+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 5 of 5

Thread: Eddie Craig & the "former deputy sheriff hoax"

  1. Link to Post #1
    United States Avalon Member
    Join Date
    30th September 2015
    Age
    59
    Posts
    169
    Thanks
    76
    Thanked 275 times in 114 posts

    Default Eddie Craig & the "former deputy sheriff hoax"

    INTRODUCTION: This thread exposes an entire series of hoaxes by FAKE "former deputy sheriff", EDDIE CRAIG.

    For the hoaxes of ROD CLASS, click here.
    http://projectavalon.net/forum4/show...is-many-hoaxes

    For the hoaxes of DEBORAH TAVARES, click here.
    http://projectavalon.net/forum4/show...77#post1267477.

    TABLE OF CONTENTS:

    1. EDDIE CRAIG & THE "FORMER DEPUTY SHERIFF HOAX";

    2. EDDIE CRAIG & THE "IF NO COMMERCE, NO DRIVER'S LICENSE IS NEEDED HOAX" (includes the "SUBSTITUTE CASES HOAX", the "RIGHT v. PRIVILEGE" confusion, the "CRIMINAL STOP v. TRAFFIC STOP" confusion and the "UNCONSTITUTIONAL LICENSE LAW HOAX");

    3. EDDIE CRAIG & "THE RIGHT TO TRAVEL HOAX";

    4. EDDIE CRAIG & "THE TEXAS BAR ACT VIOLATES THE TEXAS CONSTITUTION HOAX";

    5. PART I: "THE COURTROOM TRACK RECORD OF EDDIE CRAIG AND OTHER AMATEUR LEGAL THEORISTS";

    6. PART II: "THE COURTROOM TRACK RECORD OF EDDIE CRAIG AND OTHER AMATEUR LEGAL THEORISTS";

    7. PART III: "THE COURTROOM TRACK RECORD OF EDDIE CRAIG AND OTHER AMATEUR LEGAL THEORISTS".


    COMMENT 1.

    EDDIE CRAIG & THE "FORMER DEPUTY SHERIFF HOAX"

    FIRST, SEE THE HOAX HERE:


    1). https://www.infowars.com/special-rep...t-you-to-know/ (in the TITLE and in the FIRST section).

    2). https://thefreethoughtproject.com/de...n-stop-script/ (in the TITLE of this fraudulent article).

    3). http://freeinfreedom.com/2013/04/15/...t-you-to-know/ (in the TITLE of this fraudulent article).

    4). http://lionsofliberty.com/2016/08/26/ff34/ (in the FIRST SENTENCE of this fraudulent article).

    5. https://www.lawfulpath.com/index.php...pProcedure.php (in the SECOND SECTION containing the BLUE "Info Wars Nightly News" link).

    6). http://randeastwood.com/pulled-over-...f-your-rights/ (in the SECOND PARAGRAPH).

    7). https://www.vidoevo.com/video/d3Fjal...how-to-beat-it (in the TITLE).

    8). https://tr-my.net/watchvideo/former-...cj_MkP8lM.html (in the TITLE below the video).

    9). http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...r-questions%94 (in the TITLE and in BOLD TYPE FACE).

    10). http://www.blogtalkradio.com/thormin...st-eddie-craig (in the FIRST PARAGRAPH).

    11). http://nooganomics.com/2016/06/how-t...elp-free-city/ (in the section entitled "A DEPUTY TELLS ALL" at 50% through the text).

    12). https://steemit.com/government/@jame...824t200227830z (in the FIRST FULL PARAGRAPH).

    13). https://playitpk.club/video/felony-f...Z14PFb7AQ.html (in the FIRST FULL PARAGRAPH).

    14). https://freeweblink.info/download/fe...eFoxNFBGYjdBUQ (in the RIGHT COLUMN, THIRD TOPIC DOWN).

    15). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fzMi...UTSbytYpXY8X6A (See the TITLE).

    16). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cHyUbMGz004 (See the DESCRIPTION section BELOW THE TITLE.).

    17). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FxZ14PFb7AQ (click on "SHOW MORE" for "Eddie Craig's background")

    THE HOAX:
    Amateur legal theorist, Eddie Craig, FALSELY claims to be a "FORMER DEPUTY SHERIFF" (a "former cop" and a "former law enforcement officer") and an "EXPERT" in the law. Specifically, Eddie Craig FALSELY claims that he was a "DEPUTY SHERIFF" in Nacogdoches County, Texas. Eddie Craig claims that during his "CAREER IN LAW ENFORCEMENT" as a "DEPUTY SHERIFF", he found out that all traffic law (and all traffic-related law enforcement) was unconstitutional, illegal, invalid, fraudulent and corrupt.

    Eddie Craig makes these intentionally fraudulent claims about himself and his background in order to deceptively "TRICK" the American people into thinking that he is a GENUINE AUTHORITY in the law. But, none of this is so.

    THE TRUTH:
    The closest that Eddie Craig ever came to being a "DEPUTY SHERIFF" was as a "PART-TIME JAILER" for a period of TWO WEEKS in 1992, at which time, he was unceremoniously "FIRED" ("NOT ELIGIBLE FOR RE-HIRE")!

    That's right. On 8-17-1992, Eddie Craig was HIRED for a "PART-TIME" job as a county "JAILER" in Nacogdoches County, Texas and he was "FIRED" TWO WEEKS LATER on 8-31-1992 ("NOT ELIGIBLE FOR RE-HIRE")! It is this TWO WEEK TENURE as a "PART-TIME JAILER" in Nacogdoches County, Texas that Eddie Craig refers to as his "CAREER IN LAW ENFORCEMENT" as a "DEPUTY SHERIFF" for which he claims he "left the Air Force".

    https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&...uty+sheriff%22

    OTHER FACTS ABOUT EDDIE CRAIG:

    EDDIE CRAIG HAS LOST EVERY CASE IN WHICH HE HAS EVER BEEN INVOLVED:
    REAL law and amateur legal theories ARE NOT the same thing. Instead, REAL law and amateur legal theories are the exact OPPOSITES of one another. Eddie Craig does not use REAL law in court. Instead, he only uses amateur legal theories in court (the same amateur legal theories that he peddles in his videos, seminars and on the radio). For this reason, Eddie Craig has LOST EVERY SINGLE ONE OF HIS OWN CASES, including HIS OWN MISDEMEANOR SPEEDING CASE. State of Texas v. Eddie (Eugene) Craig, Case no. C-1-CR-12-100045, offense date 12-12-2011, ARREST date 06-25-2012, CONVICTION date 06-28-2013, Travis County, Texas. What's more, Eddie Craig has done no better in his civil cases. He has been sued for failing or refusing to pay his debts on FOUR separate occasions. HE LOST ALL FOUR TIMES. Some "expert".


    EDDIE CRAIG IS A CAREER CRIMINAL:
    http://dailysentinel.com/news/local/...3b2424dff.html
    http://dailysentinel.com/news/local/...7774543bb.html

    EDDIE CRAIG HAS NEVER BEEN AN "EXPERT WITNESS" IN ANY CASE IN ANY COURT:

    See this case. Muniz v. Davis, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&as_sdt=40006. In this case, the court wrote, "Muniz [a litigant in a traffic-related case who Eddie Craig duped] also asks the Court to consider the [written] expert statement of Eddie Craig, attached as an exhibit to Muniz's First Amended Complaint... . In the statement, Craig opines that the actions of the law enforcement officers in this case were unlawful [as if Eddie Craig would know]. ALTHOUGH MUNIZ CLAIMS THAT CRAIG IS A FORMER SHERIFF'S DEPUTY, THERE IS NO EVIDENCE BEFORE THIS COURT [TO THIS EFFECT OR] OF CRAIG'S PREVIOUS EXPERIENCE OR QUALIFICATIONS [AS AN ALLEGED "EXPERT WITNESS]. Simply put, THE COURT HAS NO BASIS TO CREDIT CRAIG'S ASSERTIONS [AS AN ALLEGED "EXPERT" WITNESS]... . " On this basis, the court CORRECTLY determined that EDDIE WAS NOT AN "EXPERT WITNESS" AND REFUSED TO CONSIDER HIS AMATEUR STATEMENT. (in the 10th paragraph, not including block indented portions, at about 35% through the text). [B]Note that the reason that there was "no evidence before the court" that Eddie Craig was a former Sheriff Deputy is that HE IS WAS NOT A DEPUTY SHERIFF, much less an "EXPERT WITNESS" in matters of the law.

    Also, see this case. Fox v. State, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&as_sdt=40006. Eddie Craig was likewise REJECTED as a "expert witness" and likewise not allowed to testify in this case. Read the final footnote at the very bottom of the case.

    MORE EDDIE CRAIG HOAXES:
    For more "Eddie Craig Hoaxes", see the comment below entitled, Eddie Craig & The "If No Commerce, No Driver's License Is Needed Hoax" (SEE COMMENT DIRECTLY BELOW). It contains links to the REAL law on that subject. For more on driver's license law, see the comment entitled, the "Right To Travel Hoax" & The "No Driver's License Required Hoax" (SEE COMMENT EVEN FARTHER DOWN BELOW). It also contains links to the REAL law on that subject.

    DISCLAIMER:
    No person at InfoWars, its ownership, management or staff knew the forgoing FACTS about Eddie Craig. They took Eddie Craig FOR HIS WORD that he was what he claimed to be. Inforwars is NOT responsible for Eddie Craig's false claims ABOUT HIMSELF or his false claims ABOUT THE LAW AND THE LEGAL SYSTEM.


    CONCLUSION:
    Sadly, Eddie Craig is just another poser, pretender and impostor who INTENTIONALLY MISREPRESENTS the law and the legal system in order to incite hatred and violence against the Americans that "We the People" ELECT to enforce our laws which are themselves made by the Americans that "We the People" ELECT to make our laws.

    HOW TO FILE A COMPLAINT AGAINST EDDIE CRAIG FOR THE UNAUTHORIZED PRACTICE OF LAW:
    ADVISING people what to say or do in the presence of law enforcement officers, judges and/or prosecutors (offering or providing "SCRIPTS", "TEMPLATES", oral "ADVICE") may constitute the UNAUTHORIZED PRACTICE OF LAW in Texas. To file a COMPLAINT against Eddie Craig in Texas in connection with this illegal behavior, click here. http://www.txuplc.org/.


    PAY FOR A EDDIE CRAIG SEMINAR? THEN, YOU GET THREE TIMES YOUR MONEY BACK, PLUS ATTOREY FEES, PLUS COSTS, PLUS ACTUAL AND PUNITIVE DAMAGES!

    If you PAID to attend ANY SEMINAR involving Eddie Craig IN RELIANCE of his fraudulent claims that: 1). He is a "FORMER DEPUTY SHERIFF"; OR THAT 2). He knows the law; OR THAT 3). He has been an "EXPERT WITNESS" in ANY litigation, in ANT court, at ANY time; OR THAT 4). He (rather than an attorney) has EVER "won" ANY case, in ANY court, at ANY time, THEN YOU MAY RECOVER THREE (3) TIMES YOUR MONEY BACK, PLUS ATTORNEY FEES, PLUS OTHER LEGAL COSTS UNDER FEDERAL RICO, PLUS BOTH ACTUAL AND PUNITIVE DAMAGES UNDER STATE LAW!

    NOTE: Eddie Craig markets and solicits money for his seminars by using the "means" of "INTERSTATE commerce" (internet, email, telephone, U.S. Mail, etc.). Eddie Craig markets and solicits money for his seminars by making the fraudulent representations described above. This fraudulent conduct gives rise to FEDERAL jurisdiction, to claims under FEDERAL RICO and also gives rise to STATE law claims for FRAUD AND MISREPRESENTATION, including claims for PUNITIVE DAMAGES.

    THE LAW ON FRAUDULENT SEMINARS UNDER FEDERAL RICO:

    1). Neibel v. Trans World Assurance Co., https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&as_sdt=40006. LOOK FOR THE FOLLOWING TERMS AND PHRASES IN THIS CASE: "[THE DEFENDANT HERE] PREYED ON... AMERICANS WITH LITTLE EXPERIENCE IN THE ... LEGAL SYSTEM [exactly like Eddie Craig does]. AT HIS SEMINARS, ...[the Defendant here] PROMISED those in attendance... [he] would PROVIDE... [them with SCRIPTS AND LEGAL DOCUMENT] PREPARATION AND ADVICE... [and] LEGAL PROTECTION...[just like Eddie Craig promises his own SEMINAR customers]." (The preceding text is in the 3rd full paragraph at about 10% through the text of the case.); "[The Defendant here described his METHODS and his DOCUMENTS as] 'TRIED AND TRUE' [just like Eddie Craig describes his own METHODS and his own SCRIPTS and DOCUMENTS to his own SEMINAR customers]." Translation: The Defendant here, like Eddie Craig, LIED to his own customers about the BENEFITS that his SEMINAR customers would receive from attending his SEMINARS, such as "WINNING their own traffic cases in court", etc. ; "...[T]he jury [here] found...[the Defendant here] LIABLE FOR VIOLATING [FEDERAL RICO] section 1962(d), AWARDING [the Plaintiffs/Seminar Customers] $259,366 in actual damages TREBLED [means "TRIPLED"] to $778,098 under [FEDERAL RICO] 18 U.S.C. 1964(c)). It [the jury] ALSO awarded... [the Plaintiffs/Seminar Customers] $87,000 in damages for FRAUD and MISREPRESENTATION [under state law]. Finally, the jury awarded the... [the Plaintiff's] $500,000 in PUNITIVE DAMAGES under...[state law]." (The immediately preceding text is in the 8th full paragraph at about 25% through the text of the case.). Thus, under the law, Eddie Craig is liable to his own SEMINAR customers for TRIPLE their losses under FEDERAL RICO and is liable to his own Seminar Customers for ACTUAL and PUNITIVE DAMAGES under STATE law.

    2). Cohen v. Trump, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&as_sdt=40006. LOOK FOR THE FOLLOWING TERMS AND PHRASES IN THIS CASE: "Defendant [here]... offer[ed] SEMINARS... purporting [means "pretending"] to teach Defendant's 'MASTER STRATEGIES' for... SUCCESS [just like Eddie Craig promises his own SEMINAR customers]." (The preceding text is in the 3rd full paragraph at about 10% through the text of the case.); "Learn from the MASTER [just like Eddie Craig effectively describes himself to his own SEMINAR customers while claiming to be a "FORMER DEPUTY SHERIFF"]". For the law on how FEDERAL RICO law applies to Eddie Craig under these facts, read the entire "DISCUSSION" section of the case at the 16th and 17th full paragraphs, not including block indented paragraphs for quoted portions, at about 40% through the text of the case.

