• "Spreading the ideas of freedom loving people on matters regarding high finance, politics, constructionist Constitution, and mental masturbation of all types"

U.S. SUPREME COURT SAYS NO LICENSE NECESSARY TO DRIVE AUTOMOBILE ON PUBLIC ROADS

michael59

heads up-butts down
Sr Site Supporter
Platinum Bling
Joined
Apr 1, 2014
Messages
9,936
Likes
6,200
Location
on the low side of corporate Oregon
If
you make constitutional arguments in court, the judge will tell you
that if you persist in making these arguments, he will find you in
contempt of court! WHY?
I think I know why: Because all charters/constitutions are void of law merchant or merchant law. Think about it because it makes sense. Now as far as the save the trees, save the veterans and all that other puwakey crap they have piled on in them it would seem to not be true statement anymore.

I am still puzzling out my statement but I stand by the fact that common law is a charter and code and statutes are law merchant. I know every one likes to think that common law is of old and yes it is BUT it has been polluted with merchant law; sad. So it therefore follows that all statues/code/rules/policy ectera…….and on are delved in law merchant or equity.
 
Joined
Mar 21, 2015
Messages
207
Likes
12
Arminius,

In amateur legal theory, information about the law comes ONLY from the claims of other amateur legal theorists (like the woman above). But, in the real legal system, information about the law comes ONLY from the actual written words of the real law itself (just click on the links to the law which I have provided you above).

This is why you post everything on this thread except links to the real law. This is why you only post the claims of other amateur legal theorists on this thread (in the form of videos and articles, etc.). But, you never post links to the actual law on this thread, because you know it would contradict every amateur legal theory ever posted here. Your posting non-law on this thread is an admission that amateur legal theories are inconsistent with the actual written words of the real law. Regardless, I have already responded to the false amateur claims of this amateur legal theorist above.

I have not only already seen this video, I have also already looked up the subject statutes and the COMMON LAW (case law) which explains them. These cases below confirm that this amateur legal theorist misunderstands the law.

THE AMATEUR LEGAL THEORY:
“Section 21052 and Section 260 of the California Vehicle Code LIMIT the application of the ENTIRE California Vehicle Code to the drivers and to the vehicles described ONLY IN THOSE TWO SECTIONS of the code (which apply only to state and local governmental vehicles and/or to commercial vehicles).

THE LAW ON SECTION 21052:
It is NOT the case that section 21052 of the California Vehicle Code LIMITS the application of the ENTIRE California Vehicle Code to the drivers and vehicles described in THAT SINGLE SECTION of the code (which applies only to state and local governmental emergency vehicles). (Section 260 is discussed below).


CASE 1:
Olejide v. California Dept. Of Motor Vehicles, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=7710645811990665171&q=21052+California&hl=en&as=sdt=4,5. This case reads, “As best as we [the court] can discern from his opening brief, appellant [the defendant driver] claims that the California Vehicle CODE DOES NOT APPLY TO ANYONE OTHER THAN ONE DRIVING FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA OR FOR ANY POLITICAL SUBDIVISION THEREOF, OR ONE DRIVING FOR COMMERICAL PURPOSES. WE [the court] respectfully DISAGREE… .” [this preceding quote is the last sentence of the "Introduction" paragraph at about 15% through the text]. “In support of his [the defendant driver’s] contention that the Vehicle CODE DOES NOT APPLY TO HIM, appellant [the defendant driver] refers to section 21052, which provides: "The provisions of this code applicable to the drivers of vehicles upon the highways apply to the drivers of all vehicles while engaged in the course of employment by this State, any political subdivision thereof, any municipal corporation, or any district, including authorized emergency vehicles subject to those exemptions granted such authorized emergency vehicles in this code. APPELANT [the defendant driver] MISUNDERSTANDS this section to mean that the ENTIRE Vehicle Code, including section 11353.2, ONLY APPLIES TO THOSE DESCRIBED IN SECTION 21052. Section 21052 was originally enacted as section 453 in 1935 specifically to include police, fire and rescue personnel within its coverage while operating vehicles in the ordinary course of their work as such. (See 17 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 121 (1951); 8 Cal.Jur.3d (2005) Automobiles, § 225, pp. 326-327.) IT [this code section] WAS NOT INTENDED TO EXCLUDE ALL OTHER PERSONS FROM THE COVEREAGE OF THE VEHICLE CODE. There is no doubt that the provisions of that code, including section 13353.2, APPLY TO APPELLANT [the defendant driver]… .Therefore, we reject his narrow reading of section 11353.2, and conclude the hearing officer correctly suspended appellant's driving privileges… [the preceding quote is at the last three paragraphs of the "Discussion" section at about 90% through the text].”

TRANSLATION: The fact that ONE SINGLE SECTION of the vehicle code ONLY APPLIES TO CERTAIN VEHICLES, THAT DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE ENTIRE REST OF THE VEHICLE CODE ONLY APPLIES TO THOSE SAME VEHICLES.


THE LAW ON SECTION 21052:
Section 21052 merely exempts certain governmental vehicles responding to an emergency from obeying posted speed limits. Section 21052 does not limit the application of the entire California Vehicle Code to the vehicles described in that single section of the code.

CASE 2:
Monroy v. City of Los Angeles, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=8858374689860371473&q=21052+California&hl=en&as_sdt=4,5Section. That case reads, “With regard to Section 21055 and its companion statute, Vehicle Code section 21056 (Section 21056), the jury was instructed: "California Vehicle Code provides that THE DRIVER of an authorized EMERGENCY VEHICLE is EXEMPT from the . . . [requirement] to observe the provisions of the Vehicle Code RELATING TO SPEED LIMIT. . . under all of the following conditions: IF — A, IF THE VEHICLE IS BEING DRIVEN IN RESPONSE TO AN EMERGENCY CALL ; and, B, IF THE DRIVER OF THE EMERGENCY VEHICLE SOUNDS A SIREN as may be reasonably necessary and THE VEHICLE DISPLAYS A LIGHTED RED LAMP visible from the front as a warning to other drivers and pedestrian… .Plaintiffs concede that the instruction was an accurate statement of the law. Accordingly, as Section 21055 is explained in the instruction, IN ORDER FOR EMERGENCY RESPONDERS TO BE EXEMPT FROM THE RULES OF THE ROAD including the speed limit, they must be responding to an emergency call, they must sound a siren as may be reasonably necessary, and their vehicle must display a lighted red lamp visible from the front as a warning… .” The effect [the meaning] of Vehicle Code sections 21055 and 21056 is: where THE DRIVER of an authorized EMERGENCY VEHICLE IS ENGAGED IN A SPECIFIED EMERGENCY FUNCTION HE MAY VIOLATE CERTAIN RULES OF THE ROAD, such as speed and right of way laws, IF HE ACTIVATES HIS RED LIGHT and where necessary his siren in order to alert other users of the road to the situation[the preceding quotes begin in the first four paragraphs of the section entitled, "1. Section 21055 And The LAPD Manual" at about 30% through the text].”

TRANSLATION: Because SAVING LIVES IS MORE IMPORTANT than obeying speed limits, DRIVERS of EMERGENCY VEHICLES in the process of trying TO SAVE A LIFE--- CAN GO FAST as long if they turn their red light on and use their siren when necessary.

THE LAW ON SECTION 260:
Section 260 of the California Vehicle Code DOES NOT LIMIT the application of the ENTIRE California Vehicle Code to the commercial vehicles described in THAT SINGLE SECTION of the code. Instead, section 260 merely definescommercial vehicles for the purpose of special insurance requirements and special liability insurance formulas (not applicable to non-commercial vehicles).

CASE 3:
Mission Ins. Co. v. Hartford Accident & Indem. Co., https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=15931891282690057915&q=%22section+260%22+%22vehicle+code%22&hl=en&as_sdt=4,5. That case reads, “Mission argued and the trial court agreed that Redwood was "engaged in the business of renting or leasing commercial vehicles without operators" and that its [insurance] policy was excess pursuant to section 11580.9, subdivision (b). That section provides: "(b) Where two or more [insurance] policies are applicable to the same loss, and one of such [insurance] policies affords coverage to a named insured engaged in the business of renting or leasing commercial vehicles without operators, as the term `commercial vehicles' is used in Section 260 of the Vehicle Code... , it shall be conclusively presumed that the insurance afforded by such policy to a person other than the named insured or his agent or employee shall not be primary, but shall be excess over any other valid and collectible insurance applicable to the same loss covering such person as a named insured or as an additional insured under a policy with limits at least equal to the financial responsibility requirements specified in Section 16056 of the Vehicle Code; and, in such event, the two or more policies shall not be construed as providing concurrent coverage, and only that policy which covers the liability of such person as a named insured, or as an agent or employee of a named insured, shall be primary and the other policy or policies shall be excess… [the preceding quote begins with the term, "1(a)" at about 50% through the text] ."

TRANSLATION: The ELECTED lawmakers liked THE DEFINITION of "COMMERCIAL VEHILCES" in another statute so well that they INCORPORATED that DEFINITION into the INSURANCE statute above by reference (rather than re-writing that definition again from scratch). The INSURANCE statute above does not apply to NON-COMMERCIAL VEHICLES. But, THAT DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE ENTIRE VEHICLE CODE DOES NOT APPLY TO NON-COMMERCIAL VEHICLES.

I hope this helps.

All The Best,
Snoop
 
Joined
Mar 21, 2015
Messages
207
Likes
12
Which is why there are no court cases cited before the 1933 bankruptcy of the US...
Goldhedge,

Do you mean that there are no court cases cited before 1933 WHICH REFER TO the bankruptcy of the U.S.?

Do you mean that there are cases cited after 1933 WHICH REFER TO the bankruptcy of the U.S.?


Best Regards,

Snoop
 
Joined
Mar 21, 2015
Messages
207
Likes
12
Correct.

In "traffic" court
I would ask for full disclosure and evidence of jurisdiction.
Goldhedge,

Jurisdiction in traffic court is established by the officer's testimony that you were within he borders of the state at the time (or your admission that you were within the borders of the state at the time). Nothing else is required for the state to have jurisdiction over you. Nothing. We have been over this subject a number of times. I will not duplicate that info again here.

All The Best,

Snoop
 
Last edited:
Joined
Mar 21, 2015
Messages
207
Likes
12
I don't hate you, I just despise your pedantic idiotic hubris. And the fact that everything you say is a lie.
Arminius,

You are justified in despising lies and presumably embracing the truth. Unfortunately, you are unable to tell the difference.

You could always stick a pin in a doll in the hopes that would injure some distant person telepathically, but that endeavor would be no more effective than amateur legal theories are when used in court. Both Voodoo and amateur legal theories are FAKE and NEITHER Voodoo or amateur legal theories do anything at all. They are both primitive and delusional belief systems embraced by the least educated, least sophisticated and most powerless people in society.

You intentionally avoid the law at all costs, because you know it is inconsistent with your belief system.

That makes you a willful slave to your own ignorance and your own belief system.

You do not need the tyranny of a government to enslave you.

You are a willing participant in your own ignorance and our own enslavement.
 

arminius

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Midas Supporter
Joined
Jun 6, 2011
Messages
4,573
Likes
6,215
Location
right here right now
Unfortunately, you are unable to tell the difference.
Wrong. You sir are perpetuating the lies of this system. You, sir have no true clue of what you are talking about.


You are a willing participant in your own ignorance and our own enslavement.

