Views: 365

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

How is one able to contact this lady and obtain the forms and procedures needed in order to accomplish one's freedom from the government's administration policies and procedures?

That's easy, she's a member. Here is a LINK to her Profile Page.

outstanding , so there in many ways to deal with th situation of commerce versus privacy.  i guess jurisdiction is the way to get out expediently.


IN AND FOR THE CITY OF ________________


( ) __________________________







Expedient Request

To who it may Concern, even though _______________,did not understand his rights and even though the City Judge ______________,completed the plea with out understanding. The plaintiff now request under the remedy,recourse to claim under the protection of Constitution of the state of _____________, and the supremacy clause Of the United states of America. Nor consent to a Unconstitutional act (Uniform Commercial Codes that city _______________ operates under)The plaintiff does not consent to any unknown contract regarding commerce nor violations of privacy.

Plaintiff prays for relief

Due to the facts of no victim or property damage,this private person request for a dismissal under common law jurisdiction- In question. To have the victim to come forward with a affidavit of a actual crime committed. Plaintiff does not further want to obstruct the city's case loads on the Docket. Nor shall tie up due to the facts of jurisdiction IN QUESTION for the next 7 months.



Please do not fall for the 'International Drivers License' or 'Sovereigns Drivers License' claims. They have no foundation in law and will not help you on the side of the highway or in court.

This woman means well and has some correct information. The vehicle codes in all states arise under the commerce laws. What that means is that they are written to apply to state-only citizens and vehicles engaged in commerce.

So how are they imposing these laws on everyone all the time?  The answer is actually very simple.  The gov under communist control, has an official policy of imposing 14th amendment status upon everyone - not just non-whites.

The courts have all stated that the 14th secures very few rights and it does not even incorporate any bill of rights.  Quite simply, the 14th absolutely does not incorporate the common law, which includes the right to be under a gov of very limited powers.  Such people are under the 'needful rules' mandate set forth in Art 4,3,2. That gives the states and the United States / fed gov the power to impose any law or rule it can prove is 'needful'.

Since the 14th does not include the common law right to use the highways freely for personal travel, the gov simply claims a need to regulate it for public safety reasons and without being honest, it simply imposes commercial laws upon non-commercial actions under the pretense everyone is a 14th citizen.

It is important to also understand that there are no common law trial courts in operation today. They have been replaced with legislative branch 'statutory' / admin courts.  Why is this knowledge important?  Because these courts only have constitutional authority over 14th citizens and not state-only citizens.

This tactic is how all sorts of commercial laws are being imposed on everyone in all areas of our lives.

All the other theories put forth about 'persons', gov corporations, etc are simply irrelevant and made up by good people who are doing their best to make sense of actions where the gov is openly at war against state-only citizens.

I hope this information is helpful.

Only a little Bill,

And I won't waste too much time rebutting, but

  1. The needful rule is ONLY for "territory or property belonging to The United States;..."
  2. These criminals are operating under the commerce clause and as such do not NEED the 14th to wreak havoc,
  3. The 14th as part of the existing document we refer to as "The Constitution OF The United States", is as null and void as if it never existed for a HOST of reasons,
  4. The gov under communist control, has an official policy of imposing (14th amendment status) THE COMMERCE CLAUSE upon everyone. 

Otherwise I agree with the rest of your statements. You are absolutely correct that another KIND of license will not avail you.

As for the 14th being void. It was adopted as if constitutionally ratified and today is the law of the land under the latches doctrine.  Constitutionally, as the courts have admitted, it has no legal impact upon the lives of state-only citizens.

Please consider that the United States [ all things federal ] is under Art 4 jurisdiction.  The courts have always stated that 14th citizenship is in the 'United States' and that it is a federal citizenship, thus the powers conferred upon congress in Art 4 over all things federal, including the 'needful rule' limitation applies to people who owe their citizenship to the adoption of the 14th amendment.

Thus, under the current gov presumption, while we have few rights, we have the right to force any gov agency that has created a rule we are potentially subject to, to prove it is needful and not merely oppressive for cease enforcement.

Most traffic laws and rules would pass due to a need for public safety.  Now that I understand what is going on, it is not the traffic laws that I generally object to but instead the gov's declaration of war upon the sovereigns and their constitutions.

Actually Bill May I use an International Drivers License and it works quite well. I have been pulled over and released with no citation. I have even rented cars with it.

Where are you located?  If it happens very often and any criminal court judges find out, the word will go back to the National Center for State Courts in DC which will give orders to all the courts to notify the police to seize your car and the judges will drop the hammer on people.

I remember when a UCC-1 filing was first used in court. It worked a few times, the DA's sent word to DC and all the courts got their orders.  Everything in all the courts today is controlled by a couple of organizations in DC - even the city courts.

not true.............. 

To what exactly are you referring?  Most courts will admit they answer to two agencies. The legislature for laws and DC for policy on procedure.

I'd like to hear more about your encounters with that license kevin.

