Lawful Path Forums

This evening I was traveling home when I was pulled over. In the state of Ohio.

When I mentioned right to travel. Officers demeanor changed.
He said I'd be towed. Went back to his cruiser and had me wait 45 minutes until he came back.

When he came back no further mention of a tow. But He gave me a ticket for a line violation.. Apparently I'd "crossed a line" in his mind. I know I was fully in my lane.

I was given a court date two weeks from now. I intend to plead not guilty. But would prefer to forego court altogether if there is something I can do before then. If not, how should I go about my defense.

Any and all hell is very much appreciated.

Thanks
Aaron

Are you a licensed driver?
Is your car registered with the STATE?

I am licensed in a different state. But the car is registered to Ohio, was that my mistake? If so how do I undo that, yet keep the car as my possession.

it seems from the studying ive done, that I should try to use the common law default method to try and have this case dismissed. in all my searching, ive only come up with ticketslayer.com as the place to obtain the documents needed to go this route. they want $80 for them, at that cost it almost makes sense to plead no contest and pay out. but the freeman in me will fight this out however best I can manage.

Is there anywhere else to get the required documents needed.

I have my arraignment coming up the 4th of march/2016. 9 days from now. I really need expedient help in this matter.

when I plead not guilty, can I immediately move to dismiss "in the interest of justice". or is that reserved for when I actually go to trial

Thanks.

All the STATES are one big happy family, so it does not matter where you are licensed. With the exception of I think three or four, they've made compacts with each other to share information.

Courts do not see common law, they see Public Policy, which means they will always do what is in the best interest of STATE. They will first look for your contacts, i.e. contracts, which are at the least a driver's license and registration, making you a resident subject to their statutes. Freemen don't ask for permission (get a license) for something they already have a right to do. I believe that arguing a right to travel defense while being licensed and accepting benefits of STATE is futile.

Notmartha I truly appreciate the quick reply.

Should I not bother with the ticketslayer method? and if not, how do I go about undoing my license and registration to avoid future harassment in this manner.

Can I sell the car to my wife. Have her sell it back to me without registering it and just travel with a bill of sale and no plates.

I just need help, and appreciate all so far.

I used to recommend the book Adventures in Legal Land, by Marc Stevens. Not so much because of his procedures in court (he pretty much just said "Show me that your laws apply to me."), as I got the impression his readers didn't get many wins, but because he wrote quite a bit about the right kind of attitude you need to have going in.

You're probably not going to win, but winning is not the most important thing. These commercial laws which people are induced to enter into are a fraud, regardless of whether they are entered into voluntarily, it's still with lack of knowledge. If we can at least make it difficult as possible to enforce these traffic laws, and maybe wake a few folks up in the meantime, it's a win.

Since you have a license, and the car is registered, I suggest you study Eddie Craig's material. You'll find one of his videos in our Reading Room, as well as a link to some of his pleadings. Once you've read the ones in our Reading Room, you should look up Eddie's site and get his most recent material. It was never our intent to step on Eddie's toes by publishing his material here. On the contrary, I think he's doing good work, and I want to promote him. Besides, you never know how long websites will stay up sometimes. We've been here forever, by Internet standards.

The ticket slayer default may or may not work for you. Challenging jurisdiction is usually a good idea, as is denying existence of the ALL CAPS entities. Problem is, two people with exact same standing, charges, and argument can get two totally different responses from “judges”. It is an arbitrary system, they do what they want. Ticket Slayer even says on their site:

“Ticket Slayer has developed other successful legal strategies for our customers to use to apply additional pressure on judges to dismiss, in cases they should happen to refuse to legally uphold the default. Ticket Slayer is continually working to develop effective reinforcement strategies for the common law default to ensure the highest level of dismissals of our customer's traffic cases.”

This indicates that there are enough people who have been unsuccessful. It’s an $80 gamble and a day’s labor; try it if you can afford to lose. And hope they (PTB) don’t recommend a mental health evaluation.

As far as getting complete ownership of your car, and traveling without license or tags, I also agree with ticket slayer’s advice:

“Before you get all charged up about your right to travel and decide to burn your driver's license and take the car tags off of your car, please know that the powers that be will do any and everything to keep you from freely exercising your right to travel. The federal courts have found, or more correctly, invented ways to block right to travel cases from being heard by the courts. This is just more proof of the fact that we no longer have an American Justice System, rather we have an American System of Injustice!”

STATE is not willing to give up all the money they make on licensing, titling of cars, registration, and extortion through fines. It is not in their best financial interest to let any of their residents get out of this system. They will use force to keep you in. If you take this route, be ready for lots of harassment, arrest, theft of your property, paper writing campaigns, and huge expense. Also, if they impound your car, they will require proof of ownership to get out and generally only accept a title, not a bill of sale.

EDDIE CRAIG & THE "FORMER DEPUTY SHERIFF HOAX" !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

FIRST, SEE THE HOAX HERE:
1). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uWLf...i85eskflg7W71F . (See title.).

2). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fzMi...6siUxz&index+1. (See title.).

3). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=paNIHT8msFw . (See description below title.).

4). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cvI_tvt5cfA . (See description below title.).

5). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=paNIHT8msFw&t=79s . (See description below title.).

6). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8KeLe1LKpMI&t=9s . (See description below title.).

7). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=paOff8DDztk&t+13s . (See description below title.).

THE HOAX:
Eddie Craig is an amateur legal theorist who claims to be a "FORMER DEPUTY SHERIFF" (a "former cop" and a "former law enforcement officer") and an "EXPERT" in the law. Specifically, Eddie Craig claims that he was a "DEPUTY SHERIFF" in Nacogdoches County, Texas. Eddie Craig claims that during his "CAREER" as a "DEPUTY SHERIFF", he found out that all traffic law (and all traffic-related law enforcement) was unconstitutional, illegal, invalid, fraudulent and corrupt.

Eddie Craig makes these intentionally fraudulent claims about his background in order to deceptively "TRICK" the American people into thinking that he is a GENUINE AUTHORITY in the law. But, none of this is so.

THE TRUTH:
The closest that Eddie Craig ever came to being a "DEPUTY SHERIFF" was as a "PART-TIME JAILER" for a period of TWO WEEKS in 1992, at which time, he was unceremoniously "FIRED" ("NOT ELIGIBLE FOR RE-HIRE")!

That's right. On 8-17-1992, Eddie Craig was HIRED for a "PART-TIME" job as a county "JAILER" in Nacogdoches County, Texas and he was "FIRED" TWO WEEKS LATER on 8-31-1992 ("NOT ELIGIBLE FOR RE-HIRE")!

It is this TWO WEEK TENURE as a "PART-TIME JAILER" in Nacogdoches County, Texas that Eddie Craig refers to as his "CAREER IN LAW ENFORCEMENT" for which he claims he "left the Air Force".

ANALYSIS:
Accordingly, Eddie Craig NEVER obtained any "valuable inside knowledge" of traffic law or traffic law enforcement. Second, Eddie Craig NEVER received any training in traffic law or in traffic law enforcement. Finally, Eddie Craig NEVER even once sat behind the wheel of a law enforcement vehicle, much less made a single traffic stop. (So much for Eddie Craig's "EXPERIENCE" in his "CAREER" as a "LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER".).

NOTE:
For more "Eddie Craig Hoaxes", see the comment entitled, Eddie Craig & The "No Commerce, No Driver's License Needed Hoax". IT CONTAINS LINKS TO HIGHLIGHTED CASE LAW ON THAT VERY SUBJECT. For more on driver's license law, see the comment entitled, Rod Class & The "Right To Travel Hoax" & The "No Driver's License Required Hoax". IT ALSO CONTAINS LINKS TO HIGHLIGHTED CASE LAW ON THAT PARTICULAR SUBJECT.

DISCLAIMER:
No person at InfoWars, its ownership, management or staff knew the forgoing FACTS about Eddie Craig. They took Eddie Craig FOR HIS WORD that he was what he claimed to be. Inforwars is NOT responsible for Eddie Craig's false claims ABOUT HIMSELF or his false claims ABOUT THE LAW AND THE LEGAL SYSTEM.

CONCLUSION:
Sadly, Eddie Craig is just another in a long series of FAKE posers, pretenders and impostors (see below) who INTENTIONALLY MISREPRESENT the law and the legal system in order to incite hatred and violence against the very people that "We the People" ELECT to enforce our laws which are made by the very people that "We the People" ELECT to make them.

ABOUT SNOOP4TRUTH:
Snoop4truth is a legal expert and whistle blower who exposes online hoaxes. Snoop4truth did not reveal this information to harm Eddie Craig. Instead, Snoop4truth revealed this information solely to reduce the CATASTROPHIC DAMAGE that such INTENTIONAL FRAUD inflicts upon the American people every single day.

TRACK RECORD OF OTHER "AMATEUR LEGAL GURUS" LIKE EDDIE CRAIG:

1. Amateur Legal Guru, ANTHONY WILLIAMS, is ARRESTED and JAILED TWICE in Florida for relying on the SAME EXACT amateur legal theory peddled by Eddie Craig ("No driver's license needed IF NOT ENGAGED IN COMMERCE"). Three minute video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cLbXtscZBM8 . This does not include the TEN (10) MORE ARRESTS and INCARCERATIONS of WILLIAMS in Tennessee for relying on the SAME EXACT amateur legal theory peddled by Eddie Craig described above. Here, WILLIAMS actually LOSES a lawsuit he filed against the State of Tennessee for requiring him to have a driver's license to drive a motor vehicle despite that he was "NOT ENGEGED IN COMMERCE". https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&as_sdt=40006 .

2. Amateur Legal Guru, CARL MILLER (REAL name "Richard John Champion") is a MULTI-CONVICTED FELON who has been INVOLUNTARILY INCARCERATED in at least one MENTAL INSTITUTION (The Ypsilanti Psychiatric Hospital, which has since closed). MILLER has a 100% FAILURE RATE in court (just like everybody else who peddles amateur legal theories). If you have a Pacer.org account, log on and read the Petition which "Champion, Richard" himself hand-wrote and which he filed in miedce (Fed. Dist. Ct. E.D. Mich.) case no. 2:2004-cv-74693 on 12-01-2004. Note that MILLER admits that he was in a MENTAL INSTITUTION at the time he filed this action after having been FOUND GUILTY OF "SEVEN [(7)] COUNTS" OF "VIOLATION OF [HIS] PROBATION" FOR "POSSESSING WEAPONS AS A CONVICTED FELON". For More MILLER LOSES, see other cases on Pacer.org and on "MACOMB COUNTY CLERK OF COURT" (Macomb County, Michigan Clerk of Court).

3. Amateur Legal Guru, WINSTON SHROUT, is CONVICTED and IMPRISONED for decades for BOTH tax evasion and for passing FAKE checks drawn on his imaginary "TRUST ACCOUNT" at the U.S. Treasury in accordance with amateur legal theory. https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/orego...ts-us-treasury. http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/i..._taxes_fo.html
http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/i...witness_s.html
http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...cial-documents
http://www.pamplinmedia.com/ht/117-h...uilty-of-fraud

4. Amateur Legal Guru, TIM TURNER (Rod Class' life-long IDOL and TEACHER), LOSES ALL OF HIS OWN CASES and goes to prison for 18 years for peddling amateur legal theories on how to avoid federal income taxes (just like Class peddles). https://archives.fbi.gov/archives/mo...x-fraud-scheme .

5. Amateur Legal Guru, KARL LENTZ, always LOSES ALL OF HIS OWN CASES and ALWAYS PAYS HIS OWN TRAFFIC TICKETS AND FINES just like everybody else who peddles amateur legal theories. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QMP21qDU58w. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GaGOSVb2-bQ

6. Amateur Legal Guru, DEAN CLIFFORD, always LOSES ALL OF HIS OWN CASES and GOES TO PRISON just like everybody else who peddles amateur legal theories. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=--MqtMNe-us
https://redice.tv/red-ice-radio/fina...months-in-jail .
http://globalnews.ca/news/2220411/ju...g-courts-time/

7. Amateur Legal Guru, JOHNNY LIBERTY (REAL name, "John David Van Hove"), LOSES ALL OF HIS OWN CASES and GOES TO PRISON just like everybody else who peddles amateur legal theories. FIRST, SEE THE HOAX HERE: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w9a9PYp94T8&t=152s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SMn-JzfJq00
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hXWWprTTNLs&t=275s
THEN, SEE THE TRUTH HERE:
https://www.justice.gov/archive/tax/txdv05251.htm
http://www.dailytidings.com/article/...News/306029998
https://www.justice.gov/archive/tax/...05vanhove.html https://www.plainsite.org/dockets/1w...sa-v-van-hove/

8. Amateur Legal Guru, RONNIE DAVIS, LOSES ALL OF HIS OWN CASES and GOES TO PRISON just like everybody else who peddles on amateur legal theories. https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/...charge-florida
https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/...-get-plea-deal
http://www.theledger.com/news/201705...ges-takes-plea
https://arrests.pascosheriff.org/arr...okingNo=183919
http://tampaarrests.net/a/13k2oAA/Ronnie_Lee_Davis
https://pascocountyarrests.com/news/davis-ronnie-lee/

9. Amateur Legal Guru, Lyle Hartford Van Dyke (the real author of "Silent Weapons For Silent Wars"), always LOSES ALL OF HIS OWN CASES and goes to prison because he used amateur legal theories (in both breaking the law and in "defending" himself). http://redcatsboards.yuku.com/topic/...n#.WDYUm1KFPIU . http://www.plainsite.org/dockets/4wu...v-nolan-et-al/ . http://www.plainsite.org/dockets/4wu...v-nolan-et-al/ . GO TO PACER.GOV. See all five LOSES filed under the name "Van Dyke, Lyle" and "Van Dyke. Lyle Hartford".

10. Amateur Legal Guru, ROD CLASS, is a FUNCTIONALLY-ILLITERATE amateur legal theorist with barely a high school education, a history of PSYCHIATRIC PROBLEMS and a history of LOSING EVERY SINGLE ADMINISTRATIVE AND JUDICIAL CASE IN WHICH HE HAS EVER BEEN INVOLVED (more than 73 consecutive cases in a row and still counting). CLASS is also a TWO-TIME, WEAPONS-RELATED, CONVICTED FELON who has BEEN PLACED ON THE UNITED STATES "TERRORIST WATCH LIST". More importantly, CLASS is a professional HOAXER and CHARLATAN who manufactures and peddles ELABORATE HOAXES to intentionally DEFRAUD the American people.

I.Q. TEST: See a pattern forming?

EDDIE CRAIG & THE "NO COMMERCE, NO DRIVER'S LICENSE NEEDED HOAX" !!!

FIRST SEE THE HOAX HERE: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B3nok7Cby28 (Go to video FIRST. Then, go to 54:00-112:00; 118:00-120:45; 133:00-134:00 & 235:00-236:30.). These are the exact times of the hoax exposed below.

THE HOAX:
Eddie Craig falsely claims that the STATES CANNOT require drivers to have driver’s licenses to drive motor vehicles UNLESS THEY ARE ENGAGED IN “[interstate] COMMERCE". But, this is exactly BACKWARDS (OPPOSITE to the truth).

THE TRUTH:
The STATES CAN require drivers to have driver's licenses to drive motor vehicles ONLY IF THEY ARE "NOT" ENGAGED IN "[interstate] COMMERCE".

BACKGROUND:
The original source of the word, “COMMERCE” as used in connection with driver’s license law, is Art. 1, Sec. 8, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution. http://www.annenbergclassroom.org/pa...le-i-section-8 . This clause empowered the FEDERAL government to regulate driver’s licences ONLY IF the driver WAS ENGAGED IN “COMMERCE among [between] the several states” (“interstate COMMERCE”). The tenth amendment empowered the STATES to regulate driver's licenses IN ALL OTHER CONTEXTS (meaning OUTSIDE of "[interstate] COMMERCE"). http://www.annenbergclassroom.org/page/tenth-amendment. This is why the STATES can regulate driver's licenses ONLY IF the driver IS "NOT" ENGEGED IN "[interstate] COMMERCE". But, Eddie Craig does not know this.

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW:
The U.S. Constitution divided the powers between the FEDERAL government and the STATE governments. This division of powers WAS BASED ON LEGAL SUBJECT MATTER. The FEDERAL government was empowered to regulate a TINY LIST of legal SUBJECTS that were expressly delegated to it in the U.S. Constitution. Under the tenth amendment, the STATES were empowered to regulate EVERYTHING ELSE (ALL OTHER LEGAL SUBJECTS). Under this division of powers, a legal subject must be regulated EITHER by FEDERAL law OR by STATE law, BUT NOT BY BOTH. So, if a legal subject IS governed by FEDERAL law, it IS NOT governed by STATE law. Likewise, if a legal subject IS governed by STATE law, it IS NOT governed by FEDERAL law. This means that in terms of subject matter, FEDERAL law and STATE laws ARE "OPPOSITES" OF ONE ANOTHER. Thus, it is NOT true that STATE traffic & transportation codes are "based on" the FEDERAL traffic & transportation codes, BECAUSE FEDERAL CODES AND STATE CODES REGULATE "OPPOSITE" LEGAL SUBJECTS ("[interstate] COMMERCE" v. ("NON-[interstate] COMMERCE"). But, Eddie Craig does not know this.

APPLICATION:
FEDERAL driver’s license laws ONLY APPLY to drivers of motor vehicles WHO ARE engaged in “[interstate] COMMERCE”. STATE drivers license laws ONLY APPLY to drivers of motor vehicles WHO ARE NOT engaged in “[interstate] COMMERCE”. So, if YOU ARE a driver engaged in "[interstate] COMMERCE", then you are governed by FEDERAL law (which requires you to have a drivers license to drive a motor vehicle). If YOU ARE NOT a driver engaged in "[interstate] COMMERCE", then you are governed by STATE law (which requires you to have a driver's license to drive a motor vehicle). Either way, A DRIVER'S LICENSE IS REQUIRED TO DRIVE A MOTOR VEHICLE. But, Eddie Craig does not know this.

HOW WELL DO EDDIE CRAIG’S LEGAL THEORIES WORK IN COURT?
Answer: They don’t! EDDIE CRAIG ACTUALLY LOST HIS OWN MISDEMEANOR SPEEDING CASE because he used this very same amateur legal theory in court ("STATE driving laws do not apply to me unless I am engaged in [interstate] COMMERCE.") . State of Texas v. Eddie (Eugene) Craig, Case no. C-1-CR-12-100045, Offense date 12-11-2011, ARREST Date 06-25-2012, CONVICTION Date 06-28-2013, Travis County, Texas. What’s worse, Craig CONTINUED to make and post videos online in which he peddled this very same amateur legal theory AFTER he LOST that case (after 6- 28-2013), AFTER HE KNEW THAT IT DOES NOT ACTUALLY WORK!

DISCLAIMER:
The ownership, management and staff of InfoWars are not responsible for the false claims of Eddie Craig. They had no way to know (and did not know) that Eddie Craig was not telling the truth.

NOTE: Advising people what to say to law enforcement officers and to judges may constitute the unauthorized practice of law in Texas, a crime. Victims who have paid for classes, seminars and/or books involving Eddie Craig may be entitled to a refund under STATE or FEDERAL law.

THE LAW:
You will note that Eddie Craig's amateur legal theory HAS A 100% FAILURE RATE in court!

1. https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...&as_sdt=400062.

2. http://scholar.google.com/scholar_ca...&as_sdt=400063.

3. https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...&as_sdt=400064.

4. https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&as_sdt=40006

5. https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&as_sdt=40006

6. https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...2&as_sdt=40006

7. https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...2&as_sdt=40006

8. https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&as_sdt=40006

9. https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&as_sdt=40006

10. https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&as_sdt=40006

11. https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&as_sdt=40006

12. https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&as_sdt=40006

13. https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&as_sdt=40006

14. https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...&as_sdt=400068.

15. http://scholar.google.com/scholar_ca...n&as_sdt=40006 (SEE ENTIRE CASE)

16. http://scholar.google.com/scholar_ca...=40006

CONCLUSION:
The FEDERAL government has the constitutional power to require drivers of motor vehicles to have driver's licenses IF THEY "ARE" ENGAGED IN "[interstate] COMMERCE". The STATES have the constitutional power to require drivers of motor vehicles to have driver's licenses IF THEY ARE "NOT" ENGAGED IN "[interstate] COMMERCE". Either way, A DRIVER'S LICENSE IS REQUIRED.

APPLICATION:
So, if you are a driver who has proven that you ARE "NOT" engaged in "interstate COMMERCE", then you have just proven THAT YOU ARE GOVERNED BY STATE LAW (which requires you to have a driver's license to drive a motor vehicle and which requires you to otherwise comply with all other STATE driving regulations).

ABOUT EDDIE CRAIG:
Eddie Craig claims that he is a "FORMER DEPUTY SHERIFF" and an "EXPERT" in the law. But, this is not so. The closest that Eddie Craig ever came to being a "FORMER DEPUTY SHERIFF" was as a "PART-TIME JAILER" in Nacogdoches County, Texas for a period of TWO-WEEKS in 1992 at which time he was unceremoniously FIRED "NOT ELIGIBLE FOR RE-HIRE". Craig uses this his TWO-WEEK tenure as a PART-TIME JAILER as the basis for his "CREDIBILITY" as an "EXPERT" on traffic, travel and motor vehicle codes. But, Eddie Craig is not credible and is not an expert in the law.

ABOUT SNOOP4TRUTH:
Snoop4truth is a legal expert and whistle blower who exposes online hoaxes. Snoop4truth did not reveal this information to harm Eddie Craig. Instead, Snoop4truth revealed this information solely to reduce the CATASTROPHIC DAMAGE that such INTENTIONAL FRAUD inflicts upon the American people every single day. Had it not been for Eddie Craig's role in the "FORMER DEPUTY SHERIFF HOAX", Snoop4truth would not have revealed this information here.

The message to hoaxers and charlatans? Just tell the truth.