The only slave here is you moron. Slave to your vested interest of fake law and law lies. :finger:
 

michael59

heads up-butts down
Sr Site Supporter
Platinum Bling
Joined
Apr 1, 2014
Messages
9,936
Likes
6,200
Location
on the low side of corporate Oregon
In amateur legal theory
can't think I missed this. And, what are you? Ur not a professional and if you say you are that means ur a whore. You produce nothing other than cyclebabble and as you cycle the playing cards you have pinned to your bicycle frame just go briittiitiitititititititititiiitititittitiitit till they fall off.
 
Joined
Mar 21, 2015
Messages
207
Likes
12
Dear Goldhedge and other Legal Scholars,

Below are step-by-step instructions on "HOW TO FIND THE LAW FOR YOURSELF" on ANY subject in ANY jurisdiction absolutely FREE OF CHARGE.

Step By Step:

1. CLICK on this BLUE LINK. https://scholar.google.com/.

2. Then, CLICK on "CASE LAW".

3. A LIST of ALL state and federal JURISDICTIONS in the United States WILL COME UP.

4. Then, CLICK ON ANY relevant STATE or FEDERAL JURISDICTION in which you want the law (OR PICK ALL JURISDICTIONS for an overview of ALL of the law across the country on the same legal subject). Note: STATE law ONLY applies in the same STATE where the case was decided. FEDERAL Circuit law applies ONLY within the same Circuit where the case was decided. Supreme Court of the United States law APPLIES EVERYWHERE.

5. Then, CLICK on "DONE".

6. Then, the SEARCH BAR WILL COME UP.

7. Then, KEY IN ANY LEGAL SUBJECT into the search bar, BOTH WITH AND WITHOUT QUOTATION MARKS. MAKE UP YOUR OWN. (ex: "sovereign citizen", "individual sovereignty", legal effect of not being a "party or signatory to any law", whether a person is "exempt from all laws except those to which he voluntarily assents", "consent to jurisdiction" in a criminal or traffic case, "refusal to consent to jurisdiction" in a criminal or traffic case, "without a victim, there can be no crime", "the requirement of a victim" in a criminal or traffic case, "a victim is required" in a criminal or traffic case, "there was no victim" in criminal or traffic case, "right to travel", "I was not driving a motor vehicle. I was travelling in my privately owned conveyance", "no driver's license is required", "a driver's license is not required", "the traffic stop was unconstitutional", "the arrest was unconstitutional", "the requirement of a driver's license is unconstitutional", "the requirement of auto insurance is unconstitutional", "the requirement of a license plate is unconstitutional", "a driver's license is a contract", "refusal to sign the ticket", "corporate courts", "admiralty courts", whether "the law only applies to governments and artificial persons, not to natural persons", "artificial person", "capital letters", "flesh and blood person", "birth certificate bond", "straw man", "redemption", "accepted for value", "de facto government", "the judge has a personal interest in the case", "right to be represented by a non-lawyer", "represented by an attorney in fact", "represented by a power of attorney", whether "gold and silver are the only lawful money", "federal income tax law does not apply outside Washington, D.C. and other federal territories", whether "federal law applies outside Washington, D.C. and other federal territories", whether there are "two different constitutions", "the Act of 1871", whether "the IRS is a Puerto Rican corporation", "positive law", "the bar association is a monopoly", "The ABA is a monopoly", "judicial immunity", "prosecutorial immunity", "absolute [government] official immunity", "filed a lien against a judge", "11th amendment immunity", whether a government officer/official can be "personally liable for official actions taken under color of law", whether "gold fringe" on the American flag in court converts and transforms the court into an "admiralty or military court", whether a county is a "commercial entity engaged in commerce", etc.).

8. You may also key in ANY STATUTE NUMBER in the relevant jurisdiction (ex: "21052 California Vehicle Code" which, according to amateur legal theory, allegedly limits the application of the entire motor vehicle code to the motorists and vehicles described in that single section of the code OR "28 U.S.C. § 3002 (15) (a)" which allegedly proves that the federal government is a private, for-profit corporation, etc.).

9. You can also key in ANY state or FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONAL SECTION (ex: "Article I, section 8, clause 3" which, according to amateur legal theory, allegedly authorizes the federal government, as distinguished from state governments, to require driver's licenses ONLY in connection with "interstate commerce").

8. Simply read the cases that come up.

If you'd like to discuss any case that comes up, let me know. I am happy to discuss it.

It is that easy. This simple approach will make you a LEGAL EXPERT. If I can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to ask. I am always happy to help.

All The Best,

Snoop
 
Last edited:

arminius

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Midas Supporter
Joined
Jun 6, 2011
Messages
4,573
Likes
6,215
Location
right here right now
What makes you think we here want anything to do with selling our sovereignty for your stare decisis bullshit fake law.
Why would anyone in their right mind sacrifice what we truly are to be a slave in your legal system.

I add this verbiage from a post above again

STAY OUT OF COURT, if at all possible! You are either a sovereign or
a slave. Act the part you choose.
We are operating under Public Policy, not Public Law. There are no
laws to uphold! And no Constitutional courts to hear them in!
We are operating under stare decisis. The latest court case is the
new law, if they want to use it to their advantage. They will ignore
it, if it is to your advantage!
We are operating under necessity. The needs of the government and
public opinion take priority over your rights.
Any argument you present in court, that would embarrasses the
government, or expose their fraud, will be dismissed as frivolous and
without merit. You have failed to state a claim upon which relief can
be granted. Which means they will refuse to give you relief, even if
you are right! So, you lose, because relief will not be granted!
Federal areas were created to cover the same areas that the states
occupy. Claiming to be in one of these federal areas brings you under
the jurisdiction of the federal government as U.S. citizens.
All courts today are military courts, set up under martial law, under
national emergency. Just look at the flag of the occupying force. We
are sovereign American Indians on the reservation, claiming that our
treaties are not being honored. And again, we are being told, SHUT
UP!
When it gets right down to the bottom line, the law of the old west
still prevails. The ones with the biggest and fastest guns wins!
Period.

This is the fake democratic public policy system you so desperately want us to become so that we can continue to pump our money in your fucking lying bullshit direction. You gotta be a total moron if you believe any of us want to be subjugated to your unlawful fraudulent system.
 
Joined
Mar 21, 2015
Messages
207
Likes
12
What makes you think we here want anything to do with selling our sovereignty for your stare decisis bullshit fake law.
Why would anyone in their right mind sacrifice what we truly are to be a slave in your legal system.

I add this verbiage from a post above again

STAY OUT OF COURT, if at all possible! You are either a sovereign or
a slave. Act the part you choose.
We are operating under Public Policy, not Public Law. There are no
laws to uphold! And no Constitutional courts to hear them in!
We are operating under stare decisis. The latest court case is the
new law, if they want to use it to their advantage. They will ignore
it, if it is to your advantage!
We are operating under necessity. The needs of the government and
public opinion take priority over your rights.
Any argument you present in court, that would embarrasses the
government, or expose their fraud, will be dismissed as frivolous and
without merit. You have failed to state a claim upon which relief can
be granted. Which means they will refuse to give you relief, even if
you are right! So, you lose, because relief will not be granted!
Federal areas were created to cover the same areas that the states
occupy. Claiming to be in one of these federal areas brings you under
the jurisdiction of the federal government as U.S. citizens.
All courts today are military courts, set up under martial law, under
national emergency. Just look at the flag of the occupying force. We
are sovereign American Indians on the reservation, claiming that our
treaties are not being honored. And again, we are being told, SHUT
UP!
When it gets right down to the bottom line, the law of the old west
still prevails. The ones with the biggest and fastest guns wins!
Period.

This is the fake democratic public policy system you so desperately want us to become so that we can continue to pump our money in your fucking lying bullshit direction. You gotta be a total moron if you believe any of us want to be subjugated to your unlawful fraudulent system.
Arminius,

Thank you for your comments. I will respond to them individually below.

First, please realize that you continue to post nothing but NON-LAW, amateur legal theories in support of your belief system on this thread. Please understand that NON-LAW, amateur legal theories cannot possibly rebut or overpower the real law that I have already posted on this thread. Only real law can do that. Today, I actually gave you step-by-step instructions on how to find the real law for yourself. Despite this, you have STILL chosen to avoid the real law and you STILL chosen to post nothing but NON-LAW, amateur legal theories in support of your belief system on this thread. If you want to make me out a fool, you will have to do it with real law of the type you can find by following my step-by-step instructions. NON-LAW, amateur legal theories will not do the trick.

1.What makes you think we here want anything to do with selling our sovereignty for your stare decisis bullshit fake law.
RESPONSE: Our sovereignty (our COLLECTIVE voice as a free people which we exercise though the ELECTION process) is confirmed and protected by the judicial precedent ("case law" or "common law"), not the other way around. The problem is that you and other amateur legal theorists mistakenly believe that a sovereign is an individual and that an individual can exercise his/her sovereignty alone outside the ELECTION process. But, this is not so. It is ALL OF "We the People" COLLECTIVELY (as a whole) who form the sovereign (the government). But, no individual is sovereign, because an individual is not a government of "We the People".

2. Why would anyone in their right mind sacrifice what we truly are to be a slave in your legal system.
RESPONSE: Complying with the law made by the ELECTED lawmakers of "We the People" does not make you a slave. What "you truly are" is an individual living in a republican form of government. In a republican form of government, WE ELECT our lawmakers, WE ELECT our law enforcement executives, WE ELECT our judges, WE ELECT our prosecutors and WE ELECT our public defenders. Even the parties to the case PICK THEIR OWN JURIES who will decide on the matter of guilt and innocence. You can't get more democratic than that. There is nothing wrong with this system. Nothing. It works perfectly. I wish I could truthfully claim that this legal system was my idea. But, it isn't. It was here for two centuries before I was ever born. But, thank you anyway.

I add this verbiage from a post above again

STAY OUT OF COURT, if at all possible! You are either a sovereign or
a slave. Act the part you choose.
RESPONSE: Not so. It is not the case that you are either A SOVEREIGN (a government) OR A SLAVE (property of another person). THE TRUTH IS THAT INDIVIDUALLY, YOU ARE NEITHER A SOVEREIGN NOR A SLAVE.
We are operating under Public Policy, not Public Law.
RESPONSE: Not so. Public policy is the idea that laws should benefit THE PUBLIC AS A WHOLE. Public policy is incorporated into all public laws. Public policy is reflected in all public laws (and in all court decisions). So, public policy and public law are effectively the same thing.
There are no laws to uphold!
RESPONSE: Not so. Show proof of this amateur claim. YOU CAN'T!

