Operator of a motor Vehicle

Can governments lawfully restrict, register, or otherwise encumber our free right to travel? Should they? Discussions on Right to Travel.
Post Reply
daniamthatiam
Posts: 1
Joined: Sat Jan 14, 2017 7:00 pm

Operator of a motor Vehicle

Post by daniamthatiam » Thu Jan 26, 2017 3:41 pm

Hello I'm Dan. I was pulled over in Massachusetts for a prohibited left turn. No Breach of peace. I told him I'm not engaged in commerce and that it's a felony to use your emergency light and sirens for a Non-emergency situation.
But anyway I was called and charged as an Operator, And I found it in Newbill vs. Union Idemnity co 60 SE.2d 658 My question is; is this a supreme court case? If not its only an example for another state. If that be the case does anyone have any Massachusetts cases on being an operator?
daniamthatiam@gmail.com Thanks, Dan.
User avatar
notmartha
Posts: 771
Joined: Mon Jul 22, 2013 1:16 pm

Re: Operator of a motor Vehicle

Post by notmartha » Fri Jan 27, 2017 2:21 pm

Newbill vs. Union Indemnity co 60 SE.2d 658 was a 1933 Missouri appellate case (pre-Erie Railroad) and need not be recognized by courts as precedent.

You can search this site for case citations by court:

http://www.findlaw.com/casecode/massachusetts.html

Beings most traffic courts are not courts of record, and "right to travel" cases generally end there, it is hard to find pertinent cases on record.

Good luck.
bluddysnoman
Posts: 5
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2017 7:53 pm

Re: Operator of a motor Vehicle

Post by bluddysnoman » Sat Feb 25, 2017 9:13 pm

Remember the law is not accusing you of not having the right to travel. Even a commercial operator properly licensed has a right to travel. The difference is whether or not that traveler is subject to the commercial transportation code as in engaged in a regulable activity of the transportation code.

However, in your case, it appears the violation itself is 90/14/B TURN, IMPROPER * c90 §14
BICYCLIST, FAIL YIELD ON TURN TO LEFT TURN, FAIL YIELD ON LEFT TURN, IMPROPER RIGHT TURN, IMPROPER
-----------------------
Notice the asterisk after improper. Well this is what the document states "CIVIL MOTOR VEHICLE INFRACTIONS (CMVIs) citable under G.L. c.90C, § 3(A) are identified in this table with an asterisk (*)

This comes from COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS DISTRICT COURT DEPARTMENT OF THE TRIAL COURT & REGISTRY OF MOTOR VEHICLES
Table of Citable Motor Vehicle Offenses
effective October 23, 2013
[I don't know if these are updated as this is just a quick search in your state you may need tomresearch deeper but I am sure its the same]
-------------------
The following material is from https://taooflaw.wordpress.com/?s=civil+infraction

When you are STOPPED and DETAINED by an officer for a civil infraction the legal facts are that the officer has perpetrated an illegal and unlawful seizure and false arrest/imprisonment the moment he perpetrated the stop. He both COULD have known and SHOULD have known that his actions violated your rights and the law. Therefore, EVERYTHING he did or discovered during that detainment/seizure of your person and property was ILLEGAL and should be challenged and declared as inadmissible facts, testimony, and evidence under the fruit of the poison tree doctrine.

You will need to file a motion to dismiss for lack of evidence and jurisdiction as they CANNOT obtain evidence OR jurisdiction using ILLEGAL means can they? Obviously the correct answer is NO! The Request for Admissions/Interrogatories (see below) is written into a Motion for Discovery, which they MUST answer in relation to your right to discovery in a civil proceeding, which your particular state law should declare that a case such as this is.

You also need to file a Motion to Dismiss. I would vehemently suggest that you use verbatim the specifically worded Request for Admissions/Interrogatories (see below) asking the officer and the plaintiff’s attorney (the alleged ‘prosecutor’) those specific questions relating to the facts of the case. Also consider that, since this is a CIVIL INFRACTION, then HOW can there possibly be an actual PROSECUTOR rather than a PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY representing the other side?

The Request for Admissions/Interrogatories in a Motion for Discovery should contain THESE specific questions, just like they are written below. They should work perfectly in ANY state of the union where these cases are CIVIL INFRACTIONS. You have to change only the [Your State] and the “Officer Shitforbrains” to the name of your particular state where the issue occurred and is a civil infraction and the real name of the officer that perpetrated the stop:

1) “Is the allegation being made considered to be a CIVIL INFRACTION under [Your State] law?”

2) “Can a warrantless arrest or detention be lawfully perpetrated in relation to a CIVIL matter under [Your State] law?”

3) “May a warrant of arrest be obtained WITHOUT a valid statement of probable cause under [Your State] law?”

4) “Under [Your State] law, is a statement of probable cause sufficient to obtain a warrant of arrest if it does NOT allege that an actual crime was perpetrated by the person named or described therein to be arrested?”

5) “Under [Your State] law, did Officer Shitforbrains witness ANY actual CRIME that would have provided him/her with the required reasonable suspicion or articulable probable cause authorizing a warrantless detention or arrest of an individual?”

6) “Under [Your State] law, did Officer Shitforbrains witness ANY actual CRIME that would have provided him/her with the required probable cause necessary to state sufficient grounds of criminal activity in order for a duly authorized magistrate to issue a warrant of arrest for an individual?”

7) “Was Officer Shitforbrains in possession of a valid warrant of arrest for a male/female suspect using the name “[Your Name Here]” or that contained an adequate physical description that allowed the officer to identify and apprehend the individual accused in this CIVIL INFRACTION?”

The point of the interrogatories is to show that the warrantless detention/arrest of the individual by the officer was both completely unlawful AND illegal BECAUSE there could NEVER have been any reasonable suspicion or probable cause associated with the warrantless seizure of the Accused for a CIVIL INFRACTION. Making ANYTHING that was obtained or discovered by the officer during the detention/arrest for ANY purpose INADMISSIBLE under the “fruit of the poison tree” doctrine. Therefore, there is NO EVIDENCE or TESTIMONY that can be made, no proof that can be offered, thus, NO CASE of controversy before the court. No case or controversy, no jurisdiction of ANY KIND.

If anyone sees any error to the logic or argument, please feel free to point them out.
User avatar
notmartha
Posts: 771
Joined: Mon Jul 22, 2013 1:16 pm

Re: Operator of a motor Vehicle

Post by notmartha » Tue Feb 28, 2017 1:22 pm

bluddysnoman wrote:Remember the law is not accusing you of not having the right to travel. Even a commercial operator properly licensed has a right to travel. The difference is whether or not that traveler is subject to the commercial transportation code as in engaged in a regulable activity of the transportation code.
It is correct that the "law" is not accusing you of not having the right to travel, as the "law" is never arbitrary or capricious. The policy enforcers, aka "police" however are constantly challenging the right of moving about freely.

Who is subject to the whim of the policy or its policy enforcers?
"You are subject because we say so" is not law.

Who is "engaged in a regulable [sic] activity"?
"You are acting in commerce because we changed all these meanings of words to make it look like you are acting in commerce, so you are" is not law.

Permission never need be asked or license granted to do what is your right. Anyone/thing requiring you to ask permission or be licensed to do what is your right is not acting lawfully, by rather oppressively.

The civil infraction dialogue could be helpful to those who find themselves in front of those acting as "judges", after all instances of the word "law" are changed to "policy".
bluddysnoman
Posts: 5
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2017 7:53 pm

Re: Operator of a motor Vehicle

Post by bluddysnoman » Wed May 03, 2017 3:19 pm

notmartha wrote:It is correct that the "law" is not accusing you of not having the right to travel, as the "law" is never arbitrary or capricious. The policy enforcers, aka "police" however are constantly challenging the right of moving about freely.
They are not challenging your right to move freely. They are arresting your free access and enjoyment of a right under the non-rebuttable presumption that you are operating in a regulable activity statutorily enforced by a code ( that in Texas is totally unconstitutional). So there is a presumption of jurisdiction by the cop that is violating the private free traveler like you and me based on the subject matter of transportation. I do not engage in commercial use of the road so I do not fall under the subject matter to which the code pertains. Therefore there is no subject matter jurisdiction. Therefore, the stop is without authority. And when I notify the so called cop that I am not engaged in transportation his response should be "Thank you Mr. Bluddysnoman for your patience, I am sorry I stopped you on a false presumption and clearly see you are not engaged in commercial activity. Please carry on and have a nice day." But where is the profit in that? PLEASE note jurisdiction CAN be challenged at any time. There is no statute of limitations on that, even for a ticket from 20 years ago.
notmartha wrote:Who is subject to the whim of the policy or its policy enforcers?
"You are subject because we say so" is not law.
Agreed. So we are on the same team.
notmartha wrote:Who is "engaged in a regulable [sic] activity"?
"You are acting in commerce because we changed all these meanings of words to make it look like you are acting in commerce, so you are" is not law.
I disagree. I believe you must assert your rights because we know that these "policy enforcers" will make you waive them, and if you don't waive them they will flat out violate them. If a cop is following policy and you somehow get a Police chief to admit that, then there is a conspiracy to commit crime. That's RICO. I have not got a criminal conspiracy confession yet...but I am sure its a matter of time.

PLEASE understand I am not an attorney. I am just an insurance adjuster and this is where I learned to understand policy initially This is where I learned contract law. The code is barely different from an insurance policy in its structural makeup. And they are NOT changing the meaning of words.

