Have you ever received a traffic ticket? Are you a Driver or a Traveler? (speech, Birmingham)

Originally Posted by rstevens62

He would probably end up 'suicided' if he tried to file this in the courts!


Whats wrong with individual citizens citing this if they happen to get a traffic citation? it worked for the guy who did it in this thread, according to all the other cases BB has listed, it should hold up in any traffic court, so this would just be a way for citizens to exercise their constitutional rights...I dont see anything wrong with that at all!


Im telling everyone I know about this and encouraging them to make copies of it, (in case they do get cited for a traffic citation) so they will know how to squash it legally, by exercising their rights.

I agree! I have no doubt that governments are inclined to get as much revenue and power as possible with words of art but Bent was using the USC to make his point and in there he was mistaken - it makes clear what is FEDERAL LAW allowing STATES to do what they do. The guy in the video got off because the prosecutor had nothing to counter - which may be out of ignorance and/or inexperience with such matters not necessarily because what he was saying was factual.

These court cases need to be examined more carefully - all I have seen our cherry-picked quotes with no links to the actual cases.

I have had similar experience with researching 'income' or 'income tax' and whether that is a direct or excise tax that can be applied to one's pay for labor. The Supreme court has gone both ways, mostly the latter, so just citing a quick quote from one is not going to help.

Originally Posted by Shiloh1

I have had similar experience with researching 'income' or 'income tax' and whether that is a direct or excise tax that can be applied to one's pay for labor. The Supreme court has gone both ways, mostly the latter, so just citing a quick quote from one is not going to help.

Ha! I wrote this 10 years ago here on CD about your liability of the income tax:

I will, in my understanding, try to give some clues to help you assess your liability, knowing that a post like this will be ignored or unable to be answered.

First, it is not because anyone is an American who works and gets paid.

Second, it is not because the 16th Amendment makes anyone a taxpayer. There are taxpayers and nontaxpayers (legally).

It really has do with the activity one is engaged in. Which only begs the question - what activities are liable for the income tax? Are you engaged in such activities? These activities and the pay derived from such activities are specifically and leaglly defined in the IRC. Have fun with that.

Furthermore, it is not the income that is taxed but the activity, the income is only used as a basis to measure the amount of tax.

One other clue 'income' tax is an indirect tax which is synonymous with a privilege tax (I did not think the right to work was a granted privileged activity by Government). Refer to the Constitution to see the two types expressed in order to help your assessment. Note that in the 16th Amendment the phrase refering to apportionment cannot be negating the apportionment clause because that clause is in referrence to a direct tax. Dispite what some have inferred from this there is no such thing as an unapportioned direct tax - that is stupid because it is contradictory and unconstitutional.

Enjoy the tax season

[BentBow]

Originally Posted by Shiloh1

But there are and were rules made in the USC - now what? If you think you have a case then why not take it before the Courts?

If what you post is correct then there is a problem with the USC. I don't know why you keep repeating yourself? It does not do anything to the regulations set forth in the USC. You would need to argue that the USC is Unconstitutional otherwise the laws are in effect.

Did you not at least listen to the audio of the OP video?


Listen to the baffled prosecuting District Attorney. Listen to the Judge, who can only wait for the DA to counter. "he's an operator then, judge" HAHAHAHA! Listen what the judge says right after that.... Priceless.

Originally Posted by BentBow

Did you not at least listen to the audio of the OP video?

Listen to the baffled prosecuting District Attorney. Listen to the Judge, who can only wait for the DA to counter. "he's an operator then, judge" HAHAHAHA! Listen what the judge says right after that.... Priceless.

Yeah, the end was a little weird because the prosecutor was talking and then the Judge says "then we are going to move to dismiss" - it sounded as if there was a cut in the tape since the Judge's remarks don't follow from what the prosecutor said. And is the Judge actually dismissing or is he asking the prosecutor if that is what he whats to do since there was no plea deal?

But again, that is besides the point - Your misunderstanding about the USC is what I'm trying to get you to admit to. Can you do that? Again, if you are correct then there is a problem with the USC. You were getting that part wrong - the USC does not support your position. The best you got is a conflict with Courts going agaisnt what the US is saying - and if that is the case then take it to Court as unconstitutional. Until then the USC is FEDERAL LAW not STATE LAW.

And again can you pleas link the Court cases you cited so we can read them, not just a quote, but in full.

[ChevySpoons]

Originally Posted by Shiloh1

Yeah, I asked because I tried to look them up but did not have much luck outside blogs and Sovereign Citizen websites.