    3). Maida v. Sherman, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&as_sdt=40006. LOOK FOR THE FOLLOWING TERMS AND PHRASES IN THIS CASE: "[T]he... defendants [here] held themselves out as [being] capable of 'repairing' broken credit... . The... defendants [here] gave public SEMINARS... in Texas, Arkansas, Mississippi and Tennessee... ." (The preceding text is in the 16th full paragraph, immediately below the section entitled "B. Credit Repair Program", at about 25% through the text of the case.).; "[The defendants here] represented [to their SEMINAR customers] that, BY FOLLOWING... [their own methods which they taught their own SEMINAR customers], they had [SUCCESSFULLY] improved their [own] credit scores... . [and] that they had received many personal benefits from the... program [which they taught their own SEMINAR customers]... [similar to what Eddie Craig fraudulently represents to his own SEMINAR customers]." (The immediately preceding text is in the 17th paragraph at about 27% through the text of the case.).; "On the basis of these MISREPRESENTATIONS,... . [the defendants' customers] paid [the] defendants $1,698 in... fees [just like Eddie Craig's own SEMINAR customers pay him based on similar fraudulent MISREPRESENTATIONS]... ." (The immediately preceding text is in the 18th full paragraph at about 30% through the text of the case.).; "[But] no credit score improvement... occurred... . [Indeed, the defendants' own SEMINAR customer's] credit score HAS GOTTEN SIGNIFICANTLY WORSE [similar to what happens to Eddie Craig's own SEMINAR customers who rely on his advice and scripts at traffic stops, their legal problems ALWAYS GET WORSE!]." (The immediately text is in the 19th full paragraph at about 33% through the text of the case.). For an explanation of how FEDERAL RICO applies to Eddie Craig under these facts, read section "V C. Civil RICO" at about 85% through the text of the case.


    NOTE: For an entire series of legal hoaxes by a similar charlatan, CLICK HERE! http://projectavalon.net/forum4/show...is-many-hoaxes. Read them all. They are simply unbelievable.

    ABOUT SNOOP4TRUTH:
    Snoop4truth is a legal expert and whistle blower who exposes online hoaxes. Snoop4truth did not reveal this information to harm Eddie Craig. Instead, Snoop4truth revealed this information solely to reduce the CATASTROPHIC DAMAGE that such INTENTIONAL FRAUD inflicts upon the American people every single day.

    The message to all HOAXERS and CHARLATANS? Just tell the truth.
    Last edited by snoop4truth; 6th June 2019 at 21:46.

  2. Link to Post #2
    United States Avalon Member
    Join Date
    30th September 2015
    Age
    59
    Posts
    169
    Thanks
    76
    Thanked 275 times in 114 posts

    Default Re: Eddie Craig & the "former deputy sheriff hoax"

    EDDIE CRAIG & THE "IF NO COMMERCE, NO DRIVER'S LICENSE IS NEEDED HOAX"

    FIRST, SEE THE HOAX HERE:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V9kVCQ0y5Ec.
    (Go to:43:30-44:10; 49:30-50:10; 55:00-55:30; 104:00-106:00; 118:30-119:20; & 225:00-225:30. These are the exact times of the hoax.).

    THE HOAX:
    Amateur legal theorist, Eddie Craig, falsely claims that the STATES CANNOT require drivers of motor vehicles to have driver's licenses UNLESS THEY ARE ENGAGED IN “[interstate] COMMERCE". But, this claim is EXACTLY BACKWARDS from (and "OPPOSITE" to) the truth.

    THE TRUTH:
    As explained below, the STATES CAN require drivers to have driver's licenses to drive motor vehicles ONLY IF THEY ARE "NOT" ENGAGED IN "[interstate] COMMERCE". But, Eddie Craig does not know enough to even realize this.

    BACKGROUND:
    Unknown to Eddie Craig, the original source of the word, “COMMERCE”, as used in connection with driver’s license law is Art. 1, Sec. 8, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution. READ THE THIRD (3RD) CLAUSE HERE. http://www.annenbergclassroom.org/pa...le-i-section-8. This clause is known as the "INTERSTATE COMMERCE CLAUSE". https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/commerce_clause. This clause empowers the FEDERAL government (ONLY) to regulate driver’s licenses ONLY IF the driver IS ENGAGED IN “COMMERCE among [between] the several states” (called “INTERSTATE COMMERCE”).

    On the other hand, the tenth amendment reserved to the STATES the power to regulate driver's licenses IN ALL OTHER CONTEXTS NOT DELEGATED TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT in the U.S. Constitution (including driving while "NOT" engaged in "[interstate] COMMERCE"). http://www.annenbergclassroom.org/page/tenth-amendment. This is why the STATES CAN regulate driver's licenses ONLY IF the driver IS "NOT" ENGAGED IN "[interstate] COMMERCE". But, Eddie Craig does not know enough to even realize this.

    CONSTITUTIONAL LAW:
    Unknown to Eddie Craig, the U.S. Constitution divided the powers (divided legal jurisdiction) between the FEDERAL government and the STATE governments. This division of powers (division of jurisdiction) WAS BASED ON LEGAL SUBJECT MATTER. The U.S. Constitution only empowered the FEDERAL government to regulate a TINY LIST of legal SUBJECTS that were expressly delegated to it in the U.S. Constitution. The tenth amendment reserved to the STATES the power (the jurisdiction) to regulate EVERYTHING ELSE (ALL OTHER LEGAL SUBJECTS NOT DELEGATED TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IN THE U.S. CONSTITUTION). But, Eddie Craig does not know enough to even realize this.

    SIMPLIFICATION:
    Under this constitutional division of powers (division of jurisdiction) between the FEDERAL and STATE governments, a legal subject must be regulated EITHER by FEDERAL law OR by STATE law, BUT NOT BY BOTH. So, if a legal subject IS governed by FEDERAL law, it IS NOT governed by STATE law. Likewise, if a legal subject IS governed by STATE law, it IS NOT governed by FEDERAL law. As a result, FEDERAL and STATE governments DO NOT REGULATE THE SAME LEGAL SUBJECTS, THEY REGULATE THE "OPPOSITE" LEGAL SUBJECTS. But, Eddie Craig does not know enough to even realize this.

    PURPOSE:
    The purpose of this constitutional division of powers was to ensure harmony between the FEDERAL and STATE governments by DIVIDING between them the LEGAL SUBJECTS that each was empowered to regulate. But, Eddie Craig does not know enough to even realize this.

    Thus, contrary to Eddie Craig's FALSE claims at 43:30-44:00 here, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V9kVCQ0y5Ec, it is NOT true that STATE traffic & transportation codes are "BASED ON" the FEDERAL traffic & transportation codes because FEDERAL law and STATE law regulate "OPPOSITE" legal subjects.

    NOTE: For an EXPERT EXPLANATION of the these BASICS of Constitutional law, read the FIRST ELEVEN (11) paragraphs of the SIXTH (6th) COMMENT here. http://projectavalon.net/forum4/show...70#post1174970.

    CONCLUSION:
    If "YOU ARE" a driver engaged in "[interstate] COMMERCE", then you are governed by FEDERAL law (which requires you to have a drivers license to drive a motor vehicle). Conversely, if YOU ARE "NOT" a driver engaged in "[interstate] COMMERCE", then you are governed by STATE law (which requires you to have a driver's license to drive a motor vehicle). Either way, A DRIVER'S LICENSE IS REQUIRED TO DRIVE A MOTOR VEHICLE. But, Eddie Craig does not know enough to even realize this.

    APPLICATION:
    So, if you are a driver who has successfully proven (to law enforcement officers and/or to courts) that you WERE "NOT" engaged in "interstate COMMERCE" (as Eddie Craig recommends), then you have just CONCLUSIVELY PROVEN THAT YOU ARE GOVERNED BY STATE LAW (which requires you to have a driver's license to drive a motor vehicle). But, Eddie Craig does not know enough to even realize this.

    THE ACTUAL REAL LAW ITSELF ON THIS SUBJECT:

    Note (BELOW) that this amateur legal theory HAS A 100% FAILURE RATE!

    OVER A CENTURY AGO, THE SUPREME COURT HELD THAT THE STATES HAD THE RIGHT TO REQUIRE ALL DRIVERS OF ALL MOTOR VEHICLES TO HAVE DRIVER'S LICENSES, WHETHER OR NOT THE DRIVER WAS ENGAGED IN "INTERSTATE COMMERCE" (exactly OPPOSITE to what Eddie Craig falsely claims).

    1). Hendrick v. Maryland, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&as_sdt=40006. In this case, the United States Supreme Court held, "... A STATE MAY rightfully prescribe uniform regulations... in respect to the operation upon its highways of ALL MOTOR VEHICLES —— those moving in interstate commerce AS WELL AS OTHERS [NOT MOVING INTERSTATE COMMERCE!!!]. And to this end it [THE STATE] MAY REQUIRE the REGISTRATION OF SUCH VEHICLES and THE LICENSING OF THEIR DRIVERS... . This is but an exercise of THE POLICE POWER uniformly recognized AS BELONGING TO THE STATES [under the tenth amendment]... ." (in the 8th paragraph at about 70% through the text).

    FACT: This decision (above) is from the HIGHEST court in the United States. This court is the ONLY court in the United States which has the power to overturn this decision. But, it has NEVER done so. That means this decision is still the SINGLE CONTROLLING LAW on this subject IN EVERY STATE AND FEDERAL JURISDICTION IN THE UNITED STATES. So, if you find ANY decision from ANY court ANYWHERE in the United States which contains ANY language of ANY type which you interpret as preventing THE STATES from requiring drivers of motor vehicles to have driver's licenses, then YOU HAVE INTERPRETED THAT OTHER DECISION WRONG! There has NEVER been ANY decision from ANY court in the United States which holds, "STATES may not require drivers of motor vehicles to have driver's licenses". But, even if there were such a decision, this decision above would overturn it.

    NOTE: Since this decision, CONGRESS (in compliance with this decision and in compliance with Art. 1, Sec. 8, clause 3, U.S. Const.) passed “NATIONAL” (FEDERAL) legislation regulating ONLY those drivers WHO WERE ENGAGED IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE (Title 49). Under the tenth amendment and under this decision (above), this reserved unto THE STATES the power to regulate ONLY those drivers WHO WERE “NOT” ENGAGED IN "INTERSTATE COMMERCE". In this sense, FEDERAL law and STATE law are now "OPPOSITES" of one another. But, Eddie Craig does not know enough to even realize this.

    2. El v. Richmond Police Officer Opdyke, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&as_sdt=40006. In this case, an amateur legal theorist unsuccessfully sued an officer who arrested him at a traffic stop. The case reads, "El [the amateur legal theorist] acknowledges that he does not have an 'active' driver's license, but contends that 'IF A PERSON IS NOT ENGAGING IN COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY ON THE HIGHWAYS AND BYWAYS... THAT PERSON DOES NOT NEED A DRIVER'S LICENSE TO TRAVEL IN HIS OWN PRIVATE PROPERTY' [a false claim identical to what Eddie Craig also falsely claims]... ." (at the 3rd paragraph at about 30% though the text). But the court held otherwise and wrote, "[T]HE SUPREME COURT [HAS] STATED: The use of the public highways by motor vehicles, with its consequent DANGERS, renders the reasonableness and NECESSITY OF REGULATION apparent. THE UNIVERSAL PRACTICE [AMONG THE STATES] IS TO REGISTER OWNERSHIP OF VEHICLES AND TO LICENSE THEIR DRIVERS. ANY [read this term again] appropriate means BY THE STATES to insure competence and care on the part of its [DRIVER'S] LICENSEES and to protect others using the highway is consonant with [COMPLIES WITH] due process. (citation omitted). NOTABLY, [CONTRARY TO THE FALSE CLAIMS OF EDDIE CRAIG] THE SUPREME COURT DID NOT LIMIT ITS HOLDING [IN THIS REGARD] TO COMMERCIAL USES OF PUBLIC HIGHWAYS [read this sentence again]." (at the 12th paragraph at about 70% through the text). Translation: Contrary to the claims of Eddie Craig, the STATES are authorized (by the U.S. Constitution and by the Supreme Court) to require drivers of motor vehicles to have driver's licenses and THAT RULE IS NOT LIMITED TO DRIVERS ENGAGED IN "COMMERCE". It is the FEDERAL government (NOT THE STATE GOVERNMENTS) whose driver's license regulations are limited to drivers engaged in "INTERSTATE commerce". But, Eddie Craig does not know enough to even realize this.

    3. Scalpi v. Town Of East Fishkill, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&as_sdt=40006. In this case, an amateur legal theorist sued a town and government officials for her many arrests for driving without a driver's license. The case reads, "Plaintiff [the amateur legal theorist] maintains she '[THERE IS NO LAW]... MAKING A DRIVER'S LICENSE MANDATARY... UNLESS... OPERATING... A VEHICLE FOR PROFIT [MEANING FOR COMMERCIAL PURPOSES].'" But, the court held otherwise and cited the following holdings from other cases with approval "... 'THE POWER OF THE STATE TO REGULATE THE USE OF ITS HIGHWAYS IS BROAD AND PERVASIVE'... . (citation omitted). 'A STATE MAY PRESCRIBE REGULATIONS RELATED TO THE OPERATION OF MOTOR VEHICLES ON ITS HIGHWAYS, INCLUDING REGISTRATION AND LICENSING REQUIREMENTS.' (citation omitted). 'AN INDIVIDUAL DOES NOT HAVE A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO DRIVE A MOTOR VEHICLE.' ... (citation omitted). 'IT IS BEYOND DISPUTE THAT STATES MAY IMPOSE DRIVER LICENSING AND VEHICLE REGISTRATION REQUIREMENTS UPON THEIR CITIZENS [read this phrase again]... .' (citation omitted). '[T]HE CONSTITUTION DOES NOT RECOGNIZE A FUNDAMENTAL 'RIGHT TO DRIVE'. Notably, the Supreme Court has held that states may constitutionally regulate the use of public highways WITHOUT LIMITING [THAT RULE'S APPLICATION]... TO COMMERCIAL USES OF PUBLIC HIGHWAYS [read that sentence again]." (citation omitted). (at the 17th paragraph at about 60% through the text). Translation: Contrary to the claims of Eddie Craig, the STATES are authorized (by the U.S. Constitution and by the Supreme Court) to require drivers of motor vehicles to have driver's licenses and THAT RULE IS NOT LIMITED TO DRIVERS ENGAGED IN "COMMERCE". It is the FEDERAL government (NOT THE STATE GOVERNMENTS) whose driver's license regulations are limited to drivers engaged in "INTERSTATE commerce". But, Eddie Craig does not know enough to even realize this.

    4. Triemert v. Washington County, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&as_sdt=40006. In this case, an amateur legal theorist sued a county and others for issuing him a ticket for driving without a driver's license. The case reads, "The gist of Triemert's [the amateur legal theorist's] legal theory is that THE DEFINITION OF 'DRIVING' in the [IRRELEVANT] United States Transportation Code ('USTC')... AND ALL STATE TRANSPORTATION CODES DERIVED FROM THE USTC [IMAGINARY CODES WHICH DO NOT EXIST], 'REFERS TO PERSONS WHO ARE LICENSED BY OCCUPATION AND OPERATING A MOTOR VEHICLE IN COMMERCE ENGAGED IN THE COMMERCIAL PURPOSE OF HAULING FREIGHT/CARGO OR PASSENGERS OR BOTH [a claim identical to what Eddie Craig also claims].'... . When he was arrested... , Triemert [claimed he] WAS NOT 'DRIVING' OR OPERATING A 'MOTOR VEHICLE' OR 'ENGAGED IN ANY COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY OR PURPOSE IN THE HAULING OF FREIGHT OR PASSENGERS, ACCORDING TO THIS DEFINITION [referring to irrelevant FEDERAL law]'. Additionally, [he claims that] THE [IRRELEVANT FEDERAL] CODE DEFINES 'MOTOR VEHICLE' AS A CONTRIVANCE USED FOR COMMERCIAL PURPOSES [citing irrelevant FEDERAL law]... . [FINALLY] TRIEMERT CLAIMED HE WAS 'TRAVELING' (NOT DRIVING) IN A 'PRIVATE AUTOMOBILE' (NOT A MOTOR VEHICLE) when he was unlawfully stopped and arrested.." But, the court disagreed and dismissed Triemert's lawsuit. Translation: Contrary to the claims of Eddie Craig, the STATES are authorized (by the U.S. Constitution and by the Supreme Court) to require drivers of motor vehicles to have driver's licenses and THAT RULE IS NOT LIMITED TO DRIVERS ENGAGED IN "COMMERCE". It is the FEDERAL government (NOT THE STATE GOVERNMENTS) whose driver's license regulations are limited to drivers engaged in "INTERSTATE commerce". But, Eddie Craig does not know enough to even realize this.

