FROM: M. Songhai
I have a few questions to ask you about a minor traffic stop a friend and me were involved in with one of the U.S. corporation??s not-so-finest in blue.
My friend was traveling and I was in the passenger seat when my friend drove out of a strip mall parking lot onto the street. I had just returned from my uncle??s homegoing service the day before and my mind was still very occupied and I had not buckled my seat belt. A Negro cop pulled us over and demanded license and registration from my friend. The driver complied immediately. There was no argument. The cop was quite arrogant and obviously enjoying himself. He then asked me for identification. I did not have any on me. I did not have my wallet with me since we were making a very quick trip up the street. The cop then proceeded to badger me. He asked for my name and birth date and then went back to his car with the information. When the cop returned to the car he issued the driver a $25.00 ticket because I was not wearing a seatbelt.
Am I required to travel with ID at all times? Are we absolutely required to wear seatbelts while traveling in a motor vehicle? If not, what are our constitutional rights? Should the fine be paid? $25.00 is a small amount of money. I am just tired of working to help them keep us oppressed. I am willing to go to court.
Thank you so much for your time.
Shem Hotep!
RESPONSE:
Greetings beloved!
In response to your inquiry:
It??s funny I would receive this from you today because I woke up this morning with the desire to address the U.S. police state we??re living in. I kept hearing the lyrics from rap group Dead Prez??s song ?¨Police State?Æ from their first album ?¨Let??s Get Free?Æ throughout the very early morning.
QUESTION: Are you required to travel with ID at all times?
ANSWER: That all depends on your status. The only persons required by law to travel with ID at all times are corporate state ?¨residents?Æ and ?¨U.S. citizens.?Æ What is your legal status, beloved? Are you a state Citizen or State resident? There??s a legal difference:
?¨Of course the terms ?¨resident?Æ and ?¨citizen?Æ are not synonymous, and in some cases the distinction is important,?Æ as per Travis v Yale, 252 U.S. 60; Baldwin v. Franks, 120 U.S. 678, 7 S.Ct. 656, 32 L.Ed. 766
No other person can determine your legal status, as per Burks v. Lasker, 441 U.S. 471. Only you can. So must determine your status.
Now in all due honesty, your friend who gave the cop his/her ?¨driver license?Æ and ?¨registration?Æ is undoubtedly a ?¨State resident.?Æ The proof or evidence is in the fact that this friend was in possession of a driver??s license and vehicle registration. Free citizens are not required by any law to possess a license to travel, which is a fundamental right, as per Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618; Schactman v. Dulles (1955) 225 F.2d 938, 941; Teche Lines v. Danforth, 12 S.2d 784, 787-88 (1943); Thompson v. Smith, 154 S.E. 579
I have a question for you: You say in your inquiry that you and your friend were ?¨traveling.?Æ If you guys were traveling, which is a constitutionally- secured and protected right, why did your friend possess a ?¨driver??s license??Æ There??s a legal difference between ?¨traveling?Æ and ?¨driving.?Æ Driving is a corporate and commercial term:
?¨Driver.?Æ One
employed in
conducting or
operating a coach, carriage, wagon, or other vehicle, with horses, mules, or other animal, or a bicycle, tricycle, or motor car, though not a street railroad car, as per Davis v. Petrinovich 112 Ala. 654, 24 So. 344, 36 L.R.A. 615; Isaacs v. Railroad Co. 7 A.M. Rep. 418, 47 N. Y. 122
A ?¨driver?Æ as legally defined, is anyone
employed to
operate a vehicle. Is your friend employed with some corporation or business to operate a vehicle, i.e. a taxicab driver, a truck driver, a bus driver, etc.?
A ?¨driver?Æ receives compensation or remuneration for operating a vehicle in the transportation of persons and/or property for a fare, rate or fee. In other words, a driver is involved in commercial activity which involves transportation for profit.
