OUT OF MIND
Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.
Latest topics
» Czech Prime Minister Ends Vaccine Mandates: ‘We Do Not Want to Deepen the Rifts in Society’
DRIVER'S LICENSE IS NEEDED UNLESS ENGAGED IN COMMERCE HOAX  FIRST, SEE THE HOAX HERE by Snoop4truth EmptyToday at 2:49 pm by PurpleSkyz

» Former White House Physician Demands Biden Take Cognitive Test After Weird Presser Breakdown
DRIVER'S LICENSE IS NEEDED UNLESS ENGAGED IN COMMERCE HOAX  FIRST, SEE THE HOAX HERE by Snoop4truth EmptyToday at 1:26 pm by PurpleSkyz

» Ghislaine Maxwell files for a RETRIAL
DRIVER'S LICENSE IS NEEDED UNLESS ENGAGED IN COMMERCE HOAX  FIRST, SEE THE HOAX HERE by Snoop4truth EmptyToday at 1:21 pm by PurpleSkyz

» Curiosity rover finds possible evidence of life on Mars
DRIVER'S LICENSE IS NEEDED UNLESS ENGAGED IN COMMERCE HOAX  FIRST, SEE THE HOAX HERE by Snoop4truth EmptyToday at 1:13 pm by PurpleSkyz

»  US Airlines: ‘Dangerous 5G Rollout Will Grind Commerce to a Halt’
DRIVER'S LICENSE IS NEEDED UNLESS ENGAGED IN COMMERCE HOAX  FIRST, SEE THE HOAX HERE by Snoop4truth EmptyToday at 12:26 pm by PurpleSkyz

» Parents Outraged Over Photo of Teacher Taping Mask to Child’s Face
DRIVER'S LICENSE IS NEEDED UNLESS ENGAGED IN COMMERCE HOAX  FIRST, SEE THE HOAX HERE by Snoop4truth EmptyToday at 12:20 pm by PurpleSkyz

» Pandemic Narrative Undergoes Radical U-Turn
DRIVER'S LICENSE IS NEEDED UNLESS ENGAGED IN COMMERCE HOAX  FIRST, SEE THE HOAX HERE by Snoop4truth EmptyToday at 12:12 pm by PurpleSkyz

» NHS Doctor Tells Patient NOT to Take Covid Vaccine Because They Will Be PULLED Soon
DRIVER'S LICENSE IS NEEDED UNLESS ENGAGED IN COMMERCE HOAX  FIRST, SEE THE HOAX HERE by Snoop4truth EmptyToday at 11:57 am by PurpleSkyz

» Maine Doctor Loses License, Ordered to Undergo Psych Evaluation for Treating Covid Patients with Ivermectin, ‘Spreading Covid Misinformation’
DRIVER'S LICENSE IS NEEDED UNLESS ENGAGED IN COMMERCE HOAX  FIRST, SEE THE HOAX HERE by Snoop4truth EmptyToday at 11:48 am by PurpleSkyz

» The doctor who quit her job after being suspended for promoting ivermectin, criticizing mandates sues Houston Methodist
DRIVER'S LICENSE IS NEEDED UNLESS ENGAGED IN COMMERCE HOAX  FIRST, SEE THE HOAX HERE by Snoop4truth EmptyToday at 11:42 am by PurpleSkyz

» EUDRA Stats thru January 15th, 2022
DRIVER'S LICENSE IS NEEDED UNLESS ENGAGED IN COMMERCE HOAX  FIRST, SEE THE HOAX HERE by Snoop4truth EmptyToday at 11:37 am by PurpleSkyz

» The Political Timing of the End of the Pandemic
DRIVER'S LICENSE IS NEEDED UNLESS ENGAGED IN COMMERCE HOAX  FIRST, SEE THE HOAX HERE by Snoop4truth EmptyYesterday at 7:54 pm by PurpleSkyz

» Australia throws Novak Djokovic out of the country, declares no unvaccinated athlete is welcome
DRIVER'S LICENSE IS NEEDED UNLESS ENGAGED IN COMMERCE HOAX  FIRST, SEE THE HOAX HERE by Snoop4truth EmptyYesterday at 7:50 pm by PurpleSkyz

» False Flags Suddenly No Longer A Crazy Conspiracy Theory
DRIVER'S LICENSE IS NEEDED UNLESS ENGAGED IN COMMERCE HOAX  FIRST, SEE THE HOAX HERE by Snoop4truth EmptyYesterday at 7:45 pm by PurpleSkyz

» Five nurses speak out about what is really going on in hospitals
DRIVER'S LICENSE IS NEEDED UNLESS ENGAGED IN COMMERCE HOAX  FIRST, SEE THE HOAX HERE by Snoop4truth EmptyYesterday at 1:51 pm by vhud

» Boris Johnson: "The government will no longer mandate the wearing of face masks"
DRIVER'S LICENSE IS NEEDED UNLESS ENGAGED IN COMMERCE HOAX  FIRST, SEE THE HOAX HERE by Snoop4truth EmptyYesterday at 11:35 am by PurpleSkyz

» Updated Info: Olympic Sprinter Announces Pericarditis Diagnosis on Facebook Following Pfizer Booster Jab
DRIVER'S LICENSE IS NEEDED UNLESS ENGAGED IN COMMERCE HOAX  FIRST, SEE THE HOAX HERE by Snoop4truth EmptyYesterday at 11:10 am by PurpleSkyz

