VOG Forum banner
26K views 370 replies 33 participants last post by  MonsterMash 
#1 · (Edited)
I don't want this taken down so I feel I should let you know, I am not giving legal advice or bad information. It"s simply for me and whoever would like to learn, to hear peoples thoughts on where they feel this would fail, and I can give answers that are supported to prove it will not fail.
A friendly thread, not a competition. But I am cheating because I have used it in court already and won.
I thought I would start this thread to clarify and show the importance of our American unalienable rights.
This is not some conspiracy blah blah, but honest to God truth.
The simple fact that our motorcycles , cars and trucks, are not supposed to be registered. Unless, it is a company vehicle that is making you a profit.
In fact, when you register them, you are commiting fraud.
Now this is first time that I feel I have a decent chance at teaching people how to deal with the court, and it can be tricky. But this is what the men and women go risk their life for. They call it our freedom. But what is that exactly? I mean, France is free. Canada is free. Hell, Russia is free. We're nothing special looking at it like that. Our freedom IS that piece of paper. The Law of The Land. The Constitution. And everybody is just giving it away.
The right to travel, to move freely, cannot be coverted into a crime. That's the court breaking the law.
They can't say, "Ok, we'll give you your right if you pay us, and if you don't, we'll lock you up."
Now I know what your thinking, trust me, I did to. But I DID try it. And after a couple losses, I learned what traps they use. I'm not gonna call them tricks because then it won't sound legitimate.
But it's not only legitimate, but it's done completely by using their rules. And doing this takes the entire Motor Vehicle Code book, and throws it out the window.
UNLESS YOU ARE MAKING A PROFIT, then you are not DRIVING a MOTOR VEHICLE.
You are not OPERATING, thats not your PASSENGER and on and on.
This picture I'm putting up is exactly, the reason we need to exercise our rights. (Picture coming soon. Low memory)
It is from a judge in Sonora, California, and it says that California IS NOT A STATE OF THE UNION OR A STATE. Which was the reason the judge and the clerk told me I don't have a Constitution and can't use Supreme Court rulings because I had no rights.
THINK ABOUT THAT.
There isn't one country out there that has done THAT much damage to our nation as the court did right there.
If you don't know your rights or fight for them, then you lost them.
Don't worry though. I TOOK A NO REGISTRATION/NO INSURANCE TICKET (fix it) FROM THE HIGHWAY PATROL, THAT THE JUDGE TURNED IBTO A $1200 TICKET, AND BEAT IT.
I've been pulled over 5 times since by the sheriff, and they let me go, every time. Because I won. Cabt try me for the same crime twice.
So look these up, and you can argue with them if you want. These aren't my rules. Its THEIR rules.
UNITED STATES CODE
Title 31
1) Definition of Motor Vehicle
2) Definition of Used For Commercial Purposes.
that right there should end it.
The USC trumps these county codes and statutes and "policies".
If this strikes your interest, I will save you all the errors that i can.
It's not legal advice or "practice of law"
But it IS , PERFECTING THE LAW.
But it has to be done right or they'll rob you without even wearing a mask.
By the way, its the same fight for any license. Hunting, fishing, carrying a gun. NO LICENSE.
Then Google for a LEGAL dictionary, and find the definition of
1) Traffic. (why are you in commercial court)
2) Driver. ( where you on the clock, employed, )
3) Passenger. (or we're they just a guest ?
 
See less See more
#12 ·
No. Broke and bored as hell and tired of sleeping cause unemployment can't get their act together and get me my money so I can get back to work.
Plus I tend to be long winded on answering questions because I want to be understood and not taken wrong and there's ALOT of information involved with this so I don't want anybody to just go to court and throw some words around and think they'll win.
But once it's understood, it is pretty easy.
Thank you though.
 
#3 ·
@ReigningScorpios Huh, that's a thinker, am not disagreeing with you because I have always taken the tag, insurance etc. etc. etc. as just the normal screwing you pay to use the countries roadways but now I must read & learn more about this very new ( to me ) very interesting tidbit of info. Cali's definitely different than my area but most laws should still apply. Thanks for sharing ur experiences on the matter, am sure that others curiosity is peaked as well
 
#5 ·
I've heard a lot about the difference between a traveler and a driver etc etc, hell, I've got family that has pulled that. But here's the thing, I can't afford to spend 2 years in jail, without a job to argue a few hundred bucks. Maybe when I'm old :)
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Bikesofbrads
#6 ·
@ReigningScorpios, it will be interesting to read more of your reports on this. As long as it doesn't drag on for post after post after post and end with a 'buy my booklet to find out how you can do this too'. Things can quickly turn into and sound like an infomercial or 'click bait'.

