Seat Belts

Last Updated (Friday, 17 July 2009 12:45) Friday, 18 May 2007 19:11

Reports - The Law Giver

User Rating: / 0
PoorBest 

  Dragon Slayers 

 Excellence Award 

Seat Belts

I stated "That I was there by special visitation about the matter!" Why did I say that you may ask?  When jurisdiction is not squarely challenged it is presumed to exist. Burks v. Lasker, 441 US 471. This includes supposed duties, liabilities,and sanctions—attached by way of statutes—for violations of said duties.U.S. v. Grimaud, 220 US 506. In the court there is no meaningful opportunity to challenge jurisdiction, as the Court merely proceeds summarily. However once jurisdiction has been challenged in the courts, it becomes the responsibility of the Plaintiff to assert and prove jurisdiction. Hagans v. Lavine, 415 US 533, note 5. As mere good faith assertions of Power and authority ( or jurisdiction) have been abolished Owens v. City of Independence, 100 S.Ct. 1398, 1980. The court can't proceed without establishing jurisdiction.

 Use GeneticMemory to read this article!  

Adobe Flash Player not installed or older than 9.0.115!

I got a ticket for not wearing a seat belt, at the time I was stopped at a light. The cop was headed in the opposite direction and just happen to look my way. He motioned me to pull over and like a mindless citizen I did as I was told. It's the best thing to do when you "are driving and black" and so the cop gave me a ticket.  But! I didn't care, I had heard some things and I was going to find out if what I had heard was true.
Such As:

1. “The right of a citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon in the ordinary course of life and business is a common right which he has under his right to enjoy life and liberty, to acquire and possess property, and to pursue happiness and safety. ...It includes the right in doing so to use the ordinary and usual conveyances of the day; and under the existing modes of travel includes the right to drive a horse-drawn carriage or wagon thereon, or to operate an automobile thereon, for the usual and ordinary purposes of life and business. It is not a mere privilege...” - Thompson v. Smith 154 S.E. 579 inparamateria.

2.       "The individual may stand upon his constitutional rights as a [State] Citizen. He is entitled to carry on his private business in his own way. His power to contract is unlimited. He owes no duty to the state or his neighbors to divulge his business, or to open his door to investigation, so far as it may incriminate him. He owes no such duty to the state, since he receives nothing there from, beyond the protection of his life and property. ...He owes nothing to the public so long as he does not trespass on their rights.”  - Haley v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43 (1905) inparamateria.

3.     “The right to travel is part of the Liberty of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment.” - Kent v. Dulles 357 U.S. 116,125 inparamateria.

4.     “The use of the highway for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege but a common and fundamental right of which the public and individuals cannot rightfully be deprived.” - Chicago Motor Coach v. Chicago, 337 III.200, 169 Ne 22, 66 ALR JUR (lrst) Highways, Section. 163 inparamateria.

5.     “The Motor Vehicle Act is not unconstitutional as making an arbitrary and unwarranted classification, in that it requires professional chauffeurs, or drivers of motor vehicles for hire, to pay an annual license, of such vehicles from but exempts all other operators of tax and regulation.” [In the Matter of Application of Stork (1914), 167 Cal, 294,295]

6.      “.. (the Motor Vehicle Act classifies) drivers of automobiles into two classes, one professional chauffeurs, and requiring them to obtain a license, and pay an annual license fee of $2.00, the other embracing all others, who are not required to sectionure a license or pay license fee, is sound classification, and not arbitrary, so as to constitute special legislation.” - Ex Porte Stork, 167 Cal 294. The Supreme Court of California Feb. 24, 1914- footnote inparamateria. Further confirmed in Beamon v. DMV (1960), 180. App.2d 200, 4 Cal. Rpter. 396.

