What is the next step? Go to court? Then what? We should all be on the same page at least...?
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.Originally Posted by Sovereignty
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?
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.
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.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:
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
Great idea Delaware. I now will have to start looking at Laws from Texas. I have only used this once in the last 2 years, for I have not dealt with the road trolls except for once in these 2 years.
When he asked for the DL I said I have one but done use it.
He asked why.
I ask him if I was carrying passengers, goods, or providing any type of service.
Tacit response.
I told him I was traveling in the private, and not engage in the public at the time.
He then told me that the State in its authority has deemed it so.
I asked him by what authority does the State make such claims when involuntary servitude has been outlawed?
Tacit response.
I asked him if involuntary servitude is against the Law.
Tacit response from him.
I remained very clam and friendly with him the entire time, and he responded in like manner.
The back story to this situation that makes it interesting is that two years ago I had two felony Warrants issued on the name. The Felony charges did not stick, but they left the Warrants active on the name. I did not know this. So after he figured out who I was via the plates on the Car, that is when about 10 of them show up for the felony stop.
All that ended up being taken care of, as they called the Country I live in and learned about the "mistake", and I was let go without further incident.
I thought at the time maybe they let me off because of the FUBAR situation that occurred, but that is not the case, because one of the others troopers there, a Commander, wanted to take me to jail anyway.
So they must have had no other reasoning Lawfully to detain me further or proceed with coercion.
So I have established my footing in a situation and situations that would appear to be the opposite. Which is really surreal considering my past personal interactions and relationships with the road trolls.
(On another note)
I have been here reading for about a little while, and want to thank everyone for their work. I used to be very angry because I was searching for remedy so badly, and only getting BS information, disinformation, and down right deception. It is sites like this one that give remedy and true sincere study into what is taking place, and at least try to find solutions. I am finding that our Country was established for us to truly rule in. We are to be the creators of Law. Through the Court of Record primarily, and that Law thus created is for us alone and our Personal Contracts and dealings.
And in reality, its so very simple, though the process can be tedious. Patience is a virtue.
And once the true depth of what is allowed us is realized, one can truly reflect on it, and say that they are glad to understand, and have a system in place to use and apply to ones own personal freedom and liberty.
It has taken me many years to get to this point. And though here, yet I am still very far away from where I want to be in my personal knowledge and application of such.
We borrow the present from our childrens future.
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.
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.
I reviewed this thread this morning looking for that.
After a proper R4C a suitor showed up to cattle court (arraignment/First Appearance Center etc.) with a certified copy of his R4C from the USDC. He mistakenly took the wrong chute - to the ADA who rediculed the R4C in front of his ADA friends and threw it in the garbage pail. The suitor and his witness called me from the courthouse steps and I admonished them to get to the judge with it, to go get another copy of the R4C. That was twenty minutes each way so I suggested they go get the one out of the ADA's garbage pail.
They went back in and found that the ADA had already taken it out of the garbage and ran it up to the courtroom. By the time they got up there the ADA was retrieving it from the bailiff and the judge called up the legal name. This suitor stood in front of the podium because it looked too much like a sacrificial altar (which might be a very important point of protocol if you model trust processes as priestcrafting). He informed the judge that he was there by restricted appearance to avoid a fraud on the court. [The chief of police failing to update* the court about the R4C would be fraud by omission.] The judge was very interested and allowed him to bring the R4C up to the bench, took it and looked it over. He said, Okay as he put it in the file folder.
A couple weeks later the suitor went to the clerk of court and asked to see the case. It had nothing in it at all except that copy of the R4C!
Regards,
David Merrill.
* The process being expedited, like your revenue-frenzied officer seems to be the retaliation against the True Name execution. For example law enforcement traditionally waits for at least three days to present the tickets to the courthouse, presumably because of the three-day right of refusal. There is even a technique of getting right to the courthouse with your ticket and the clerk of court will say you have to come back in a few days; and you honorably insist on paying it, the clerk refuses and it is over. However, I have a report last week from a potential suitor, that he got a ticket on Friday evening and called Monday morning and the clerk was ready for payment.
With electronics and the new legislation you mentioned AJ, it is possible that the courthouse is informed simultaneously without you even signing the agreement/presentment/ticket.
Last edited by David Merrill; 03-26-11 at 02:15 PM.
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.
Thank you for that news Stonefree. Interesting label to put on properly using the Card.
Very effective I will predict.
That was quick!!!
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote