CLASS ACTION SUIT Against Government Regarding Driver Licens - CLASS ACTION SUIT Against Government Regarding Driver License Scam Aganist American Travellers. By: Raymond Ronald Karczewski© It has been said, "those who hold the gold make the rules: those who make the rules win

Posted: Fri Feb 19, 2010 8:51 pm

CLASS ACTION SUIT Against Government Regarding Driver License Scam Aganist American Travellers.

1WTMF wrote:

RaymondKarczewski wrote

Fri Feb 19, 2010 5:29 pm

1WTMF > Raymond: don't you recall that letter that you posted from the DA regarding the answers to your questions about drivers licenses and automobiles? In the event that you forgot I am attaching it here. As you can see he answers your questions. Just because you dont agree with it doesnt mean that it isnt true or that it doesnt pertain to you.

rk: He certainly does not answer my question. As a disinformation agent, you are attempting a misdirection here.

rk: The fact is that TIM THOMPSON, acting as a "fictional" District attorney for the "fictional" County of Josephine serves and implements the "Color of Law" (Not Law) regulations and policies (police powers) imposed on all those engaged in commerce while using the Oregon Roads for gain, along with those have been schnookered into waiving their rights to Travel in return for government permission to
" drive" along with all other who fall into the "black hole" category of 14th Amendment Citizens who are presumed to be subject (slaves) to all of the rules, regulations and legislation of the Corporate Agency, masquerading as "color of law." None of these satanic, lawyerly terms apply to a Living, Breathing, Flesh-and-Blood, Sentient, Natural Man who is not subject to the Corporation over whom, fictional government has JURISDICTION OVER.

rk: That is the question of Law that has STRUCK THE GOVERNMENT DUMB!!

rk I am not a Fourteenth Amendment citizen, nor a corporate member of the private State of Oregon, Inc. or Josephine County Corporation. Therefore, such corporate administrative rules, regulations, and legislation do not apply to non-corporate natural persons who stand in Common Law and in full legal capacity as one of the sovereign people. The law states: "There, every man is independent of all laws, except those prescribed by nature. He is not bound by any institutions formed by his fellowmen without his consent." CRUDEN v NEALE, 2 N.C. 338 (1796) 2 S.E. 70.

1WTMF > One other thing...it is very funny how you are so big into this UCC stuff even though it is a bunch of laws and rules created by man.

rk: I use THEIR OWN LAW to expose them in their disregard for THEIR OWN LAW. Pretty much like how I mirror you when you attempt to pull off one of your disinformation misdirections. Hell, isn't it??? There can be no argument when such clarity of corruption is brought into focus.

1WTMF > Why are those laws good enough for you to follow but not other laws such as drivers licenses??? It is also very funny that your flukie GMac49 won't even completely follow your guidance as he still has his license plates. Obviously he finds some fault to your so called "truth".

rk: Its called Free Will. Free men have it. Slaves do not!

rk: When it comes to understanding and the clear lack of connection between you and I in these silly disinformation encounters of yours, , it is because you are a puddle wader while your are attempting to take on an ocean swimmer. Come back when you've gained the spiritual capacity that now eludes you beyond the manipulative " letter of the word" level. .

rk: My proof is my liberty and freedom answering you in the comfort of my home even though the JURISTIC PERSON was convicted in two Trials. Your level or grasp of law allows you to manipulate conversations via the letter of the Word level, What is absent is your deep understanding of that of which you speak.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

A Communication between Josephine County Oregon District Attorney Timothy R. Thompson and Raymond Karczewski on September 24th, 1999

From: "TIMOTHY THOMPSON"

District Attorney, Josephine County Oregon

To: Raymond Karczewski

Subject: Response to Questions re Motor Vehicles

Dear Mr Karczewski:

tt: I am in receipt of your e-mail inquiry re driver's licenses and motor vehicles. Your inquiry to me contains three questions. The first deals with an "unalienable right to liberty being converted into a privilege" by the State of Oregon. The second question refers to possible distinctions between automobiles and motor vehicles for licensing purposes. The third question relates to possible distinctions between non-commercial versus commercial uses of motor vehicles for licensing purposes.

tt: I do not have the time to adequately research, brief, or explore the intricacies of constitutional law with you, but I will try to provide some guidance.