And no Constitutional courts to hear them in!
RESPONSE: Not so. Show proof of this amateur claim. YOU CAN'T!
We are operating under stare decisis. The latest court case is the
new law, if they want to use it to their advantage. They will ignore
it, if it is to your advantage!
RESPONSE: We operate in a system that uses BOTH statutes written by lawmakers ELECTED by "We the People" and the "common law" (court decisions) written by judges ELECTED by "We the People". Stare decisis is the basis for the common law (case law) side of this equation. The idea behind stare decisis is that the rule of law used in correctly deciding one case should used again in all future cases with similar facts. This makes the law predictable and dependable. "They" do not ignore prior court decisions, one way or the other. This is because every case has two opposing sides. So, even if one side failed to refer to a particular prior decision, the other side would not so fail. So, between the two opposing lawyers, all relevant cases are always referred to in every case. And, that reference is recorded in every case file.
If it were really true that "they" ignore prior court decisions when they are to the defendant's advantage, then why does every cop in the United States read an arrestee his Miranda rights out loud before interrogating him/her? Do you really think reading an arrestee his Miranda rights HELPS THE LAW ENFORCMENT AGENCIES? Are you kidding me? Does reading an arrestee his/her Miranda rights seem like "they" are "ignoring" court decisions when they are the defendant's advantage to you? Are you kidding me? Regardless, court decisions are always followed, not ignored.
We are operating under necessity. The needs of the government and
public opinion take priority over your rights.
RESPONSE: The outer boundaries of true legal "right" can change slightly (or be temporarily suspended) when necessity demands it (terrorism, war, national security, etc.). But, a true legal right cannot be completely taken away for long. This rarely occurs, but admittedly, it does happen. The reality is that many court cases at the appellate level (like Supreme Court cases) involve a conflict between two different sets of competing Constitutional rights. So, appellate courts effectively draw the outer boundaries of one Constitutional right as compared to the outer boundaries of the competing Constitutional right when the two come into conflict with one another. It is those outer boundaries of these rights that vary slightly given the realities of the day (but no court can take these rights away completely for long).
For example, the forth amendment protects individuals against "UNREASONABLE" searches and seizures. The preamble to the Constitution states that the federal government has the right (and obligation) to provide for the "common defense" of "We the People". After 9/11, Congress passed the Patriot Act intended to prevent future terrorism, but this act authorized some searches and seizures that arguably violated the fourth amendment. So, the appellate courts weighed the competing Constitutional rights of the individual to be free from UNREASONABLE searches and seizures with the federal government's Constitutional right (and obligation) to provide for the "common defense" (on behalf of all of the American people). So, because of the word "UNREASONABLE" in the fourth amendment, today's appellate courts often move the outer boundaries of these two competing Constitutional rights in favor of the federal government providing for the "common defense" of "We the People" and against the fourth amendment rights of the individual. But, that does not take the fourth amendment away completely. It just changes where the outer boundaries of one Constitutional right ends and the other Constitutional right begins.
Any argument you present in court, that would embarrasses the
government, or expose their fraud, will be dismissed as frivolous and
without merit.
RESPONSE: You do not really embarrass the government (or government officials) because there is no real "fraud" or other misconduct to be exposed that would otherwise result in embarrassment. Note that government embarrassment and government fraud HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE GUILT OR INNOCENCE OF THE DEFENDANT IN THE CASE. That is the real reason that such nonsense defenses (and such nonsense cases) are thrown out of court as frivolous and without merit.
You have failed to state a claim upon which relief can
be granted. Which means they will refuse to give you relief, even if
you are right! So, you lose, because relief will not be granted!
RESPONSE: Not so. These words come from Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules Of CIVIL Procedure. That means that these words only apply in CIVIL (not criminal) cases an only in FEDERAL court (not in STATE court). (But, all STATES have a similar rule).
In a CIVIL case, the court only has jurisdiction to provide three (3) types of "relief": 1). "legal relief" which is money damages to an injured party: 2). "equitable relief" which are court orders such as restraining orders; and 3). "declaratory relief" which are declaratory judgments like an explanation of a party's OWN legal obligations under a poorly-written contract.

But, you are not entitled to any of these three types of "relief" just because you make a "claim". YOU MUST MAKE THE TYPE OF CLAIM FOR WHICH THE LAW PROVIDES YOU WITH ONE OF THOSE TYPES OF REMEDIES. For example, a breach of contract CLAIM is a CLAIM for which the law provides the victim with a 'legal relief"(money damages) OR "equitable relief" (like specific performance which is a court order which orders the non-performing party to do as contracted to do). A personal injury CLAIM is also a CLAIM for which the law provides the victim with a 'legal relief"(money damages).
But, the following claims ARE NOT ONLY NOT TRUE, THEY ARE ALSO NOT CLAIMS OF THE TYPE UPON WHICH RELIEF CAN BE GRANTED. "The government is a corporation which has no jurisdiction outside of Washington, D.C. Federal reserve notes are not money. Government officials lose their citizenship when they are sworn in. The ABA has a monopoly on the legal profession. No laws apply to me without my consent." Note that none of these CLAIMS are the type of CLAIMS for which the law provides: 1). "legal relief" which is money damages to an injured party: 2). "equitable relief" which are court orders such as restraining orders: and 3). "declaratory relief" which are declaratory judgments like an explanation of a party's OWN legal obligations under a poorly-written contract. That means ever if such CLAIMS were actually true, and they are not, the court would STILL have no authority to provide any 1). "legal relief" which is money damages to an injured party: 2). "equitable relief" which are court orders such as restraining orders: and 3). "declaratory relief" which are declaratory judgments like an explanation of a party's OWN legal obligations under a poorly-written contract. This is because THESE TYPES OF CLAIMS ARE NOT THE TYPES OF CLAIMS FOR WHICH THE LAW PROVIDES ANY RELIEF . That is the real reason that such nonsense CLAIMS or DEFENSES are thrown out of court as frivolous and meritless.
Federal areas were created to cover the same areas that the states
occupy. Claiming to be in one of these federal areas brings you under
the jurisdiction of the federal government as U.S. citizens.
RESPONSE: This is partly true. But, "claiming to be" something does not do anything whatsoever. If you are ACTUALLY in one of the STATES or any TERRITORY of the United States, then you are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States (whether you are a U.S. citizen or not). But, remember, the United States is only authorized to regulate that tiny list of legal subject expressly delegated to the federal government in the U.S. Constitution and under the tenth amendment, THE STATES are authorized to regulate everything else. Further, you are not a U.S. citizen merely because you are within the boundaries of the United States. You are U.S. citizen if you were born in ANY STATE within the United States (or Puerto Rico) or if you were "naturalized" (granted U.S. citizenship) according and law. Merely being within the borders of the United States alone will not make you a U.S. citizen (as any illegal alien can attest).
All courts today are military courts, set up under martial law, under
national emergency. Just look at the flag of the occupying force.
RESPONSE: Not so. All of that is a Rod Class amateur legal theory. Military courts are ONLY FOR MILITARY PERSONNEL and then ONLY FOR MILITARY CRIMES. No courts have EVER been set up under "martial law" or under a "national emergency". The fringe on the flag does not reflect otherwise. That is also another Rod Class amateur legal theory.
We are sovereign American Indians on the reservation, claiming that our
treaties are not being honored.
RESPONSE: Not so. Every single real "right" that you actually have is enforced by law. It is only imaginary rights WHICH YOU DO NOT HAVE that you mistakenly believe are being violated.
And again, we are being told, SHUT
UP!
RESPONSE: By whom?
When it gets right down to the bottom line, the law of the old west
still prevails. The ones with the biggest and fastest guns wins!
Period.
RESPONSE: Not so. It is the ones with the best and most accurate information who win. This is why you will always lose, guns or no guns. You only use amateur legal theories instead of the real law. Your information is flawed. So, you actions will be ineffective. And, you will always lose as a result, guns or no guns.

This is the fake democratic public policy system you so desperately want us to become so that we can continue to pump our money in your fucking lying bullshit direction.
RESPONSE: I only get paid when my clients win. But, it is not about money. It is about the truth.

You gotta be a total moron if you believe any of us want to be subjugated to your unlawful fraudulent system.
RESPONSE: It is not "my" system. And, it certainly is not fraudulent. You are already a subjugated and a slave to your own delusional belief system. You are already subjugated and a slave to your mistaken belief that Voodoo law is more powerful than the actual written words of the real law itself. But, it is not. Your entire reality is an illusion manufactured by liars and illiterates out of blind hatred. You are a lemming following charlatans like Rod Class and Karl Lentz off a cliff. Accepting the truth about the American legal system would not subjugate you. It would set you free from the imaginary world in which you remain a willing prisoner.


Best Regards,

Snoop
 
Last edited:

Goldhedge

Moderator
Site Mgr
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
39,350
Likes
59,238
Location
Rocky Mountains
I’ve always wondered how one could get a fair trial when the cop and the judge and supporting actors are all paid by the state and the revenue they generate preying on the people goes to their benefit...

Since I am guaranteed a fair and impartial trial, how is that possible when the presiding judge, the prosecuting attorney and all the witnesses against me work for and are paid by the state which is the Defendant in this case, and my opponent? In this situation, it is impossible for me to have a fair trial. Is that correct?

Further, any data used against me is obtained from sources who, are also paid by the state, the same Defendant against me. At minimum, conflict of interest takes place.
 

michael59

heads up-butts down
Sr Site Supporter
Platinum Bling
Joined
Apr 1, 2014
Messages
9,936
Likes
6,200
Location
on the low side of corporate Oregon
I’ve always wondered how one could get a fair trial when the cop and the judge and supporting actors are all paid by the state and the revenue they generate preying on the people goes to their benefit...

Since I am guaranteed a fair and impartial trial, how is that possible when the presiding judge, the prosecuting attorney and all the witnesses against me work for and are paid by the state which is the Defendant in this case, and my opponent? In this situation, it is impossible for me to have a fair trial. Is that correct?

Further, any data used against me is obtained from sources who, are also paid by the state, the same Defendant against me. At minimum, conflict of interest takes place.
Oh you devil you*snickers*
 

Goldhedge

Moderator
Site Mgr
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
39,350
Likes
59,238
Location
Rocky Mountains
i.e., word art

“Includes” and “Including,”
They Don’t Work Like You May Think


The use of “includes” and “including” in relation to many statutory definitions, like “motor vehicle” for example, is an important key to unlocking and understanding what a statute actually encompasses and applies to so you can then fully understand its overall meaning. When you look at how the terms are used in the language construction of a statute, you come to realize that, virtually without exception, any place where these terms are used in law, it is being done for the express purpose of creating a generalized statute, not a statute that is specifically limited to the list of things to which the statutory definition or subject is referring. You also need to remember that the use of these terms does not serve to in any way alter or remove the specific subject matter context within which every statute must be read in order to be properly interpreted, which is the biggest failing of every modern-day attorney or judge throughout Texas and elsewhere. The courts and attorneys simply don’t or refuse to read the statutes within the specific confines of the legislative context specifically identified in the caption/title of the Bill responsible for the legislation that created it.

Surely by now you have figured out that something is off about this statutory shell game, and, hopefully, it is causing you to pause and ask yourself the question, “Does the state consider my private conveyance a ‘motor vehicle’, and if so, why?” Well, to be absolutely clear, the numerous minions of the state, based solely upon their own unsubstantiated opinions, legal conclusions, and legal presumptions, do consider your private conveyance to be exactly that, a “motor vehicle.” But, the fact is, the actual law and its related statutes do not support any of those opinions, presumptions, or conclusions as actually being true once you actually understand how to properly read them and the kind of incorrect logic and interpretations that attorneys and the courts utilize to keep this insight and understanding out of the hands and minds of the general public.

This is especially true if a statutory definition uses “includes” or “including” as its constructive formula. For as I stated a moment ago, and at the risk of sounding repetitive, virtually without exception, any place where these terms are used in law, it is being done for the express purpose of creating a generalized statute, not a statute that is specifically limited to the list of things to which the statutory definition or subject is referring. If a statute does use these terms, or some grammatical variation thereof, then truly understanding the following explanation of how these terms legally work is wholly necessary to interpreting the statute correctly and in accordance with all other laws of “this state” on the same subject, pursuant Chapters 311 and 312 of the Texas Government Code. This also means understanding the United States Supreme court cases that have already ruled on the following as being the only proper use and method of statutory interpretation applicable to these two terms in relation to law. Thus, the following legal argument requires a proper understanding of how the courts, especially the United States Supreme Court, have declared the terms “includes” and “including” actually function in law.
 