Another question I have for you:
You mentioned the term ?¨motor vehicle?Æ in your inquiry. A ?¨motor vehicle?Æ is legally defined as a vehicle used for commercial purposes:
?¨Motor vehicle means every description or other contrivance propelled or drawn by mechanical power and
used for commercial purposes on the highways in the transportation of
passengers, or
passengers and property,?Æ as per Title 18 U.S.C. ?ü 31(6)
Were you guys traveling in a ?¨motor vehicle?Æ or an ?¨automobile??Æ
There is a legal difference between ?¨motor vehicle?Æ and ?¨automobile?Æ:
?¨The term ?¨motor vehicle?Æ is different and broader than the word ?¨automobile,?Æ as per City of Dayton v. De Brosse, 23 N.E. 2d 647, 650, 62 Ohio App. 232
When the cop stopped you guys, were you guys involved in commercial purposes with the use of your friend??s car? You did mention that you guys were coming out of a ?¨parking lot.?Æ Parking is also a corporate and commercial term. Vehicles are ?¨parked?Æ to let off (deliver) or to pick up ?¨cargo/merchandise?Æ and/or ?¨passengers.?Æ
There is no right to park a vehicle or motor vehicle. Parking is a privilege and a privilege can be taxed which is why many parking garages charge you a 5-10% city or municipal parking tax. Start looking at the signs upon entering parking structures. Did you guys pick up or deliver cargo, merchandise or passengers before the cop stopped you guys?
If you guys were not picking up or delivering cargo, merchandise or passengers, what were you guys doing in a ?¨parking lot??Æ
You may think I??m being sarcastic, but I am only being legally technical, beloved, in order to show you how legal terms are used against us every day of our lives in order to enslave us under the guise of regulation and statutory law and to also swindle us out of our hard earned money. I am stimulating thought in you so that you can answer your own questions with a legal eye and also learn a valuable lesson about these people??s so-called law (tricknology).
Okay, let??s look at your friend??s fine. A fine is a form of punishment and punishment only comes after a conviction (of guilt) which only comes after an adjudication based upon a prosecution which is a part of your constitutional right of due process of law (notice and an opportunity to defend yourself against any accusations or charges and to present evidence in your defense) which is secured at Amendments 5 and 14 of the U.S. Constitution.
You must be given some kind of hearing (due process) before you can be found ?¨guilty?Æ and convicted and punished (fined). Were you guys ever given a hearing before an impartial decision-maker who looked at your evidence or heard you guy??s testimony? If not, how could the cop issue your friend a fine when your friend was never given his/her constitutional right of due process of law and found guilty and punished?
If you receive a fine and never had or received a hearing (due process) and was subsequently convicted (in an administrative hearing or a judicial proceeding in a court of law), then you are dealing with a Bill of Attainder in the form of a Bill of Pains and Penalty which is prohibited by the U.S. and state Constitutions.
A Bill of Pains and Penalty is legally defined as ?¨Statutory provision for punishment without JUDICIAL determination of guilt similar to bill of attainder except that punishment is less severe; Prohibited by U.S. Cons., Art. 1 ?ü 9, cl. 3 (Congress), ?ü 10 (States), as per Blacks Law Dictionary, 5th ed., pg. 153
Beloved, anytime government issues you a fine absent JUDICIAL (or even administrative) due process of law (a hearing to defend yourself and present evidence), government is violating the Supreme Law of the Land (Constitution) and thus breaking the law it purports to uphold.
Government can only do this and has been doing this due to the general American population??s severe ignorance of the various bodies of law that governs the land. When you don??t know your rights, you not only don??t know when your rights are being violated, but you also cannot enforce your rights. You cannot enforce what you don??t know!
Beloved, government knows the law, don??t be fooled. Municipalities (governments) rely upon our ignorance (and anger and lack of due diligence) and print certain required notices of rights in very small print on these documents (citations ?± parking tickets, traffic tickets) they issue to us under forced contractual agreement (as we are forced under duress and menace [fear of imprisonment] to sign these citations in most cases).
