The following is a letter to a person who travels on the public right-of-way without being involved in transportation and without the benefit and protection of a driver license. I have changed some of the essay details to avoid revealing the identity of the recipient. Its main point is the means whereby one makes the entire prosecution against him a matter of procedure, not substance. Freedom-loving people will win on procedural grounds, not the merits of their defense to traveling freely on the right of way, as many immigrants and poor people do. My analysis has been developed in an administrative notice regarding the state’s transportation statutes and court rulings.
By David Tulis / NoogaRadio 92.7
Sir, I hope you will read my analysis carefully and be mindful of the deadly sins of the mouth. Namely, describing your activity behind the wheel in terms of transportation and not in terms of free travel as a matter of right on the public right away. Here is a list of words that are legal conclusions and not facts.
All these concepts are in the statute under supervision of the state through its control of transportation in the public interest. Your car is simply that, a car. You are using the public road. You are steering your car.
As I explained, you are exercising the right of movement that God gives every person in this country. It is constitutionally protected. It is unalienable. It is inherent in your being human being made in God’s image.
The state through its commercial claims against you pretends these rights do not exist.
So, the officer who stops you will be operating in an understanding of the low threshold of probable cause. You crossed the line. Your tag light is out. You made a left hand turn without using your indicator flasher. These are probable cause under Tenn. Code Ann. Title 55.
But under the constitution probable cause is for crimes. The cop has to have a warrant for your arrest. He has to have seen you commit a crime to have probable cause through which to stop you.
Since he does not have these observations to support probable cause, he has only the lesser threshold observations of the traffic offense , allegedly. Your entire dealing with the officer in the court will be insisting on your due process rights, and by insisting on your due process right to probable cause, you can defeat the case in the early stages.
Best words from lips of the innocent
Your position is something like this.
I have no idea why you’re stopping me. I’ve done nothing wrong. I’ve committed no crime. You’ve not seen me commit a crime. As for not using my indicator light, I don’t know what you’re talking about. I make no statement. I will make no revelation to you about my status without probable cause. I will not give you a driver license. I will not give you a registration paper. I will not give you a proof of insurance. I make no statement against myself and I will not incriminate myself in any way. Until I have a lawyer present, I will make no statement and say nothing about myself and my business. You do not have probable cause to stop me and I don’t know why you’re stopping me. Go ahead and write me a citation. I state my name, age and address, and even though I give you no documentation, you can be sure these statements are true under the false statements statute.
You are simply insisting on your rights to be free to move about and not be seized, stopped or arrested absent a search or arrest warrant or articulable probable cause.
These are your constitutional guarantees. You are standing on them. You refuse to be intimidated. You refuse to give in or make any statement that might incriminate you. You will avoid using any words that are from the transportation statute, legal concepts that would give him jurisdiction over your person if you were, indeed, involved in transportation.
But you are not in transportation. You are not buying or selling the service of moving goods or people for hire, making a profit on the people’s roads. Therefore you are innocent and cannot fathom why you have been stopped. You are not required to have a license as a private user of the road. You’re not required to have insurance. You’re not required to have the car registered with the state as a motor vehicle.
Doesn’t tag imply commerce?
So you stand your ground as a free user and make no statement, give no documents and you wait for the citation. Or the arrest. That will be according to the officer’s discretion, and if you are respectful and proper a citation may be his best option.
Here may come a question. The car in which I’m traveling has a tag on the back, implying it is in transportation and commerce. Doesn’t that mean I surrendered my liberties in using that car so marked? That I don’t have a leg to stand on as a free user and that indeed the rules-of-the road violation that is the pretext of the stop is lawful probable cause to which I must submit?
The tag suggests you may be in commerce. That being the case, you simply have to notify the officer that you are not in commerce and not using the roadway for profit or for hire. Demand of him whether he understands this notice.
Best grounds for demand for probable cause
When it comes your time for a confrontation with the officer, you are wise to play innocent, not sure what he’s asking about, uncertain of what a driver license is, uncomprehending of his demands for registration and proof of insurance. The reason you’re not sure about these things just because they have nothing to do with you. You’re not involved in that world. You are not part of administrative government. You’re not involved in the commercial use of the public’s asset — the road and boulevard. So, the quizzical look on your face tells him that he is talking to someone who’s not in his jurisdiction, one who has not done anything actually criminal to bring himself under his jurisdiction and before his arrest authority.
The short form of all these points is this: “What is your probable cause to stop me?” and “Am I free to leave?” You don’t have probable cause to stop me and I don’t know what you’re talking about. Did you see me commit a crime?
You’re standing on the legal requirement that the officer have probable cause and that you are not under the transportation statute, but under the Constitution. Proceedings in Sessions Court or City Court will seek to show that he had no probable cause to stop you, and you defeat the charges on procedural grounds rather than the substantive issue in the distinction between transportation and travel — which is a lot more difficult to argue.
A proper defense shows that the presumption of your involvement in transportation is without any factual basis, and that there is no cause of action against you.
Where is the burden of proof?
Sir, you don’t have to give the officer any explanations for any description of what you’re doing and who you are. The burden of proof is entirely upon him. The more you say about your legal position on the side of the street, the more he can use the quote you and try to defeat your defense, both on the transportation/travel issue and on the question that precedes it, that of probable cause. You don’t have to give him any explanation of anything. You don’t have to make statements about your liberties or about the constitution. You don’t have to try to inform him or educate him. The entire burden of proof is upon him. He is the moving party, a witness for the state. You don’t have to say anything of any substance or defend or justify yourself on the side of the street.
Sir, I’m praying for you everyday and for your exposure to the wicked and their legal machinery to oppress the poor, the widow, the alien, the orphan, and the stranger. These are the ones God has special care for, and it’s time for God’s people in at least some of the city’s 500 churches to see how commercial government violates His commands and is an anti-christian anti-God system for using police on the streets to harass these categories of innocent human beings who’ve been fooled into surrendering their rights to commercial government.