    5. State v. Joos, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&as_sdt=40006. In this case, an amateur legal theorist appealed his conviction for driving without a proper license. He claimed that... HE DID NOT NEED A DRIVER'S LICENSE because, "ONLY THOSE ENGAGED IN COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY ARE REQUIRED BY [THE STATE DRIVER'S LICENSE LAW]... TO HAVE A VALID OPERATOR'S LICENSE [a false claim identical to what Eddie Craig also falsely claims]... ." But, the court disagreed. As it happened, this very same Defendant had already lost an almost identical case before using an almost identical argument. In discussing that earlier case, the court wrote, "[The]... Defendant argued that the term 'OPERATE' as used in [the STATE driver's license law]...'MEANS HAULING FOR HIRE, an activity in which he was not involved when he received the citations [a false claim identical to what Eddie Craig also falsely claims].'" In rejecting that argument, the court wrote, "WE DO NOT AGREE WITH DEFENDANT THAT [THE DEFINITIONS OF "OPERATE" IN "STATE" LAW]... EQUATE TO 'HAULING FOR HIRE'." Translation: Contrary to the claims of Eddie Craig, the STATES are authorized (by the U.S. Constitution and by the Supreme Court) to require drivers of motor vehicles to have driver's licenses and THAT RULE IS NOT LIMITED TO DRIVERS ENGAGED IN "COMMERCE". It is the FEDERAL government (NOT THE STATE GOVERNMENTS) whose driver's license regulations are limited to drivers engaged in "INTERSTATE commerce". But, Eddie Craig does not know enough to even realize this.

    6. Spokane v. Port, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&as_sdt=40006. This case reads as follows, "The officer... asked Ms. Port [an amateur legal theorist] for her driver's license... six times. After she refused... , Ms. Port was arrested... for refusal to give information..., no valid operator's license, and [for] resisting arrest... . (at the 2nd paragraph at about 25% through he text). ... Ms. Port claims the STATE licensing statute APPLIES ONLY TO COMMERCIAL OPERATORS OF MOTOR VEHICLES. SHE CLAIMS SINCE SHE WAS NOT ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF TRANSPORTATION, SHE DID NOT VIOLATE THE [STATE DRIVER'S LICENSE LAW]... [a false claim identical to what Eddie Craig also falsely claims].'" (at the 3rd to last paragraph at about 90% through the text). But, the court disagreed and wrote,"Ms. Port's ARGUMENT that [the STATE driver's license law]... REQUIRES A LICENSE ONLY FOR THOSE OPERATING COMMERCIAL VEHICLES IS CLEARLY WITHOUT MERIT [read that phrase again]. [The STATE driver's license law]... DEFINES AN OPERATOR OR DRIVER AS 'EVERY PERSON WHO DRIVES OR WHO IS IN ACTUAL PHYSICAL CONTROL OF A VEHICLE [Translation: "commerce" has NOTHING to do with it].' Since Ms. Port was in actual physical control of her vehicle when stopped, she came under the provisions of [the STATE driver's license laws]... ." (citations omitted). (at the final paragraph at about 95% through he text). Translation: Contrary to the claims of Eddie Craig, the STATES are authorized (by the U.S. Constitution and by the Supreme Court) to require drivers of motor vehicles to have driver's licenses and THAT RULE IS NOT LIMITED TO DRIVERS ENGAGED IN "COMMERCE". It is the FEDERAL government (NOT THE STATE GOVERNMENTS) whose driver's license regulations are limited to drivers engaged in "INTERSTATE commerce". But, Eddie Craig does not know enough to even realize this.

    7. Taylor v. Hale, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&as_sdt=40006. In this case, an amateur legal theorist appealed the dismissal of his lawsuit against the judge who presided over his conviction for driving without a driver's license. The court wrote, "Plaintiff [an amateur legal theorist] appears to contend that HE CANNOT BE REQUIRED TO OBTAIN A DRIVER'S LICENSE BECAUSE HE WAS NOT OPERATING A MOTOR VEHICLE FOR A COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY [a false claim identical to what Eddie Craig also falsely claims]. [The Plaintiff claimed]... he was MERELY 'TRAVELING'... . [He claimed that] THE STATE... CAN [ONLY] REGULATE 'COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY' through the requirement of a [driver's] license BUT NOT 'TRAVELING' [a false claim identical to what Eddie Craig also falsely claims]. He contends that the term 'OPERATE' MEANS AND REFERS TO SOMEONE ENGAGING IN COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY in the State [a false claim identical to what Eddie Craig also falsely claims]. The gravamen [core of] of Plaintiff's argument is that BECAUSE HE WAS 'TRAVELING' AND NOT ENGAGED IN A COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY, HE DID NOT 'OPERATE' A MOTOR VEHICLE and was therefore NOT REQUIRED TO HAVE A DRIVER'S LICENSE [a false claim identical to what Eddie Craig also falsely claims].... . THE COURT CONCLUDES THAT PLAINTIFF'S ARGUMENT IS WITHOUT MERIT [read that phrase again]... . That [the] Plaintiff can argue that he was NOT 'OPERATING' a motor vehicle BUT MERELY 'TRAVELING' strains credulity. Plaintiff was traveling, BUT HE WAS ALSO 'OPERATING' A VEHICLE; OTHERWISE, THIS WOULD MEAN THAT THE VEHICLE 'OPERATED' ITSELF AND TOOK A ROUNDTRIP FROM DALLAS TO LAKE JACKSON WITHOUT ANY ACT PERFORMED BY PLAINTIFF. 'OPERATING,' as the word is used in [the STATE driver's license law]... DOES NOT REFER TO COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY [read this phrase again]. To the extent that Plaintiff asserts that the license requirement interferes with his RIGHT TO TRAVEL, such argument is WITHOUT MERIT [read this phrase again]. Requiring one to obtain a license to operate a motor vehicle on a state's public highway IS NOT an impermissible or undue burden on INTERSTATE TRAVEL... . Ensuring that one can safely operate a motor vehicle and is familiar with the traffic laws IS A LEGITIMATE EXERCISE OF A STATE'S POLICE POWERS and presents NO constitutional impediment to the RIGHT TO INTERSTATE TRAVEL [read this phrase again]. Translation: Contrary to the claims of Eddie Craig, the STATES are authorized (by the U.S. Constitution and by the Supreme Court) to require drivers of motor vehicles to have driver's licenses and THAT RULE IS NOT LIMITED TO DRIVERS ENGAGED IN "COMMERCE". It is the FEDERAL government (NOT THE STATE GOVERNMENTS) whose driver's license regulations are limited to drivers engaged in "INTERSTATE commerce". But, Eddie Craig does not know enough to even realize this.

    8. Williams v. Rice, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&as_sdt=40006. In this case, Williams, an amateur legal theorist, filed a claim in federal court effectively seeking reversal of his state court conviction for "DRIVING ON A SUSPENDED LICENSE... . . [Williams]... was convicted... , and was sentenced to serve SIX MONTHS IN PRISON... ." In this case, Williams claimed that the state court erred by "deciding that [he]... WAS REQUIRED TO POSSESS A DRIVER'S LICENSE WHEN HE WAS NOT INVOLVED IN COMMERCE UPON THE HIGHWAY [a false claim identical to what Eddie Craig also falsely claims].." But, the appellate court disagreed and dismissed Williams' lawsuit. (at the 4th paragraph at about 45% through he text). Translation: Contrary to the claims of Eddie Craig, the STATES are authorized (by the U.S. Constitution and by the Supreme Court) to require drivers of motor vehicles to have driver's licenses and THAT RULE IS NOT LIMITED TO DRIVERS ENGAGED IN "COMMERCE". It is the FEDERAL government (NOT THE STATE GOVERNMENTS) whose driver's license regulations are limited to drivers engaged in "INTERSTATE commerce". But, Eddie Craig does not know enough to even realize this.

    9. State v. Ferrell, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&as_sdt=40006. In this case, the appellate court wrote, "The Defendant, Richard Ferrell [an amateur legal theorist], was convicted of DRIVING ON A SUSPENDED LICENSE. The trial court subsequently sentenced the Defendant to a term of SIX MONTHS... IN JAIL.... . [The] Defendant... testified that at the time of the accident HE WAS 'TRAVELING' AND NOT ENGAGED IN COMMERCE [an amateur comment of a type Eddie Craig would make]." But, the appellate court disagreed and affirmed the conviction. Translation: Contrary to the claims of Eddie Craig, the STATES are authorized (by the U.S. Constitution and by the Supreme Court) to require drivers of motor vehicles to have driver's licenses and THAT RULE IS NOT LIMITED TO DRIVERS ENGAGED IN "COMMERCE". It is the FEDERAL government (NOT THE STATE GOVERNMENTS) whose driver's license regulations are limited to drivers engaged in "INTERSTATE commerce". But, Eddie Craig does not know enough to even realize this.

    10. State v. Williams, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&as_sdt=40006. This case reads, "Appellant, ANTHONY TROY WILLIAMS [A WORLD FAMOUS AMATEUR LEGAL THEORIST], was [convicted by a jury]... FOR DRIVING ON A CANCELED, SUSPENDED OR REVOKED LICENSE, SECOND OFFENSE... .[and]... WAS... SENTENCED... TO SIX MONTHS IN JAIL AND A FINE OF $2,500. On appeal, [WILLIAMS]... argues he is 'NOT REQUIRED TO HAVE A DRIVER'S LICENSE IF HE IS NOT TRAVELING IN COMMERCE [a false claim identical to what Eddie Craig also falsely claims]. But, the court disagreed and affirmed the conviction. Translation: Contrary to the claims of Eddie Craig, the STATES are authorized (by the U.S. Constitution and by the Supreme Court) to require drivers of motor vehicles to have driver's licenses and THAT RULE IS NOT LIMITED TO DRIVERS ENGAGED IN "COMMERCE". It is the FEDERAL government (NOT THE STATE GOVERNMENTS) whose driver's license regulations are limited to drivers engaged in "INTERSTATE commerce". But, Eddie Craig does not know enough to even realize this.

    11. (Right To Travel) State v. Schmitz, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&as_sdt=40006. In this case, Schmitz [an amateur legal theorist] appealed his conviction for DRIVING ON A SUSPENDED LICENSE. On appeal, Schmitz argued, "HE 'WAS NOT ENGAGED IN COMMERCE [such that the STATE traffic laws did not apply to him][a false claim identical to what Eddie Craig also falsely claims]... .'' (at the 9th paragraph at about 50% through the text). In response, the court wrote, "This court has previously considered and REJECTED THIS SAME ARGUMENT." (citing State v. Booher). In Booher, the defendant was also convicted of driving without a license. The defendant there argued that "HE WAS ONLY EXERCISING HIS RIGHT... TO USE HIS PRIVATE PROPERTY ON THE PUBLIC HIGHWAY"... AND THAT, "BECAUSE HE WAS NOT ENGAGED IN COMMERCE [the STATE traffic laws did not apply to him] [a false claim identical to what Eddie Craig also falsely claims]." (at the 12th paragraph, not including block indented portions, at about 70% through the text). But, the court disagreed and affirmed BOTH convictions. Translation: Contrary to the claims of Eddie Craig, the STATES are authorized (by the U.S. Constitution and by the Supreme Court) to require drivers of motor vehicles to have driver's licenses and THAT RULE IS NOT LIMITED TO DRIVERS ENGAGED IN "COMMERCE". It is the FEDERAL government (NOT THE STATE GOVERNMENTS) whose driver's license regulations are limited to drivers engaged in "INTERSTATE commerce". But, Eddie Craig does not know enough to even realize this.

    12. (Right To Travel) State v. El-Bey, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&as_sdt=40006. In this case, the Defendant was stopped by police. The officer asked the Defendant for his driver's license, but the Defendant handed the officer "his RIGHT TO TRAVEL DOCUMENTS... . [The "Right To Travel" documents]... contained a birth certificate and documents which stated '[Defendant]... was NOT A DRIVER' and that THE 'VEHICLE WAS NOT A MOTOR VEHICLE [UNDER IRRELEVANT FEDERAL LAW] BECAUSE IT WAS NOT INVOLVED IN COMMERCE AND THEREFORE WAS NOT SUBJECT TO THE LAWS OF THE STATE [a false claim identical to what Eddie Craig also falsely claims].'" But, the court disagreed and affirmed the conviction. Translation: Contrary to the claims of Eddie Craig, the STATES are authorized (by the U.S. Constitution and by the Supreme Court) to require drivers of motor vehicles to have driver's licenses and THAT RULE IS NOT LIMITED TO DRIVERS ENGAGED IN "COMMERCE". It is the FEDERAL government (NOT THE STATE GOVERNMENTS) whose driver's license regulations are limited to drivers engaged in "INTERSTATE commerce". But, Eddie Craig does not know enough to even realize this.

    13. State v. O'Connor, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&as_sdt=40006. In this case, O'Connor [an amateur legal theorist] appealed his conviction for DRIVING WHILE LICENSE SUSPENDED. "Appellant urges... that HE IS PERMITTED TO DRIVE IN OHIO WITHOUT A LICENSE AS LONG AS HE IS NOT ENGAGED IN COMMERCIAL DRIVING [a false claim identical to what Eddie Craig also falsely claims]." But the appellate court disagreed and affirmed his conviction. Translation: Contrary to the claims of Eddie Craig, the STATES are authorized (by the U.S. Constitution and by the Supreme Court) to require drivers of motor vehicles to have driver's licenses and THAT RULE IS NOT LIMITED TO DRIVERS ENGAGED IN "COMMERCE". It is the FEDERAL government (NOT THE STATE GOVERNMENTS) whose driver's license regulations are limited to drivers engaged in "INTERSTATE commerce". But, Eddie Craig does not know enough to even realize this.

    14. Schilling v. Swick, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&as_sdt=40006. In this case, an officer stopped Schilling (an amateur legal theorist) and asked him to produce his driver's license, registration and proof of insurance. But, Schilling refused and responded, "DO YOU HAVE ANY PROOF THAT I AM OPERATING IN COMMERCE AT THIS TIME [an amateur comment of a type Eddie Craig would make]?" The officer arrested Schilling and he unsuccessfully sued the officer and others for his arrest. The trial court implicitly held that "commerce" was completely irrelevant to the requirement of a driver's license because it dismissed Schilling's lawsuit and the appellate court here affirmed the dismissal. Translation: Contrary to the claims of Eddie Craig, the STATES are authorized (by the U.S. Constitution and by the Supreme Court) to require drivers of motor vehicles to have driver's licenses and THAT RULE IS NOT LIMITED TO DRIVERS ENGAGED IN "COMMERCE". It is the FEDERAL government (NOT THE STATE GOVERNMENTS) whose driver's license regulations are limited to drivers engaged in "INTERSTATE commerce". But, Eddie Craig does not know enough to even realize this.