With every parking ticket, government must give you a certain amount of time (days) to contest the parking ticket. This is what is called administrative due process of law. In an administrative hearing (due process), your hearing does not take place in a courtroom but in some municipal building.
Nowadays, you must first address all legal matters on the administrative level first before you can address the matter in court. This is legally called, ?¨exhausting your remedies,?Æ or ?¨exhausting your administrative remedies.?Æ
With every traffic ticket, government must allow you to come to court with your ticket (admission into court) and enter a plea.
Anytime you are allowed to contest a legal matter, always do so! Doing so exhausts the System which is really not prepared for you to contest the matter. They automatically assume the dumb population will just pay the money due to the small amount of the ticket and/or the inconvenience (time involved, not knowing the law, etc.).
Always go to court or an administrative hearing. Make those bastards work hard for the money like the tramps and sluts (whores) they are!
Always plead ?¨Not Guilty?Æ to your offense. It doesn??t matter if you actually did the thing you are accused of or not. Before you can be convicted of the thing you did (or didn??t do), there is a process that government must first go through and prove and because we are ignorant of law, we have been letting government get away with prosecuting and convicting us without following the Rules of Court and Civil and Criminal Procedures that they always strictly advise and warn us to go by.
It is always important that you plead ?¨Not Guilty.?Æ A ?¨Not Guilty?Æ plea forces the government (prosecutor ?± City Attorney or District Attorney) to work. A ?¨Not Guilty?Æ plea forces the government (Plaintiff) to bear the burden of proof which means the government must prove every element of an offense against you in order to find you guilty of committing the offense or violation and punishing you.
So if government wants your (or your friend??s) measly $25.00, make those assholes work for it! It will cost government hundreds and thousands of dollars just to collect the $25.00 they are trying to extort from your friend and this hurts government.
Anytime you have to spend more money than you??re trying to collect, it??s going to hurt. So we must hurt government where it counts ?± in their coffers (the treasury).
So this is why a ?¨Not Guilty?Æ plea is very important, because under law, the government now has the burden of proof of proving all the elements against you and this takes strenuous effort and costs more than $25.00 or whatever the price of the ticket may be.
Please reference the following:
?¨As a general rule the burden of proof is upon the plaintiff to establish the facts alleged as the cause of action,?Æ as per Read v. Buffum, 79 Cal. 77, 21 Pac. 555; 12 Am. St. Rep. 131; Stoddard v. Rowe, 74 Ia. 670, 39 N.W. 84; Woolsey v. Jones, 84 Ala. 88, 4 South 190; Brimberry v. R. Co., 78 Ga. 641, S.E. 274
?¨The burden of proof is throughout on the government, to make out the whole case; and when a prima facie case is established, the burden of proof is not thereby shifted upon the defendant, and he is not bound to restore himself to that presumption of innocence in which he was at the commencement of the trial,?Æ as per State v. Middleham, 62 Ia. 150, 17 N.W. 446; Wharton v. State, 73 Ala. 366; People v. Fairchild, 48 Mich. 31, 11 N.W. 773
?¨Plea puts government to proof,?Æ as per U.S. v. Walsh, 700 F.2d 846
?¨A ?´not guilty?? plea puts government to its proof on all elements,?Æ as per U.S. v. Zeull, 725 F.2d 813; U.S. v. Roberts, 613 F.2d 379, 383
So beloved, ALWAYS go to court and fight for your rights and exercise the law. Remember, the laws are only as good as the people who enforce them.
The majority of people must stop worrying about costs and the amount of money involved in fighting their cases. Just look at it as the cost for your freedom. And just because freedom may cost more than slavery and tyranny, do we give up on freedom for slavery and tyranny in order to save money? That??s not logical or does not make any sense.
Beloved, you have the assistance of myself and PPLAS as you have been one of my biggest supporters over the years, ever since you heard me on Bro. Keidi??s LIBRadio (
www.LIBRadio.com) and I appreciate you for this.
I hope the above sufficed your inquiry, beloved.
Fight the Power and ?¨Show em?? what you got!?Æ
Author