Free Republic

Hi, I'm back - so be gentle. Flew to Kalifornia and back, got the job offer (no SSAN, no withholding, no reporting) The company is going to fly us back here for court appearances in our various cases. btw, I was hired for my legal expertise.

Let me make a few observations and corrections about what has been posted in my absense.

1st, she was not raped by a cop. She was raped by an NCO while she was at the Naval Academy. You inventive sleuths have already confirmed that she attended. This rape was between the plebe and second year. Of course, once CID dropped the charges, the upperclassmen were relentless. She had two plebe years and decided not to go for a third. I thought she toughed that out way too long.

2nd, she pulled over to the side to burp and change sides. The child suckles for about 50 minutes total, so it is not just a loss of 10 minutes or so we are dealing with here. While she did not make the symposium, she still found an expert witness the following weekend by banging on doors at U of M.

3rd, we have the audio and video from the stop. Doles (who pulled her over) calls in to dispatch, saying "She's just looking for a safe spot." Harmon, the supervisor tells her, "We are not charging you with fleeing (sic-Failure to Comply), because we understand your desire to find a safe spot."

Now google up the cop in that area that was very recently convicted of forcing a woman to have sex with him in the back of his unit. We don't make this crap up.

4th, I pay ALL taxes for which I am liable. The roads are built using tolls (in this case) and gasoline taxes (which we pay). Turns out that the three main income taxes are excises. An excise means that you do not pay the tax if you do not engage in the activity. In the case of most people, they pay the FIT, which is actually descendent from the Income Duty of 1862 on foreign and possession earned income; reference taxableincome.net. They might also be presumed to be liable for the Normal Tax of 1922 as amended, an excise on the privilege of government employment. They might also be presumed to be liable for either the Chapter 2 (self employment) or the Chapter 21 (employment FICA) taxes. Turns out this is an excise on the privilege of having your pay covered for the purposes of National Socialism, and I am not required to participate; reference Railroad Retirement Bd v. Alton RR Co.

5th, the original charges are Child Restraint (which are very beatable given the statutes involved), Obstructing Official Business (ostensibly for refusing to provide identification that she provided), and No Valid License (because she gave them privately issued ID rather than the state issued thing).

The prosecutor is going to argue that the Michigan statute does not apply to a driver. Read it, what do you think?

After we filed a counterclaim, the prosecutor filed Failure to Comply (in the face of the potential troopers' testimony above) and Endangering Children (when the child restraint violation cannot be used as evidence).

I will file a motion to dismiss this last charge and we will hear that in a couple of weeks. Then I go after the assistant prosecutor for malice (he should know better than to file a charge where he knows there is no evidence), and against his boss, the county prosecutor, if they have not dropped all of this by that time.

btw We will be in New York on GMA on ABC Wednesday morning. We presume we will not be hitting softballs.

6th, Child restraint laws ALWAYS have exceptions. Your state is no different. If you drive a cab and pick me and my family up from the airport, we will have no child restraint seat and neither will you. Fortunately for you, there is an exception, so you cannot be charged, unless some stupid cop charges you and you stupidly put up with it.

7th, and I think no one has really considered this as much as I think they should. What is the chance that a child in a restraint will survive an accident at 65 MPH? It is so close to zero, that it will surprise you. So the restraint cannot be the issue in this case. The child would be dead in any event. I think you would be surprised that there is only a 6 in 100 thousand chance that an unrestrained child is involved in an accident. Catherine and I decided that these odds outweighed the risk to get to that symposium so that she could have an opportunity to punish the man who raped her. We are trying to prove he put something in her drink.

8th, I understand and sympathize with your concern that Catherine endangers you if you are on the same road when she is nursing our child. You will find no evidence on the record that she was not in control of that car at all times. Heck the child nursed halfway thru the traffic stop without so much as looking up.

Finally, the license issue. I already discussed the law of this in an earlier thread. Let me add to that. In Ohio (like most states), they have "decriminalized" traffic offenses so that you can be robbed of your right to a trial by jury (depending upon the state). Ohio law (and the laws of most states) say that if a person has committed a "minor," then they cannot be arrested unless they are incapacitated or unless they do not provide "sufficient evidence of identity." It does not say driver's license.