    15. Myles v. State, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&as_sdt=40006. In this case, Myles appealed his conviction for DRIVING WITHOUT A VALID LICENSE. On appeal he argued, "THE STATE OF TEXAS CAN ONLY REQUIRE PEOPLE WHO ARE ENGAGED IN 'COMMERCE' WHILE DRIVING ON ITS ROADWAYS TO HAVE A DRIVER'S LICENSE [a false claim identical to what Eddie Craig falsely claims], AND [I]... WAS NOT A HIRED DRIVER ENGAGED IN COMMERCE [as if that would make any difference]. As Myles explained, 'I don't DRIVE. I just TRAVEL from Point A to Point B [an amateur comment of a type Eddie Craig would make].' Myles never disputed that he was [ALSO] OPERATING A VEHICLE AS HE TRAVELED." Regardless, the appellate court disagreed with Myles' theories and affirmed his conviction. Translation: Contrary to the claims of Eddie Craig, the STATES are authorized (by the U.S. Constitution and by the Supreme Court) to require drivers of motor vehicles to have driver's licenses and THAT RULE IS NOT LIMITED TO DRIVERS ENGAGED IN "COMMERCE". It is the FEDERAL government (NOT THE STATE GOVERNMENTS) whose driver's license regulations are limited to drivers engaged in "INTERSTATE commerce". But, Eddie Craig does not know enough to even realize this.

    "SUBSTITUTE" CASE LAW:

    Amateur legal theorists cite a number of decisions in support of their false claims that they have a UNREGULATABLE "RIGHT to DRIVE/OPERATE A MOTOR VEHICLE WITHOUT A DRIVER'S LICENSE [read the last four words again]". https://wearechange.org/u-s-supreme-...hwaysstreets/; https://www.scribd.com/document/3391...by-Jack-McLamb. But, there is not one single decision in the history of the United States that actually says this. So, amateur legal theorists have come up with a number of "SUBSTITUTE" decisions which recognize the following "ALMOST THERE", "SOUND ALIKE", "LOOK LIKE", "SIMILAR TO" "RIGHTS":

    1. The right "TO USE" AN AUTOMOBILE (NOT the alleged right "TO DRIVE/OPERATE" a motor vehicle "WITHOUT A DRIVER'S LICENSE"). Schecter v. Killingsworth, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&as_sdt=40006 (at the 18h paragraph, not including block indented portions, at about 45% through he text).

    2. The right "TO USE" THE ROADWAYS (NOT the alleged right "TO DRIVE/OPERATE" a motor vehicle "WITHOUT A DRIVER'S LICENSE"). Escobedo v State, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&as_sdt=40006 (at the 10th paragraph, not including block indented portions, at about 30% through the text). Berberian v. Lussier, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&as_sdt=40006 (at the 6th paragraph at about 40% through the text). Holland v. Shackelford, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&as_sdt=40006 (at the 11th paragraph at about 70% through he text). Note that this case is about THE PROPERTY RIGHTS OF NEIGHBORING PROPERTY OWNERS, not about a driver's license.

    3. The right "TO TRAVEL" (NOT the alleged right "TO DRIVE/OPERATE" a motor vehicle "WITHOUT A DRIVER'S LICENSE"). Kent v. Dulles, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&as_sdt=40006 (at the 14th paragraph, not including block indented portions, at about 30% through the text). Note that his case is about AN INTERNATIONAL PASSPORT, not about a driver's license.

    4. The right to "INTRASTATE TRAVEL", "LOCOMOTION" and "MOVEMENT" (NOT the alleged right "TO DRIVE/OPERATE" a motor vehicle "WITHOUT A DRIVER'S LICENSE"). In Re Barbara White, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&as_sdt=40006 (at the 23rd paragraph at about 60% through he text). Note that this case is about A PROSTITUTE'S RIGHT TO LIVE IN A DESIGNATED "NO PROSTITUTION ZONE" while on probation, not about a driver's license.

    RIGHT v. PRIVILEGE:

    Amateur legal theorists also cite exactly six cases which inartfully characterize DRIVING/OPERATING a motor vehicle as a "RIGHT". Amateur legal theorists mistakenly believe that if an act is inartfully characterized a "RIGHT" (rather than a "PRIVILEGE"), then that "RIGHT" CANNOT be REGULATED, GRANTED, DENIED or REVOKED by the state or federal government. But, this is not so and amateur legal theorists would know this if they bothered to read the entire decisions, rather than merely part of them.

    Note that NONE of the decisions below say that "DRIVING" or "OPERATING" a motor vehicle "WITHOUT A DRIVER'S LICENSE" is a "RIGHT". But, amateur legal theorists nevertheless use the following decisions as "SUBSTITUTES" for such a decision anyway.

    1). Thompson v Smith, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&as_sdt=40006. This case recognized the RIGHT "TO TRAVEL", "TO TRANSPORT", "TO USE THE ORDINARY AND USUAL CONVEYANCES OF THE DAY" and "TO DRIVE A HORSE-DRAWN CARRIAGE OR WAGON". But most importantly, this case also recognized the "RIGHT" "TO OPERATE AN AUTOMOBILE" (NOT the alleged right "TO DRIVE/OPERATE" a motor vehicle "WITHOUT A DRIVER'S LICENSE"). (beginning in the 45th paragraph at about 60% through he text). But, IMMEDIATELY THEREAFTER, the very same case reads, "THE EXERCISE OF SUCH A COMMON RIGHT THE [GOVERNMENT]... MAY, UNDER ITS POLICE POWER, REGULATE IN THE INTEREST OF THE PUBLIC SAFETY AND WELFARE [MEANING THE GOVERNMENT MAY REQUIRE DRIVER'S LICENSES]... . THE REGULATION OF THE... RIGHT TO DRIVE A PRIVATE AUTOMOBILE ON THE STREETS... MAY BE ACCOMPLISHED IN PART BY THE [GOVERNMENT]... GRANTING, REFUSING AND REVOKING... PERMITS ["DRIVER'S LICENSES"] TO DRIVE AN AUTOMOBILE ON ITS STREETS [read this sentence AGAIN and AGAIN]. So, this alleged "right" is what most courts characterize as a "privilege" BECAUSE IT CAN BE REGULATED, GRANTED, DENIED and REVOKED. Thus, contrary to the claims of Eddie Craig and other amateur legal theorists, this case DOES NOT authorize driving/operating a motor vehicle WITHOUT A DRIVER'S LICENSE and this case DOES NOT PREVENT THE STATES FROM REQUIRING DRIVER'S LICENSES. Indeed, the reverse is true. Not that it makes any difference, but this case has no application outside of Virginia anyway.

    2). Adams v. City of Pocatello, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&as_sdt=40006. In this case, the court held, "The RIGHT TO OPERATE A MOTOR VEHICLE upon the public streets and highways IS NOT A MERE PRIVILEGE. IT IS A RIGHT... ." But, THE VERY NEXT PARAGRAPH READS, "The RIGHT of a citizen TO OPERATE a motor vehicle upon the public streets and highways, IS SUBJECT TO REASONABLE REGULATION [LIKE THE REQUIREMENT OF A DRIVER'S LICENSE] BY THE STATE IN THE EXERCISE OF ITS POLICE POWER [citing Thompson v. Smith (directly above) as authority which characterized operating an automobile as a REGULATABLE, GRANTABLE, DENIABLE and REVOCABLE "right".]... ." So, this alleged "right" is what most courts call a "privilege" BECAUSE IT CAN BE REGULATED, GRANTED, DENIED and REVOKED. Thus, contrary to the claims of Eddie Craig and other amateur legal theorists, this case DOES NOT authorize driving/operating a motor vehicle WITHOUT A DRIVER'S LICENSE and this case DOES NOT PREVENT THE STATES FROM REQUIRING DRIVER'S LICENSES. Indeed, the reverse is true. Not that it makes any difference, but this case has no application outside of Idaho anyway.

    3). Teche Lines, Inc. v. Danforth, https://www.courtlistener.com/opinio...nc-v-danforth/. THIS CASE IS NOT A DRIVER'S LICENSE CASE. This case involved a challenge to a Mississippi statute which prohibited drivers from stopping vehicles along roadsides unless the road shoulder and the remaining roadway clearance was of a specified minimum size. This statute effectively banned all stops along roadsides except for emergencies and made it difficult for bus companies to pick up and drop off their customers. The court held that the "RIGHT TO TRAVEL" included the "RIGHT TO STOP" along roadsides "for usual and customary purposes" and quoted Thompson v. Smith (the third case above) as authority which characterized operating an automobile as a REGULATABLE, GRANTABLE, DENIABLE and REVOCABLE "right". But, TWO PARAGRAPHS LATER, this very same case reads, "...[T]he exercise thereof [of this so-called "right" to operate an automobile] MAY BE REASONABLY REGULATED BY LEGISLATIVE ACT IN PURSUANCE OF THE POLICE POWER OF THE STATE [INCLUDING THE REQUIREMENT OF A DRIVER'S LICENSE]." So, this alleged "right" is what most courts characterize as a "privilege" BECAUSE IT CAN BE REGULATED, GRANTED, DENIED and REVOKED. Thus, contrary to the claims of Eddie Craig and other amateur legal theorists, this case DOES NOT authorize driving/operating a motor vehicle WITHOUT A DRIVER'S LICENSE and this case DOES NOT PREVENT THE STATES FROM REQUIRING DRIVER'S LICENSES. Indeed, the reverse is true. Not that it makes any difference, but this case has no application outside of Mississippi anyway.

    "CRIMINAL STOPS" v. "TRAFFIC STOPS":

    AMATEUR LEGAL THEORISTS MISTAKELY BELIEVE THAT AN OFFICER MUST ACTUALLY WITNESS A "CRIME" BEFORE HE/SHE MAY LAWFULLY MAKE A ROUTINE "TRAFFIC" STOP. But, this is not so.

    Unknown to amateur legal theorists, THERE ARE TWO (2) DIFFERENT TYPES OF STOPS INVOLVING OFFICERS AND MOTOR VEHICLES. There are "CRIMINAL" stops and there are "TRAFFIC" stops. "CRIMINAL" stops involve "CRIMES" (like selling illegal drugs or possessing stolen property) which are NOT MERE "TRAFFIC" VIOLATIONS. On the other hand, "TRAFFIC" stops involve "TRAFFIC" violations (like speeding or having expired tags) which ARE NOT "CRIMES". So, while both types of stops involve motor vehicles and officers, "CRIMINAL" stops and "TRAFFIC" stops are TWO ENTIRELY DIFFERENT THINGS. The law on "CRIMINAL" stops DOES NOT apply to routine "TRAFFIC" stops. Instead, "CRIMINAL" law applies to "CRIMINAL" stops and "TRAFFIC" law applies to routine "TRAFFIC" stops. So, while a "CRIME" is necessary in a "CRIMINAL" stop, no "CRIME" is necessary for a routine "TRAFFIC" stop (only a TRAFFIC violation is). But, amateur legal theorists get these TWO ENTIRELY DIFFERENT legal subjects CONFUSED and therefore mistakenly conclude that an officer must actually witness a "CRIME" (like selling illegal drugs) to lawfully stop a driver for a "TRAFFIC" violation (like having an expired tag). But, this is not so. See the cases below.

    4). People v. Horton, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&as_sdt=40006 NOTE: This case involves a "CRIMINAL" stop, not a "TRAFFIC" stop. And, "CRIMINAL" law does not apply to "TRAFFIC" stops. But, amateur legal theorists confuse "CRIMINAL" law with "TRAFFIC" law and therefore mistakenly interpret this case to mean that an officer may not lawfully make a routine "TRAFFIC" stop unless the officer has witnessed the driver engaged in a "CRIME".

    In this case, there was NO "TRAFFIC" VIOLATION (like speeding or having an expired tag) to justify a routine "TRAFFIC" stop. Instead, the officer here made a "CRIMINAL" stop of a car SOLELY BECAUSE IT CONTAINED YOUNG PEOPLE. The officer saw marijuana in the car (REFLECTING THE "CRIME" OF POSSESSION) and arrested the occupants. In holding the "CRIMINAL" stop unconstitutional, the court recognized, "[T]he RIGHT of the citizen TO DRIVE on a public street WITH FREEDOM FROM POLICE INTERFERENCE [referring to ILLEGAL"CRIMINAL" STOPS], UNLESS HE IS ENGAGED IN SUSPICIOUS CONDUCT ASSOCIATED... WITH CRIMINALITY... [NOT the alleged right "TO DRIVE/OPERATE" a motor vehicle "WITHOUT A DRIVER'S LICENSE"]." (at the 6th paragraph at about 75% through the text). Thus, contrary to the claims of amateur legal theorists, this case DOES NOT require officers to witness a "CRIME" to make a lawful "TRAFFIC" stop, this case does not authorize driving/operating a motor vehicle WITHOUT A DRIVER'S LICENSE and this case DOES NOT PREVENT THE STATES FROM REQUIRING DRIVER'S LICENSES. Not that it makes any difference, but this case does has no application outside of California anyway.

    5). People v. Glover, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&as_sdt=40006. This case involves a "CRIMINAL" stop, not a "TRAFFIC" stop. And, "CRIMINAL" law does not apply to "TRAFFIC" stops. But, amateur legal theorists confuse "CRIMINAL" law with "TRAFFIC" law and therefore mistakenly interpret this case to mean that an officer may not lawfully make a routine "TRAFFIC" stop unless the officer has witnessed the driver engaged in a "CRIME".

    In this case, there was NO "TRAFFIC" VIOLATION (like running a stop sign or driving the wrong way on one-way street) to justify a routine "TRAFFIC" stop. Instead, the police here set up a roadblock SOLELY TO CATCH AN ARMED ROBBER (a "CRIMINAL") fleeing the scene of the "CRIME". The police made a "CRIMINAL" stop of every single car. The police caught the robber. But, the court held that the "CRIMINAL" stop was unconstitutional and quoted the Horton case (directly above) which recognized "[T]he RIGHT of the citizen TO DRIVE on a public street with FREEDOM FROM POLICE INTERFERENCE [referring to ILLEGAL "CRIMINAL" STOPS], UNLESS HE IS ENGAGED IN SUSPICIOUS CONDUCT ASSOCIATED... WITH CRIMINALITY [NOT the alleged right "TO DRIVE/OPERATE" a motor vehicle "WITHOUT A DRIVER'S LICENSE"]." (in the 15th paragraph at about 85% through the text). Thus, contrary to the claims of amateur legal theorists, this case DOES NOT require officers to witness a "CRIME" to make a lawful "TRAFFIC" stop, this case does not authorize driving/operating a motor vehicle WITHOUT A DRIVER'S LICENSE and this case DOES NOT PREVENT THE STATES FROM REQUIRING DRIVER'S LICENSES. Not that it makes any difference, but this case is has no application outside of California anyway.

