"The Rule Of Law"

Trailblazer6 · Aug 4, 2019

I can't believe I just read this entire thread. And soop4truth, if your not some copy and paste bot. Welcome to GIM. In the spirit of truth, I am not a big fan of Lawyers. I believe they are a big part of what is wrong in America. Lack of professional ethics. So do stick around and read some of our threads. They are very educational.

FunnyMoney · Aug 4, 2019

snoop4truth said:

I read the posts by Arminius and didn't see anything like that at all. You can claim all you want that the sky is purple and red. We will read your posts and sometimes respond to you - but that doesn't keep us from holding to our well founded belief the sky is usually blue.

Anyway, you wrote about 6 pages of garbage and as I've said before many times, if the truth can't be explained in layman's terms and in a relatively short order, then it's likely some type of propaganda. Matter of fact, I've started about a half dozen threads over the last 20 years just about that subject alone.

If there is some point you are trying to make, you should simply come out and make it. We've had members come here and say we should do DNA testing on every person on the planet and find out what blood line they come from so we can know who is first in line to get rid of. Nobody here prevented them from saying that. We may have fought them tooth and nail, but they say whatever they want to here. Maybe you should just come right out and tell us. What exactly is you're agenda, because your posts seem mostly like nonsense and distraction techniques to me.

snoop4truth · Aug 4, 2019

FunnyMoney said:

Hello FunnyMoney,

YOUR COMMENT: If there is some point you are trying to make, you should simply come out and make it.

MY RESPONSE: The truth about the requirement of a driver's license: It is FEDERAL law that requires drivers of motor vehicles to have driver's licenses if they ARE engaged in interstate COMMERCE. But, STATE law is the opposite. STATE law requires drivers of motor vehicles to have driver's license if they ARE NOT engaged in interstate COMMERCE. So, drivers of motor vehicles are required to have a driver's license whether they ARE engaged in interstate COMMERCE or whether they ARE NOT engaged in interstate COMMERCE. Either way a driver's license is required. COMMERCE is only relevant to determining which sovereign (FEDERAL or STATE) requires the driver's license. But, either way a driver's license is required.

The "RIGHT TO TRAVEL" IS NOT the same thing as the alleged RIGHT TO DRIVE A MOTOR VEHICLE WITHOUT A DRIVER'S LICENSE. The RIGHT TO TRAVEL is simply the right of a citizen to leave one state and enter another state and be treated like any other resident of that other state in terms of equal protection of the laws. The RIGHT TO TRAVEL has NOTHING to do with "DRIVING" anything, much less DRIVING WITHOUT A LICENSE.

Finally, word games will not work. So, calling DRIVING "TRAVELING" will not get you around the law. Calling a MOTOR VEHCILE a "CONVEYANCE" or an "AUTOMOBILE" will not get you around the law, etc.

YOUR COMMENT: Maybe you should just come right out and tell us. What exactly is your agenda.

MY RESPONSE: My agenda is to debunk amateur legal theories by using the truth and by posting the real law itself. My agenda is to help those who have been duped by amateur legal theories. That is, I seek to help those who need my help the most.

I hope this helps.

Best Regards,

Snoop

FunnyMoney · Aug 4, 2019

snoop4truth said:

So why the 6 pages and the attacks about the other members' being so "negative?"

I'm the one who usually gets "negative" thrown at me around these parts, maybe I was feeling left out this time. But seriously, how did the above agenda you stated turn into....

How in the world did you get from a "truth" agenda to the above individual psychiatric diagnosis?

snoop4truth · Aug 4, 2019

FunnyMoney said:

Hello FunnyMoney,

YOUR COMMENT: So why the 6 pages?

MY RESPONSE: I do not understand the question. If I have participated in commenting on six pages above, I did so in furtherance of my "agenda" described above. You lost me on this.

YOUR COMMENT: why the attacks about the other members' being so "negative?"

MY RESPONSE: My observations about the mental state of those who attack me ("snoopSHIT", etc.) are not themselves "attacks". My observations about the tone of their comments to me are not themselves "attacks". They are simply observations. And, they are factually true. And, you know it. Your pretensions to the effect that you are incapable of understanding how I could reach such a conclusion ("negative") about these people is simply disingenuous. And, you know it. You are not fooling anybody. Any child could read these attacks on me and the law and accurately conclude that the authors of these attacks on me are "negative" and angry. No other conclusion is possible. And, you know it.

YOUR COMMENT: How in the world did you get from a "truth" agenda to the above individual psychiatric diagnosis.

MY RESPONSE: In order for a person to understand how he/she came to believe in a false belief system, he/she needs to have some understanding of his/her own thought processes, his/her own state of mind and his/her own weaknesses and vulnerabilities to information that validates their false belief system. In general, people who believe in amateur legal theories only accept information that validates their own belief system. So, they reject any information that is inconsistent with their belief system. This is why they reject the truth about the real law and the those who provide it to them, like me.

If I can get these people to understand that their belief in amateur legal theories is the result of their own mental weaknesses and vulnerabilities, they will be more receptive to the truth.

On projectavalon.net, there are some truly great comments on this subject that were written by others who once believed in such nonsense and who later woke up to the reality that they had been duped. They describe in great detail how waking up resulted in them taking a long, hard look at their own mental state, their own thought processes and their own weaknesses and vulnerabilities which resulted in them believing such nonsense in the first place. These people invariably say that when they engaged in this exercise, they did not like what they saw about themselves. They had to admit they were gullible, weak, vulnerable and lazy. Accepting the truth after years of believing in a false reality requires an extraordinary amount of self-introspection and honesty that many people are simply incapable of. But, the stories of these people who awoke to the truth are worth the read. Go here. http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?105568-The-Hoaxes-of-Deborah-Tavares

So, my truth agenda has not changed. It does little good for me to tell the truth when those I am trying to help are incapable of accepting the truth because of their mental state.

I hope this helps.

snoop4truth · Aug 4, 2019

Trailblazer6 said:

Trailblazer6,

I am not a bot. Thanks for the welcome. I would like to think we can all help and educate each other.

All The Best,

Snoop

arminius · Aug 4, 2019

Typical lawyer psychopath bot, you cheat people for a living with your admirality bullshit, and call me a hater because I expose it, as well as expose your lies about being good for society. The whole profession of Lyiers is about the destruction of the republic, and the institution of the false government of democracy, wherein lawyers are either pirates in the admirality, or above the law in the public policy.

Funny how that's what's going on so much in society today. If we don't much care to be railroaded and complain about being treated with such extreme entitled psychopathic so called law, and somehow it's our fault.

Pretty obvious who the psychopath is here.

Goldhedge · Aug 4, 2019

snoop4truth said:

and once again we ask you to define the legal term 'driver'... That is the fly in the ointment.

Show us where it says 'Are Not' engaged in commerce in the law. This is what we here call 'word art'. The government uses common words to disguise their meaning in law. It's how they are accurate saying 'Driving is a privilege', which is factual and true IF you are in commerce. Why did they settle on 'driving' if not to control commerce? Why didn't they instead use 'travel' or 'journey' which is actually defined as and references the word 'travel'??:

Screen Shot 2019-08-04 at 3.34.05 PM.png

I know that every law made has a 'construction' at the beginning that defines the words used in that law and the meanings intended, so as to not misconstrue in the future (because word meanings do change over time) to keep the original intent intact. What book does the State use to define the words used in said law? What is the 'construction' of the driver's license law? Not the statute, but the original bill that created it??

Every legal dictionary I've seen defines 'driver':

Driver

Blacks (looks to be 4th Ed or earlier - I just checked my copy De Luxe Fourth Edition and it is the same.)

Screen Shot 2019-08-04 at 3.25.59 PM.png

Bouvier's 1856

Screen Shot 2019-08-04 at 3.27.17 PM.png

There are three prominent descriptions of the legal term 'driver'.

Websters online NOTE: not a 'legal' dictionary

Screen Shot 2019-08-04 at 3.39.52 PM.png

and this is from Websters 3rd 1971 - not a legal dictionary (one of those 4" thick behemoths from a library!)
But what is a 'person'??

So, which dictionary does the state pretend to use?

I think the State is in the legal business and therefore they use one of the first three or similar.

'word art' is the latter which the common people use. The common people who hire the State workers to fulfill the duties required of a government. U.S. Supreme Court Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356 (1886) clearly states:

Sovereignty itself is, of course, not subject to law, for it is the author and source of law; but in our system, while sovereign powers are delegated to the agencies of government, sovereignty itself remains with the people, by whom and for whom all government exists and acts. And the law is the definition and limitation of power.

This has never been overruled by the SCOTUS.

So, how is it the State gains jurisdiction over the people if not by adhesion contracts such as 'licensing'??

License

Blacks

Screen Shot 2019-08-04 at 4.01.02 PM.png

Bouvier's 1856

Screen Shot 2019-08-04 at 4.03.12 PM.png

Websters online

Screen Shot 2019-08-04 at 4.04.56 PM.png

Person

Blacks

Screen Shot 2019-08-04 at 4.09.39 PM.png

Bouviers 1856

Screen Shot 2019-08-04 at 4.10.35 PM.png

Websters online

Screen Shot 2019-08-04 at 4.12.25 PM.png

So you can see how 'wordart' can be used to misconstrue the meanings of the words used in law with common usage words that have an entirely 'different' meaning in law.

We could go on a define 'citizen' 'state' 'government', 'vehicle' and all the 'other words used in the construction of a law as well and there again we find common usage and 'legal' government usage.

You've no doubt heard the adage that "Ignorance of the law is no excuse"? Well the government has no duty to inform us 'which' law they're using, nor which 'meaning' they are using. That is why we discuss these things here and challenge Jurisdiction.

And because

Screen Shot 2019-08-04 at 4.20.59 PM.png

snoop4truth · Aug 4, 2019

arminius said:

Hello Arminius,

YOUR COMMENT: Typical lawyer

MY RESPONSE: A typical lawyer would not teach the law or help amateur legal theorists for free. And, certainly a typical lawyer would not submit to being your punching bag in the process.

YOUR COMMENT: psychopath bot,

MY RESPONSE: I am neither.

YOUR COMMENT: you cheat people for a living

MY RESPONSE: I do no such thing.

YOUR COMMENT: with your admiralty bullshit,

MY RESPONSE: Admiralty only applies to cases involving matters on the high seas. I have never handled a case that involved admiralty. The claim that every case in the world is an admiralty case is a amateur legal theory.

YOUR COMMENT: and call me a hater because I expose it,

MY RESPONSE: You are a hater because you are a hater, not because you "expose" amateur legal theories. Your underlying problem is that you believe that amateur legal theories are real.

YOUR COMMENT: as well as expose your lies about being good for society.

MY RESPONSE: I do not lie. Even if I myself were bad for society, the truth that I teach is good for society. It is the truth that you actually hate.

YOUR COMMENT: The whole profession of Lyiers is about the destruction of the republic, and the institution of the false government of democracy, wherein lawyers are either pirates in the admirality, or above the law in the public policy.

MY RESPONSE: How far did you get in school?

YOUR COMMENT: Funny how that's what's going on so much in society today.

MY RESPONSE: Only in the minds of amateur legal theorists. Not in the real world.

YOUR COMMENT: If we don't much care to be railroaded and complain about being treated with such extreme entitled psychopathic so called law, and somehow it's our fault.

MY RESPONSE: Only in the minds of amateur legal theorists. Not in the real world. The only real fault of yours is believing that amateur legal theories are true. They are not. They are fake and intended to incite hatred and violence against innocent Americans. You are living proof that they succeed in this regard. You are being duped.

YOUR COMMENT: Pretty obvious who the psychopath is here.

MY RESPONSE: I agree that it is obvious. I just disagree that it is me.

Snoop

Goldhedge · Aug 4, 2019

snoop4truth said:

Your 'belief' in what is 'truth' is what is in question.

You expect us to follow 'the law' yet we say 'the law' does not apply to us... you've yet to show how it applies, yet we're supposed to 'follow' and 'bend' to it.

Just as a DA always goes for a plea deal, even if the person is innocent! Why? Not because of 'law' but a notch in their belt! If they truly were 'for' the law, they would stop prosecuting an innocent person and not 'plea deal' them. Most folks don't have deep pockets and financially, it becomes a case of "I can't afford to fight it."

That is NOT the law. That is corruption. Yet you will never NEVER see a lawyer go against the DA, or sue the DA, or a judge for malfeasance of what they call 'the law.

snoop4truth · Aug 4, 2019

Goldhedge said:

Goldhedge,

If you would search the law with the same dedication with which you search non-law (like legal dictionaries), you could pass the bar exam in every state in the country. Legal dictionaries do not provide the legal definition of any term in any statute which has its own statutory definitions. Legal dictionaries are only guidelines to legal definitions when the statute does not have its own definitions. But, all driver's license and traffic statutes in the United States have there own statutory definitions inside the statute itself. Translation: Legal Dictionaries do not apply in connection with any driver's license or traffic statutes in the United States.

For driver's license purposes, the one and only definition of "driver" that ever applies is the definition that is actually contained inside the driver's license statute of the state itself. The same is true of the definition of "motor vehicle" and every other such term in the driver's license statute.

Does that address your comment to the effect that (and once again we ask you to define the legal term 'driver'...)?

Snoop

snoop4truth · Aug 4, 2019

Goldhedge said:

Goldhedge,

YOUR COMMENT: Your 'belief' in what is 'truth' is what is in question.

MY RESPONSE: Fine. Disregard my beliefs. Read the actual law that I have posted for your benefit. I did not write a single word of the law. So, you can rely on the law. It was written by people way above my pay grade.

YOUR COMMENT: You expect us to follow 'the law' yet we say 'the law' does not apply to us...

MY RESPONSE: Yes, that is the core belief in amateur legal theory. But, it is not so. Every law applies to whomever the law says that it applies to. So, if you are a person who fits the definition of "driver" IN THE DRIVER'S LICENSE STATUTE, that statute applies to you.

YOUR COMMENT: you've yet to show how it applies,

MY RESPONSE: I am completely dumbfounded by such a claim. I do not even know how to respond to such a claim. I have posted the actual law itself on how the law applies to everyone in SEVERAL places on this website. I will post duplicates of that proof later in this same thread. But, it will not help you if you refuse to read it.

YOUR COMMENT: yet we're supposed to 'follow' and 'bend' to it.

MY RESPONSE: Only if you want to a drive/operate a motor vehicle.

YOUR COMMENT: Just as a DA always goes for a plea deal, even if the person is innocent! Why? Not because of 'law' but a notch in their belt! If they truly were 'for' the law, they would stop prosecuting an innocent person and not 'plea deal' them.

MY RESPONSE: A DA who knows a defendant is factually innocent is legally required to dismiss all charges. Failure to do so is grounds for disbarment.

YOUR COMMENT: Why? Not because of 'law' but a notch in their belt! If they truly were 'for' the law, they would stop prosecuting an innocent person and not 'plea deal' them.

MY RESPONSE: Agreed. DA's who force a person they know is innocent to plea guilty ARE CRIMINALS THEMSELVES AND SHOULD BE IMPRISONED ACCORDINGLY!

YOUR COMMENT: Most folks don't have deep pockets and financially, it becomes a case of "I can't afford to fight it."

MY RESPONSE: That is why the state provides poor defendants with public defenders who are elected by we the people to defend the poor from bogus state charges. Just so that you know, defendants don't plea guilty because they are poor, they plea guilty once they see the state's evidence against them. If the state's case against them is strong, they plea guilty to get a reduced sentence because they know they would be convicted at trial anyway (regardless of the amount of money they have for defense).

YOUR COMMENT: That is NOT the law. That is corruption. Yet you will never NEVER see a lawyer go against the DA, or sue the DA, or a judge for malfeasance of what they call 'the law.

MY RESPONSE: The DA who brought charges against a Duke Soccer (or La Crosse) Team for rape when he knew the team was factually innocent was not only disbarred, but he was sent to prison. Most of the time, bad judges and bad DA's are thrown out of office in elections by "We the People" or thrown out of office by the Judicial Nominations Commission of the state bar.

Snoop

snoop4truth · Aug 4, 2019

Goldhedge, Below is the proof you asked for. Read it.

EDDIE CRAIG & THE "IF NO COMMERCE, NO DRIVER'S LICENSE IS NEEDED HOAX"

FIRST, SEE THE HOAX HERE:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V9kVCQ0y5Ec.
(Go to:43:30-44:10; 49:30-50:10; 55:00-55:30; 104:00-106:00; 118:30-119:20; & 225:00-225:30. These are the exact times of the hoax.).

THE HOAX:
Amateur legal theorist, Eddie Craig, falsely claims that the STATES CANNOT require drivers of motor vehicles to have driver's licenses UNLESS THEY ARE ENGAGED IN “[interstate] COMMERCE". But, this claim is EXACTLY BACKWARDS from (and "OPPOSITE" to) the truth.

THE TRUTH:
As explained below, the STATES CAN require drivers to have driver's licenses to drive motor vehicles ONLY IF THEY ARE "NOT" ENGAGED IN "[interstate] COMMERCE". But, Eddie Craig does not know enough to even realize this.

BACKGROUND:
Unknown to Eddie Craig, the original source of the word, “COMMERCE”, as used in connection with driver’s license law is Art. 1, Sec. 8, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution. READ THE THIRD (3RD) CLAUSE HERE. http://www.annenbergclassroom.org/pa...le-i-section-8. This clause is known as the "INTERSTATE COMMERCE CLAUSE". https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/commerce_clause. This clause empowers the FEDERAL government (ONLY) to regulate driver’s licenses ONLY IF the driver IS ENGAGED IN “COMMERCE among [between] the several states” (called “INTERSTATE COMMERCE”).

On the other hand, the tenth amendment reserved to the STATES the power to regulate driver's licenses IN ALL OTHER CONTEXTS NOT DELEGATED TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT in the U.S. Constitution (including driving while "NOT" engaged in "[interstate] COMMERCE"). https://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment10.html. This is why the STATES CAN regulate driver's licenses ONLY IF the driver IS "NOT" ENGAGED IN "[interstate] COMMERCE". But, Eddie Craig does not know enough to even realize this.