tt: If you proceed upon your stated course of action, perhaps the opportunity will arise to develop some appellate law in this state.

tt: As a matter of historical background, the right to travel is not expressly addressed in the US Constitution, though its nature has been recognized through various analytical processes in a variety of cases.

tt: Its source has been discussed in connection with the Privileges and Immunities Clause, the 14th Amendment, and the Commerce Clause, among others, depending upon the precise issues raised.

tt: All powers not exclusively delegated to the federal government, or expressly prohibited by constitutional limitations, are reserved to the states (per the 10th Amendment to the US Constitution). Since the federal government has not passed uniform national legislation re driver competencies and rules of the road (i.e. the federal government has not "occupied the field") and constitutional prohibitions are not express, all fifty states have adopted legislation impacting motor vehicles and driver competency standards to promote public safety and welfare on their public roads.

tt: With regard to your first question, I am not sure what your precise question is, since you are blending phrases from the Declaration of Independence with those from constitutional sources.. In the context of your letter, however, I am assuming you are questioning whether or not a state can adopt regulations or pass legislation which can impact what you characterize as an "Unalienable Right to Liberty." If you are referring to a right to travel, the answer is "yes." The issue, and similar licensing issues, have been raised in many jurisdictions and most reported decisions have supported limitations on the right to travel. Appellate decisions addressing these issues can be found in decisions from many state courts, the various federal courts, and the US Supreme Court. Hendrick v. Maryland, 235 U. 610 (1915) is an early US Supreme Court case recognizing the "privilege" of driving a motor vehicle on the public roads of a state. The case further recognizes the state's interest in regulating, and even restricting, the "privilege" of driving in order to promote the safety and protection of the public on its roads. In accord are a 1938 Opinion of the Oregon Attorney General, at page 632, City of Salina v. Wisden, 737 P2d 981 (1987)( Supreme Court of Utah), Berberian v. Petit , 374 A2d 791 (1977) Supreme Court of Rhode Island), and City of Spokane v. Port, 716 P2d 945 (1986) ( a Washington Court of Appeals decision), to name a few. The privilege of using public highways and roads can be regulated by requiring driver's licenses, competency testi of drivers, proof of financial responsibility, minimum equipment standards for vehicle safety and operation, etc. There is no constitutionally recognized right to travel by motor vehicle on public roads without complying with a state's legislatively created regulatory process. If you disagree with the decisions of your legislators, you should contact them.

tt: Your second question (generally) asks whether or not Oregon law considers use of a private automobile for non-commercial purposes to be the same as use of a motor vehicle for commercial purposes. The answer is "yes." with regard to licensing issues and restrictions.

tt: First, the Oregon Motor Vehicle Code defines "motor vehicle" to mean " a vehicle that is self- propelled or designed for self -propulsion." ORS 801.630. "Automobile" is not part of the lexicon, nor is it defined,

tt: but an automobile certainly falls within the definition of a motor vehicle. Definitions exist for "commercial driver license," "commercial motor vehicle," " commercial vehicle," "driver license," "driving privilege," and "vehicle" in Chapter 801 of the Motor Vehicle Code. In general, the commercial aspects of driving activities result in more stringent regulation than private, non-commercial activities. Each driving activity, however, is subject to legislative and administrative regulation.

tt: The answer to your third inquiry is "yes" for the same reasons as specified in the previous paragraphs. The policy reasons are set forth in ORS 801.020. Exemptions from coverage of the Vehicle Code are set forth in ORS 801.026 and ORS 801. 030. these exemptions do not appear to apply to your hypothetical situations.

tt: If you choose to let your drivers license expire, your right to travel in this state will not be impacted so long as you choose to travel on foot, by horse, by bicycle, as a passenger in a vehicle operated by a duly licensed driver, by common carrier, or in or upon some other conveyance not requiring you to have a valid license to operate that conveyance. Your right to travel is only impacted when using a motor vehicle on public roads.

tt: If you choose to drive a motor vehicle in this or any other state, it appears as though you will be subjecting yourself to the applicable licensing requirements of that state.

tt: I hope this response has been helpful to you. I apologize for the brevity of the response, however, time constraints and the press of other matters limit the time I can justify spending on such issues.

Very truly yours,

Timothy R. Thompson District Attorney