    6. Mills v. District Of Columbia, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&as_sdt=40006 (at the 2nd TO LAST paragraph). In this case, the was NO "TRAFFIC" VIOLATION to justify a routine "TRAFFIC" stop (like speeding). Instead, the police here set up roadblocks around a HIGH CRIME AREA after dark and effectively made "CRIMINAL" stops of every driver seeking to enter crime area for questioning. If the driver could not provide a satisfactory reason for entering the area, the police DENIED THE DRIVER ACCESS TO THE AREA. The court held that such a practice was unconstitutional and wrote, "It cannot be [denied]... that citizens have a RIGHT TO DRIVE UPON [ALL OF] THE PUBLIC STREETS... ABSENT A CONSTITUTIONAL REASON FOR LIMITING THEIR ACCESS [TO A PARTICULAR AREA OF PUBLIC STREETS]" (NOT the alleged right "TO DRIVE/OPERATE" a motor vehicle "WITHOUT A DRIVER'S LICENSE"). Thus, contrary to the claims of amateur legal theorists, this case DOES NOT authorize driving/operating a motor vehicle WITHOUT A DRIVER'S LICENSE and this case DOES NOT PREVENT THE STATES FROM REQUIRING DRIVER'S LICENSES. Not that it makes any difference, but this case is has no application outside of the District Of Columbia anyway.

    The case below explains it well.

    Spokane v. Port, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&as_sdt=40006. "[The terms] 'RIGHT' and 'PRIVILEGE' have assumed a VARIETY OF MEANINGS, DEPENDING UPON THE CONTEXT IN WHICH THEY ARE USED... . Whether it is termed a RIGHT or PRIVILEGE, ONE'S ABILITY TO TRAVEL [USE AND DRIVE/OPERATE] ON PUBLIC HIGHWAYS IS ALWAYS SUBJECT TO REASONABLE REGULATION BY THE STATE IN THE EXERCISE OF ITS POLICE POWER. (citations omitted). [TRAVELING, USING AND DRIVING/OPERATING ON PUBLIC ROADWAYS]... IS ALWAYS SUBJECT TO SUCH REASONABLE REGULATION ... UNDER THE [STATE'S] POLICE POWER. (citation omitted)... . 'STATES MAY... REQUIRE DRIVER'S LICENSES... .' (quoting the SUPREME COURT decision in Hendrick v. Maryland, THE VERY FIRST CASE AT THE VERY TOP, WHICH IS STILL THE LAW TODAY). (at the 4th paragraph at about 40% through the text).

    Thus, whether DRIVING/OPERATING a motor vehicle is characterized as a "RIGHT" or a "PRIVILEGE", THE STATES MAY REQUIRE DRIVERS/OPERATORS OF MOTOR VEHICLES TO HAVE DRIVER'S LICENSES. Drivers/operators of motor vehicles do not have an UNREGULATABLE "RIGHT" to drive/operate WITHOUT A DRIVER'S LICENSE. And, there is no decision in the history of the United States that says so. NONE!

    SHUTTLESWORTH V. BIRMINGHAM:

    Finally, amateur legal theorists cite Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham in support of their false claims that a person may "ignore" STATE driver's license laws and drive/operate a motor vehicle without a driver's license "with impunity". How do amateur legal theorists reach this absurd result? This is because six cases (shown directly above) inartfully characterize driving/operating a motor vehicle as a "RIGHT" (although they also hold that this "RIGHT" may be regulated, granted, denied and revoked, OR what most courts characterize as a "PRIVILEGE"). Regardless, because they mistakenly conclude that operating/driving a motor vehicle is a UNREGULATABLE "RIGHT', amateur legal theorists mistakenly conclude that ALL DRIVER'S LICENSE LAWS IN THE COUNTRY MUST BE "UNCONSTITUTIONAL". Then, amateur legal theorists combine that mistaken conclusion with the following language in Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham which reads in part, "[A] person faced with such an UNCONSTITUTIONAL LICENSING LAW MAY IGNORE IT AND ENGAGE WITH IMPUNITY IN THE EXERCISE OF THE RIGHT... ." https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&as_sdt=40006. But, see the WHOLE TRUTH about this language below.

    In Shuttlesworth, the City of Birmingham had in force an ordinance which required all leaders/organizers of all political marches to apply for and to obtain a "LICENSE" from a City Commission PRIOR TO such a political march. The City Commissioners which reviewed all such applications were all WHITE and had COMPLETE, UNLIMITED DISCRETION to grant or deny such permits.

    A black minister seeking to hold such a political march in Birmingham in protest of racial injustice twice attempted to apply for such a permit and was twice told by the city (before even filing out the application) that a permit would not be granted. As a result, the minister did not fill out the application or receive a permit. On "Good Friday" in 1963, the minister led the subject march for four blocks on the sidewalks of Birmingham and was arrested, convicted and sentenced to jail and hard labor for violating the subject LICENSE law.

    The Supreme Court Of The United States reversed the minister's conviction and held that the subject ordinance was unconstitutional because of the COMPLETE, UNLIMITED DISCRETION it afforded city officials TO RESTRAIN FREE SPEECH (not "driving"/"operating" a motor vehicle). The court wrote as follows, "It is settled... that an ordinance which, like this one, makes the peaceful enjoyment of freedoms which THE CONSTITUTION guarantees [referring to the FREEDOM OF SPEECH] contingent upon the uncontrolled WILL [the uncontrolled DISCRETION] of an official——as REQUIRING A PERMIT OR LICENSE which may be granted or withheld IN THE DISCRETION OF SUCH OFFICIAL——is an unconstitutional CENSORSHIP OR PRIOR RESTRAINT upon the enjoyment of those [CONSTITUTIONAL] freedoms [referring to THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH]." (citation omitted). ...[A] person faced with SUCH AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL [FREE SPEECH] LICENSING LAW [which affords a government official the COMPLETE, UNLIMITED DISCRETION TO GRANT OR DENY THE LICENSE] may ignore it and engage with impunity IN THE EXERCISE OF THE RIGHT OF FREE EXPRESSION [read the last NINE words again] for which the law purports to require a [FREE SPEECH] LICENSE." (at the 5th paragraph, not including block indented portions, at about 25% through the text). Thus, by its own terms, the ruling in this case IS LIMITED TO "THE RIGHT OF FREE EXPRESSION" (not the alleged "RIGHT TO DRIVE/OPERATE" a motor vehicle "WITHOUT A DRIVER'S LICENSE".

    Thus, contrary to the claims of Eddie Craig and other amateur legal theorists, this case does not authorize people to "ignore [the driver's license laws]... and engage with impunity in the exercise of the [alleged] RIGHT [to "DRIVE/OPERATE A MOTOR VEHICLE WITHOUT A DRIVER'S LICENSE"]."

    THERE IS NO CASE IN THE HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES WHICH HOLDS THAT A PERSON HAS A "RIGHT TO DRIVE/OPERATE A MOTOR VEHICLE WITHOUT A DRIVER'S LICENSE". AND, THOSE ARE THE ONLY WORDS THAT LEGALLY MATTER. "SUBSTITUTE" WORDS AND "SUBSTITUTE" RULINGS AND "SUBSTITUTE" CASES WILL NOT WORK.
    Last edited by snoop4truth; 20th December 2018 at 19:47.

  3. Link to Post #3
    United States Avalon Member
    Join Date
    30th September 2015
    Age
    59
    Posts
    169
    Thanks
    76
    Thanked 275 times in 114 posts

    Default Re: Eddie Craig & the "former deputy sheriff hoax"

    THE FOLLOWING APPLIES TO THE VERY SAME HOAX BY EDDIE CRAIG.

    ROD CLASS AND THE "RIGHT TO TRAVEL HOAX" & THE "NO DRIVER'S LICENSE REQUIRED HOAX"

    FIRST, SEE THE HOAX HERE:
    VIDEOS:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Do3eTH-NtSk
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L6SGIfO4ug4&t=69s
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=afCz8AjvYdY&t=421s
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=us7Q2xP7WXs
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CyVt46ppZvw
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hviooqcJb8Y

    DOCUMENTS:
    http://sovereign-citizen-blog.blogsp...rod-class.html
    https://www.scribd.com/document/6148...Driver-License

    THE HOAX I: Rod Class and other amateur legal theorists falsely claim that A PERSON IS NOT REQUIRED TO HAVE A DRIVER’S LICENSE TO DRIVE A MOTOR VEHICLE on the grounds that every person has a "RIGHT TO TRAVEL". Thus, Rod Class and other amateur legal theorists mistakenly believe that the "RIGHT TO TRAVEL" is the same thing as the "RIGHT TO DRIVE A MOTOR VEHICLE WITHOUT A DRIVER'S LICENSE". But, this is not so.

    THE TRUTH: The "RIGHT TO TRAVEL" is merely the JUDICIALLY-recognized RIGHT TO LEAVE ONE STATE, ENTER ANOTHER STATE AND BE TREATED LIKE ANY OTHER CITIZEN OF THAT OTHER STATE. The "RIGHT TO TRAVEL" has NOTHING to do with "DRIVING" anything. Under the law, there is no such thing as an "RIGHT TO DRIVE A MOTOR VEHICLE WITHOUT A DRIVER'S LICENSE". But, Rod Class and other amateur legal theorists do not know enough to even realize this.

    THE HOAX II: Further, Rod Class and other amateur legal theorists point out that under FEDERAL law, A PERSON IS NOT REQUIRED TO HAVE A DRIVER'S LICENSE to drive a motor vehicle UNLESS THAT PERSON IS ENGAGED IN "INTERSTATE COMMERCE". See Const., Art. 1, Sec. 8 (listing ALL THE POWERS of Congress). READ THE THIRD (3RD) CLAUSE HERE. http://www.annenbergclassroom.org/pa...le-i-section-8. This clause is known as the "[INTERSTATE] COMMERCE CLAUSE". https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/commerce_clause. This clause authorizes the FEDERAL (ONLY) government to require driver's licenses (ONLY) for drivers engaged in "INTERSTATE COMMERCE".

    THE TRUTH: But, what Rod Class and other amateur legal theorists do not know is that STATE LAW ALSO APPLIES TO THE SAME PERSON AT THE SAME TIME. This is because, under the tenth amendment, STATE LAW governs the subject of driver's licenses OUTSIDE THE CONTEXT OF "INTERSTATE COMMERCE". See the Tenth Amendment here. http://www.annenbergclassroom.org/page/tenth-amendment. [B]And, under STATE law, a person is required to have a driver’s license to drive a motor vehicle WHEN THAT PERSON "IS NOT" ENGAGED IN "INTERSTATE COMMERCE". So, when BOTH FEDERAL law and STATE law are COMBINED AND APPLIED TO THE SAME PERSON AT THE SAME TIME, A PERSON IS REQUIRED TO HAVE A DRIVER’S LICENSE TO DRIVE A MOTOR VEHICLE IN ALL CONTEXTS, ALL THE TIME, NO MATTER WHAT (whether or not that person is engaged in "INTERSTATE COMMERCE"). But, Rod Class and other amateur legal theorists do not know enough to even realize this.

    MISUNDERSTANDING FEDERAL LAW:
    Rod Class MISTAKENLY BELIEVES that FEDERAL law governs EVERY legal subject. (This is precisely why he pretended to be a "retired FEDERAL judge" in the "Judge DALE forgeries", why he only cites FEDERAL statutes in support of his false claims and why he uses the phrase, "Congressional [meaning FEDERAL] intent".). Class does not know that FEDERAL law ONLY governs that TINY LIST of legal subjects that were expressly delegated to the FEDERAL government in the U.S. Constitution AND THAT under the tenth amendment, STATE LAW GOVERNS EVERYTHING ELSE (including drivers licenses for those who "ARE NOT" engaged in "interstate commerce".). http://www.annenbergclassroom.org/page/tenth-amendment. This means that ALMOST ALL OF THE LAW IN OUR COUNTRY IS STATE LAW (95-99% multiplied by 50 states), NOT FEDERAL LAW (which only governs a TINY LIST of legal subjects). Note that if the law really was as Class MISTAKENLY BELIEVED it to be (FEDERAL law governs every legal subject), THERE WOULD BE NO NEED FOR STATE LAW IN THE FIRST PLACE AND THE TENTH AMENDMENT WOULD BE ABSOLUTELY MEANINGLESS.

    Class makes this AMATEUR mistake about FEDERAL law because he misunderstands the "supremacy clause" in the U.S. Constitution. Class MISTAKENLY believes that FEDERAL LAW GOVERNS EVERY LEGAL SUBJECT and, therefore, MISTAKENLY concludes that, under the "supremacy clause", FEDERAL LAW IS "ALWAYS SUPREME" OVER EVERY LEGAL SUBJECT IN THE LAW. But, this is not so. Unknown to Class, under the "supremacy clause", FEDERAL LAW IS ONLY "SUPREME" TO STATE LAW IF (AND ONLY IF) THERE IS A DIRECT CONFLICT BETWEEN FEDERAL LAW AND STATE LAW ON THE "SAME, EXACT" LEGAL SUBJECT. But, such direct conflicts between FEDERAL law and STATE law on the SAME, EXACT legal subject are EXTREMELY RARE, because FEDERAL and STATE law govern ENTIRELY DIFFERENT ("OPPOSITE") legal subjects. So, when there is NO DIRECT CONFLICT between FEDERAL law and STATE law on the SAME, EXACT legal subject (which is almost all of the time), STATE LAW IS "SUPREME" AS TO ALL STATE LAW LEGAL SUBJECTS (such as driver's licenses FOR THOSE WHO "ARE NOT" ENGAGED IN "INTERSTATE COMMERCE").

    NOTE: For a detailed explanation of just how totally irrelevant "COMMERCE" is to STATE driver's license and traffic & transportation law, see the SECOND (2nd) comment in this thread. http://projectavalon.net/forum4/show...y-sheriff-hoax. Look for "IF NO COMMERCE, NO DRIVER'S LICENSE IS NEEDED HOAX".


    THE ACTUAL REAL LAW ITSELF ON THE SUBJECT OF DRIVER'S LICENSES AND THE "RIGHT TO TRAVEL":

    OVER A CENTURY AGO, THE SUPREME COURT HELD THAT THE STATES HAD THE RIGHT TO REQUIRE ALL DRIVERS OF ALL MOTOR VEHICLES TO HAVE DRIVER'S LICENSES, WHETHER OR NOT THE DRIVER WAS ENGAGED IN "INTERSTATE COMMERCE". But, Rod Class and other amateur legal theorists do not know enough to even realize this.

    1). Hendrick v. Maryland, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&as_sdt=40006. In this case, the United States Supreme Court held, "... A STATE MAY rightfully prescribe uniform regulations... in respect to the operation upon its highways of ALL MOTOR VEHICLES —— those moving in interstate commerce AS WELL AS OTHERS [NOT MOVING INTERSTATE COMMERCE!!!]. And to this end it [THE STATE] MAY REQUIRE the REGISTRATION OF SUCH VEHICLES and THE LICENSING OF THEIR DRIVERS... . This is but an exercise of THE POLICE POWER uniformly recognized AS BELONGING TO THE STATES [under the tenth amendment]... ." (in the 8th paragraph at about 70% through the text).

    FACT: This decision (above) is from the HIGHEST court in the United States. This court is the ONLY court in the United States which has the power to overturn this decision. But, it has NEVER done so. That means this decision is still the SINGLE CONTROLLING LAW on this subject IN EVERY STATE AND FEDERAL JURISDICTION IN THE UNITED STATES. So, if you find ANY decision from ANY court ANYWHERE in the United States which contains ANY language of ANY type which you interpret as preventing THE STATES from requiring drivers of motor vehicles to have driver's licenses, then YOU HAVE INTERPRETED THAT OTHER DECISION WRONG!]There has NEVER been ANY decision from ANY court in the United States which holds, "STATES may not require drivers of motor vehicles to have driver's licenses". But, even if there were such a decision, this decision above would overturn it.

    NOTE: Since this decision, CONGRESS (in compliance with this decision and in compliance with Art. 1, Sec. 8, clause 3, U.S. Const.) passed “NATIONAL” (FEDERAL) legislation regulating ONLY those drivers WHO WERE ENGAGED IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE (Title 49).Under the tenth amendment and under this decision (above), this reserved unto THE STATES the power to regulate ONLY those drivers WHO WERE “NOT” ENGAGED IN "INTERSTATE COMMERCE". In this sense, FEDERAL law and STATE law are now "OPPOSITES" of one another. But, Rod Class and other amateur legal theorists do not know enough to even realize this.

    FACT: Under the tenth amendment, THE STATES have the CONSTITUTIONAL "RIGHT" to require driver's licenses of all drivers who are “NOT” ENGAGED IN "INTERSTATE COMMERCE".

    2). State v. Sullivan, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&as_sdt=40006. In this case, the court held, "THE TENTH AMENDMENT to the Constitution of the United States provides, 'The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution nor prohibited by it to the States ARE RESERVED TO THE STATES... .' WITHIN THIS RESERVATION OF POWERS TO THE INDIVIDUAL STATES, is what has been judicially termed 'THE POLICE POWER.' (citation omitted). '[SUCH A] STATE MAY RIGHTFULLY PRESCRIBE UNIFORM REGULATIONS... in respect to THE OPERATION UPON ITS HIGHWAYS OF ALL MOTOR VEHICLES... . And to this end IT [THE STATE] MAY REQUIRE the registration of such vehicles AND THE LICENSING OF THEIR DRIVERS... . This is but an exercise of THE POLICE POWER uniformly recognized AS BELONGING TO THE STATES [under the tenth amendment and NOT belonging to the FEDERAL government under the tenth amendment]... . (quoting the Supreme Court case directly above). (at the 8th paragraph not including block indented portions at about 45% through the text). Translation: STATE LAW GOVERNS THE REQUIREMENT OF DRIVER'S LICENSES for all vehicles and drivers "NOT" engaged in "interstate COMMERCE".

    3). Chaoui v. City Of Glendora, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&as_sdt=40006. In this case, the court wrote, "The United States Supreme Court has long held that STATES HAVE THE RIGHT TO REGULATE THE USE OF STATE ROADS BY REQUIRING DRIVERS ON THOSE ROADS OBTAIN DRIVER'S LICENSES carry liability insurance, and pay taxes and fees, and that such regulation DOES NOT VIOLATE THE COSTITUTION. (citations omitted). In the absence of national legislation covering the subject, A STATE may rightfully prescribe uniform regulations necessary for public safety and order in respect to the operation upon its highways of all motor vehicles, — those moving in interstate commerce AS WELL AS OTHERS [NOT MOVING IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE!!!]. And to this end IT [THE STATE] MAY REQUIRE the registration of such vehicles AND THE LICENSING OF THEIR DRIVERS... . This is but an exercise of THE POLICE POWER uniformly recognized as BELONGING TO THE STATES [under the tenth amendment and not to the federal government] and essential to the preservation of the health, safety, and comfort of their citizens... ." (quoting the Supreme Court case directly above). (at the 31st paragraph, not including block indented portions at about 75% through the text). Translation: STATE LAW GOVERNS THE REQUIREMENT OF DRIVER'S LICENSES for vehicles and drivers NOT engaged in "interstate COMMERCE".

    4). El v. Richmond Police Officer Opdyke,https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&as_sdt=40006. In this case, the court wrote, "The Supreme Court has held that STATES MAY CONSTITUTIONALLY REGULATE THE USE OF PUBLIC HIGHWAYS. In Reitz v. Mealey, the Supreme Court stated: The use of the public highways by motor vehicles, with its consequent dangers, renders the reasonableness and necessity of such regulation apparent. THE UNIVERSAL PRACTICE [AMONG THE STATES] IS TO register ownership of automobiles AND TO LICENSE THEIR DRIVERS. ANY [read this term again] appropriate means BY THE STATES to insure competence and care on the part of ITS [DRIVER'S] LICENSEES and to protect others using the highway IS CONSANANT WITH [means "complies with"] DUE PROCESS. (citation omitted). [And, contrary to what Rod Class and other amateur legal theorists mistakenly believe]... [T]he Supreme Court DID NOT LIMIT ITS HOLDING [ABOUT DRIVER'S LICENSES] TO COMMERICAL USES OF PUBLIC HIGHWAYS." (at the 13th paragraph at about 70% through the text).

    FACT: THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS THE UNREGULATABLE "RIGHT TO DRIVE" WITHOUT A DRIVER'S LICENSE.

    5). Commonwealth v. Ascenzi, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&as_sdt=40006. In this case, the court held, "THERE IS NO RIGHT TO DRIVE RECOGNIZED BY THE U.S. CONSTITUTION OR BY ANY STATE CONSTITUTION. Because there is NO CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO DRIVE [driving may be regulated, licensed or prohibited entirely]... ." (beginning in the 2nd TO LAST paragraph at about 95% through the text). Translation: The "RIGHT TO TRAVEL" is NOT the same thing as the non-existent "RIGHT TO DRIVE a motor vehicle without a driver's license".

    6). State v. Sullivan, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&as_sdt=40006. In this case, the court held, "Although there is a well established and fundamental RIGHT TO INTERSTATE TRAVEL, (citation omitted), THERE IS NO CORRESPONDING RIGHT TO OPERATE [means "DRIVE"] A MOTOR VEHCILE [showing that the "right to travel" is NOT THE SAME THING as the alleged "right to drive" a motor vehicle]... .'[T]HERE IS NO RIGHT TO DRIVE an automobile on the roads and highways... .' 'The courts have UNIVERSALLY AGREED THAT AN INDIVIDUAL DOES NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO OPERATE ["DRIVE"'] A MOTOR VEHICLE.'... . 'Driving on the roads of this State is ... NOT A RIGHT, but a privilege.'" (at the 2nd TO LAST paragraph at about 65% through the text). Translation: The "RIGHT TO TRAVEL" is NOT the same thing as the non-existent "RIGHT TO DRIVE a motor vehicle without a driver's license".

    7). John Doe No. 1 v. Georgia Dept. Of Public Safety, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&as_sdt=40006. In this case, the court held that there is NO SUCH THING AS A "RIGHT TO DRIVE" and cited the following holding of another case with approval, "[THERE IS] NO FUNDAMENTAL 'RIGHT TO DRIVE'... ." The court also cited this holding from another case with approval, "WHILE A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO TRAVEL EXISTS, THERE IS NO FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO DRIVE A MOTOR VEHICLE [showing that the "right to travel" is NOT THE SAME THING as the alleged "right to drive" a motor vehicle]... ." (at the 4h paragraph from he bottom at about 85% through the text). Translation: The "RIGHT TO TRAVEL" is NOT the same thing as the non-existent "RIGHT TO DRIVE a motor vehicle without a driver's license".

    8). Matter Of Acevedo v. State Of New York DMV, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&as_sdt=40006. In this case, the court held, "Although the [U.S.] constitution recognizes a RIGHT TO TRAVEL [INTERSTATE] within the United States, referred to as the "RIGHT OF FREE MOVEMENT [BETWEEN THE STATES]" (citation omitted), IT [THE CONSTITUTION] DOES NOT RECOGNIZE A FUNDAMENTAL 'RIGHT TO DRIVE' [drawing a distinction between these two different legal subjects]. (citations omitted). (at the section entitled "Due Process" at about 80% through the text). Translation: The "RIGHT TO TRAVEL" is NOT the same thing as the non-existent "RIGHT TO DRIVE a motor vehicle without a driver's license".

    9). Matter Of Allen v. New York State DMV, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&as_sdt=40006. SAME HOLDING VERBATIM. (at the section entitled "Due Process" at about 80% through the text). Translation: The "RIGHT TO TRAVEL" is NOT the same thing as the non-existent "RIGHT TO DRIVE a motor vehicle without a driver's license".

    10). Matter of Matsen v. State of New York DMV, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&as_sdt=40006. SAME HOLDING VERBATIM. (at the section entitled "Due Process" at about 80% through the text). Translation: The "RIGHT TO TRAVEL" is NOT the same thing as the non-existent "RIGHT TO DRIVE a motor vehicle without a driver's license".

    11). Matter of Gillman v. State of New York DMV, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&as_sdt=40006. SAME HOLDING VERBATIM. (at the section entitled "Due Process" at about 80% through the text). Translation: The "RIGHT TO TRAVEL" is NOT the same thing as the non-existent "RIGHT TO DRIVE a motor vehicle without a driver's license".

    HERE IS THE DEFINITION OF THE "RIGHT TO TRAVEL" AS PROVIDED BY THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES.

    12). Jones v. Helms, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&as_sdt=40006. In this case, the Supreme Court Of The United States held, "The RIGHT TO TRAVEL... is 'THE RIGHT of a United States citizen TO TRAVEL FROM ONE STATE TO ANOTHER and to take up residence in the State of his choice [and to be treated like any other citizen of that other state].' (citation omitted). (at the 8th paragraph at about 25% through the text). Translation: The RIGHT TO TRAVEL has nothing to do with DRIVING anything. Instead, the RIGHT TO TRAVEL is all about being treated the same as the local state citizens, regardless of which state you happen to be in.

    13). Saenz v. Roe, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&as_sdt=40006. In this case, the court held, "THE 'RIGHT TO TRAVEL'... protects THE RIGHT OF A CITIZEN OF ONE STATE TO ENTER AND LEAVE ANOTHER STATE, THE RIGHT TO BE TREATED AS A WELCOME VISITOR... IN [THAT OTHER]... STATE, and for those travelers who elect to become permanent residents [OF THAT OTHER STATE]... THE RIGHT TO BE TREATED LIKE OTHER CITIZENS OF THAT [OTHER] STATE. (at the 16th paragraph at about 25% through he text). Translation: The RIGHT TO TRAVEL has nothing to do with DRIVING anything. Instead the RIGHT TO TRAVEL is all about being treated the same as the local state citizens, regardless of which state you happen to be in.

    The "RIGHT TO TRAVEL" IS NOT ABOUT "DRIVING" ANYTHING.

    14). State v. Sullivan, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&as_sdt=40006. In this case, the court held, "[T]HE RIGHT TO TRAVEL IS NOT SYNONYMOUS WITH [means "IS NOT THE SAME AS"] THE RIGHT TO OPERATE A MOTOR VEHICLE on the highways of this State. 'THE OPERATION OF A MOTOR VEHCILE on such highways IS NOT A NATURAL RIGHT. IT IS A CONDITIONAL PRIVILEGE, which may be suspended or revoked under the [state's] POLICE POWER. The license or permit to so operate [a motor vehicle] IS NOT A CONTRACT or property right in a constitutional sense. (at the 8th paragraph, not including block indented portions, at about 45% through he text). Translation: The "RIGHT TO TRAVEL" is not about "DRIVING" anything.

    15). Miller v. Reed, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&as_sdt=40006. In this case, the court quoted another court which wrote, "The plaintiff's argument that the RIGHT TO OPERATE A MOTOR VEHICLE is [somehow protected by]... the fundamental RIGHT OF INTERSTATE TRAVEL IS UTTERLY FRIVOLOUS [read this phrase again]. The plaintiff is not being prevented from TRAVELING INTERSTATE by public transportation, by common carrier [means, plane, train, ship, or bus], or [as a PASSENGER] in a motor vehicle driven by someone with a license to drive it. What is at issue here IS NOT HIS RIGHT TO TRAVEL INTERSTATE [which is one legal subject], BUT HIS RIGHT TO OPERATE A MOTOR VEHICLE on the public highways [which is an entirely different legal subject], and we have no hesitation in holding that THIS [driving/operating a motor vehicle] IS NOT A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT [read that phrase again]. (Citation omitted). Miller [the amateur legal theorist in this case] DOES NOT HAVE A FUNDAMENTAL 'RIGHT TO DRIVE'." (citation omitted). (at the 13th paragraph at about 60% through he text). Translation: The RIGHT TO TRAVEL interstate and the PRIVILEGE OF DRIVING a car are NOT the same thing. Translation: The RIGHT TO TRAVEL INTERSTATE and the privilege of DRIVING a motor vehicle are not the same thing.

    16). North Carolina v. Howard, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&as_sdt=40006. In this case, the court wrote, "The RIGHT TO TRAVEL... IS 'THE RIGHT of a United States citizen TO TRAVEL FROM ONE STATE TO ANOTHER AND TO TAKE UP RESIDENCE IN THE STATE OF HIS CHOICE [and be treated like any other citizen of that other state].' (citation omitted).' ... . [In this case,] [T]here is NO EVIDENCE that [the petitioners] are prohibited from TRAVELING FROM ONE STATE TO ANOTHER [which might have otherwise violated the RIGHT TO TRAVEL INTERSTATE]. Petitioners have voluntarily chosen not to disclose their SS [social security] numbers and, thereby, are unable to obtain a drivers license... . Petitioners ARE FREE TO LEAVE THE STATE [under their RIGHT TO TRAVEL]— although THEY MAY NOT DRIVE WITHOUT A DRIVER'S LICENSE [drawing a distinction between these two different legal subjects]. (at the section entitled, "2. Right To Travel" at about 95% through the text). Translation: The RIGHT TO TRAVEL INTERSTATE and the privilege of DRIVING a motor vehicle are not the same thing.

    17). Thompson v. Scutt, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&as_sdt=40006. In this case, the court wrote, "... Petitioner claims that the State... violated his CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO TRAVEL by enforcing laws PROHIBITING [HIS]... DRIVING WITH A SUSPENDED LICENSE. This claim is WITHOUT MERIT because Petitioner [LIKE ROD CLASS] MISUNDERSTANDS THE NATURE OF THE RIGHT TO TRAVEL. The Supreme Court has recognized a RIGHT TO TRAVEL which is essentially A RIGHT of citizens TO MIGRATE FREELY BETWEEN STATES [not to drive/operate motor vehicles without driver's licenses]. (citation omitted). This right [to travel] includes: [T]HE RIGHT OF A CITIZEN OF ONE STATE TO ENTER AN LEAVE ANOTHER STATE, the right to be treated as a welcome visitor... when temporarily present IN THE SECOND STATE, and, for those travelers who elect to become permanent residents [OF THAT OTHER STATE], the right to be treated like other citizens OF THAT [other] STATE." (at the section entitled, "D. Right to Travel" at about 50% through he text.)

    FACT: STATE requirements for driver's licenses DO NOT VIOLATE THE "RIGHT TO TRAVEL".

    18). Chaoui v. City of Glendora, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&as_sdt=40006. In this case, the court wrote, "To the extent Plaintiff challenges the constitutionality of California's driver's license requirement, ANY SUCH CHALLENGE IS MERITLESS [read this phrase again]. The United States Supreme Court has long held that STATES HAVE THE RIGHT [under the tenth amendment] to regulate the use of state roads BY REQUIRING THAT DRIVERS ON THOSE OBTAIN DRIVER'S LICENSES, carry liability insurance, and pay taxes and fees, AND THAT such REGULATION DOES NOT VIOLATE THE CONSTITUTION... ." The court went on to cite the holding of another case with approval which held, "STATE LAWS REQUIRING VALID DRIVER'S LICENSE TO OPERATE A MOTOR VEHICLE DO NOT VIOLATE [THE CONSTITUTIONAL] RIGHT TO TRAVEL." (citation omitted). The court also cited with approval another holding of another case which, "REJECTI[ED] [THE] CONTENTION THAT CALIFORNIA'S ENFORCEMENT OF ITS DRIVER'S LICENSE AND VEHILCE REGISTRATION REQUIREMENTS VIOLATED [THE] RIGHT TO TRAVEL." (beginning in the 6th paragraph of the section entitled, "DISCUSSION" at about 75% through he text). Translation: STATE laws requiring driver's licenses DO NOT VIOLATE THE "RIGHT TO TRAVEL" which is something else entirely.

