The Constitution Club is not a non profit organization, it is simply a website operated by a man who loves liberty and the principles promoted in the Declaration of Independence, Donations to the website are not tax deductible, but the funds received will be used to promote the education of the American people.
Constructive Fraud – DMV
It can easily be demonstrated that fraud existed at the time the contracting parties first met, to whit:
The Party agreeing to receive the government regulated, benefits/privileges from the DMV, was unaware that:
All of this was done without the knowledge of the aforementioned Party above,
It is therefore is Constructive Fraud, and being so, is also unconstitutional, illegal and Null and Void Ab Initio.
"Obviously, not all personal intercourse between policemen and citizens involves `seizures' of persons. Only when the officer, by means of physical force or show of authority, has in some way restrained the liberty of a citizen may we conclude that a seizure has occurred." Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 19 , n. 16 (1968). See also id., at 34 (WHITE, J., concurring); id., at 31, 32-33 (Harlan, J., concurring).
 It is axiomatic, of course, that warrantless searches are per se unreasonable under the California and federal Constitutions with only a few carefully circumscribed exceptions, and that the People have the burden of proving that any search without a warrant comes within one of those exceptions. (People v. Dalton (1979) 24 Cal.3d 850, 855 [157 Cal.Rptr. 497, 598 P.2d 467], and cases cited.) see generally 2 LaFave, Search and Seizure (1978) § 5.3 (a).)
People v. Laiwa (1983) 34 Cal.3d 711
...a detention occurs if the suspect is not free to leave at will –
Every officer knows, or should know, that he needs a warrant which correctly identifies the arrestee, or probable cause, to arrest a particular individual.
Julian C. LEE, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jake GREGORY, United States of America, Defendants-Appellants, The Federal Bureau of Investigation, Defendant (2004), No. 02-57132, United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
We thus require citizens to apprise themselves not only of statutory language but also of legislative history, subsequent judicial construction, and underlying legislative purposes (People v. Grubb (1965) 63 Cal.2d 614, 620 [47 Cal.Rptr. 772, 408 P.2d 100]). (See generally Amsterdam, The Void-For-Vagueness Doctrine in the Supreme Court (1960) 109 U. Pa. L.Rev. 67.)
Walker v. Superior Court (1988) 47 Cal.3d 112
"...an officer may be held liable in damages to any person injured in consequence of a breach of any of the duties connected with his office...The liability for nonfeasance, misfeasance, and for malfeasance in office is in his 'individual', not his official capacity..."
70 Am. Jur. 2nd Sec. 50, VII Civil Liability
Personal liberty, which is guaranteed to every citizen under our constitution and laws, consists of the right to locomotion,- to go where one pleases, and when, and to do that which may lead to one's business or pleasure, only restrained as the rights to others may make it necessary for the welfare of all other citizens. One may travel along the public highways or in public places; and while conducting themselves in a decent and orderly manner, disturbing no other, and interfering with the rights of no other citizens, there, they will be protected under law, not only their persons, but in their safe conduct. The constitution and the laws are framed for the public good, and the protection of all citizens from the highest to the lowest; and no one may be restrained of his liberty, unless he transgressed some law. Any law which would place the keeping and safe conduct of another in the hands of even a conservator of the peace, unless for some breach of the peace committed in his presence, or upon suspicion of felony, would be most oppressive and unjust, and destroy all rights which our constitution guarantees.
Pinkerton v. Verberg 99 S.Ct. 2627 (1979)
"The privilege against self-incrimination is neither accorded to the passive resistant, nor the person who is ignorant of his rights, nor to one indifferent thereto. It is a fighting clause. Its benefits can be retained only by sustained combat. It cannot be claimed by an attorney or solicitor. It is valid only when insisted upon by a belligerent claimant in person."
U.S. v Johnson, 76 F. Supp 538
CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE
§54950 DECLARATION OF LEGISLATIVE PURPOSE. “In enacting this chapter, the Legislature finds and declares that the public commissions, boards and councils and the other public agencies in this State exist to aid in the conduct of the people’s business. It is the intent of the law that their actions be taken openly and that their deliberations be conducted openly.
The people of this State do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies which serve them. The people, in delegating authority, do not give their public servants the right to decide what is good for the people to know and what is not good for them to know. The people insist on remaining informed so that they may retain control over the instruments they have created”.
"A statute does not trump the Constitution."
People v. Ortiz, (1995) 32 Cal.App.4th at p. 292, fn. 2
Conway v. Pasadena Humane Society (1996) 45 Cal.App.4th 163
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. JERRY ARBERT POOL, C.A. No. 09-10303,
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
(Opinion filed September 14, 2010), On Appeal From The United
States District Court For The Eastern District of California
“The law helps the vigilant before those who sleep on their rights.”
CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE 3527
Constitution of the State of California, 1849
Article I: Declaration of Rights
“All men are by nature free and independent, and have certain unalienable rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty: acquiring, possessing and protecting property: and pursuing and obtaining safety and happiness.”
“This enumeration of rights shall not be construed to impair or deny others, retained by the people.”
Although this is strictly relating to the state of California, the ideas and federal references still apply universally to all the states of the Union. Look up your state's laws, see if they agree.
Great stuff! thank you
The right to travel freely upon the highways 'was' a right secured by each state's constitution for the citizens / sovereigns of the states due to the fact that the states were not granted the power to regulate non-commercial travel.
The gov for many decades has imposed 14th amendment / fed citizenship on everyone and such people have no rights secured by any state constitution and it has never been held they have the common law right to travel - thus commercial laws can and have been imposed on their non-commercial actions in many areas of life, and traveling is just one of them.
This is very important to understand: The judicial branch trial courts that have authority over state-only citizens / sovereigns were closed in the early 1950's. The replacement trial courts are part of the legislative branch. They do have authority over 'citizens of the United States' / fed gov via the 14th amendment. If you are in one of those courts, unless you challenge it, you are seen as a fed citizen, which the courts know have no common law rights.
That is why all rights claims are ignored in such courts. If you have rights secured by a state constitution, then constitutionally, you have sovereign immunity from the current trial courts.
To impose the current courts on state-only citizens as a matter of official policy takes a declaration of war and occupation by the fed gov wherein all constitutions have been suspended and communist policy has become the law of the land.
I hope this is helpful.
While I agree with the legality of traveling vs driving, I also understand that having proper instruction on how to operate a motor vehicle is also important as is evidenced by the poor operation of several vehicles I saw strewn across the I-65 north of Nashville this weekend.
I am a "Driver" and have logged a few miles during my time behind the wheel and the ignorance of people attempting to operate their vehicles causes me nightmares. I have never been in a wreck, other than when I was hit in the rear by a guy that ultimately got a reckless driving ticket.
How should there some sort of regulation of who can operate a vehicle be handled?
While I agree that it is good to make sure people have a basic understanding of what we have come to consider the 'rules of the road', this post deals strictly with another issue. Are we going to be a union of laws or one of communist policy wherein the gov gets to do what ever it wants without any regard for any constitution, the concept of justice or any inherent rights?
I fear unsafe people behind the wheel or handling a gun, but I fear a gov of unlimited powers with emotionally unqualified people running it more.