VOG Forum banner
21 - 40 of 360 Posts

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
26,469 Posts
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.
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
181 Posts
Discussion Starter · #22 ·
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
It went like this, a couple failures in court because they have dirty games they play. Finally a ticket by the CHP that I was more prepared for and won. Pulled over 5 times since and let go.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
181 Posts
Discussion Starter · #23 ·
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.
Actually I sound like I won a case that went from a "fix-it" ticket to a $1200 ticket. And everybody should know, the judge is gonna do everything he can to make sure he doesn't lose that $1200 and the cost of overhead.
HE LOST.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
26,469 Posts
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.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
26,469 Posts
Actually I sound like I won a case that went from a "fix-it" ticket to a $1200 ticket. And everybody should know, the judge is gonna do everything he can to make sure he doesn't lose that $1200 and the cost of overhead.
HE LOST.
Yes, I understood that..... ONCE. One time you found a judge that threw it out. You just said you lost the previous four times so the odds are not great. Like I said you need to prove it out.

Do you consider yourself a sovereign citizen? If not what do you claim?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
181 Posts
Discussion Starter · #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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
181 Posts
Discussion Starter · #27 ·
Yes, I understood that..... ONCE. One time you found a judge that threw it out. You just said you lost the previous four times so the odds are not great. Like I said you need to prove it out.

Do you consider yourself a sovereign citizen? If not what do you claim?
Not sure where you get four times.
There are alot of assumptions around here.
Trial and error. That's how we learn. Im dealing with the court system. Im pretty sure that falls under the Kicked A** section.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
26,469 Posts
It went like this, a couple failures in court because they have dirty games they play. Finally a ticket by the CHP that I was more prepared for and won. Pulled over 5 times since and let go.
I think I confused the this quote and another's post. My bad. You said "a couple."

Not sure where you get four times.
There are alot of assumptions around here.
Trial and error. That's how we learn. Im dealing with the court system. Im pretty sure that falls under the Kicked A** section.
So how many times did you go to court before you won? Truly a couple as in two? Not sure a 1 to 3 ratio is in the kick arse section.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
26,469 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
181 Posts
Discussion Starter · #30 ·
I think I confused the this quote and another's post. My bad. You said "a couple."
Not really, it's mine. I'm counting the tickets I've gotten that I didn't fight because I wasn't aware of the truth and put too much trust in the governnent. I call that a loss.
Actual attempts were a fight in Sonora with a wickedly corrupt wench who told me I couldn't use the Supreme Court rulings OR the Constitution for defense because California isn't a State. Since I was there " in propia person speaking for the named defendant, she issuef a warrent for my arrest for Failure to Appear. Of course they failed to inform me of this and since I missed the Failure court date, I lost the whole thing.
The next time around was in San Joaquin County. After the first court date where I refused to plea due to the fact that I was only there to challenge the jurisdiction of the court, I waited a couple dsys then went to the clerk and asked for the Failure date. She gave it to me. On that day, I walked into court and the judge sh×× a brick. He wrote something down and said ok just show up to the next court date. I didnt even have a chance to siy down. On the the next court date, again I didn't even get to sit down. The judge called me over and dismissed the case.
He was not very happy.

So how many times did you go to court before you won? Truly a couple as in two? Not sure a 1 to 3 ratio is in the kick arse section.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
26,469 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
181 Posts
Discussion Starter · #33 ·
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.
First off, thank you for your "tone", I greatly appreciate it and the fact that you have your feet on the ground. Thank you.
So in the case you mention, "y regulate the operation of motor vehicles on its highways by ", yes he would lose. The CAN regulate a motor vehicle. But a motor vehicle must be accumulating a profit.
The words of a court are EXTREMELY important and they don't usually coincide with the common definition.
Here , I'll show you.
I will use Blacks Law Dictionary. And I'll point out the key words of each definition.

TRAFFIC, 1. Commerce, trade; the sale or exchange of such things as merchandise. (COMMERCE)

COMMERCE, 1. The exchange of goods and services.
(We saw already in the USC that commercial purposes were for a fare, fee, profit. I.E. Business

VEHICLE, 1. An instrument of transportation. (TRANSPORTATION)

TRANSPORTATION, 1. The movement of goods or persons from one place to another by a carrier. (CARRIER)

CARRIER, 1. An individual or organization that contracts to transport passengers or goods for a fee. (FOR A FEE) also (CONTRA TS)

PASSENGER, 1. A person or persons paying to be transported from one place to another.
(TRANSPORT
(as opposed to a guest)

DRIVER, 1. One employed in conducting a coach,, (EMPLOYED)

As you can see, they all bring you right back to business. A company vehicle. Profit.
It's the abuse of the road for profit and the liability of The People, who are the owners of the road, that gets the business regulated by the goverment that The People put in place.
The slave cant punish the master.
If you own a business, one of your employees cant have you fired for doing doughnuts in the parking lot.
As far as California, the Constitution controls ALL OF AMERICA.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,672 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
181 Posts
Discussion Starter · #36 ·
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.
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
181 Posts
Discussion Starter · #37 ·
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.
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

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
26,469 Posts
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.
But where are you given the right to a vehicle?

The right to freely travel and owning/operating a vehicle is very different.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,681 Posts
Haha I hate people more and more everyday. This country well really this world is becoming a huge joke.
 
21 - 40 of 360 Posts
Top