    19). Robinson v. Huerta, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&as_sdt=40006. In this case, a pilot who lost his pilot's license claimed that revoking his pilot's license violated his RIGHT TO TRAVEL. But, the court ruled otherwise and wrote, "a number of courts have held that an incidental RESTRICTION ON A SINGLE MODE OF TRANSPORTAION [such as driving a motor vehicle] DOES NOT VIOLATE THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO TRAVEL. In support, the court cited a case which, "[FOUND] NO INFRINGEMENT OF THE RIGHT TO TRAVEL... because 'TRAVELERS DO NOT HAVE A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO THE MOST CONVENIENT FORM OF TRAVEL [such as driving a motor vehicle]... ')... ." The court also cited a case which held that a "DENIAL OF [A] DRIVER'S LICENSE ONLY DENIES THE PLAINTIFF THE ABILITY TO DRIVE A CAR [a single mode of travel], AND THUS "DOES NOT IMPERMISSIBLY BURDEN HIS RIGHT TO TRAVEL [INTERSTATE using other MODES of reansportation]." The court then cited another case which held, "A BURDEN ON A SINGLE MODE OF TRANSPORTATION [such as driving a motor vehicle] SIMPLY DOES NOT [VIOLATE]... THE RIGHT TO INTERSTATE TRAVEL." Finally, the court cited a case which "reject[ed] [a] claim that [the] denial of a driver's license violate[d] [the] RIGHT TO INTERSTATE TRAVEL because... THERE IS NO FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO DRIVE." (at the 8h paragraph in the section entitled "3. Right To Travel" at about 75% through the text). Translation: STATE laws requiring driver's licenses DO NOT VIOLATE THE "RIGHT TO TRAVEL" which is something else entirely.

    20). State v. Williams,https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&as_sdt=40006. In this case, WORLD FAMOUS AMATEUR LEGAL THEORIST, ANTHONY TROY WILLIAMS, filed this LOSING appeal following his LOSS at the trial court where he was CRIMINALLY CONVICTED (again) for DRIVING ON A SUSPENDED OR REVOKED DRIVER'S LICENSE, SECOND OFFENSE. Williams was sentenced to SIX MONTHS IN JAIL and a $2,500 FINE. NOTE: This case is one of TEN (10) similar driver's license cases that Williams LOST in the State of Tennessee alone. This number does not even include his many other LOSSES of similar driver's license cases in other states, such as Florida. In this case, the court wrote, "This Court agrees with Appellant's [ANTHONY WILLIAMS'] contention that he enjoys a fundamental RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF TRAVEL. (citation omitted). However, Appellant's [WILLIAMS'] RIGHT TO TRAVEL HAS NOT BEEN INFRINGED UPON BY THE REQUIREMENT BY OUR [STATE] LEGISLATURE THAT AN INDIVIDUAL [LIKE WILLIAMS] HAVE A VALID DRIVER'S LICENSE TO LAWFULLY OPERATE A MOTOR VEHICLE ON THE PUBLIC HIGHWAYS OF THIS STATE... . The same holds true for the requirement that motor vehicles be registered under the motor vehicle registration law. ... . Arguments identical to Appellant's [WILLIAMS'] have been addressed AND DISMISSED by this Court SEVERAL TIMES [actually providing a long list of those DISMISSALS]." The court upheld the conviction and sentence against Williams. But, the court could not resist making fun of some of Williams' amateur legal theories. In footnote 1, the court wrote, "Throughout the events leading up to this appeal, Appellant REFERRED TO HIMSELF as the 'ATTORNEY IN FACT' FOR THE 'LEGAL FICTION' OF 'ANTHONY WILLIAMS' [making fun of the amateur "SPLIT PERSONALITY" defense]. The record even includes an exhibit PURPORTING TO COPYRIGHT THE NAME 'ANTHONY TROY WILLIAMS' and several variations of the name [as if that could be used as a defense in a case]. Appellant is apparently part of the sovereign citizen movement. For the sake of clarity, we will not distinguish between the attorney in fact and the legal fiction, REFERRING TO BOTH as Appellant [making fun of Williams' amateur "SPLIT PERSONALITY" defense]." Translation: STATE laws requiring driver's licenses DO NOT VIOLATE THE "RIGHT TO TRAVEL" which is something else entirely. NOTE THAT THIS IS THE SAME WORLD FAMOUS "ANTHONY WILLIAMS" WHO STARS IN THE 3 MINUTE VIDEO BELOW.

    21). John Doe No. 1 v. Georgia Dept. Of Public Safety, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&as_sdt=40006. In this case, an illegal alien who had not established residency in the state sued the state because it refused to issue him a driver's license. The illegal alien claimed that by so doing, the state had violated his "RIGHT TO TRAVEL". But, the court disagreed and wrote, "[T]he Georgia statutes in question do not violate that right [to travel]... . BURDENS ON A SINGLE MODE OF TRANSPORTAION [such as driving a car] DO NOT [VIOLATE]... THE RIGHT TO INTERSTATE TRAVEL. (citation omitted). [THERE IS] NO FUNDAMENTAL 'RIGHT TO DRIVE'... . (citation omitted). WHILE A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO TRAVEL EXISTS, THERE IS NO FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO DRIVE A MOTOR VEHICLE [drawing a distinction between these two different legal subjects]... . REGULATION OF THE DRIVING PRIVILEGE is a quintessential example of the exercise of THE POLICE POWER OF THE STATE [under the tenth amendment], AND THE DENIAL OF A SINGLE MODE OF TRANSPORTATION [such as driving a motor vehicle] DOES NOT RISE TO THE LEVEL OF A VIOLATION OF THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO INTERSTATE TRAVEL [which is something else entirely]." (at the 4h paragraph from he bottom at about 85% through the text). Translation: STATE laws requiring driver's licenses DO NOT VIOLATE THE "RIGHT TO TRAVEL" which is something else entirely.

    FACT: A person may freely exercise his/her "RIGHT TO TRAVEL" without "DRIVING" ANYTHING by walking, riding a bicycle or horse, or as a "PASSENGER" in an automobile, bus, airplane or helicopter.

    22. State v. Sullivan, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&as_sdt=40006. In this case, an amateur legal theorist appealed his convictions for driving an unregistered car and for driving without insurance. The defendant argued that such STATE laws violated his "RIGHT TO TRAVEL". The court disagreed and wrote, "If defendant does not wish to follow these statutory requirements, we remind him that HE MAY EXERCISE HIS RIGHT TO TRAVEL [INTERSTATE] IN A VARIETY OF WAYS, 'If he wishes, HE MAY WALK, RIDE A BICYCLE OR HORSE, OR TRAVEL AS A PASSENGER in an AUTOMOBILE, BUS, AIRPLANE or HELICOPTER. HE CANNOT, HOWEVER, OPERATE ["DRIVE"] A MOTOR VEHCILE ON THE PUBLIC HIGHWAYS [WITHOUT A DRIVER'S LICENSE]... ." (citation omitted). Translation: A person can exercise his/her "RIGHT TO TRAVEL" INTERSTATE without DRIVING A MOTOR VEHICLE.

    23). Miller v. Reed, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&as_sdt=40006. In this case, the State of California refused to issue Miller a driver's license because he would not reveal his social security number. Miller argued that in so doing, California had violated his RIGHT TO TRAVEL. But, the court disagreed and wrote, "The plaintiff is NOT being prevented from TRAVELLING INTERSTATE BY PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION, BY COMMON CARRIER [means plane, bus, train or ship], OR [AS A PASSENGER] IN A MOTOR VEHICLE DRIVEN BY SOMEONE WITH A LICENSE TO DRIVE IT." (at the 4h paragraph, block indented portion, in the section entitled "DISCUSSION" at about 60% through the text). Translation: A person can exercise his/her "RIGHT TO TRAVEL" INTERSTATE without DRIVING A MOTOR VEHICLE.


    3 MINUTE VIDEO.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cLbXtscZBM8

    SNOPES:

    http://m.snopes.com/supreme-court-ru...s-unnecessary/

    ABOUT ROD CLASS:
    Rod Class is a functionally-illiterate amateur legal theorist with barely a high school education WHO HAS LOST EVERY SINGLE CASE IN WHICH HE HAS EVER BEEN INVOLVED (OVER 76 CONSECUTIVE LOSSES IN A ROW, AND STILL COUNTING). Further, Class has a long history of PSYCHIATRIC PROBLEMS involving DELUSIONS, PATHOLOGICAL OPPOSITION/DEFIANCE of AUTHORITY FIGURES and PATHOLOGICAL LYING. Moreover, Class is a MULTI-CONVICTED, WEAPONS RELATED, CONVICTED FELON who also has SEVERAL ADDITIONAL MISDEMEANOR CONVICTIONS, as well. Because of Class’ well-publicized HATRED of our ELECTED representatives, their appointees and our REPUBLICAN form of government, because of his HISTORY OF PSYCHIATRIC PROBLEMS and because of his LENGTHY CRIMINAL HISTORY involving DEADLY WEAPONS, Class has been placed on the United States TERRORIST WATCH LIST.

    Most importantly, Class is a PROFESSIONAL HOAXER AND CHARLATAN who is behind a number of legal HOAXES which he created and peddles to INTENTIONALLY DEFRAUD the American people. For an ENTIRE SERIES of HOAXES by Rod Class, CLICK HERE. http://projectavalon.net/forum4/show...is-many-hoaxes.

    ABOUT SNOOP4TRUTH:
    Snoop4truth is a legal expert and whistle blower who exposes online hoaxes. Snoop4truth did not reveal this information to harm Rod Class. Instead, Snoop4truth exposed this information solely to reduce the CATASTROPHIC DAMAGE that such INTENTIONAL FRAUD inflicts upon the American people every single day. Had it not been for Rod Class' role in the "Judge DALE Hoax", Snoop4truth would not have exposed this information here.

    The message to all hoaxers and charlatans? Just tell the truth.
    Last edited by snoop4truth; 20th December 2018 at 19:47.

  4. Link to Post #4
    United States Avalon Member
    Join Date
    30th September 2015
    Age
    59
    Posts
    169
    Thanks
    76
    Thanked 275 times in 114 posts

    Default Re: Eddie Craig & the "former deputy sheriff hoax"

    COMMENT 4. EDDIE CRAIG & THE "TEXAS STATE BAR ACT VIOLATES THE TEXAS CONSTITUTION HOAX"

    FIRST, SEE THE HOAX HERE:
    ARTICLES:
    https://www.scribd.com/document/3259...al-Eddie-Craig
    https://taooflaw.wordpress.com/const...llenge-motion/
    https://www.change.org/p/texas-legis...tate-bar-act/c

    THE HOAX:
    Amateur legal theorist, Eddie Craig claims, "THE TEXAS BAR ACT IS A TOTALLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL ACT THAT VIOLATES THE TEXAS CIONSTITUTION" (as if Eddie Craig would know).

    THE TRUTH:
    The Texas State Bar Act is not unconstitutional. Under The Texas Constitution, the JUDICIAL BRANCH of Texas state government ALREADY had the "INHERENT POWER" to regulate the practice of law for a century BEFORE the Texas Bar Act was ever passed. THE "STATE BAR ACT" OF TEXAS DID NOT EMPOWER THE TEXAS SUPREME COURT TO DO WHAT IT WAS ALREADY EMPOWERED TO DO UNDER THE TEXAS CONSTITUTION. THUS, THE POWERS DESCRIBED IN THE "STATE BAR ACT" OF TEXAS DO NOT VIOLATE THE TEXAS CONSTITUTION, BECAUSE THE TEXAS CONSTITUTION WAS THE ACTUAL SOURCE OF THOSE VERY POWERS. But, Eddie Craig does not know enough about the law to even realize this.


    THE HOAX:
    Amateur legal theorist, Eddie Craig goes on to complain that The Texas Bar Act creates a "MONOPOLY" over the practice of law.


    THE TRUTH:
    The Texas Bar Act did not create a "MONOPOLY" over the practice of law. Unknown to Eddie Craig, a "MONOPOLY" in a service industry is NOT determined by whether all members of a service occupation are licensed by the STATE. If this were the case, then ANY person employed in a service industry requiring a STATE license would be engaged in a "monopoly" profession (all hair dressers, all electricians, all dentists, etc.).

    INSTEAD, A REAL "MONOPOLY" in a service industry IS DETERMINED BY "HOW MANY EMPLOYERS" EMPLOY PERSONS WITH LICENSES ISSUED BY THE STATE. So, if all hairdressers worked for A SINGLE BEAUTY PARLOR, then THAT would be a REAL "monopoly". If all electricians worked for A SINGLE ELECTRICAL COMPANY, then THAT would be a REAL "monopoly". If all dentists worked for A SINGLE DENTIST’S OFFICE, then THAT would be a REAL "monopoly". If all lawyers worked for A SINGLE LAW FIRM, then THAT would be a REAL "monopoly". But, of course, none of that is the case.

    EDDIE CRAIG'S CLAIM THAT THE TEXAS BAR ACT VIOLATES THE TEXAS CONSTITUTION:

    Not surprisingly, Eddie Craig does not cite a single case which holds that the STATE BAR ACT of Texas is unconstitutional. This is because the STATE BAR ACT of Texas HAS ALREADY BEEN HELD CONSTITUTIONAL (exactly the opposite to what Eddie Craig falsely claims). (See proof below.). But, Eddie Craig does not know enough about the law to even realize this.

    The reason that Eddie Craig reaches this mistaken conclusion (that the State Bar Act of Texas violates the Texas Constitution) is because he mistakenly believes THAT IT WAS THE "STATE BAR ACT" (ITSELF) WHICH EMPOWERED THE JUDICIAL BRANCH OF THE TEXAS STATE GOVERNMENT TO REGULATE ATTORNEYS AND THE PRACTICE OF LAW. But, this is not so. Unknown to Eddie Craig, the State Bar Act of Texas merely assists the Texas Supreme Court in carrying out the Constitutional powers THAT IT ALREADY HAD FOR A CENTURY BEFORE THE "STATE BAR ACT" WAS EVEN PASSED. But, Eddie Craig does not know enough about the law to even realize this. He is utterly clueless.

    WHY THE "STATE SUPREME COURTS" ALREADY HAVE THE CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY TO LICENSE AND REGULATE LAWYERS (without the need for additional statutory authority):


    SEVENTH GRADE CIVICS LESSON:
    Like the FEDERAL government, STATE governments also have three (3) branches of government, the ELECTED LEGISLATIVE branch (legislature), the ELECTED EXECUTIVE branch (governor) and the ELECTED JUDICIAL branch (the courts). All three branches of the ELECTED state government ARE EQUAL IN POWER to the other two ELECTED branches. But, EACH ELECTED BRANCH of state government IS INDEPENDENT from the other two branches. (The purpose of the "SEPARATION OF POWERS" doctrine is to prevent the concentration of power in any single branch of government.). But, Eddie Craig does not know enough about the law to even realize this.