Like people refusing to pay taxes only to end up owing the back taxes plus interest and fees.
 
#7 ·
UNITED STATES CODE
Title 31
1) Definition of Motor Vehicle
2) Definition of Used For Commercial Purposes.
I'm guessing you took a copy with you? US Code Title 31 is financial. What you were referencing is United States Code, Title 18 - CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
PART I - CRIMES, CHAPTER 2 - AIRCRAFT AND MOTOR VEHICLES, Sec. 31.

"(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 in the transportation of passengers, passengers and property, or property or cargo."

And

"(10) Used for commercial purposes.-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."

So I read that I see where you are trying to take it but that's the CCP.

Look at your own vehicle code, the California Vehicle Code or CVC,

"415.

(a) A "motor vehicle" is a vehicle that is self-propelled.

(b) "Motor vehicle" does not include a self-propelled wheelchair, motorized tricycle, or motorized quadricycle, if operated by a person who, by reason of physical disability, is otherwise unable to move about as a pedestrian.

(c) For purposes of Chapter 6 (commencing with Section 3000) of Division 2, "motor vehicle" includes a recreational vehicle as that term is defined in subdivision (a) of Section 18010 of the Health and Safety Code, but does not include a truck camper."

What I'm thinking is the judge the day you "won" just didn't want to deal with you and I bet the police now feel the same way. I guess that really is a win for you but don't expect the same country wide. As for double jeopardy that does not apply to driving infractions as each time you get in your vehicle is fresh infractions bing committed. If what you said was true then after a person got a ticket for something they could never get one for that again. That's just not true.

With all you said and you didn't get my cardboard license plate reference? I'm not buying it. How'd you get plates if you don't register your vehicles? I think you just wanted to speak your piece and thought I would be done immediately if you came out as a sovereign citizen.

What you failed to do is show me where in the constitution it says we have the right to own and operate a motor vehicle for travel. The fact is driving is a privilege. Now if you want to "travel" in a horse drawn wagon you are certainly free to do so.
 
#15 ·
Do unemployment checks cause you not to be specific and address an issue succinctly? Brevity is the soul of wit and all that.

Do you have auto insurance? I’ll go out a limb and imagine you also may not carry auto insurance. If that’s the case and you cause an accident, the others all have to pay because you don’t have insurance. I’m sure your fellow California citizens would love to meet you by accident.

Carry on.
 
#19 ·
Do unemployment checks cause you not to be specific and address an issue succinctly? Brevity is the soul of wit and all that.

Do you have auto insurance? I'll go out a limb and imagine you also may not carry auto insurance. If that's the case and you cause an accident, the others all have to pay because you don't have insurance. I'm sure your fellow California citizens would love to meet you by accident.

Carry on.
You are a friendly group. I suggest you don't go out on limbs, it's not safe.
Yes I have insurance. Not because they think they can MAKE me, but because I like my bike and truck and don't care to put anybody in a bad way.
And I'm not sure what succinctly means.
 
#17 ·
How many times did you say you’ve been pulled over for not displaying tags & then not provide insurance ( whether carries a valid license, tags & insurance or not ) then going to court & having it thrown out? I saw least 5 since but may have missed the before, anyway, just those 5 times & knowing is some terrible people out there that’ll not have insurance, tear up your $hit and be too broke to fix it. That’s why I have insurance
 
#20 ·
How many times did you say you've been pulled over for not displaying tags & then not provide insurance ( whether carries a valid license, tags & insurance or not ) then going to court & having it thrown out? I saw least 5 since but may have missed the before, anyway, just those 5 times & knowing is some terrible people out there that'll not have insurance, tear up your $hit and be too broke to fix it. That's why I have insurance
Oh yeah, ok,, I do have a plate,, with expired tags. And also a license. The judge pointed these points out to me and I told him the license is for when I'm working, on the clock "driving" a company vehicle and when I was pulled over I was just picking up my son and not at work which I pointed out to the officer at the time.
As far as the plate, I told him it's there because nobody wants to make it clear what to do about it. If you don't have one, you get towed. So it sits on my car until they decide to clarify.
As I mention here in this thread, I do carry insurance.
That's MY choice.
 
#18 ·
My mistake on the Title 31. You are correct.
As far as the vehicle Code, it is trumped by the United States Code which is trumped by the Constitution and International Human Rights so our right of movement exist, right to travel freely unencumbered.
And that right cannot be converted into a crime and issued a license and a fee. It can't.
See "Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803)" tells us "Anything that is in conflict with the Constitution, is null and void of law."
Article 6 paragraph 2 of the Constitution.
So it's clear that any secondary law that came in conflict with the Supreme Law would be illogical.
The Supreme Law would prevail over any other law. This was our forefathers whole intention. And if the givernment had as much power as they think they do, we wouldn't be a free country.
An important note: At the beginning of court, you must be tell them that "everything I say is for the record". They'll turn on the recorder. "I am here in propia persona and speaking for the named defendant. A flesh and blood breathing man of the land. One of "The People".
I go by the Common Law, Article 4 Section 4 of the Constitution, we are guaranteed a Republican form of government, and I invoke that into the court."
Right then you can motion for dismissal because Prosecutor has failed to show a cause of action for which relief can be granted.
Your using the Constitution AND the Supreme Court rulings, so there is no way you could've had evil intent.
This gives you a perfect case for Willfulness and makes you immune to the Prosecution. Tell the judge you expect him to uphold his Oath of Office and defend the Constitution and your Civil Rights which the officer didn't do. And since everything is being recorded, he has no choice but to rule in your favor.
By the way, you don't use definitions from the Vehicle Code since it has ZERO authority.
Thank you for pointing out my mistake. I do appreciate it.
 
#21 ·
It seems there is only one way to test this. You must go to different places and get tickets. Then go to court and beat them all.

Until then you just sound like the sovereign citizen kook all cops hate to stop.
 
#24 ·
I think I would rather just keep my licence and tags in good standing to avoid court all together. Time is money. I would rather make it then lose it going to court and then possibly paying more in fines.
 
#26 ·
Yeah, this is where I need to get that photo uploaded.
There was a case in California,
"Halajian v. D&B Towing, 209 Cal.App.4th 1 (2012)
148 Cal.Rptr.3d 646, 12 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 10,346, 2012 Daily Journal D.A.R. 12,505..
Where the courts concluded that this man HAD NO RIGHTS due to (their) fact that CALIFORNIA IS NOT A STATE OF THE UNION, OR A STATE.
Meaning that since the Articles of Confederation where what said the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land, that when the Constitution came into effect, that the Articles were replaced, so now there was nothing to say it's the Supreme Law.
THEY TOOK OUR CONSTITUTION BY ILLEGAL MEANS. That's treason. If you stand behind that way of thinking , you're in the wrong country.
Personally, I will fight tooth and nal to defend the Constitution and anybody that feels differently should sell their Victory and buy a Kawasaki.
 
#29 ·
Yeah, this is where I need to get that photo uploaded.
There was a case in California,
"Halajian v. D&B Towing, 209 Cal.App.4th 1 (2012)
So I looked this one up and read through it from here:

Halajian v. D&B Towing, 209 Cal.App.4th 1 | Casetext Search + Citator

First thing I want to point out is everything you are citing is Cali based. The majority of us don't live in California, aka Comifornia. I think many of the things that happen in Cali are wrong. I could never live there.

Back to the link it's a research and opinion piece from a firm.

From it I'm just seeing the plaintiff lost. This stuck out as....

"Plaintiff's absolutist view fails to acknowledge the significance of the phrase "by proper means," which indicates that the Legislature has some control over determining which means are proper, such a prohibiting unlicensed drivers and unregistered vehicles. (See Hendrick v. Maryland (1915) 235 U.S. 610, 622, 35 S.Ct. 140, 59 L.Ed. 385 [a state may regulate the operation of motor vehicles on its highways by requiring the registration of vehicles and the licensing of drivers, in the absence of national legislation covering the subject and provided the state's action is reasonable and does not burden interstate commerce].)"

I have not looked up the referenced case and do not have time at the moment.

Overall you still have not convinced me you are correct and I do believe having a DL, registered vehs, and insurance should be required under the law.... As it it.

