Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What brief? What point at hand? You brought up Knapp. I thought you were researching? You said the points are valid? What is your real goal?
And if you cannot "get" what the Supreme Law of the United States is then why should we trust your guidance on other "points"?
Will you correct yourself or restate your definition as to what that Supreme Law is? You say it's the Constitution.
"Article VI, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution, known as the Supremacy Clause, establishes the U.S. Constitution, federal statutes, and U.S. Treaties as "the supreme law of the land." The text provides that these are the highest form of law in the U.S. legal system, and mandates that all state judges must follow federal law when a conflict arises between federal law and either the state constitution or state law of any state."
In case you did not read the OP the "link" is a legal brief. My real goal is to see if there are any valid arguments that would make the brief in the link untrue. Up until now we have had a plethora of uneducated opinions including someone who claims their wife is a Judge and a guy who claims to be an attorney but not a single example of case law that disputes any point that the brief made. I at least expected someone would cherry pick the document and find something that they could attack.
I was hoping to come away from this with a better understanding of the laws concerning this subject but as of now that is just not happening.
It looks like some of that ridiculous sovereign citizen junk to me and is just as bogus.
Exactly what it is. Sovereign citizen BS.
You need a drivers license, period, to drive or operate a motor vehicle on the highway. The issue has been argued, fought, all the way to the US Supreme Court, which has ruled numerous times on the issue. Anything else is merely worthless and an attempt to get around the law.
You need a drivers license, period, to drive or operate a motor vehicle on the highway. The issue has been argued, fought, all the way to the US Supreme Court, which has ruled numerous times on the issue. Anything else is merely worthless and an attempt to get around the law.
Dude.... state governments cannot pass laws that contradict the Constitution.... it is the Supreme law thing.
How do driver's licenses "contradict" the constitution?
There are some issues with that, but I just want a short and simple sentence on why driver's licenses are unconstitutional - you can also cite the controlling case, we can go from there.
"Article VI, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution, known as the Supremacy Clause, establishes the U.S. Constitution, federal statutes, and U.S. Treaties as "the supreme law of the land." The text provides that these are the highest form of law in the U.S. legal system, and mandates that all state judges must follow federal law when a conflict arises between federal law and either the state constitution or state law of any state."
In case you did not read the OP the "link" is a legal brief. My real goal is to see if there are any valid arguments that would make the brief in the link untrue. Up until now we have had a plethora of uneducated opinions including someone who claims their wife is a Judge and a guy who claims to be an attorney but not a single example of case law that disputes any point that the brief made. I at least expected someone would cherry pick the document and find something that they could attack.
I was hoping to come away from this with a better understanding of the laws concerning this subject but as of now that is just not happening.
In other words, you were wrong when you said it was only the Constitution. It is also clear that the things you espouse as being factual are the same words that have been used for years to justify what the OP link says. In other words, you are not researching, you are preaching.
Furthermore, if you are accused of a crime or infraction in the jurisdiction where the alleged event occurred, you certainly are not going to get it dismissed upon jurisdiction. That's ludicrous. Show me anywhere ANY CASELAW that shows that you can get a case dismissed based on jurisdiction on a criminal charge or infraction. THE BEST you could do is get it removed to another court. Since you claim it's a constitutional right then you could attempt to get the venue changed to federal court. To do so you'd have to file a motion and pay a fee. It wouldn't be a dismissal EVER. And the federal district court would slap you down because there is not enough at stake in the controversy to make it in federal court (ever hear the phrase don't make it a federal case?). Traffic infractions are not heard in federal court.
You could probably get a birther lawyer to try because they are persistent but they are also persistently slapped down.
THERE IS NO CASELAW that backs up this notion. There is only terrible legal advise based upon anonymous sources that lies to people by encouraging them to be violate the rules of civil procedure by introducing such a document.
A brief would also be in support of a motion to dismiss (MTD) and not a "NOTICE FOR DISMISSAL" whatever the hell that is. The only thing in law that comes close to that term is a notice of dismissal which can only be used by a plaintiff before a defendant replies to a suit. It cannot be used by the defendant. A notice is just that. It is informing the court that something has happened. You cannot notice the court that your case is dismissed because only the prosecution can do that. The "brief" fails on plain language.
If this logic was sound there would be a citation to a case and motion to dismiss. Cough it up or admit it's a hoax.
Let me fix your quotes: the link is a "legal brief"
It is no more a legal brief than is a ham sandwich. There is no statement of jurisdiction either in law or forum. Legal briefs actually used in court have a citation as to what the cases are. I see no citation and the author of the article is anonymous.