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW:
Unknown to Eddie Craig, the U.S. Constitution divided the powers (divided legal jurisdiction) between the FEDERAL government and the STATE governments. This division of powers (division of jurisdiction) WAS BASED ON LEGAL SUBJECT MATTER. The U.S. Constitution only empowered the FEDERAL government to regulate a TINY LIST of legal SUBJECTS that were expressly delegated to it in the U.S. Constitution. The tenth amendment reserved to the STATES the power (the jurisdiction) to regulate EVERYTHING ELSE (ALL OTHER LEGAL SUBJECTS NOT DELEGATED TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IN THE U.S. CONSTITUTION). But, Eddie Craig does not know enough to even realize this.

SIMPLIFICATION:
Under this constitutional division of powers (division of jurisdiction) between the FEDERAL and STATE governments, a legal subject must be regulated EITHER by FEDERAL law OR by STATE law, BUT NOT BY BOTH. So, if a legal subject IS governed by FEDERAL law, it IS NOT governed by STATE law. Likewise, if a legal subject IS governed by STATE law, it IS NOT governed by FEDERAL law. As a result, FEDERAL and STATE governments DO NOT REGULATE THE SAME LEGAL SUBJECTS, THEY REGULATE THE "OPPOSITE" LEGAL SUBJECTS. But, Eddie Craig does not know enough to even realize this.

PURPOSE:
The purpose of this constitutional division of powers was to ensure harmony between the FEDERAL and STATE governments by DIVIDING between them the LEGAL SUBJECTS that each was empowered to regulate. But, Eddie Craig does not know enough to even realize this.

Thus, contrary to Eddie Craig's FALSE claims at 43:30-44:00 here, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V9kVCQ0y5Ec, it is NOT true that STATE traffic & transportation codes are "BASED ON" the FEDERAL traffic & transportation codes because FEDERAL law and STATE law regulate "OPPOSITE" legal subjects.

NOTE: For an EXPERT EXPLANATION of the these BASICS of Constitutional law, read the FIRST ELEVEN (11) paragraphs of the SIXTH (6th) COMMENT here. http://projectavalon.net/forum4/show...70#post1174970.

CONCLUSION:
If "YOU ARE" a driver engaged in "[interstate] COMMERCE", then you are governed by FEDERAL law (which requires you to have a drivers license to drive a motor vehicle). Conversely, if YOU ARE "NOT" a driver engaged in "[interstate] COMMERCE", then you are governed by STATE law (which requires you to have a driver's license to drive a motor vehicle). Either way, A DRIVER'S LICENSE IS REQUIRED TO DRIVE A MOTOR VEHICLE. But, Eddie Craig does not know enough to even realize this.

APPLICATION:
So, if you are a driver who has successfully proven (to law enforcement officers and/or to courts) that you WERE "NOT" engaged in "interstate COMMERCE" (as Eddie Craig recommends), then you have just CONCLUSIVELY PROVEN THAT YOU ARE GOVERNED BY STATE LAW (which requires you to have a driver's license to drive a motor vehicle). But, Eddie Craig does not know enough to even realize this.

THE ACTUAL REAL LAW ITSELF ON THIS SUBJECT:

Note (BELOW) that this amateur legal theory HAS A 100% FAILURE RATE!

OVER A CENTURY AGO, THE SUPREME COURT HELD THAT THE STATES HAD THE RIGHT TO REQUIRE ALL DRIVERS OF ALL MOTOR VEHICLES TO HAVE DRIVER'S LICENSES, WHETHER OR NOT THE DRIVER WAS ENGAGED IN "INTERSTATE COMMERCE" (exactly OPPOSITE to what Eddie Craig falsely claims).

1). Hendrick v. Maryland, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&as_sdt=40006. In this case, the United States Supreme Court held, "... A STATE MAY rightfully prescribe uniform regulations... in respect to the operation upon its highways of ALL MOTOR VEHICLES —— those moving in interstate commerce AS WELL AS OTHERS [NOT MOVING INTERSTATE COMMERCE!!!]. And to this end it [THE STATE] MAY REQUIRE the REGISTRATION OF SUCH VEHICLES and THE LICENSING OF THEIR DRIVERS... . This is but an exercise of THE POLICE POWER uniformly recognized AS BELONGING TO THE STATES [under the tenth amendment]... ." (in the 8th paragraph at about 70% through the text).

FACT: This decision (above) is from the HIGHEST court in the United States. This court is the ONLY court in the United States which has the power to overturn this decision. But, it has NEVER done so. That means this decision is still the SINGLE CONTROLLING LAW on this subject IN EVERY STATE AND FEDERAL JURISDICTION IN THE UNITED STATES. So, if you find ANY decision from ANY court ANYWHERE in the United States which contains ANY language of ANY type which you interpret as preventing THE STATES from requiring drivers of motor vehicles to have driver's licenses, then YOU HAVE INTERPRETED THAT OTHER DECISION WRONG! There has NEVER been ANY decision from ANY court in the United States which holds, "STATES may not require drivers of motor vehicles to have driver's licenses". But, even if there were such a decision, this decision above would overturn it.

NOTE: Since this decision, CONGRESS (in compliance with this decision and in compliance with Art. 1, Sec. 8, clause 3, U.S. Const.) passed “NATIONAL” (FEDERAL) legislation regulating ONLY those drivers WHO WERE ENGAGED IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE (Title 49). Under the tenth amendment and under this decision (above), this reserved unto THE STATES the power to regulate ONLY those drivers WHO WERE “NOT” ENGAGED IN "INTERSTATE COMMERCE". In this sense, FEDERAL law and STATE law are now "OPPOSITES" of one another. But, Eddie Craig does not know enough to even realize this.

2. El v. Richmond Police Officer Opdyke, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&as_sdt=40006. In this case, an amateur legal theorist unsuccessfully sued an officer who arrested him at a traffic stop. The case reads, "El [the amateur legal theorist] acknowledges that he does not have an 'active' driver's license, but contends that 'IF A PERSON IS NOT ENGAGING IN COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY ON THE HIGHWAYS AND BYWAYS... THAT PERSON DOES NOT NEED A DRIVER'S LICENSE TO TRAVEL IN HIS OWN PRIVATE PROPERTY' [a false claim identical to what Eddie Craig also falsely claims]... ." (at the 3rd paragraph at about 30% though the text). But the court held otherwise and wrote, "[T]HE SUPREME COURT [HAS] STATED: The use of the public highways by motor vehicles, with its consequent DANGERS, renders the reasonableness and NECESSITY OF REGULATION apparent. THE UNIVERSAL PRACTICE [AMONG THE STATES] IS TO REGISTER OWNERSHIP OF VEHICLES AND TO LICENSE THEIR DRIVERS. ANY [read this term again] appropriate means BY THE STATES to insure competence and care on the part of its [DRIVER'S] LICENSEES and to protect others using the highway is consonant with [COMPLIES WITH] due process. (citation omitted). NOTABLY, [CONTRARY TO THE FALSE CLAIMS OF EDDIE CRAIG] THE SUPREME COURT DID NOT LIMIT ITS HOLDING [IN THIS REGARD] TO COMMERCIAL USES OF PUBLIC HIGHWAYS [read this sentence again]." (at the 12th paragraph at about 70% through the text). Translation: Contrary to the claims of Eddie Craig, the STATES are authorized (by the U.S. Constitution and by the Supreme Court) to require drivers of motor vehicles to have driver's licenses and THAT RULE IS NOT LIMITED TO DRIVERS ENGAGED IN "COMMERCE". It is the FEDERAL government (NOT THE STATE GOVERNMENTS) whose driver's license regulations are limited to drivers engaged in "INTERSTATE commerce". But, Eddie Craig does not know enough to even realize this.

3. Scalpi v. Town Of East Fishkill, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&as_sdt=40006. In this case, an amateur legal theorist sued a town and government officials for her many arrests for driving without a driver's license. The case reads, "Plaintiff [the amateur legal theorist] maintains she '[THERE IS NO LAW]... MAKING A DRIVER'S LICENSE MANDATARY... UNLESS... OPERATING... A VEHICLE FOR PROFIT [MEANING FOR COMMERCIAL PURPOSES].'" But, the court held otherwise and cited the following holdings from other cases with approval "... 'THE POWER OF THE STATE TO REGULATE THE USE OF ITS HIGHWAYS IS BROAD AND PERVASIVE'... . (citation omitted). 'A STATE MAY PRESCRIBE REGULATIONS RELATED TO THE OPERATION OF MOTOR VEHICLES ON ITS HIGHWAYS, INCLUDING REGISTRATION AND LICENSING REQUIREMENTS.' (citation omitted). 'AN INDIVIDUAL DOES NOT HAVE A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO DRIVE A MOTOR VEHICLE.' ... (citation omitted). 'IT IS BEYOND DISPUTE THAT STATES MAY IMPOSE DRIVER LICENSING AND VEHICLE REGISTRATION REQUIREMENTS UPON THEIR CITIZENS [read this phrase again]... .' (citation omitted). '[T]HE CONSTITUTION DOES NOT RECOGNIZE A FUNDAMENTAL 'RIGHT TO DRIVE'. Notably, the Supreme Court has held that states may constitutionally regulate the use of public highways WITHOUT LIMITING [THAT RULE'S APPLICATION]... TO COMMERCIAL USES OF PUBLIC HIGHWAYS [read that sentence again]." (citation omitted). (at the 17th paragraph at about 60% through the text). Translation: Contrary to the claims of Eddie Craig, the STATES are authorized (by the U.S. Constitution and by the Supreme Court) to require drivers of motor vehicles to have driver's licenses and THAT RULE IS NOT LIMITED TO DRIVERS ENGAGED IN "COMMERCE". It is the FEDERAL government (NOT THE STATE GOVERNMENTS) whose driver's license regulations are limited to drivers engaged in "INTERSTATE commerce". But, Eddie Craig does not know enough to even realize this.

4. Triemert v. Washington County, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&as_sdt=40006. In this case, an amateur legal theorist sued a county and others for issuing him a ticket for driving without a driver's license. The case reads, "The gist of Triemert's [the amateur legal theorist's] legal theory is that THE DEFINITION OF 'DRIVING' in the [IRRELEVANT] United States Transportation Code ('USTC')... AND ALL STATE TRANSPORTATION CODES DERIVED FROM THE USTC [IMAGINARY CODES WHICH DO NOT EXIST], 'REFERS TO PERSONS WHO ARE LICENSED BY OCCUPATION AND OPERATING A MOTOR VEHICLE IN COMMERCE ENGAGED IN THE COMMERCIAL PURPOSE OF HAULING FREIGHT/CARGO OR PASSENGERS OR BOTH [a claim identical to what Eddie Craig also claims].'... . When he was arrested... , Triemert [claimed he] WAS NOT 'DRIVING' OR OPERATING A 'MOTOR VEHICLE' OR 'ENGAGED IN ANY COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY OR PURPOSE IN THE HAULING OF FREIGHT OR PASSENGERS, ACCORDING TO THIS DEFINITION [referring to irrelevant FEDERAL law]'. Additionally, [he claims that] THE [IRRELEVANT FEDERAL] CODE DEFINES 'MOTOR VEHICLE' AS A CONTRIVANCE USED FOR COMMERCIAL PURPOSES [citing irrelevant FEDERAL law]... . [FINALLY] TRIEMERT CLAIMED HE WAS 'TRAVELING' (NOT DRIVING) IN A 'PRIVATE AUTOMOBILE' (NOT A MOTOR VEHICLE) when he was unlawfully stopped and arrested.." But, the court disagreed and dismissed Triemert's lawsuit. Translation: Contrary to the claims of Eddie Craig, the STATES are authorized (by the U.S. Constitution and by the Supreme Court) to require drivers of motor vehicles to have driver's licenses and THAT RULE IS NOT LIMITED TO DRIVERS ENGAGED IN "COMMERCE". It is the FEDERAL government (NOT THE STATE GOVERNMENTS) whose driver's license regulations are limited to drivers engaged in "INTERSTATE commerce". But, Eddie Craig does not know enough to even realize this.

5. State v. Joos, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&as_sdt=40006. In this case, an amateur legal theorist appealed his conviction for driving without a proper license. He claimed that... HE DID NOT NEED A DRIVER'S LICENSE because, "ONLY THOSE ENGAGED IN COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY ARE REQUIRED BY [THE STATE DRIVER'S LICENSE LAW]... TO HAVE A VALID OPERATOR'S LICENSE [a false claim identical to what Eddie Craig also falsely claims]... ." But, the court disagreed. As it happened, this very same Defendant had already lost an almost identical case before using an almost identical argument. In discussing that earlier case, the court wrote, "[The]... Defendant argued that the term 'OPERATE' as used in [the STATE driver's license law]...'MEANS HAULING FOR HIRE, an activity in which he was not involved when he received the citations [a false claim identical to what Eddie Craig also falsely claims].'" In rejecting that argument, the court wrote, "WE DO NOT AGREE WITH DEFENDANT THAT [THE DEFINITIONS OF "OPERATE" IN "STATE" LAW]... EQUATE TO 'HAULING FOR HIRE'." Translation: Contrary to the claims of Eddie Craig, the STATES are authorized (by the U.S. Constitution and by the Supreme Court) to require drivers of motor vehicles to have driver's licenses and THAT RULE IS NOT LIMITED TO DRIVERS ENGAGED IN "COMMERCE". It is the FEDERAL government (NOT THE STATE GOVERNMENTS) whose driver's license regulations are limited to drivers engaged in "INTERSTATE commerce". But, Eddie Craig does not know enough to even realize this.

6. Spokane v. Port, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&as_sdt=40006. This case reads as follows, "The officer... asked Ms. Port [an amateur legal theorist] for her driver's license... six times. After she refused... , Ms. Port was arrested... for refusal to give information..., no valid operator's license, and [for] resisting arrest... . (at the 2nd paragraph at about 25% through he text). ... Ms. Port claims the STATE licensing statute APPLIES ONLY TO COMMERCIAL OPERATORS OF MOTOR VEHICLES. SHE CLAIMS SINCE SHE WAS NOT ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF TRANSPORTATION, SHE DID NOT VIOLATE THE [STATE DRIVER'S LICENSE LAW]... [a false claim identical to what Eddie Craig also falsely claims].'" (at the 3rd to last paragraph at about 90% through the text). But, the court disagreed and wrote,"Ms. Port's ARGUMENT that [the STATE driver's license law]... REQUIRES A LICENSE ONLY FOR THOSE OPERATING COMMERCIAL VEHICLES IS CLEARLY WITHOUT MERIT [read that phrase again]. [The STATE driver's license law]... DEFINES AN OPERATOR OR DRIVER AS 'EVERY PERSON WHO DRIVES OR WHO IS IN ACTUAL PHYSICAL CONTROL OF A VEHICLE [Translation: "commerce" has NOTHING to do with it].' Since Ms. Port was in actual physical control of her vehicle when stopped, she came under the provisions of [the STATE driver's license laws]... ." (citations omitted). (at the final paragraph at about 95% through he text). Translation: Contrary to the claims of Eddie Craig, the STATES are authorized (by the U.S. Constitution and by the Supreme Court) to require drivers of motor vehicles to have driver's licenses and THAT RULE IS NOT LIMITED TO DRIVERS ENGAGED IN "COMMERCE". It is the FEDERAL government (NOT THE STATE GOVERNMENTS) whose driver's license regulations are limited to drivers engaged in "INTERSTATE commerce". But, Eddie Craig does not know enough to even realize this.

7. Taylor v. Hale, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&as_sdt=40006. In this case, an amateur legal theorist appealed the dismissal of his lawsuit against the judge who presided over his conviction for driving without a driver's license. The court wrote, "Plaintiff [an amateur legal theorist] appears to contend that HE CANNOT BE REQUIRED TO OBTAIN A DRIVER'S LICENSE BECAUSE HE WAS NOT OPERATING A MOTOR VEHICLE FOR A COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY [a false claim identical to what Eddie Craig also falsely claims]. [The Plaintiff claimed]... he was MERELY 'TRAVELING'... . [He claimed that] THE STATE... CAN [ONLY] REGULATE 'COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY' through the requirement of a [driver's] license BUT NOT 'TRAVELING' [a false claim identical to what Eddie Craig also falsely claims]. He contends that the term 'OPERATE' MEANS AND REFERS TO SOMEONE ENGAGING IN COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY in the State [a false claim identical to what Eddie Craig also falsely claims]. The gravamen [core of] of Plaintiff's argument is that BECAUSE HE WAS 'TRAVELING' AND NOT ENGAGED IN A COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY, HE DID NOT 'OPERATE' A MOTOR VEHICLE and was therefore NOT REQUIRED TO HAVE A DRIVER'S LICENSE [a false claim identical to what Eddie Craig also falsely claims].... . THE COURT CONCLUDES THAT PLAINTIFF'S ARGUMENT IS WITHOUT MERIT [read that phrase again]... . That [the] Plaintiff can argue that he was NOT 'OPERATING' a motor vehicle BUT MERELY 'TRAVELING' strains credulity. Plaintiff was traveling, BUT HE WAS ALSO 'OPERATING' A VEHICLE; OTHERWISE, THIS WOULD MEAN THAT THE VEHICLE 'OPERATED' ITSELF AND TOOK A ROUNDTRIP FROM DALLAS TO LAKE JACKSON WITHOUT ANY ACT PERFORMED BY PLAINTIFF. 'OPERATING,' as the word is used in [the STATE driver's license law]... DOES NOT REFER TO COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY [read this phrase again]. To the extent that Plaintiff asserts that the license requirement interferes with his RIGHT TO TRAVEL, such argument is WITHOUT MERIT [read this phrase again]. Requiring one to obtain a license to operate a motor vehicle on a state's public highway IS NOT an impermissible or undue burden on INTERSTATE TRAVEL... . Ensuring that one can safely operate a motor vehicle and is familiar with the traffic laws IS A LEGITIMATE EXERCISE OF A STATE'S POLICE POWERS and presents NO constitutional impediment to the RIGHT TO INTERSTATE TRAVEL [read this phrase again]. Translation: Contrary to the claims of Eddie Craig, the STATES are authorized (by the U.S. Constitution and by the Supreme Court) to require drivers of motor vehicles to have driver's licenses and THAT RULE IS NOT LIMITED TO DRIVERS ENGAGED IN "COMMERCE". It is the FEDERAL government (NOT THE STATE GOVERNMENTS) whose driver's license regulations are limited to drivers engaged in "INTERSTATE commerce". But, Eddie Craig does not know enough to even realize this.

