Crime and Corruption: Exposing Unlawful Practices in Arizona's Municipalities 

Thank you. I am humbled by your comments

What do you do after the traffic script has been executed perfectly and the cops still cite you or arrest you?

@@ericwayne2908 Demand to be taken before a magistrate for a determination of probable cause. They will violate that right as well and lock you in a cage without a court order. Go read the rules of criminal procedure to get a sense of what they are supposed to do. They will violate your rights. It's a guarantee.

@@mrsentinel4911 Traffic in some states is Civil and other states it is Criminal. Once you get to court what are you going to do? If you have the certified copy from the secretary of states office of the single subject clause from the original bill that created the code regulating traffic then you could challenge subject matter jurisdiction. People don’t need to argue anything else.

@@ericwayne2908 Traffic is commerce in every state. Either the officer has probable cause to pull you over or they don't. Most of the time they don't, and none of the time do they ever check to make sure that you are engaged in commerce upon the highways once they pull you over. Every state will have some provision burred in the transportation statutes that make it clear from the context of the words and terms used that only legal entities engaged in commerce are required to have a driver's license.

@@mrsentinel4911 that is 100% correct! That couple with a certified copy of the single subject clause from the state’s legislative bill that created the code is all you need in court. Then you sue the cops.

Well said, thanks for your support

First you’ll need to get in the Big Sib Chat group. From there you can ask for a link to the other groups. We have layered our groups this way to keep out boys and unwanted viewers.

Could you elaborate on ‘single subject matter via the definitions’? For my state WV they define Person for the statutes as “ “Person” means every natural person, firm, copartnership, association, or corporation.” And per the rules of statutory construction (several of them) i used this in my MTD but was summarily dismissed by the magistrate (who has failed to put that in writing to my knowledge) so now i am going to file an interlocutory appeal.

@@LorettaEnigma every states legislature creates law via a Bill. Every state has a single subject clause requirement in their constitution including federal. The bill signed into law must state the subject matter being regulated. It should be in the first paragraph or early on. The single subject clause in my state reads, “An act to establish a Vehicle Code, thereby consolidating and revising the law relating to vehicles and vehicular traffic…” Now we know the entire code only applies to Vehicles & Vehicular Traffic aka those engaged in a for hire capacity upon the public rights of way. If you’re not operating upon the roads as a place of business then you are using the roads for the rightful purpose as a way to business. Do you see the difference? The government is regulating commercial use of the roads. You will need a certified copy of the single subject clause from your secretary of states to present in court to challenge subject matter jurisdiction.

@@ericwayne2908 when I looked it up, WV was not one of the states that does single subject clause - I’ll recheck in case I missed it somewhere.

@@LorettaEnigma its in most states constitutions but if it’s not in your states constitution then show how federal law and state laws are regulating the same activity via the various CDL’s, weight and passenger limits and definitions. Use the supremacy clause to show federal law controls and that federal law title 49 is only regulating Transportation which is defined in 1894 ICC vs Brimson. Thusly state can only be regulating Transportation or commercial use of our roads which are public rights of way.

@@LorettaEnigma the person being defined is that of a corporation or an individual acting on behalf of said corporation or business that is using the roads as a place of business rather than a way to business.

Natural rights aren’t constitutional

The bailiff in one of my hearings not only listened in on my conversation with the assistant DA and said that I had pleaded “not guilty” (i had not pleaded at all) but when I frustrated the magistrate who was trying to throw in a different case that he himself dismissed into my current case, the bailiff asked the magistrate if he wanted the bailiff to ‘throw me out’ to which the magistrate agreed and i was ‘escorted ‘ out of the entire building by 2 sheriffs (I and my witness to the hearing) and not allowed to reenter.