Try this site:

https://law.justia.com/

It's a free database of US federal and state statute law and caselaw; and using it, I was able to find one of the cases cited in this thread: we were given "SNERER v. CULLEN, 481 F. 946" by the OP. An incomplete citation, but we can try. So I plugged the style of cause (i.e. "snerer v. cullen") into Justia, and I got the following:

Archie P. Sherar, Appellant, v. Joseph M. Cullen, District Director Internal Revenue Service, et al., Appellees, 481 F.2d 945 (9th Cir. 1973). Link to decision is here.

It's the case cited by the OP, though the OP's source made a typo in the style of cause ("Snerer" instead of "Sherar"). What cinches it are the numbers. The "481" lines up as far as volume in a printed reporter goes, the "F." tells me that it's an appellant decision (though "F.2d" would be more helpful), and the "946" is the page in the reporter--just one page after the decision starts in the reporter. I might have cited it as "481 F.2d 945, 946 (9th Cir. 1973)" or similar, but whatever. It's close enough to what the OP was trying to express, to be the same thing. Numbers make every case unique, in legal citation.

But here's the thing. The Sherar decision has nothing to do with rights regarding travel or transportation, as the OP asserted. It was an unlawful dismissal case, with Fourth and Fifth Amendment implications. It's not a long decision; read it for yourself (I did), and note that nowhere does it mention travel or transportation.

Like I said, legal research--how to read a case and cite it correctly--is a skill, and it must be learned. No legal researcher worth his or her salt would ever cite or quote a case based on somebody else's blog. They would go straight to the source: the decision itself. And once they found it, they would "shepardize" it, or "note it up," and see whether it had been overturned or shaped differently in the years since. Given all that, and based on what I found, I think we can dismiss the Sherar decision from the OP's arguments. We could probably dismiss a lot of the other cited cases in a similar way.

[BentBow]

Originally Posted by Shiloh1

Yeah, the end was a little weird because the prosecutor was talking and then the Judge says "then we are going to move to dismiss" - it sounded as if there was a cut in the tape since the Judge's remarks don't follow from what the prosecutor said. And is the Judge actually dismissing or is he asking the prosecutor if that is what he whats to do since there was no plea deal?

But again, that is besides the point - Your misunderstanding about the USC is what I'm trying to get you to admit to. Can you do that? Again, if you are correct then there is a problem with the USC. You were getting that part wrong - the USC does not support your position. The best you got is a conflict with Courts going agaisnt what the US is saying - and if that is the case then take it to Court as unconstitutional. Until then the USC is FEDERAL LAW not STATE LAW.

And again can you pleas link the Court cases you cited so we can read them, not just a quote, but in full.

What was the Judges stance through the debate? Prior, what had the Judge been involved in?
Was the Judge biased towards Liberty?

[BentBow]

Originally Posted by ChevySpoons

Try this site:

https://law.justia.com/

It's a free database of US federal and state statute law and caselaw; and using it, I was able to find one of the cases cited in this thread: we were given "SNERER v. CULLEN, 481 F. 946" by the OP. An incomplete citation, but we can try. So I plugged the style of cause (i.e. "snerer v. cullen") into Justia, and I got the following:

Archie P. Sherar, Appellant, v. Joseph M. Cullen, District Director Internal Revenue Service, et al., Appellees, 481 F.2d 945 (9th Cir. 1973). Link to decision is here.

It's the case cited by the OP, though the OP's source made a typo in the style of cause ("Snerer" instead of "Sherar"). What cinches it are the numbers. The "481" lines up as far as volume in a printed reporter goes, the "F." tells me that it's an appellant decision (though "F.2d" would be more helpful), and the "946" is the page in the reporter--just one page after the decision starts in the reporter. I might have cited it as "481 F.2d 945, 946 (9th Cir. 1973)" or similar, but whatever. It's close enough to what the OP was trying to express, to be the same thing. Numbers make every case unique, in legal citation.

But here's the thing. The Sherar decision has nothing to do with rights regarding travel or transportation, as the OP asserted. It was an unlawful dismissal case, with Fourth and Fifth Amendment implications. It's not a long decision; read it for yourself (I did), and note that nowhere does it mention travel or transportation.

Like I said, legal research--how to read a case and cite it correctly--is a skill, and it must be learned. No legal researcher worth his or her salt would ever cite or quote a case based on somebody else's blog. They would go straight to the source: the decision itself. And once they found it, they would "shepardize" it, or "note it up," and see whether it had been overturned or shaped differently in the years since. Given all that, and based on what I found, I think we can dismiss the Sherar decision from the OP's arguments. We could probably dismiss a lot of the other cited cases in a similar way.

