The DMV IS GUILTY of Non-Disclosure.
No Drivers License needed to drive. Fill out the form below replacing my information for your NAME, STATE, COUNTY, CITY, COURT.
IT OCCURS BECAUSE WE VOLUNTARILY ALLOW IT TO OCCUR!!!
Now NO STATE may convert a RIGHT into a PRIVILEGE and require a LICENSE or FEE for the exercise of that RIGHT!!! Please see MURDOCK vs. PENNSYLVANIA, 319 U.S. 105, and if a STATE does erroneously do require A LICENSE OR FEE for exercise of the RIGHT, the Citizen may IGNORE THE LICENSE AND OR FEE and exercise the RIGHT WITH TOTAL IMPUNITY!!! Please see SCHUTTLESWORTH vs. BIRMINGHAM 373 U.S. 262. YOU CAN NOT BE PUNISHED FOR THE EXERCISE OF A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT!!! Please see MILLER vs. UNITED STATES 230 F2nd 486. You have a PERFECT DEFENSE TO THE ELEMENT OF WILLFULNESS if you rely on the advice of Counsel or upon a DECISION OF THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT AS A DEFENSE. Please see U.S. vs. BISHOP, 412 U.S. 346. If the Prosecution who bears entirely the proofs beyond a TOTAL REASONABLE DOUBT can NOT prove WILLFUL INTENT TO AVOID AND KNOWN DUTY OR TASK UNDER THE LAW WITH A MORAL CERTAINTY, said Prosecutor does NOT HAVE A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR WHICH A COURT OF LAW MAY GRANT RELIEF TO HIM/HER, and thereby has NO CASE AT LAW!!!! FACT!!!!! See Michigan Court Rule 2.116 (c) (8) FAILURE TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR WHICH RELIEF MAY BE GRANTED BY THE COURT.
Now look below, because this is exactly what is going on and you need to study this example and decide if you are willing to go along with this FRAUD!!!!!!!!! YES OR NO!!!! You think about it and make your decision, and the decision is: TO BE OR NOT TO BE KING OR QUEEN WITH ALL RIGHTS AND OR PROTECTIONS THAT GO WITH THAT!!! The Constitution is suppose to be interpreted in favor of YOU, "THE CITIZEN" BENEFICIARY, FOR THE PROTECTION OF RIGHTS AND PROPERTY!!!! Please see BYARS vs. UNITED STATES 273 U.S. 28 and 16th Am Juris Prudence 2nd Constitutional Section #97, so you got a right to have your idea or opinion of your Rights be protected in favor of YOU!!!! BUT FIRST YOU MUST KNOW YOUR RIGHTS!!! Do You know your RIGHTS??????? HOW THEN CAN YOU PROTECT THEM IF YOU DON'T KNOW THEM, SURELY GOVERNMENT IS NOT GOING TO TELL YOU WHAT YOUR RIGHTS ARE!!!! NO IT IS ENTIRELY UP TO YOU!!!! You must decide!
Common Law Vehicular
Judicial Notice
Constitutional Drivers License
County of Los Angeles
Superior Court
OFFICE OF THE CLERIC
OFFICE OF THE CLERIC
Norwalk , California
COMMON LAW VEHICULAR JUDICIAL NOTICE
CONSTITUTIONAL DRIVERS LICENSE
THE UNDERSIGNED Common Law Citizen Bryant Schroder: hereby Certifies, by Rights Secured under provisions of the Constitution of the United States of America, the Constitution of the several states, Common Law, Nature and Laws of Natures GOD, that these Rights are retained in FEE SIMPLE ABSOLUTE, and held and protected with special regard to Rights designated and/or set forth as follows: ALSO NOTE Rights and Property are ONE AND THE SAME THING- by the Honorable Justice LOUIS BRANDIS U.S. SUPREME COURT.
"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 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.
NOTICE AND ADVISORY OF RIGHTS CLAIMED INVIOLATE:
1) The Right to TRAVEL FREELY, UNENCUMBERED, and UNFETTERED is guaranteed as a RIGHT and not a mere privilege. That the Right to TRAVEL is such a BASIC RIGHT it does NOT even need to be mentioned for it is SELF-evident by Common Sense that the Right to TRAVEL is a BASIC CONCOMITANT of a FREE Society to come and go from length and breath FREELY UNENCUMBERED and UNFETTERED distinguishes the characteristic required for a FREE PEOPLE TO EXIST IN FACT. See SHAPIRO vs. THOMSON, 394 U. S. 618. Further, the Right to TRAVEL by private conveyance for private purposes in a private automobile upon the Common way can NOT BE INFRINGED. NO Driver License, Registration, Insurance is required for TRAVEL in private automobile when such TRAVEL IS NOT for the purpose of [COMMERCIAL] Commerce PROFIT OR GAIN on the open highways.