8. Williams v. Rice, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&as_sdt=40006. In this case, Williams, an amateur legal theorist, filed a claim in federal court effectively seeking reversal of his state court conviction for "DRIVING ON A SUSPENDED LICENSE... . . [Williams]... was convicted... , and was sentenced to serve SIX MONTHS IN PRISON... ." In this case, Williams claimed that the state court erred by "deciding that [he]... WAS REQUIRED TO POSSESS A DRIVER'S LICENSE WHEN HE WAS NOT INVOLVED IN COMMERCE UPON THE HIGHWAY [a false claim identical to what Eddie Craig also falsely claims].." But, the appellate court disagreed and dismissed Williams' lawsuit. (at the 4th paragraph at about 45% through he text). Translation: Contrary to the claims of Eddie Craig, the STATES are authorized (by the U.S. Constitution and by the Supreme Court) to require drivers of motor vehicles to have driver's licenses and THAT RULE IS NOT LIMITED TO DRIVERS ENGAGED IN "COMMERCE". It is the FEDERAL government (NOT THE STATE GOVERNMENTS) whose driver's license regulations are limited to drivers engaged in "INTERSTATE commerce". But, Eddie Craig does not know enough to even realize this.

9. State v. Ferrell, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&as_sdt=40006. In this case, the appellate court wrote, "The Defendant, Richard Ferrell [an amateur legal theorist], was convicted of DRIVING ON A SUSPENDED LICENSE. The trial court subsequently sentenced the Defendant to a term of SIX MONTHS... IN JAIL.... . [The] Defendant... testified that at the time of the accident HE WAS 'TRAVELING' AND NOT ENGAGED IN COMMERCE [an amateur comment of a type Eddie Craig would make]." But, the appellate court disagreed and affirmed the conviction. Translation: Contrary to the claims of Eddie Craig, the STATES are authorized (by the U.S. Constitution and by the Supreme Court) to require drivers of motor vehicles to have driver's licenses and THAT RULE IS NOT LIMITED TO DRIVERS ENGAGED IN "COMMERCE". It is the FEDERAL government (NOT THE STATE GOVERNMENTS) whose driver's license regulations are limited to drivers engaged in "INTERSTATE commerce". But, Eddie Craig does not know enough to even realize this.

10. State v. Williams, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&as_sdt=40006. This case reads, "Appellant, ANTHONY TROY WILLIAMS [A WORLD FAMOUS AMATEUR LEGAL THEORIST], was [convicted by a jury]... FOR DRIVING ON A CANCELED, SUSPENDED OR REVOKED LICENSE, SECOND OFFENSE... .[and]... WAS... SENTENCED... TO SIX MONTHS IN JAIL AND A FINE OF $2,500. On appeal, [WILLIAMS]... argues he is 'NOT REQUIRED TO HAVE A DRIVER'S LICENSE IF HE IS NOT TRAVELING IN COMMERCE [a false claim identical to what Eddie Craig also falsely claims]. But, the court disagreed and affirmed the conviction. Translation: Contrary to the claims of Eddie Craig, the STATES are authorized (by the U.S. Constitution and by the Supreme Court) to require drivers of motor vehicles to have driver's licenses and THAT RULE IS NOT LIMITED TO DRIVERS ENGAGED IN "COMMERCE". It is the FEDERAL government (NOT THE STATE GOVERNMENTS) whose driver's license regulations are limited to drivers engaged in "INTERSTATE commerce". But, Eddie Craig does not know enough to even realize this.

11. (Right To Travel) State v. Schmitz, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&as_sdt=40006. In this case, Schmitz [an amateur legal theorist] appealed his conviction for DRIVING ON A SUSPENDED LICENSE. On appeal, Schmitz argued, "HE 'WAS NOT ENGAGED IN COMMERCE [such that the STATE traffic laws did not apply to him][a false claim identical to what Eddie Craig also falsely claims]... .'' (at the 9th paragraph at about 50% through the text). In response, the court wrote, "This court has previously considered and REJECTED THIS SAME ARGUMENT." (citing State v. Booher). In Booher, the defendant was also convicted of driving without a license. The defendant there argued that "HE WAS ONLY EXERCISING HIS RIGHT... TO USE HIS PRIVATE PROPERTY ON THE PUBLIC HIGHWAY"... AND THAT, "BECAUSE HE WAS NOT ENGAGED IN COMMERCE [the STATE traffic laws did not apply to him] [a false claim identical to what Eddie Craig also falsely claims]." (at the 12th paragraph, not including block indented portions, at about 70% through the text). But, the court disagreed and affirmed BOTH convictions. Translation: Contrary to the claims of Eddie Craig, the STATES are authorized (by the U.S. Constitution and by the Supreme Court) to require drivers of motor vehicles to have driver's licenses and THAT RULE IS NOT LIMITED TO DRIVERS ENGAGED IN "COMMERCE". It is the FEDERAL government (NOT THE STATE GOVERNMENTS) whose driver's license regulations are limited to drivers engaged in "INTERSTATE commerce". But, Eddie Craig does not know enough to even realize this.

12. (Right To Travel) State v. El-Bey, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&as_sdt=40006. In this case, the Defendant was stopped by police. The officer asked the Defendant for his driver's license, but the Defendant handed the officer "his RIGHT TO TRAVEL DOCUMENTS... . [The "Right To Travel" documents]... contained a birth certificate and documents which stated '[Defendant]... was NOT A DRIVER' and that THE 'VEHICLE WAS NOT A MOTOR VEHICLE [UNDER IRRELEVANT FEDERAL LAW] BECAUSE IT WAS NOT INVOLVED IN COMMERCE AND THEREFORE WAS NOT SUBJECT TO THE LAWS OF THE STATE [a false claim identical to what Eddie Craig also falsely claims].'" But, the court disagreed and affirmed the conviction. Translation: Contrary to the claims of Eddie Craig, the STATES are authorized (by the U.S. Constitution and by the Supreme Court) to require drivers of motor vehicles to have driver's licenses and THAT RULE IS NOT LIMITED TO DRIVERS ENGAGED IN "COMMERCE". It is the FEDERAL government (NOT THE STATE GOVERNMENTS) whose driver's license regulations are limited to drivers engaged in "INTERSTATE commerce". But, Eddie Craig does not know enough to even realize this.

13. State v. O'Connor, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&as_sdt=40006. In this case, O'Connor [an amateur legal theorist] appealed his conviction for DRIVING WHILE LICENSE SUSPENDED. "Appellant urges... that HE IS PERMITTED TO DRIVE IN OHIO WITHOUT A LICENSE AS LONG AS HE IS NOT ENGAGED IN COMMERCIAL DRIVING [a false claim identical to what Eddie Craig also falsely claims]." But the appellate court disagreed and affirmed his conviction. Translation: Contrary to the claims of Eddie Craig, the STATES are authorized (by the U.S. Constitution and by the Supreme Court) to require drivers of motor vehicles to have driver's licenses and THAT RULE IS NOT LIMITED TO DRIVERS ENGAGED IN "COMMERCE". It is the FEDERAL government (NOT THE STATE GOVERNMENTS) whose driver's license regulations are limited to drivers engaged in "INTERSTATE commerce". But, Eddie Craig does not know enough to even realize this.

14. Schilling v. Swick, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&as_sdt=40006. In this case, an officer stopped Schilling (an amateur legal theorist) and asked him to produce his driver's license, registration and proof of insurance. But, Schilling refused and responded, "DO YOU HAVE ANY PROOF THAT I AM OPERATING IN COMMERCE AT THIS TIME [an amateur comment of a type Eddie Craig would make]?" The officer arrested Schilling and he unsuccessfully sued the officer and others for his arrest. The trial court implicitly held that "commerce" was completely irrelevant to the requirement of a driver's license because it dismissed Schilling's lawsuit and the appellate court here affirmed the dismissal. Translation: Contrary to the claims of Eddie Craig, the STATES are authorized (by the U.S. Constitution and by the Supreme Court) to require drivers of motor vehicles to have driver's licenses and THAT RULE IS NOT LIMITED TO DRIVERS ENGAGED IN "COMMERCE". It is the FEDERAL government (NOT THE STATE GOVERNMENTS) whose driver's license regulations are limited to drivers engaged in "INTERSTATE commerce". But, Eddie Craig does not know enough to even realize this.

15. Myles v. State, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&as_sdt=40006. In this case, Myles appealed his conviction for DRIVING WITHOUT A VALID LICENSE. On appeal he argued, "THE STATE OF TEXAS CAN ONLY REQUIRE PEOPLE WHO ARE ENGAGED IN 'COMMERCE' WHILE DRIVING ON ITS ROADWAYS TO HAVE A DRIVER'S LICENSE [a false claim identical to what Eddie Craig falsely claims], AND ... WAS NOT A HIRED DRIVER ENGAGED IN COMMERCE [as if that would make any difference]. As Myles explained, 'I don't DRIVE. I just TRAVEL from Point A to Point B [an amateur comment of a type Eddie Craig would make].' Myles never disputed that he was [ALSO] OPERATING A VEHICLE AS HE TRAVELED." Regardless, the appellate court disagreed with Myles' theories and affirmed his conviction. Translation: Contrary to the claims of Eddie Craig, the STATES are authorized (by the U.S. Constitution and by the Supreme Court) to require drivers of motor vehicles to have driver's licenses and THAT RULE IS NOT LIMITED TO DRIVERS ENGAGED IN "COMMERCE". It is the FEDERAL government (NOT THE STATE GOVERNMENTS) whose driver's license regulations are limited to drivers engaged in "INTERSTATE commerce". But, Eddie Craig does not know enough to even realize this.

"SUBSTITUTE" CASE LAW:

Amateur legal theorists cite a number of decisions in support of their false claims that they have a UNREGULATABLE "RIGHT to DRIVE/OPERATE A MOTOR VEHICLE WITHOUT A DRIVER'S LICENSE [read the last four words again]". https://wearechange.org/u-s-supreme-...hwaysstreets/; https://www.scribd.com/document/3391...by-Jack-McLamb. But, there is not one single decision in the history of the United States that actually says this. So, amateur legal theorists have come up with a number of "SUBSTITUTE" decisions which recognize the following "ALMOST THERE", "SOUND ALIKE", "LOOK LIKE", "SIMILAR TO" "RIGHTS":

1. The right "TO USE" AN AUTOMOBILE (NOT the alleged right "TO DRIVE/OPERATE" a motor vehicle "WITHOUT A DRIVER'S LICENSE"). Schecter v. Killingsworth, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&as_sdt=40006 (at the 18h paragraph, not including block indented portions, at about 45% through he text).

2. The right "TO USE" THE ROADWAYS (NOT the alleged right "TO DRIVE/OPERATE" a motor vehicle "WITHOUT A DRIVER'S LICENSE"). Escobedo v State, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&as_sdt=40006 (at the 10th paragraph, not including block indented portions, at about 30% through the text). Berberian v. Lussier, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&as_sdt=40006 (at the 6th paragraph at about 40% through the text). Holland v. Shackelford, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&as_sdt=40006 (at the 11th paragraph at about 70% through he text). Note that this case is about THE PROPERTY RIGHTS OF NEIGHBORING PROPERTY OWNERS, not about a driver's license.

3. The right "TO TRAVEL" (NOT the alleged right "TO DRIVE/OPERATE" a motor vehicle "WITHOUT A DRIVER'S LICENSE"). Kent v. Dulles, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&as_sdt=40006 (at the 14th paragraph, not including block indented portions, at about 30% through the text). Note that his case is about AN INTERNATIONAL PASSPORT, not about a driver's license.

4. The right to "INTRASTATE TRAVEL", "LOCOMOTION" and "MOVEMENT" (NOT the alleged right "TO DRIVE/OPERATE" a motor vehicle "WITHOUT A DRIVER'S LICENSE"). In Re Barbara White, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&as_sdt=40006 (at the 23rd paragraph at about 60% through he text). Note that this case is about A PROSTITUTE'S RIGHT TO LIVE IN A DESIGNATED "NO PROSTITUTION ZONE" while on probation, not about a driver's license.

RIGHT v. PRIVILEGE:

Amateur legal theorists also cite exactly six cases which inartfully characterize DRIVING/OPERATING a motor vehicle as a "RIGHT". Amateur legal theorists mistakenly believe that if an act is inartfully characterized a "RIGHT" (rather than a "PRIVILEGE"), then that "RIGHT" CANNOT be REGULATED, GRANTED, DENIED or REVOKED by the state or federal government. But, this is not so and amateur legal theorists would know this if they bothered to read the entire decisions, rather than merely part of them.

Note that NONE of the decisions below say that "DRIVING" or "OPERATING" a motor vehicle "WITHOUT A DRIVER'S LICENSE" is a "RIGHT". But, amateur legal theorists nevertheless use the following decisions as "SUBSTITUTES" for such a decision anyway.

1). Thompson v Smith, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&as_sdt=40006. This case recognized the RIGHT "TO TRAVEL", "TO TRANSPORT", "TO USE THE ORDINARY AND USUAL CONVEYANCES OF THE DAY" and "TO DRIVE A HORSE-DRAWN CARRIAGE OR WAGON". But most importantly, this case also recognized the "RIGHT" "TO OPERATE AN AUTOMOBILE" (NOT the alleged right "TO DRIVE/OPERATE" a motor vehicle "WITHOUT A DRIVER'S LICENSE"). (beginning in the 45th paragraph at about 60% through he text). But, IMMEDIATELY THEREAFTER, the very same case reads, "THE EXERCISE OF SUCH A COMMON RIGHT THE [GOVERNMENT]... MAY, UNDER ITS POLICE POWER, REGULATE IN THE INTEREST OF THE PUBLIC SAFETY AND WELFARE [MEANING THE GOVERNMENT MAY REQUIRE DRIVER'S LICENSES]... . THE REGULATION OF THE... RIGHT TO DRIVE A PRIVATE AUTOMOBILE ON THE STREETS... MAY BE ACCOMPLISHED IN PART BY THE [GOVERNMENT]... GRANTING, REFUSING AND REVOKING... PERMITS ["DRIVER'S LICENSES"] TO DRIVE AN AUTOMOBILE ON ITS STREETS [read this sentence AGAIN and AGAIN]. So, this alleged "right" is what most courts characterize as a "privilege" BECAUSE IT CAN BE REGULATED, GRANTED, DENIED and REVOKED. Thus, contrary to the claims of Eddie Craig and other amateur legal theorists, this case DOES NOT authorize driving/operating a motor vehicle WITHOUT A DRIVER'S LICENSE and this case DOES NOT PREVENT THE STATES FROM REQUIRING DRIVER'S LICENSES. Indeed, the reverse is true. Not that it makes any difference, but this case has no application outside of Virginia anyway.

2). Adams v. City of Pocatello, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&as_sdt=40006. In this case, the court held, "The RIGHT TO OPERATE A MOTOR VEHICLE upon the public streets and highways IS NOT A MERE PRIVILEGE. IT IS A RIGHT... ." But, THE VERY NEXT PARAGRAPH READS, "The RIGHT of a citizen TO OPERATE a motor vehicle upon the public streets and highways, IS SUBJECT TO REASONABLE REGULATION [LIKE THE REQUIREMENT OF A DRIVER'S LICENSE] BY THE STATE IN THE EXERCISE OF ITS POLICE POWER [citing Thompson v. Smith (directly above) as authority which characterized operating an automobile as a REGULATABLE, GRANTABLE, DENIABLE and REVOCABLE "right".]... ." So, this alleged "right" is what most courts call a "privilege" BECAUSE IT CAN BE REGULATED, GRANTED, DENIED and REVOKED. Thus, contrary to the claims of Eddie Craig and other amateur legal theorists, this case DOES NOT authorize driving/operating a motor vehicle WITHOUT A DRIVER'S LICENSE and this case DOES NOT PREVENT THE STATES FROM REQUIRING DRIVER'S LICENSES. Indeed, the reverse is true. Not that it makes any difference, but this case has no application outside of Idaho anyway.

3). Teche Lines, Inc. v. Danforth, https://www.courtlistener.com/opinio...nc-v-danforth/. THIS CASE IS NOT A DRIVER'S LICENSE CASE. This case involved a challenge to a Mississippi statute which prohibited drivers from stopping vehicles along roadsides unless the road shoulder and the remaining roadway clearance was of a specified minimum size. This statute effectively banned all stops along roadsides except for emergencies and made it difficult for bus companies to pick up and drop off their customers. The court held that the "RIGHT TO TRAVEL" included the "RIGHT TO STOP" along roadsides "for usual and customary purposes" and quoted Thompson v. Smith (the third case above) as authority which characterized operating an automobile as a REGULATABLE, GRANTABLE, DENIABLE and REVOCABLE "right". But, TWO PARAGRAPHS LATER, this very same case reads, "...[T]he exercise thereof [of this so-called "right" to operate an automobile] MAY BE REASONABLY REGULATED BY LEGISLATIVE ACT IN PURSUANCE OF THE POLICE POWER OF THE STATE [INCLUDING THE REQUIREMENT OF A DRIVER'S LICENSE]." So, this alleged "right" is what most courts characterize as a "privilege" BECAUSE IT CAN BE REGULATED, GRANTED, DENIED and REVOKED. Thus, contrary to the claims of Eddie Craig and other amateur legal theorists, this case DOES NOT authorize driving/operating a motor vehicle WITHOUT A DRIVER'S LICENSE and this case DOES NOT PREVENT THE STATES FROM REQUIRING DRIVER'S LICENSES. Indeed, the reverse is true. Not that it makes any difference, but this case has no application outside of Mississippi anyway.

"CRIMINAL STOPS" v. "TRAFFIC STOPS":

AMATEUR LEGAL THEORISTS MISTAKELY BELIEVE THAT AN OFFICER MUST ACTUALLY WITNESS A "CRIME" BEFORE HE/SHE MAY LAWFULLY MAKE A ROUTINE "TRAFFIC" STOP. But, this is not so.

