My letter to Commissioner Farrow of the California Highway Patrol
Here is the page for the California Vehicle Code if anyone wants to check it.
http://law.onecle.com/california/vehicle/index.html
Commissioner Farrow.
Thank you for taking the time to read this.
I would like to ask for a chance to meet with you for about 20 minutes regarding a persons "right" to travel, as established by a birthright, protected by the constitution, and supported by the Supreme Court.
I wrote you previously with no response. I am hoping to clear the air about a couple of things:
1. If the Right to travel by automobile still exists in your state.
2. If the CVC applies only to employees of this State, any political subdivision thereof, any municipal corporation, or any district, as stated in CVC 21052, CVC 4155.
(note: this would make sense, as a corporation such as THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA may ONLY regulate it's employees. i.e. General Motors can ONLY make rules regarding their employees.)
3. If by having a California License, or Registration that you are admitting to be under the jurisdiction of the STATE OF CALIFORNIA as stated in CVC 17459, CVC 17460
4. If your officers are arresting people for NOT having a drivers license, even though CVC 12801.5 (e) says they may not?
5. If you and your officers are using the very broad CVC definition of "Motor Vehicle" instead of the very narrow Federal definition of "Motor Vehicle" as Required by
CVC 15210 (p)(7)
(note: Federal definition of motor vehicle found at USC Title 18 > part 1 > Ch. 2 > Sec 31 > (a)(6)
(6) Motor vehicle.— The term “motor vehicle” means every description of carriage or other contrivance propelled or drawn by mechanical power and used for commercial purposes on the highways in the transportation of passengers, passengers and property, or property or cargo.
6. if you and all of your fellow employees of CHP realize that you are all committing Federal Crimes whenever you pull over, detain, or arrest any Unlicensed person Claiming or Exercising their right to travel by automobile.
"The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime." - Miller v. U.S., 230 F 2d 486, 489.
"The assertion of federal rights, when plainly and reasonably made, is not to be defeated under the name of local practice."- Davis v. Wechsler, 263 U.S. 22, 24.
"Where rights secured by the constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them." - Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 491.
Below are Crimes possibly committed by CHP officers when or if arresting unlicensed Travelers behind the wheel of an automobile claiming their right to travel:
TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 13 > § 242
§ 242. Deprivation of rights under color of law
Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any pers on in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.
TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 13 > § 241
§ 241. Conspiracy against rights
If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same; or
If two or more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the premises of another, with intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege so secured—
They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.
Thank you for your time,
Please let me know if we may schedule time to meet in person so I may get these questions answered.
http://oath-keepers.blogs...
http://oath-keepers.blogspot.com/2009/03/oath-keepers-declar...
bump for juliua and
cspaffor, and liberty!
Forwarded
I just sent my brother, a fresh young CHP officer, this thread and a few questions of my own and am hoping he reads this along with some of the comments.
Hi bro!
way to go!! And for the
way to go!!
And for the record, it is not your brothers fault that he will be tricked into potentially committing federal crimes. It is the action of the superiors, and the in-action of the Citizens, for dealing with officers the way we do, and not charging them with crimes, and not suing them for deprivation of rights.
At least have him look at this:
http://oath-keepers.blogspot.com/2009/03/oath-keepers-declar...
The moment an officer pulls someone over without a warrant, he is violating his oath, and committing a crime. By merely stopping a car, that person becomes "arrested", because his forward motion is now halted.
<><><><><><><><>
"
Herein lies the problem and also the problem that not enough
people know. So send this to everyone.
Arrest is a simple term. In English it means to stop action or
activity. (Rest being the operative portion of the term)
Custody is in all practicality the same thing as arrest.
In the USSCT case of Fay v. Noia, the U.S. Supreme Court made it
abundantly clear that the government is forever and always has been
at WAR against the Rights of THE PEOPLE.
That was a Habeas Corpus case. And do please pay
attention... everyone who believes that neither the Common Law
not the Constitutional limitations of government do not apply in
the Courts.
They do. the case law is abundant that they do, and the case law
shows that it is the Courts who have been co-opted into the Treason
identified in Fay v. Noia.
Back to Arrest and Custody. (Custody will now be shown to be ANY
form of restraint of liberty).
If one examines the case of Hensley v. Municipal Court another USSCT
landmark Habeas Corpus case, one sees that the Court deemed a person
in custody of the government when they were under the control of the
government to go, not go, and/or appear before a Court (otherwise
being at the command and will of the government).
In Hensley it was further shown that Habeas applies, even if the
individual did not spend a moment in confinement behind bars.
What does that tell us?
Can one see how that would apply to the spinning red lights and
the arrest of ones Liberty of lawful forward motion on the public
right of way?
Let us go forward to the excuse of the Police for the stop. It is
not your lawful and non endangering actions that caused the pull over,
but their assumptive claim that there is a license, and that one must have
one, in order to be on the public right of way.
So, would it not surprise you to discover in yet another Habeas
Corpus case of Jones v. Cunningham that the need to get permission
from the State in order to Drive was adjudicated by the USSCT to
be an element of custody and restraint?
"It is clear to those who have ears to hear and eyes to read, we
are ALL already under arrest" (Jones v. Cunningham).
We are ALL already restrained. (Jones and Hensley)
Yet we are the freest nation in the world because we are free to
choose where we shop either at Walmart, KMart, Biglots, Rich's,
JcPenny, Sears, Macy's, Filene's Basement, or Burgdorf Goodman's,
just like we are free to choose whom we shall bailout and buy and
who we shall not. Right? (I think I got something wrong in this)
moving on...
There is your freedom.
It is this way because the majority wants it this way.
This is the way democracies end. Masses of voting consumers seeking
endless bread and circus' and judges who use endless sophistry to
hide the existence of their prior rulings which already settled
the question and previously affirmed your liberty.
Thurston Paul Bell
"
question, please
would this mean that you are claiming to be a Federal citizen and not a state citizen?
Bump...
...because I would really like to hear his response...but I doubt you'll ever get one because the State sure loves their armed and ignorant(of the Law and Constitution) revenue collectors.
crimes committed under color of law...
in addition to all the motor vehicle codes they themselves break (speeding, tailgating, improper use of and failure to dim lights etc. etc.) while doing their 'duty', they also regularly engage in stalking (speedtraps), racketeering and extortion, and violation of oath of office/perjury. those responsible for sending hither these swarms of officers to harass the people and eat out their substance are guilty of racketeering and extortion, violation of oath of office/perjury and treason (you'd probly be labelled a domestic ter'rist for pointing that out to them), and I'm sure the list is still incomplete...
a few more applicable cases...
“An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed.”
Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425:
“No state legislator or executive or judicial officer can war against the Constitution without violating his undertaking to support it.”
Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1, 78 S.Ct. 1401 (1958):
"The right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit or permit at will, but a common law right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Thompson v. Smith, 154 SE 579.
"The use of the highway for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege, but a common fundamental right of which the public and individuals cannot rightfully be deprived." Chicago Motor Coach v. Chicago, 169 NE 221.
"Complete freedom of the highways is so old and well established a blessing that we have forgotten the days of the Robber Barons and toll roads, and yet, under an act like this, arbitrarily administered, the highways may be completely monopolized, if, through lack of interest, the people submit, then they may look to see the most sacred of their liberties taken from them one by one, by more or less rapid encroachment." Robertson vs. Department of Public Works, 180 Wash 133,147.
"Personal liberty largely consists of the Right of locomotion -- to go where and when one pleases -- only so far restrained as the Rights of others may make it necessary for the welfare of all other citizens. The Right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, by horsedrawn carriage, wagon, or automobile, is not a mere privilege which may be permitted or prohibited at will, but the common Right which he has under his Right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Under this Constitutional guarantee one may, therefore, under normal conditions, travel at his inclination along the public highways or in public places, and while conducting himself in an orderly and decent manner, neither interfering with nor disturbing another's Rights, he will be protected, not only in his person, but in his safe conduct.” American Jurisprudence 1st Edition, Constitutional Law, Sect.329, p.1135.
This is not simply asking them questions
This is showing you did your homework, know what you are talking about and are demanding clarification.
Can I sign it too? I want to know too.
It's an excellent letter and I think it desearves a much wider audience, like the LA Times Op Ed column.
Kudos to you, I LOVE your letter. I hope he responds. I'm excited about this. I'm proud of you.
WE ARE GOING TO WIN!
___.---.___
.' ( ) '.
) /)' '( )
',_( ';-;'\_,'
|-|
(")
You're reporting the whore to the pimp -
There is no legislative enactment that created the Department of the California Highway Patrol.
I love your enthusiasm
Keep kicking ass!!!! Go get em. Keep up the great work, love it.
Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must. like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it.-Thomas Paine
The R3volution requires action, not observation!!!!
Im simply asking them
Im simply asking them questions!!;)