Transportation Laws: Commerce; trade; sale or exchange of merchandise, bills, money, and the like. The passing of goods or commodities from one person to another for an equivalent in goods or money. Traffic laws do not apply to us average Joes.
Cops take an oath of honor (To get their DPSST Certifcation) in which they swear to uphold the Constitution, amongst other things. That is the Supreme Law of the Land. But then they are instructed to violate the Citizens "Right to Travel," unfettered. They assume the roll of corporate revenue agent by citing people with violations of the commercial traffic laws. There are ample case laws, to support this maxim of law. Take for instance Kent v. Dulles 357 U.S. 116, Thompson v. Smith 154 SE 579, Hertado v. California 110 U.S. 516, and Miller v U.S., 230 F 2d 486, 489. I suggest that people study these and many more case histories concerning the Right to Travel.
The police are not intentionally violating the Citizens rights, as they are duped into beleiving that they are enforcing the law, and doing their jobs. But their superiors know this and will not inform the policeman of this felonious act or it will sever their cash cow in the jugular. Other U.S. court cases that confirm and point out the difference between the "right" of the citizen to travel and a government "privilege" are - Barney v Board of Railroad Commissioners; State v City of Spokane, 186 P. 864; Ex Parte Dickey (Dickey v Davis), 85 S.E. 781; Teche Lines v Danforth, 12 So.2d 784.
Folks, when you were fraudulantly compelled to acquire that "Driver's License," without being told that you don't need one to "Travel," you surrendered your right, and gave jurisdiction to the State to regulate your every move through contract law, or administrative law. Officer's can do what they do, as long as you have that License to drive. Do not give them juridiction. By the way, I suggest that all law enforcement research my information, as they are in violation of Title 18, section 241, 242, and Title 42 section 14141, amongst other's.
Basically, we're all lied to. We are all comitting offenses without knowing it. Cops, Civilians, and kids alike. "Driving," is a commercial act as is "Operating a Motor Vehicle." "Motor Vehicle," as defined in Blacks Law, 4th Ed., is a taxi, omnibus or any variey of motor vehicles exclusively used and designed for commerce.
Don't take my word for it, research it yourself. Just enter Right to Travel in your search window, and study the Law. One more thing, Other U.S. court cases that confirm and point out the difference between the "right" of the citizen to travel and a government "privilege" are - Barney v Board of Railroad Commissioners; State v City of Spokane, 186 P. 864; Ex Parte Dickey (Dickey v Davis), 85 S.E. 781; Teche Lines v Danforth, 12 So.2d 784. One more thing, Marbury v. Madison, 5 US 137 (1803) states that The Constitution of these United States is the supreme law of the land. Any law that is repugnant to the Constitution of America is null and void.
Murdock v. Penn., 319 US 105 (1943)
No State shall convert a liberty into a privilege, license it, and attach a fee to 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.
Byars v. U.S., 273 US 28 (1927)
Unlawful search and seizure, your rights must be interpreted in favor of the Citizen.
Norton v. Shelby County, 118 US 425 (1886)
An unconstitutional act is not law, it confers no rights, it imposes no duties, affords no protection, it creates no office.
It is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never passed.
Miller v. U.S., 230 F. 2nd. 486, 489 (5th Cir. 1959) Id. at 489-490
The claim and exercise of a Constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime.
And finally just for laugths, Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US 436 (1966)
Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation, which would abrogate them.
Have a nice day.
"An action by Department of Motor Vehicles, whether directly or through a court sitting administratively as the hearing officer, must be clearly defined in the statute before it has subject matter jurisdiction, without such jurisdiction of the licensee, all acts of the agency, by its employees, agents, hearing officers, are null and void."
Doolan v. Carr, 125 US 618; City v Pearson, 181 Cal. 640.
"Agency, or party sitting for the agency, (which would be the magistrate of a municipal court) has no authority to enforce as to any licensee unless he is acting for compensation. Such an act is highly penal in nature, and should not be construed to include anything which is not embraced within its terms. (Where) there is no charge within a complaint that the accused was employed for compensation to do the act complained of, or that the act constituted part of a contract."
Schomig v. Kaiser, 189 Cal 596.
"When acting to enforce a statute and its subsequent amendments to the present date, the judge of the municipal court is acting as an administrative officer and not in a judicial capacity; courts in administering or enforcing statutes do not act judicially, but merely ministerially".
Thompson v. Smith, 154 SE 583.
"A judge ceases to sit as a judicial officer because the governing principle of administrative law provides that courts are prohibited from substituting their evidence, testimony, record, arguments, and rationale for that of the agency. Additionally, courts are prohibited from substituting their judgment for that of the agency. Courts in administrative issues are prohibited from even listening to or hearing arguments, presentation, or rational."
ASIS v. US, 568 F2d 284.
"Ministerial officers are incompetent to receive grants of judicial power from the legislature, their acts in attempting to exercise such powers are necessarily nullities." Burns v. Sup. Ct., SF, 140 Cal. 1.
"The elementary doctrine that the constitutionality of a legislative act is open to attack only by persons whose rights are affected thereby, applies to statute relating to administrative agencies, the validity of which may not be called into question in the absence of a showing of substantial harm, actual or impending, to a legally protected
interest directly resulting from the enforcement of the statute."
Board of Trade v. Olson, 262 US 1; 29 ALR 2d 105.
More information about formatting options