Unknown to amateur legal theorists, THERE ARE TWO (2) DIFFERENT TYPES OF STOPS INVOLVING OFFICERS AND MOTOR VEHICLES. There are "CRIMINAL" stops and there are "TRAFFIC" stops. "CRIMINAL" stops involve "CRIMES" (like selling illegal drugs or possessing stolen property) which are NOT MERE "TRAFFIC" VIOLATIONS. On the other hand, "TRAFFIC" stops involve "TRAFFIC" violations (like speeding or having expired tags) which ARE NOT "CRIMES". So, while both types of stops involve motor vehicles and officers, "CRIMINAL" stops and "TRAFFIC" stops are TWO ENTIRELY DIFFERENT THINGS. The law on "CRIMINAL" stops DOES NOT apply to routine "TRAFFIC" stops. Instead, "CRIMINAL" law applies to "CRIMINAL" stops and "TRAFFIC" law applies to routine "TRAFFIC" stops. So, while a "CRIME" is necessary in a "CRIMINAL" stop, no "CRIME" is necessary for a routine "TRAFFIC" stop (only a TRAFFIC violation is). But, amateur legal theorists get these TWO ENTIRELY DIFFERENT legal subjects CONFUSED and therefore mistakenly conclude that an officer must actually witness a "CRIME" (like selling illegal drugs) to lawfully stop a driver for a "TRAFFIC" violation (like having an expired tag). But, this is not so. See the cases below.

4). People v. Horton, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&as_sdt=40006 NOTE: This case involves a "CRIMINAL" stop, not a "TRAFFIC" stop. And, "CRIMINAL" law does not apply to "TRAFFIC" stops. But, amateur legal theorists confuse "CRIMINAL" law with "TRAFFIC" law and therefore mistakenly interpret this case to mean that an officer may not lawfully make a routine "TRAFFIC" stop unless the officer has witnessed the driver engaged in a "CRIME".

In this case, there was NO "TRAFFIC" VIOLATION (like speeding or having an expired tag) to justify a routine "TRAFFIC" stop. Instead, the officer here made a "CRIMINAL" stop of a car SOLELY BECAUSE IT CONTAINED YOUNG PEOPLE. The officer saw marijuana in the car (REFLECTING THE "CRIME" OF POSSESSION) and arrested the occupants. In holding the "CRIMINAL" stop unconstitutional, the court recognized, "[T]he RIGHT of the citizen TO DRIVE on a public street WITH FREEDOM FROM POLICE INTERFERENCE [referring to ILLEGAL"CRIMINAL" STOPS], UNLESS HE IS ENGAGED IN SUSPICIOUS CONDUCT ASSOCIATED... WITH CRIMINALITY... [NOT the alleged right "TO DRIVE/OPERATE" a motor vehicle "WITHOUT A DRIVER'S LICENSE"]." (at the 6th paragraph at about 75% through the text). Thus, contrary to the claims of amateur legal theorists, this case DOES NOT require officers to witness a "CRIME" to make a lawful "TRAFFIC" stop, this case does not authorize driving/operating a motor vehicle WITHOUT A DRIVER'S LICENSE and this case DOES NOT PREVENT THE STATES FROM REQUIRING DRIVER'S LICENSES. Not that it makes any difference, but this case does has no application outside of California anyway.

5). People v. Glover, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&as_sdt=40006. This case involves a "CRIMINAL" stop, not a "TRAFFIC" stop. And, "CRIMINAL" law does not apply to "TRAFFIC" stops. But, amateur legal theorists confuse "CRIMINAL" law with "TRAFFIC" law and therefore mistakenly interpret this case to mean that an officer may not lawfully make a routine "TRAFFIC" stop unless the officer has witnessed the driver engaged in a "CRIME".

In this case, there was NO "TRAFFIC" VIOLATION (like running a stop sign or driving the wrong way on one-way street) to justify a routine "TRAFFIC" stop. Instead, the police here set up a roadblock SOLELY TO CATCH AN ARMED ROBBER (a "CRIMINAL") fleeing the scene of the "CRIME". The police made a "CRIMINAL" stop of every single car. The police caught the robber. But, the court held that the "CRIMINAL" stop was unconstitutional and quoted the Horton case (directly above) which recognized "[T]he RIGHT of the citizen TO DRIVE on a public street with FREEDOM FROM POLICE INTERFERENCE [referring to ILLEGAL "CRIMINAL" STOPS], UNLESS HE IS ENGAGED IN SUSPICIOUS CONDUCT ASSOCIATED... WITH CRIMINALITY [NOT the alleged right "TO DRIVE/OPERATE" a motor vehicle "WITHOUT A DRIVER'S LICENSE"]." (in the 15th paragraph at about 85% through the text). Thus, contrary to the claims of amateur legal theorists, this case DOES NOT require officers to witness a "CRIME" to make a lawful "TRAFFIC" stop, this case does not authorize driving/operating a motor vehicle WITHOUT A DRIVER'S LICENSE and this case DOES NOT PREVENT THE STATES FROM REQUIRING DRIVER'S LICENSES. Not that it makes any difference, but this case is has no application outside of California anyway.

6. Mills v. District Of Columbia, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&as_sdt=40006 (at the 2nd TO LAST paragraph). In this case, the was NO "TRAFFIC" VIOLATION to justify a routine "TRAFFIC" stop (like speeding). Instead, the police here set up roadblocks around a HIGH CRIME AREA after dark and effectively made "CRIMINAL" stops of every driver seeking to enter crime area for questioning. If the driver could not provide a satisfactory reason for entering the area, the police DENIED THE DRIVER ACCESS TO THE AREA. The court held that such a practice was unconstitutional and wrote, "It cannot be [denied]... that citizens have a RIGHT TO DRIVE UPON [ALL OF] THE PUBLIC STREETS... ABSENT A CONSTITUTIONAL REASON FOR LIMITING THEIR ACCESS [TO A PARTICULAR AREA OF PUBLIC STREETS]" (NOT the alleged right "TO DRIVE/OPERATE" a motor vehicle "WITHOUT A DRIVER'S LICENSE"). Thus, contrary to the claims of amateur legal theorists, this case DOES NOT authorize driving/operating a motor vehicle WITHOUT A DRIVER'S LICENSE and this case DOES NOT PREVENT THE STATES FROM REQUIRING DRIVER'S LICENSES. Not that it makes any difference, but this case is has no application outside of the District Of Columbia anyway.

The case below explains it well.

Spokane v. Port, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&as_sdt=40006. "[The terms] 'RIGHT' and 'PRIVILEGE' have assumed a VARIETY OF MEANINGS, DEPENDING UPON THE CONTEXT IN WHICH THEY ARE USED... . Whether it is termed a RIGHT or PRIVILEGE, ONE'S ABILITY TO TRAVEL [USE AND DRIVE/OPERATE] ON PUBLIC HIGHWAYS IS ALWAYS SUBJECT TO REASONABLE REGULATION BY THE STATE IN THE EXERCISE OF ITS POLICE POWER. (citations omitted). [TRAVELING, USING AND DRIVING/OPERATING ON PUBLIC ROADWAYS]... IS ALWAYS SUBJECT TO SUCH REASONABLE REGULATION ... UNDER THE [STATE'S] POLICE POWER. (citation omitted)... . 'STATES MAY... REQUIRE DRIVER'S LICENSES... .'" (quoting the SUPREME COURT decision in Hendrick v. Maryland, THE VERY FIRST CASE AT THE VERY TOP, WHICH IS STILL THE LAW TODAY). (at the 4th paragraph at about 40% through the text).

Thus, whether DRIVING/OPERATING a motor vehicle is characterized as a "RIGHT" or a "PRIVILEGE", THE STATES MAY REQUIRE DRIVERS/OPERATORS OF MOTOR VEHICLES TO HAVE DRIVER'S LICENSES. Drivers/operators of motor vehicles do not have an UNREGULATABLE "RIGHT" to drive/operate WITHOUT A DRIVER'S LICENSE. And, there is no decision in the history of the United States that says so. NONE!

SHUTTLESWORTH V. BIRMINGHAM:

Finally, amateur legal theorists cite Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham in support of their false claims that a person may "ignore" STATE driver's license laws and drive/operate a motor vehicle without a driver's license "with impunity". How do amateur legal theorists reach this absurd result? This is because six cases (shown directly above) inartfully characterize driving/operating a motor vehicle as a "RIGHT" (although they also hold that this "RIGHT" may be regulated, granted, denied and revoked, OR what most courts characterize as a "PRIVILEGE"). Regardless, because they mistakenly conclude that operating/driving a motor vehicle is a UNREGULATABLE "RIGHT', amateur legal theorists mistakenly conclude that ALL DRIVER'S LICENSE LAWS IN THE COUNTRY MUST BE "UNCONSTITUTIONAL". Then, amateur legal theorists combine that mistaken conclusion with the following language in Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham which reads in part, "[A] person faced with such an UNCONSTITUTIONAL LICENSING LAW MAY IGNORE IT AND ENGAGE WITH IMPUNITY IN THE EXERCISE OF THE RIGHT... ." https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&as_sdt=40006. But, see the WHOLE TRUTH about this language below.

In Shuttlesworth, the City of Birmingham had in force an ordinance which required all leaders/organizers of all political marches to apply for and to obtain a "LICENSE" from a City Commission PRIOR TO such a political march. The City Commissioners which reviewed all such applications were all WHITE and had COMPLETE, UNLIMITED DISCRETION to grant or deny such permits.

A black minister seeking to hold such a political march in Birmingham in protest of racial injustice twice attempted to apply for such a permit and was twice told by the city (before even filing out the application) that a permit would not be granted. As a result, the minister did not fill out the application or receive a permit. On "Good Friday" in 1963, the minister led the subject march for four blocks on the sidewalks of Birmingham and was arrested, convicted and sentenced to jail and hard labor for violating the subject LICENSE law.

The Supreme Court Of The United States reversed the minister's conviction and held that the subject ordinance was unconstitutional because of the COMPLETE, UNLIMITED DISCRETION it afforded city officials TO RESTRAIN FREE SPEECH (not "driving"/"operating" a motor vehicle). The court wrote as follows, "It is settled... that an ordinance which, like this one, makes the peaceful enjoyment of freedoms which THE CONSTITUTION guarantees [referring to the FREEDOM OF SPEECH] contingent upon the uncontrolled WILL [the uncontrolled DISCRETION] of an official——as REQUIRING A PERMIT OR LICENSE which may be granted or withheld IN THE DISCRETION OF SUCH OFFICIAL——is an unconstitutional CENSORSHIP OR PRIOR RESTRAINT upon the enjoyment of those [CONSTITUTIONAL] freedoms [referring to THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH]." (citation omitted). ...[A] person faced with SUCH AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL [FREE SPEECH] LICENSING LAW [which affords a government official the COMPLETE, UNLIMITED DISCRETION TO GRANT OR DENY THE LICENSE] may ignore it and engage with impunity IN THE EXERCISE OF THE RIGHT OF FREE EXPRESSION [read the last NINE words again] for which the law purports to require a [FREE SPEECH] LICENSE." (at the 5th paragraph, not including block indented portions, at about 25% through the text). Thus, by its own terms, the ruling in this case IS LIMITED TO "THE RIGHT OF FREE EXPRESSION" (not the alleged "RIGHT TO DRIVE/OPERATE" a motor vehicle "WITHOUT A DRIVER'S LICENSE".

Thus, contrary to the claims of Eddie Craig and other amateur legal theorists, this case does not authorize people to "ignore [the driver's license laws]... and engage with impunity in the exercise of the [alleged] RIGHT [to "DRIVE/OPERATE A MOTOR VEHICLE WITHOUT A DRIVER'S LICENSE"]."

THERE IS NO CASE IN THE HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES WHICH HOLDS THAT A PERSON HAS A "RIGHT TO DRIVE/OPERATE A MOTOR VEHICLE WITHOUT A DRIVER'S LICENSE". AND, THOSE ARE THE ONLY WORDS THAT LEGALLY MATTER. "SUBSTITUTE" WORDS AND "SUBSTITUTE" RULINGS AND "SUBSTITUTE" CASES WILL NOT WORK.

snoop4truth · Aug 4, 2019

GOLDHEDGE, This is more of the proof that you requested. Read it this time.

ROD CLASS AND THE "RIGHT TO TRAVEL HOAX" & THE "NO DRIVER'S LICENSE REQUIRED HOAX"

FIRST, SEE THE HOAX HERE:
VIDEOS:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Do3eTH-NtSk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L6SGIfO4ug4&t=69s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=afCz8AjvYdY&t=421s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=us7Q2xP7WXs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CyVt46ppZvw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hviooqcJb8Y

DOCUMENTS:
http://sovereign-citizen-blog.blogsp...rod-class.html
https://www.scribd.com/document/6148...Driver-License

THE HOAX I: Rod Class and other amateur legal theorists falsely claim that A PERSON IS NOT REQUIRED TO HAVE A DRIVER’S LICENSE TO DRIVE A MOTOR VEHICLE on the grounds that every person has a "RIGHT TO TRAVEL". Thus, Rod Class and other amateur legal theorists mistakenly believe that the "RIGHT TO TRAVEL" is the same thing as the "RIGHT TO DRIVE A MOTOR VEHICLE WITHOUT A DRIVER'S LICENSE". But, this is not so.

THE TRUTH: The "RIGHT TO TRAVEL" is merely the JUDICIALLY-recognized RIGHT TO LEAVE ONE STATE, ENTER ANOTHER STATE AND BE TREATED LIKE ANY OTHER CITIZEN OF THAT OTHER STATE. The "RIGHT TO TRAVEL" has NOTHING to do with "DRIVING" anything. Under the law, there is no such thing as an "RIGHT TO DRIVE A MOTOR VEHICLE WITHOUT A DRIVER'S LICENSE". But, Rod Class and other amateur legal theorists do not know enough to even realize this.

THE HOAX II: Further, Rod Class and other amateur legal theorists point out that under FEDERAL law, A PERSON IS NOT REQUIRED TO HAVE A DRIVER'S LICENSE to drive a motor vehicle UNLESS THAT PERSON IS ENGAGED IN "INTERSTATE COMMERCE". See Const., Art. 1, Sec. 8 (listing ALL THE POWERS of Congress). READ THE THIRD (3RD) CLAUSE HERE. http://www.annenbergclassroom.org/pa...le-i-section-8. This clause is known as the "[INTERSTATE] COMMERCE CLAUSE". https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/commerce_clause. This clause authorizes the FEDERAL (ONLY) government to require driver's licenses (ONLY) for drivers engaged in "INTERSTATE COMMERCE".

THE TRUTH: But, what Rod Class and other amateur legal theorists do not know is that STATE LAW ALSO APPLIES TO THE SAME PERSON AT THE SAME TIME. This is because, under the tenth amendment, STATE LAW governs the subject of driver's licenses OUTSIDE THE CONTEXT OF "INTERSTATE COMMERCE". See the Tenth Amendment here. https://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment10.html. And, under STATE law, a person is required to have a driver’s license to drive a motor vehicle WHEN THAT PERSON "IS NOT" ENGAGED IN "INTERSTATE COMMERCE". So, when BOTH FEDERAL law and STATE law are COMBINED AND APPLIED TO THE SAME PERSON AT THE SAME TIME, A PERSON IS REQUIRED TO HAVE A DRIVER’S LICENSE TO DRIVE A MOTOR VEHICLE IN ALL CONTEXTS, ALL THE TIME, NO MATTER WHAT (whether or not that person is engaged in "INTERSTATE COMMERCE"). But, Rod Class and other amateur legal theorists do not know enough to even realize this.

MISUNDERSTANDING FEDERAL LAW:
Rod Class MISTAKENLY BELIEVES that FEDERAL law governs EVERY legal subject. (This is precisely why he pretended to be a "retired FEDERAL judge" in the "Judge DALE forgeries", why he only cites FEDERAL statutes in support of his false claims and why he uses the phrase, "Congressional [meaning FEDERAL] intent".). Class does not know that FEDERAL law ONLY governs that TINY LIST of legal subjects that were expressly delegated to the FEDERAL government in the U.S. Constitution AND THAT under the tenth amendment, STATE LAW GOVERNS EVERYTHING ELSE (including drivers licenses for those who "ARE NOT" engaged in "interstate commerce".). https://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment10.html. This means that ALMOST ALL OF THE LAW IN OUR COUNTRY IS STATE LAW (95-99% multiplied by 50 states), NOT FEDERAL LAW (which only governs a TINY LIST of legal subjects). Note that if the law really was as Class MISTAKENLY BELIEVED it to be (FEDERAL law governs every legal subject), THERE WOULD BE NO NEED FOR STATE LAW IN THE FIRST PLACE AND THE TENTH AMENDMENT WOULD BE ABSOLUTELY MEANINGLESS.

Class makes this AMATEUR mistake about FEDERAL law because he misunderstands the "supremacy clause" in the U.S. Constitution. Class MISTAKENLY believes that FEDERAL LAW GOVERNS EVERY LEGAL SUBJECT and, therefore, MISTAKENLY concludes that, under the "supremacy clause", FEDERAL LAW IS "ALWAYS SUPREME" OVER EVERY LEGAL SUBJECT IN THE LAW. But, this is not so. Unknown to Class, under the "supremacy clause", FEDERAL LAW IS ONLY "SUPREME" TO STATE LAW IF (AND ONLY IF) THERE IS A DIRECT CONFLICT BETWEEN FEDERAL LAW AND STATE LAW ON THE "SAME, EXACT" LEGAL SUBJECT. But, such direct conflicts between FEDERAL law and STATE law on the SAME, EXACT legal subject are EXTREMELY RARE, because FEDERAL and STATE law govern ENTIRELY DIFFERENT ("OPPOSITE") legal subjects. So, when there is NO DIRECT CONFLICT between FEDERAL law and STATE law on the SAME, EXACT legal subject (which is almost all of the time), STATE LAW IS "SUPREME" AS TO ALL STATE LAW LEGAL SUBJECTS (such as driver's licenses FOR THOSE WHO "ARE NOT" ENGAGED IN "INTERSTATE COMMERCE").

NOTE: For a detailed explanation of just how totally irrelevant "COMMERCE" is to STATE driver's license and traffic & transportation law, see the SECOND (2nd) comment in this thread. http://projectavalon.net/forum4/show...y-sheriff-hoax. Look for "IF NO COMMERCE, NO DRIVER'S LICENSE IS NEEDED HOAX".

THE ACTUAL REAL LAW ITSELF ON THE SUBJECT OF DRIVER'S LICENSES AND THE "RIGHT TO TRAVEL":

OVER A CENTURY AGO, THE SUPREME COURT HELD THAT THE STATES HAD THE RIGHT TO REQUIRE ALL DRIVERS OF ALL MOTOR VEHICLES TO HAVE DRIVER'S LICENSES, WHETHER OR NOT THE DRIVER WAS ENGAGED IN "INTERSTATE COMMERCE". But, Rod Class and other amateur legal theorists do not know enough to even realize this.

