Re: Right to Travel

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Supreme Law Firm Discussion Forum ] [ FAQ ]

Posted by Jay P. Rutledge on September 28, 1997 at 05:11:31:

In Reply to: Right to Travel posted by James Vernon: Allison on September 14, 1997 at 09:06:19:

: On March 31, 1997, I purchased a 1997 Plymouth Neon, and received the Manufacturers Certificate of Origin. I now hold absolute title to said conveyance. I have never registered or titled said conveyance through the State Of Arizona or any other State Of.
: Soon after purchasing said conveyance, I wrote a letter to 18 government officials demanding answers to questions about title and registration laws because I have read many court decisions that say that the states can not tax or license a persons right to drive their automobile and I wanted to find out if in fact, the court decisions were true or not. The only responses that I received were ones that said that the letter had been forwarded to another agency, or that if my Ďvehicle is required to be registered, then it must be registeredí.
: I was stopped, detained and arrested on August 21, 1997 for various violations of Arizona Revised Statutes, including 28-1075.B upon alleged grounds that I was an operator and failed to provide identification, and A.R.S. 28-326.B.1, upon alleged grounds that I had fictitious plates, and A.R.S. 28-326.C, upon alleged grounds that I was in an unregistered vehicle, and A.R.S. 28-1253.D, upon alleged grounds that I had no proof of insurance, and A.R.S. 28-701.A, upon alleged grounds that I was using an imprudent speed, and that said officer issued citation number 5339294, upon which said officer cited A.R.S. 28-411.A, upon alleged grounds that I had no Arizona drivers license, and A.R.S. 28-909.A, upon alleged grounds that I was not wearing a seat belt.
: I was locked up on the evening of August 21, 1997 and released on O.R. the following day. I was to appear for arraignment on September 2nd 1997.
: On August 27, 1997 I filed into the Phoenix Municipal Court many memorandums, an affidavit and a Motion To Dismiss For Want Of Subject-Matter Jurisdiction
: On September 2nd, at approximately 8:40am, I appeared before judge Kramer, when called, and stated that I was there by Special Appearance to challenge the jurisdiction of the court. He said something to the effect of "You understand that you are hear appearing generally to enter a plea", I then stated something to the effect of "No, I am here specifically to challenge the jurisdiction of the court". He then said something else, and I again stated "No, I am here specifically to challenge the jurisdiction of the court". He then said something to the effect of "O.K., no action taken, youíre free to leave, there will be a warrant issued for your arrest this evening for failure to appear". I then left the court room and immediately made a hand written notice to the court of what had just transpired, and then entered it into the court record.
: A warrant was issued for my arrest on the evening of September 2nd. On September 3rd, 1997, I made many phone calls to the court trying to get an explanation of why I had a warrant out on me for failure to appear when in fact, I had appeared to the court and challenged jurisdiction. The court then cancelled the warrant, and then re-issued it.
: When I talked to the court after the re-issuance, they stated that the warrant was for failure to appear because I didnít make a plea. I still donít understand their motives for their lies, as I know for a fact that a challenge of jurisdiction is a lawful plea.
: On the evening of September 5th, at approximately 6:00pm, I decided to travel to a friends house to pick up the Arizona Rules Of Court, to find the section that dealt with pleadings, so I could show the court, in itís own rules, that a challenge of jurisdiction is valid, and once jurisdiction is challenged, that it must be proven. Approximately a mile and a half from my house, I noticed flashing lights behind my conveyance. I said to myself "aha! They were waiting for me, this sure looks like a case of malicious prosecution" I then made a U-turn so that I could get back home. On my way home, I came to a red stop light at 36th street and Thunderbird. I then stopped for the light. While waiting for the light to turn green, I noticed that there was what looked like police officer standing at my drivers side door, I then noticed that my passengers side door had been opened by what appeared to look like a police officer at which time the alleged passenger side officer stated "Donít even think about it". I then decided that I should follow his orders to the letter, so I stopped thinking about it and put my foot to the gas and drove off. I think the stop light still may have been red, however, I am not sure, because I wasnít thinking about it as per the order I received. I then continued home, as any sane person would have. I got to my house safe and sound, pulled into my driveway, turned off my conveyance, got out of it and went into my house.
: At approximately 8:30pm the above mentioned night, there was loud knocking at the front door of my house. Being in fear for the lives of my wife, myself and my children, and knowing that there was already an illegal warrant out for me, I didnít answer the door.
: On the morning of September 6th, 1997, my wife went outside and noticed that there were tickets on our two cars for violations of unregistered vehicles. She also noticed that there are one or more vehicles in the neighborhood that havenít been seen before. Boy, they got me paranoid!
: On September 8th, 1997, I sent two friends down to the court house to get a copy of the warrant, and believe it or not, the court quashed the warrant while my friends were there! They said that the judge didn't follow the rules, and he should have entered a "not guilty" plea for me instead of issuing the warrant. So now they say that the judge entered a plea for me and I have a pre-trial conference on October the 3rd. There seems to be no mention of the incident that happened when I was chased by the two cops, and they have not been back. My wife, who is still in the system, went out and financed a new car so that she could get around without hassle, however, our rights have clearly been violated.
: This is my story, thus far. I know I am in the right, but I am having a hard time convincing them of that fact. If anybody can offer me some suggestions and direction, I sure would appreciate it!