» Dr. Reiner Fuellmich: Latest Bombshell About COVID “Vaccines” W
DRIVER'S LICENSE IS NEEDED UNLESS ENGAGED IN COMMERCE HOAX  FIRST, SEE THE HOAX HERE by Snoop4truth EmptyYesterday at 11:08 am by PurpleSkyz

» Astronomers Analyze Impact of SpaceX’s Starlink Satellites
DRIVER'S LICENSE IS NEEDED UNLESS ENGAGED IN COMMERCE HOAX  FIRST, SEE THE HOAX HERE by Snoop4truth EmptyYesterday at 11:01 am by PurpleSkyz

» Canadian Business Owners Fight Back Against New Lockdowns
DRIVER'S LICENSE IS NEEDED UNLESS ENGAGED IN COMMERCE HOAX  FIRST, SEE THE HOAX HERE by Snoop4truth EmptyYesterday at 10:57 am by PurpleSkyz

» Good People Doing Good Things — Little Things Mean A Lot
DRIVER'S LICENSE IS NEEDED UNLESS ENGAGED IN COMMERCE HOAX  FIRST, SEE THE HOAX HERE by Snoop4truth EmptyYesterday at 10:44 am by PurpleSkyz

» VAXXED Blood - The Issue of Transfusions
DRIVER'S LICENSE IS NEEDED UNLESS ENGAGED IN COMMERCE HOAX  FIRST, SEE THE HOAX HERE by Snoop4truth EmptyYesterday at 10:30 am by PurpleSkyz

You are not connected. Please login or register

OUT OF MIND » MEMBER ADVERTISING & BLOG FORUMS » SNOOP 4 TRUTH » DRIVER'S LICENSE IS NEEDED UNLESS ENGAGED IN COMMERCE HOAX FIRST, SEE THE HOAX HERE by Snoop4truth

DRIVER'S LICENSE IS NEEDED UNLESS ENGAGED IN COMMERCE HOAX FIRST, SEE THE HOAX HERE by Snoop4truth

Go down  Message [Page 1 of 1]

PurpleSkyz

PurpleSkyz
Admin

DRIVER'S LICENSE IS NEEDED UNLESS ENGAGED IN COMMERCE HOAX  FIRST, SEE THE HOAX HERE by Snoop4truth 160_F_48828656_veM95gOYnoiJW4myUAbEWiOigYjAmKhX

DRIVER'S LICENSE IS NEEDED UNLESS ENGAGED IN COMMERCE HOAX
FIRST, SEE THE HOAX HERE
[url]]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V9kVCQ0y5Ec[/url].
(Go to:43:30-44:10; 49:30-50:10; 55:00-55:30; 104:00-106:00; 118:30-119:20; & 225:00-225:30. These are the exact times of the hoax.).
THE HOAX: 
Amateur legal theorist, Eddie Craig (shown above), falsely claims that the STATES CANNOT require drivers of motor vehicles to have driver's licenses UNLESS THEY ARE ENGAGED IN “[interstate] COMMERCE". But, this claim is EXACTLY BACKWARDS from (and "OPPOSITE" to) the truth.
THE TRUTH: 
As explained below, the STATES CAN require drivers to have driver's licenses to drive motor vehicles ONLY IF THEY ARE "NOT" ENGAGED IN "[interstate] COMMERCE".
BACKGROUND:
Unknown to Eddie Craig, the original source of the word, “COMMERCE”, as used in connection with driver’s license law is Art. 1, Sec. 8, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution. READ THE THIRD (3RD) CLAUSE HERE. [url]]http://www.annenbergclassroom.org/page/article-i-section-8[/url]. This clause is known as the "INTERSTATE COMMERCE CLAUSE". [url]]https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/commerce_clause[/url]. This clause empowers the FEDERAL government (ONLY) to regulate driver’s licenses ONLY IF the driver IS ENGAGED IN “COMMERCE among [between] the several states” (called “INTERSTATE COMMERCE”).
On the other hand, the tenth amendment reserved to the STATES the power to regulate driver's licenses IN ALL OTHER CONTEXTS NOT DELEGATED TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT in the U.S. Constitution (including driving while "NOT" engaged in "[interstate] COMMERCE"). [url]]https://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment10.html[/url]. This is why the STATES CAN regulate driver's licenses ONLY IF the driver IS "NOT" ENGAGED IN "[interstate] COMMERCE". But, Eddie Craig does not know enough to even realize this.
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW:
Unknown to Eddie Craig, the U.S. Constitution divided the powers (divided legal  jurisdiction) between the FEDERAL government and the STATE governments. This division of powers (division of jurisdiction) WAS BASED ON LEGAL SUBJECT MATTER. The U.S. Constitution only empowered the FEDERAL government to regulate a TINY LIST of legal SUBJECTS that were expressly delegated to it in the U.S. Constitution. The tenth amendment reserved to the STATES the power (the jurisdiction) to regulate EVERYTHING ELSE (ALL OTHER LEGAL SUBJECTS NOT DELEGATED TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IN THE U.S. CONSTITUTION). But, Eddie Craig does not know enough to even realize this.
SIMPLIFICATION:
Under this constitutional division of powers (division of jurisdiction) between the FEDERAL and STATE governments, a legal subject must be regulated EITHER by FEDERAL law OR by STATE law, BUT NOT BY BOTH. So, if a legal subject IS governed by FEDERAL law, it IS NOT governed by STATE law. Likewise, if a legal subject IS governed by STATE law, it IS NOT governed by FEDERAL law. As a result, FEDERAL and STATE governments DO NOT REGULATE THE SAME LEGAL SUBJECTS, THEY REGULATE THE "OPPOSITE" LEGAL SUBJECTS. But, Eddie Craig does not know enough to even realize this.
PURPOSE:
The purpose of this constitutional division of powers was to ensure harmony between the FEDERAL and STATE governments by DIVIDING between them the LEGAL SUBJECTS that each was empowered to regulate. But, Eddie Craig does not know enough to even realize this.
Thus, contrary to Eddie Craig's FALSE claims at 43:30-44:00 here, [url]]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V9kVCQ0y5Ec[/url], it is NOT true that STATE traffic & transportation codes are "BASED ON" the FEDERAL traffic & transportation codes because FEDERAL law and STATE law regulate "OPPOSITE" legal subjects.
CONCLUSION:
If "YOU ARE" a driver engaged in "[interstate] COMMERCE", then you are governed by FEDERAL law (which requires you to have a drivers license to drive a motor vehicle). Conversely, if YOU ARE "NOT" a driver engaged in "[interstate] COMMERCE", then you are governed by STATE law (which requires you to have a driver's license to drive a motor vehicle). Either way, A DRIVER'S LICENSE IS REQUIRED TO DRIVE A MOTOR VEHICLE.  But, Eddie Craig does not know enough to even realize this.
APPLICATION:
So, if you are a driver who has successfully proven (to law enforcement officers and/or to courts) that you WERE "NOT" engaged in "interstate COMMERCE" (as Eddie Craig recommends), then you have just CONCLUSIVELY PROVEN THAT YOU ARE GOVERNED BY STATE LAW (which requires you to have a driver's license to drive a motor vehicle). But, Eddie Craig does not know enough to even realize this.
THE LAW ON THE ENGAGING IN COMMERCE AND THE REQUIREMENT OF A DRIVER'S LICENSE
(Note (BELOW) that this amateur legal theory HAS A 100% FAILURE RATE!)