1). Hendrick v. Maryland, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&as_sdt=40006. In this case, the United States Supreme Court held, "... A STATE MAY rightfully prescribe uniform regulations... in respect to the operation upon its highways of ALL MOTOR VEHICLES —— those moving in interstate commerce AS WELL AS OTHERS [NOT MOVING INTERSTATE COMMERCE!!!]. And to this end it [THE STATE] MAY REQUIRE the REGISTRATION OF SUCH VEHICLES and THE LICENSING OF THEIR DRIVERS... . This is but an exercise of THE POLICE POWER uniformly recognized AS BELONGING TO THE STATES [under the tenth amendment]... ." (in the 8th paragraph at about 70% through the text).

FACT: This decision (above) is from the HIGHEST court in the United States. This court is the ONLY court in the United States which has the power to overturn this decision. But, it has NEVER done so. That means this decision is still the SINGLE CONTROLLING LAW on this subject IN EVERY STATE AND FEDERAL JURISDICTION IN THE UNITED STATES. So, if you find ANY decision from ANY court ANYWHERE in the United States which contains ANY language of ANY type which you interpret as preventing THE STATES from requiring drivers of motor vehicles to have driver's licenses, then YOU HAVE INTERPRETED THAT OTHER DECISION WRONG! There has NEVER been ANY decision from ANY court in the United States which holds, "STATES may not require drivers of motor vehicles to have driver's licenses". But, even if there were such a decision, this decision above would overturn it.

NOTE: Since this decision, CONGRESS (in compliance with this decision and in compliance with Art. 1, Sec. 8, clause 3, U.S. Const.) passed “NATIONAL” (FEDERAL) legislation regulating ONLY those drivers WHO WERE ENGAGED IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE (Title 49). Under the tenth amendment and under this decision (above), this reserved unto THE STATES the power to regulate ONLY those drivers WHO WERE “NOT” ENGAGED IN "INTERSTATE COMMERCE". In this sense, FEDERAL law and STATE law are now "OPPOSITES" of one another. But, Rod Class and other amateur legal theorists do not know enough to even realize this.

FACT: Under the tenth amendment, THE STATES have the CONSTITUTIONAL "RIGHT" to require driver's licenses of all drivers who are “NOT” ENGAGED IN "INTERSTATE COMMERCE".

2). State v. Sullivan, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&as_sdt=40006. In this case, the court held, "THE TENTH AMENDMENT to the Constitution of the United States provides, 'The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution nor prohibited by it to the States ARE RESERVED TO THE STATES... .' WITHIN THIS RESERVATION OF POWERS TO THE INDIVIDUAL STATES, is what has been judicially termed 'THE POLICE POWER.' (citation omitted). '[SUCH A] STATE MAY RIGHTFULLY PRESCRIBE UNIFORM REGULATIONS... in respect to THE OPERATION UPON ITS HIGHWAYS OF ALL MOTOR VEHICLES... . And to this end IT [THE STATE] MAY REQUIRE the registration of such vehicles AND THE LICENSING OF THEIR DRIVERS... . This is but an exercise of THE POLICE POWER uniformly recognized AS BELONGING TO THE STATES [under the tenth amendment and NOT belonging to the FEDERAL government under the tenth amendment]... . (quoting the Supreme Court case directly above). (at the 8th paragraph not including block indented portions at about 45% through the text). Translation: STATE LAW GOVERNS THE REQUIREMENT OF DRIVER'S LICENSES for all vehicles and drivers "NOT" engaged in "interstate COMMERCE".

3). Chaoui v. City Of Glendora, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&as_sdt=40006. In this case, the court wrote, "The United States Supreme Court has long held that STATES HAVE THE RIGHT TO REGULATE THE USE OF STATE ROADS BY REQUIRING DRIVERS ON THOSE ROADS OBTAIN DRIVER'S LICENSES carry liability insurance, and pay taxes and fees, and that such regulation DOES NOT VIOLATE THE CONSTITUTION. (citations omitted). In the absence of national legislation covering the subject, A STATE may rightfully prescribe uniform regulations necessary for public safety and order in respect to the operation upon its highways of all motor vehicles, — those moving in interstate commerce AS WELL AS OTHERS [NOT MOVING IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE!!!]. And to this end IT [THE STATE] MAY REQUIRE the registration of such vehicles AND THE LICENSING OF THEIR DRIVERS... . This is but an exercise of THE POLICE POWER uniformly recognized as BELONGING TO THE STATES [under the tenth amendment and not to the federal government] and essential to the preservation of the health, safety, and comfort of their citizens... ." (quoting the Supreme Court case above). (at the 31st paragraph, not including block indented portions at about 75% through the text). Translation: STATE LAW GOVERNS THE REQUIREMENT OF DRIVER'S LICENSES for vehicles and drivers NOT engaged in "interstate COMMERCE".

4). El v. Richmond Police Officer Opdyke,https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&as_sdt=40006. In this case, the court wrote, "The Supreme Court has held that STATES MAY CONSTITUTIONALLY REGULATE THE USE OF PUBLIC HIGHWAYS. In Reitz v. Mealey, the Supreme Court stated: The use of the public highways by motor vehicles, with its consequent dangers, renders the reasonableness and necessity of such regulation apparent. THE UNIVERSAL PRACTICE [AMONG THE STATES] IS TO register ownership of automobiles AND TO LICENSE THEIR DRIVERS. ANY [read this term again] appropriate means BY THE STATES to insure competence and care on the part of ITS [DRIVER'S] LICENSEES and to protect others using the highway IS CONSANANT WITH [means "is consistent with"] DUE PROCESS. (citation omitted). [And, contrary to what Rod Class and other amateur legal theorists mistakenly believe]... [T]he Supreme Court DID NOT LIMIT ITS HOLDING [ABOUT DRIVER'S LICENSES] TO COMMERICAL USES OF PUBLIC HIGHWAYS." (at the 13th paragraph at about 70% through the text).

FACT: THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS THE UNREGULATABLE "RIGHT TO DRIVE" WITHOUT A DRIVER'S LICENSE.

5). Commonwealth v. Ascenzi, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&as_sdt=40006. In this case, the court held, "THERE IS NO RIGHT TO DRIVE RECOGNIZED BY THE U.S. CONSTITUTION OR BY ANY STATE CONSTITUTION. Because there is NO CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO DRIVE [driving may be regulated, licensed or prohibited entirely]... ." (beginning in the 2nd TO LAST paragraph at about 95% through the text). Translation: The "RIGHT TO TRAVEL" is NOT the same thing as the non-existent "RIGHT TO DRIVE a motor vehicle without a driver's license".

6). State v. Sullivan, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&as_sdt=40006. In this case, the court held, "Although there is a well established and fundamental RIGHT TO INTERSTATE TRAVEL, (citation omitted), THERE IS NO CORRESPONDING RIGHT TO OPERATE [means "DRIVE"] A MOTOR VEHCILE [showing that the "right to travel" is NOT THE SAME THING as the alleged "right to drive" a motor vehicle]... .'[T]HERE IS NO RIGHT TO DRIVE an automobile on the roads and highways... .' 'The courts have UNIVERSALLY AGREED THAT AN INDIVIDUAL DOES NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO OPERATE ["DRIVE"'] A MOTOR VEHICLE.'... . 'Driving on the roads of this State is ... NOT A RIGHT, but a privilege.'" (at the 2nd TO LAST paragraph at about 65% through the text). Translation: The "RIGHT TO TRAVEL" is NOT the same thing as the non-existent "RIGHT TO DRIVE a motor vehicle without a driver's license".

7). John Doe No. 1 v. Georgia Dept. Of Public Safety, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&as_sdt=40006. In this case, the court held that there is NO SUCH THING AS A "RIGHT TO DRIVE" and cited the following holding of another case with approval, "[THERE IS] NO FUNDAMENTAL 'RIGHT TO DRIVE'... ." The court also cited this holding from another case with approval, "WHILE A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO TRAVEL EXISTS, THERE IS NO FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO DRIVE A MOTOR VEHICLE [showing that the "right to travel" is NOT THE SAME THING as the alleged "right to drive" a motor vehicle]... ." (at the 4h paragraph from he bottom at about 85% through the text). Translation: The "RIGHT TO TRAVEL" is NOT the same thing as the non-existent "RIGHT TO DRIVE a motor vehicle without a driver's license".

8). Matter Of Acevedo v. State Of New York DMV, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&as_sdt=40006. In this case, the court held, "Although the [U.S.] constitution recognizes a RIGHT TO TRAVEL [INTERSTATE] within the United States, referred to as the "RIGHT OF FREE MOVEMENT [BETWEEN THE STATES]" (citation omitted), IT [THE CONSTITUTION] DOES NOT RECOGNIZE A FUNDAMENTAL 'RIGHT TO DRIVE' [drawing a distinction between these two different legal subjects]. (citations omitted). (at the section entitled "Due Process" at about 80% through the text). Translation: The "RIGHT TO TRAVEL" is NOT the same thing as the non-existent "RIGHT TO DRIVE a motor vehicle without a driver's license".

9). Matter Of Allen v. New York State DMV, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&as_sdt=40006. SAME HOLDING VERBATIM. (at the section entitled "Due Process" at about 80% through the text). Translation: The "RIGHT TO TRAVEL" is NOT the same thing as the non-existent "RIGHT TO DRIVE a motor vehicle without a driver's license".

10). Matter of Matsen v. State of New York DMV, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&as_sdt=40006. SAME HOLDING VERBATIM. (at the section entitled "Due Process" at about 80% through the text). Translation: The "RIGHT TO TRAVEL" is NOT the same thing as the non-existent "RIGHT TO DRIVE a motor vehicle without a driver's license".

11). Matter of Gillman v. State of New York DMV, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&as_sdt=40006. SAME HOLDING VERBATIM. (at the section entitled "Due Process" at about 80% through the text). Translation: The "RIGHT TO TRAVEL" is NOT the same thing as the non-existent "RIGHT TO DRIVE a motor vehicle without a driver's license".

HERE IS THE DEFINITION OF THE "RIGHT TO TRAVEL" AS PROVIDED BY THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES.

12). Jones v. Helms, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&as_sdt=40006. In this case, the Supreme Court Of The United States held, "The RIGHT TO TRAVEL... is 'THE RIGHT of a United States citizen TO TRAVEL FROM ONE STATE TO ANOTHER and to take up residence in the State of his choice [and to be treated like any other citizen of that other state].'" (citation omitted). (at the 8th paragraph at about 25% through the text). Translation: The RIGHT TO TRAVEL has nothing to do with DRIVING anything. Instead, the RIGHT TO TRAVEL is all about being treated the same as the local state citizens, regardless of which state you happen to be in.

13). Saenz v. Roe, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&as_sdt=40006. In this case, the court held, "THE 'RIGHT TO TRAVEL'... protects THE RIGHT OF A CITIZEN OF ONE STATE TO ENTER AND LEAVE ANOTHER STATE, THE RIGHT TO BE TREATED AS A WELCOME VISITOR... IN [THAT OTHER]... STATE, and for those travelers who elect to become permanent residents [OF THAT OTHER STATE]... THE RIGHT TO BE TREATED LIKE OTHER CITIZENS OF THAT [OTHER] STATE." (at the 16th paragraph at about 25% through he text). Translation: The RIGHT TO TRAVEL has nothing to do with DRIVING anything. Instead the RIGHT TO TRAVEL is all about being treated the same as the local state citizens, regardless of which state you happen to be in.

The "RIGHT TO TRAVEL" IS NOT ABOUT "DRIVING" ANYTHING.

14). State v. Sullivan, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&as_sdt=40006. In this case, the court held, "[T]HE RIGHT TO TRAVEL IS NOT SYNONYMOUS WITH [means "IS NOT THE SAME AS"] THE RIGHT TO OPERATE A MOTOR VEHICLE on the highways of this State. 'THE OPERATION OF A MOTOR VEHCILE on such highways IS NOT A NATURAL RIGHT. IT IS A CONDITIONAL PRIVILEGE, which may be suspended or revoked under the [state's] POLICE POWER. The license or permit to so operate [a motor vehicle] IS NOT A CONTRACT or property right in a constitutional sense." (at the 8th paragraph, not including block indented portions, at about 45% through he text). Translation: The "RIGHT TO TRAVEL" is not about "DRIVING" anything.

15). Miller v. Reed, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&as_sdt=40006. In this case, the court quoted another court which wrote, "The plaintiff's argument that the RIGHT TO OPERATE A MOTOR VEHICLE is [somehow protected by]... the fundamental RIGHT OF INTERSTATE TRAVEL IS UTTERLY FRIVOLOUS [read this phrase again]. The plaintiff is not being prevented from TRAVELING INTERSTATE by public transportation, by common carrier [means, plane, train, ship, or bus], or [as a PASSENGER] in a motor vehicle driven by someone with a license to drive it. What is at issue here IS NOT HIS RIGHT TO TRAVEL INTERSTATE [which is one legal subject], BUT HIS RIGHT TO OPERATE A MOTOR VEHICLE on the public highways [which is an entirely different legal subject], and we have no hesitation in holding that THIS [driving/operating a motor vehicle] IS NOT A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT [read that phrase again]. (Citation omitted). Miller [the amateur legal theorist in this case] DOES NOT HAVE A FUNDAMENTAL 'RIGHT TO DRIVE'." (citation omitted). (at the 13th paragraph at about 60% through he text). Translation: The RIGHT TO TRAVEL interstate and the PRIVILEGE OF DRIVING a car are NOT the same thing. Translation: The RIGHT TO TRAVEL INTERSTATE and the privilege of DRIVING a motor vehicle are not the same thing.

16). North Carolina v. Howard, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&as_sdt=40006. In this case, the court wrote, "The RIGHT TO TRAVEL... IS 'THE RIGHT of a United States citizen TO TRAVEL FROM ONE STATE TO ANOTHER AND TO TAKE UP RESIDENCE IN THE STATE OF HIS CHOICE [and be treated like any other citizen of that other state].' (citation omitted).' ... . [In this case,] [T]here is NO EVIDENCE that [the petitioners] are prohibited from TRAVELING FROM ONE STATE TO ANOTHER [which might have otherwise violated the RIGHT TO TRAVEL INTERSTATE]. Petitioners have voluntarily chosen not to disclose their SS [social security] numbers and, thereby, are unable to obtain a drivers license... . Petitioners ARE FREE TO LEAVE THE STATE [under their RIGHT TO TRAVEL]— although THEY MAY NOT DRIVE WITHOUT A DRIVER'S LICENSE [drawing a distinction between these two different legal subjects]." (at the section entitled, "2. Right To Travel" at about 95% through the text). Translation: The RIGHT TO TRAVEL INTERSTATE and the privilege of DRIVING a motor vehicle are not the same thing.

17). Thompson v. Scutt, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&as_sdt=40006. In this case, the court wrote, "... Petitioner claims that the State... violated his CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO TRAVEL by enforcing laws PROHIBITING [HIS]... DRIVING WITH A SUSPENDED LICENSE. This claim is WITHOUT MERIT because Petitioner [LIKE ROD CLASS] MISUNDERSTANDS THE NATURE OF THE RIGHT TO TRAVEL. The Supreme Court has recognized a RIGHT TO TRAVEL which is essentially A RIGHT of citizens TO MIGRATE FREELY BETWEEN STATES [not to drive/operate motor vehicles without driver's licenses]. (citation omitted). This right [to travel] includes: [T]HE RIGHT OF A CITIZEN OF ONE STATE TO ENTER AN LEAVE ANOTHER STATE, the right to be treated as a welcome visitor... when temporarily present IN THE SECOND STATE, and, for those travelers who elect to become permanent residents [OF THAT OTHER STATE], the right to be treated like other citizens OF THAT [other] STATE." (at the section entitled, "D. Right to Travel" at about 50% through he text.)

FACT: STATE requirements for driver's licenses DO NOT VIOLATE THE "RIGHT TO TRAVEL".

18). Chaoui v. City of Glendora, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&as_sdt=40006. In this case, the court wrote, "To the extent Plaintiff challenges the constitutionality of California's driver's license requirement, ANY SUCH CHALLENGE IS MERITLESS [read this phrase again]. The United States Supreme Court has long held that STATES HAVE THE RIGHT [under the tenth amendment] to regulate the use of state roads BY REQUIRING THAT DRIVERS ON THOSE OBTAIN DRIVER'S LICENSES, carry liability insurance, and pay taxes and fees, AND THAT such REGULATION DOES NOT VIOLATE THE CONSTITUTION... ." The court went on to cite the holding of another case with approval which held, "STATE LAWS REQUIRING VALID DRIVER'S LICENSE TO OPERATE A MOTOR VEHICLE DO NOT VIOLATE [THE CONSTITUTIONAL] RIGHT TO TRAVEL." (citation omitted). The court also cited with approval another holding of another case which, "REJECTI[ED] [THE] CONTENTION THAT CALIFORNIA'S ENFORCEMENT OF ITS DRIVER'S LICENSE AND VEHILCE REGISTRATION REQUIREMENTS VIOLATED [THE] RIGHT TO TRAVEL." (beginning in the 6th paragraph of the section entitled, "DISCUSSION" at about 75% through he text). Translation: STATE laws requiring driver's licenses DO NOT VIOLATE THE "RIGHT TO TRAVEL" which is something else entirely.

19). Robinson v. Huerta, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&as_sdt=40006. In this case, a pilot who lost his pilot's license claimed that revoking his pilot's license violated his RIGHT TO TRAVEL. But, the court ruled otherwise and wrote, "a number of courts have held that an incidental RESTRICTION ON A SINGLE MODE OF TRANSPORTATION [such as driving a motor vehicle] DOES NOT VIOLATE THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO TRAVEL. In support, the court cited a case which, "[FOUND] NO INFRINGEMENT OF THE RIGHT TO TRAVEL... because 'TRAVELERS DO NOT HAVE A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO THE MOST CONVENIENT FORM OF TRAVEL [such as driving a motor vehicle]... ')... ." The court also cited a case which held that a "DENIAL OF [A] DRIVER'S LICENSE ONLY DENIES THE PLAINTIFF THE ABILITY TO DRIVE A CAR [a single mode of travel], AND THUS "DOES NOT IMPERMISSIBLY BURDEN HIS RIGHT TO TRAVEL [INTERSTATE using other MODES of transportation]." The court then cited another case which held, "A BURDEN ON A SINGLE MODE OF TRANSPORTATION [such as driving a motor vehicle] SIMPLY DOES NOT [VIOLATE]... THE RIGHT TO INTERSTATE TRAVEL." Finally, the court cited a case which "reject[ed] [a] claim that [the] denial of a driver's license violate[d] [the] RIGHT TO INTERSTATE TRAVEL because... THERE IS NO FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO DRIVE." (at the 8h paragraph in the section entitled "3. Right To Travel" at about 75% through the text). Translation: STATE laws requiring driver's licenses DO NOT VIOLATE THE "RIGHT TO TRAVEL" which is something else entirely.