The question that I am formulating for appeal (I always set this up so that I create appealable error), is whether such an intrusion is warranted under the standard of "resonableness" and whether a public official would have the authority to make a warrantless arrest for such an offense at the time the 4th amendment was written.

They don't want to entertain that question.

I will be around for a bit, so "have at me."

An SSAN is required only for DIRECT payment of benefits.

The roads are provided for by gasoline taxes, and I pay those, thank you very much. You may be interested to know that the Ohio Turnpike is totally funded by its tolls and receives no funds.

Public accomodations are not paid for by income taxes,
they are paid for at point of purchase as are all excises.

I am sorry that my faith offends you.

I pray that you realize that my wife and I believe what we believe, and it is not that I "lord" over her in this matter, it is simply because it is my responsibility to protect her and my family from the Beast.

I assure you that we love each other deeply and that I treat her as an equal partner in my private life. She accepts that I must be the public face in our relationship, however, and know that I often seek her wise counsel.

As for paying taxes for which I am not liable, you should remember that Christ did not say: Render unto Caesar that which is NOT Caesar's.

The fact of the matter is that I do not have foreign or possession earned income, I do not work for the government, and I do not want to participate in your National Socialism. We are not eligible for federal benefits and I would have to break 4 of the Ten Commandments to participate. Placing a false god before Him (I must depend upon divine providence, not upon government handouts), Stealing (from my children and yours, because there is no trust fund), Coveting your property (because no one saves for themselves in this program), and dishonoring my own parents (by turning my back upon what they taught me).

There is no need in this country for any income tax at all, not a dime of your payment goes to fund any federal program. It all goes to "transfer payments." Look for the Beardsley Ruml speech and the Grace Commission Report.

Besides, they can print all the money they like. The only reason for the tax is to siphon off the excess to reduce inflation.

Back, but going out the door again.
Gotta get to the airport and fly without ID yet again.

There is no statutory requirement for showing ID to fly.
The requirement is to consent to a search.
ID is required by the airlines, but they cannot require government issued ID because some folks just ain't got no.

I thank you for your kind consideration.

I have made the points that I wanted to make here.

Whether or not you agree with me, fine.
I am accustomed to being called names.
It is my hope, however, that I gave no offense.
If I did so inadvertantly, please accept my apologies.

After folks take the time to reflect upon what the law actually says, rather than what they think it says, they may come to the realization that they have been betrayed by those that presume to govern.

Don't shoot the messenger.

If you care to contact me privately, you can do so via
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PersonalOdyssey

In His Service,
Brad Lee Barnhill
The Falsely Accused

That is an inaccuracy of reporting for which I am not responsbile.

I am sorry for your loss, but I fail to see how that is pertinent to my own situation. Again, I have only been involved in one accident in 30 years. And she has never been involved in an accident.

The people do not have a right to "representation by an attorney," they have a right to "assistance of counsel." There were very few practicing attorneys at the time the Constitution was written, and also you can look at the original Judiciary Act of 1787 that preceeded the addition of the right to counsel in the bill of rights.

The legal community, however, has foisted itself up upon a pedestal and created an oligarchy.

For a really good "treatise" on assistance of counsel and unauthoritized practice of law, see Michigan State Bar v Cramer.

Essentially, attorneys are regulated because they hold themselves out as a public accomodation for the purpose of selling legal services. That is not what I am doing.

Technically, I am interposing myself between my family and the fiction of law known as the state. Under my right to Free Exercise and the principle of coverture that my family practices, this is perfectly lawful (and it gives prosecuting attorneys fits).

So I am not representing my wife. According to our faith, she can perform no public act without my express authority. Accordingly, any transgression she performs is though I performed it. Because I accept responsibility for her public acts, only I can be punished for them. Also, no one can punish her but me. I do not give permission for her to participate in this proceeding other than giving testimony.

Again, please do not flame me for our Free Exercise.

It has been fun, but I have something that I have to get to the one supreme Court of the United States on another matter.

J: So you do NOT register your vehicle? What about car insurance? Isn't current registration required to insure your vehicle? Isn't a current driver's license required to insure your vehicle? Do Michigan or Ohio (this is your state of residence?)state law require car insurance?