As for towing an arrested person at times can usually request their vehicle to not be towed but it's ultimately the officers discretion in most cases. If it's a bad area I'm not leaving it.... I'm towing it. If it's on private property that is not the arresstee's and the property owner does not give permission for it to stay... I'm towing it. But say I do leave it as the arrestee wants on private property. The property owner can at any moment have it towed. I'm my experience proper owners do not want arrestee vehicles left on their property and often they ask for me to call for a private property tow before I leave.... If I'm not in a position to tow it for them.

I bet Cali is similar but who knows. It's whacky there.
 
#31 ·
So now I'm even more confused. So you've never actually followed your suggestion and both cases were thrown out more for time than cause?

Seems like that first one you said what got said to say but that wasn't really the end of it that day and she hit you with a FTA. Sounds like she was being cute and just causing you issue because you were being annoying to the court. I don't think that right of her if true. But I obviously an working with little to make that guess.
 
#36 ·
My suggestion if im understanding you correctly is what I followed. The judge (their not really a judge at this point, more like the judge of child support, like a commisioner)
Had committed treason by denying the Constitution. Not cute at all unless your cute was another word in which you hit the nail on the head. No she went on to make another court date which was her telling the clerk " in a month and a half" and then saying "a month" which isn't specific at all. This was on the 6th. The 6th of the next month landed on a thursday. So the week before that I called on friday ( not realising it was a holiday) so i went to the website for the calendar and found my name on at least 5 court cases, none of which were Traffic. Monday I was busy working,(the holiday) tuesday I couldnt get a date from the clerk and Wednesday i was told they held it on tuesday. I told them they cant tell me court is in a month and then do it before the month. She said it's been 4 weeks. I said i dont care, 4 weeks isnt a month. The 6th to the 6th is a month especially when you arent notifying me of anything. But of course they dont care. But I noticed something. They had to cheat.
I studied real hard for the next one.
 
#34 ·
Local can restrict what is not restricted by state, state can restrict what is not restricted by federal. While it's true that constitution is the law of the land as you say, it and all federal laws are often vague intentionally. It's up to states to further refine laws and regulations and the local authority below them to do the same.

Ultimately you are breaking the law at one of those levels and the massive protection you enjoy as a citizen of California will not fly elsewhere. Judge in another state would laugh you out of the court.
 
#37 ·
I believe that is backwards.
To start with the Supreme Law of the Land is pretty self explanatory.
Let me try it this way.
For the State to arbitrarily and erroneously convert a right into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it, we would go to " Murdock v. Pennsylvania" that says no State may convert a secured right into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it.
AND IF THEY DO,
"Shuttlesworth v. Bermingham Alabama" says that you can ignore the license and engage in the right with impunity.
Just those alone give you immunity. The perfect case for willfulness.
You can't possibly be commiting a crime when the Constitution and the Supreme Court rulings say it's ok. And since the whole thing is being recorded, the judge has to be very careful of his actions because an appeal to a higher court will cost him his job.
 

Attachments

#40 ·
Haha I hate people more and more everyday. This country well really this world is becoming a huge joke.
 
#53 ·
Sorry, I tend to get long winded and forgot to say,
In your pursuit of stopping crime, keep in mind that the violation of your oath of office, is treason. And treason is soooo bad that it is punishable by death
I am not saying you should die or anything of the sort I PROMISE.
All im saying is that it is solely up to YOU, what you enforce out there. So just because you boss tells you, "OF COURSE YOU CAN GIVE THEM A TICKET" does that mean that he isnt full of cra= and just selling out America for a paycheck.
Dont turn into a criminal just because you think its your job.
Like some cops around here that ssy " I AM THE LAW" or "OF COURSE IT'S MY BUSINESS, I'M A COP". hahaaa idiots.
Abuse of power.
Did you know that making someone tell you their name or show you their ID is a violation of the 5th amendment?
Regardless of what they taught you.
You have to have a warrent for that. You need a warrent OR to have WATCHED them commit the crime. And the Supreme Court has determined that Traffic is not Criminal.
The traffic courts " CRIMINAL UNDER STATUTORY JURISDICTION" There is no such thing.
NOWHERE can you find the written rules for criminal under statutory. Not the law library, nowhere.
So how could you possibly , fairly defend yourself?
DISMISSED !!!
 
#54 ·
I have never been a yes man and that has caused me some issues during my time on.

I am also very much an American first and will walk from this job if I am expected to do anything I see as wrong.

