|
|||||||
|
|
|
|||||
|
|
|||||||
6688 Lawyerdude’s analysis of . . . .
The Jack McLamb brief - written by a retired Phoenix cop.
Lawyerdude: 805 815 3599. Lawyerdude@adelphia.net Http://www.groups.yahoo.com/group/the_lawyerdude
I copied this brief from Bill Munro’s site: http://landrights.com http://landrights.com/Right%20to%20Travel%20-%20More%20Info.htm
But I have upgraded it, so the brief on Bill Munro’s site is obsolete.
This page is: http://www.lawyerdude.s5.com/mclamb.html
Related pages:
List of Right-to-drive briefs: www.lawyerdude.8k.com/right2drive.html Way better briefs!
Theo’s brief was copied from this brief and is way better: http://www.fu.gq.nu/theo.html
Right to drive through drug zone: http://www.lawyerdude.s5.com/burnett.html
Click here to go to Lawyerdude’s interesting links at the bottom of this page:
Right to Travel . Brief #6688
by Jack McLamb
Edited and hyperlinked and upgraded by Lawyerdude
Lawyerdude’s Analysis:
List of constitutional clauses cited in this brief:
Art. 6 of U.S. Constituion: Supremacy clause: Section 1: The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution..." - Supremacy clause. 1
Article 6 of the Constitution: The Supremacy Clause: “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof;...shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding." 1
List of cases cited in this brief:
Bennett v. Boggs, 1 Baldw 60 1
Chicago Motor Coach v. Chicago, 169 NE 221 1
Davis v. Wechsler, 263 US 22, at 24. 1
Hurtado v. California (1884) http://www.lawyerdude.8k.com/Hurtado.html 1 110 US 516 2
Kent v. Dulles (1958) http://laws.findlaw.com/us/357/116.html 1 357 US 116, 125. 2
Marbury v Madison (1803). http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/democrac/9.htm 1 A void act is void ab initio.
2
Miller v. US, 230 F 486, 489 1
Miller v. US, 230 F 486, at 489. 1
Miranda v. Arizona, (1966) http://www.lawyerdude.netfirms.com/miranda.html 1 384 US 436, 491. 2
Schactman v. Dulles 96 App DC 287, 225 F2d 938, at 941. 1
Sherer v. Cullen, 481 F 946.
1
State v. Johnson, 245 P 1073. 1
Thompson v. Smith, 154 SE 579 1
Despite the actions of Police and “local courts” formerly known as “police courts”,
America’s Higher court have ruled that we have a right to travel without state permits!
For years professionals within the criminal justice system have acted on the belief that traveling by motor vehicle was a privilege that was given to a citizen only after approval by their state government in the form of a permit or license to drive. In other words, the individual must be granted the privilege before his use of the state highways was considered legal.
Legislators, police officers, and court officials are becoming aware that there are court decisions that disprove the belief that driving is a privilege and therefore requires government approval in the form of a license. Presented here are some of these cases:
"The use of the highway for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege, but a common fundamental right of which the public and individuals cannot rightfully be deprived." - Chicago Motor Coach v. Chicago, 169 NE 221.
[Jack Lamb did not affix a date to any of the cited cases.]
CASE #2: "The right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit or permit at will, but a common law right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Thompson v. Smith, 154 SE 579.
It could not be stated more directly or conclusively that citizens of the states have a common law right to travel, without approval or restriction (license), and that this right is protected under the U.S Constitution.
"The right to travel is a part of the liberty of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment." Kent v. Dulles (1958) http://laws.findlaw.com/us/357/116.html 357 US 116, 125.
"The right to travel is a well-established common right that does not owe its existence to the federal government. It is recognized by the courts as a natural right." - Schactman v. Dulles 96 App DC 287, 225 F2d 938, at 941.
As hard as it is for those of us in law enforcement to believe, there is no room for speculation in these court decisions. American citizens do indeed have the inalienable right to use the roadways unrestricted in any manner as long as they are not damaging or violating property or rights of others.
Government -- in requiring the people to obtain drivers licenses, and accepting vehicle inspections and DUI/DWI roadblocks without question -- is restricting, and therefore violating, the people's common law right to travel.
Is this a new legal interpretation on this subject? Apparently not. This means that the beliefs and opinions our state legislators, the courts, and those in law enforcement have acted upon for years have been in error. Researchers armed with actual facts state that case law is overwhelming in determining that to restrict the movement of the individual in the free exercise of his right to travel is a serious breach of those freedoms secured by the U.S. Constitution and most state constitutions. That means that the encorachment by means of licensing and roadblocks is unlawful.
The revelation that the American citizen has always had the inalienable right to travel raises profound questions for those who are involved in making and enforcing state laws.
The first of such questions may very well be this: If the states have been enforcing laws that are unconstitutional on their face, it would seem that there must be some way that a state can legally put restrictions -- such as licensing requirements, mandatory insurance, vehicle registration, vehicle inspections to name just a few -- on a citizen's constitutionally protected rights. Is that so?
For the answer, let us look, once again, to the U.S. courts for a determination of this very issue.
In Hurtado v. California (1884) http://www.lawyerdude.8k.com/Hurtado.html 110 US 516, the U.S. Supreme Court states very plainly: "The state cannot diminish rights of the people."
And in Bennett v. Boggs, 1 Baldw 60, "Statutes that violate the plain and obvious principles of common right and common reason are null and void." Lawyedude says: Actually, that was better said in Marbury v Madison. http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/democrac/9.htm
Would we not say that these judicial decisions are straight to the point-- that there is no lawful method for government to put restrictions or limitations on rights belonging to the people?
Other cases are even more straight forward:
"The assertion of federal rights, when plainly and reasonably made, is not to be defeated under the name of local practice."
Davis v. Wechsler, 263 US 22, at 24.
"Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them."
Miranda v. Arizona, (1966) http://www.lawyerdude.netfirms.com/miranda.html 384 US 436, 491.
"The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime." Miller v. US, 230 F 486, at 489.
"There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of this exercise of constitutional rights." Sherer v. Cullen, 481 F 946.
We could go on, quoting court decision after court decision; however, the Constitution itself answers our question - Can a government legally put restrictions on the rights of the American people at anytime, for any reason? The answer is found in Article Six of the U.S. Constitution:
"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof;...shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."
In the same Article, it says just who within our government that is bound by this Supreme Law:
"The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution..." - Supremacy clause.
Here's an interesting question. Is ignorance of these laws an excuse for such acts by officials?
If we are to follow the letter of the law, (as we are sworn to do), this places officials who involve themselves in such unlawful acts in an unfavorable legal situation. For it is a felony and federal crime to violate or deprive citizens of their constitutionally protected rights. Our system of law dictates that there are only two ways to legally remove a right belonging to the people.
These are (1) by lawfully amending the constitution, or (2) by a person knowingly waiving a particular right.
Some of the confusion on our present system has arisen because many millions of people have waived their right to travel unrestricted and volunteered into the jurisdiction of the state. Those who have knowingly given up these rights are now legally regulated by state law and must acquire the proper permits and registrations.
There are basically two groups of people in this category:
1) Citizens who involve themselves in commerce upon the highways of the state.
Here is what the courts have said about this:
"...For while a citizen has the right to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, that right does not extend to the use of the highways...as a place for private gain. For the latter purpose, no person has a vested right to use the highways of this state, but it is a privilege...which the (state) may grant or withhold at its discretion..." State v. Johnson, 245 P 1073.
There are many court cases that confirm and point out the difference between the right of the citizen to travel and a government privilege and there are numerous other court decisions that spell out the jurisdiction issue in these two distinctly different activities. However, because of space restrictions, we will leave it to officers to research it further for themselves.
(2) The second group of citizens that is legally under the jurisdiction of the state are those citizens who have voluntarily and knowingly waived their right to travel unregulated and unrestricted by requesting placement under such jurisdiction through the acquisition of a state driver's license, vehicle registration, mandatory insurance, etc. (In other words, by contract.)
We should remember what makes this legal and not a violation of the common law right to travel is that they knowingly volunteer by contract to waive their rights. If they were forced, coerced or unknowingly placed under the state's powers, the courts have said it is a clear violation of their rights.
This in itself raises a very interesting question. What percentage of the people in each state have applied for and received licenses, registrations and obtained insurance after erroneously being advised by their government that it was mandatory?
Many of our courts, attorneys and police officials are just becoming informed about this important issue and the difference between privileges and rights.
We can assume that the majority of those Americans carrying state licenses and vehicle registrations have no knowledge of the rights they waived in obeying laws such as these that the U.S. Constitution clearly states are unlawful, i.e. laws of no effect -laws that are not laws at all.
An area of serious consideration for every police officer is to understand that the most important law in our land which he has taken an oath to protect, defend, and enforce, is not state laws and city or county ordinances, but the law that supercedes all other laws -- the U.S. Constitution. If laws in a particular state or local community conflict with the supreme law of our nation, there is no question that the officer's duty is to uphold the U.S. Constitution.
Every police officer should keep the following U.S. court ruling --discussed earlier -- in mind before issuing citations concerning licensing, registration, and insurance:
"The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime." Miller v. US, 230 F 486, 489.
And as we have seen, traveling freely, going about one's daily activities, is the exercise of a most basic right.
End
From: "derkiser" <derkiser@yahoo.com>
Date: Sat Jan 8, 2005 11:34 am
Subject: "McLamb Motion"
Dude; The post was an article in the "Aid and Abet"
Newsletter Published by Officer Jack McLamb, Phoenix P.D. That
article is about ten years old. I have also seen that article on a
couple of web-site. The Aid and Abet Newsletter was a Publication for news and education by
and for Like-Minded Police Officers. Legalized plunder just did not sit well some cops. Jack McLamb also put out a publication
entitled "Vampire Killers 2000" this is an informational publication dircted at educating police office based on facts and evidence of
the changing of our free socity into a dictatorship. Jack McLamb is now living in Idaho "Almost Heaven". I have a video tape of Jack McLamb speech in 1993. I'll make a copy and send it to you.