A good question to ask yourself is this: what legal relation do I have with a government which causes this judge to presume that I am subject to the jurisdiction of the vehicle code of this state ?

Another good question to ask yourself is, "How can I get the answer to the first question ?" Here is a clue: Were you falsely imprisoned ?

On a suit for false imprisonment all you have to show is that you were in fact imprisoned. That's pretty easy. Then the burden is on those who imprisoned you to show their lawful authority for having done so. The response to your suit would ideally answer the questions above. If, for some reason, the defendant does a slam dunk on you by identifying a legal relation which gives you a legal status which, in effect, has stripped you of your common law right to travel, the judge may sanction you for your "frivolous suit". If you are a registered voter, you have waived your common law rights. There are quite a few other legal relations with the state that put you in a legal status which makes you subject to statutes like the vehicle code.

I purchased a book from Weisman Publications at 11751 W. River Hills Dr. #107 Burnsville, Minn 55337 entitled The Right To Travel (Liberty or License)$15. It contains three full pages, double columed, of cases cited in support of the right to travel and 100 pages of legal analysis of the question. Weismann also publishes "A Treatise on Arrest $10 and False Imprisonment" and "The Authority of Law" $10, which gives information on how to attack a statute on the grounds it is not law. You'll be surprised.

Having a right in the law and being able to exercise it seem to be two different things. Nowadays if you can't defend your right, you can't exercise it. Randy Geizler at Behold ( has defended his right to travel successfully. But the local prosecutor did not quit prosecuting until it was obvious Geizler could defend his rights. And Geizler had his legal status in order.

The first judge you encounter in a traffic matter is on the bench to take money from people. That judge doesn't care what you say. You can appeal. Only if the government thinks they will lose on appeal will they possibly give up on taking your money and your freedom.

So far you have done OK, but, assuming you are on firm ground with your jurisdiction challenge, you have to demand what Behold calls "A Bill of Particulars" not from the court, but from the complaining party. This is another way of saying you must demand to know the particulars of the nature and cause of the accusation ( a right in the Constitution and in the common law of due process, too). Behold sells information on the use of the Bill of Particulars.

This topic of the right to travel is one I have been researching for a while, because I want my right to travel back. In addition to the suit for false imprisonment, if you have your legal status properly arranged, a petition for a federal writ of habeas corpus will, upon issue, compel the prosecutor to justify your custody. A warrant or summons for appearance is custody. It is a restraint on your liberty. The common law writ of habeas corpus is a writ of privilege or of right. But, you must know how to get it. Form, process, and procedure must be such that the judge cannot dodge your application. Behold sells information on common law habeas corpus.

When enough people know enough to arrange their legal status and defend their rights properly, the untagged car will not appear to the driving tax collectors as easy prey and we can recover and exercise without hassle our right to travel. The government has created this web of law controlling us and it is profitable for them; they are not going to just let go. We are going to have to dig in the law ourselves to find out how to get loose. Fortunately, good people have been digging hard for years already. But, neither knowledge nor freedom are gained for free.

Follow Ups:

Post a Followup




Optional Link URL:
Link Title:
Optional Image URL:

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Supreme Law Firm Discussion Forum ] [ FAQ ]