So many questions. In most states, you cannot register without insurance, the insurance comes first. All they need is a VIN. I do not insure thru the same kind of folks that you do, and no they do not require me to have a license. All states require some form of "financial responsibility." While I must presume from my research that it is only artificial persons engaged in commerce upon the highways for profit that are so required. One can also post a surety bond of the requisite amount and meet this obligation.

Asked and answered, see post 133.

Yes, I have insurance.

The original article is incorrect. I lived in Michigan a couple years back. She is from Michigan. She owns property there.

I came to Pennsylvania for a six month contract that has turned into a 2 1/2 year stint. They like my work. She lives where I live.

However, I have no expectation that I will be here any length of time. I am going to California this evening for a job interview. So that is where I will be next, most likely. Don't know how long, only that it will take a big truck to move 12 bookcases of law books.

They have to first identify themselves and then give probable cause for a stop.

I require them to identify themselves because there are many cases of police impersonation. There was a cop that was convicted of forcing a woman to have sex with him in the back of his cruiser just last week in that same area.

I then ask them who they are looking for. If they do not know, then I tell them I am sorry that I cannot help them.

I then ask them if they are conducting a criminal investigation (Brown v Texas). If they say it is criminal, then I ask them if they will punish me if I exercise my right to remain silent. (Miranda v Arizona)

They generally say no, this is a traffic stop.

I then ask them if I say or do anything that I might reasonably calculate could lead to criminal charges if I may exercise my right to be free from self incrimination (Blau v US).

I then ask them if I am free to go.
Generally, they say yes.

If not, I get arrested and deal with it.

You are only entitled to those rights that you are willing to agressively pursue.

I cannot take the bar oath. It is contrary to my faith; reference Matthew, Chapter 5 and James, Chapter 5. See also the Dortrecht Confession of faith, 1620.

Because it takes about 50 minutes to feed her. She cannot make her appointment otherwise. She cannot get the expert witness she needs to bring a rapist to justice.

M: Subsection D has nothing to do with any danger to others in other vehicles.

I am sorry that you misinterpret what you read. It says that a child not in restraint cannot be used in ANY other criminal or civil action as a cause for negligence.

M: I submit (as I did earlier) that your wife's actions endangered other motorists and passengers in other vehicles driving on the Turnpike.

And you are entitled to your opinion, but you are legally incorrect.

M: You don't care whether or not your child is injured in an accident potentially caused by this? Fine.

You presume something that you should not. I do care. I simply choose to live my life without being afraid of what might be. Your own parents (depending upon your age) must have been similarly uncaring or negligent due to there being no restraints of any kind.

M: But I'll be damned if you end up hurting any of my friends or loved ones by your wife's negligence.

Again, it cannot be held to be negligence, nor can it be used as evidence of same. The Ohio legislature has decided that it is not. Your feelings on the matter do not change this. I promise to conduct myself upon the public way with due care and consideration of your safety. I have been in only one accident in my 30 years of travelling and have yet to be found culpable for damages.

M: You want to take the libertarian tact? No problem. But that means you have to be prepared to bear the brunt of the full weight of the law when it comes down after such an event (God forbid it happens - I would not wish such a thing on anyone, but the chances of an accident rise dramatically when you remove your full attention from the road for whatever purpose, be it yammering on a cellphone or feeding a baby).

I am always prepared to accept the consequences of my actions. That is the meaning of self-government. If I harm you, then I am obligated to make you whole. If I cannot, then I will indenture myself to you.

Nursing a child takes no more attention than checking a rear view mirror.

M: And again, to demand that officers carry complete case and statute law and be able to review it on demand is not only unreasonable, but both unsafe and not practical.

Why is it unreasonable for me to require them to know the laws they are attempting to apply? If I am required to know the law, then why aren't they. Check Dueteronomy, chapter 19, starting at verse 15. If there are too many laws for them to remember (then there are too many laws), then bring the book. I carry the MV code of Michigan and Pennsylvania in my car just for this purpose. I ask them to read it and then ask them if I have violated it. Then I ask them if they will take the responsibility for their actions if they are found to be acting under "color of law."