( Now I'm on a mission,). So what did I know and when did I know it? I knew that, what I see when I go to pay a ticket is not at all what it looks like. I know that when I go to pay my ticket it looks like I have committed an offense, And that's what most people think and then they pay the  ticket….what we need to do is take the next step. Hmmmm  Who did I offend? Let me see I was stopped at a light  and the only problem is I didnt have a seat belt  on !  Why is it a problem and, who is it a problem for, if it is in fact a problem? As far as I know, I am the only one who could get hurt from me, not wearing a seat belt.  And for that they want to take (or should I say make)  35 dollars to 75 dollars and it could go up more then that if you have to do a drivers assessment.
     I knew that, if I go to the courts, and I don't give my name. OK lets stop right here, because you might ask what dose giving my name have to do with anything? Shouldn't I expect them to ask who I am? Well maybe you should but you should also know that giving your name is not all that's going on. you should realize that at that time what is really going on is you agreement to the contract. Now if you say,. "WHAT CONTRACT?"
Well then, now you are starting to think! It might be even said, that you have a clue! Its all about the contract, and two book ends called honor, and dishonor.What am I talking about you ask? This is really a big and I mean really big con-game, and the game  is like the puzzles were you connect the dots. There is only one problem! The dots are so far apart, we find it impossible to connect them. Even when we are told were to look. But lets start with the ticket, which in this case is, or can be treated as a bill. That is the assumption, that we all are suppose to be working under! Oh your not?  Well the assumption is that you promise to pay the bill (or ticket) when your business dose something not in line with the code and for the violation you promise to pay the said amount. Did you say what business? Follow me and I will show you  just how deep the rabbit hole goes! All you have to do is open your eyes and you might notice when ever you are sent a bill it never comes in your name. But you say your bill always comes in your name right? Not unless your mother named you with all capital letters. Did she?
I didn't think so. All capital letters names are reserved at law for corporations,
and that's the name that's being addressed in the court. So if you say that you are the name being addressed in the court, then you have agree to be under the courts jurisdiction and to paid the bill or be in dishonor. Be aware that being in dishonor activates police powers. neat trick right? I know what your going to say 
(by the way this is the same process that happens when someone claims that you are in debt [how can you be in debt if there is no money?])
See : Money  Article on this site.
    It is always an assumption! That should be rebutted. So then the first thing one should do, When Asked : ARE YOU (and the Judge states your name ) and expects a reply! You should rebut the assumption, and asks the judge, "if I give my name will we be entering into a contract?" I found out later, that you don't have to let the case get to the point where the judge can ask your name. If you have preempted his remarks with,"I cant get a lawyer to sign my contract to come down and represent me." But I'm jumping ahead of myself, and of the story of my first court case in which I was awake. OK I was saying the last thing you should do is give him your name!  So I didn't give  my name  when I was call for my first case. I stated "That I was there by special visitation about the matter!" Why did I say that you may ask?  When jurisdiction is not squarely challenged it is presumed to exist. Burks v. Lasker, 441 US 471. This includes supposed duties, liabilities,and sanctions—attached by way of statutes—for violations of said duties.U.S. v. Grimaud, 220 US 506. In the court there is no meaningful
opportunity to challenge jurisdiction, as the Court merely proceeds summarily. However once jurisdiction has been challenged in the courts, it becomes the responsibility of the Plaintiff to assert and prove jurisdiction. Hagans v. Lavine, 415 US 533, note 5. As mere good faith assertions of Power and authority ( ie. jurisdiction) have been abolished. Owens v. City of Independence, 100 S.Ct. 1398, 1980. The court can't proceed without establishing jurisdiction. The Judge look for a second like she had been stumped, and then she stated "I don't know what your talking about are you JOHN DOE?" I started to asked her a question. (now at that point I don't know what I could have been thinking, because I was really just testing the waters. I had never been in this deep! ) but the judge must have had something in mine because she wouldn't let me get anything out of my mouth, before I could say anything she said "if  JOHN DOE  is not here  we cant proceed with the case!"  Well I don't know about you but that sounded at the time like a win to me. Because you are required to show identification before you can come into the courtroom. So I had to be the person in question or I would not have been before the judge.
     By the way, I got another seat belt ticket. That was before I went to court.( I really do put on seat belt sometimes...really!) Well about two weeks later I got some harassing mail stating that my ability to make a living would be hampered and that if I were found traveling any wear within the state limits I could be arrested. This just goes to prove the people running the courts in their a normal course of preforming their duty's brake the law. Title 18 USC section 876
makes it illegal to send  threatening  and or harassing correspondence Thur the U.S.  Postal  Service whereas Title  18 USC section 873  prohibits  blackmail.
      Now if your thinking that "it dose not sound like you won the case.  Well...