OVER A CENTURY AGO, THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES HELD THAT THE INDIVIDUAL STATES HAD THE RIGHT TO REQUIRE ALL DRIVERS OF ALL MOTOR VEHICLES TO HAVE DRIVER'S LICENSES, WHETHER OR NOT THE DRIVER WAS ENGAGED IN "INTERSTATE COMMERCE" (exactly OPPOSITE to what Eddie Craig falsely claims).
1). Hendrick v. Maryland, [url]]https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=13681451034893205402&q=%22Hendrick+v.+Maryland%22&hl=en&as_sdt=40006[/url]. In this case, the United States Supreme Court held, "... A STATE MAY rightfully prescribe uniform regulations... in respect to the operation upon its highways of ALL MOTOR VEHICLES —— those moving in interstate commerce AS WELL AS OTHERS [NOT MOVING INTERSTATE COMMERCE!!!]. And to this end it [THE STATE] MAY REQUIRE the REGISTRATION OF SUCH VEHICLES and THE LICENSING OF THEIR DRIVERS... . This is but an exercise of THE POLICE POWER uniformly recognized AS BELONGING TO THE STATES [under the tenth amendment]... ." (in the 8th paragraph at about 70% through the text).
FACT: This decision (above) is from the HIGHEST court in the United States. This court is the ONLY court in the United States which has the power to overturn this decision. But, it has NEVER done so. That means this decision is still the SINGLE CONTROLLING LAW on this subject IN EVERY STATE AND FEDERAL JURISDICTION IN THE UNITED STATES. So, if you find ANY decision from ANY court ANYWHERE in the United States which contains ANY language of ANY type which you interpret as preventing THE STATES from requiring drivers of motor vehicles to have driver's licenses, then YOU HAVE INTERPRETED THAT OTHER DECISION WRONG! There has NEVER been ANY decision from ANY court in the United States which holds, "STATES may not require drivers of motor vehicles to have driver's licenses". But, even if there were such a decision, this decision above would overturn it. 
NOTE: Since this decision, CONGRESS (in compliance with this decision and in compliance with Art. 1, Sec. 8, clause 3, U.S. Const.) passed “NATIONAL” (FEDERAL) legislation regulating ONLY those drivers WHO WERE ENGAGED IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE (Title 49). Under the tenth amendment and under this decision (above), this reserved unto THE STATES the power to regulate ONLY those drivers WHO WERE “NOT” ENGAGED IN "INTERSTATE COMMERCE". In this sense, FEDERAL law and STATE law are now "OPPOSITES" of one anotherBut, Eddie Craig does not know enough to even realize this.
2. El v. Richmond Police Officer Opdyke, [url]]https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=4259598666103911788&q=el+v+richmond+police+officer+opdyke&hl=en&as_sdt=40006[/url]. In this case, an amateur legal theorist unsuccessfully sued an officer who arrested him at a traffic stop. The case reads, "El [the amateur legal theorist] acknowledges that he does not have an 'active' driver's license, but contends that 'IF A PERSON IS NOT ENGAGING IN COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY ON THE HIGHWAYS AND BYWAYS... THAT PERSON DOES NOT NEED A DRIVER'S LICENSE TO TRAVEL IN HIS OWN PRIVATE PROPERTY' [a false claim identical to what Eddie Craig also falsely claims]... ." (at the 3rd paragraph at about 30% though the text). But the court held otherwise and wrote, "[T]HE SUPREME COURT [HAS] STATED: The use of the public highways by motor vehicles, with its consequent DANGERS, renders the reasonableness and NECESSITY OF REGULATION apparent.  THE UNIVERSAL PRACTICE [AMONG THE STATES] IS TO REGISTER OWNERSHIP OF VEHICLES AND TO LICENSE THEIR DRIVERS. ANY [read this term again] appropriate means BY THE STATES to insure competence and care on the part of its [DRIVER'S] LICENSEES and to protect others using the highway is consonant with [COMPLIES WITH] due process. (citation omitted). NOTABLY, THE SUPREME COURT DID NOT LIMIT ITS HOLDING [IN THIS REGARD] TO COMMERCIAL USES OF PUBLIC HIGHWAYS [read this sentence again]." (at the 12th paragraph at about 70% through the text).Translation: Contrary to the claims of Eddie Craig, the STATES are authorized (by the U.S. Constitution and by the Supreme Court) to require drivers of motor vehicles to have driver's licenses and THAT RULE IS NOT LIMITED TO DRIVERS ENGAGED IN "COMMERCE". It is the FEDERAL government (NOT THE STATE GOVERNMENTS) whose driver's license regulations are limited to drivers engaged in "INTERSTATE commerce". But, Eddie Craig does not know enough to even realize this.