I drove for 19 years without a License.  In 1990, was stopped after hitting defect in roadway causing me to swerve.  It was at 1:30 in the morning and I just left a bar at which I was working.  Unable to pass the field sobriety physical test, because of back, knees, a shatter heel on left foot. No verbal problems, no slurring, recited alphabet, frontwards, then offered to do it backwards.  When tow truck arrived at scene, I was cuffed and taken for breathalyzer.  Before administering test, Trooper did not start video recording, all though monitor was on, and plenty of tapes available.  Still cuffed, he left the room, and came back about a minute later, he started the breathalyzer, ran a sample, then told me to blow into the tube, when he put the mouth piece in my mouth, I could taste Isopropyl Alcohol. the Test read .017, limit was .008.

Trooper testified at hearing, and told judge a lie, my lawyer, had his written report from the night in question, it contradicted everything he told the magistrate.  Testa-lying at it's worst, and my lawyer refused to defend me.

I got suspended for 6 months, paid all fines, fees, and court costs, and 92 days after the suspension order, I received a letter, telling me that my driving privileges had been reinstated, but no license.  I called, they said I needed to pay a $15.00 reinstatement fee, and a $25.00 penalty for not getting reinstated in a timely manner.  I sent them a check for $40.00, but still no license.  I asked someone I knew in the Sheriff's Office about the letter, she said it looked like to her, I could drive, she was a corrections officer in local jail.  I started driving, but the state refused to send me my license.  In 1996, I was stop in a roadside spot check, by Troopers.  I provided my DL #, and when he called it in, it came back I was suspended for DUI.  I presented a copy of the above mentioned letter of reinstatement to the Court, and asked for a Jury Trial.  At pre trial hearing, asst prosecutor, opened with, "Your Honor, the State would like to withdraw the complaint, it appears Mr. Martisko has letter that says he can drive.  As the magistrate was about to dismiss the matter, I requested my attorney make a motion that the matter be Dismissed with Prejudice, she asked why, I said, "because I want it Dismissed with Prejudice", I knew that was akin to a Jury Not Guilty, and the matter was done once and for all, or so I thought, as opposed to a simply dismissal.  She made the motion, the State Trooper who arrested me, did not object, the representative from the DMV, Keeper of the Records, made no objection, and the asst prosecutor, made no objection, so the Magistrate, Dismissed with Prejudice against the State.

Upon leaving the Court Room, I remarked to my Attorney, I guess that means I can drive, she said no, you will just be arrested, and tried again, and she was right.  In 2004, after a minor bump of another vehicle, while sitting at a traffic light, I bumped the vehicle in front of me, he saw an opportunity for some easy cash, and called the police.  There was no damage to either vehicle, I drifted about 6 feet to bump him. Police showed up, looked around and were going to leave, when he complained about pain in his neck, whiplash.  That is when the asked for my license, I gave them my number, they called it in, and again, it came back as suspended for DUI.  I was again arrested for Driving while suspended for DUI, I went to court with the previous order of dismissal, it was denied as evidence, the magistrate who issued the order was also willing to testify on my behalf, that was denied.  The State's witness, ie, the same Keeper of the Records who appeared in 1996, showed up with the most recent update of my records, dated that day, and totally different then the previous copies of my records he had distributed over the previous 12 years.  All of those previous reports had a little box on them where the Keeper of the Records was required to sign under penalty of perjury, that the record was true and accurate, yet those 6 contrary reports, were also denied as evidence.  Finally the asst prosecutor, who was working for the very same prosecutor who had the office in 1996 argued that his colleague had made a mistake in 1996, and that he was now going to make it right.

The jury consisted of 4 men, 2 women, 4 or whom had DUI convictions, and 2 of which had 2 DUI convictions.  After a day of Testimony from the Keeper of the Records, less that of the Arresting officer which took about 15 minutes, and the inability to present a viable legal defense, the matter was given to the jury, and 15 minutes later, they found me guilty, the Foreman being one of double DUI's.

Naturally, an appeal was filed, and about a year later, the appellate Court rule in my favor, reversed the Jury verdict, and ordered the DMV to expunge my record and reinstate my driving privileges.

 Even though I had been driving, and my vehicle was insured, I started looking for new insurance.  I contacted Nationwide, and they told me that they would be happy to help me, but there was a problem, make record indicated my DL had expired in 1994, which is when the License they took from me, would have expired.  I inquired, is that all, the agent said that is all she saw, and to be totally honest, I informed her, that I had gotten a DUI, in 1990, and that, at least in WV, is suppose to remain in your record for life.  She offered to check again, and call me back, she did, and again, all she could find was that my license expired in 1994, no information or mention of a DUI.  So the DMV Cleared my record, but never notified me.  I then when to local office, took the written test, and 3 days later, went back, took the driving test, and got my license back.

I have all the documents necessary to back up every thing I just wrote, from the original citation for the DUI in 1990 the the Appellate Court's ruling  in 2009.


© 2019   Created by Online Professor.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service