But I still don't see where the Oregon Supreme Court case you later cited is on that page. The only citations on the web to this text besides those that want to believe it because it agrees with them is from a verified attorney that says this:
"No, that is absolutely not true. I have read that statement a number of times but it is absolutely incorrect as is most of the contents and writing of the sovereignty movement by whatever name it is called.
Also, you're not in admiralty court. I assume you are basing that on the fact that there is a yellow fringe on the flag, but the yellow fringe is decorative and has no meaning. "
" I've seen that brief before, in a slightly different form but it doesn't work.
First off, it presumes that "using" the roads equates to driving a vehicle on the roads and there is no basis for that presumption.
Second, it also takes the quotes from the cases out of context.
Third, a license is not a "contract" nor are the criminal codes based on contracts.
Fourth, the brief makes a lot of assumptions and conclusions, also with no basis in law.
Another problem, similar to the "using" argument, is that the person who wrote the brief presumes that traveling and traveling on public roadways in a vehicle are the same thing.
Yet another problem is that the author either ignores or does not realize there is a distinction between state law and federal law, and they attempt to use state law cases to interpret federal rights and laws. This doesn't work.
What has happened is that occasionally people file these type of briefs or use these arguments and at some point the case is dismissed or they win but it is for another reason like the officer doesn't show up, the paperwork is wrong, etc. and they believe it is because of the argument being valid. Unfortunately, they won in spite of the argument, not because of it, they could have argued that they should win because the moon is made of cheese and it would have been the same result.
When this argument was presented in a case I had, my response was "It isn't cased on a contract or contract law. It is based on criminal or quasi-criminal laws" and they lost.
If you have specific questions, I'd be happy to address them one at a time but the starting premise of the above brief is wrong, as are most of the conclusions in it."
"
If it is a right of a man to travel freely by any conveyance available. What is the benefit that the state is providing me by giving me the privilege to drive if I already have that right?
I'm not sure where you get the idea that this is an inherent right. Also, "travel by any conveyance" would not be the same thing as operate a motor vehicle. If you are correct about the right, then it would arguably apply to being a passenger, not operating the motor vehicle.
There is no difference in the law between being a man (or woman) and being a person.
There is no correlation between knowingly waiving your rights and being cited for a traffic violation. You do not have an automatic or inherent "right" to operate a motor vehicle in any manner in which you choose. Using your logic you could ignore stop signs, red lights, drive on the wrong side of the road, etc."
Next, find me the original of "II Am.Jur. (1st) Constitutional Law". Why is it that all the hits I see come right back to this issue? What is this supposed publication and why isn't the original on the first page of hits in Google? There are no hits in case law on this document. It appears to be imaginary and self fulfilling. It defines itself to support itself.
Also, the references to the Constitution in the OP link are NOT the Constitution. So, the OP wishes us to put faith in an non-existent document without even citing the Constitution.
None of the words regarding travel, highway, etc. etc. are in the Constitution. Nor "operate", "drive", or even "move" or "convey". But what we do have is the 10th Amendment which says if it ain't in here then it's the right of the states to define it.
And that's what the states did.
Done and done. Proceed with your imaginary documents if you please but the facts are laid out and are undisputed.
If you look at my posting it is clearly stated that I live in California where you may take your drivers license tests is several languages here is an excerpt from the DMV handbook. "Besides English, the basic Class C written driver license exam is also available in the following languages:
Amharic, Arabic, Armenian, Cambodian, Chinese, Croatian, French, German, Greek, Hebrew, Hindi, Hmong, Hungarian, Indonesian, Italian, Japanese, Korean, Laotian, Persian/Farsi, Polish, Portuguese, Punjabi, Romanian, Russian, Samoan, Spanish, Tagalog/Filipino, Thai, Tongan, Turkish, and Vietnamese."
Now please someone explain to me how someone who needs to take their test in Chinese is going to read a sign on the freeway with instructions on what to do during construction.
An average Chinese has to learn to recognize 500 or more characters to just be functionally literate in Madarin, if he wants to function at the level of a college graduate that total goes up to nearly 5000. This is why Chinese and other Asians who have complex written languages have better memories than westerners, beat us hands down on pattern recognition and as a rule have higher IQs. Learning to recognize a few dozen traffic signs by their apperance is no problem at all. Now one thing that might trip them up is the meaning of red and green lights since red was the signal in Peoples China for go while blue or green meant stop. Fortunately Modern China now uses International markings and signals or signage just like we do with a few exceptions do as well.
In other words, you were wrong when you said it was only the Constitution. It is also clear that the things you espouse as being factual are the same words that have been used for years to justify what the OP link says. In other words, you are not researching, you are preaching.