3. Scalpi v. Town Of East Fishkill, [url]]https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=11139644895432251605&q=%22Scalpi+v.+Town+Of+East+Fishkill%22&hl=en&as_sdt=40006[/url]. In this case, an amateur legal theorist sued a town and government officials for her many arrests for driving without a driver's license.The case reads, "Plaintiff [the amateur legal theorist] maintains she '[THERE IS NO LAW]... MAKING A DRIVER'S LICENSE MANDATORY... UNLESS... OPERATING... A VEHICLE FOR PROFIT [MEANING FOR COMMERCIAL PURPOSES].'" But, the court held otherwise and cited the following holdings from other cases with approval "... 'THE POWER OF THE STATE TO REGULATE THE USE OF ITS HIGHWAYS IS BROAD AND PERVASIVE'... . (citation omitted). 'A STATE MAY PRESCRIBE REGULATIONS RELATED TO THE OPERATION OF MOTOR VEHICLES ON ITS HIGHWAYS, INCLUDING REGISTRATION AND LICENSING REQUIREMENTS.' (citation omitted). 'AN INDIVIDUAL DOES NOT HAVE A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO DRIVE A MOTOR VEHICLE.' ... (citation omitted). 'IT IS BEYOND DISPUTE THAT STATES MAY IMPOSE DRIVER LICENSING AND VEHICLE REGISTRATION REQUIREMENTS UPON THEIR CITIZENS [read this phrase again]... .' (citation omitted). '[T]HE CONSTITUTION DOES NOT RECOGNIZE A FUNDAMENTAL 'RIGHT TO DRIVE'. Notably, the Supreme Court has held that states may constitutionally regulate the use of public highways WITHOUT LIMITING [THAT RULE'S APPLICATION]... TO COMMERCIAL USES OF PUBLIC HIGHWAYS [read that sentence again]." (citation omitted). (at the 17th paragraph at about 60% through the text). Translation: Contrary to the claims of Eddie Craig, the STATES are authorized (by the U.S. Constitution and by the Supreme Court) to require drivers of motor vehicles to have driver's licenses and THAT RULE IS NOT LIMITED TO DRIVERS ENGAGED IN "COMMERCE". It is the FEDERAL government (NOT THE STATE GOVERNMENTS) whose driver's license regulations are limited to drivers engaged in "INTERSTATE commerce". But, Eddie Craig does not know enough to even realize this.
4. Triemert v. Washington County, [url]]https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=8394652662902108997&q=%22triemert+v+washington+county%22+%22the+gist+of%22&hl=en&as_sdt=40006[/url]. In this case, an amateur legal theorist sued a county and others for issuing him a ticket for driving without a driver's license. The case reads, "The gist of Triemert's [the amateur legal theorist's] legal theory is that THE DEFINITION OF 'DRIVING' in the [IRRELEVANT] United States Transportation Code ('USTC')... AND ALL STATE TRANSPORTATION CODES DERIVED FROM THE USTC [IMAGINARY CODES WHICH DO NOT EXIST], 'REFERS TO PERSONS WHO ARE LICENSED BY OCCUPATION AND OPERATING A MOTOR VEHICLE IN COMMERCE ENGAGED IN THE COMMERCIAL PURPOSE OF HAULING FREIGHT/CARGO OR PASSENGERS OR BOTH [a claim identical to what Eddie Craig also claims].'... . When he was arrested... , Triemert [claimed he] WAS NOT 'DRIVING' OR OPERATING A 'MOTOR VEHICLE' OR 'ENGAGED IN ANY COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY OR PURPOSE IN THE HAULING OF FREIGHT OR PASSENGERS, ACCORDING TO THIS DEFINITION [referring to irrelevant FEDERAL law]'. Additionally, [he claims that] THE [IRRELEVANT FEDERAL] CODE DEFINES 'MOTOR VEHICLE' AS A CONTRIVANCE USED FOR COMMERCIAL PURPOSES [citing irrelevant FEDERAL law]... . [FINALLY] TRIEMERT CLAIMED HE WAS 'TRAVELING' (NOT DRIVING) IN A 'PRIVATE AUTOMOBILE' (NOT A MOTOR VEHICLE) when he was unlawfully stopped and arrested.." But, the court disagreed and dismissed Triemert's lawsuit. Translation: Contrary to the claims of Eddie Craig, the STATES are authorized (by the U.S. Constitution and by the Supreme Court) to require drivers of motor vehicles to have driver's licenses and THAT RULE IS NOT LIMITED TO DRIVERS ENGAGED IN "COMMERCE". It is the FEDERAL government (NOT THE STATE GOVERNMENTS) whose driver's license regulations are limited to drivers engaged in "INTERSTATE commerce".But, Eddie Craig does not know enough to even realize this.
5. State v. Joos, [url]]https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=8394652662902108997&q=%22triemert+v+washington+county%22+%22the+gist+of%22&hl=en&as_sdt=40006[/url]. In this case, an amateur legal theorist appealed his conviction for driving without a proper license. He claimed that... HE DID NOT NEED A DRIVER'S LICENSE because, "ONLY THOSE ENGAGED IN COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY ARE REQUIRED BY [THE STATE DRIVER'S LICENSE LAW]... TO HAVE A VALID OPERATOR'S LICENSE [a false claim identical to what Eddie Craig also falsely claims]... ." But, the court disagreed. As it happened, this very same Defendant had already lost an almost identical case before using an almost identical argument. In discussing that earlier case, the court wrote, "[The]... Defendant argued that the term 'OPERATE' as used in [the STATE driver's license law]...'MEANS HAULING FOR HIRE, an activity in which he was not involved when he received the citations [a false claim identical to what Eddie Craig also falsely claims].'" In rejecting that argument, the court wrote, "WE DO NOT AGREE WITH DEFENDANT THAT [THE DEFINITIONS OF "OPERATE" IN "STATE" LAW]... EQUATE TO 'HAULING FOR HIRE'." Translation: Contrary to the claims of Eddie Craig, the STATES are authorized (by the U.S. Constitution and by the Supreme Court) to require drivers of motor vehicles to have driver's licenses and THAT RULE IS NOT LIMITED TO DRIVERS ENGAGED IN "COMMERCE". It is the FEDERAL government (NOT THE STATE GOVERNMENTS) whose driver's license regulations are limited to drivers engaged in "INTERSTATE commerce". But, Eddie Craig does not know enough to even realize this.
6. Spokane v. Port, [url]]https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=15753721215922597120&q=%22spokane+v.+port%22+&hl=en&as_sdt=40006[/url]. This case reads as follows, "The officer... asked Ms. Port [an amateur legal theorist] for her driver's license... six times. After she refused... , Ms. Port was arrested... for refusal to give information..., no valid operator's license, and [for] resisting arrest... . (at the 2nd paragraph at about 25% through the text). ... Ms. Port claims the STATE licensing statute APPLIES ONLY TO COMMERCIAL OPERATORS OF MOTOR VEHICLES. SHE CLAIMS SINCE SHE WAS NOT ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF TRANSPORTATION, SHE DID NOT VIOLATE THE [STATE DRIVER'S LICENSE LAW]... [a false claim identical to what Eddie Craig also falsely claims].'" (at the 3rd to last paragraph at about 90% through the text). But, the court disagreed and wrote,"Ms. Port's ARGUMENT that [the STATE driver's license law]... REQUIRES A LICENSE ONLY FOR THOSE OPERATING COMMERCIAL VEHICLES IS CLEARLY WITHOUT MERIT [read that phrase again]. [The STATE driver's license law]... DEFINES AN OPERATOR OR DRIVER AS 'EVERY PERSON WHO DRIVES OR WHO IS IN ACTUAL PHYSICAL CONTROL OF A VEHICLE [Translation: "commerce" has NOTHING to do with it].' Since Ms. Port was in actual physical control of her vehicle when stopped, she came under the provisions of [the STATE driver's license laws]... ." (citations omitted). (at the final paragraph at about 95% through the text). Translation: Contrary to the claims of Eddie Craig, the STATES are authorized (by the U.S. Constitution and by the Supreme Court) to require drivers of motor vehicles to have driver's licenses and THAT RULE IS NOT LIMITED TO DRIVERS ENGAGED IN "COMMERCE". It is the FEDERAL government (NOT THE STATE GOVERNMENTS) whose driver's license regulations are limited to drivers engaged in "INTERSTATE commerce".  But, Eddie Craig does not know enough to even realize this.
7. Taylor v. Hale, [url]]https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=9860090939829240302&q=%22taylor+v.+hale%22+%22appears+to+contend%22&hl=en&as_sdt=40006[/url]. In this case, an amateur legal theorist appealed the dismissal of his lawsuit against the judge who presided over his conviction for driving without a driver's license. The court wrote, "Plaintiff [an amateur legal theorist] appears to contend that HE CANNOT BE REQUIRED TO OBTAIN A DRIVER'S LICENSE BECAUSE HE WAS NOT OPERATING A MOTOR VEHICLE FOR A COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY [a false claim identical to what Eddie Craig also falsely claims]. [The Plaintiff claimed]... he was MERELY 'TRAVELING'... . [He claimed that] THE STATE... CAN [ONLY] REGULATE 'COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY' through the requirement of a [driver's] license BUT NOT 'TRAVELING' [a false claim identical to what Eddie Craig also falsely claims]. He contends that the term 'OPERATE' MEANS AND REFERS TO SOMEONE ENGAGING IN COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY in the State [a false claim identical to what Eddie Craig also falsely claims]. The gravamen [core of] of Plaintiff's argument is that BECAUSE HE WAS 'TRAVELING' AND NOT ENGAGED IN A COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY, HE DID NOT 'OPERATE' A MOTOR VEHICLE and was therefore NOT REQUIRED TO HAVE A DRIVER'S LICENSE [a false claim identical to what Eddie Craig also falsely claims].... . But the court ruled otherwise and held, "THE COURT CONCLUDES THAT PLAINTIFF'S ARGUMENT IS WITHOUT MERIT [read that phrase again]... . That [the] Plaintiff can argue that he was NOT 'OPERATING' a motor vehicle BUT MERELY 'TRAVELING' strains credulity. Plaintiff was traveling, BUT HE WAS ALSO 'OPERATING' A VEHICLE; OTHERWISE, THIS WOULD MEAN THAT THE VEHICLE 'OPERATED' ITSELF AND TOOK A ROUNDTRIP FROM DALLAS TO LAKE JACKSON WITHOUT ANY ACT PERFORMED BY PLAINTIFF. 'OPERATING,' as the word is used in [the STATE driver's license law]... DOES NOT REFER TO COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY [read this phrase again]. To the extent that Plaintiff asserts that the license requirement interferes with his RIGHT TO TRAVEL, such argument is WITHOUT MERIT [read this phrase again]. Requiring one to obtain a license to operate a motor vehicle on a state's public highway IS NOT an impermissible or undue burden on INTERSTATE TRAVEL... . Ensuring that one can safely operate a motor vehicle and is familiar with the traffic laws IS A LEGITIMATE EXERCISE OF A STATE'S POLICE POWERS and presents NO constitutional impediment to the RIGHT TO INTERSTATE TRAVEL [read this phrase again]. Translation: Contrary to the claims of Eddie Craig, the STATES are authorized (by the U.S. Constitution and by the Supreme Court) to require drivers of motor vehicles to have driver's licenses and THAT RULE IS NOT LIMITED TO DRIVERS ENGAGED IN "COMMERCE". It is the FEDERAL government (NOT THE STATE GOVERNMENTS) whose driver's license regulations are limited to drivers engaged in "INTERSTATE commerce". But, Eddie Craig does not know enough to even realize this.
