[PLUG-TALK] What happened?

[J Henshaw]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Russ Johnson" <russj at dimstar.net>
To: <plug-talk at lists.pdxlinux.org>
Sent: Sunday, June 30, 2002 6:40 PM
Subject: Re: [PLUG-TALK] What happened?


> So, if I'm a person discussing the legal definition of "traffic", I agree
with you.
>
> However, the ENGLISH definition of traffic is much broader.
>
> On the Merriam Webster site, definition 2a specifically outlines what sort
of "traffic" Jeme was talking about:
>
> 2 a : communication or dealings especially between individuals or groups
>
> SO, in conclusion, you were both correct, but you used the wrong
definition in this context.
>

How about this context,  the context of Free as in Freedom and the Rule of
Law:

NOTICE!

THIS IS WHAT "TRAFFIC" IS:

"Traffic: COMMERCE, trade, sale or exchange of merchandise, bills, money and
the like." (emphasis added) -Bouviers' Law Dictionary

THIS IS WHAT A "DRIVER" IS:

" 'Driver' means any person who drives, operates or is in physical control
of a COMMERCIAL motor vehicle, or who is required to hold a COMMERCIAL
driver's license" (emphasis added) -Conn. Gen. Stats. Title 14 sec. 1 # 20

THIS IS WHAT A "MOTOR VEHICLE" IS:

"'Motor vehicle' means every description of carriage or other contrivance
propelled or drawn by mechanical power and USED FOR COMMERCIAL PURPOSES on
the highways in the transportation of passengers, passengers and property,
or property or cargo;" (emph. added) -U.S.C. Title 18 sec. 31

THIS IS WHY "INSURANCE" (GAMBLING) IS *NOT* "MANDATORY":

"A policy of Insurance is a maritime contract, and therefore of Admiralty
Jurisdiction." -De Lovio v. Boit, 7 Fed. Cases Number 3, 776

THIS IS WHY MY TRAVEL IS A RIGHT, NOT A "PRIVILEGE":

"The right to travel on the public highways is a constitutional
right." -Teche Lines v. Danforth, Miss. 12 So 2d 784, 787.

"The right to travel is part of the 'liberty' that a citizen cannot be
deprived without due process of law." -Kent v. Dulles 357 U.S. 116; U.S. v.
Laub 385 U.S. 475

"The use of the highways for the purpose of travel and transportation is not
a mere privilege, but a common and fundamental Right of which the public and
the individual cannot be rightfully deprived." -Chicago Motor Coach vs.
Chicago, 169 NE 22; Ligare vs. Chicago, 28 NE 934; Boon vs. Clark, 214 SSW
607; 25 Am.Jur. (1st) Highways Sect.163.

"Operation of a motor vehicle upon public streets and highways is not a mere
privilege but is a right or liberty protected by the guarantees of Federal
and State constitutions." -Adams v. City of Pocatello 416 P2d 46

"The right of a citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport
his property thereon, by horse-drawn carriage, wagon, or automobile is not a
mere privilege which may be permitted or prohibited at will, but a common
right which he has under his right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of
happiness." -Slusher v. Safety Coach Transit Co., 229 Ky 731, 17 SW2d 1012,
affirmed by the Supreme Court in Thompson v. Smith 154 S.E. 579

"The use of the automobile as a necessary adjunct to the earning of a
livlihood in modern life requires us in the interest of realism to conclude
that the Right to use an automobile on the public highways partakes of the
nature of a liberty within the meaning of the Constitutional
guarantees..." -Berberian v. Lussier 139 A2d 869, 872 (1958)

"Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule
making or legislation which would abrogate them." - Miranda vs. Arizona, 384
US 436, 491. (yes, THAT Miranda.)

"All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and
void." -Marbury vs. Madison, 5 US (2 Cranch) 137, 174, 176, (1803)

over --->





NOTICE!

"No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to
enforce it." -16 Am Jur 2nd, Sec 177 late 2d, Sec 256

"The State cannot diminish rights of the People." -Hurtado v California, 110
U.S. 516

"The state is a people and not the created form of government." -Texas v
White, 7 Wallace, 700-743 (and many others)

"Constitutional rights may not be infringed simply because the majority of
the people choose that they be. -13 Cal Jur 3d 412 Section 229.

"The claim and exercise of a constitutional Right cannot be converted into a
crime." -Miller vs. U.S., 230 F. 486, 489.

"An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; it imposes no
duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contem-
plation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed." -Norton vs.
Shelby County 118 US 425 p. 442

"The individual may stand upon his constitutional rights as a Citizen. He is
entitled to carry on his private business in his own way. His power to
contract is unlimited. He owes no duty to the state or to his neighbors to
divulge his business, or to open his door to an investigation, so far as it
may tend to incriminate him. He owes no such duty to the state, since he
receives nothing therefrom, beyond the protection of his life and property.
His rights are such as existed by the law of the land long antecedent to the
organization of the state. ...He owes nothing to the public so long as he
does not trespass upon their rights." -Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43 (1905)

"The makers of the Constitution conferred, as against the government, the
Right to be let alone; the most comprehensive of rights, and the right most
valued by civilized men." -United States Supreme Court Justice Brandeis in
Olmstead v. United States (1928)

"Department of Motor Vehicles" is not part of Connecticuts' civil
government. See the Connecticut Constitution. "DMV" is a department of a
"corporation" (business fiction) that does business as "State of
Connecticut". "DMV" has NO GOVERNMENTAL POWER OF ANY KIND.

Cops are not public officers. See Connecticut and U.S. Constitutions. Cops
are paid agents of "municipal corporations". Cops have NO GOVERNMENTAL POWER
OF ANY KIND.

MY non-"TRAFFIC" travel ON THE COMMON rights OF WAY BY MY non-"MOTOR"
VEHICLE IS RIGHTFUL AND LAWFUL. "TRAFFIC STOPS" OF NON-"DRIVERS" ARE
WARRANTLESS, UNREASONABLE SEIZURES. THEY ARE UNLAWFUL ACTS UNLESS AND UNTIL
LICENSED BY non-TRAFFICKING TRAVELLERS. I DO NOT LICENSE SUCH. NOR HAVE I
EVER GIVEN ANY OTHER PERSON A POWER OF ATTORNEY TO LICENSE SUCH IN MY PLACE.
I AM FREE TO GO.

ANY CONTINUED SEIZURE OF MY PERSON/PROPERTY IS WARRANTLESS, FRAUDULENT COLOR
OF LAW. IF CONTINUED, I * D E M A N D * TO BE BROUGHT * IMMEDIATELY * BEFORE
A COMPETENT JUDICIAL OFFICER FOR ISSUANCE OF A WRIT OF HABEUS CORPUS AD
SUBJICIENDUM. THAT IS * NOT * ONE OF THE MANY DISCRETIONARY "HABES" OF
CURRENT PRACTICE. THAT IS THE CONSTITUTIONALLY * mandatory * HABEUS CORPUS.

ANY DEPRIVATION OF ANY SECURED RIGHT WILL BECOME THE SUBJECT OF AN ACTION
UNDER UNITED STATES CODE TITLES 18 AND 42. YOU HAVE BEEN SERVED NOTICE.

Recv'd by "officer": _________________________
Recv. date: _______________