What the hell is your problem, do you just want to argue or do you have some ax to grind with me personally? First I never said the Supreme law was "only the Constitution" I said the Constitution was the Supreme law, and I posted the definition stating that Federal Laws and Treaties were also Supreme Law which does not change the fact that when you are dealing with the relationship between the Constitution and the subordinate laws of States and Local governments the Constitution is superior.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GCharlotte
Let me fix your quotes: the link is a "legal brief"
It is no more a legal brief than is a ham sandwich. There is no statement of jurisdiction either in law or forum. Legal briefs actually used in court have a citation as to what the cases are. I see no citation and the author of the article is anonymous.
OK finally a intelligent argument, point taken one point for you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GCharlotte
But I still don't see where the Oregon Supreme Court case you later cited is on that page. The only citations on the web to this text besides those that want to believe it because it agrees with them is from a verified attorney that says this:
"No, that is absolutely not true. I have read that statement a number of times but it is absolutely incorrect as is most of the contents and writing of the sovereignty movement by whatever name it is called.
Also, you're not in admiralty court. I assume you are basing that on the fact that there is a yellow fringe on the flag, but the yellow fringe is decorative and has no meaning. "
The yellow fringe does have meaning and is not decorative. You would think a lawyer would know that.
According to Army Regulations, (AR 840-10, Oct. 1, 1979.) "the Flag is trimmed on three sides with Fringe of Gold, 2 1/2 inches wide," and that, "such flags are flown indoors, ONLY in military courtrooms." And that the Gold Fringed Flag is not to be carried by anyone except units of the United States Army, and the United States Army division associations."
THE AUTHORITY FOR FRINGE ON THE FLAG IS SPECIFIED IN ARMY REGULATIONS,
BUT ONLY FOR THE NATIONAL (MILITARY) FLAG !
Now this brings up the question of why we are flying military flags in our civilian courts but that is not the issue we are discussing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GCharlotte
" [i] I've seen that brief before, in a slightly different form but it doesn't work.
First off, it presumes that "using" the roads equates to driving a vehicle on the roads and there is no basis for that presumption.
Actually there is. That being that no vehicles prior to 1913 were required to be licensed or registered whether powered by animal or by mechanical means. A horse drawn vehicle is still a vehicle and travel by such vehicles were unregulated going back hundreds of years. The presumption that somehow changing the source of power of the vehicle changes its requirement for licensing and registration is unproven and it is incumbent upon government to show just cause why what had been up until this point an accepted freedom is now converted to a privilege.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GCharlotte
Second, it also takes the quotes from the cases out of context.
Third, a license is not a "contract" nor are the criminal codes based on contracts.
There is no argument that many of the quotes are taken out of context, but there is also no proof by the attorney that had they been put into context, it would have altered their validity. Either sloppy or lazy on his part. Now his assertion that a license is not a contract is absolutely false and leads me to question his credibility. Every license and every permit is a contract. According to Black's Law, a contract is...
"an agreement between two or more parties creating obligations that are enforceable or otherwise recognizable at law"
Secondly any infraction of vehicle code is not prosecuted as a criminal offense.
If traffic violations were criminal offenses, you would need to be charged by a district attorney.
That does not happen in cases of traffic citations. The Judge acts as both prosecutor and Judge which is not permissible in a criminal case. Traffic citations are treated by the courts as a civil matter or a simple breach of contract.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GCharlotte
Fourth, the brief makes a lot of assumptions and conclusions, also with no basis in law.
Another problem, similar to the "using" argument, is that the person who wrote the brief presumes that traveling and traveling on public roadways in a vehicle are the same thing.
Again, the president was set by prior use, and it is the burden of government to prove by what legal basis they make something illegal which was formerly legal.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GCharlotte
Yet another problem is that the author either ignores or does not realize there is a distinction between state law and federal law, and they attempt to use state law cases to interpret federal rights and laws. This doesn't work.
This really makes me believe that this man is either not an attorney or is the worst attorney around. This is the law which he apparently has little knowledge of..
The Rules of Decision Act, 28 U.S.C. Section 1652, was originally adopted as a provision of the Judiciary Act of 1789, and has remained largely unchanged to this day. The Rules of Decision Act states that "the laws of the several states, except where the constitution , treaties or statutes of the United States shall otherwise require or provide, shall be regarded as rules of decisions in trials at common law in the courts of the United States in cases where they apply."
I could go on shredding his arguments but his credibility is so low at this point it is no more fun.
I am willing to debate this subject more, but you really need to step up your game if you expect to keep my interest.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