8. Williams v. Rice, [url]]https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=5366104849800954068&q=%22Williams+v.+Rice%22++%22not+involved+in+commerce%22&hl=en&as_sdt=40006[/url]. In this case, Williams, an amateur legal theorist, filed a claim in federal court effectively seeking reversal of his state court conviction for "DRIVING ON A SUSPENDED LICENSE... . . [Williams]... was convicted... , and was sentenced to serve SIX MONTHS IN PRISON... ."  In this case, Williams claimed that the state court erred by "deciding that [he]... WAS REQUIRED TO POSSESS A DRIVER'S LICENSE WHEN HE WAS NOT INVOLVED IN COMMERCE UPON THE HIGHWAY [a false claim identical to what Eddie Craig also falsely claims].." But, the appellate court disagreed and dismissed Williams' lawsuit. (at the 4th paragraph at about 45% through the text). Translation: Contrary to the claims of Eddie Craig, the STATES are authorized (by the U.S. Constitution and by the Supreme Court) to require drivers of motor vehicles to have driver's licenses and THAT RULE IS NOT LIMITED TO DRIVERS ENGAGED IN "COMMERCE". It is the FEDERAL government (NOT THE STATE GOVERNMENTS) whose driver's license regulations are limited to drivers engaged in "INTERSTATE commerce". But, Eddie Craig does not know enough to even realize this.
9. State v. Ferrell, [url]]https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=11456459803917680481&q=%22State+v.+Ferrell%22+%22not+engaged+in+commerce%22&hl=en&as_sdt=40006[/url]. In this case, the appellate court wrote, "The Defendant, Richard Ferrell [an amateur legal theorist], was convicted of DRIVING ON A SUSPENDED LICENSE. The trial court subsequently sentenced the Defendant to a term of SIX MONTHS... IN JAIL.... . [The] Defendant... testified that at the time of the accident HE WAS 'TRAVELING' AND NOT ENGAGED IN COMMERCE [an amateur comment of a type Eddie Craig would make]." But, the appellate court disagreed and affirmed the conviction. Translation: Contrary to the claims of Eddie Craig, the STATES are authorized (by the U.S. Constitution and by the Supreme Court) to require drivers of motor vehicles to have driver's licenses and THAT RULE IS NOT LIMITED TO DRIVERS ENGAGED IN "COMMERCE". It is the FEDERAL government (NOT THE STATE GOVERNMENTS) whose driver's license regulations are limited to drivers engaged in "INTERSTATE commerce". But, Eddie Craig does not know enough to even realize this.
10. State v. Williams, [url]]https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=8886781550786925928&q=%22State+v.+Williams%22+%22Freedom+of+travel%22&hl=en&as_sdt=40006[/url]. This case reads, "Appellant, ANTHONY TROY WILLIAMS [A WORLD FAMOUS AMATEUR LEGAL THEORIST], was [convicted by a jury]... FOR DRIVING ON A CANCELED, SUSPENDED OR REVOKED LICENSE, SECOND OFFENSE... .[and]... WAS... SENTENCED... TO SIX MONTHS IN JAIL AND A FINE OF $2,500. On appeal, [WILLIAMS]... argues he is 'NOT REQUIRED TO HAVE A DRIVER'S LICENSE IF HE IS NOT TRAVELING IN COMMERCE [a false claim identical to what Eddie Craig also falsely claims]. But, the court disagreed and affirmed the conviction. Translation: Contrary to the claims of Eddie Craig, the STATES are authorized (by the U.S. Constitution and by the Supreme Court) to require drivers of motor vehicles to have driver's licenses and THAT RULE IS NOT LIMITED TO DRIVERS ENGAGED IN "COMMERCE". It is the FEDERAL government (NOT THE STATE GOVERNMENTS) whose driver's license regulations are limited to drivers engaged in "INTERSTATE commerce". But, Eddie Craig does not know enough to even realize this.
11. (Right To Travel) State v. Schmitz, [url]]https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=17551736594892331440&q=%22State+v.+Schmitz%22++%22not+engaged+in+commerce%22&hl=en&as_sdt=40006[/url]. In this case, Schmitz [an amateur legal theorist] appealed his conviction for DRIVING ON A SUSPENDED LICENSE. On appeal, Schmitz argued, "HE 'WAS NOT ENGAGED IN COMMERCE [such that the STATE traffic laws did not apply to him][a false claim identical to what Eddie Craig also falsely claims]... .'' (at the 9th paragraph at about 50% through the text). In response, the court wrote, "This court has previously considered and REJECTED THIS SAME ARGUMENT." (citing State v. Booher). In Booher, the defendant was also convicted of driving without a license. The defendant there argued that "HE WAS ONLY EXERCISING HIS RIGHT... TO USE HIS PRIVATE PROPERTY ON THE PUBLIC HIGHWAY"... AND THAT, "BECAUSE HE WAS NOT ENGAGED IN COMMERCE [the STATE traffic laws did not apply to him] [a false claim identical to what Eddie Craig also falsely claims]." (at the 12th paragraph, not including block indented portions, at about 70% through the text). But, the court disagreed and affirmed BOTH convictions. Translation: Contrary to the claims of Eddie Craig, the STATES are authorized (by the U.S. Constitution and by the Supreme Court) to require drivers of motor vehicles to have driver's licenses and THAT RULE IS NOT LIMITED TO DRIVERS ENGAGED IN "COMMERCE". It is the FEDERAL government (NOT THE STATE GOVERNMENTS) whose driver's license regulations are limited to drivers engaged in "INTERSTATE commerce". But, Eddie Craig does not know enough to even realize this.