20). State v. Williams, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&as_sdt=40006. In this case, WORLD FAMOUS AMATEUR LEGAL THEORIST, ANTHONY TROY WILLIAMS, filed this LOSING appeal following his LOSS at the trial court where he was CRIMINALLY CONVICTED (again) for DRIVING ON A SUSPENDED OR REVOKED DRIVER'S LICENSE, SECOND OFFENSE. Williams was sentenced to SIX MONTHS IN JAIL and a $2,500 FINE. NOTE: This case is one of TEN (10) similar driver's license cases that Williams LOST in the State of Tennessee alone. This number does not even include his many other LOSSES of similar driver's license cases in other states, such as Florida. In this case, the court wrote, "This Court agrees with Appellant's [ANTHONY WILLIAMS'] contention that he enjoys a fundamental RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF TRAVEL. (citation omitted). However, Appellant's [WILLIAMS'] RIGHT TO TRAVEL HAS NOT BEEN INFRINGED UPON BY THE REQUIREMENT BY OUR [STATE] LEGISLATURE THAT AN INDIVIDUAL [LIKE WILLIAMS] HAVE A VALID DRIVER'S LICENSE TO LAWFULLY OPERATE A MOTOR VEHICLE ON THE PUBLIC HIGHWAYS OF THIS STATE... . The same holds true for the requirement that motor vehicles be registered under the motor vehicle registration law. ... . Arguments identical to Appellant's [WILLIAMS'] have been addressed AND DISMISSED by this Court SEVERAL TIMES [actually providing a long list of those DISMISSALS as proof]." The court upheld the conviction and sentence against Williams. But, the court could not resist making fun of some of Williams' amateur legal theories. In footnote 1, the court wrote, "Throughout the events leading up to this appeal, Appellant REFERRED TO HIMSELF as the 'ATTORNEY IN FACT' FOR THE 'LEGAL FICTION' OF 'ANTHONY WILLIAMS' [making fun of the amateur "SPLIT PERSONALITY" defense]. The record even includes an exhibit PURPORTING TO COPYRIGHT THE NAME 'ANTHONY TROY WILLIAMS' and several variations of the name [as if that could be used as a defense in a case]. Appellant is apparently part of the sovereign citizen movement. For the sake of clarity, we will not distinguish between the attorney in fact and the legal fiction, REFERRING TO BOTH as Appellant [making fun of Williams' amateur "SPLIT PERSONALITY" defense]." Translation: STATE laws requiring driver's licenses DO NOT VIOLATE THE "RIGHT TO TRAVEL" which is something else entirely. NOTE THAT THIS IS THE SAME WORLD FAMOUS "ANTHONY WILLIAMS" WHO STARS IN THE 3 MINUTE VIDEO BELOW.

21). John Doe No. 1 v. Georgia Dept. Of Public Safety, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&as_sdt=40006. In this case, an illegal alien who had not established residency in the state sued the state because it refused to issue him a driver's license. The illegal alien claimed that by so doing, the state had violated his "RIGHT TO TRAVEL". But, the court disagreed and wrote, "[T]he Georgia statutes in question do not violate that right [to travel]... . BURDENS ON A SINGLE MODE OF TRANSPORTAION [such as driving a car] DO NOT [VIOLATE]... THE RIGHT TO INTERSTATE TRAVEL. (citation omitted). [THERE IS] NO FUNDAMENTAL 'RIGHT TO DRIVE'... . (citation omitted). WHILE A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO TRAVEL EXISTS, THERE IS NO FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO DRIVE A MOTOR VEHICLE [drawing a distinction between these two different legal subjects]... . REGULATION OF THE DRIVING PRIVILEGE is a quintessential example of the exercise of THE POLICE POWER OF THE STATE [under the tenth amendment], AND THE DENIAL OF A SINGLE MODE OF TRANSPORTATION [such as driving a motor vehicle] DOES NOT RISE TO THE LEVEL OF A VIOLATION OF THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO INTERSTATE TRAVEL [which is something else entirely]." (at the 4h paragraph from he bottom at about 85% through the text). Translation: STATE laws requiring driver's licenses DO NOT VIOLATE THE "RIGHT TO TRAVEL" which is something else entirely.

FACT: A person may freely exercise his/her "RIGHT TO TRAVEL" without "DRIVING" ANYTHING by walking, riding a bicycle or horse, or as a "PASSENGER" in an automobile, bus, airplane or helicopter.

22. State v. Sullivan, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&as_sdt=40006. In this case, an amateur legal theorist appealed his convictions for driving an unregistered car and for driving without insurance. The defendant argued that such STATE laws violated his "RIGHT TO TRAVEL". The court disagreed and wrote, "If defendant does not wish to follow these statutory requirements, we remind him that HE MAY EXERCISE HIS RIGHT TO TRAVEL [INTERSTATE] IN A VARIETY OF WAYS, 'If he wishes, HE MAY WALK, RIDE A BICYCLE OR HORSE, OR TRAVEL AS A PASSENGER in an AUTOMOBILE, BUS, AIRPLANE or HELICOPTER. HE CANNOT, HOWEVER, OPERATE ["DRIVE"] A MOTOR VEHCILE ON THE PUBLIC HIGHWAYS [WITHOUT A DRIVER'S LICENSE]... ." (citation omitted). Translation: A person can exercise his/her "RIGHT TO TRAVEL" INTERSTATE without DRIVING A MOTOR VEHICLE.

23). Miller v. Reed, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&as_sdt=40006. In this case, the State of California refused to issue Miller a driver's license because he would not reveal his social security number. Miller argued that in so doing, California had violated his RIGHT TO TRAVEL. But, the court disagreed and wrote, "The plaintiff is NOT being prevented from TRAVELLING INTERSTATE BY PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION, BY COMMON CARRIER [means plane, bus, train or ship], OR [AS A PASSENGER] IN A MOTOR VEHICLE DRIVEN BY SOMEONE WITH A LICENSE TO DRIVE IT." (at the 4h paragraph, block indented portion, in the section entitled "DISCUSSION" at about 60% through the text). Translation: A person can exercise his/her "RIGHT TO TRAVEL" INTERSTATE without DRIVING A MOTOR VEHICLE.

3 MINUTE VIDEO.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cLbXtscZBM8

SNOPES:
http://m.snopes.com/supreme-court-ru...s-unnecessary/

ABOUT ROD CLASS:
Rod Class is a functionally-illiterate amateur legal theorist with barely a high school education WHO HAS LOST EVERY SINGLE CASE IN WHICH HE HAS EVER BEEN INVOLVED (OVER 76 CONSECUTIVE LOSSES IN A ROW, AND STILL COUNTING). Further, Class has a long history of PSYCHIATRIC PROBLEMS involving DELUSIONS, PATHOLOGICAL OPPOSITION/DEFIANCE of AUTHORITY FIGURES and PATHOLOGICAL LYING. Moreover, Class is a MULTI-CONVICTED, WEAPONS RELATED, CONVICTED FELON who also has SEVERAL ADDITIONAL MISDEMEANOR CONVICTIONS, as well. Because of Class’ well-publicized HATRED of our ELECTED representatives, their appointees and our REPUBLICAN form of government, because of his HISTORY OF PSYCHIATRIC PROBLEMS and because of his LENGTHY CRIMINAL HISTORY involving DEADLY WEAPONS, Class has been placed on the United States TERRORIST WATCH LIST.

Most importantly, Class is a PROFESSIONAL HOAXER AND CHARLATAN who is behind a number of legal HOAXES which he created and peddles to INTENTIONALLY DEFRAUD the American people. For an ENTIRE SERIES of HOAXES by Rod Class, CLICK HERE. http://projectavalon.net/forum4/show...is-many-hoaxes.

ABOUT SNOOP4TRUTH:
Snoop4truth is a legal expert and whistle blower who exposes online hoaxes. Snoop4truth did not reveal this information to harm Rod Class. Instead, Snoop4truth exposed this information solely to reduce the CATASTROPHIC DAMAGE that such INTENTIONAL FRAUD inflicts upon the American people every single day. Had it not been for Rod Class' role in the "Judge DALE Hoax", Snoop4truth would not have exposed this information here.

The message to all hoaxers and charlatans? Just tell the truth.

FunnyMoney · Aug 4, 2019

snoop4truth said:

Not really.

You see, I think you missed my point. This happens constantly with my posts so it in no way reflects anything with regards to your commenting on the issue of a diagnosis.

I'll try to be more abrupt about my point, which might help. The issue the forum is undergoing is that the DL issue didn't make the cut. There are at least a half dozen things which have us a bit what appears over the deep edge. "Fear of the homeless" was another one of those things which didn't make the cut either, so don't feel bad. I'm a card carrying DL carry type person myself and believe me I no nothing about the law other than if there's no justice what good does a law mean?

Back to the point, "fear this minority or that minority" is still somewhat in the running, but that's just because of big money support - we simply respectfully ignore them. But lawyers around these parts is a whole 'nuther matter, they usually remain suspect, especially if they're not constantly defending the sheep's rights to contest things (especially concerning any votes about what to have for dinner) and going on pages of , yes, I know, the "rule of law."

So it comes with the territory. Rule of law exited the picture quite some time back, but personally, I think GIM2 might benefit from a truth seeking lawyer.

MIavatar · Aug 4, 2019

I just want to know when I can claim the interest on teh NAME. I've been reserving my rights and requesting lawful money for years. UCC 1-308 and 12 USC 411 respectivley. It's litterally on my state issued ID and all bank signature cards and correspondences. How much they get for my bond so far? Can I freedom of info act fidelity? I have so many questions.

FunnyMoney · Aug 4, 2019

MIavatar said:

Let us know when you have an army of lawyers, lobbyists and 3-letter dot gov insiders at your disposal. Otherwise, "get in line," is typically the canned response.

MIavatar · Aug 4, 2019

I'm tired of the BS. I want my interest dividends on teh NAME.

I never endorsed shit on any debt. I in fact refused the debt under UCC and USC code.

FunnyMoney · Aug 4, 2019

MIavatar said:

You and the shootist have the exact same attitude about that. I must say, I admire your enthusiasm. That has to be one of the most refreshing statements I've seen around these parts in a while. Everyone here is tired of their BS also.

It's not "the" BS - it is "their" BS. Several past presidents and founders of our nation explained that quite clearly. The only problem we have is "they" are a global power and "they" don't report to "we the people" and in addition, "they" control just about everything on the planet and we're not even sure what they're names are, let alone where they're hiding out.

Just in case you didn't already know any of all that already - which I can guess you probably already did.

P.S. If you do happen to get a check, please let us know how you did it.

BarnacleBob · Aug 4, 2019

snoop4truth said:

If those are your qualifications, WTF are you doing in this August Forum? Secondly, it was programmed people just like you that supported Hitler, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, etc... I dont argue with ideological people. As I previously stated, research the drivers licensing scheme or any of the other .gov infringements upon liberty that was presented as public safety. There is almost always a special interest with an economic agenda behind them.... In your case, you are the COMMERCIAL special interest trying to promote YOUR version of what constitutes the so called real law... In your profession you mislead clients & the general public to believe that "statutes" are the law, when its axiomatic that statutes are merely evidence of a law but not the law itself. All laws begin as a bill before the respective House or Senate, once enacted pursuant the Constitutional forms & solemnities including the enacting clause (Be it enacted by the Legislature of the State of XXXX) and signed by the Executive (Governor) the bill becomes a pocket law.... the bill is where the law resides, the bill includes a description of what "specific" class of persons and/or property is subject to the bills subject matter. A statute is merely a shortened "reference" to the bill & the pocket law.... yet everyday, statutes are misrepresented as REAL LAW by the police power, the Judiciary, the ABA & its members.... Why would I believe any damned thing you or your economic cartel states.... ???

Previously, I stated that one must research the old cases to reveal the licensing scam... you answered by providing recent cases, which I agree with for the most part, as the verbiage in the cases indicate that the very nature is commerce & commercial.... My Blacks 2nd & 3rd editions definitions reveal & evidence these FACTS.....

From the looks of it, you have wholey bought into the party line without fully researching the possibility that you are in error.... Which answers my questions as to how could Lenin, Stalin, Mao, & Hitler, etc. convince so many intelligent people to support their ideologies & political power agenras... they simply rewrote & ignored the established tenants of the original political & jural organization.... of course Lenin, Stalin, Mao & Hitler, etc. et al ALL had the support of the Judiciary & Lawyers. What was once legal, lawful & constitutional were no longer allowable under the new managements "public policy." Sound familiar? There is an overwhelming amount of stare decisis that supports the right to travel without .gov licensing.... Just because the state & its monopolis acolytes have found the goose that lays golden eggs in the licensing, regulatory & titling scam doesnt make it legitimate or constitutional... just because its enforced & backed by the violence of the state doesnt make it legitimate & lawful either. The state has a compelling reason (cash flow & collateral) to keep the cash cow alive....

Its really laughable & naive to read the propaghandized ignorance you have stated about "We the People". You dont even have a clue as to who "We the People" really are.... hence your so called qualifications & understanding of organic constitutional law are severely narrow minded.... no doubt the possible product of a severly limited university indoctrinated education.... Dont get me started on the BAR, plenty of dumb asses running around that have passed the BAR. The BAR license is like a Driver License, just because you got the license doesnt mean your a capable or safe driver.

Your REAL LAW once incarcerated thousands of honorable Japanese Americans for nothing more than their ancestry.... Your REAL LAW caused the Whiskey Rebellion, Prohibition, War on Drugs, etc. that has killed millions.... Your REAL LAW destroys liberty & empowers the state while enriching the certain privileged classes....

Good luck, and suffice it to say, I strongly disagree, I dont think you have a clue as to what is & has occured concerning most of the licensing & regulatory scams.. You possess a very biased & one sided view of jural history.... theres always two sides to a story.... I guess you dont think the state would lie & misrepresent its dejure authority to protect its power & cash cows???

Juristic Person · Aug 4, 2019

Debunking Snoop -
Recently snoop4truth sent out a mass email
accusing Deborah Tavares of spreading hoaxes.
Snoop4truth is an anonymous troll.

He presents his incorrect positions and
accusations as fact. And of course he
is wrong.

One thing for sure he is no legal expert.

His repeated assertion that Rod Class is Judge Dale is not only
laughable it is a redirection technique. As he doesn't mention
my name or web site, he hopes to decrease the chances that
folks will visit it. Because, if they did they might run across the
interview of former World Bank attorney Karen Hudes on a
Rod Class call whereby she independently confirms information
Judge Dale provides in his book The Great American Adventure.
You can hear 15 minutes of her interview here:
https://anticorruptionsociety.com/2...k-attorney-exposes-the-banksters-and-the-bar/

They might also discover attorney/researcher Melvin Stamper's book
Fruit from a Poisonous Tree. Stamper also independently confirms
Judge Dale's information. If snoop4truth had the legal expertise to
challenge either of these legal giants, he would surely not be posting
anonymously.

Snoop4truth is likely a paid disinformation agent. We should ignore
all his anonymous messages . . .where ever they appear.

Perhaps Deborah should feel good about the fact that she is getting
her message out so far and wide that our common enemy now has
to pay people to try and discredit her.
Best,
AL Whitney, Editor of AntiCorruptionSociety.com
Host of In Defense of Humanity on RBN, Saturdays at 8 pm ET

Goldhedge · Aug 5, 2019

snoop4truth said:

No, because your version of the law is 'color of law'. It's for government to rule over its business NOT the people unless by contract. That is what Yick Wo v Hopkins clearly points out.

The people have the right to contract.
The state is ready willing and able to contract with all comers.
If they fool the people into contracting, licensing etc. under duress of financial ruin all the better.
See the difference?

You are steeped in Legal...

Strawboss · Aug 5, 2019

Snoop is right. Every law (including the ones most despised) came into being as the result of elections. We the People. Through our elected Representatives. Just like the Constitution defined.

Now...crooked lawmakers? Agreed.
Crooked lawyers? No question.
Corruption run amok? Yup.
Judges with ideological biases - unfortunately yes.

The problem is us. We the People. Collectively. We did it to ourselves...

As an aside...it strikes me as strange that someone would come here and try to pump money into a strangers Gofundme. Just imagine the repercussions that could result if that “transaction” was later spun to be nefarious in some fashion.

Gold is after all the enemy of the deep state.

So snoopy...what can you contribute to our knowledge about golds role in things?

FunnyMoney · Aug 5, 2019

No. That's not true.

"They" are the problem. "They" were the problem, "they" always have been the problem and "they" were always the problem.

No longer do our leaders mention "them" much, but if you go back into history, leader after leader, the founding fathers of this nation, several revolutionary leaders from other nations, and many "in the know" have explained this quite clearly to us.

The war of Independence did not wrap things up. There was a war just a couple decades later and there have been several battles against "them" all along the way until even just a handful of decades ago.

Andrew Jackson had two gun shots misfire while pointed point blank at him, or he wouldn't have won the 8 year struggle to defeat them in a single very confined battle. A struggle which was only one small, short lived victory against them.

This list of martyrs who have fought against them, not just from our nation, but from all around the globe is quite a lengthy list.

You point your finger at the unarmed, uneducated working class but that is only one-third the story at best and quite a well known deflection technique - misleading to say the least, if not more likely counter-productive, inside the matrix, status quo propaganda.

The Tytler cycle and thousands of years of accumulated resources and power are not as easily defeated as you might think. I suggest you study history. Or you can refer to my post #59 above, if you want the modern day status on things.

Strawboss · Aug 5, 2019

Who passes laws? Congress.
Who controls the public purse? Congress
Who elects Congress? We the People.

What part don’t you get FM?

FunnyMoney · Aug 5, 2019

Strawboss said:

No, it's what you don't get.

Nobody getting close to the levers of power isn't already long since corrupted. Anyone even running for state gov't now, if they are a candidate with any hope of getting into the final stretch will have already been explained what they can and can not say / do.

