Page 1 of 22 12311 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 220

Thread: DL was NOT provided or used as ID

  1. #1
    Anthony Joseph
    Guest

    DL was NOT provided or used as ID

    Well, here we go.

    I have the opportunity to put what I have learned into practice. I was presented the first "TRAFFIC CITATION", since learning of how NOT to present the DL as ID, just yesterday by a staked-out deputy in an unmarked SUV who was on a revenue generating expedition in the area. I heard reports from others throughout the day that this same SUV was pulling people over all day. The claim on the presentment is "DRIVER NOT BELTED". Also, the new insurance card was not with me; I found it within a stack of recently opened mail at home later. So in addition, "INSURANCE - NO PROOF OF" is also claimed.

    There is apparantly a new "law" in effect near my area since 2009 that a signature is no longer required when issuing a citation. The new "law" states that providing the DL is the consent now. The citations are now thermally printed from a computer data entry system which makes for a quick and easy "sale", taking less than a quarter of the time it took in the past to write out tickets. Nice to see the efficiency nowadays!

    I was obviously not aware of the new "no-signature-required" procedure and was informed of it by the revenue agent/LEO.

    I was heading to work and noticed the SUV parked in a lot at the side of the highway. He decided that I was his target and proceeded to flash his lights, sound the siren and pull me over. I kept going slowly until I reached my work parking lot and pulled in there as my safe place. He approached rather quickly and, without me having a chance to say anything, he uttered... "Driver's License, Registration and Proof of Insurance... You were pulled over for no seatbelt". Noticing the apparant "cash cow" at work, I didn't respond and just proceeded to find the DL card and registration (No insurance card) to show the LEO. It was then that I said, "Before I hand these to you, I have to inform you that I am providing this Driver's License card to you for competency purposes only and NOT for I.D." I also asked him to put that in his notes. He made a weird face, shrugged it off and asked, "What does that mean?" I repeated it once again and he quipped "Your providing it to me because I asked you for it." I repeated it once again showing that I did not agree with that opinion. The next comment was, "Whatever." He promptly went back to the car and came back real quick with these citations; I thought that they would be warnings because he came back so fast. So he quickly handed them to me and breezed through the "options" available, obviously in a hurry to get back to his stake-out spot to keep "ringing the register". I was confused about the non-signature and it put me off my game somewhat since I was planning to write on his copy how I presented the DL card and also sign with the True Name dba LEGAL M. NAME method. I tried to ask him something else and he just ignored me and started walking back to his SUV. So, I got out of my car and started walking towards him. Sitting in the SUV and obviously frustrated with me, he asked, "What can I do for you now?" I proceeded to remind him that he should remember how I presented the DL card to him and that he would have to testify to that on the stand when questioned if that ever became necessary. He responded that what I said doesn't mean anything and that he wasn't worried about it. I said, "Well, I think your making a legal determination that your not qualified to make". He responded, "Thanks for telling me what I am not qualified to do." We then parted with the usual "have a nice day".

    I will be refusing these presentements for cause and filing copies in my evidence repository at the United States district clerk of court near my area. I am attaching copies of this process and will continue to update as we go as best I can.
    Attached Images Attached Images  
    Attached Files Attached Files

  2. #2
    Senior Member Treefarmer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    in the woods known to some as Tanasi
    Posts
    476
    Blog Entries
    14
    More power to you, Anthony Joseph!

    This should be interesting.
    I'm watching from the fence row, all eager, drink in hand and ears perked up
    Treefarmer

    There is power in the blood of Jesus

  3. #3
    Senior Member Michael Joseph's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    peaceful inhabitant on the Earth
    Posts
    1,424
    it is a presentment in Trust; your signature is not required; your actions matter; three days and counting...the Officer is very qualified to make any determination he needs to make regarding CQVT. This was the Court and Trial. Now on to appeals if you feel it necessary. The Trustee issued forth a determination upon the CQVT and that is that.

    Argument on your end is indeed fruitless. So why waste your time. That officer is Trustee. Again, your consent will be known by your silence. It appears to me you have expressed your intent.
    Last edited by Michael Joseph; 03-25-11 at 11:04 PM.
    The blessing is in the hand of the doer. Faith absent deeds is dead.

    https://www.lawfulmoneytrust.com

    ONE man or woman can make a difference!

  4. #4
    Member Sovereignty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Colorado Territory
    Posts
    34
    Blog Entries
    1
    What is the next step? Go to court? Then what? We should all be on the same page at least...?

  5. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by Sovereignty View Post
    What is the next step? Go to court? Then what? We should all be on the same page at least...?
    After R4C it is a matter of showing for the 'arraignment' and preventing fraud on the court. If the chief of police fails to forward the R4C, that is fraud on the court.


    In response to MJ's comment. If this gets to trial the officer set himself up to just say, I don't remember you making any declarations or comments about your driver license and/or your identification. This is why it is good to have an audio recorder. However, the officer will indeed be required in his training, when on the witness stand, to say exactly how the defendant identified himself. You can count on that.