12. (Right To Travel) State v. El-Bey, [url]]https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1064768437589933279&q=%22State+v.+El+Bey%22+%22right+to+travel+documents%22+&hl=en&as_sdt=40006[/url]. In this case, the Defendant was stopped by police. The officer asked the Defendant for his driver's license, but the Defendant handed the officer "his RIGHT TO TRAVEL DOCUMENTS... . [The "Right To Travel" documents]... contained a birth certificate and documents which stated '[Defendant]... was NOT A DRIVER' and that THE 'VEHICLE WAS NOT A MOTOR VEHICLE [UNDER IRRELEVANT FEDERAL LAW] BECAUSE IT WAS NOT INVOLVED IN COMMERCE AND THEREFORE WAS NOT SUBJECT TO THE LAWS OF THE STATE [a false claim identical to what Eddie Craig also falsely claims].'" But, the court disagreed and affirmed the conviction. Translation: Contrary to the claims of Eddie Craig, the STATES are authorized (by the U.S. Constitution and by the Supreme Court) to require drivers of motor vehicles to have driver's licenses and THAT RULE IS NOT LIMITED TO DRIVERS ENGAGED IN "COMMERCE". It is the FEDERAL government (NOT THE STATE GOVERNMENTS) whose driver's license regulations are limited to drivers engaged in "INTERSTATE commerce". But, Eddie Craig does not know enough to even realize this.
13. State v. O'Connor, [url]]https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=13848675425524872193&q=%22State+v.+O%27Connor%22+%22not+engaged+in+commercial%22&hl=en&as_sdt=40006[/url]. In this case, O'Connor [an amateur legal theorist] appealed his conviction for DRIVING WHILE LICENSE SUSPENDED. "Appellant urges... that HE IS PERMITTED TO DRIVE IN OHIO WITHOUT A LICENSE AS LONG AS HE IS NOT ENGAGED IN COMMERCIAL DRIVING [a false claim identical to what Eddie Craig also falsely claims]." But the appellate court disagreed and affirmed his conviction. Translation: Contrary to the claims of Eddie Craig, the STATES are authorized (by the U.S. Constitution and by the Supreme Court) to require drivers of motor vehicles to have driver's licenses and THAT RULE IS NOT LIMITED TO DRIVERS ENGAGED IN "COMMERCE". It is the FEDERAL government (NOT THE STATE GOVERNMENTS) whose driver's license regulations are limited to drivers engaged in "INTERSTATE commerce". But, Eddie Craig does not know enough to even realize this.
14. Schilling v. Swick, [url]]https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3561337147107818941&q=%22Schilling+v.+Swick%22+&hl=en&as_sdt=40006[/url]. In this case, an officer stopped Schilling (an amateur legal theorist) and asked him to produce his driver's license, registration and proof of insurance. But, Schilling refused and responded, "DO YOU HAVE ANY PROOF THAT I AM OPERATING IN COMMERCE AT THIS TIME [an amateur comment of a type Eddie Craig would make]?" The officer arrested Schilling and he unsuccessfully sued the officer and others for his arrest. The trial court implicitly held that "commerce" was completely irrelevant to the requirement of a driver's license because it dismissed Schilling's lawsuit and the appellate court here affirmed the dismissal. Translation: Contrary to the claims of Eddie Craig, the STATES are authorized (by the U.S. Constitution and by the Supreme Court) to require drivers of motor vehicles to have driver's licenses and THAT RULE IS NOT LIMITED TO DRIVERS ENGAGED IN "COMMERCE". It is the FEDERAL government (NOT THE STATE GOVERNMENTS) whose driver's license regulations are limited to drivers engaged in "INTERSTATE commerce". But, Eddie Craig does not know enough to even realize this.
15. Myles v. State, [url]]https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=17234956748209348154&q=%22Myles+v.+State%22+%22was+not+a+hired+driver%22&hl=en&as_sdt=40006[/url]. In this case, Myles appealed his conviction for DRIVING WITHOUT A VALID LICENSE. On appeal he argued, "THE STATE OF TEXAS CAN ONLY REQUIRE PEOPLE WHO ARE ENGAGED IN 'COMMERCE' WHILE DRIVING ON ITS ROADWAYS TO HAVE A DRIVER'S LICENSE [a false claim identical to what Eddie Craig falsely claims], AND ... WAS NOT A HIRED DRIVER ENGAGED IN COMMERCE [as if that would make any difference]. As Myles explained, 'I don't DRIVE. I just TRAVEL from Point A to Point B [an amateur  comment of a type Eddie Craig would make].' Myles never disputed that he was [ALSO] OPERATING A VEHICLE AS HE TRAVELED." Regardless, the appellate court disagreed with Myles' theories and affirmed his conviction. Translation: Contrary to the claims of Eddie Craig, the STATES are authorized (by the U.S. Constitution and by the Supreme Court) to require drivers of motor vehicles to have driver's licenses and THAT RULE IS NOT LIMITED TO DRIVERS ENGAGED IN "COMMERCE". It is the FEDERAL government (NOT THE STATE GOVERNMENTS) whose driver's license regulations are limited to drivers engaged in "INTERSTATE commerce".But, Eddie Craig does not know enough to even realize this.