You are tied in to the matrix and don't realize it. They system is not controlled by 3 animals taking a vote on what to have for dinner, although the media tells you that. That itself is a deception, even if it were true, it would not bring liberty - the founders never intended for the vote to be so powerful, we were intended to be a republic and you don't want to recognize that. You simply say, "you got to vote for them, didn't you?" This is a very constrained view.

If people were actually living in liberty, then "we the people" (in the widely adopted view of what that is supposed to mean) would have the time and resources to protect their liberty, at least at the local and state layers. But those days don't exist. Liberty and freedom are fleeting things, once you have them they are hard to keep, once you've lost them, they're nearly impossible to get back.

Strawboss · Aug 5, 2019

FunnyMoney said:

Last time I checked...members of Congress had to get elected. By voters. Like you. Maybe if people spent less time doing stupid shit and more time paying attention and holding these people accountable...things would be better...

Not referring to you or anyone else in particular...just “We the People” in general.

We have the government we deserve. We voted for it...as usual...

arminius · Aug 5, 2019

Yes, we have allowed this lying legal bullshit vs true enacted law secondary to incrementalism over the years, but please note the difference between law and legal. One is true human law, designed from Gods law, duly constitutionally enacted and the other is a bastardized Satan designed extra constitutional legal system designed to create income streams for the despoilers of the republic, and is subject to our consent, which is virtually unknown secondary to more frikin lies by these thieves.

Juristic Person · Aug 5, 2019

arminius said:

Yes, we have allowed this lying legal bullshit vs true enacted law secondary to incrementalism over the years, but please note the difference between law and legal. One is true human law, designed from Gods law, duly constitutionally enacted and the other is a bastardized Satan designed extra constitutional legal system designed to create income streams for the despoilers of the republic, and is subject to our consent, which is virtually unknown secondary to more frikin lies by these thieves.

It didn’t take much for the snoopy program to blacklist me and stop responding...

FunnyMoney · Aug 5, 2019

arminius said:

I agree. But remember, if you go and contest the situation, you are throwing you're fate to the wind.

Juristic Person said:

"Black listed" is the least of your concerns when you go up against the matrix. Matter of fact, congratulations, I think that counts as a success
.

Strawboss · Aug 5, 2019

arminius said:

The law is what is in the Constitution as well as what passes Congress and gets signed (or in the rare case of a veto override). Then there is Supreme Court precedent that is enforced at the lower court levels.

Our system lays out how the laws are made.

What many in this thread are arguing is that the laws themselves are unjust...or that the politicians that pass them are corrupt (or just plain stupid) or that they hold some philosophical objection to the law, etc... I have no beef with any of that. I think what matters is what actually happens in front of a judge - and the determinations that are made there. I am no legal expert, but - I have interacted with the system enough to understand how this stuff works.

I think a fair argument to make is that our system is fundamentally flawed because we have humans functioning in concert to operate the "system". And since humans have this uncanny ability to completely fuck shit up...well - there you go...

But (or however) - compared to other "systems" that have been tried around the world - it is the best that I have seen (albeit still very imperfect in a myriad of ways).

The crux of all this is that the basic truth is that there isnt a human being on this planet that is truly qualified to be "in charge"...so we are left to fumble and bumble along - and hopefully things dont get too haywire where it all falls to shit...

Unfortunately - things dont seem to be progressing in that direction...

Goldhedge · Aug 5, 2019

Red Light cameras are another 'fly' in the ointment.

They use a photo to convict you. Used to be you had the right to face your accuser in court and question them.

There's no questioning a photo in court. It's presumed you are guilty from the start.

"Oh, but an officer reviewed the photo" is not a defense in court.

Scorpio · Aug 5, 2019

Strawboss said:

OMG!!

Now that is some funny chit right there,

Ahhh to be so naive again,

snoop4truth · Aug 5, 2019

Goldhedge said:

Hello Goldhedge,

YOUR COMMENT: No, because your version of the law is 'color of law'.

MY RESPONSE: Not so. You continue to use the phrase, "color of law" incorrectly. The phrase, "color of law" is a phrase that only applies to INDIVIDUAL BEHAVIOR, INDIVIDUAL CONDUCT, INDIVIDUAL ACTION. The phrase, "color of law" does not apply to the law itself. That would be the same as saying, "color of ITSELF". Likewise, the phrase, "color of law" does not apply to not to a court.

YOUR COMMENT: It's for government to rule over its business NOT the people unless by contract.

MY RESPONSE: This is simply not so. Only amateur legal theorist make this false claim. The law is written and made into law by representatives who "We the People" elect to make the law. Those laws apply to whom ever our elected lawmakers say they apply to. The law is not limited in its application to governmental employees or governmental business as you contend.

YOUR COMMENT: That is what Yick Wo v Hopkins clearly points out.

MY RESEPONSE: Not so.

YOUR COMMENT: The people have the right to contract.

MY RESPONSE: Agreed.

YOUR COMMENT: The state is ready willing and able to contract with all comers.

MY RESPONSE: The state is all of the people who reside within state borders collectively, speaking with a single voice through their elected representatives. Through the election process, these people collectively have ALREADY GIVEN THEIR CONSENT to the state laws, to the enforcement of those state laws and to effectuate punishment for the violation of those state laws. So, the state (these same people collectively speaking with a single voice through their elected representatives) DO NOT NEED TO ENTER INTO A "CONTRACT" WITH ANY INDIVIDUAL to enforce those state laws or to punish for any violation of those state laws. Stated differently, the required "consent of the governed" is the consent of all of the people collectively, speaking with a single voice through their elected representatives. That "consent" is not contractual. That "consent" is electoral. "We the People" (all plural terms) do not need any individual's consent, contractual or otherwise.

YOUR COMMENT: If they fool the people into contracting, licensing etc. under duress of financial ruin all the better.
See the difference?

MY RESPONSE: "We the People" do not "fool" the individual into anything. No "contract" with the individual is required for "We the People" to pass our laws, enforce our laws or to punish for violation of our laws. A license is not a contract. It is a permit.

FACT: Every amateur legal theory ever peddled is the direct result of amateur legal theorists' inability to understand this simple legal reality. In our constitutional republic, the power of "We the People" collectively is almost unlimited compared to the power of the individual. In our constitutional republic, the power of the individual is almost nothing when compared to the power of "We the People" collectively. The SOLE limitations on the power of "We the People" collectively to regulate the individual are those few limitations listed in the state and federal constitutions, as interpreted by the courts. With those few exceptions, "We the People" collectively are constitutionally empowered to do anything else.

Regards,

Snoop

FunnyMoney · Aug 5, 2019

To use or not use Red light cameras to help prevent red light runners is a detail which should be left to the states. Maybe they could send out a warning letter - that might be deemed constitutionally allowable in a particular state's interpretation of our original federal level docs.

The original constitution made it clear how to handle The Republic. Laws were broken by past leaders and intentionally misinterpreted by judges - all those were crimes still pending for trial and the constitution needs to be respected and those crimes which have since polluted the founder's vision of a Republic require there be a "stay" placed on those changes until due process is completed.

A "stay" on 90% of the federal gov't is essentially what is needed at this point. How's that for a very naive view and another hit of hopium?

snoop4truth · Aug 5, 2019

Juristic Person said:

Hello Juristic Person,

This is what Al Whitney (real name "Anita Larin") was talking about above. For actual proof of these hoaxes, click here and scroll down. https://www.waccobb.net/forums/show...piracy-weaponized-weather-fires-depopulation)

SUMMARY OF THE HOAXES OF DEBORAH TAVARES:

1. "The NASA War Document Hoax". The document is REAL, but has been "modified" to fit the hoax. It now has a FAKE and misleading TITLE and COVER. But, the hoax is NOT the document anyway. Instead, the hoax is Deborah Tavares' OWN fraudulent claims that THE DOCUMENT ALONE CONSTITUTES "PROOF" that NASA is already killing us all with diabolical weapons in furtherance of the planned extinction of mankind. But, her claims about this document are not so. The document is actually a power point presentation that a chief NASA scientist created and used at a national convention of American DEFENSE contractors to urge them to develop countermeasures AGAINST the diabolical weapons described therein. NASA may actually be killing us all with diabolical weapons in furtherance of the planned extinction of mankind. But, THIS PARTICULAR DOCUMENT ITSELF (upon which Deborah Tavares HERSELF says she bases this particular claim) provides no support for that proposition, because it was actually created and actually used in an effort TO PREVENT such an occurrence. SEE ACTUAL PROOF IN POST #2 BELOW.

2. "The Silent Weapons For Quiet Wars Hoax". The document is REAL, but it is only POLITICAL FICTION. It has also been "modified" to fit the hoax. It now has a FAKE, recently-added paragraph at the beginning which fraudulently indicates that it is the work of "The Bilderbergs". But, the hoax is NOT the document anyway. Instead, the hoax is Deborah Tavares' OWN fraudulent claims that THE DOCUMENT ALONE CONSTITUTES "PROOF" that "The Bilderbergs" adopted a plan in 1954 to kill us all with diabolical "silent weapons" in "quiet wars" in furtherance of the planned extinction of mankind. But, her claims about this document are not so. This tiny 44 page booklet was written in 1979 and is actually POLITICAL FICTION. It is a DISGUISED COMPLAINT about the treason and horrors suffered by U.S. soldiers when the U.S. government allegedly allowed them to be killed at Pearl Harbor in order to draw us into World War II. This tiny booklet has NOTHING to do with the Bilderbergs. The Bilderbergs may actually be killing us all with diabolical "silent weapons" in "quiet wars" in furtherance of the planned extinction of mankind. But, THIS PARTICULAR DOCUMENT ITSELF (upon which Deborah Tavares HERSELF says she bases this particular claim) provides no support for that proposition, because it is actually POLITICAL FICTION. SEE ACTUAL PROOF IN POST #3 BELOW.

3. "The Report From Iron Mountain Hoax". The document is REAL, but it is only POLITICAL SATIRE. So, the hoax is NOT the document itself. Instead, the hoax is Deborah Tavares' OWN fraudulent claims that THE DOCUMENT ALONE CONSTITUTES "PROOF" that ALL ENVIRONMENTAL CATASTROPHES (including climate change, drought, fires, etc.) ARE "ENGINEERED" by the U.S. government and used as "WEAPONS" to kill us all in furtherance of the planned extinction of mankind (something not in the book). But, her claims about this document are not so. This document is actually POLITICAL SATIRE. It is a DISGUISED COMPLAINT WHICH OPENLY MOCKS U.S. policy of engaging in perpetual wars to prop up the U.S. economy. The premise of the book is that THE U.S. IS SO DEPENDENT ON MILITARY SPENDING that "IF PEACE BROKE OUT", we will be forced to create FAKE enemies (like "FAKE ALIEN LIFE FORMS" and ENVIRONMENTAL CATASTROPHES) to "justify" our perpetual wars. The author DID NOT intend for the reader of his book to believe that the U.S. government was ACTUALLY CREATING "FAKE ALIEN LIFE FORMS" or ACTUALLY CREATING "ENGINEERED" ENVIRONMENTAL CATASTROPHES. Instead, the author merely used those ABSURD examples TO MAKE A MOCKERY of the lengths that U.S. policy makers would go to in order to create "FAKE ENEMIES" to justify "FAKE WARS" against those "FAKE ENEMIES" to prop up the U.S. economy. The U.S Government may actually be killing us all with FAKE ("engineered") environmental catastrophes in furtherance of the planned extinction of mankind. But, THIS PARTICULAR DOCUMENT ITSELF (upon which Deborah Tavares HERSELF says she bases this particular claim) provides no support for that proposition, because it is actually POLITICAL SATIRE. SEE ACTUAL PROOF IN POST #4 BELOW.

4. "The Agenda 21 Hoax". The Agenda 21 Hoax is based on TWO DOCUMENTS. The Agenda 21 document itself was a REAL United Nations document. So, the hoax is not the document itself. Agenda 21 was merely a SUGGESTION WHICH THE UNITED STATES SENATE REJECTED. So, Agenda 21 NEVER BECAME A TREATY and NEVER BECAME THE LAW. That means Agenda 21 is COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT in the United States. The hoax is Deborah Tavares' OWN fraudulent claims that THE AGENDA 21 DOCUMENT CONSTITUTES "PROOF" that the United Nations is using diabolical means (like fires and laser beams from satellites in space) to force us out or our rural and suburban homes and into increasingly-smaller, densely-packed, over-populated "Kill Cities" or "Smart Cities" in furtherance of the planned extinction of mankind. But, her claims about this document are not so. According to the "Agenda 21" document itself (upon which Deborah Tavares HERSELF says she bases this particular claim), it merely suggested that we reduce the rate at which we deplete our natural resources to the same rate at which our natural resources can recover from being depleted (called "sustainable development"). Contrary to Deborah Tavares' fraudulent claims, there is NOTHING in the Agenda 21 document itself (upon which Deborah Tavares HERSELF says she bases this particular claim) which suggests we will be forced out of our rural or suburban homes and into increasingly-smaller, densely-packed, over-populated "Kill Cities" or "Smart Cities" in furtherance of the planned extinction of mankind. NOTHING! What Deborah Tavares calls the "Agenda 21 Map" is FAKE AND HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH AGENDA 21 in the first place. Instead, it purported to relate to the proposed "Biological Diversity Treaty" (something different from Agenda 21) WHICH THE UNITED STATES SENATE ALSO REJECTED. So, that proposed treaty (and its FAKE map) are also COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT in the United States. The hoax is Deborah Tavares' OWN fraudulent claims that the "AGENDA 21 MAP" (which had NOTHING to do with Agenda 21) CONSTITUTES "PROOF" that the United Nations is using diabolical means (like fires and laser beams from space) to force us out or our rural and suburban homes and into increasingly-smaller, densely-packed, over-populated "Kill Cities" or "Smart Cities" in furtherance of the planned extinction of mankind. But, her claims about this map are not so. What Deborah Tavares fraudulently calls the "Agenda 21 Map" is FAKE and HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH AGENDA 21 in the first place. Instead, it was the work of a single opponent to the "Biological Diversity Treaty" (something different from Agenda 21) and was used to create opposition to that particular proposed treaty, WHICH THE UNITED STATES SENATE ALSO REJECTED. Because the United States REJECTED BOTH Agenda 21 and the "Biological Diversity Treaty" (to which the FAKE map related), BOTH ARE COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT in the United States. The United Nations may actually be forcing us out of our rural and suburban homes and into increasingly-smaller, densely-packed, over-populated "Kill Cities" or "Smart Cities" in furtherance of the planned extinction of mankind. But, THE AGENDA 21 DOCUMENT and the so-called "AGENDA 21 MAP" (upon which Deborah Tavares HERSELF says she bases this particular claim) provide no support for that proposition because they were both rejected. SEE ACTUAL PROOF IN POST #5 BELOW.

5. "The FORGED PG&E Email Hoax". THE EMAILS ARE FORGERIES AND THE ALLEGATIONS CONTAINED IN THOSE FORGERIES ARE VERIFIABLY FALSE. PG&E is a California electrical utility company which collects and generates electricity in a variety of ways. But, PG&E's conventional solar panels can only collect energy from the Sun during daylight hours. So, in 2009, PG&E announced that in the future solar panels on satellites in space might collect energy from the Sun 24 hours a day, then beam it to earth in the form of lasers or radio frequencies and then convert it to electricity here on earth for its customers. When the recent forest fires burned northern California, Deborah Tavares wanted to blame PG&E and this technology for starting those fires. But, the scientific literature indicated that this technology did not yet exist. SO, TO REBUT THOSE FACTS, Deborah Tavares, herself, FORGED a series of FAKE emails (some purportedly between the CPUC and PG&E) indicating that this technology already existed, that it was already in use and that it could be used to start such fires, among other things. Thus, Deborah Tavares, herself, actually created the very FORGERIES which she fraudulently claims CONSTITUTE "PROOF" that PG&E used this technology to start the recent fires in California to kill us all in furtherance of the planned extinction of mankind. But, her claims about these FORGED emails are not so. These FORGED EMAILS prove nothing except that Deborah Tavares is a fraud. PG&E may actually be using lasers or radio frequencies beamed from satellites in space to kill us all in furtherance of the planned extinction of mankind. But, THESE PARTICULAR FORGED EMAILS THEMSELVES (upon which Deborah Tavares HERSELF says she bases this particular claim) provide no support for that proposition, because they are FORGERIES! SEE ACTUAL PROOF IN POST #6 BELOW.

6. "The Genocide Agreement Hoax". The document is REAL. So, the hoax is NOT the document itself. The "Genocide Agreement" is actually the nickname of a proposed 1940's United Nations agreement BANNING GENOCIDE among signatory nations. The proposed "Genocide Agreement" BANNED"GENOCIDE" and other harmful acts against identifiable groups of people like racial and religious minorities. In 1988, the United States Senate approved the "Genocide Agreement" and President Reagan signed it into law. So, the hoax is not the document itself. Instead, the hoax is Deborah Tavares' OWN fraudulent claims that the Genocide Agreement ONLY BANS "NATIONS" FROM COMMITTING ACTS OF GENOCIDE and that THE UNITED STATES IS "NOT A NATION", BECAUSE "IT IS A CORPORATION" (which is not governed by the agreement or the ban) which permits the United States to COMMIT GENOCIDE on a "Day-by-Day" basis, which is why "WE ARE BEING EXTERMINATED". But, the truth is that the United States is not really a "corporation" and the Genocide Agreement actually bans genocide in the United States and subjects those who commit genocide to criminal prosecution. The hoax is also Deborah Tavares' OWN (ENTIRELY INCONSISTENT and CONTRADICTORY) claims that the genocide agreement DOES APPLY IN THE UNITED STATES and that it "INVADES DOMESTIC LAWS" and "ALLOWS FOREIGNERS TO 'OVER-RIDE' U.S. laws". (Note that if the Genocide Agreement really "DID NOT APPLY" to the United States because it is a "CORPORATION", it would be impossible for the Genocide Agreement TO SIMULTANEOUSLY APPLY in the United States so as to "invade" or "over-ride" any law in the United States.). Regardless, the truth is that the Genocide Agreement applies in the United States, but only "over-rides" U.S. law as to the specific acts banned by the agreement. Nothing more. The United States may actually be killing us all in an act or acts of genocide in furtherance of the planned extinction of mankind, but THIS PARTICULAR DOCUMENT ITSELF (upon which Deborah Tavares HERSELF says she bases this particular claim) provides no support for that proposition, because this document applies in the United States and actually BANS GENOCIDE and subjects the violators to criminal prosecution. SEE ACTUAL PROOF IN POST #104 BELOW.