""I was able to find one of the cases cited in this thread: we were given "SNERER v. CULLEN, 481 F. 946" by the OP.""


https://openjurist.org/481/f2d/945/sherar-v-m-cullen
It does not have to deal with "travel". It has to deal with Constitutional Rights.
"There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of this exercise of constitutional Rights."
This can be applied to cases of free speech, Freedom of the press, religion, the right to bear arms, privacy in our articles and effects, to not say a word, someone to represent me/you, due process.....
Case law, does not have to be set upon a "name".

Is the proposition to be maintained, that the constitution meant to prohibit names and not things? That a very important act, big with great and ruinous mischief which is expressly forbidden by words most appropriate for its description; may be performed by the substitution of a name? That the constitution, in one of its most important provisions, may be openly evaded by giving a new name to an old thing?

CRAIG v. MISSOURI, U S 29, 410





Thompson v.Smith, 154 SE 579, 11 American Jurisprudence, Constitutional Law, section 329, page 1135
Teche Lines vs. Danforth, Miss., 12 S.2d 784
White, 97 Cal.App.3d.141, 158
Cal.Rptr. 562, 566-67 (1979)
Caneisha Mills v. D.C. 2009
Berberian v. Lussier (1958) 139 A2d 869, 872
Schecter v. Killingsworth, 380 P.2d 136, 140; 93 Ariz. 273 (1963).
Adams v. City of Pocatello, 416 P.2d 46, 48; 91 Idaho 99 (1966)
Campbell v. Walker, 78 Atl. 601, 603, 2 Boyce (Del.) 41
Simeone v. Lindsay, 65 Atl. 778, 779
Hannigan v. Wright, 63 Atl. 234, 236
People v. Horton 14 Cal. App. 3rd 667 (1971)
House v. Cramer, 112 N.W. 3; 134 Iowa 374
Farnsworth v. Tampa Electric Co. 57 So. 233, 237, 62 Fla. 166
Brinkman v Pacholike, 84 N.E. 762, 764, 41 Ind. App. 662, 666
Indiana Springs Co. v. Brown, 165 Ind. 465, 468
Schlesinger v. City of Atlanta, 129 S.E. 861, 867, 161 Ga. 148, 159;
Holland v. Shackelford, 137 S.E. 2d 298, 304, 220 Ga. 104
Stavola v. Palmer, 73 A.2d 831, 838, 136 Conn. 670
Liebrecht v. Crandall, 126 N.W. 69, 110 Minn. 454, 456
International Motor Transit Co. vs. Seattle, 251 P. 120
City of Dayton vs. DeBrosse, 23 NE.2d 647, 650; 62 Ohio App. 232
Arthur v. Morgan, 112 U.S. 495, 5 S.Ct. 241, 28 L.Ed. 825
Hillhouse v United States, 152 F. 163, 164 (2nd Cir. 1907)
State vs. Johnson, 243 P. 1073;
Cummins vs. Homes, 155 P. 171
Packard vs. Banton, 44 S.Ct. 256
Hadfield vs. Lundin, 98 Wash 516
Willis vs. Buck, 263 P. l 982
Barney vs. Board of Railroad Commissioners, 17 P.2d 82
Chicago Motor Coach vs. Chicago, 169 NE 22
Ligare vs. Chicago, 28 NE 934
Boon vs. Clark, 214 SSW 607; 25 Am.Jur. (1st) Highways Sect.163
Dickey vs. Davis, 85 SE 781
People v. Nothaus, 147 Colo. 210
Chicago Coach Co. v. City of Chicago, 337 Ill. 200, 169 N.E. 22
Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham 394 U.S. 147 (1969)
Statutes at Large California Chapter 412 p.83
Escobedo v. State 35 C2d 870 in 8 Cal Jur 3d p.27
Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, 1914, p. 2961
City of Chicago v Collins 51 NE 907, 910
Blatz Brewing Co. v. Collins, 160 P.2d 37, 39; 69 Cal. A. 2d 639
Payne v. Massey (19__) 196 SW 2nd 493, 145 Tex 273
Wingfield v. Fielder 2d Ca. 3d 213 (1972)
Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham 394 U.S. 147 (1969)
Donnolly vs. Union Sewer Pipe Co., 184 US 540
Lafarier vs. Grand Trunk R.R. Co., 24 A. 848
O’Neil vs. Providence Amusement Co., 108 A. 887
Shapiro v. Thompson
Williams v. Fears, 179 U.S. 270, 274, 21 S.Ct. 128, 45 L.Ed. 186
Kent vs. Dulles see Vestal, Freedom of Movement, 41 Iowa L.Rev. 6, 13—14
Cumberland Telephone. & Telegraph Co. v Yeiser 141 Kentucy 15
Swift v City of Topeka, 43
U.S. v Mersky (1960) 361 U.S. 431
Cecchi v. Lindsay, 75 Atl. 376, 377, 1 Boyce (Del.) 185
Chicago Coach Co. v. City of Chicago, 337 Ill. 200, 205
Christy v. Elliot, 216 Ill. 31
Ward v. Meredith, 202 Ill. 66
Shinkle v. McCullough, 116 Ky. 960
Butler v. Cabe, 116 Ark. 26, 28-29
Daily v. Maxwell, 133 S.W. 351, 354
Matson v. Dawson, 178 N.W. 2d 588, 591
Draffin v. Massey, 92 S.E.2d 38, 42
Doherty v. Ayer, 83 N.E. 677, 197 Mass. 241, 246
Molway v. City of Chicago, 88 N.E. 485, 486, 239 Ill. 486
Smiley v. East St. Louis Ry. Co., 100 N.E. 157, 158
U.S. v Bomar, C.A.5(Tex.), 8 F.3d 226, 235” 19A Words and Phrases – Permanent Edition (West) pocket part 94
United States v Johnson, 718 F.2d 1317, 1324 (5th Cir. 1983)
EDWARDS VS. CALIFORNIA, 314 U.S. 160
TWINING VS NEW JERSEY, 211 U.S. 78
WILLIAMS VS. FEARS, 179 U.S. 270, AT 274
CRANDALL VS. NEVADA, 6 WALL. 35, AT 43-44
THE PASSENGER CASES, 7 HOWARD 287, AT 492
U.S. VS. GUEST, 383 U.S. 745, AT 757-758 (1966)
GRIFFIN VS. BRECKENRIDGE, 403 U.S. 88, AT 105-106 (1971)
CALIFANO VS. TORRES, 435 U.S. 1, AT 4, note 6
SHAPIRO VS. THOMPSON, 394 U.S. 618 (1969)
CALIFANO VS. AZNAVORIAN, 439 U.S. 170, AT 176 (1978)

