Constructive Fraud – DMV
It can easily be demonstrated that fraud existed at the time the contracting parties first met, to whit:
Whereas;
The Party agreeing to receive the government regulated, benefits/privileges from the DMV, was unaware that:
- the DMV participated in the regulation of interstate commerce, and;
- the term “Driver” was defined as one engaged in commercial/traffic activities, and;
- the term “Motor Vehicle” was defined as a device used for commercial purposes, and;
- the “license” issued by the DMV authorizes engagement in “privileged” commercial activity, and;
- they would be required to waive their Constitutional rights in favor of statutes, codes, regulations, etc. in order to receive said benefits/privileges, and;
- they would be required to deny their rights at birth in a free nation in order to receive said benefits/privileges, and;
- they must first also agree to be enrolled in the federal program titled “The Social Security Act of 1933”, and;
- they were entering an “irrevocable contract”, and;
- that they were participating in a fraud foisted by the State when they were told that they were “required” to get a “license” to “operate” a “motor vehicle” in “traffic” or in “carrying” “passengers”, and;
- they were being compelled to “voluntarily” transfer all or a portion of their interest in their private property to the DMV, and;
- that the DMV is a private "for profit" corporation, not a government agency, and whereas;
All of this was done without the knowledge of the aforementioned Party above,
It is therefore 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).
[9] 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, of 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
Sec. 1.
“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.”
Sec. 21.
“This enumeration of rights shall not be construed to impair or deny others, retained by the people.”
Editor's Note:
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.
Comments?
Replies
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 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.
How do you defend the claim that "The Party agreeing to receive the government regulated, benefits/privileges from the DMV, was unaware" and then go on to evidence to this forum that You know of precisely these things ? Do you not see the hypocrisy in that proposition ? If you discovered it, so could anybody else who put in the effort to discover it and that kills the basis by which anyone can say that there is fraud on the part of the DMV by any means, also including it's freely offering applications whereby a volunteer Applicant commands the State to treat him (his rights) as resident for the purpose of imposing the Motor Vehicle Statute's operative scope on him in lieu of not obstructing him when he travels by unalienable right. The proposition set forth is preposterous and self-contradictory.
There simply is no fraud in the administration of the Motor Vehicle statutes for one simple reason: No American citizen is obliged to subjugate his rights to the operative scope of a State statute, though when he does, as most American citizens do, and they do so voluntarily if not very eagerly; he has thereby placed those particular rights under the absolute dominion of his servant State government in its federal expression capacity, they also being constructively domiciled together within the domiciliary jurisdiction under which the State statute operates, the jurisdiction defined as "District of Columbia".
X
Key,
There is fraud and delusion being promulgated in America concerning these matters. It matters not if all or any of it originates from the DMV or our fraudulently operating "Federal" (corporate) government or even as a result of the Deliberate Dumbing Down of America. The truth is "they" won't tell you any of this. Also;
You sound like you would enjoy THIS article.
Morton wrote: There is fraud and delusion being promulgated in America concerning these matters.
Key reply: Please indicate a few instances, actual occurrences, rather than offering it as a foregone conclusion. I see no such fraud, though I do see a lot of delusion; none of which is "promulgated".
Morton wrote: It matters not if all or any of it originates from the DMV or our fraudulently operating "Federal" (corporate) government or even as a result of the Deliberate Dumbing Down of America. The truth is "they" won't tell you any of this. Also;
Key reply: Again, please provide evidence. What is the 'it' which 'originates'?
Please provide an example of the fraud of the federal government. And here is some news, all organizations including church congregations are corporations. A corporation is any gathering of people working under a concept common to their thoughts and intents. A government can be nothing other than a corporation.
As for the "they won't tell you any of this. Understand this: 1. They told you all of it by publishing it in the U.S. Code, the State statutes CFR, Regulations, Congressional Record and all other records of governmental activity and court process as is available to you and every other man, woman and child who cares to go and read it or hear it if audible versions are provided. So, please explain how 'They" don't tell you any of this.
If the 'this' is what you have spoken of, apparently it is exposed and evidenced as such for the fact that you are talking about it. Nobody is obliged to provide education or tutoring or other notice of information for another except to the degree as compelled by law mandatory.
As for the "Dumbing Down", do you conclude that there exists a concerted effort to reduce the cognitive capacity of the people ? Do you conclude that a man's education and self improvement is the responsibility of any other than himself ?
X
Hey Key,
? Try this on for size and fit Key. I have no reply for you otherwise.