BEWARE OF THESE FAKE LEGAL EXPERTS (all of whom have a 100% failure rate when representing themselves and when pretending to represent others).
For the hoaxes of ROD CLASS (who has LOST 77 consecutive cases in a row), click here.
http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?99447-Rod-Class-his-many-hoaxes
For the hoaxes of EDDIE CRAIG (who has LOST every case in which he has ever been involved), click here.
http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?99564-Eddie-Craig-the-former-deputy-sheriff-hoax
For the hoaxes of ANTHONY WILLIAMS (who has LOST 90+ consecutive cases in a row), click here.
https://www.waccobb.net/forums/showthread.php?132863-The-Anthony-Williams-Hoax-(Anthony-Troy-Williams)&p=231850#post231850
For the hoaxes of CARL MILLER (who has LOST 28 consecutive cases in a row), click here.https://www.waccobb.net/forums/showthread.php?131638-Carl-Miller-Richard-Champion
For the hoaxes of DEBRA JONES (who have never won or lost a single case), click here.
https://www.waccobb.net/forums/showthread.php?132369-Debra-Jones-amp-quot-The-Debra-Jones-Hoax-quot&highlight=Debra+Jones&p=230352#post230352;\
For the hoaxes of DEBORAH TAVARES (who has never won or lost a single case), click here.
https://www.waccobb.net/forums/showthread.php?130336-The-hoaxes-of-deborah-tavares-(conspiracy-weaponized-weather-fires-depopulation)&p=226016#post226016AMATEUR



https://youtu.be/V9kVCQ0y5Ec



  

Back to top  Message [Page 1 of 1]

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