The DMV IS GUILTY of Non-Disclosure.
OFFICE OF THE CLERIC
"THE CITIZEN" BENEFICIARY, FOR THE PROTECTION OF RIGHTS AND PROPERTY! See BYARS vs. UNITED STATES 273 U.S. 28 and 16th Am Juris Prudence 2nd Constitutional Section #97.
The above named Common Law Citizen listed IS NOT OPERATING IN COMMERCE and as such is thereby EXEMPTED FROM THE REQUIREMENT OF A LICENSE AS SUCH. Further, the California state, is FORBIDDEN BY LAW from converting a BASIC RIGHT into a PRIVILEGE and requiring a LICENSE and or a FEE CHARGED for the exercise of the BASIC RIGHT. See MURDOCK vs. PENNSYLVANIA, 319 U.S. 105, and if California, state does ERRONEOUSLY convert BASIC RIGHTS into PRIVILEGES and require a License or FEE a Citizen may IGNORE THE LICENSE OR FEE WITH TOTAL IMMUNITY FOR SUCH EXERCISE OF A BASIC RIGHT. See Schuttlesworth vs. BIRMINGHAM, ALABAMA, 373 U.S. 262. Now if a Citizen exercises a BASIC RIGHT and a Law of ANY state is to the contrary of such exercise of that BASIC RIGHT, the said supposed Law of ANY state is a FICTION OF LAW and 100% TOTALLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL and NO COURTS ARE BOUND TO UPHOLD IT AND NO Citizen is REQUIRED TO OBEY SUCH UNCONSTITUTIONAL LAW OR LICENSE REQUIREMENT.
See MARBURY vs. MADISON, 5 U.S. 137 (1803), which has never been overturned in over 194 years, See Shephard's Citations. Now further, if a Citizen relies in good faith on the advice of Counsel and or on the Decisions of the UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT that Citizen has a PERFECT DEFENSE to the element of WILLFULNESS and since the burden of proof of said WILLFULNESS is on the Prosecution to prove beyond a REASONABLE DOUBT, said task or burden being totally impossible to specifically perform there is NO CAUSE OF ACTION FOR WHICH RELIEF MAY BE GRANTED BY A COURT OF LAW. See U.S. vs. Bishop 412 U.S. 346.
OBVIOUSLY THERE IS NO LAWFUL CHARGE AGAINST EXERCISING A BASIC Right to TRAVEL in his private automobile a regular Common Law Citizen NOT IN COMMERCE on the common way Public HlGHWAY. THAT IS THE LAW! The above Common Law named Citizen IS IMMUNE FROM ANY CHARGE TO THE CONTRARY AND ANY PARTY MAKING SUCH CHARGE SHOULD BE DULY WARNED OF THE TORT OF TRESPASS. YOU ARE TRESPASSING ON THIS Common Law Citizen. "GOODS" private property includes an "AUTOMOBILE". See UCC 15 Henson v Government 15 UCC Rep Serv 1137; 257 Ark. 273, 516 S.W. 2d 1.
Action for neglect to prevent.., it states: Every person who, having knowledge that any wrongs conspired or to be done. . . and having power to prevent or aid in preventing . . . Neglects or refuses so to do … shall be liable to the party injured… and; The means of “knowledge”, especially where it consists of public record is deemed in law to be “knowledge of the facts”. See USC Title 42 §1986
MY COMMISSION EXPIRES____________________________
Use for County Clerk