Joined
Mar 21, 2015
Messages
207
Likes
12
I’ve always wondered how one could get a fair trial when the cop and the judge and supporting actors are all paid by the state and the revenue they generate preying on the people goes to their benefit...

Since I am guaranteed a fair and impartial trial, how is that possible when the presiding judge, the prosecuting attorney and all the witnesses against me work for and are paid by the state which is the Defendant in this case, and my opponent? In this situation, it is impossible for me to have a fair trial. Is that correct?

Further, any data used against me is obtained from sources who, are also paid by the state, the same Defendant against me. At minimum, conflict of interest takes place.
Goldhedge,

"]I’ve always wondered how one could get a fair trial when the cop and the judge and supporting actors are all paid by the state
RESPONSE:
1). Because YOU CO-PICK YOUR OWN JURY (along with the other side) which decides on your GUILT or INNOCENCE (not the ELECTED judge, not the ELECTED prosecutor, not the ELECTED public defender and not the cop who is employed by the ELECTED police chief, the ELECTED sheriff or the ELECTED governor);
2). Because YOU GET TO CONFRONT AND CROSS-EXAMINE YOUR ACCUSERS in front of the jury THAT YOU CO-PICK;
3). Because YOU GET TO CALL YOUR OWN WITNESSES TO TESTIFY IN YOUR DEFENSE in front of the jury THAT YOU CO-PICK;
4). Because NONE of the WITNESSES that you call to testify IN YOUR DEFENSE in front of the jury THAT YOU CO-PICK are employed or paid by the state;
5). Because neither the ELECTED judge, the ELECTED prosecutor, nor the cop who is employed by the ELECTED police chief receives a dime of any fine that you might pay in the event that the jury THAT YOU CO-PICK finds you guilty beyond a reasonable doubt;
6). Because THE STATE has the legal burden to prove to the jury THAT YOU CO-PICK you are guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt" (meaning about a 95% certainty), OTHERWISE YOU WILL BE ACQUITTED BY LAW;
7). Because if THE STATE only proves to the jury THAT YOU CO-PICK you are guilty by "clear and convincing evidence" (meaning about a 75% certainty), YOU WILL BE ACQUITTED BY LAW;
8). Because if THE STATE only proves to the jury THAT YOU CO-PICK you are guilty by a "preponderance of the evidence" (meaning about a 51% certainty), YOU WILL BE ACQUITTED BY LAW;
9). Because, under the law, the decision of the jury THAT YOU CO-PICK MUST BE "UNANIMOUS". If only ONE juror WHO YOU CO-PICK votes "NOT GUILTY", YOU CANNOT BE FOUND GUILTY. SO, ALL YOU NEED IS ONE MEMBER OF THE JURY ON YOUR SIDE! ONE! On the other hand, THE STATE MUST GET THE VOTE OF EACH AND EVERY SINGLE MEMBER OF THE JURY (example ALL TWELVE of them)!
10). Because, under the law, you DO NOT have the legal burden TO PROVE ANYTHING to the jury THAT YOU CO-PICK. This means you DO NOT have to prove you are innocent in order to be acquitted. Instead, under the law, the STATE has the legal burden to prove you are guilty beyond a reasonable doubt to the jury THAT YOU PO-PICK in order for you to be convicted;
11). Because under the fifth amendment, you cannot be required to even testify at all, much less testify against yourself;
12). Because the judge IS ELECTED by the public to be neutral;
13). Because the prosecutor IS ELECTED by the public to be fair;
14). Because the cop works for THE ELECTED police chief to uphold the law;
15). Because your trial will be in "open court" in public for all the world to see, not in secret;
16). Because all testimony and all documents and things admitted into evidence ARE RECORDED and saved for years, even decades;
17). Because the ELECTED judge and the ELECTED prosecutor know that you have the RIGHT TO APPEAL if these rules are not followed or if a legal mistake is made;
18). Because the ELECTED judge and the ELECTED prosecutor know that JUDICIAL and PROSECUTORIAL misconduct can (and does) result in permanent disbarment;
19). Because the statute you were charged with in the first place was written by lawmakers ELECTED by the public to reflect the will of the public, not to be harsh and punitive.


QUESTION: Can you possibly think of anything else that could possibly make this system more fair than it already is? If so, then what?

and the revenue they generate preying on the people goes to their benefit...
RESPONSE: Neither the ELECTED judge, the ELECTED prosecutor, nor the cop who is employed by the ELECTED police chief receives a dime of any fine that you might pay in the event that the jury THAT YOU CO-PICK finds you guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt". All fines go to the state. Fines are an alternative to jail time

Since I am guaranteed a fair and impartial trial, how is that possible when the presiding judge, the prosecuting attorney and all the witnesses against me work for and are paid by the state which is the Defendant in this case, and my opponent? In this situation, it is impossible for me to have a fair trial. Is that correct?
RESPONSE: Your ignorance of the law is stunning.
1). YOU CALL YOUR OWN WITNESSES IN YOUR OWN DEFENSE AND NONE OF THEM WILL WORK FOR THE STATE OR BE PAID BY THE STATE (other drivers, pedestrians, by-standers, occupants/passengers of your own car, etc.).
2). The state is not "THE DEFENDANT" in your case.
3). The state is "THE PLAINTIFF" in your case.
4. Read 1 thru 19 above.


Further, any data used against me is obtained from sources who, are also paid by the state, the same Defendant against me. At minimum, conflict of interest takes place.
RESPONSE: Your ignorance of the law is stunning.
1). YOU CALL YOUR OWN WITNESSES IN YOUR OWN DEFENSE AND NONE OF THEM WILL WORK FOR THE STATE OR BE PAID BY THE STATE (other drivers, pedestrians, by-standers, occupants/passengers of your own car, etc.).


All The Best,

Snoop
 
Last edited:
Joined
Mar 21, 2015
Messages
207
Likes
12
i.e., word art

“Includes” and “Including,”
They Don’t Work Like You May Think


The use of “includes” and “including” in relation to many statutory definitions, like “motor vehicle” for example, is an important key to unlocking and understanding what a statute actually encompasses and applies to so you can then fully understand its overall meaning. When you look at how the terms are used in the language construction of a statute, you come to realize that, virtually without exception, any place where these terms are used in law, it is being done for the express purpose of creating a generalized statute, not a statute that is specifically limited to the list of things to which the statutory definition or subject is referring. You also need to remember that the use of these terms does not serve to in any way alter or remove the specific subject matter context within which every statute must be read in order to be properly interpreted, which is the biggest failing of every modern-day attorney or judge throughout Texas and elsewhere. The courts and attorneys simply don’t or refuse to read the statutes within the specific confines of the legislative context specifically identified in the caption/title of the Bill responsible for the legislation that created it.

Surely by now you have figured out that something is off about this statutory shell game, and, hopefully, it is causing you to pause and ask yourself the question, “Does the state consider my private conveyance a ‘motor vehicle’, and if so, why?” Well, to be absolutely clear, the numerous minions of the state, based solely upon their own unsubstantiated opinions, legal conclusions, and legal presumptions, do consider your private conveyance to be exactly that, a “motor vehicle.” But, the fact is, the actual law and its related statutes do not support any of those opinions, presumptions, or conclusions as actually being true once you actually understand how to properly read them and the kind of incorrect logic and interpretations that attorneys and the courts utilize to keep this insight and understanding out of the hands and minds of the general public.

This is especially true if a statutory definition uses “includes” or “including” as its constructive formula. For as I stated a moment ago, and at the risk of sounding repetitive, virtually without exception, any place where these terms are used in law, it is being done for the express purpose of creating a generalized statute, not a statute that is specifically limited to the list of things to which the statutory definition or subject is referring. If a statute does use these terms, or some grammatical variation thereof, then truly understanding the following explanation of how these terms legally work is wholly necessary to interpreting the statute correctly and in accordance with all other laws of “this state” on the same subject, pursuant Chapters 311 and 312 of the Texas Government Code. This also means understanding the United States Supreme court cases that have already ruled on the following as being the only proper use and method of statutory interpretation applicable to these two terms in relation to law. Thus, the following legal argument requires a proper understanding of how the courts, especially the United States Supreme Court, have declared the terms “includes” and “including” actually function in law.
Goldhedge,

This is not the law. This is an amateur legal theorist's infantile opinion. It is worthless and a waste of time.

Statutes are written the way that they are because our ELECTED lawmakers know that those who violate statutes look to statutory definitions in the hopes of manufacturing an argument that the statute does not apply to them (and thereby avoid accountability for their violation). So, our ELECTED lawmakers write every statute TO AVOID THAT VERY ARGUMENT.

For godsakes man, you will NEVER find the truth about the law in these petty, infantile, amateur legal theories that you keep posting. I have already provided you with step-by-step instruction on how to pull up the actual written words of the real law itself, on any subject, in any jurisdiction. YOU ALREADY HAVE ALL THE TOOLS NECESSARY TO FIND THE ACTUAL WRITTEN WORDS OF THE REAL LAW ITSELF. Use those tools. Stop being dependent on other amateurs to tell you what the law is. READ IT WITH YOUR OWN EYES. Stop mindlessly parroting these petty, pathetic, infantile amateur legal theories peddled by charlatans like Rod Class. You are better than that.

Best Regards,

Snoop
 
Last edited:

arminius

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Midas Supporter
Joined
Jun 6, 2011
Messages
4,573
Likes
6,215
Location
right here right now
Yup, that vested interest is a powerful incentive to your mindless larcenous drivel.

Again, your reality, which you want to keep foisting upon us is nothing but prevarications designed to make us fear the system, and of course, pony up fees to the moronic FAKE LAW proponents you REPRESENT...
 

Goldhedge

Moderator
Site Mgr
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
39,350
Likes
59,238
Location
Rocky Mountains
1). Because YOU PICK YOUR OWN JURY which decides on your GUILT or INNOCENCE (not the ELECTED judge, not the ELECTED prosecutor, not the ELECTED public defender and not the cop who is employed by the ELECTED police chief, the ELECTED sheriff or the ELECTED governor);
Hmmm, last time I was in 'traffic court' there was just a magistrate posing as a judge and a cattle call of people sitting in pews waiting for the black robed poser to say 'How do you plead?' No jury. Just pay your money and get out of here....
 

michael59

heads up-butts down
Sr Site Supporter
Platinum Bling
Joined
Apr 1, 2014
Messages
9,936
Likes
6,200
Location
on the low side of corporate Oregon
wtf is with all that ? ghehawdies thak u beers and brandie…. *goes looking for 2x4's and 16P nails to introduce to forehead*
 
Joined
Mar 21, 2015
Messages
207
Likes
12
Hmmm, last time I was in 'traffic court' there was just a magistrate posing as a judge and a cattle call of people sitting in pews waiting for the black robed poser to say 'How do you plead?' No jury. Just pay your money and get out of here....
Goldhedge,

1. YOUR COMMENT: Hmmm, last time I was IN TRAFFIC COURT there was just a magistrate posing as a judge and a cattle call of people sitting in pews waiting for the black robed poser to say 'How do you plead?' No jury. Just pay your money and get out of here..
MY RESPONSE: The following is your ORIGINAL comment, "I’ve always wondered how one could get A FAIR TRIAL when the cop and the judge and supporting actors [presumably state's witnesses] are all paid by the state ."

