SIMPLE DRIVING OR TRANSPORTATION CODE OFFENSE ANSWER AND RESPONSE

By Neil Rowe P.A.G.; Professor of Law

No, I’m not going into to traffic court and arguing illegitimate corporate government, or any of the other varied long winded arguments people and persons propose. Just not interested in approaching it that way for reasons of my own. What follows is my standard template for transportation code or driving offense charges and I’m retiring from answering any more questions related to traffic tickets, until and unless you can quote this back to me verbatim and understand it and still have a problem, moving on to more important issues and frontiers in law. Yes, I could use dozens of additional citations, and you may add them and over complicate matters if you choose, I just don’t think it’s necessary to go into much more detail. Keep it simple stupid.

Submitted to the Public Domain without copyright. Copy and share.
________________________________

Notice of and Motion for Bill of Particulars and Discovery Request for Brady Material In Answer and Response to Inadequate Notice and Defective Service of Process by Complaint or Information that Fails to State the Requisite Jurisdictional Elements of a Valid Cause of Action and Controversy of Both Fact and Law Required to Establish Personal Jurisdiction

Proposed Jury Instructions

COMES NOW the accused defendant herein named by special appearance in Pro Se, by liberal construction waiving professional rules of pleading practice, and for his preliminary Answer and Response, Discovery request for Brady Material and Motion as styled and en-captioned above, by his own hand and under oath affiant shows this honorable court and states as follows; To Wit:

Based Upon information and belief, affiant states:

1. THAT the undersigned writer is charged in the instant action and proceedings with a Transportation Code or Driving offense.

2. THAT Federal and State statutes and provisions of law narrowly define “Driving” as the professional commercial activity of “transporting persons or property for profit.”

3. THAT Federal and State statutes and provisions of law defining the elements of “Driving” omit “traveling for recreation or pleasure,” the writer contends, because ‘A Citizen must be free to travel throughout the [several] United States uninhibited by statutes, rules or regulation.’ (Shapiro v. Thomson, 394 US 618, 89 S. Ct. 1322 ( )); “No State government entity has the power to allow or deny passage on the highways, byways, nor waterways… Travel is not a privilege requiring licensing, vehicle registration, or forced insurances.” (Chicago Coach Co. v. City of Chicago, 337 Ill. 200, 169 N.E. 22). “As has been well said in the case of Ex parte Dickey (W.Va. 85 S.E. 781): The right of a citizen to travel upon the highway and transport his property thereon, in the ordinary course of life and business, differs radically and obviously from that of one who makes the highway his place of business and uses it for private gain, in the running of a stage coach or omnibus. This distinction, elementary and fundamental in character, is recognized by all the authorities.” (Thielke v. Albee, 79 Or. 48, 153 P. 793); “It is to clear for the purpose of extended discussion that it was competent for the legislature under the police power to regulate the use of the streets and the public places by jitney operators, who, as common carriers, have no vested right to use the same without complying with a requirement as to obtaining a permit or license. The right to make such use is a franchise, to be withheld or granted as the legislature may see fit.” (Fifth Ave. Coach Co. V. New York, 194 N.Y. 19,86 N.E. 824, 21 L.R.A. (N.S.) 744, 16 Ann.Cas. 695; Dill. Mun. Corp. 1210, 1229); “[W]hile a citizen has the right to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, that right does not extend to the use of the highways, either in whole or in part, as a place for private gain. For the latter purpose no person has a vested right to use the highways of the state, but is a privilege or license which the legislature may grant or withhold at its discretion…” (State v Johnson, 243 P. 1073, 1078. (For further distinction between traveling and transportation, See : Barney v Board of Railroad Commissioners; State v City of Spokane, 186 P. 864.; Ex Parte Dickey (Dickey v Davis), 85 S.E. 781.; Teche Lines v Danforth, 12 So.2d 784).

4. WHEREFORE the writer contents and asserts, based on information and belief supported by points in authority provided, that transporting persons or property for profit in commerce is a condition precedent and form the requisite jurisdictional elements of any transportation code driving offense.

5. THAT the Plaintiff officer by state attorney has failed by sufficient complaint or information to state or inform the accused defendant of the “person(s)” or “property” the accused defendant is accused of transporting, or for what “profit.”

6. THAT the plaintiff prosecution is required to inform the accused defendant of the essential elements of, and material facts alleged substantiating the crime as charged and to prove these same elements and material facts beyond a reasonable doubt or by a preponderance of the evidence at trial, and for this reason the accused defendant contends jury instructions must reflect the requirement that the prosecution plaintiff establish and prove the person(s ) or property that were transported for what profit, and who those persons or what that property transported for what profit was, with particularity.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE all the good and proper reasons stated, the undersigned accused defendant prays this honorable court grant the motion for bill of particulars, or provide discovery of the essential material facts constituting the driving or transportation code offense charged, and compel the plaintiff prosecution to amend defective information or complaint to apprise the accused defendant of the same so that he might reasonably respond or prepare his defense having notice of both the nature of, and, cause for the instant charges and proceedings as required by rules of substantive and procedural due process, or in the alternative quash the information or complaint for inadequate notice and defective service of process and dismiss the instant action and proceedings for failure to prosecute, and grant any other relief this court deems equitable and fair in good faith and conscience.

__________________________
Foot Note: I am not arguing against statutory authority. Travel is mentioned, but Statutory authority to regulate Transportation is accepted and acknowledged.

I am asking for fair and proper notice. The elements of driving are clear.

If charged with assault, how, by punching, kicking or slapping?

If contempt of court for disrupting proceedings, how? By what noise, outburst or disruptive behavior, specifically?

If murder, who, and by what means?

The prosecution must demonstrate the case he intends to put on, so the defendant is informed of the case he must meet.

Driving drunk? Driving on suspended?

Forget drunk, forget suspended…

How driving?

It’s simple calculus.

And with that having been said, I’m charging for the next question.

Dedicated to my parents, who took a clever little six year old intent on being the worlds greatest liar and cheat, and changed the course of his life by paddling his behind, conditioning him to study instead and violently hate liars and cheats.

Be Careful Who You Listen to and Trust

Please be careful who you listen to, who you trust. Even be careful with what I say, use your own intuition. After all we are blessed with intuition and the ability to differentiate right from wrong. I would even expect you to question me and what I say, even though I know I would never intentionally lie to you.

The reason why I bring this topic up, is because there are infiltrators and provocateurs out there that are casting huge nets with which to build lists of names of individuals to be used later when larger scale “round ups” of liberty minded patriots begins.

The ones that are the ones that you should suspect first are those who close channels of communication rather that keep them open by responding and communicating with fair, open, and responsive communications. Those who do not respond or respond with slander, orders, negativity, or even just remaining silent are all signs that they may not be someone that you can trust. After all, these agencies and officers of government are only supposed to be there to serve and protect the rights and property of the people. There is no other reason for government, except perhaps defense of the homeland.

These agent provocateurs will also try to keep you in a narrow viewpoint about the situation, and not only will they express a narrow viewpoint, they will usually always try to influence you in a particular way. Sometimes they will try and convince you to not trust a particular individual, sometimes they will exhaustively promote particular individuals or groups.

These plants and government shills also commonly won’t give you a straight answer when you ask them a simple question, and their favorite response is to imply that there is a defect with the complainant to sidestep the actual complaint.

When I talk about those who should be suspected and placed under further scrutiny and background review, I am not just talking about individuals, there may also be shill groups, or organizations. And the ones that should be scrutinized the MOST are those who claim to either be actively affiliated with or employed by government, or those actively promoting ideologies claiming that the government is fair, just, honest, or unbiased.

13133243_244191322636622_309713294813844185_nNaturally those working for the government or benefiting from the government in some way are highly suspect, because they stand to lose the most by withdrawing or losing their support for the broken corrupt system. They are dependent on the government, why challenge it? They will also contradict themselves; for example they may express sympathy and support for the protesters, but at the same time will express support for the government and the “court system” in particular. Like the fox guarding the hen house, they will usually be slick talkers as well. But will rarely offer citations or evidence to prove their claims.