Your  right. The judge tricked me! And I caved in and paid the ticket. what the hell, I still had one to go. Besides “nobody ever makes their first jump.” And it made me think, why did the judge feel that she had to trick me. Wasn't she in the right? Well I know I couldn't let them trick me next time.  That's when the group, the four horsemen!  (that's what the group is called) came up with the idea of using this unlimited power to contract that the Constitution talks about. We started to think about lawyers. We knew they work with, and for the court system. We knew that much
    Now think about it. If you draw up the right contract, then your lawyer will have to work for you, and not the court system. If you try to put a contract of this type  into practice, you will find that your lawyer will not sign it. Whenever you get a lawyer without a contract, you make sure that everyone in the court room is working against you. Even if the lawyer thinks, he is truly working in your behalf. So we had the information to stop the case and knew how to use it. The next time I went to court I was ready, I had my contract just in case it should be ask for, little did I know that's the last thing anyone wants to talk about in the court house. Its a bad word that should not be spoken above a whisper. When I got to court the judge was just giving her opening remarks about needing an attorney. That was my clue so I stood up and said I was still waiting for an attorney to get back to me. I don't have to tell you that I was the only one there that day, that had thoughts about an attorney. The Judge who looked like a likable person said to me. "Oh Mr. Doe, you don't need a lawyer for this it's only a simple seat belt ticket". I told the judge that "I need an attorney because I don't understand what’s going on in this court." They can't try you criminally if you don't understand the charge. That would be automatically a reversible error on appeal.  So there was no way she was going to try to push me into proceeding, after I told her I didn't understand. She posted another date for me which I missed and reschedule for the next court date. I was there for the third date. the judge started with her speech about needing an attorney. Again I was the only one who didn't know what was going on and who needed an attorney. The judge didn't look to happy with me for some reason. But I couldn't worry about that I was there to reschedule (as I said I was testing and didn't know what was going to happen) Well there will be no more rescheduling!  The way I do it now I don't even go to court. But that's another story, I'm saving for later! Anyway the judge looks at me and said "OK, Mr. Doe there is a problem with the computers, have a seat and we will be right with you". I found out later that this is the courts M.O. when dealing with situations of this nature. The point is to get everyone out of the court room so they don't get to see what’s going on with your case. Now you must remember when your in court don't make waves! So I sat and waited, until after the court had been cleared. I was waiting for the judge to call me when a lawyer came into the room to get a date for his client. The lawyer had a short conversation with the judge and the next thing you know he has a appointment for his client. Well I had been waiting for an hour for an appointment. I got up and requested that the judge reschedule my case also. The judge told me at that point "if, I want a new appointment I will have to paid sixty dollars. I asked her "why do I have to pay sixty dollars?" and the judge said "because this is your third appointment." To which I replied" I know this is my third appointment and when I come back it will be my forth appointment but why am I paying 60 dollars? Till this day I still can't believe what the judge said. She said "BECAUSE I SAID SO!".. Dose that sound like a jedi mind trick to you? You gotto know who you are? I look at the judge and told her. "I didn't come down here to pay anything, , and I'm not going to pay anything!" She said "you will just have to come back at 3:30 then." and walked out the room. Well 3:30 was about one half hour away, so I walked outside to get some air. When I came back it just so happen that the judge was walking back to the court room at the same time. Wow what are the odds for that happening? Anyway she said to me "there is a lawyer in room "12" who would like to talk to you".  Wow the judge just happens to meet me in the hall and has a attorney for me also. My lucky day! Now I am really looking forward to meeting this attorney that signs contracts.Sounds like a "MAN OF HONOR". So I walk into room "12" and  the first thing I say is "are you the lawyer that's going to sign my contract?" he looks at me and said No! Mr. Doe I'm not going to sign your contract. to which I reply "Then what am I doing here?" and proceeded to walk out the room, I heard the lawyer ask me, if I wanted some advice. Now why would I want advice from a lawyer who has just showed me that he can not be trusted? ( the only way I could possibly trust  him, is if he will sign my contract.) But I already know that he can't sign my contract and that's why I keep talking about it.
All lawyers work for the court, and signing my contract would be a conflict of interest. I tell him no, you can’t help me and go into the court room and wait for the case to be called. I was sitting there playing a game of chess on my phone, when I just happen to look up to see the lawyer standing in the doorway, Shaking his head, but I really didn't pay it to much attention and went back to my game. The next thing I knew I'm being call. The judge just pointed to the clerk who gave me a paper. As I was walking out of the court, I said to myself, I better look at this just in case. But there would be no surprises today it read.
                                                           

                                                                                                                                             CASE DISMISSED!