Case law that I would use to support the case of "Motor Vehicle" licensing, registration, nor insurance requirements apply to a person traveling by automobile in the coarse of Life, Libery & the pursuit of my happiness.

What case law would you use as a prosecutor, to counter the massive case law I just presented to substantiate my case???????
The icing on the cake... already used in case law -

American Mutual Liability Ins. Co., vs. Chaput, 60 A.2d 118, 120; 95 NH 200 Motor Vehicle:

18 USC Part 1 Chapter 2 section 31 definitions: “(6) Motor vehicle. – The term “motor vehicle” means every description of carriage or other contrivance propelled or drawn by mechanical power and used for commercial purposes on the highways…” 10) The term “used for commercial purposes” means the carriage of persons or property for any fare, fee, rate, charge or other consideration, or directly or indirectly in connection with any business, or other undertaking intended for profit. “A motor vehicle or automobile for hire is a motor vehicle, other than an automobile stage, used for the transportation of persons for which remuneration is received.”

Used in case law already to win a judgement.

Originally Posted by BentBow

What was the Judges stance through the debate? Prior, what had the Judge been involved in?
Was the Judge biased towards Liberty?

You just ignored the rest of my post again! Forget about the video for now, can you be intellectually honest about the USC and post links for those cases?

[BentBow]

Originally Posted by Shiloh1

You just ignored the rest of my post again! Forget about the video for now, can you be intellectually honest about the USC and post links for those cases?

Ignored with impunity!

”If the state does convert your right into a privilege and issue a license and charge a fee for it, you can ignore the license and fee and engage in the right with impunity.”

SHUTTLESWORTH v. BIRMINGHAM, ALABAMA, 373 US 262


American Mutual Liability Ins. Co., vs. Chaput, 60 A.2d 118, 120; 95 NH 200 Motor Vehicle:

18 USC Part 1 Chapter 2 section 31 definitions: “(6) Motor vehicle. – The term “motor vehicle” means every description of carriage or other contrivance propelled or drawn by mechanical power and used for commercial purposes on the highways…” 10) The term “used for commercial purposes” means the carriage of persons or property for any fare, fee, rate, charge or other consideration, or directly or indirectly in connection with any business, or other undertaking intended for profit. “A motor vehicle or automobile for hire is a motor vehicle, other than an automobile stage, used for the transportation of persons for which remuneration is received.”

Are they not trying to convert a right into a CRIME.... USC 18
The forgotten legal maxim is that free people have a right to travel on the roads which 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 driver's 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 if they use extraordinary machines on the roads. If you are not using the highways for profit, you cannot be required to have a driver's license nor are you required to follow any regulations, rules, restrictions, laws, license and/or fees, statutes, or ordinances.