While we are on this subject, I would like to talk briefly about lawyers. And I have more information here if you are interested in learning more. But who has more to lose from the government than a lawyer? Not just any lawyer, but a lawyer that makes his living by arguing cases in government courthouses?

Don’t you think that the government would want to make sure that there were “attorneys” to defend the protesters? Keep them in the casino, where their chances are not good. And by not just any attorneys, but maybe even an attorney from the “Top 100” list of all trial attorneys to prepare their defense. One who has worked their whole career arguing in support of subjects of government who were mainly charged with “code” or “statute” violations. A vast majority of them without a victim, like DUII cases, and other trumped up “code” violations.

I don’t know about you, but after doing years of research on this topic. I have never found in the founding documents where the founders of this country ever suggested or implied that the people were bound by any “code”, “statute”, “rules”, “regulations” or “policy” of government. As a matter of fact the Declaration of Independence says exactly this: “…all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,…” Continue reading “Be Careful Who You Listen to and Trust”

Right to Travel Honored AGAIN! TWICE!

I was shown the following YouTube video and I was so impressed by it that I had to share it on the website. He brings up MANY great points! I am impressed by his level of knowledge. He says to just call up the D.A. and ask him if he knows that he is breaking the law, and that he is likely incurring a personal liability and the case disappears.

I also really like these tags! I would be careful if you have tags with the words “Private Property” on them. “Property” that is not owned by United States is property which one has a right to, not ownership of. If you are going to use these words, you need to be able to explain which definitions you are using. This also goes for citing any government “codes” or “statutes” on them. Don’t do it. We are not even allowed to use their codes, only remind them that they are their rules. I do offer these tags in the Freedom from Government store.

Not for hire. For NON-Commercial use only
Not for hire. For NON-Commercial use only

It never hurts to learn more about maintaining independence (contract avoidance) from any deceptive “state” near you.

The entire video is well worth watching, but you can skip to about 7 minutes and 30 seconds in the video below to see the two sheriff’s cruisers pass.

Video by Nagol Bud: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gu0hooi3VDw

I also saw this video by psychokid 23 recently and it made me smile to see another new person doing this. Are YOU ready to break free yet?

Video by psychokid 23: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jtiXsAU_WX8

Who are the good guys?

The painful truth about order followers.
The painful truth about order followers.

The old joke about Westerns was that you could always tell who the good guys were because, like the Lone Ranger, they wore white hats.

But as I grew older I realized that, in real life, the good guys in law enforcement and in the military are the guys who actually acknowledge a standard for right and wrong and then live up to that standard. In the military, the good soldier believes in God and so he takes his oath before God seriously as he swears to uphold the Constitution of these united States.

His oath is NOT an oath to obey just any command or order but only those commands and orders that are consistent with God’s law and are authorized by the Constitution – the supreme law of the land.

This leads me to ask the following: If “We the People” of these united States have not, through our elected representatives in Congress, declared war since WWII, then how can we lawfully send armed troops to Korea, or to Vietnam, or to the Persian Gulf, or to Grenada, or to Iraq, or to Afghanistan, or Libya?

In each of these cases, didn’t the President, as Commander in Chief, violate the Constitution? And if he is violating the Constitution, aren’t those in uniform also violating their oaths?

Now before you say that they are just following orders and really don’t have a choice in the matter, please read the history of the Nuremberg trials, where the Nazi soldiers and judges and political leaders used the very same excuse. They were found guilty. And they were executed. Real military and law enforcement heroes follow the rule of law. They don’t break the law and then claim they were just following orders.

If thinking about this makes you mad, you are not alone.

Source

 

Expressions of natural law.
The extent of natural law.
Natural law versus man's law.
Natural law versus man’s law.
Natural law expressions
Natural law expressions