving privileges granted only under one or more of the following:
(a) A Class A commercial driver license.
(b) A Class B commercial driver license.
(c) A Class C commercial driver license.
(3) The department may waive an actual demonstration of ability to operate a motor vehicle under ORS 807.070
for an applicant who is certified by the holder of a driver competency testing certificate as competent to exercise the driving privileges in the class of license sought by the applicant.
(4) The rules adopted by the department under this section may include any of the following:
(a) The rules may establish reasonable fees for the issuance of a certificate or as part of any program of regulating certificate holders that is established by the department.
(b) The department may make the certificate renewable upon any basis determined convenient by the department and may include provisions for cancellation, revocation or suspension of certificates or for probation of certificate holders.
(c) The department may provide for the issuance of certifications allowing the holder to certify competency in several classes or types of driving privileges or limiting the classes or types of driving privileges for which the holder may certify competency.
(d) The department may establish the forms of certificates to be issued.
(e) The department may establish and require forms that are to be used by certificate holders in certifying competency.
(f) The department may establish any qualifications or requirements for obtaining a certificate that the department determines necessary to protect the interests of persons seeking certification by certificate holders.
(g) The department may issue certificates to publicly owned and operated educational facilities to allow programs for certification of competency.
(h) The department may issue certificates to employers to allow the employers to establish programs primarily for the certification of employees’ competency. The department may provide that programs established under this paragraph may be operated without driver training school certificates under ORS 822.500 and without driver training instructor certificates under ORS 822.525.
(i) The department may establish any other provisions or requirements necessary to carry out the purposes of this section.
HISTORY: 1985 c.608 § 36; 1989 c.636 § 20
=================================
Rev. Dr. J.D. Hooker
reply
Thu Mar 29 15:44:33 2001
This is just my own opinion, & anyone’s free to disagree!!!
The Amish folks don’t get drivers licenses, & they use the roadways!! BUT–they don’t operate lethally dangerous iron motor vehicles either! In most states you can also drive a farm tractor on public roadways without any sort of license! They also don’t have the EXPENSE of fuel, oil, tires, tune-ups & so forth! IF you’re going to operate a car or truck, I’d recommend taking the trouble to get a license. If you don’t want to, then why not trade in your car for a horse& buggy, or for a John Deere?
===============================
Armey Exposes Traffic-Light Spying
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/traffic-light.htm
 
Driver Licensing vs. the Right to Travel
http://user.icx.net/~drherb/licensing.html
 
Wood County Texas Courts’
Violation of Soverign Citizen’s, Constitutional Right’s
http://user.icx.net/~drherb/licensing.html  
 
COMMON LAW VEHICULAR JUDICIAL NOTICE
CONSTITUTIONAL DRIVERS LICENSE
http://justiceprose.8m.com/carl/carl41.html
 
STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
C2-96-1116
http://www.lawlibrary.state.mn.us/archive/ctappub/9702/c2961116.htm
 
 
Driver’s License is a Contract
between you and the Motor Vehicle Department
http://www.svpvril.com/drilic.html
 
THE AMERICAN HALLUCINATION
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/halluc.htm
 
The Right to Travel
vs.
Driver’s License Scam
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/drivers-license-scam.htm
 
Subscribe to apfn-1
Powered by groups.yahoo.com
 
American Patriot Friends Network
 
“…a network of net workers…”
 
APFN IS NOT A BUSINESS
APFN IS SUPPORTED BY “FREE WILL” GIFT/DONATIONS
Without Justice, there is JUST_US!
http://www.apfn.org 

Last updated 12/04/2010




Thanks to: http://ascendingstarseed.wordpress.com



  

2 Re: DRIVERS LICENSE VS RIGHT TO TRAVEL on Wed Oct 30, 2013 11:23 am

1ness

avatar
Greetings and salutations brothers and sisters,
Sorry for any errors. Trying to do this from my phone.
We at the divine province have been doing this for 2 years now.


This is very important information if you know how to use it.. what I mean by this this is that most police are not trained to know this . most prosecutors do not know this: it is only when you get to the court that the judge know this. For your safety do not argue with the cop. I would only suggest that you keep saying I do not consent I do not understand.. Once you are in court then you make your standing known. Do not answer the cops questions. The police are private contractors. That has been ruled by the courts.. I would suggest take the citations write on it I do not consent and send it back within 3 days. You will either be notified or they will never send you anything. Again if you're are notified you send that back writing the same thing I do not consent to these proceedings. Again on the road with the police is not the time to argue they will hurt you one way or the other.



