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.
In case you did not read the OP the "link" is a legal brief.
Your link wasn't even close to being considered a legal brief. In point of fact it is mendacious bovine fecal matter of the most wretched sort.
Take the much cited case of:
Gus Robertson, Appellant, v. The Department of Public Works et al., Respondents No. 25098 Supreme Court of Washington 180 Wash. 133; 39 P.2d 596; 1934 Wash. LEXIS 837
Mr Robertson sued the Washington Department of Public works because they denied his request for a commercial permit to haul commercial products from Olympia and Aberdeen that the Department considered inadequate for the purpose. Robertson argued that the denial of his permit was capricious and arbitrary in that he was in compliance of all police regulations regarding the driving on public roads and highways.
The court ruled that the state legislature had granted to the Department of Public Works the authority to issue permits based upon its assessment of how commercial would affect the safety and welfare of state owned roadways as a result the Department's denial of a permit was not arbitrary or capricious and upheld the state's right to deny his commercial permit. Writing for the majority, the court noted:
"When the subject lies within the police power of the State, debatable questions as to reasonableness are not for the courts but for the legislature, which is entitled to form its own judgment, and its action within its range of discretion cannot be set aside because compliance is burdensome." Sproles v. Binford, 286 U.S. 374, 52 S. Ct. 581, 76 L. Ed. 1167.
clearly and unequivocally noted that the state legislature could under its police powers regulate the use of state property, in this case roads and highways.
Where it gets good
Justice Tolman, who the OP and his cohorts rely upon for precedence, writing in DISSENT clearly and unequivocally recognizes the right of the state to regulate motor vehicles and their drivers upon public roads:
[what isn't quoted by the OP] A producer, a manufacturer, or a merchant may drive his own truck (if it be a proper one) over the high-ways to obtain or to deliver his materials or merchandise, subject [***18] only to such general rules and regula-tions as are applicable to all like traffic, such as reasona-ble limitations as to speed, weight of the [*144] vehicle, weight of the load, the character of the vehicle as it af-fects the highway itself and as it affects the safety of others, and all like matters. In the exercise of the police power, undoubtedly the state may, by such rules, protect its highways and insure, so far as possible, the safety of all upon them, but the rules must be general in their ap-plication, so that anyone and everyone complying there-with may have free use of the highways, subject only to such police regulations.
I doubt that the average reader would doubt that "all like matters" would include a demonstration that a person public or commercial is capable of safely operating a vehicle on public roads and has an understanding of the applicable laws and regulations.
In short this case was about the issuance of a commercial permit not a case about whether or not the state had a right to require a drivers license. In fact the much quoted statement from Justice Tolman's DISSENT was DISSENTING dicta i.e.;
Opinions of a judge that do not embody the resolution or determination of the specific case before the court. Expressions in a court's opinion that go beyond the facts before the court and therefore are individual views of the author of the opinion and not binding in subsequent cases as legal precedent.
as Justice Tolman points out himself;
It was by the legislature, no doubt, intended and expected that the general regulations [***23] contained would, in and of themselves, minimize congestion and otherwise tend to secure the declared objective. Had there been any purpose to base the right to a permit upon convenience and necessity, it would have been an easy and simple thing to have said so, in the direct and often approved language of the acts relating to common carriers which were already in effect.
Complete freedom of the highways is so old and well established a blessing that we have forgotten the days of the "Robber Barons" and toll roads, and yet, un-der an act like this, arbitrarily administered, the high-ways may be completely monopolized. If, through lack of interest, the people submit, then they may look to see the most sacred of their liberties taken from them one by one by more or less rapid encroachment.
I come now more directly to the law of the case as announced by the majority.
Your link wasn't even close to being considered a legal brief. In point of fact it is mendacious bovine fecal matter of the most wretched sort.
Take the much cited case of:
Gus Robertson, Appellant, v. The Department of Public Works et al., Respondents No. 25098 Supreme Court of Washington 180 Wash. 133; 39 P.2d 596; 1934 Wash. LEXIS 837
Mr Robertson sued the Washington Department of Public works because they denied his request for a commercial permit to haul commercial products from Olympia and Aberdeen that the Department considered inadequate for the purpose. Robertson argued that the denial of his permit was capricious and arbitrary in that he was in compliance of all police regulations regarding the driving on public roads and highways.