Your ORIGINAL comment inquired INTO A FAIR TRIAL. So, my response to that ORIGINAL inquiry was directly responsive to that ORIGINAL inquiry INTO A FAIR TRIAL.

But, your NEW comment relates to AN "ARRAIGNMENT" (not a "TRIAL") IN TRAFFIC COURT . THAT IS A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT SUBJECT.

THUS, YOUR NEW COMMENT REFLECTS A COMPLETE CHANGE OF SUBJECT ON YOUR PART.

2. YOUR NEW COMMENT: Hmmm, last time I was in 'traffic court' there was just a magistrate posing as a judge and a cattle call of people sitting in pews waiting for the black robed poser to say 'HOW DO YOU PLEAD?" No jury. JUST PAY YOUR MONEY and get out of here..
MY RESPONSE: What you describe here in
NOT A "TRIAL". It is a TRAFFIC "ARRAIGNMENT". (Remember "My Cousin Vinnie")
THAT NEW COMMENT REFLECTS A COMPLETE CHANGE OF SUBJECT ON YOUR PART.

FACT: TRIALS are to used to resolve disputes of fact, "GUILTY" or "NOT GUILTY".

FACT: Only people who plead "NOT GUILTY" at an "ARRAIGNMENT" (or before then) GET A "TRIAL". (Remember "My Cousin Vinnie")

FACT: People who plead "GUILTY" at an "ARRAIGNMENT" (or before then) DO NOT GET A "TRAIL" (because there is no dispute of fact to be resolved by a trial. They are already "GUILTY" as a matter of law).

So, at the TRAFFIC "ARRAIGNMENT" that you describe above, the magistrate asked each defendant, "HOW DO YOU PLEAD?". If the defendant pleads "GUILTY", then there is NO TRIAL and the magistrate can sentence ("fine") the defendant on the spot in accordance with the statute made by lawmakers ELECTED by "We the People" to make our law.

QUESTION: What would have happened if one of the defendants at the "ARRAIGNMENT" had plead "NOT GUILTY"? The answer is that the magistrate WOULD HAVE SCHEDULED A "TRIAL" to resolve the dispute as to the defendant's "GUILT" or "INNOCENCE". (Remember "My Cousin Vinnie")

FACT: ONLY THEN, IS THERE A "TRIAL" (OF THE TYPE I DESCRIBED ABOVE). (Remember "My Cousin Vinnie")

BONUS INFORMATION:

1. When the defendant is charged with a "CRIME", then he/she is entitled to a JURY "TRIAL" (AS I DESCRIBED TO YOU IN MY COMMENT ABOVE).

2. But, if the defendant IS NOT charged with a "CRIME" (like TRAFFIC VIOLATION), then he/she may receive only a "BENCH TRIAL" (which includes all of the safeguards that I described in my comment above, except for a jury).

Best Regards,

Snoop
 
Last edited:

Goldhedge

Moderator
Site Mgr
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
39,350
Likes
59,238
Location
Rocky Mountains
A Case for Treason
A Study and Dissection of the Unconstitutional and
Un-American STATE BAR ACT of Texas.

True for all states because the laws (while may be worded different) are the same.
 

Attachments

Goldhedge

Moderator
Site Mgr
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
39,350
Likes
59,238
Location
Rocky Mountains
Screen Shot 2018-11-16 at 9.23.06 AM.png


GOTO http://www.stateCitizenship.org to look at some great options to support your new endeavor. Remember... 90% isWHO ARE YOU as a man or woman is understanding how to behave in this world of dominance and controls! 10% is the paperwork.
 
Joined
Mar 21, 2015
Messages
207
Likes
12
A Case for Treason

A Study and Dissection of the Unconstitutional and

Un-American STATE BAR ACT of Texas.



True for all states because the laws (while may be worded different) are the same.


Goldhedge,


First of all, you have AGAIN carefully avoided using the tools that I have provided you (to find the REAL LAW, on ANY SUBJECT, in ANY JURISDICTION). And, you have AGAIN posted on this thread another cut-and-paste article written by an amateur legal theorist reflecting NON-LAW amateur legal theories. So again, you are wasting your time. Amateur legal theories are NOT REAL. They are FAKE. They are LIES. They do NOT WORK. They NEVER HAVE. They NEVER WILL. Charlatans design and manufacture amateur legal theories SOLELY to delegitimize the ELECTED government of "We the People" and to incite hatred and violence against innocent Americans. Nothing more.


Regardless, the author of this amateurish article you that you posted above is a well-known FRAUD and CHARLATAN named Eddie Craig. In his amateurish article, Eddie Craig claims, "...[T]he STATE BAR ACT [of Texas] is a totally unconstitutional act that violates the Texas Constitution."


Not surprisingly, Eddie Craig does not cite a single case which holds that the STATE BAR ACT of Texas is unconstitutional. This is because the STATE BAR ACT of Texas IS NOT UNCONSTITUTIONAL. (See proof below.). But, Eddie Craig does not know enough about the law to even realize this.


The reason that Eddie Craig reaches this mistaken conclusion (that the State Bar Act of Texas violates the Texas Constitution) is that he mistakenly believes THAT IT IS THE "STATE BAR ACT" (ITSELF) WHICH EMPOWERED THE JUDICIAL BRANCH OF THE TEXAS STATE GOVERNMENT TO REGULATE ATTORNEYS AND THE PRACTICE OF LAW. But, this is not so. Unknown to Eddie Craig, the State Bar Act of Texas merely assists the Texas Supreme Court in carrying out the Constitutional powers THAT IT ALREADY HAD FOR A CENTURY BEFORE THE "STATE BAR ACT" WAS PASSED. But, Eddie Craig does not know enough about the law to even realize this.


BELOW: WHY THE "STATE SUPREME COURTS" ALREADY HAVE THE CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY TO LICENSE AND REGULATE LAWYERS (without the need for additional statutory authority):


SEVENTH GRADE CIVICS:

Like the FEDERAL government, STATE governments also have three (3) branches of government, the ELECTED LEGISLATIVE branch (legislature), the ELECTED EXECUTIVE branch (governor) and the ELECTED JUDICIAL branch (the courts). All three branches of the ELECTED state government ARE EQUAL IN POWER to the other two ELECTED branches. But, EACH ELECTED BRANCH of state government IS INDEPENDENT from the other two branches. (The purpose of the "SEPARATION OF POWERS" doctrine is to prevent the concentration of power in any single branch of government.).


Because EACH ELECTED BRANCH of government is INDEPENDENT of the other two branches, EACH ELECTED BRANCH of state government has the "INHERENT POWER” to manage ITS OWN INTERNAL AFFAIRS (and the HIGHEST AUTHORITY of EACH ELECTED BRANCH is generally charged with that responsibility). For example, the highest authority of the ELECTED LEGISLATIVE branch of state government (such as the speaker of the house and/or the senate majority leader) has the "INHERENT POWER" to pick who will "chair" and who will "sit" on ITS OWN state legislative and investigative committees (WITHOUT INTERFERENCE from the other two branches of state government). Similarly, the highest authority of the ELECTED EXECUTIVE branch of state government (the governor) has the "INHERENT POWER" to appoint the heads of ITS OWN state agencies (WITHOUT INTERFERENCE from the other two branches of state government). Likewise, the highest authority of the ELECTED JUDICIAL branch of state government (The Supreme Court of the state) has the "INHERENT POWER" to license and regulate who will practice law in ITS OWN courts (WITHOUT INTERFERENCE from the other two branches of state government).


This "INHERENT POWER" of EACH INDEPENDENT branch of state government to regulate THEIR OWN internal affairs (WITHOUT INTERFERENCE from the other two branches) reflects the "SEPARATION OF POWERS” doctrine which is found in the constitution of every STATE and in the U.S. Constitution. But, Eddie Craig does not know enough to even realize this.


THE BOTTOM LINE:

This means that neither the INDEPENDENT EXECUTIVE branch nor the INDEPENDENT JUDICIAL branch of government need "LEGISLATION" from the LEGISLATIVE branch to "AUTHORIZE" them to do what they are ALREADY AUTHORIZED TO DO under their own INDEPENDENT "INHERENT POWERS" (under the "SEPARATION OF POWERS" doctrine found in every STATE constitution and in the FEDERAL constitution). Indeed, any "LEGISLATION" from the LEGISLATIVE branch of government PURPORTING TO "LIMIT" the INHERENT POWERS of the INDEPENDENT EXECUTIVE or the INDEPENDENT JUDICIAL branches of government to regulate THEIR OWN internal affairs WOULD ACTUALLY VIOLATE THE "SEPARATION OF POWERS" doctrine which is found in every STATE constitution and in the FEDERAL constitution. (This INDEPENDENCE is precisely why the lawyers are NOT licensed by the LEGISLATIVE branch and NOT listed by the Secretary Of State of the EXECUTIVE branch.). But, Eddie Craig does not know enough to even realize this. For more on the "INHERENT POWER" of the INDEPENDENT JUDICIAL branch to license and regulate the lawyers who practice law in ITS OWN courts, CLICK ON THE BLUE LINK (Go to the 12th full paragraph here, not including block indented quoted portions, at about 15% through the text). https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3182556056481747852&q="practice+of+law"+inherent&hl=en&as_sdt=4,10.


ADDITIONAL (AND UNNECESSARY) "CONSTITUTIONAL" & "STATUTORY" POWER:

IN ADDITION to the "INHERENT POWER” that each STATE Supreme Court ALREADY HAS to license and regulate lawyers who practice law in ITS OWN courts, some STATE "CONSTITUTIONS" ALSO expressly authorize the STATE Supreme Court to license and regulate lawyers and the practice of law (ex: Florida & New Jersey). http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?submenu=3#A5S15 (Click on Article V and scroll down to section 15.); http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/lawsconstitution/constitution.asp (Scroll down to Article VI, Section 2, paragraph numbered "3", in the FINAL SENTENCE.).


Likewise, some STATE "STATUTES" also expressly authorize the STATE Supreme Court to license and regulate lawyers and the practice of law (ex: New York, Texas, Virginia). http://codes.findlaw.com/ny/judiciary-law/jud-sect-460.html (at the END OF THE 1ST SENTENCE & note that New York's HIGHEST COURT is called the "Court Of Appeals".);http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/GV/htm/GV.81.htm (Scroll down to "Subchapter B", "Sec. 81.011", subsection "(b)" and "(c)"); https://law.justia.com/codes/virginia/2006/toc5401000/54.1-3910.html.[/B]


Note that the foregoing CONSTITUTIONAL and LEGISLATIVE provisions (authorizing the STATE Supreme Courts to license and regulate lawyers and the practice of law) DO NOT "CREATE"OR "LIMIT" the "INHERENT" POWERS of the JUDICIAL branch of government, THEY SIMPLY ADD TO THOSE ALREADY EXISTING INHERENT POWERS!


Note also that EVERY STATE also has a LEGISLATIVE STATUTE making it ILLEGAL to practice law without a license issued by the Supreme Court of the STATE, thereby achieving (in reverse) the SAME RESULT as a STATUTE that REQUIRES a person to have a license in order to practice law. Example: https://www.ncbar.gov/media/299201/unauthorized-practice-of-law-statutes.pdf (at 84-4). Thus, it is NOT TRUE that there is "no constitutional" and/or "no legislative" authority for lawyers to practice law. But, it is also true that no "legislative" authority is required in the first place. But, Eddie Craig does not enough to even realize this.


THE ACTUAL LAW ITSELF ON WHETHER THE STATE BAR ACT (https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/GV/htm/GV.81.htm) VIOLATES THE TEAXS CONSTITUTION:


1. Gomez v. State Bar Of Texas, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3038111414766701769&q=Texas+%22State+Bar+Act%22+%22constitutional%22+%22did+not+actually+grant+the+supreme+court+exclusive%22+&hl=en&as_sdt=4,44. In that case, the court wrote, "... [T]he the [Texas] Government Code (https://codes.findlaw.com/tx/government-code/gov-t-sect-81-011.html) DID NOT ACTUALLY "GRANT" THE [TEXAS] SUPREME COURT EXCLUSIVE CONTROL OVER THE REGULATION AND SUPERVISION OF THE PRACTICE OF LAW. THE SUPREME COURT [ALREADY] HAS THAT CONTROL PURSUANT TO ITS INHERENT POWERS UNDER THE TEAXS CONSTITUTION. The State Bar Act is merely an aid in [merely assists] THE [TEXAS] SUPREME COURT'S EXERCISE OF IT [ALREADY EXISTING] POWERS TO REGULATE AND CONTROL THE PRACTICE OF LAW. (citations omitted). (in footnote 2 at about 99% through the text). Translation: THE "STATE BAR ACT" OF TEXAS DID NOT EMPOWER THE TEXAS SUPREME COURT'S TO DO WHAT IT WAS ALREADY EMPOWERED TO DO UNDER THE TEXAS CONSTITUTION. THUS, THE POWERS DESCRIBED IN THE "STATE BAR ACT" OF TEXAS DO NOT VIOLATE THE TEXAS CONSTITUTION, BECAUSE THE TEXAS CONSTITUTION IS THE ACTUAL SOURCE OF THOSE VERY POWERS.


2. State Bar Of Texas v. Heard, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=12360511799458168163&q=Texas+%22State+Bar+Act+is%22+%22constitutional%22&hl=en&as_sdt=4,44#[2]. In this case, the court wrote, "The [Texas] State Bar Act was passed in aid of [to assist] THIS COURT'S EXERCISE OF ITS [ALREADY EXISTING] INHERENT POWER TO REGULATE THE PRACTICE OF LAW. (in the 4th paragraph at about 10% through the text). Translation: THE "STATE BAR ACT" OF TEXAS DID NOT EMPOWER THE TEXAS SUPREME COURT'S TO DO WHAT IT WAS ALREADY EMPOWERED TO DO UNDER THE TEXAS CONSTITUTION. THUS, THE POWERS DESCRIBED IN THE "STATE BAR ACT" OF TEXAS DO NOT VIOLATE THE TEXAS CONSTITUTION, BECAUSE THE TEXAS CONSTITUTION IS THE ACTUAL SOURCE OF THOSE VERY POWERS.


3. Daves v. State Bar Of Texas, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3742559642052115872&q=Texas+%22State+Bar+Act+is%22+%22constitutional%22&hl=en&as_sdt=4,44. In this case, the court wrote, "[T]he [Texas] Legislature recognized that the State Bar Act "is in aid of [to assist] THE JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT'S [ALREADY EXISTING] POWERS UNDER THE [TEXAS] CONSTITUTION TO REGULATE THE PRACTICE OF LAW... . Given this recognition, the [Texas] Supreme Court, expressing and EXERCISING IT'S OWN [ALREADY EXISTING] INHERENT POWER TO REGULATE AND CONTROL THE PRACTICE OF LAW. entered its 19 June 1979 order specifying that the State Bar shall be governed by the State Bar Act "as supplemented by this order and subsequent orders." (citation omitted). The INHERENT POWER REFERRED TO IS THAT POWER GIVEN [TO THE JUDICIAL BRANCH] BY THE PRESENT [TEXAS] CONSTITUTION OF 1876. (citation omitted). Thus, even though the State Bar Act is utilized as an aid in [to assist] THE COURT'S EXERCISE OF ITS [ALREADY EXISTING] INHERENT POWER TO REGULATE AND CONTROL THE PRACTICE OF LAW... the provisions of the [State Bar] Act do not, by the Act's own language, and cannot, BY VIRTUE OF THE COURT'S [ALREADY EXISTING] INHERENT POWERS UNDER THE [TEXAS] CONSTITUTION, DETRACT FROM OR LIMIT THE [TEXAS SUPREME] COURT'S PRIMARY RESPONSIBILITY TO REGULATE AND CONTROL THE LEGAL PROFESSION BY ITS OWN ORDERS. When a provision of the State Bar Act conflicts with an order of the Supreme Court regulating and controlling the practice of law, THE STATUTORY PROVISION MUST YIELD TO THE [TEXAS SUPREME] COURT'S RULE. (citations omitted). (in the 17th paragraph, not including block indented portions, at about 60% through the text). Translation: THE "STATE BAR ACT" OF TEXAS DID NOT EMPOWER THE TEXAS SUPREME COURT'S TO DO WHAT IT WAS ALREADY EMPOWERED TO DO UNDER THE TEXAS CONSTITUTION. THUS, THE POWERS DESCRIBED IN THE "STATE BAR ACT" OF TEXAS DO NOT VIOLATE THE TEXAS CONSTITUTION, BECAUSE THE TEXAS CONSTITUTION IS THE ACTUAL SOURCE OF THOSE VERY POWERS.


4. State Bar Of Texas v. Gomez, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=6908406606088535130&q=Texas+"State+Bar+Act"+"unconstitutional"+&hl=en&as_sdt=4,44. In this case, the court wrote, "The unique aspect of this jurisdictional inquiry... , arises out of THIS COURT'S POWER TO REGULATE THE PRACTICE OF LAW IN THE STATE OF TEXAS. ... .THE ... SOURCE OF THIS COURT'S POWER TO REGULATE THE PRACTICE OF LAW IN THIS STATE, ITS INHERENT POWER, IS NOT SECURED BY ANY LEGISLATIVE GRANT [SUCH AS THE STATE BAR ACT] OR SPECIFIC CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION, BUT IS NECESSARILY IMPLIED [IN THE TEXAS CONSTITUTION] TO ENABLE THE [TEXAS SUPREME} COURT TO DISCHARGE ITS CONSTITUTIONALLY IMPOSED DUTIES. See Eichelberger v. Eichelberger, 582 S.W.2d 395, 398-99 (Tex.1979) (noting THAT THE DOCTRINE OF INHERENT POWER IS DERIVED, IN PART, FROM THE SEPARATION OF POWERS DICTATED IN... THE TEXAS CONSTITUTION). Those [Constitutional] duties include our obligation, as the head of the judicial department, TO REGULATE JUDICIAL AFFAIRS, BECAUSE THE ADMISSION AND PRACTICE OF TEXAS ATTORNEYS IS [SO] INEXTRICABLY INTERTWINED WITH THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE, THE [TEXAS SUPREME] COURT MUST HAVE THE POWER TO REGULATE THESE ACTIVITIES IN ORDER TO FULFILL ITS CONSTITUTIONAL ROLE. See generally JIM R. CARRIGAN, INHERENT POWERS OF THE COURTS 2 (1973) (DEFINING INHERENT POWERS AS THOSE "REASONABLY REQUIRED TO ENABLE A COURT TO PERFORM EFFICIENTLY ITS [CONSTITUTIONAL] JUDICIAL JUNCTIONS, TO PROTECT ITS DIGNITY, INDEPENDENCE [OF THE OTHER TWO BRANCHES OF GOVERNMENT] AND INTEGRITY, AND TO MAKE ITS LAWFUL ACTIONS EFFECTIVE"). THE COURT'S INHERENT POWERS, SUCH AS THE POWER TO REGULATE THE PRACTICE OF LAW are not jurisdictional powers, See Eichelberger, 582 S.W.2d at 399. These powers are administrative powers, NECESSARY TO THE PRESERVATION OF THE JUDICIARY'S INDEPENDENCE AND INTEGRITY, (in the 5th full paragraph, not including block indented section). Translation: THE "STATE BAR ACT" OF TEXAS DID NOT EMPOWER THE TEXAS SUPREME COURT'S TO DO WHAT IT WAS ALREADY EMPOWERED TO DO UNDER THE TEXAS CONSTITUTION. THUS, THE POWERS DESCRIBED IN THE "STATE BAR ACT" OF TEXAS DO NOT VIOLATE THE TEXAS CONSTITUTION, BECAUSE THE TEXAS CONSTITUTION IS THE ACTUAL SOURCE OF THOSE VERY POWERS.


5. O'Quinn v. State Bar Of Texas, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=77348604800599185&q=Texas+%22State+Bar+Act%22+%22constitutional%22&hl=en&as_sdt=4,44. In this case, the court wrote, "[A]ttorney O'Quinn requested in district court a temporary and permanent injunction against prosecution of the action based on alleged federal and STATE CONSTITUTIONAL DEFICIENCIES IN THE STATE BAR ACT and certain disciplinary rules. The trial court denied O'Quinn's request for injunctive relief and, in its order, [THE TRIAL COURT] EXPRESSLY FOUND THAT THE STATUTE [THE STATE BAR ACT} and rules complained of WERE CONSTITUTIONAL, which serves as the basis for conferring direct appeal jurisdiction on this court. WE NOW AFFIRM [THE TRIAL COURT'S] ORDER denying injunctive relief and remand to the trial court for further proceedings. (in the 3rd paragraph at about 10% through the text). Translation: THE "STATE BAR ACT" OF TEXAS IS NOT UNCONSTITUTIONAL.


CONCLUSION: THE "STATE BAR ACT" OF TEXAS DID NOT EMPOWER THE TEXAS SUPREME COURT'S TO DO WHAT IT WAS ALREADY EMPOWERED TO DO UNDER THE TEXAS CONSTITUTION. THUS, THE POWERS DESCRIBED IN THE "STATE BAR ACT" OF TEXAS DO NOT VIOLATE THE TEXAS CONSTITUTION, BECAUSE THE TEXAS CONSTITUTION IS THE ACTUAL SOURCE OF THOSE VERY POWERS.


ABOUT EDDIE CRAIG AND THE "FORMER DEPUTY SHERIFF HOAX:

THER HOAX:
Eddie Craig claims that he is a “FORMER DEPUTY SHERIFF”. But, this is not so.


THE TRUTH:
The closest that Eddie Craig ever came to being a “FORMER DEPUTY SHERIFF” was as a “PART-TIME JAILER” in Nacogdoches County, Texas, for a period of TWO-WEEKS in 1992 at which time he was unceremoniously FIRED “NOT ELIGIBLE FOR RE-HIRE”.


That's right. On 8-17-1992, Eddie Craig was HIRED for a "PART-TIME" job as a county "JAILER" in Nacogdoches County, Texas and he was "FIRED" TWO WEEKS LATER on 8-31-1992 ("NOT ELIGIBLE FOR RE-HIRE")! It is this TWO WEEK TENURE as a "PART-TIME JAILER" in Nacogdoches County, Texas that Eddie Craig refers to as his "CAREER IN LAW ENFORCEMENT" as a "DEPUTY SHERIFF" for during which he claims he became an “EXPERT” on traffic, travel and motor vehicle codes.