    If this is moving forward to trial by the way AJ - make sure that just before the trial you go to Records and get the backside of the officer's report. He might mention something about how you identified yourself. I doubt it though.

    I am presuming that you are simply abating the No Insurance ticket by presenting the Proof of Insurance Card when you R4C both?

    It sounds to me as though LEO's are training about this technique directly from SJC and here! Did you get the officer's name?

  6. #6
    It seems to me the best way to avoid fighting a citation is to NOT have one issued. Which begins with the LEO. When an LEO approaches a car, he/she PRESUMES the person behind the wheel is a "driver." It is during the confrontation, one must exercise one's right to travel and rebut the LEO's presumption.

    To that end, I have created a Notice of Travel. This notice is based upon my past experience with traffic citations. To date, I have not used this notice of travel and therefore CANNOT guarantee any success with it. As I always travel in a safe manner, it is unusual for an LEO to pull me over. Over the last 3 years, I have been pulled over twice and issued citations, both were dismissed without fines or points accumulating against my license.

    Sooner or later I will be pulled over and the LEO will ask me for a DL, registration and proof of insurance. I have all of these, in case I am ever "driving." I rarely am. If asked, I will say to the LEO, "I need to hand you this first." I will give to the LEO my notice of travel and a homemade ID card. Reproduced below is my Notice of Travel.

    NOTICE OF TRAVEL

    I, Delawarejones, am giving written notice to all parties that I am exercising my right to travel in my private capacity. As such, I am not subject to Title 21 of the Delaware code. The right to travel is inherent in all men. This birthright is conferred upon me by God and secured by the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution for the state of Delaware, the Constitution for the United States of America, the United States Supreme Court and the Delaware Legislature.

    Legal Proof

    Delaware Code
    21DSC101(22)
    "Highway" means the entire width between boundary lines of every way or place of whatever nature open to the use of the public as a matter of right for purposes of vehicular travel, but does not include a road or driveway upon grounds owned by private persons, colleges, universities or other institutions.

    U.S. Supreme Court Case Cites:
    Shapiro v Thompson 394 U.S. 618 (1969),
    All citizens must be free to travel unemcumbered. . .If a law has no other purpose than to chill the assertion of constitutional rights by penalizing those who choose to exercise them, then it is patently unconstitutional.

    Mudook v. Penn. : 319 US 105 (1943) A state may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the Federal Constitution and that a flat license tax here involves restraints in advance the constitutional liberties of Press and Religion and inevitably tends to suppress their existence. That the ordinance is non-discriminatory and that is applies also to peddlers of wares and merchandise is immaterial. The liberties granted by the first amendment are and in a preferred position. Since the privilege in question is guaranteed by the Federal Constitution and exist independently of the states authority , the inquiry as to whether the state has given something for which it cannot ask a return, is irrelevant. No state may convert any secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it.

    Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham, 373 US 262 (1963) If the State converts a liberty into a privilege, the Citizen can engage in the right with impunity.

    Miller v. U.S., 230 F.2d. 486, 489 (5th Cir. 1959) The claim and exercise of a Constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime.

    In summation, the right to travel is inherent in all men wheresoever. The State of Delaware acknowledges this right in its Preamble and specifically in 21DSC101(22) and the U.S. Supreme Court clearly states “citizens must be free to travel unemcumbered,” and if the state converts a liberty into a privilege, by charging a fee or tax, the citizen can ignore it with impunity. The exercise of a right cannot be converted into a crime, which traffic citations are classified.

    Difference between Driving and Travelling
    Driving in Delaware is a privilege. Driving is commerce, and can be regulated by the state and Federal Government, thus requiring a license. The Delaware Legislature codified Title 21 in 1935 and has yet to define the term “Driver”. Useing 1DSC303 to discover the “peculiar and appropriate meaning in the law” for the term “Driver” it is proper to use a legal dictionary. Black’s Legal Dictionary 3rd ed. from 1933, two years prior to the codification of Title 21, defines “Driver” as:
    Driver - One employed in conducting or operating a coach, carriage, wagon, or other vehicle, with horse, mules, or other animals, or a bicycle, tricycle, or motor car, though not a street railroad car, pg. 622.

    Employed - This signifies both the act of doing a thing and the being under contract or orders to do it, pg. 657.

    Driving is doing business, commerce, is using public roads to make a private gain. Travelling is done in one’s private capacity and is not commerce and therefore cannot be regulated by any government.

    I certify, under penalty of perjury in the United States of America, that I am travelling in my private capacity., that I am not engaged in a regulated activity, i.e. commerce and not using public roads to make a private gain.

    STATE OF DELAWARE, COUNTY OF SUSSEX
    BEFORE ME personally appeared Delawarejones who, being by me first duly sworn and identified in accordance with Delaware law, did execute the foregoing in my presence this ___ day of _____________ 2010.



    ________________________________
    Notary Public
    My commission expires:
    This Notice of Travel is specific to Delaware. I do not expect the LEO to know what to do with this. However, Delaware code is quite clear that during "fresh pursuit" the LEO can demand ID. (I agree with this as a matter of good public policy. Most criminals are caught during routine traffic stops. Let the LEOs deal with the criminals, so I do not have to.) The code does NOT specify what form the ID must take. One could give the LEO a name. Even better, crib it down on a piece of paper and hand to the LEO. Better still is to hand over a homemade ID card for that specific purpose. Mine has a disclaimer that this card is for ID purposes only and servers no other purpose and that it is compliant with Del. code. Beyond my name, it states my DOB, address for my house and picture of myself. It is my hope the LEO will decide that I am exercising my right to travel and let me go about my way. If you think this has merit, please use as you see fit and adjust according to your state code.

    Delawarejones
    Last edited by Delawarejones; 03-26-11 at 03:22 AM.
    Despite the crapehangers, romanticists and anti-intellectuals, the world steadily grows better because the human mind, applying itself to environment, makes it better. Robert Heinlein

    The law assists the wakeful, not the sleeping. Legal Maxim

    Nothing is so natural as to dissolve anything in the way in which it was bound together; therefore the obligations of words is taken away by words; the obligation of mere consent is dissolved by contrary consent. Legal Maxim

  7. #7
    stoneFree
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by David Merrill View Post
    It sounds to me as though LEO's are training about this technique directly from SJC and here!
    An acquaintance is a state trooper and told me they were just sent a memo on this issue of motorists not identifying with the DL. Told me the memo described these people as potentially violent, liable to rush at you.
    Total disinformation.

  8. #8
    Anthony Joseph
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by David Merrill View Post
    After R4C it is a matter of showing for the 'arraignment' and preventing fraud on the court. If the chief of police fails to forward the R4C, that is fraud on the court.


    In response to MJ's comment. If this gets to trial the officer set himself up to just say, I don't remember you making any declarations or comments about your driver license and/or your identification. This is why it is good to have an audio recorder. However, the officer will indeed be required in his training, when on the witness stand, to say exactly how the defendant identified himself. You can count on that.

    If this is moving forward to trial by the way AJ - make sure that just before the trial you go to Records and get the backside of the officer's report. He might mention something about how you identified yourself. I doubt it though.

    I am presuming that you are simply abating the No Insurance ticket by presenting the Proof of Insurance Card when you R4C both?

    It sounds to me as though LEO's are training about this technique directly from SJC and here! Did you get the officer's name?
    I do have the officer's name and more than likely he will not show up to court; lack of testimony. Thanks for the tip of including a copy of the current and valid insurance card with the correspondance. My signature on the DL card expresses clearly that the STATE OF FLORIDA already recognizes and accepts my intents and True Name; Anthony Joseph dba ANTHONY J XXXXXXX. The officer will have to lie on the stand when questioned; it will be a lie for him to say he does not remember our encounter - DISHONOR. If he claims he does not remember, then my account will stand as truth; I have evidence of my intent, True Name and character pre-dating this encounter. The DL card itself is evidence of that fact; distinction between the man and the TRUST vessel.

    I will be sure that fraud is not brought upon the court by offering my assistance via certified copies of the timely refusal. After that, what they wish to do with their account and DL card is up to them; it is their's anyway. Whatever transpires will not hinder my inherent right to travel freely in the mode of travel of my choosing since I will obtain a full record of these events to provide evidence of my honorable standing and competence to form the true and correct record - the superior court.

    I did not and will not offer, or join into, any argument of any kind. My sole purpose was to be clear and to make sure the officer was cognizant of the fact that I did NOT identify myself with that DL card. Repeating and reminding him four times would make for an unbelievable assertion that he "doesn't remember". Either way, at any time along the way I can cure the "mistake" on the part of the LEO; my consent is CONTINUALLY required in order for their process to proceed and have any effect upon me.

    The only reason to show up to court is to provide information, to prevent fraud on the court and to assist them in a friendly manner to settle their account through their own internal administration. Without a willing volunteer to alleviate their burden, they are left with their inherent obligation of settling any charges against their own vessel.

  9. #9
    Anthony Joseph
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Michael Joseph View Post
    it is a presentment in Trust; your signature is not required; your actions matter; three days and counting...the Officer is very qualified to make any determination he needs to make regarding CQVT. This was the Court and Trial. Now on to appeals if you feel it necessary. The Trustee issued forth a determination upon the CQVT and that is that.

    Argument on your end is indeed fruitless. So why waste your time. That officer is Trustee. Again, your consent will be known by your silence. It appears to me you have expressed your intent.
    For the purposes of clarity, please share your interpretation of precisely what my "expressed intent" is.

  10. #10
    Senior Member Michael Joseph's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    peaceful inhabitant on the Earth
    Posts
    1,424
    apparently you refused for cause his offer. Yes? I think you are operating without the Federal Reserve Districts and said officer is moving IN the FRD's. He works for Metro, Yes? If you remain silent, your intent is acceptance.
    Last edited by Michael Joseph; 03-26-11 at 10:41 AM.
    The blessing is in the hand of the doer. Faith absent deeds is dead.

    https://www.lawfulmoneytrust.com

    ONE man or woman can make a difference!

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •