You are misinformed and misled into believing that there was a legal requirement for having to obtain a License to Drive on public streets or highways to go about our daily routines. American citizens have the inalienable right, to use the roadways "UNRESTRICTED" in any manner, as long as they are not damaging or violating property or rights of others.
First the Law's of Jurisdiction in the Constitution Equity, Maritime, Admiralty, and Common Law. Statutory Jurisdiction, is no where in the Constitution. Traffic citations are wrote entirely on Statutory Jurisdiction.
Ask the Judge this question next time you are in front of one. Supply me with a copy of Statutory Jurisdiction do you have a copy in your chambers, so that way I can better understand these proceedings?
********Interesting fact applies for Texas listed below!---Check your State Constitution pertaining to complaints and/or charges!---This is what the prosecutor as well as the court needs in order to move forward PERIOD!!
The Texas Constitution Article 5 sections 12(b) An indictment is a written instrument presented to a court by a grand jury charging a person with the commission of an offense. An information is a written instrument presented to a court by an attorney for the State charging a person with the commission of an offense. The practice and procedures relating to the use of indictments and informations, including their contents, amendment, sufficiency, and requisites, are as provided by law. The presentment of an indictment or information to a court invests the court with jurisdiction of the cause.
All Infraction complaints do not follow the law! PERIOD!
Infraction Complaints through out the entire Republic are invalid Period!***********
Citation and Complaint Are Insufficient On Respective Faces
As Defendant has not been given the necessary information by Plaintiff to assert what specific sections of the commercial Transportation Code are being applied to Defendant, Defendant has been forced to make certain “presumptive guesses” as to what statutory sections are being insinuated by Plaintiff based upon the ambiguous charges written on the face of citation no. 000000, dated 11/01/whenever, and issued and signed by plaintiff. Therefore, Defendant can only present arguments as follows.
The citation fails to state with requisite specificity the specific nature of the charges being levied against Defendant, as does the written and sworn complaint.
Defendant asserts that it is impossible to determine from the ambiguous charges written on the citation whether the charges are considered civil or criminal in nature.
The citation fails to state with requisite specificity under what lawful authority and statute Defendant is being charged. Defendant cannot determine from the citation whether the charge alleged arises under municipal or county ordinance or some state law; and, if the charge does arise under state law, whether the specific law pertaining to the alleged charge is to be found within the Transportation Code, Administrative Code, Family Code, Property Code, Penal Code, or any of the other various codes.
The citation is wholly insufficient to meet the statutory requirements of a valid and verified complaint regarding arrest without warrant as it was signed by the arresting officer absent the presence of a judge, clerk, or notary and is without verification under oath as mandated and required pursuant Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Sec. 45.019, thus negating the possibility of the citation itself serving as the complaint. This fact is self-evident by the lack of any certifying signature and seal to that effect on the face of the citation, or on the copy presented to Defendant.
As this case is being heard in a (pick one) municipal / justice court, the rules of a valid complaint for an arrest without warrant can only be those codified pursuant Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Sec. 45.019, infra. And in as much as valid complaint must be signed and sworn under oath and penalty of perjury the assertion of a lesser manner of creating a valid complaint pursuant Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Sec. 27.14(d) , infra, cannot stand. It is a gross constitutional violation of Defendant's unalienable due process rights to assert that any piece of paper containing a written accusation, but such accusation being neither sworn to nor signed under penalty of perjury as true by the accuser, or, one having reason to believe and whom does in fact believe, that, the Defendant committed the act alleged therein.