7. "The Rothschilds Are Restructuring North America Hoax". In this hoax, Deborah Tavares fraudulently claims that an October, 30th 2017 press release stated that the Rothschilds were "restructuring north America" itself (as in "taking it over" and "changing it"). But, the subject press release DOES NOT say this. Instead, it merely says that a single Rothschild company was restructuring "IN" (as in "inside") north America. A full reading of the subject press release indicates that the term, "RESTRUCTURING'' as used in the press release, refers to this Rothschild company RESTRUCTURING DEBT (as in "re-financing"), NOT RESTRUCTURING ALL OF NORTH AMERICA ITSELF! The purpose of this hoax was to manufacture a connection between the "Rothschilds" and the Agenda 21 Hoax, to make Americans think that the "Rothschilds" are "restructuring" all of north America under the Agenda 21 model of "sustainable development" which Deborah Tavares fraudulently claims will drive us out of our rural and suburban homes and into tightly-packed, over-populated "Kill Cities" and "Smart Cities" in furtherance of the planned extinction of mankind. SEE ACTUAL PROOF IN POST #18 BELOW.

8. "The Rothschilds Own All Of The Utility Companies Hoax". In this hoax, Deborah Tavares fraudulently claims that she obtained a curriculum vitea (effectively a resume' for "expert witnesses") attached to the sworn testimony of a member of the Rothschild family wherein he stated that "he OWNED hundreds of utility companies". But, the subject curriculum vitea DOES NOT say this. Instead, it merely says that a "James A. Rothschild" is a financial consultant AND AN "EXPERT WITNESS" who has TESTIFIED in dozens and dozens of court cases in which utility companies were parties. Nothing more. In support of this same hoax, Deborah Tavares also fraudulently claims that she recently attended a PG&E stock holder's meeting wherein the PG&E Board Of Directors were allegedly seated in the front row of the audience and individually introduced to the stockholders. She fraudulently claims that a person named "Rothschild" was introduced to the stockholders as a PG&E "Board Member" (as if that would make him the "OWNER" of PG&E). But, this claim is not so. NO PG&E BOARD MEMBER HAS THE NAME, "ROTHSCHILD". The purpose of this hoax was to manufacture a connection between the "Rothschilds" and the Agenda 21 Hoax, to make Americans think that the Rothschilds are using "THEIR" utility company technologies as "weapons" to "target" us all and to drive us out of our rural and suburban homes and into tightly-packed, over-populated "Kill Cities" and "Smart Cities" in furtherance of the planned extinction of mankind. SEE ACTUAL PROOF IN POST #18 BELOW.

9. "The London Accounting Firms Will Bankrupt All Our Cities Hoax". In this hoax, Deborah Tavares claims that she read a December 26th, 2017 article in the "Press Democrat", a local Santa Rosa newspaper, which allegedly stated that Ernst & Young (a London-based accounting firm) will bankrupt all of our cities. She also claims that the article stated that Ernst & Young had “placed a value on the air that we breathe... the fresh water that we drink [and] on every tree in our forests". She claims that this "value" is actually a "price" that we will have to pay the global elite for our air, water, trees and other natural resources. But, the subject article DOES NOT say this. Instead, the subject article merely says that the city of Santa Rosa had hired Ernst & Young to determine the amount of fire damage the city had suffered in the recent California fires and to represent the city IN OBTAINING REIMBURSEMENT of that amount from FEMA. In order to do its job, Ernst & Young would necessarily have to place a "value" on city-owned property destroyed in the fires (ex: buildings, roads, bridges and infrastructure). Nothing in the article suggests that Ernst & Young would place a value on our air, water, trees or other natural resources. The article specifically states that FEMA WILL REIMBURSE THE CITY OF SANTA ROSA FOR THE COSTS OF ERNST & YOUNG'S ACCOUNTING SERVICES. In fact, federal law REQUIRES that FEMA reimburse such cities for the accounting costs they incur in seeking and in obtaining reimbursement from FEMA. Thus, NO CITY IS GOING BANKRUPT as a result of hiring Ernst & Young to determine the amount of fire damage it had suffered in the recent California fires or to represent the city IN OBTAINING REIMBURSEMENT of that amount from FEMA! The purpose of this hoax was to make Americans think that the global elite will bankrupt all of our cities, that we will have to pay the global elite to breathe air and to drink water and to otherwise incite hatred and violence against innocent Americans. SEE ACTUAL PROOF IN POST #48 BELOW.

10. "The Judge DALE Hoax". ALL OF THE "JUDGE DALE" BOOKS ARE FORGERIES. Further, EVERY SINGLE CLAIM IN THE JUDGE "DALE" FORGERIES ABOUT THE LAW AND THE LEGAL SYSTEM IS ALSO VERIFIABLY FALSE. Deborah Tavares, Al Whitney (real name "Anita Larin") and amateur legal theorist, Rodney "DALE" Class (who has lost 76 cases in a row) wrote every single word of these FORGERIES (including "The Great American Adventure: Secrets Of America" and "The Matrix And The US Constitution"). But, they fraudulently told the American people these books were written by a "retired federal judge" named "Judge DALE" (which uses Rodney "DALE" Class' middle name, "DALE", as an inside joke on the American people). DEBORAH TAVARES HAS ALREADY ADMITTED THIS TO US! The purpose of this hoax was to make Americans think that their government and their justice system is completely illegal, illegitimate, invalid, corrupt & diabolical and to otherwise incite hatred and violence against innocent Americans. SEE ACTUAL PROOF IN POST #58 BELOW.

11. "The Court Registry Investment System Hoax". THE DOCUMENT IS A FORGERY. Deborah Tavares and her partners (including Al Whitney, Jeanette Triplett and Rod Class) assembled this FAKE government document from parts of REAL government documents and then ALTERED and CHANGED the WORDS to make it fit the hoax. The hoax is Deborah Tavares' fraudulently claims that her FORGED government document itself constitutes "proof" that all of the money collected by the courts in fines and penalties is forwarded on to the Federal Reserve to keep. But, this is not so. The purpose of this hoax was to make Americans think that the courts are merely collection agents for the Federal Reserve, to make Americans think that their justice system is completely illegal, illegitimate, invalid, corrupt & diabolical and to otherwise incite hatred and violence against innocent Americans. SEE ACTUAL PROOF IN POST #53 BELOW.

12. "The All Governments And Government Agencies Are Private, For-Profit Corporations Hoax". This hoax involves several false documents and false videos. In this hoax, Deborah Tavares and Al Whitney (real name "Anita Larin") fraudulently claim that all governments and government agencies are actually private, for-profit corporations "posing" as governments and government agencies which "profit" by taxing, burdening and abusing the American people. To support this fraudulent claim, Deborah Tavares and Al Whitney cite examples of several ORDINARY, PRIVATE, FOR-PROFIT CORPORATIONS which happen to have names that SOUND SIMILAR to the names of governments and government agencies (like "Federal Express" for example). But, contrary to their claims, NONE of the ORDINARY, PRIVATE, FOR-PROFIT CORPORATIONS that they cite in support of this hoax are really governments or government agencies. Not one! They also fraudulently CHANGED THE REAL NAME of one such ORDINARY, PRIVATE, FOR-PROFIT CORPORATION TO A FAKE NAME to make it fit the hoax (from "Internal Revenue Tax And Audit Service, Inc.", a private, for-profit corporation, to "Internal Revenue Service", a government agency). This hoax was designed to make Americans think that all governments and agencies are completely illegal, invalid, illegitimate, corrupt & diabolical and to otherwise incite hatred and violence against innocent Americans. SEE ACTUAL PROOF IN POSTS #63 and #68 BELOW.

13. "The BOMBSHELL: Rod Class Has Obtained His Forth Administrative Ruling That All Government Agencies Are 'Private Entities' Hoax". This hoax involves several FAKE press releases (co-authored by Deborah Tavares) and several false videos. Note that this hoax was actually created in support of the hoax above to the effect that all governments and government agencies are private, for-profit corporations (a Deborah Tavares hoax). The purpose of this hoax was to make Americans think that our state and local government agencies (including the DMV and local police departments) are completely illegal, invalid, illegitimate, corrupt & diabolical and to otherwise incite hatred and violence against innocent Americans. SEE ACTUAL PROOF IN POST #100 BELOW.

14. "The... Property Into Other Peoples' Name Hoax". This hoax involves several FAKE press releases and false videos. In this hoax, Rod Class and his partners (including Deborah Tavares) fraudulently claim that "a North Carolina judge has warned all [in-state] police officers to put their property into other peoples' names" (to make Americans think they can successfully sue police officers "personally" because they are merely "private contractors" impersonating public servants who issue traffic tickets to generate "profits" for their "corporate employers"). Note that this hoax was actually created in support of the hoax above to the effect that all governments and government agencies are private, for-profit corporations (a Deborah Tavares hoax). The purpose of this hoax was to make Americans think our local government agencies are completely illegal, illegitimate, invalid, corrupt & diabolical and to otherwise incite hatred and violence against innocent Americans. SEE ACTUAL PROOF IN POST #101 BELOW.

15. "The FAKE Jim Traficant Speech Hoax". This hoax involves a FAKE and FORGED "transcript" of a speech that a Congressman allegedly made to Congress to the effect that our federal government went bankrupt in 1933. (The REAL transcript of this speech is in the official "Congressional Record" and does NOT say this.). Deborah Tavares, herself, actually posted this FAKE and FORGED document on her own website. Deborah Tavares has also posted several videos on YouTube wherein she quotes this document despite knowing that it is a FORGERY. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P9FU2J8qh4U

(13:30-18:05); https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8GKZSTbtBgo

(at 7:15-11:01); https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JoX5IEgaL9Y

(at 14:00-17:15); https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ltdARR9nLLs

(44:10-46:20); https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KSxXWwUuJRE

(at 2:15-4:00); https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c_wY5aYkujw

(at 21:55-23:45). Whether or not the United States actually went bankrupt in 1933 is irrelevant to this hoax. The hoax is that Deborah Tavares knowingly uses uses a document that she knows to be a FORGERY in support of that proposition. The purpose of this hoax was to make Americans think that they themselves are "collateral" and debt slaves who exist solely to pay debts arising out of that alleged "bankruptcy" and to make Americans think that our government is completely illegal, illegitimate, invalid, corrupt & diabolical and to otherwise incite hatred and violence against innocent Americans. See proof here.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Llh0ULNz918

(1:50-2:15);
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D78hBBAH7hk

(at 58:10-58:50).

16. "The Sovereign Citizen Hoax". This hoax involves a FAKE and FORGED document written by Rodney "DALE" Class while pretending to be Judge "DALE" . This FAKE and FORGED document was posted on the website of Al Whitney (real name "Anita Larin") who, like Rod Class, is also Deborah Tavares' partner in these hoaxes. The purpose of this hoax was to make Americans think that ONLY AN INDIVIDUAL IS "SOVEREIGN" and that "WE the PEOPLE" (plural terms) COLLECTIVELY, AS A WHOLE (in the form of our own elected government) ARE NOT "SOVEREIGN" (exactly backwards to the truth), such that our laws do not apply to INDIVIDUALS (the pretend "sovereigns"). But, none of this is so. Under U.S. law, the word "sovereign" means "WE the PEOPLE" (plural terms) COLLECTIVELY, AS A WHOLE in the form of our ELECTED government, not "the individual". The purpose of this hoax was to make Americans think that "WE the PEOPLE" (plural terms) COLLECTIVELY, AS A WHOLE (in the form of our elected government) have no right to enforce our own laws, made by our own ELECTED lawmakers, against any INDIVIDUAL (the pretend "sovereigns") and to otherwise incite hatred and violence against innocent Americans.

ACTUAL PROOF OF THE FOREGOING IS POSTED IN THE COMMENTS BELOW.

For the hoaxes of ROD CLASS, click here.
http://projectavalon.net/forum4/show...70#post1174970

For the hoaxes of EDDIE CRAIG, click here.
http://projectavalon.net/forum4/show...y-sheriff-hoax

ABOUT SNOOP4TRUTH:
Snoop4truth is a legal expert and whistle blower who exposes online hoaxes. Snoop4truth did not reveal this information to harm Deborah Tavares. Instead, Snoop4truth revealed this information solely to reduce the CATASTROPHIC DAMAGE that such intentional fraud inflicts upon the American people every single day. Had it not been for Deborah Tavares' role in the "Judge DALE Hoax", Snoop4truth would not have revealed this information here.

The message to all charlatans and hoaxers? Just tell the truth. The truth does not fear investigation. Only lies fear investigation. The truth can be supported by using the truth. Only lies must be supported by using hoaxes (other lies). There is no such thing as a "good reason" to intentionally defraud the American people, not even to make a popular (and sensational) conspiracy theory appear to be true.

For more on the hoaxes of Deborah Tavares, click here and scroll down. https://www.waccobb.net/forums/show...piracy-weaponized-weather-fires-depopulation)

snoop4truth · Aug 5, 2019

FunnyMoney said:

Hello FunnyMoney,

YOUR COMMENT: I think you missed my point. This happens constantly with my posts so it in no way reflects anything with regards to your commenting on the issue of a diagnosis.

MY RESPONSE: I commented on the issue of diagnosis because you asked me the following question, "How in the world did you get from a "truth" agenda to the above individual psychiatric diagnosis.

Are you trying to say that your question to me was merely a rhetorical question which did not actually require a response?

FunnyMoney · Aug 5, 2019

snoop4truth said:

It was much more bold than that. It was like a rainy day when there's no longer a cloud of doubt in the sky.

It served a purpose. After all the responses, in combination with mine, are you now in agreement with us? It is ok to come here, realize the truth, realize you're wrong, clarify your true newly discovered beliefs and purchase a free copy of the original constitution and BoR. We may even have a copy laying around, if you need.

snoop4truth · Aug 5, 2019

Goldhedge said:

Goldhedge,

I agree with your general sentiments on red light cameras.

In the old days, a photograph or video could NOT be introduced into evidence in court (by the state or the accused), unless it was "authenticated". This means that the photographer/videographer or another eye witness who was present when the photograph/videotape was actually taken provided testimony in court that the photograph/videotape "fairly and accurately depicted the scene as it existed at the time it was taken". Otherwise, the photograph/videotape was excluded from evidence.

In the case of red light cameras, there was no one present at the scene when the photograph/videotape was taken, so there is no one to "authenticate" the photograph/videotape. So, judges excluded such red light camera photographs/videos from evidence. That resulted in a 100% acquittal rate of red light cases (when the accused was represented by an attorney or had been coached about "authentication").

In response to all of these acquittals, the state legislature passed a statute requiring judges to admit red light camera photographs/videos into evidence without "authentication". This resulted in a near 100% conviction rate of the accused. That is the status of the law today in most states.

OTHER USE OF THAT EVIDENCE:
In my practice, I have also used red light camera videos to prove my client was not at fault in the accident, to prove the other driver was at fault in the accident and to identify hit and run drivers and even to locate eye witnesses. So, I have used such evidence to put millions of dollars into my clients' pockets. So, the evidence can be used to help people as much as harm them.

BELOW IS A 2013 EMAIL THAT I WROTE AND SENT TO A LARGE GROUP OF TRIAL LAWYERS OF WHICH I AM A MEMBER. IN THIS EMAIL, I EXPLAIN THE "BUSINESS" SIDE OF RED LIGHT CAMERAS TO MY COLLEAGUES. IT WILL MAKE YOUR BLOOD BOIL.

"The business model works like this: A private business goes to a city and offers to install ITS OWN video cameras at selected locations throughout the city. The city does not own, operate or install the cameras. The private company’s cameras are then interfaced with the street light system and those cameras take video tapes of all violations (ex: the video cameras begin filming when the light turns yellow from the vantage point of the video camera). Frequently, busy intersections are videotaped from all four directions.

"When a violation occurs, the private company (not the city) sends the offender a computer-generated robo-”ticket”. The private company uses the tag number of the offending vehicle to identify the owner and to locate his/her address, likely through the state DMV. The private company also sends the offender a copy of a still photograph depicting the violation along with the “ticket”. The “ticket” issued by the private company explains to the offender how to pay the “ticket” or how to fight the charge. The private company’s inclusion of the still photo depicting the violation along with the “ticket” is likely intended to deter offenders from even trying to fight the ticket.

"The city is a complete bystander in the scheme. The city does not own the video cameras, install the video cameras, operate the video cameras, store the video tape, issue the ticket, locate the offender, contact the offender, receive or maintain records of the violation or handle any other administrative matter whatsoever. All such services are performed by the private company.

"The private company and the city merely enter into a contract to split the proceeds generated by the scheme. The city does nothing else. All the city does is receive its cut of the money generated by the scheme.

"This is why the city does not have copies of video tapes generated to provide to you. This is also the reason that the city directs you to a private company located out of state in order for you to obtain copies of the video tapes or anything else that you might be looking for.

"It would not surprise me if the private company also contractually agrees with the city to have a representative testify (or to submit a sworn affidavit) in any traffic court hearing as to the authenticity of the video tape or still photos generated, so as to uphold any ticket challenge on the basis of lack of authentication. In so doing, such representative would be acting on behalf of the city as well as the private company, as both have a stake in the outcome of the individual case and both have a long-term interest in validating the scheme.

"I think I read here on list serve that a number of these robo-tickets have been successfully challenged, likely on authentication grounds. You might want to look into that.

Regards,

Snoop

snoop4truth · Aug 5, 2019

Juristic Person said:

Hello Juristic Person,

YOUR COMMENT: It didn’t take much for the snoopy program to blacklist me and stop responding.

MY RESPONSE: My post 76 is direct response to your post 61. Is there another comment of yours to which I have not responded? If so, let me know.

Best Regards,

Snoop

"The Rule Of Law"

Seeker

Silver Member

Seeker

Silver Member

Seeker

Seeker

Platinum Bling

Moderator

Seeker

Moderator

Seeker

Seeker

Seeker

Seeker

Silver Member

Silver Miner

Silver Member

Silver Miner

Silver Member

Moderator

They drew first blood

Moderator

Apocaloptimist

Silver Member

Apocaloptimist

Silver Member

Apocaloptimist

Platinum Bling

They drew first blood

Silver Member

Apocaloptimist

Moderator

Hunter of Chin Li's Boo Hoo Flu

Seeker

Silver Member

Seeker

Seeker

Silver Member

Seeker

Seeker