Accordingly, Eddie Craig NEVER obtained any "valuable inside knowledge" of traffic law or traffic law enforcement. Second, Eddie Craig NEVER received any training in traffic law or in traffic law enforcement. Finally, Eddie Craig NEVER even once sat behind the wheel of a law enforcement vehicle, much less made a single traffic stop. (So much for Eddie Craig's "EXPERIENCE" in his "CAREER" as a "LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER" and "DEPUTY SHERIFF".). He is a complete FRAUD and CHARLATAN.

OTHER FACTS ABOUT EDDIE CRAIG:
REAL law and amateur legal theories ARE NOT the same thing. Instead, REAL law and amateur legal theories are the exact OPPOSITES of one another. Eddie Craig does not use REAL law in court. Instead, he only uses amateur legal theories in court (the same amateur legal theories that he peddles in his videos, seminars and on the radio). For this reason, Eddie Craig has LOST EVERY SINGLE ONE OF HIS OWN CASES, including HIS OWN MISDEMEANOR SPEEDING CASE. State of Texas v. Eddie (Eugene) Craig, Case no. C-1-CR-12-100045, offense date 12-12-2011, ARREST date 06-25-2012, CONVICTION date 06-28-2013, Travis County, Texas. What's more, Eddie Craig has done no better in his civil cases. He has been sued for failing or refusing to pay his debts on FOUR separate occasions. HE LOST ALL FOUR TIMES. Some "expert".


HOW TO FILE A COMPLAINT AGAINST EDDIE CRAIG FOR THE UNAUTHORIZED PRACTICE OF LAW:
ADVISING people what to say or do in the presence of law enforcement officers, judges and/or prosecutors (offering or providing "SCRIPTS", "TEMPLATES", oral "ADVICE") may constitute the UNAUTHORIZED PRACTICE OF LAW in Texas. To file a COMPLAINT against Eddie Craig in Texas in connection with this illegal behavior, click here. http://www.txuplc.org/.


EDDIE CRAIG'S LACK OF QUALIFICATIONS:

EDDIE CRAIG (with his lack of education, his ignorance of the law, his delusional belief system, his worthless, amateur legal theories, his lack of honesty and his 100% failure rate in court in ALL of his own cases) IS "LIVING PROOF" THAT THOSE WHO PRACTICE LAW (AND THOSE WHO TEACH THE LAW) SHOULD:

1). BE REQUIRED TO HAVE A FOUR-YEAR COLLEGE EDUCATION (a "Bachelor's Degree");

]2). BE REQUIRED TO ALSO HAVE AN ADDITIONAL THREE TO FOUR YEAR LAW SCHOOL EDUCATION (a "Juris Doctor's Degree");

3). BE REQUIRED TO PASS THE STATE BAR EXAM (takes three days);

4). BE REQUIRED TO UNDERGO A RIGOROUS STATE CHARACTER AND FITNESS BACKGROUND INVESTIGATION WHICH TAKES SEVERAL MONTHS OR YEARS (NO MENTAL HEALTH HISTORY, NO CRIMINAL HISTORY, honesty, credit history, interviews of employers, teachers, former co-workers, neighbors, relatives, taking finger print samples, taking hand writing samples, etc.).

5). BE LICENSED BY THE STATE AND BE SUBJECT TO THE CONTINUOUS OVERSIGHT AND DISCIPLINE OF THE HIGHEST OFFICE OF THE JUDICIAL BRANCH OF STATE GOVERNMENT, THE STATE SUPREME COURT (in order to protect the public from INCOMPETENCE and FRAUD of the very type committed by Eddie Craig).


ABOUT SNOOP4TRUTH:

Snoop4truth is a legal expert and whistle blower who exposes online hoaxes. Snoop4truth did not reveal this information to harm Eddie Craig. 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 Eddie Craig's role in the "FORMER DEPUTY SHERIFF HOAX" Snoop4truth would not have exposed this information here.


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

arminius

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Midas Supporter
Joined
Jun 6, 2011
Messages
4,573
Likes
6,215
Location
right here right now
O Oh, You're throwing up RED again. And that's all your crap is, lying regurgitation of fake unconstitutional LAWS. All of it...
 

michael59

heads up-butts down
Sr Site Supporter
Platinum Bling
Joined
Apr 1, 2014
Messages
9,936
Likes
6,200
Location
on the low side of corporate Oregon
you have AGAIN carefully avoided using the tools that I have provided
Oh gheehawdies....I laughed so hard I pooped my panties....YOU supplied? What TOOLS did you supply? crayons, lipstick?

shit busting a gut here.
 
Joined
Mar 21, 2015
Messages
207
Likes
12
Oh gheehawdies....I laughed so hard I pooped my panties....YOU supplied? What TOOLS did you supply? crayons, lipstick?

shit busting a gut here.
Micahael59.

YOUR COMMENT: Oh gheehawdies....I laughed so hard I pooped my panties....YOU supplied? What TOOLS did you supply? crayons, lipstick? shit busting a gut here

MY RESPONSE: HERE IS A DUPLICATE FOR YOUR REVIEW IN CASE YOU MISSED IT.

"Goldhedge,

First of all, you have AGAIN carefully avoided using the tools that I have provided you (to find the REAL LAW, on ANY SUBJECT, in ANY JURISDICTION)."

"Dear Goldhedge and other Legal Scholars,

BELOW ARE STEP-BY-STEP INSTRUCTIONS ON "HOW TO FIND THE LAW FOR YOURSELF" on ANY subject in ANY jurisdiction absolutely FREE OF CHARGE.

Step By Step:

1. CLICK on this BLUE LINK. https://scholar.google.com/.

2. Then, CLICK on "CASE LAW".

3. A LIST of ALL state and federal JURISDICTIONS in the United States WILL COME UP.

4. Then, CLICK ON ANY relevant STATE or FEDERAL JURISDICTION in which you want the law (OR PICK ALL JURISDICTIONS for an overview of ALL of the law across the country on the same legal subject). Note: STATE law ONLY applies in the same STATE where the case was decided. FEDERAL Circuit law applies ONLY within the same Circuit where the case was decided. Supreme Court of the United States law APPLIES EVERYWHERE.

5. Then, CLICK on "DONE".

6. Then, the SEARCH BAR WILL COME UP.

7. Then, KEY IN ANY LEGAL SUBJECT into the search bar, BOTH WITH AND WITHOUT QUOTATION MARKS. MAKE UP YOUR OWN. (ex: "sovereign citizen", "individual sovereignty", legal effect of not being a "party or signatory to any law", whether a person is "exempt from all laws except those to which he voluntarily assents", "consent to jurisdiction" in a criminal or traffic case, "refusal to consent to jurisdiction" in a criminal or traffic case, "without a victim, there can be no crime", "the requirement of a victim" in a criminal or traffic case, "a victim is required" in a criminal or traffic case, "there was no victim" in criminal or traffic case, "right to travel", "I was not driving a motor vehicle. I was travelling in my privately owned conveyance", "no driver's license is required", "a driver's license is not required", "the traffic stop was unconstitutional", "the arrest was unconstitutional", "the requirement of a driver's license is unconstitutional", "the requirement of auto insurance is unconstitutional", "the requirement of a license plate is unconstitutional", "a driver's license is a contract", "refusal to sign the ticket", "corporate courts", "admiralty courts", whether "the law only applies to governments and artificial persons, not to natural persons", "artificial person", "capital letters", "flesh and blood person", "birth certificate bond", "straw man", "redemption", "accepted for value", "de facto government", "the judge has a personal interest in the case", "right to be represented by a non-lawyer", "represented by an attorney in fact", "represented by a power of attorney", whether "gold and silver are the only lawful money", "federal income tax law does not apply outside Washington, D.C. and other federal territories", whether "federal law applies outside Washington, D.C. and other federal territories", whether there are "two different constitutions", "the Act of 1871", whether "the IRS is a Puerto Rican corporation", "positive law", "the bar association is a monopoly", "The ABA is a monopoly", "judicial immunity", "prosecutorial immunity", "absolute [government] official immunity", "filed a lien against a judge", "11th amendment immunity", whether a government officer/official can be "personally liable for official actions taken under color of law", whether "gold fringe" on the American flag in court converts and transforms the court into an "admiralty or military court", whether a county is a "commercial entity engaged in commerce", etc.).

8. You may also key in ANY STATUTE NUMBER in the relevant jurisdiction (ex: "21052 California Vehicle Code" which, according to amateur legal theory, allegedly limits the application of the entire motor vehicle code to the motorists and vehicles described in that single section of the code OR "28 U.S.C. § 3002 (15) (a)" which allegedly proves that the federal government is a private, for-profit corporation, etc.).

9. You can also key in ANY state or FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONAL SECTION (ex: "Article I, section 8, clause 3" which, according to amateur legal theory, allegedly authorizes the federal government, as distinguished from state governments, to require driver's licenses ONLY in connection with "interstate commerce").

8. Simply read the cases that come up.

If you'd like to discuss any case that comes up, let me know. I am happy to discuss it.

It is that easy. This simple approach will make you a LEGAL EXPERT. If I can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to ask. I am always happy to help.

All The Best,

Snoop
 
Last edited:
Joined
Mar 21, 2015
Messages
207
Likes
12
Michael59.

Do you contend that the two statements below are somehow inconsistent with one another? If so, how?

"... Goldhedge... ,
BELOW ARE STEP-BY-STEP INSTRUCTIONS ON "HOW TO FIND THE LAW FOR YOURSELF" on ANY subject in ANY jurisdiction absolutely FREE OF CHARGE. "

Goldhedge,
First of all, you have AGAIN carefully avoided using the tools that I have provided you (TO FIND THE REAL LAW, on ANY SUBJECT, in ANY JURISDICTION)."



Oh gheehawdies....I laughed so hard I pooped my panties....YOU supplied? What TOOLS did you supply? crayons, lipstick?

shit busting a gut here.


Am I missing something?


Best Regards,

Snoop
 

michael59

heads up-butts down
Sr Site Supporter
Platinum Bling
Joined
Apr 1, 2014
Messages
9,936
Likes
6,200
Location
on the low side of corporate Oregon
IDK, I have tried reading your 'stuff' and I can never get passed the first halftruth. And, yes this might be a problem but the fact remains that as I have traveled through life I have found that the """LIE""" is offered first to suspend critical thinking and thereby assuage a belief into the absurd. What is that maxim? "let an absurdity in and a plethora are sure to follow." That is you to a T.

And, it's most likely not your fault as you do, do a lot of this cutting and pasting of sitting crow decisions which do and do not have anything to do with your point other than they fit your parameters. I don't care what your needs are but you seem to want to parrot some kind of party line of thinking that it seems that you only know of.

TRY reading the trial transcripts and try reading why the black feathered birds posit what they do. There are things in the trials that "are"argued and there are things that are not and usually it is the things that are not argued is the reason the decisions come out as they do. But you making points of law as if they are law in themselves does nothing to disprove the actual existing law.

And, somehow this escapes you.
 
Joined
Mar 21, 2015
Messages
207
Likes
12
IDK, I have tried reading your 'stuff' and I can never get passed the first halftruth. And, yes this might be a problem but the fact remains that as I have traveled through life I have found that the """LIE""" is offered first to suspend critical thinking and thereby assuage a belief into the absurd. What is that maxim? "let an absurdity in and a plethora are sure to follow." That is you to a T.

And, it's most likely not your fault as you do, do a lot of this cutting and pasting of sitting crow decisions which do and do not have anything to do with your point other than they fit your parameters. I don't care what your needs are but you seem to want to parrot some kind of party line of thinking that it seems that you only know of.