The court ruled that the state legislature had granted to the Department of Public Works the authority to issue permits based upon its assessment of how commercial would affect the safety and welfare of state owned roadways as a result the Department's denial of a permit was not arbitrary or capricious and upheld the state's right to deny his commercial permit. Writing for the majority, the court noted:
"When the subject lies within the police power of the State, debatable questions as to reasonableness are not for the courts but for the legislature, which is entitled to form its own judgment, and its action within its range of discretion cannot be set aside because compliance is burdensome." Sproles v. Binford, 286 U.S. 374, 52 S. Ct. 581, 76 L. Ed. 1167.
clearly and unequivocally noted that the state legislature could under its police powers regulate the use of state property, in this case roads and highways.
Where it gets good
Justice Tolman, who the OP and his cohorts rely upon for precedence, writing in DISSENT clearly and unequivocally recognizes the right of the state to regulate motor vehicles and their drivers upon public roads:
[what isn't quoted by the OP] A producer, a manufacturer, or a merchant may drive his own truck (if it be a proper one) over the high-ways to obtain or to deliver his materials or merchandise, subject [***18] only to such general rules and regula-tions as are applicable to all like traffic, such as reasona-ble limitations as to speed, weight of the [*144] vehicle, weight of the load, the character of the vehicle as it af-fects the highway itself and as it affects the safety of others, and all like matters. In the exercise of the police power, undoubtedly the state may, by such rules, protect its highways and insure, so far as possible, the safety of all upon them, but the rules must be general in their ap-plication, so that anyone and everyone complying there-with may have free use of the highways, subject only to such police regulations.
I doubt that the average reader would doubt that "all like matters" would include a demonstration that a person public or commercial is capable of safely operating a vehicle on public roads and has an understanding of the applicable laws and regulations.
In short this case was about the issuance of a commercial permit not a case about whether or not the state had a right to require a drivers license. In fact the much quoted statement from Justice Tolman's DISSENT was DISSENTING dicta i.e.;
Opinions of a judge that do not embody the resolution or determination of the specific case before the court. Expressions in a court's opinion that go beyond the facts before the court and therefore are individual views of the author of the opinion and not binding in subsequent cases as legal precedent.
as Justice Tolman points out himself;
It was by the legislature, no doubt, intended and expected that the general regulations [***23] contained would, in and of themselves, minimize congestion and otherwise tend to secure the declared objective. Had there been any purpose to base the right to a permit upon convenience and necessity, it would have been an easy and simple thing to have said so, in the direct and often approved language of the acts relating to common carriers which were already in effect.
Complete freedom of the highways is so old and well established a blessing that we have forgotten the days of the "Robber Barons" and toll roads, and yet, un-der an act like this, arbitrarily administered, the high-ways may be completely monopolized. If, through lack of interest, the people submit, then they may look to see the most sacred of their liberties taken from them one by one by more or less rapid encroachment.
I come now more directly to the law of the case as announced by the majority.
Every single case you have quoted have been cases involving commercial vehicles upon which there is no argument that the government has jurisdiction over their use of the roadways and require licensing.
None of those cases state any law which applies to private citizens using motor vehicles for the purpose of traveling.
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.
Until 1913 the right to travel was not infringed upon and was accepted to be protected under the liberty and pursuit of happiness clauses of the Constitution. The crux of the issue is under what legal authority did the states assume the power to make what was once a right into a privilege and did they do it by slight of hand by applying commercial laws to non commercial travelers.
Some evidence that might work for you on this principal is, drive through a small town in Tennessee and get pulled.
Show the cop your video and see if he lets you go. Get back to us on how that worked out for you
This is incorrect. All new vehicles are manufactured with a title of ownership, it is known as a Manufactures Certificate of Origin.
That original title is surrendered to the State which issues its own Title which represents its interest in the vehicle. This is what gives the state the right to confiscate this vehicle without due process of law as is required by the Constitution to deprive a citizen of property. Forfeiture laws are illegal without a contract between the State and the person to whom owns the property.
It is also the legal basis by which the State may charge "rent" or as they call it registration fees for your use of the vehicle to which they claim interest by title.
It is NOT known as a Manufacturers Certificate of Origin...it is a Manufacturers STATEMENT of Origin aka MSO.
