Printable View
I lost my driving license for a year under very bogus circumstances.
Without going into great detail, I am looking for a starting point for grounds to file in USDC. My plan is to argue under constitutional right to free travel. Would there be better grounds.
I am now reading the threads on making a record in USDC but have no background
That is a great start! Become adept at Record-Forming. If you want to try asserting case law then you better be a court of competent jurisdiction by being a court of record yourself.
I encourage you to share your record with us here as you go.
Shibumi! I liked that book. Welcome!
I would add to your studies the Supreme Court case Aswander v. Tennessee Valley Association (1936), more specifically the Ashwander rule.Quote:
Originally Posted by shibumi2
If one wishes to raise a constitutional issue, it would be wise not to avail one's self of statutory benefits in accordance with the avoidance doctrine established by Justice Brandeis in the aforementioned case.
According to George Gordon, the State (government) has an interest in your vehicle granted by way of the certificate of title. One may wish to possess the complete and full interest of their vehicle in their right to travel journey.
The certificate of title is a service. There are many, many links with commerce surrounding vehicles, certificates, insurances, and licensing.
For others:
A license is not a contract (which attorneys are quick to yelp about), but the never say exactly what a license is.
A license is a servitude. This is a very important point.
This being the case when did government acquire the power to impose this kind of servitude on citizens?
Perhaps a tie in with the Reconstruction Acts could lend us some clues?
Alfred Adask has an interesting theory on administrative courts being bills of attainder. Administrative courts violate the separation of powers doctrine by unifying the powers of all three branches into one entity.
Rod Class has interesting theories concerning administrative courts and the Administrative Procedure Act of 1946.
Lee Brobst also had interesting material concerning administrative courts and the Constitution as well.
There are also links involving federal codes and statutes involving transportation, traffic legislation of the States and federal funding in addition to regulations from both State and Federal.
Administrative Procedures Act
Bill of attainder.Quote:
Basic purposes
Agencies are unique governmental bodies, capable of exercising powers characteristic of all three branches of the United States federal government: judicial, legislative and executive. An individual agency typically will possess only the power of the branch that set it up, or possibly powers characteristic of two branches, but the Separation of Powers doctrine dictates that all three powers should not be vested in one body. As recognized by President Roosevelt and others, the creation and function of federal agencies can cause separation of powers issues under the United States Constitution. To provide constitutional safeguards, the APA creates a framework for regulating agencies and their unique role. According to the Attorney General's Manual on the Administrative Procedure Act (1947), drafted after the 1946 enactment of the APA, the basic purposes of the APA are: (1) to require agencies to keep the public informed of their organization, procedures and rules; (2) to provide for public participation in the rulemaking process; (3) to establish uniform standards for the conduct of formal rulemaking and adjudication; (4) to define the scope of judicial review.[6]
Perhaps administrative courts are bills of pains and penalties?Quote:
Legislative acts, no matter what their form, that apply either to named individuals or to easily ascertainable members of a group in such a way as to inflect punishment on them without a judicial trial.
....
An act is a "bill of attainder" when the punishment is death and a "bill of pains and penalties" when the punishment is less severe; both kinds of punishment fall within the scope of the constitutional prohibition. [Blacks Law Dictionary, 6th Ed.]
Now, I am theorizing that these agencies may be commercial rather than governmental which may be how they are circumventing the separation of powers doctrine.
You may be able to go the Rod Class route and get your way simply by holding their feet to the fire of what the rules currently are and what the statutes, acts, codes, and regulations currently state.
I apologize in advance if the submitter feels I am derailing your thread.
If you feel this way, I can create a new thread moving the material thereto.
Rod Class asserts that the judicial power has been removed from federal courts per the 11th Amendment.
The 11th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution reads as follows:
I have heard this mentioned before in allusion by "the Informer".Quote:
The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.
If this is the case, would this not make the federal courts merely administrative save District Courts?
District Courts handle suits in admiralty/maritime.
Thoughts?
You have many points there and I a focusing on these two.Quote:
Originally Posted by shikamaru
This is the articulation of the Libel of Review.Quote:
Originally Posted by shikamaru
Sign the driver license simply - First Middle. When you hand it to the officer specify that you are only using it to evidence compentency. - Not for identification purposes. He will execute a fatal error; misnomer. Now you cannot be arraigned from where you are, with a right to judiciary, into the administrative admiralty. The only justification for administrative government to exist is that it does so under judicial oversight. Look for that in AmJur 2d - Administrative Law.
Retain your right to judiciary by not allowing that signed contract to drag you into Ashwander Doctrine. If you endorse private credit from the Fed, you almost certainly have (own) a SSN that is a taxation contract that will function through that driver license card - so non-endorse private credit; redeem lawful money. Keep all that in your evidence repository in the "exclusive original cognizance" of the US Government with the Libel of Review.
Regards,
David Merrill.
Another piece of the puzzle !! Thanks :).Quote:
Originally Posted by David Merrill
Rod and the AIB Team also make an interesting assessment regarding the whole “Drivers License” business .
In a nutshell . States signed onto the National Highway Safety Act . The Act provides revenue sourcing and that 40% of revenues collected are to go back to the State’s political subdivisions . A stipulation of the revenue arrangement is the local subdivisions are to adhere to federal guidelines in all highway safety related issues .
Only two classifications of “Driver’s License” needed to travel on Safety Act “funded” roadways . A CDL for commercial transport and a DL for those driving / delivering “migrant workers “ . ( Agriculture Codes come into play )
This is all administered under the Dept. of Transportation and ONLY the Office of the ( Director ? ) of the issuing State DOT has authority to pull a required License .
I’ll see what I can find in relation to this and post later .
11th Amendment and Foreign State Status logic can be found in this latest Dismissal Template .
http://www.scribd.com/doc/58640594/5...issal-Template
The connections I make start with the case cited in the Article in my first Fed video. The Supremes think that SSI is a taxation system like the Income Tax.
Now connect that up with the fact, that I have shown here - that you can get a valid drivers license in your hand, without a SSN. Now you will find (hopefully) that the driver license integrates your personal TIN as evidence to the Revenue Officer stopping you. However, if you have no SSN, then it is much easier to abate the cause for misnomer, provided you sign it correctly with your true name.Quote:
Two years after H.J.R. 192, Congress passed the Social Security Act, which the Supreme Court upheld as a valid act imposing a valid income tax: 'Charles C. Steward Mach. Co. v, Davis' 301 U.S. 548 (1937).
Regards,
David Merrill.
Good points David . One may also claim “mistake” in securing the documents in the first place , correct the record and exercise the power of rescission .
Grace in the Law .