The "Lawmakers" are defining these words in the codes and statutes. SO that means the definition of those words apply as the definition only for that statute. So the application to myself only binds me when I am functioning in a capacity under the authority of that code. so I must be engaged in an activity under the subject matter of the code. You don't see a cop slapping a Family code violation on a "speeder" because he is PRESUMING you are engaged in transportation. Every traffic stop on a private traveler has a minimum of 5 due process violations minimum. Violating those rights of due process by the cop is official oppression. So I get it what you are trying to say but, and this is where you and I may diverge, I believe in the LAW as it is written (not to be confused with codes and statutes as these are not law).
notmartha wrote:Permission never need be asked or license granted to do what is your right. Anyone/thing requiring you to ask permission or be licensed to do what is your right is not acting lawfully, by rather oppressively.
Agreed. but I do also agree that these big trucking corporation that are tearing up my roads and time and again putting my friends and family at peril on my public roadways for their private financial gain need to be regulated and should be taxed in licensing amongst other things for the privilege to use mine and yours public roadways that we enjoy at our leisure or even private business like going to work to earn a day's wage. So I believe there is a great and useful purpose for the transportation code and other codes, but I also require them to be applied by my public servants appropriately especially not for oppressive reasons or pirating my money
notmartha wrote:The civil infraction dialogue could be helpful to those who find themselves in front of those acting as "judges", after all instances of the word "law" are changed to "policy".
Well as I am a student of the law, as I am tired of being harrased by these municipal cops and other public servants, in Texas, violation of the transportation code are class C misdemeanors and the Tx Penal Code establishes these as crimes. However, in a place like California, the same violations of their code like an expired registration is a civil violation. So there are vast differences in the code of civil procedure for bringing a claim against a man vs the code of criminal procedure and how to charge someone with a crime.

And at either turn, texas or cali or anywhere else, the public servants who have a duty to abide by these rules do not abide by these rules and that's where counter claims of due process or denial of free access and enjoyment of a right come in. That's where demanding a judge's disqualification come in, that's where charging a prosecutor for oppression and conspiracy come in. I solemnly believe the law was well constructed. We as generally speaking an apathetic people have allowed crooks to establish a very forceful grip on our government. But I cannot get on board with these patriot myths that the laws are not applicable to me because they are not because I am a Sovereign. And I am Sovereign, and I have unalienable rights, and I will fight to protect them.

(HAVE YOU EVER SUED ANYBODY, Then you know there are specific processes you must follow. They must follow them too, its just that its up to you to hold them accountable when they don't. And that's what I am learning to do and doing aslo.)

Sorry for any grammatical errors, gotta TRAVEL to work. ;-)
User avatar
notmartha
Posts: 771
Joined: Mon Jul 22, 2013 1:16 pm

Re: Operator of a motor Vehicle

Post by notmartha » Fri May 05, 2017 2:30 pm

bluddysnoman wrote:I believe in the LAW as it is written (not to be confused with codes and statutes as these are not law).
bluddysnoman wrote:Well as I am a student of the law
bluddysnoman wrote:I solemnly believe the law was well constructed.
I will reply to your other points after I have a better idea of your standing. What is your declared law, i.e. jurisdiction?
bluddysnoman wrote: But I cannot get on board with these patriot myths that the laws are not applicable to me because they are not because I am a Sovereign. And I am Sovereign, and I have unalienable rights, and I will fight to protect them.
Double negatives here.
Do you believe you are Sovereign? If so, why?
What "laws" do you believe apply to you? Why?
What are your "unalienable rights" and who/what gave them to you?
bluddysnoman wrote:HAVE YOU EVER SUED ANYBODY,
In obedience to Corinthians 6:1-8, no.

Dare any of you, having a matter against another, go to law before the unjust, and not before the saints? Do ye not know that the saints shall judge the world? and if the world shall be judged by you, are ye unworthy to judge the smallest matters? Know ye not that we shall judge angels? how much more things that pertain to this life? If then ye have judgments of things pertaining to this life, set them to judge who are least esteemed in the church. I speak to your shame. Is it so, that there is not a wise man among you? no, not one that shall be able to judge between his brethren? But brother goeth to law with brother, and that before the unbelievers. Now therefore there is utterly a fault among you, because ye go to law one with another. Why do ye not rather take wrong? why do ye not rather suffer yourselves to be defrauded? Nay, ye do wrong, and defraud, and that your brethren.


But I've witnessed dozens and have read thousands of "cases".
snoop4truth
Posts: 20
Joined: Fri Sep 01, 2017 11:08 pm

Re: Operator of a motor Vehicle

Post by snoop4truth » Sun Sep 15, 2019 11:03 pm

Daniamthatiam,

Old Testiment Buff? HAHAHA!

Dan, Do your self a favor and read the SECOND (2nd) and THIRD (3rd) post in the Eddie Craig thread below. Also, read the TWELFTH (12th) post in the Rod Class thread below.

EVERYTHING ABOUT CONSTITUTIONAL SCHOLAR, CARL MILLER, AND HIS TEACHINGS ON WACCOBB.NET https://www.waccobb.net/forums/showthre ... d-Champion

EVERYTHING ABOUT EDDIE CRAIG AND HIS TEACHINGS ON PROJECTAVALON.NET.
http://projectavalon.net/forum4/show...y-sheriff-hoax

EVERYTHING ABOUT ROD CLASS AND HIS TEACHINGS ON PROJECTAVALON.NET.
http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthr ... any-hoaxes

EVERYTHING ABOUT DEBORAH TAVARES AND HER TEACHINGS ON WACCOBB.NET. https://www.waccobb.net/forums/showt...s-depopulation)

All The Best,

Snoop
Post Reply