Texas legislature may not bypass the necessity of a sworn and verified complaint as the basis for a valid charging instrument through the enactment of Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Art. 27.14(d). An unsigned and unsworn complaint cannot serve as a valid charging instrument under any circumstances, Art. 27.14(d) notwithstanding. Article 5 Sec. 12(b) of the Texas Constitution clearly reads that it is only an indictment or information that vests the court with jurisdiction to hear the case, there is absolutely no mention of a complaint serving as a valid charging instrument, and most certainly no mention of a citation serving as a valid complaint or as a substitute for either of these charging instruments. Defendant therefore alleges that Art. 27.14(d) Code of Criminal Procedure is unconstitutional on its face. Inasmuch as Art. 27.14(d) Code of Criminal Procedure asserts that the unsigned and/or unsworn citation made by the officer is a valid charging instrument vesting the court with jurisdiction of the cause, said article is in direct violation of Article 5 Sec. 12(b) of the Texas Constitution and the unalienable due process rights of Defendant, therefore Art. 27.14(d) must be declared unconstitutional on those grounds.
Art. 27.14. PLEA OF GUILTY OR NOLO CONTENDERE IN MISDEMEANOR.
(d) If written notice of an offense for which maximum possible punishment is by fine only or of a violation relating to the manner, time, and place of parking has been prepared, delivered, and filed with the court and a legible duplicate copy has been given to the defendant, the written notice serves as a complaint to which the defendant may plead "guilty," "not guilty," or "nolo contendere." If the defendant pleads "not guilty" to the offense, a complaint shall be filed that conforms to the requirements of Chapter 45 of this code, and that complaint serves as an original complaint. A defendant may waive the filing of a sworn complaint and elect that the prosecution proceed on the written notice of the charged offense if the defendant agrees in writing with the prosecution, signs the agreement, and files it with the court.
Neither the unsigned and unsworn citation nor the signed and verified complaint created pursuant Code of Criminal Procedure Sec. 45.019 are sufficient to vest the court with jurisdiction pursuant Texas Constitution Article 5 Sec. 12(b), and the legislature does not have the power and authority to create any statutory enactment intended to ignore, circumvent or deny any provision or prohibition of the respective constitutions, especially the Texas Constitution, pursuant Article 1, Section 29, supra.
In as much as the trial court routinely ignores Defendant’s substantive right to an examining trial as mandated by law pursuant Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Arts. 14.06 and 15.17, infra, and the entirety of Chapter 16 of that code, as the proper and requisite procedure for all criminal cases, Defendant has never been apprised of the nature of the charges levied, which Defendant asserts is a violation of Texas Constitution Article 1 Section 10, as well as the laws of Texas. This criminal deprivation of fair and impartial justice by the trial court is then used to facilitate a complete denial of Defendant’s substantive due process rights in the name of expediency for the sole purpose of revenue generation.
This action is not only a violation of Defendant’s protected substantive and vested rights under various self-enacting clauses of the Texas Constitution, it also serves as a fatal omission by plaintiff in the instant matter pursuant Texas Constitution Article 1, Sec. 10, infra, to wit:
THE TEXAS CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 1. BILL OF RIGHTS
Sec. 10. RIGHTS OF ACCUSED IN CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS. In all criminal prosecutions the accused shall have a speedy public trial by an impartial jury. He shall have the right to demand the nature and cause of the accusation against him, and to have a copy thereof. He shall not be compelled to give evidence against himself, and shall have the right of being heard by himself or counsel, or both, shall be confronted by the witnesses against him and shall have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, except that when the witness resides out of the State and the offense charged is a violation of any of the anti-trust laws of this State, the defendant and the State shall have the right to produce and have the evidence admitted by deposition, under such rules and laws as the Legislature may hereafter provide; and no person shall be held to answer for a criminal offense, unless on an indictment of a grand jury, except in cases in which the punishment is by fine or imprisonment, otherwise than in the penitentiary, in cases of impeachment, and in cases arising in the army or navy, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger.
(Amended Nov. 5, 1918.)
This omission acts to prevent Defendant opportunity to determine whether Defendant is being charged with an administrative, civil, or criminal offense, which is a violation of a constitutionally protected substantive and vested right.