Prayer is a confession of one's own unworthiness and weakness.
Mohandas Gandhi
http://www.truesourcehealing.com

3 Re: DRIVERS LICENSE VS RIGHT TO TRAVEL on Wed Oct 30, 2013 11:29 am

PurpleSkyz

avatar
Admin
exactly 1ness!

there is also a document that one can file with the County recorders office that exempts you from drivers licensing. I had an excop friend of mine check it out. Blew his socks off. LOL

Hope ALL is well with you 1ness. Nice to see you again. 

Much LOVE to you and ALL



  

4 Re: DRIVERS LICENSE VS RIGHT TO TRAVEL on Wed Oct 30, 2013 12:23 pm

MartyM

avatar
OK, so we know that we have been conned into a contract with the State/DMV even though unknowingly we have waived our right(s)... But you don't want the aggrivation of being stopped every time you go to the store. Soooo if you have a drivers license and you get stopped by a law enforcement official, What's the first thing you should say?  1) "Am I under Arrest?"  2)  "Am I free to GO on my Way?".
  You can check your own State's Code, for the Definition of 'Arrest'. You will likely see that being detained without your permission, IS an Arrest. Now you don't want to be confrontational with the officer, but if he say's you are not free to go, you ARE under Arrest. Do Not make matters worse for yourself, let him give you a summons if he cares to, and be on your way.
  DO NOT, (I repeat) DO NOT, PLEAD to the summons. NOT GUILTY is a Pleading, NO LO is a Pleading. It is best to take the summons in person to the Court and ask for a Hearing, and be sure that they are aware that you are NOT pleading to anything, that you are UNABLE to plead at this time (as you have not received a lagitimate summons), you will Plead at the Hearing (you may wish to caution them, that if they enter a NO-LO Plead on your behalf without your permission or knowledge, that it would constitute Fraud). Be SURE to Write "Unable to Plead" on the Summons.
  What you need to know and understand when you get to the hearing and it starts, the Judge will ask you how you plead to the charges (your answer, You are unable to Plead to an unlawful summons). Now before they start leading you down a path to your destruction, You need to raise the question to the Judge, "By what Authority did the officer make an unlawful arrest?" Since there is NO such authority, the case will/should be dissmissed...
  You see once you know that 1) a lawful Summons can only be issued by the Court/Judge or the District Attorney, not any Police officer, and  2) NO law enforcement entity has the authority to arrest you unless they have personally witnessed you violating or committing a CRIME. The Motor Vehicle Codes are NOT Criminal Statutes, therefore the ARREST was unlawful and any subsequent actions of the officer (summons) are irrelevent (unlawfull). 
  I know this to be true and valid, but as I am NOT an attorney, any advise given is to be used only as an opinion, not legal council. They will only get away with what you allow them to. :)


Hey Purps, would love to know more about that document....





'Tis better to be thought a fool,than to speak and remove all doubt.
     Love,Laughter & Prosperity...  :Santa 3: 

5 Re: DRIVERS LICENSE VS RIGHT TO TRAVEL on Wed Oct 30, 2013 12:38 pm

Herb Lady

avatar
And to think that while growing up I was told that optaining a driver's license was just to show that you can safely operate a motor vehicle and know and understand the signs and rules of the road.... m m m



Take care of the land and the animals and they will take care of you!

Come visit my site at:  https://onlynaturesmagic.com/

6 Re: DRIVERS LICENSE VS RIGHT TO TRAVEL on Wed Oct 30, 2013 12:46 pm

MartyM

avatar
Just One of many of the ways we (the Masters) have been duped by the 'Servents' into becomming the servents.





'Tis better to be thought a fool,than to speak and remove all doubt.
     Love,Laughter & Prosperity...  :Santa 3: 

7 Re: DRIVERS LICENSE VS RIGHT TO TRAVEL on Wed Oct 30, 2013 1:56 pm

1ness

avatar
We at Divine Providence do not ask the government for documents to ask for permission to
Travel. Asking for that document keep you in the jurisdiction of the court. The whole point of this is not to ask permission from a government .this is something that we are working on now and have been for the past 6 months. The powers that be have many ways to try to keep us in the jurisdiction. A summons is an invitation. We at the divine province do not consent to summons. If you did not harm anybody why go through court? Let them drag you in and then you can seek remedy. If you did not consent how can they hold anything over you? The courts are starting to come around to this slowly. We did hold up the Detroit bankruptcy we are working on the freedom of everybody on this planet. This is why I urge you to understand divine providence. You are a divine spiritual being having a human experience and the courts know it. It is up to us individuals is a man and woman to stand u and make clear we know the truth














Prayer is a confession of one's own unworthiness and weakness.
Mohandas Gandhi
http://www.truesourcehealing.com

8 Re: DRIVERS LICENSE VS RIGHT TO TRAVEL on Wed Oct 30, 2013 1:58 pm

1ness

avatar
MartyM wrote:Just One of many of the ways we (the Masters) have been duped by the 'Servents' into becomming the servents.

indeed Marty all by fraud.

http://www.truesourcehealing.com

9 Re: DRIVERS LICENSE VS RIGHT TO TRAVEL on Fri Nov 01, 2013 9:27 am

Guest

avatar
Guest
1ness, I thought the Detroit BK intervenors on behalf of the people was divine province as holder CHair of Saint Peter (& Seal), not Divine Providence, which I thought was a different group. CAn you clarify, please?

Not trying to be divisive or nit pick, but names/words are significant... :)

Thanks again Prpl, 4 ALL U bring here!!

10 Re: DRIVERS LICENSE VS RIGHT TO TRAVEL on Fri Nov 01, 2013 9:29 am

Guest

avatar
Guest
Marty, as usual, U add so much here, also- most appreciated muah 

11 Re: DRIVERS LICENSE VS RIGHT TO TRAVEL on Fri Nov 01, 2013 12:17 pm

1ness

avatar
Hi mom,

You are correct. using speech recognition can be a b**** . You are correct there is no D.  province. the speech does it every time. Sorry for not making corrections. Divine. Province is the country I belong with. These days I only have the phone to work from Thanks mom for pointing out :}
Lovelightblessings
1ness

http://www.truesourcehealing.com

12 Re: DRIVERS LICENSE VS RIGHT TO TRAVEL on Fri Nov 01, 2013 3:16 pm

Guest

avatar
Guest
Thanks 4 the clarification, 1ness. I think Divine Providence is in deed a different group I know little if anything about. What I see of divine province ( U, me and all people who choose to learn to "go there") is very impressive. Have used their Treaty for the AMericas as attachment to other docs recently issued. The idea of Giving Notice to ptb/were, as opposed to asking permission, resonates highly with me; all about knowing who (and WHose) one is and who they are as subjects to us as public servants ( & equals otherwise) ☀ : thumbs up: 

13 Re: DRIVERS LICENSE VS RIGHT TO TRAVEL on Fri Nov 01, 2013 4:07 pm

1ness

avatar
Hey mom,
you are most welcome.Treaty for the AMericas, is very powerful. Also if are not already, send a title  18 doc so they know that they can and will be held to account. you can find it open on the web now.

To All, NEVER FILE docs with the courts. that gives jurisdiction, only NOTICE them. This keeps you above them while at the same time they get your docs. more at Divine Province about this. there is a free membership to start you on the path if YOU choose.

The more individuals start NOTICING THE COURTS the faster the whole world changes.
lovelightblessings
1ness

http://www.truesourcehealing.com

14 Re: DRIVERS LICENSE VS RIGHT TO TRAVEL on Fri Nov 01, 2013 6:07 pm

Guest

avatar
Guest
as opposed to FILING docs - I believe one can LODGE Notices; not a term often used or known, but implies a superior position, imo. Since I do not care to go into their temples, I usually mail them by certificate of mailing, and or deposit them into their overnite drop box (for payments). Recently I placed a USPS Certificate of Mailing on the deposited dropbox pkgs. with a 1 cent stamped autograph cancelled with our House Seal as private postmaster; with statement of day and approximate time of delivery service. I do keep copies of these envelope fronts for my records, of course. Sometimes I call to confirm receipt & note who , when for my record also, as i've had a friendly, respectful relationship with all clerks.

Back to top  Message [Page 1 of 1]

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum