The motor vehicle registration law converts cars and trucks into motor vehicles suitable for use commercially and for private profit and gain in the roads in my state Tennessee and yours. But it’s not going far enough just to cite the definitions as proof of the holy grail “right to travel” that we explore here, says Hal Anthony, a longtime legal “gnome” who has studied the assertion of rights his entire adult life as legal researcher for Jefferson Mining District in Oregon. Please give this response to my piece “Expired tag charge applies to commercial ‘motor vehicles,’ not poor person in old car,” a careful reading for suggestions of a future course of action to eventually halt the seizure by commercial government of the right of free movement and free communication by deception, legal code rewrites and fraud.
By Hal Anthony / Back to the Woodshed podcast
Your article sounds to me like an opinion piece, not an analysis of law. You didn’t tie the subject-matter to commerce or profit and gain. You only state that it is. Color and poorness have nothing to do with it. That’s low-hanging fruit. The fraudulent maladministration affects everyone. Besides, no one is going to win anything trying to argue through assertions of definitions alone. They won’t be well taken.
And there is a whole lot more to know before anyone embarks on any challenge. You don’t want to run on this before walking, let alone thinking you’re the lead car in the Indy 500. . . Oh wait, that’s commerce.
For instance, You’re going to have to find the definitive limitation in law to commerce. Some states say it plainly. Others hide it. You may find that limitation in the rules. That’s where I found it in Oregon. One rule. Every where else you have to divine the commerce limitation. But even if you did find the limitation, that won’t be enough. You also have to be somewhere else other than where the state jurisdiction can extend, objectively.
You have to find where the state authority exists, that a license, registration of certification is tied to a trade or profession in the state, and no further. That might be in the administrative rules, the definition for “license” is where I found it in Oregon’s Administrative Procedures Act, APA.
The APA requirement for due process will, in the alternative, allow you to challenge prior notice/knowledge your private property was the “type required to be registered” or “for which certificate of title” is required declared through prior lawful due process required of the commissioner . . . that didn’t exist.
The application made for any of the state documentation seals the deal for the state. Not many people don’t have evidence of “driving.” You have to defeat that if a state document exists because that is evidence that an application, your prior consent, exists and is valid. This consent or the one presumed makes your statement that “You weren’t liable to pay it”, incorrect and the tax and revenue “revelation” irrelevant.
Presumptively, you’ll have to avoid each and every proof of being resident in the record. That’s going to be a trick. I’ll let you think on how to eliminate these. Don’t get too complicated, it’s simple. The answer is in the motor vehicle code as well, [Hint: For what constitutes residence address for residency. (Secret hint: And what doesn’t).].
It took me two and a half times through the Oregon MV code book to figure that out. Where I am at isn’t in that code book, nor by its definitions. This is a puzzle you don’t want any pieces to fit or be presumed to fit.
Your administrative notice only opens this door to continuing engagement. It doesn’t foreclose the state jurisdiction. The notice anticipates a valid administrative authority. The APA should also have a savings clause for prior existing rights. That’s land disposals for one. This saving clause severs the head of the state authority.
Finding the things I’ve suggested, knowing them, sets the stage for the actual assertion of the right to use the highway, not argue that “driver” or “operation,” or not just then, etc., is in commerce.
I’ve already suggested, you’ll need to find the definitive right of the use of the highway, roads and trails. You need to find the source of authority for this, “The highway is free for use by the people of the state.”; Not just as a statement in the article or even in law, but the underlying reason for it. Hint: It begins with what the savings clauses pertain to.
You should also get the patent copy for your property and then you can assert, or if you can’t find the general law for the right to use the highways, the appurtenant right of ingress and egress in your land patent, not the right to travel. Find the acknowledgment in your state that no judge has jurisdiction to alter that patent or its appurtenant rights, — forever.
You have to find who has the exclusive jurisdiction over the local roadways and the limit. If it is like here, it’s the county government, not the cops, or a commissioner, or hearings officers, or judges, or state courts, etc. When you do these things, you’ll then be able to procedurally counter the jurisdiction in the first instance and therefore eliminate any presumption for the need of a license/registration, whatever etc., even if you have one.
You’ll need to be able to collaterally attack with the right you found to the use of the highway, that no one has a right to interfere with; And while likely at the same time avoiding the jurisdiction through similarly stated pre-plea remedy which includes the alternative, the failures you’ve identified in the statutes you present in your article by the notice, and/or exonerate the act of filing any application.
Then when all that fails, and likely before a new judge, because you’ve joined the first one to your collateral attack suit, being prepared with a line of questioning that brings all of the prior facts as to the officer’s ignorance of the law and your rights when you get the cop on the stand to testify to all of the pre-plea avoidance material again. And then you do the same thing to the commissioner subpoenaed into the case the court wouldn’t set aside. And maybe even the prior judge, once you have the statute precluding his involvement and the denial to the avoidance.
Your article is not a proof yet; Especially to people firmly believing without excuse that everything in the statutes are inclusive of all state power. Think about that as you read this again, “Vehicle” and “freight motor vehicle” means every device in, upon, or by which any person or property is or may be transported or drawn upon a highway. ” Not many look past “every device,” not even judges.
Hal Anthony runs the webcast Behind the Woodshed on Sunday 3 p.m. eastern time at RealLibertyMedia. He is one of the “gnomes” with whom I regularly speak about fighting or Christian and constitutional liberty.