This omission also acts to prevent Defendant opportunity to determine if the respective officers of the state, county, or municipality have any lawful authority to enforce these particular laws against Defendant and/or on what alleged authority such enforcement is being based
The common law default holds that any person making a legal claim against another must uphold their claim by timely rebutting the counterclaims of the defendant. If not, they enter into legal default and then lose all legal right to their claim.
Under the common law default method, the accused person has a legal right to challenge the People's claim outside of court using the common law default.
These people fail to even respond 100% of the time to the legally factual statements.
A traffic court judge is legally bound by the law, by his/her ministerial duty, and by his/her Constitutional Oath of Office to dismiss a traffic case when a legal default by the People occurs under the common law.
All courts, including traffic courts are either civil or criminal and are governed by either, the Rules of Civil Procedure, or by the Rules of Criminal Procedure. Most states classify traffic offenses as infractions. Infractions are legally termed quasi-crimes and are not punishable by jail time. Quasti--[Latin, Almost as it were; as if; analogous to.] In the legal sense, the term denotes that one subject has certain characteristics in common with another subject but that intrinsic and material differences exist between them.
According to the law, what is not criminal is civil. Infractions by legal definition only resemble a crime, but are not actually, then it stands to reason that infractions fall under the non-criminal or civil category of law adjudicated under the Rules of Civil Procedure. The common law default is a civil procedure and the default process found in every state of the union Rules of Civil Procedure is based upon the civil default derived under the common law.
The legal workings of the common law default are regulated to whether or not the person making the legal claim lawfully rebuts a lawful counter claim of the person accused. Should the person making the legal claim fail to lawfully rebut the counter claim of the accused, then the legal claim (be it civil or be it criminal) is settled in favor of the defendant by default of the accusing person.
According to the provisions of the Constitution, all public officials and people elected to or appointed to positions of public trust, including prosecutors, must take an oath of office. The oath of office is a contract between the office holder and the people, whereby the office holder swears to uphold the constitution, the law and the duties of his office. All contracts are civil. The prosecutor holds office and derives his power under the provisions of civil instruments, such as the Constitution and his oath of office, and any challenge to the power or jurisdiction of the prosecutor must be made by means of a civil instrument or document. A civil challenge to the authority or jurisdiction of a prosecutor in a criminal court or any other court, is the only legal avenue available to the people in making such a challenge.
One of the unalienable Rights of all Americans is the Right to enter into any contract whatsoever. This natural Right is of inestimable value to free people. Without it many of our Rights, (i.e. to acquire, own and possess property, to engage in business as we see fit) have little or no meaning.
However, each American carries the responsibility of exercising and preserving his/her own Rights. If you do not, jealously, guard and protect your Rights, then certainly nobody else will.
Almost everyone I meet today wants to know how it is that things have become so oppressive, how government has taken control over so much of daily life, how America the land of the free has apparently become America the land of the enslaved. My reply is, America is still the land of the free. It's just that most Americans have used their natural Right to contract to give up their natural Rights!
Each of you has the Right to engage in any contract whatsoever, even a contract to surrender your Rights! It is essential to maintaining your freedom in today's world, that you clearly understand this.
Rights or privileges
It is necessary to understand the distinction between Rights and privileges. A Right is something which you possess simply because you are a living flesh and blood man or woman. Your Rights come from your Creator; they do not come from any government and no government can take them away.
A privilege is a gift of the State (capital "S" denotes the corporate State) and as such can be regulated or even taken away by the State. In law, privileges and benefits always incur liabilities, even if you do not know you are receiving a privilege or benefit, even if you do not know what the liability is. Which Citizen Are You?
Each American born in one of the fifty Union states possesses natural Rights to life, liberty, travel, the pursuit of happiness, contract, acquiring, owning and possessing property, etc. State Citizens (with a capital "C") hold all Rights which formerly belonged to the king of England [Lansing v. Smith, 21 D. 89]. Each Citizen is naturally endowed with all Rights as described in the Declaration of Independence and protected by the Constitution for the United States.
Unfortunately, most Americans have unknowingly given up these Rights in exchange for the government "privilege" of being a "United States citizen" (with a small "c"). U.S. citizenship has been ruled by the Supreme Court to be a privilege. It entitles you to receive benefits from the federal government, such as welfare, food stamps, unemployment insurance, Medicare, SDI, etc.
It is interesting to note that any government benefit may be obtained more securely through the private sector. So, nobody needs to be on government dole.
Social Security Adhesion Contract
The most notorious contract responsible for the encroachments on our personal freedom is embodied in the Social Security application, Form SS-4. This form is attached to an adhesion contract, which means that you can agree to its terms or not, but you cannot alter the contract in any way.
This contract establishes you as a United States (federal) citizen. By accepting the privilege of U.S. citizenship you have waived your unalienable Rights and given up the protection of the Constitution for the United States.
Every time you sign your name to Form W-4, IRS Form 1040, endorse the back of a check, check the box on a government form identifying yourself as a "U.S. citizen" etc., you renew your contract with the federal government.
If you are like most people, your parents originally obtained a Social Security number for you, binding you to the federal government's adhesion contract. Most likely, they were unwitting accomplices to the government's efforts to subjugate the population. When you turned eighteen and did not revoke this contract you agreed to its terms, as if you had originally signed it. Unconscionable Contracts
However, there is a provision in law that requires all parties entering into a contract do so knowingly, willfully, and voluntarily, with full disclosure of all of the terms of the contract prior to signing. Otherwise, the contract is considered unconscionable and an act of fraud, and may be nullified and revoked dating back to its original signing; anything that takes place under the terms of an unconscionable contract is void, as if it never happened in the first place.
This means that technically, you are entitled to a refund of every penny you ever paid into Social Security, federal or State income taxes, SDI, Medicare, etc. Don't count on a refund, though. You're not likely to get one unless you are prepared for a lengthy court battle. If you don't want to engage in such a struggle, then just consider yourself fortunate to be out from under the thumb of government regulation and leave it at that.
Social Security is by no means the only government contract which has been used to subject the people to a jurisdiction foreign to them. State issued licenses and registrations represent another type of insidious contract that State and federal governments use to control people.
A license is a permit issued by the State, for you to do something that, were you not licensed, would be illegal. The State retains all control of your behavior with regard to the act being licensed. The State can revoke, suspend or amend your license at any time; you have no rights as long as you possess the license. Take a look at some of the things which we have been told require licensing by the State. Are they inherently illegal?
Right to Travel
As a Citizen, you have a natural Right to travel upon the public roadways. Various state and U.S. Supreme Courts have ruled that this Right extends to and includes the use of automobiles. You cannot be required to pay a fee or tax in order to exercise this natural Right. Drivers licenses and vehicle registrations represent fees which, if they were required of all Citizens, would do exactly that.
Today's drivers license was originally just a certificate of competency, confirming that you were trained in the operation of a motorcar. Today's drivers license is permission by the State for you to conduct commerce (drive) by operating a motorcar. Taxi drivers, truck drivers, chauffeurs are among those who require licensing by the State.
We have all been told that we must get a drivers license; it has even been made into a cultural "rite of passage". Nevertheless, if you transport persons or property, without charging a fee or fare for doing so, there is no legal requirement for a state Citizen to have a drivers license or vehicle registration!
Property of the State
Notwithstanding this fact of law, lower courts throughout the land are ignoring the law in favor of raising revenues. There is even an ordinance in the City of Thousand Oaks, California that clearly admits this to be true. At least, they're honest.
Government takes the position that you are a franchisee of the State, and as such, you are considered as property of the State. You are a natural resource. In California, the State taxing authority is called the Franchise Tax Board.
If you travel without paying registration or license fees, you are likely to be stopped and given a ticket some day. In some States, laws have been passed authorizing the police to confiscate vehicles when the driver is operating on a suspended or revoked license. This requires the police to make a determination that you are a commercial entity; a determination the police are not legally qualified or authorized to make.
If you are ever in such a situation, do not leave your car! Your car is like your home: it is your private property and the police cannot enter it without first showing you a search warrant and affidavit, both signed by a magistrate. Open your windows a crack only, keep your doors locked. You do not have to submit to orders by police, but you should cooperate wherever possible. Remember, you are a Sovereign Being and do not have to obey laws which violate your natural Rights. Police who try to enforce such laws are themselves criminals. Limited Jurisdiction
The most significant thing to understand about traffic laws and vehicle codes is that they have limited jurisdiction and only apply to "United States citizens", not to state Citizens. This is because state Citizens are supreme in America and can only be governed by their own consent.
It is also important for you to understand that when you obtain a drivers license or register your car as a "motor vehicle" you are entering into a contract with the State, which gives them permission to regulate your behavior with respect to your car and its operation. Without this contract the State has no legal authority over your natural Right to travel.
Be very careful! You must learn about the applicable laws of your state. You must accept full responsibility for the consequences of standing up for your Rights. Many people in positions of authority in government are openly hostile toward Citizens who assert their natural Rights under the Constitution. Some Judicial Districts in northern California have even coined the phrase "constitutionalist" and apply it freely and with disdain to those who want to live free from government. Supposedly impartial judges have openly expressed there disinterest in hearing "constitutionalist" arguments. This is a violation of their oath of office. These judges, are also criminals.
You are likely to meet with great resistance if you choose to assert your freedom to travel and other Rights. I believe that meeting this sort of resistance is the price of freedom.
What about marriage licenses? Getting married is not illegal so why is a license required? The truth is, it isn't required. However, the government has successfully trained the population to believe it to be necessary to obtain a license before marrying, thus giving the government greater control over the people. For example, by obtaining a marriage license the husband and wife make the State "guardians of their morals." [81 CA2d 871, 185 P2d 381]
Originally these licenses were called "intermarriage licenses" and were permits for the marriage of a white person to a black person. Back in the days of open slavery in America, black people did not possess the same natural Rights as white people. Blacks were considered to be property. They had no Right to enter the contract of marriage. Therefore, if a white wanted to marry a black the couple needed to obtain the State's permission. Further, the State retained control of both parties to the marriage.
Right to Conduct Business
It is an inherent and natural Right for all Americans to be able to engage in and conduct business; that's why America has been called the land of opportunity. Business licenses represent another contract with the State, transferring control over your business to the government. Why would you do that?
Any time you obtain any license you enter into a contract with the State. A license represents transfer of power of attorney over the licensed activity from you to the State.
Today, we are led to believe these and other licenses are mandatory. But think about it. A license is permission to do that which would otherwise be illegal, except for the license. People were getting married, operating their cars, conducting business, voting, being born before these things were licensed, registered or certified. Why should you give control of your life over to the State? What do you get in return?
Whenever you are confronted with licensing, registering or certifying anything with the State, it is attached to some contract; generally, one which places you under federal jurisdiction, since a Sovereign never needs to license or register his/her behavior. Ask yourself, "Am I a Sovereign or subject?". Act accordingly.
Common Law Trusts
You can use your Right to contract to protect and defend your family and property. Through establishing Unincorporated Contractual Organizations and other types of common law trusts, you can free yourself completely from government control. Just stay away from government contracts.
Protect Your Rights
Your Right to contract can be used to help you reach for your dreams. But there are those who would subvert this priceless Right to be used for their own ends. Birth certificates, voters registration, business licenses, Social Security, drivers licenses, vehicle registration, are only a few of the contracts which all lovers of freedom must beware of. Remember that your Rights carry with them responsibilities: if you don't jealously and diligently protect them you may wake up one morning to find that you have given them away!
"Right to travel is the basic fundamental right of which our founding fathers fought so heard to achieve. You are free sovereign, flesh and blood, man or women. www.dismissticket.com"