M: Add to that your wife's failure to carry a driver's license; your citation of religious grounds is not a logical reason. The laws of all states clearly state that you be granted a license to drive; said license indicates that you have passed appropriate state tests of both your vision and driving knowledge (in some states the latter can be waived, provided you are already in good standing). This license grants you the privledge to drive a motor vehicle. If you choose not to fulfill the requirements of obtaining said license, then you've got no business on the road, period.

Liberty is not a privilege, it is a right. Travel is intimate to liberty. You want the breakdown on this? Fine.

US v Guest, Edwards v California - interstate travel is a right.

Wabash v Illinois - states cannot tax interstate commerce, and private travel substantively affects interstate commerce.

US v Lopez - any private activity that substantive affects interstate commerce is under exclusive control of Congress.

Article I, Section 10, Clause 3: No state shall enter into any interstate compact or agreements without consent of Congress.

The states participate in interstate compacts for motor vehicle registration and driver's licensing.

The consent of Congress in this matter is found at 49 USC chapter 313 and no other place. This consent governs "commercial" vehicles only.

In Michigan, the authority to enter into these interstate agreements says:

MCL 3.163 Authority to make reciprocal agreements and compacts.
§ 3. Notwithstanding any other provision of law to the contrary, the board may enter into and make such reciprocal compacts, agreements or arrangements as the board deems proper or expedient and in the interests of the people of this state, with the proper authorities of other jurisdictions, either individually or with a group of jurisdictions, concerning the fees, charges, taxation, operation and regulation of trucks, tractors, trailers, automobiles, buses, and all other automotive equipment _engaged in international, interstate or intrastate commerce upon and over the public highways_. History: 1960, Act 124, Imd. Eff. Apr. 26, 1960

What does the corresponding statute in your state say?

M: This religious affadavit that you mention is no substitute for a license granted you by the state in which you live. If you refuse to obtain any of the appropriate required documents necessary for being awarded a license, then you don't get one, period.

Congress has no power to compel me to participate in godless socialism. It is repugnant to my faith. There is no federal statute that requires me to apply for an SSAN. If the states are going to require an SSAN of "resident" aliens before they are licensed, fine. I am not a "resident" alien. Look back in this thread and find the reference to the Fong decision. Then take the time to read it. See then that it is "resident" aliens that are being regulated and not people born into a land of presumed liberty.

I do not need the state's permission (or yours) to go to work, to go to the grocery, or to go see my Mom. Driving is a privilege for commercial entities that are common carriers for hire of goods or passengers.

My plate says "Not for Hire, Private Property, No Trespassing"

M: That being the case, you don't get to drive. Sorry.

If you want to pick nits, then I technically am conveying my personal property upon the public easements that we grant to each other for access and egress.

I was at the office. She was on her way to Michigan to a symposium of forensic toxicologists. She needed an expert witness in the case she is pursuing against the last rapist. She had to get there on time, or miss the opportunity.

Is it "karma" that this was only the second time she had nursed while driving? She has only nursed while driving one other time since then.

I was present on the telephone and talked to the cops. It is surprising how courteous they became when they were presented with her calling counsel.

The direct answer to your direct question was already posted. Please review post 58 of this thread.

Stop at a rest stop. Give her some applesauce. Change her pants. Get back in the car. Put the nursing pillow in your lap, latch the child on, and get going.

To burp: Pull over, pat her back until she burps, put her on the other breast, and get going.

When done: Pull over, burp her (see above), change her pants, give her a kiss and a hug, put her in the seat, and get going.

There has been much said here by all. Please be so kind as to review it before asking further questions.

Does your belief and not the law make this a criminal act?

Read ORD 4511.81(D) again. Is there any other way to interpret this other than you cannot use the fact that the child was out of restraint in any other criminal or civil action?

They are enforcing Ohio law. They have a duty to know that law. If they enforce something else, then they are enforcing only "color of law," and that is a federal crime; reference 42 USC 1983 &seq.

Then let them bring their own charges in a civil venue.
A criminal act has not acrued.

You fail to observe that it is one Ohio law trumping another.