Notice irrelevant if courts reject freedom it claims, lawyer says

Officer Steve Meador, right, takes an oath in joining the Chattanooga police department. (Photo

The following 2 blocks of type or exchange between , a local attorney of high intelligence and unmatched integrity. I lay out a basic defense of transportation administrative notice for his consideration and he replies with great skepticism. The reason he is skeptical is that notice establishes the law and its origins in contradiction to court treatment of the right of travel, the courts abrogation of that right and non recognition of that right. Interestingly, lawyer Phil points out that the common law relies on precedents and is built upon opinion of courts and through opinions of courts to become the effective law (aka public policy).

But how does public policy void in abrogate common law rights?

Notice fights lawless public policy

Phil, the court has overturned the constitutionally protected right of free, private travel by car. The courts of appeal hold that the only right to travel is relocation of domicile from one state to another. They are operating in a despotic manner, refusing all appeal, operating on the basis of legal fiction.

For the high courts’ position to exist, the judges have to reject basic rules of statutory construction — throw them out the window in service of state policy, progressive police-state extortion, letting the THP and police depts. in all 95 counties and in hundreds of cities in the state to enforce the commercial regulatory statute vs. the people acting privately, not in commerce, for pleasure, private necessity, for the exercise of their myriad other rights.

State policy says I have a right to religion but I have no right to get to my place of worship apart form its permission. It says I have a right to vote, but I have to get the commissioner’s permission and a license for a privilege to get to the voting booth. I have a right to assemble, but I dare not get there in my own private property (my auto) to the spot where the crowd is meeting. I have a right to fulfill personal necessities such as taking care of an aged mother. But if I go to the hospital or the grocery store or to the druggist in her care, and do so without the governor’s permission, I am a common criminal.

My notice project fully grasps our status under an activist judiciary. What I have done is shift the legal landscape in certain districts by public notice. The lawyers may say I don’t have standing. But I am subject to these people every day, and so are thousands of people — half of blacks have revoked licenses and more than half don’t have insurance. Every citizen subject to arrest has standing to give notice. The notice is a restatement of all relevant law and court cases, and makes no argument.

Yes, I insist that have deprived cops of their good faith defense because they all know that the statute applies to commercial vehicle-for-hire use, and not to noncommercial noncapitalist nonentrepreneurial use of the roadways (aka freeway, right of way, for a reason).

Cops under notice who arrest private travelers are universally acting in bad faith, and are oppressing the people. They are knowingly and intentionally stopping them without subject matter jurisdiction. This is criminal activity. But in the first year of the project, I am very patient, and willing to see these people as misguided, and that ultra vires activity is simply ill-informed. But individual cops and cities are going to get sued under the notice, which is not anywhere rebutted, nor can be rebutted.

Court policy is not law. The constitution is law. The statute is law. My position is to take up the defense of the statute in terms of its actual construction and all its definition. I am upholding their law, to make sure the cops don’t apply it go people clearly not in its purview, pursuant to the rules.

I am looking for an attorney who will use the notice as a double whammy in his suit. Almost any Title 55 action will serve, but one wants a case with particular noisy flavor and malice, like Flores’ on behalf of Frederico Wolfe.

Below is commentary from Phil the Chattanooga attorney.

Lawyer’s reply: ‘I’d be doing my clients a disservice’

What is the ultimate point?  That the police can’t enforce traffic laws against someone who is not traveling for commercial purposes?

 I’ll review your materials more carefully, but my initial reaction is that there isn’t a chance in the world that a court will agree with that interpretation.  And if a court won’t agree with that interpretation, the Transportation Administration Notice won’t accomplish anything.

A private person putting a governmental entity on notice of the private person’s view of the law–which does not match a court’s view of the law–will simply be viewed by the courts as an irrelevant and erroneous statement of the law which would have no legal consequence.  ***

I did a search through my entire case law database–which is quite extensive–and did not find a single case using the term “transportation administrative notice.”  I believe I understand what you are trying to do, but courts are not going to accept your argument. And if courts are not going to accept your argument, I’d be doing clients a disservice by encouraging them to spend time, money, effort, and “mental investment” in something that just won’t work as a practical matter.

Depending on what you mean by the term “court policy,” I may strongly disagree with your statement that “court policy is not law.”  If you mean that there is no such thing as the “common law” and that we only have Constitutional law and statutory law, I respectfully but heartily disagree.  

We imported the common law system from England. I do not think you can find any historical basis for the proposition that our founders intended to throw out the common law system when they adopted the Constitution and began enacting statutes.  I have no problem with you arguing that the common law system has been misused, but I would urge you to reconsider your position — if it is your position — that there is no such thing as common law in the United States. I think that is a pretty serious departure from what our founders intended.

Those are my thoughts.  I’d love to discuss this with you further sometime.

One Response

  1. David Tulis

Leave a Comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.