The manufacturer is stating that they manfactured the vehicle and they have assigned ownership of it to such and such a distributor or dealer. This is the first step in the chain of ownership. MSOs are NOT assignable by individuals, only by licensed dealers or distributors. The dealer then re-assigns the MSO to the purchaser. Who in turn applies for a Certificate of Title from the State they live in. The State in no way, shape or form has an ownership interest in a privately owned motor vehicle.
EXCEPT in cases where the law allows for forfeitures of motor vehicles involved in certain crimes....usually drug related.
Until 1913 the right to travel was not infringed upon and was accepted to be protected under the liberty and pursuit of happiness clauses of the Constitution.
why do you persist on using 1913 as the basis for your agument? In 1913, only the rich could afford cars, and there weren't much laws governing who could drive.
New: its 2013, where advancement in technology and materials got cheaper that more than 4 million licensed drivers in the US occupy our roads
Why do you think we live in 1913, in which the laws then do NOT apply to today?
By the way, your Sovereign Citizen rehash didn't work in court, and doesn't work today.
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,
You didn't expand your definition of Supreme Law until you got caught.
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.
Army regulations have nothing to do with civilian courts. And do I have an issue with you? Yeah. I don't appreciate the false premise of your OP. You pretend you want people's opinions or that you are doing research when in reality you are luring people in expectation to get them to agree with you because you have a webpage with bunches of words.
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"
Because you can define what a contract is does not make a license or permit a contract.
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.
I don't know your jurisdiction and I am done chasing down the truth for you since you are unable to back up anything you say except by using circular logic. Where I live there most certainly is a district attorney and if you want to try to get charges lowered you most certainly don't go to the judge before your court date.
An infraction, misdemeanor, felony, are non-civil definitions for violations of the law. Where they differ is the penalty one faces. Courts do not treat anything as a breach of contract that is between a citizen and the state. You will not provide a reference in law because there is none. All you can do is point to things made up for the purpose of your argument. I'm going to dinner if you want to mark up a webpage that proves your point.
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.
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 government does not have the burden of anything besides that level that is necessarily to convince the court of guilt. That is why you are called a defendant. You defend not the government and certainly not the court. If you commit a crime or infraction within the jurisdiction of the court then that is prima facie proof of jurisdiction which is the only thing being argued by that ham sandwhich (I mean brief).
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."
Whatever. Point me to where it is mentioned in the Constitution or the United States Code or it means nothing. It is interesting that an act is largely unchanged that mentions the United States but was written in 1652.
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.
I don't care about your interest. I wish it was more obvious that you were here to have fun with this trash theory than to have a civil discussion. Most of what I hit you with was mine not the lawyer. You have not addressed:
1) The only caselaw that is on record with such a claim that was shot down.
2) That the "brief" is against all rules of procedure and would not be admitted in court.
3) That the main Constitutional arguments at the top of your webpage are not mentioned at all by the Constitution.
4) That the main document that is cited as proof of the Constitution does not seem to exist.
5) That regardless of the claims, there is no caselaw online that you can point to that shows anyone has been successful of such claims.
I'm sure there's more but I'm hungry. Right now this is about attrition and you'll probably win on that since you will not and cannot backup any of this silliness. So at some point I'll stop just because repeating myself is of no value and the viewers of this thread can weigh our claims themselves.
Until 1913 the right to travel was not infringed upon and was accepted to be protected under the liberty and pursuit of happiness clauses of the Constitution. The crux of the issue is under what legal authority did the states assume the power to make what was once a right into a privilege and did they do it by slight of hand by applying commercial laws to non commercial travelers.
There is no right to travel. Even if there was that doesn't mean it can't be regulated. There is no happiness clause in the Constitution. The word "happy" and "happiness" are not in the Constitution. The word "pursuit" is not in the Constitution. Because there is no happiness clause, there is also no happiness clauses.
The word Liberty is in the Constitution but not part of a clause. It is part of the prologue. The states do not assume the power. The states have the power as documented in the 10th Amendment.
Prologue:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Yet another tea partier that has fallen into the trap and myth of the "sovereign citizen"
You think? I'd like to see links to past postings. I don't know how many people go from tea party to sovereign. I guess it happens. I don't understand how someone like that Lt. Col doctor become birthers to the degree they are court marshaled and can't get licensed again to practice medicine. Quite a Scarface.
If it's a disease I hope I don't catch it.
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.