Like writing tickets to those not wearing a mask. NOPE! Will not do it and I was disappointed every time I saw officers playing mask police. I am not the health police and if a person does not want to wear a mask that should be their choice. I said before....what is to be asked of us nexk? Go stand at McDonalds and slap cheeseburgers out of fat people's hands? That is not my job.

Or taking guns? Again that is a big NOPE! I will be unemployed on that day.
 
#59 ·
To the Forefathers, and me, it's about keeping my rights. Soon we'll have to register our couches, list how much water and food we use per day. Where we went and what we did.
I think it was George Washington that said;
" ANY MAN THAT WOULD GIVE UP A LITTLE LIBERTY, FOR A LITTLE SECURITY, DESERVES NEITHER, AND WILL LOSE BOTH."
 
#61 ·
To the Forefathers, and me, it's about keeping my rights. Soon we'll have to register our couches, list how much water and food we use per day. Where we went and what we did.
I think it was George Washington that said;
" ANY MAN THAT WOULD GIVE UP A LITTLE LIBERTY, FOR A LITTLE SECURITY, DESERVES NEITHER, AND WILL LOSE BOTH."
Wow....really out there. You are officially ignored.
 
#62 · (Edited)
Oh yeah, that was WAAAAY out there.
It was Ben Franklin that said that.

"RIGHT -- A legal RIGHT, a constitutional RIGHT means a RIGHT protected by the law, by the
constitution, but government does not create the idea of RIGHT or original RIGHTS; it
acknowledges them. . . " Bouvier's Law Dictionary, 1914, p. 2961.

"Those who have the right to do something cannot be licensed for what they already have
right to do as such license would be meaningless." City of Chicago v Collins 51 NE 907, 910.

"A license means leave to do a thing which the licensor could prevent." Blatz Brewing Co. v. Collins, 160
P.2d 37, 39; 69 Cal. A. 2d 639.

"The object of a license is to confer a right or power, which does not exist without it." Payne v.
Massey (19__) 196 SW 2nd 493, 145 Tex 273.

"The court makes it clear that a license relates to qualifications to engage in profession, business,
trade or calling; thus, when merely traveling without compensation or profit, outside of business
enterprise or adventure with the corporate state, no license is required of the natural individual
traveling for personal business, pleasure and transportation." Wingfield v. Fielder 2d Ca. 3d 213
(1972).

"If [state] officials construe a vague statute unconstitutionally, the citizen may take them at their word, and act on the
assumption that the statute is void." - Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham 394 U.S. 147 (1969).

"With regard particularly to the U.S. Constitution, it is elementary that a
Right secured or protected by that document cannot be overthrown or impaired
by any state police authority." 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.
 
#63 ·
"RIGHT -- A legal RIGHT, a constitutional RIGHT means a RIGHT protected by the law, by the
constitution, but government does not create the idea of RIGHT or original RIGHTS; it
acknowledges them. . . " Bouvier's Law Dictionary, 1914, p. 2961.

"Those who have the right to do something cannot be licensed for what they already have
right to do as such license would be meaningless." City of Chicago v Collins 51 NE 907, 910.

"A license means leave to do a thing which the licensor could prevent." Blatz Brewing Co. v. Collins, 160
P.2d 37, 39; 69 Cal. A. 2d 639.

"The object of a license is to confer a right or power, which does not exist without it." Payne v.
Massey (19__) 196 SW 2nd 493, 145 Tex 273.

"The court makes it clear that a license relates to qualifications to engage in profession, business,
trade or calling; thus, when merely traveling without compensation or profit, outside of business
enterprise or adventure with the corporate state, no license is required of the natural individual
traveling for personal business, pleasure and transportation." Wingfield v. Fielder 2d Ca. 3d 213
(1972).

"If [state] officials construe a vague statute unconstitutionally, the citizen may take them at their word, and act on the
assumption that the statute is void." - Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham 394 U.S. 147 (1969).

"With regard particularly to the U.S. Constitution, it is elementary that a
Right secured or protected by that document cannot be overthrown or impaired
by any state police authority." 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.
100% correct, in theory. Sadly, in practice, the politicians have ignored and/or have done all they can to tear up the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Half those in Washington DC and most of the state capitals hate our founding documents. The other half typically refuse to protect them. There has typically been a handful of elected officials that work towards adherence to our founding documents. Again, they quickly get marginalized, ignored and run over.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top