Google+ Badge

Tuesday, May 31, 2016

Suing for Violation of Travel Rights

By Jaro

Here's a story of Charles Sprinkle, who in 1979 sued Cali governor Reagan and bunch of other officials, including their wifes, in federal court for violation of his right to travel. And that's AFTER he asked the governor to protect his right to travel in California.
What's remarkable about this, is that he sued them all in their PRIVATE capacity, arguing that since they violated their oath of office to protect people's rights (his), they lost their immunity as officers of the State, and could be sued in their personal capacity for damages.
He filed those lawsuits in federal court, and even though the defendants' lawyers filed three motions to dismiss, court rejected those motions, so the governor and others had no choice but to settle with him.
So they made a deal with him, that if he drops the suit, they will make sure that the State law enforcement will leave him alone, when he's traveling on public roads. So he then had a 'carte blanche' on traveling in California without a driver license for over 37 years.
This would indicate that federal courts will recognize your right to travel if you're a NON-RESIDENT, since they did NOT dismiss Charles's suit even though it was against the government big shots like the governor. In other words, the court recognized that he's a REAL PARTY IN INTEREST, and has a CLAIM UPON WHICH RELIEF CAN BE GRANTED.
Now this is NOT for everybody, as Charles had no driver license, so he was NOT a State resident.
Here are some tips for non-residents which might be beneficial when protecting your rights from the corporate State:
1) Always ask policy enforcers for their NAME or BADGE #
2) Who do they work for (police dept., City, etc.)
3) And since most police departments are PRIVATE organizations (just check yours on, ask on WHO's authority they are acting.
In other words, if they're a private organization and you got no contract with them, the only authority they can have is by ACTING ON SOMEONE ELSE's AUTHORITY.

Now they HAVE TO TELL you that, since if they won't, they're no different from pirates, because they failed to identify who is the REAL  PARTY IN INTEREST, and without that they have NO AUTHORITY.

It's kinda like when you step on someone's private property, and a security guard tells you to leave. You don't know if he has the authority to do that, so you ask him ON WHO's AUTHORITY he's telling you that. And if he won't, then he has no authority, as you're not required to read his mind, to determine if he has any authority there. He ought to identify himself, UPON REQUEST, such as "I work for the owner, Mr Smith". I.e. the doctrine of "silence is acquiescence" applies here.

4) Next thing I'd ask, is if the cop (or other enforcer) is acting on CONSTITUTIONAL or PRIVATE authority. You're entitled to know that, in order to ascertain what kind of charges are you facing, without which you can't effectively defend yourself.
You  see, the State has TWO different jurisdictions; For violations of State's Public (Common) LAW, and for violations of State's PRIVATE "LAW" (Codes and Statutes). The former is prosecuted in the name of the People of the State of California, and the later is prosecuted in the name of the State of California. Now that's in a REPUBLIC, where public law and commerce are separated. But in the current CORPORATE DEMOCRACY, they combined the two jurisdictions into one, as they all are STATUTORY (no more public law, it was replaced by public POLICY), and are prosecuted in the name of the PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. 

You see, the right to DUE PROCESS of the law, starts the MOMENT someone begins to claim some authority over you.
And a failure on the part of the policy enforcer to answer any of these questions, can be used later as grounds to a claim that the enforcer either FAILED to properly identify himself, or failed to ID the real party in interest, or failed to reveal the nature of the charges that were being brought against you. In other words, that it was a false arrest or that the charges are void due to failure to identify.

No comments:

Post a Comment