Telephone Lawyerdude: 805 815 3599. Email: Lawyerdude@adelphia.net Lawyerdude1989@yahoo.com
Please join my newest Yahoo group for discussion or legal self help litigation. Here is the link to the link: http://www.lawyerdude.8k.com/6346.html
Discussion group: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/the_lawyerdude
Instant message me: I am lawyerdude1989 on Yahoo instant messenger.
My phone number and email address may change from time to time. If the telephone number or email address on this page is outdated then please join my group http://www.groups.yahoo.com/group/the_lawyerdude or migrate to more recent pages. There is a 4 digit number up in the top left corner of the page. Not the counter number. There is often a date at the bottom of the page. Migrate to newer pages to see my newer telephone number and email address.
My most useful web pages and my most popular web pages are these following pages:
Links for your Empowerment! Self help Litigation forms, instructions, cases, and samples.
1. Lawyerdude’s Empowerment page: http://www.lawyerdude.8k.com/medley.html
2. Links to all 70 sample motions for all my pro se litigators ! http://www.circuitlawyer.8m.com/traffic.html
3. List of my 200 most popular web pages according to Google. http://www.lawyerdude.8k.com/5733.html
4. Samples of 8 actual Section 1983 federal complaints: http://www.lawyerdude.netfirms.com/6008.html
5. List of the 30 most important criminal court motions. They are listed in Lawyerdude’s Bill of Rights for Criminal Defendants in jail. This is my New Standard by which to measure effectiveness of counsel. Make your appointed lawyer toe the line: http://www.circuitlawyer.8m.com/5635.html
6. Motions 101. How to write and file and serve a motion: http://www.lawyerdude.netfirms.com/6025.html
7. Briefs 101. How to write a Memorandum of Law: http://www.lawyerdude.s5.com/6435memo.html
8. Courtroom assertiveness 101: How to be assertive in court. Scripts for the Pro Se litigant:
http://www.circuitlawyer.8m.com/5537.html
9. Your litigation rights page. Learn your litigation rights! http://www.circuitlawyer.8m.com/5687.html
10. Were you strip searched? Sue em! http://www.circuitlawyer.8m.com/5728.html Do they do a strip search anus check every time you go to the law library? Did your jail not have a law library?
11. List of the most quotable cases and the most useful web pages for the pro se Litigator: http://www.lawyerdude.8k.com/medley.html
12. Your case summary and trial notebook form: http://www.lawyerdude.8k.com/summary.html
13. New! Links to the 143 cases that define criminal procedure: http://www.circuitlawyer.8m.com/weinreb.html
14. My Demurrer page: perfect record so far: http://lawyerdude.8k.com/5736.html
All about Lawyerdude
15. My ongoing battle with the mistaken, oppressive, and political state bar: http://www.lawyerdude.8k.com
16. Lawyerdudes’s biographical page: http://www.lawyerdude.8m.com/mystory.html
17. My LSD story and brief: http://www.lawyerdude.8m.com/5431.html
18. How to work well with Lawyerdude: http://www.lawyerdude.8k.com/contract.html
19. My most important page. My top 10 lists: http://www.lawyerdude.8m.com/5459.html
20. My ideas. My 10 proposed amendments to the bill of rights: http://www.lawyerdude.8m.com/5123.html
21. My home page: http://www.lawyerdude.8m.com Or my mirror site: http://www.lawyerdude.netfirms.com
My biggest fattest briefs:
22. My “state bar acts are unconstitutional!” brief: http://www.lawyerdude.8k.com/3789.html
23. My 100 page LSD brief: http://www.circuitlawyer.8m.com/1170.html Use this for your drug case!
24. My collection of “right to drive” briefs: http://www.lawyerdude.8k.com/right2drive.html
25. Lawyerdude's briefs: http://www.circuitlawyer.8m.com
More Lawyerdude links and Recommended Reading list
26. Lawyerdude’s traffic page: http://www.lawyerdude.8m.com/5259.html
27. Lawyerdude's library. A prioritized reading list. A list of books that farm folk and an enlightened populace should read. Some of these books justify weekly or monthly review - like your Bible - for your own defense. http://www.lawyerdude.netfirms.com/library.html
28. List of links to the Latest uploads from Lawyerdude: http://www.circuitlawyer.8m.com/5673.html
29. Lawyerdude's Contemporary Constitutional Issues: http://www.circuitlawyer.8m.com/5693.html
30. Lawyerdude's links page: http://www.lawyerdude.8m.com/links.html
31. Lawyer’s Manifesto: http://www.lawyerdude.8k.com/5753.html
People who link to me:
32. I thank Bill Munro http://www.landrights.com I remember Dan Meador http://www.lawresearch-registry.org/ , http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Rotunda/4027/ ; http://www.wakeupaustralia.net ; http://home.houston.rr.com/jtyner/links ;