TRY reading the trial transcripts and try reading why the black feathered birds posit what they do. There are things in the trials that "are"argued and there are things that are not and usually it is the things that are not argued is the reason the decisions come out as they do. But you making points of law as if they are law in themselves does nothing to disprove the actual existing law.

And, somehow this escapes you.
Michael59,

IDK, I have tried reading your 'stuff' and I can never get passed the first halftruth.
RESPONSE: I do not write half truths. You know better.

And, yes this might be a problem but the fact remains that as I have traveled through life I have found that the """LIE""" is offered first to suspend critical thinking and thereby assuage a belief into the absurd.
RESPONSE: I actually agree. People who have been lied to suspend their critical thinking and thereby assuage a belief into the absurd. The problem is that charlatans have lied to you and you have suspended your critical thinking and thereby assuage a belief into the absurd. This is why your are incapable of accepting the truth. You have suspended you critical thinking skills.

What is that maxim? "let an absurdity in and a plethora are sure to follow." That is you to a T.
RESPONSE: I actually agree. You have let an absurdity in and now you believe in a whole plethora of delusional amateur legal theories.

And, it's most likely not your fault as you do, do a lot of this cutting and pasting of sitting crow decisions which do and do not have anything to do with your point other than they fit your parameters.
RESPONSE: I provide links to the actual written words of the law itself TO PROVE WHAT THE LAW IS. I did not write it. The point is not mine. The parameters are not mine. I am nothing but a delivery man. I provide links to the actual written words of the law itself BECAUSE THE CHARLATANS WHO PEDDLE AMATEUR LEGAL THEORIES CANNOT DO IT, BECAUSE IT WOULD REVEAL THEIR FRAUD UPON THEIR VICTIMS LIKE YOU. I do not just say that I am telling you the truth, I PROVE IT TO YOU BY PROVIDING YOU WITH LINKS TO THE ACTUAL WRITTEN WORDS OF THE LAW ITSELF.

I don't care what your needs are but you seem to want to parrot some kind of party line of thinking that it seems that you only know of.
RESPONSE: I only want to bring the truth to those who need it most, the victims of charlatans, like Rod Class, Karl Lentz and Eddie Craig, including you. The truth about the law is not a "party line". The entire rest of the world understands and uses real law of the type to which I provide you with links. Amateur legal theorists ARE THE ONLY PEOPLE ON THE PLANET that do not. So, as between the rest of the world and amateur legal theorists, it is the latter who mindlessly parrots a "party line".

TRY reading the trial transcripts and try reading why the black feathered birds posit what they do.
RESPONSE: I have read them.

There are things in the trials that "are" argued and there are things that are not and usually it is the things that are not argued is the reason the decisions come out as they do.
RESPONSE: If both sides actually know the law, then the trial transcript will reflect EVERYTHING relied upon by the jury in reaching its verdict. But, if the defendant does not know the law and raises non-law, amateur legal theory defenses, the judge will disregard them (because he has no obligation to consider or respond to such irrelevant, infantile nonsense) and the judge will instruct the jury to do the same. Those non-law, amateur legal theory defenses raised by the defendant will still be in the trial transcript. But, there may be no response to them in the trial transcript, because neither the judge, the prosecutor nor the jury has any obligation to respond to non-law, amateur legal theories. They are simply irrelevant, infantile nonsense with no place in a court of law WHICH USES ONLY REAL LAW OF A TYPE TO WHICH I HAVE PROVIDED YOU WITH LINKS ABOVE.

But you making points of law as if they are law in themselves does nothing to disprove the actual existing law.
RESPONSE: The actual written words of the law to which I have provided you with links IS THE LAW IN OF ITSELF. The actual written words of the law to which I have provided you with links do not disprove the existing law, THEY ARE THE EXISTING LAW.

Look Michael, the rules are simple. THE ONLY THING THAT IS THE LAW IS THE LAW ITSELF. IF THERE IS A CASE THAT SAYS SOMETHING IS THE LAW, THEN IT IS THE LAW. BUT, IF THERE IS NO CASE THAT SAYS SOMETHING IS THE LAW, THEN IT IS NOT THE LAW. IT IS THAT SIMPLE. What you hear or read from other amateur legal theorists is not the law. ALL LAW IS IN WRITING. I realize that you will not believe me (because my truth conflicts with your current belief system). SO, I PROVIDE YOU WITH DIRECT LINKS TO THE ACTUAL WRITEN WORDS OF THE LAW ITSELF IN THE HOPES YOU WILL READ IT. I do not know of any other way to reach victims in your position and get the truth to them. If I knew of a better way to link you the actual written words of the law, I would use it.

And, somehow this escapes you.
RESPONSE: It has not escaped me. It simply is not true.
 
Last edited:

michael59

heads up-butts down
Sr Site Supporter
Platinum Bling
Joined
Apr 1, 2014
Messages
9,936
Likes
6,200
Location
on the low side of corporate Oregon
Yes you are missing something and in speak-language it is called enunciation. In writing its called...F if I know but there has to be a word for it. And, the fact that you want me to differentiate two cherry picked statements by another member leads me to think that you are having problems with the thought process issuing from them.

Look bud: Charter law is law and nothing can be done to legislate around it.

In case you missed it: Early on I posted a seemingly ambiguous post about two guys who back in the 1600's got haled in for what was called rioting at the time....BUT.... the case did not hinge on the riot, it hinged on religious freedom that was charter bound.....meaning that as the forest charter and the big/magna charter did not forbade. Yes they were found by the judge guilty and fined 40gold but this is the first jury nullification of charges.....digression aside....it was later determined that AS the charters did not forbade it then the KING could not legislate against it---or around it. And, this is just religion.....and, we are talking about traveling. You can call it driving if you want but driving back then was one who was EMPLOYED to sit on that seat, mind the horsies and safely convey someone else's wares to a destination....kind of like truckdrivers today.

SO! If I want to travel to tim-bucks-two I can use an apparatus that guzzles gas, diesel or oranges or hay or my feet make go, BUT as long as I haul no freight or am payed for sitting in that seat then I am traveling and not driving.
 

michael59

heads up-butts down
Sr Site Supporter
Platinum Bling
Joined
Apr 1, 2014
Messages
9,936
Likes
6,200
Location
on the low side of corporate Oregon
I'm just going to pound nails with my forehead.....seems like a good thing to do after trying to read ur shit....

Any body got any heroin as this just might get nasty. f it I gots whiskeys and beers....
 

Goldhedge

Moderator
Site Mgr
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
39,350
Likes
59,238
Location
Rocky Mountains

Attachments

Goldhedge

Moderator
Site Mgr
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
39,350
Likes
59,238
Location
Rocky Mountains

Goldhedge

Moderator
Site Mgr
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
39,350
Likes
59,238
Location
Rocky Mountains
All Statues, Codes, Rules & Regulations are only color of law & not actual law.

2018-11-17_1655.png
2018-11-17_1657.png
 
Joined
Mar 21, 2015
Messages
207
Likes
12
Yes you are missing something and in speak-language it is called enunciation. In writing its called...F if I know but there has to be a word for it. And, the fact that you want me to differentiate two cherry picked statements by another member leads me to think that you are having problems with the thought process issuing from them.

Look bud: Charter law is law and nothing can be done to legislate around it.

In case you missed it: Early on I posted a seemingly ambiguous post about two guys who back in the 1600's got haled in for what was called rioting at the time....BUT.... the case did not hinge on the riot, it hinged on religious freedom that was charter bound.....meaning that as the forest charter and the big/magna charter did not forbade. Yes they were found by the judge guilty and fined 40gold but this is the first jury nullification of charges.....digression aside....it was later determined that AS the charters did not forbade it then the KING could not legislate against it---or around it. And, this is just religion.....and, we are talking about traveling. You can call it driving if you want but driving back then was one who was EMPLOYED to sit on that seat, mind the horsies and safely convey someone else's wares to a destination....kind of like truckdrivers today.

SO! If I want to travel to tim-bucks-two I can use an apparatus that guzzles gas, diesel or oranges or hay or my feet make go, BUT as long as I haul no freight or am payed for sitting in that seat then I am traveling and not driving.
Michael59,

YOUR COMMENT: Look bud: Charter law is law and nothing can be done to legislate around it.
MY RESPONSE: What "Charter law" do you contend is the law today in the United States? What law do you contend supports that proposition? Got a case that says this?
 
Joined
Mar 21, 2015
Messages
207
Likes
12
Joined
Mar 21, 2015
Messages
207
Likes
12
SO! If I want to travel to tim-bucks-two I can use an apparatus that guzzles gas, diesel or oranges or hay or my feet make go, BUT as long as I haul no freight or am payed for sitting in that seat then I am traveling and not driving.

COMMERCE:

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 '[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 convictions 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 that 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 ... I 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.

THE RIGHT TO TRAVEL

1). Jones v. Helms, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=7830792318853896035&q="jones+v.+Helms"+"U.S."+1981&hl=en&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.

2). Saenz v. Roe, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=4721017505990988840&q="Saenz+v.+Roe"&hl=en&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.

3). State v. Sullivan, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=5478545834163197366&q="State+v.+Sullivan"+COA09-705&hl=en&as_sdt=40006. In this case, the court held, "[T]HE RIGHT TO TRAVEL IS NOT SYNONYMOUS WITH [means "IS NOT THE SAME THING 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.

4). Miller v. Reed, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=9621580109864231465&q="Miller+v.+Reed"+97-17006&hl=en&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.

5). North Carolina v. Howard, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=10451209462604692152&q="North+Carolina+ex+rel"+Kasler&hl=en&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.

6). Thompson v. Scutt, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=18159286216902234518&q="Thompson+v.+Scutt"+&hl=en&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 every other amateur legal theorist] 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.)

7). State v. Sullivan, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=483036688545450484&q="966+A.2d+919"&hl=en&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".

8). John Doe No. 1 v. Georgia Dept. Of Public Safety, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=12477576553628312121&q="John+Doe+No.+1"+georgia+"right+to+travel"&hl=en&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".

9). Matter Of Acevedo v. State Of New York DMV, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=9780294138406294886&q="Acevedo+v.+New+York+State"++"right+to+drive"&hl=en&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".

10. 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.

11. 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 ... I 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.

In a private conveyance, no state authorization required.
RESPONSE: The REAL law disagrees with you the "private conveyance" issue. See the REAL law on this subject below.

1. 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.

2. 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.

3. (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 that 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.

Using terms like "drive" puts you in the privilege category, which can be regulated, as it deals in COMMERCE.
RESPONSE: The REAL law disagrees with you on this "commerce can be regulated, but non-commerce cannot be regulated". See the REAL law below.


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).

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, 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 convictions 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 that 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 ... I 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.
 
Joined
Mar 21, 2015
Messages
207
Likes
12
All Statues, Codes, Rules & Regulations are only color of law & not actual law.

View attachment 116657 View attachment 116658
Goldhedge,

There is only one problem.


None of this is the law.

Here is a tip.

In the U.S., the law ONLY COMES FROM THREE (3) SOURCES.

1. Constitutional delegates;

2. Law makers ELECTED by "We the People" to make the law;

3. Higher judges ELECTED (or appointed by those ELECTED) to make the law;

ANYTHING THAT COMES FROM ANY OTHER SOURCE IS NOT THE LAW, including the pamphlet you are reading from above.