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.
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.
2) The original and Judicial jurisdiction of the United States Supreme Court is ALL actions in which a State may be party, thru subdivision, political or trust. This includes ALL state approved subdivisions and/or INCORPORATED Cities, Townships, Municipalities, and Villages, Et Al. See Article 3, Section 2,Para. (1) and (2), U.S. Constitution.
3) The undersigned has NEVER willingly and knowingly entered into ANY Contract or Contractual agreement giving up ANY Constitutional Rights which are secured by the CONSTITUTION, the SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND. This Common Law Citizen has NOT harmed any party, has NOT threatened any party, and that includes has NOT threatened or caused any endangerment to the safety or well being of any party and would leave any claimant otherwise to their strictest proofs otherwise IN A COURT OF LAW. The above named Citizen is merely exercising the BASIC RIGHT TO TRAVEL UNENCUMBERED and UNFETTERED on the Common public way or highway, which is their RIGHT TO SO DO! See Zobel vs. Williams, 457 U.S. 55, held the RIGHT TO TRAVEL is Constitutionally PROTECTED!!
4) Conversion of the RIGHT TO TRAVEL into a PRIVILEGE and or CRIME is A FRAUD and is in clear and direct conflict with she UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION, THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND. LAWS made by any state, which are clearly in direct CONFLICT or REPUGNANCY are UNCONSTITUTIONAL and are NOT WITH STANDING IN LAW AND ARE BEING CHALLENGED AS SUCH HERE AND THEREBY ARE NULL AND VOID OF LAW ON THEIR FACE. NO COURTS ARE BOUND TO UPHOLD SUCH FICTIONS OF LAW AND NO Citizen is bound to obey such a FICTION OF LAW. SUCH REGULATION OR LAW OPERATES AS A MERE NULLITY OR FICTION OF LAW AS IF IT NEVER EXISTED IN LAW. No CITIZEN IS BOUND TO OBEY SUCH UNCONSTITUTIONAL LAW!
5) The payment for a privilege requires a benefit to be received As the RIGHT TO TRAVEL is already secured it is clearly unlawful to cite any charges without direct damage to the specific party. Nor may a Citizen be charged with an offense for the exercise of a CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT, in this case the RIGHT TO TRAVEL. See Miller vs. UNITED STATES 230 F2d 486. Nor may a Citizen be denied DUE PROCESS OF LAW or EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW.
6) The undersigned does hereby claim, declare, and certify ANY AND ALL their CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS INVIOLATE from GOD and secured in THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION and the CONSTITUTION OF THE state wherein they abode as a SOVEREIGN, COMMON LAW CITIZEN existing and acting entirely AT THE COMMON LAW, and retains ALL BASIC RIGHTS under the CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, NATURE AND NATURE'S GOD AND UNDER THE LAWS OF GOD THE SUPREME LAW GIVER.
Penalty Under The Law
Any neglect Action by a law enforcement person (Officer), State, County, City Official agency shall be liable for any damage or injury. The citizen has the power for immediate grounds for a lawsuit pertains to fraud against the people.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
7) ANY VIOLATOR OF THE ABOVE CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE AND CLAIM IS CRIMINALLY TRESPASSING UPON THIS ABOVE NAMED COMMON LAW Citizen and WILL BE PROSECUTED TO THE FULLEST EXTENT UNDER THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND. BE WARNED OF THE TRESPASS AND THE ATTACHED CAVEATS. ALSO TAKE CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE; IGNORANCE OF THE LAW IS NOT AN EXCUSE.
SIGNATURE OF THE ABOVE NOTED Common Law Citizen is
signed_________________________________________
WITNESS________________________________________ Date_______________
WITNESS________________________________________ Date_______________
or
NOTARY PUBLIC___________________________ this day of , AD.
MY COMMISSION EXPIRES____________________________
MY COMMISSION EXPIRES____________________________
---------------------------------
Use for County Clerk
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
I, _________________________, CLERK of the County of Los Angeles, thereof do hereby certify the Citizen above named has sworn to the contents of this document and that same is TRUE AND CORRECT.
IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I have hereto set my hand and affixed the SEAL of said CIRCUIT COURT, NORWALK SUPERIOR COURT in the City of NORWALK, CALIFORNIA
this ________________day of_______________________, AD.__________
signed____________________________Deputy County Clerk for__________________
_____________________________COUNTY CLERK
No comments:
Post a Comment