    Because EACH ELECTED BRANCH of government is INDEPENDENT of the other two branches, EACH ELECTED BRANCH of state government has the "INHERENT POWER” to manage ITS OWN INTERNAL AFFAIRS (and the HIGHEST AUTHORITY of EACH ELECTED BRANCH is generally charged with that responsibility). For example, the highest authority of the ELECTED LEGISLATIVE branch of state government (such as the speaker of the house and/or the senate majority leader) has the "INHERENT POWER" to pick who will "chair" and who will "sit" on ITS OWN state legislative and investigative committees (WITHOUT INTERFERENCE from the other two branches of state government). Similarly, the highest authority of the ELECTED EXECUTIVE branch of state government (the governor) has the "INHERENT POWER" to appoint the heads of ITS OWN state agencies (WITHOUT INTERFERENCE from the other two branches of state government). Likewise, the highest authority of the ELECTED JUDICIAL branch of state government (The Supreme Court of the state) has the "INHERENT POWER" to license and regulate who will practice law in ITS OWN courts (WITHOUT INTERFERENCE from the other two branches of state government). But, Eddie Craig does not know enough about the law to even realize this.


    This "INHERENT POWER" of EACH INDEPENDENT branch of state government to regulate THEIR OWN internal affairs (WITHOUT INTERFERENCE from the other two branches) reflects the "SEPARATION OF POWERS” doctrine which is found in the constitution of every STATE and in the U.S. Constitution. But, Eddie Craig does not know enough to even realize this.


    THE BOTTOM LINE:
    This means that neither the INDEPENDENT EXECUTIVE branch nor the INDEPENDENT JUDICIAL branch of government need "LEGISLATION" from the LEGISLATIVE branch to "AUTHORIZE" them to do what they are ALREADY AUTHORIZED TO DO under their own INDEPENDENT "INHERENT POWERS" (under the "SEPARATION OF POWERS" doctrine found in every STATE constitution and in the FEDERAL constitution). Indeed, any "LEGISLATION" from the LEGISLATIVE branch of government PURPORTING TO "LIMIT" the INHERENT POWERS of the INDEPENDENT EXECUTIVE or the INDEPENDENT JUDICIAL branches of government to regulate THEIR OWN internal affairs WOULD ACTUALLY VIOLATE THE "SEPARATION OF POWERS" doctrine which is found in every STATE constitution and in the FEDERAL constitution. (This INDEPENDENCE is precisely why the lawyers are NOT licensed by the LEGISLATIVE branch and NOT listed by the Secretary Of State of the EXECUTIVE branch.). But, Eddie Craig does not know enough to even realize this. For more on the "INHERENT POWER" of the INDEPENDENT JUDICIAL branch to license and regulate the lawyers who practice law in ITS OWN courts, CLICK ON THE BLUE LINK (Go to the 12th full paragraph here, not including block indented quoted portions, at about 15% through the text). https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3182556056481747852&q="practice+ of+law"+inherent&hl=en&as_sdt=4,10.


    ADDITIONAL (AND UNECESSARY) "CONSTITUTIONAL" & "STATUTORY" POWER:
    IN ADDITION to the "INHERENT POWER” that each STATE Supreme Court ALREADY HAS to license and regulate lawyers who practice law in ITS OWN courts, some STATE "CONSTITUTIONS" ALSO expressly authorize the STATE Supreme Court to license and regulate lawyers and the practice of law (ex: Florida & New Jersey). http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/...ubmenu=3#A5S15 (Click on Article V and scroll down to section 15.); http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/lawscon...nstitution.asp (Scroll down to Article VI, Section 2, paragraph numbered "3", in the FINAL SENTENCE.). But, Eddie Craig does not know enough about the law to even realize this.


    Likewise, some STATE "STATUTES" also expressly authorize the STATE Supreme Court to license and regulate lawyers and the practice of law (ex: New York, Texas, Virginia). http://codes.findlaw.com/ny/judiciar...-sect-460.html (at the END OF THE 1ST SENTENCE & note that New York's HIGHEST COURT is called the "Court Of Appeals".);http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.u.../htm/GV.81.htm (Scroll down to "Subchapter B", "Sec. 81.011", subsection "(b)" and "(c)"); https://law.justia.com/codes/virgini...54.1-3910.html.[/B] But, Eddie Craig does not know enough about the law to even realize this.


    Note that the foregoing CONSTITUTIONAL and LEGISLATIVE provisions (authorizing the STATE Supreme Courts to license and regulate lawyers and the practice of law) DO NOT "CREATE" OR "LIMIT" the "INHERENT" POWERS of the JUDICIAL branch of government, THEY SIMPLY ADD TO THOSE ALREADY PRE-EXISTING INHERENT POWERS!


    Note also that EVERY STATE also has a LEGISLATIVE STATUTE making it ILLEGAL to practice law without a license issued by the Supreme Court of the STATE, thereby achieving (in reverse) the SAME RESULT as a STATUTE that REQUIRES a person to have a license in order to practice law. Example: https://www.ncbar.gov/media/299201/u...w-statutes.pdf (at 84-4). Thus, it is NOT TRUE that there is "no constitutional" and/or "no legislative" authority for lawyers to practice law. But, it is also true that NO"LEGISLATIVE" AUTHORITY IS REQUIRED IN THE FIRST PLACE. But, Eddie Craig does not know enough about the law to even realize this.


    THE ACTUAL LAW ITSELF ON WHETHER THE STATE BAR ACT (https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/D.../htm/GV.81.htm) VIOLATES THE TEAXS CONSTITUTION:


    1. Gomez v. State Bar Of Texas, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...en&as_sdt=4,44. In that case, the court wrote, "... [T]HE [TEXAS] GOVERMENT CODE (https://codes.findlaw.com/tx/governm...ct-81-011.html) DID NOT ACTUALLY "GRANT" THE [TEXAS] SUPREME COURT EXCLUSIVE CONTROL OVER THE REGULATION AND SUPERVISION OF THE PRACTICE OF LAW. THE SUPREME COURT [ALREADY] HAS THAT CONTROL PURSUANT TO ITS INHERENT POWERS UNDER THE TEAXS CONSTITUTION. The State Bar Act is merely an aid in [merely assists] THE [TEXAS] SUPREME COURT'S EXERCISE OF ITS [ALREADY PRE-EXISTING] POWERS TO REGULATE AND CONTROL THE PRACTICE OF LAW. (citations omitted). (in footnote 2 at about 99% through the text). Translation: THE "STATE BAR ACT" OF TEXAS DID NOT EMPOWER THE TEXAS SUPREME COURT'S TO DO WHAT IT WAS ALREADY EMPOWERED TO DO UNDER THE TEXAS CONSTITUTION. THUS, THE POWERS DESCRIBED IN THE "STATE BAR ACT" OF TEXAS DO NOT VIOLATE THE TEXAS CONSTITUTION, BECAUSE THE TEXAS CONSTITUTION WAS THE ACTUAL SOURCE OF THOSE VERY POWERS.


    2. State Bar Of Texas v. Heard, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&as_sdt=4,44#[2]. In this case, the court wrote, "The [Texas] State Bar Act was passed in aid of [to assist] THIS COURT'S EXERCISE OF ITS [ALREADY EXISTING] INHERENT POWER TO REGULATE THE PRACTICE OF LAW. (in the 4th paragraph at about 10% through the text). Translation: THE "STATE BAR ACT" OF TEXAS DID NOT EMPOWER THE TEXAS SUPREME COURT'S TO DO WHAT IT WAS ALREADY EMPOWERED TO DO UNDER THE TEXAS CONSTITUTION. THUS, THE POWERS DESCRIBED IN THE "STATE BAR ACT" OF TEXAS DO NOT VIOLATE THE TEXAS CONSTITUTION, BECAUSE THE TEXAS CONSTITUTION WAS THE ACTUAL SOURCE OF THOSE VERY POWERS.


    3. Daves v. State Bar Of Texas, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...en&as_sdt=4,44. In this case, the court wrote, "[T]he [Texas] Legislature recognized that the State Bar Act "is in aid of [to assist] THE JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT'S [ALREADY EXISTING] POWERS UNDER THE [TEXAS] CONSTITUTION TO REGULATE THE PRACTICE OF LAW... . Given this recognition, the [Texas] Supreme Court, expressing and EXERCISING IT'S OWN [ALREADY EXISTING] INHERENT POWER TO REGULATE AND CONTROL THE PRACTICE OF LAW. entered its 19 June 1979 order specifying that the State Bar shall be governed by the State Bar Act "as supplemented by this order and subsequent orders." (citation omitted). The INHERENT POWER REFERRED TO IS THAT POWER GIVEN [TO THE JUDICIAL BRANCH] BY THE PRESENT [TEXAS] CONSTITUTION OF 1876. (citation omitted). Thus, even though the State Bar Act is utilized as an aid in [to assist] THE COURT'S EXERCISE OF ITS [ALREADY EXISTING] INHERENT POWER TO REGULATE AND CONTROL THE PRACTICE OF LAW... the provisions of the [State Bar] Act do not, by the Act's own language, and cannot, BY VIRTUE OF THE COURT'S [ALREADY EXISTING] INHERENT POWERS UNDER THE [TEXAS] CONSTITUTION, DETRACT FROM OR LIMIT THE [TEXAS SUPREME] COURT'S PRIMARY RESPONSIBILITY TO REGULATE AND CONTROL THE LEGAL PROFESSION BY ITS OWN ORDERS. When a provision of the State Bar Act conflicts with an order of the Supreme Court regulating and controlling the practice of law, THE STATUTORY PROVISION MUST YIELD TO THE [TEXAS SUPREME] COURT'S RULE. (citations omitted). (in the 17th paragraph, not including block indented portions, at about 60% through the text). Translation: THE "STATE BAR ACT" OF TEXAS DID NOT EMPOWER THE TEXAS SUPREME COURT'S TO DO WHAT IT WAS ALREADY EMPOWERED TO DO UNDER THE TEXAS CONSTITUTION. THUS, THE POWERS DESCRIBED IN THE "STATE BAR ACT" OF TEXAS DO NOT VIOLATE THE TEXAS CONSTITUTION, BECAUSE THE TEXAS CONSTITUTION WAS THE ACTUAL SOURCE OF THOSE VERY POWERS.


    4. State Bar Of Texas v. Gomez, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=6908406606088535130&q=Texas+"Sta te+Bar+Act"+"unconstitutional"+&hl=en&as_sdt=4,44. In this case, the court wrote, "The unique aspect of this jurisdictional inquiry... , arises out of THIS COURT'S POWER TO REGULATE THE PRACTICE OF LAW IN THE STATE OF TEXAS. ... .THE ... SOURCE OF THIS COURT'S POWER TO REGULATE THE PRACTICE OF LAW IN THIS STATE, ITS INHERENT POWER, IS NOT SECURED BY ANY LEGISLATIVE GRANT [SUCH AS THE STATE BAR ACT] OR SPECIFIC CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION, BUT IS NECESSARILY IMPLIED [IN THE TEXAS CONSTITUTION] TO ENABLE THE [TEXAS SUPREME} COURT TO DISCHARGE ITS CONSTITUTIONALLY IMPOSED DUTIES. See Eichelberger v. Eichelberger, 582 S.W.2d 395, 398-99 (Tex.1979) (noting THAT THE DOCTRINE OF INHERENT POWER IS DERIVED, IN PART, FROM THE SEPARATION OF POWERS DICTATED IN... THE TEXAS CONSTITUTION). Those [Constitutional] duties include our obligation, as the head of the judicial department, TO REGULATE JUDICIAL AFFAIRS, BECAUSE THE ADMISSION AND PRACTICE OF TEXAS ATTORNEYS IS [SO] INEXTRICABLY INTERTWINED WITH THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE, THE [TEXAS SUPREME] COURT MUST HAVE THE POWER TO REGULATE THESE ACTIVITIES IN ORDER TO FULFILL ITS CONSTITUTIONAL ROLE. See generally JIM R. CARRIGAN, INHERENT POWERS OF THE COURTS 2 (1973) (DEFINING INHERENT POWERS AS THOSE "REASONABLY REQUIRED TO ENABLE A COURT TO PERFORM EFFICIENTLY ITS [CONSTITUTIONAL] JUDICIAL JUNCTIONS, TO PROTECT ITS DIGNITY, INDEPENDENCE [OF THE OTHER TWO BRANCHES OF GOVERNMENT] AND INTEGRITY, AND TO MAKE ITS LAWFUL ACTIONS EFFECTIVE"). THE COURT'S INHERENT POWERS, SUCH AS THE POWER TO REGULATE THE PRACTICE OF LAW are not jurisdictional powers, See Eichelberger, 582 S.W.2d at 399. These powers are administrative powers, NECESSARY TO THE PRESERVATION OF THE JUDICIARY'S INDEPENDENCE AND INTEGRITY, (in the 5th full paragraph, not including block indented section). Translation: THE "STATE BAR ACT" OF TEXAS DID NOT EMPOWER THE TEXAS SUPREME COURT'S TO DO WHAT IT WAS ALREADY EMPOWERED TO DO UNDER THE TEXAS CONSTITUTION. THUS, THE POWERS DESCRIBED IN THE "STATE BAR ACT" OF TEXAS DO NOT VIOLATE THE TEXAS CONSTITUTION, BECAUSE THE TEXAS CONSTITUTION WAS THE ACTUAL SOURCE OF THOSE VERY POWERS.


    5. O'Quinn v. State Bar Of Texas, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...en&as_sdt=4,44. In this case, the court wrote, "[A]ttorney O'Quinn requested in district court a temporary and permanent injunction against prosecution of the action based on alleged federal and STATE CONSTITUTIONAL DEFICIENCIES IN THE STATE BAR ACT and certain disciplinary rules. The trial court denied O'Quinn's request for injunctive relief and, in its order, [THE TRIAL COURT] EXPRESSLY FOUND THAT THE STATUTE [THE STATE BAR ACT} and rules complained of WERE CONSTITUTIONAL, which serves as the basis for conferring direct appeal jurisdiction on this court. WE NOW AFFIRM [THE TRIAL COURT'S] ORDER denying injunctive relief and remand to the trial court for further proceedings. (in the 3rd paragraph at about 10% through the text). Translation: THE "STATE BAR ACT" OF TEXAS WAS NOT UNCONSTITUTIONAL.


    CONCLUSION:
    THE "STATE BAR ACT" OF TEXAS DID NOT EMPOWER THE TEXAS SUPREME COURT TO DO WHAT IT WAS ALREADY EMPOWERED TO DO UNDER THE TEXAS CONSTITUTION. THUS, THE POWERS DESCRIBED IN THE "STATE BAR ACT" OF TEXAS DO NOT VIOLATE THE TEXAS CONSTITUTION, BECAUSE THE TEXAS CONSTITUTION WAS THE ACTUAL SOURCE OF THOSE VERY POWERS.


    ABOUT EDDIE CRAIG AND THE "FORMER DEPUTY SHERIFF HOAX:
    Eddie Craig claims that he is a “FORMER DEPUTY SHERIFF”. But, this is not so. The closest that Eddie Craig ever came to being a “FORMER DEPUTY SHERIFF” was as a “PART-TIME JAILER” in Nacogdoches County, Texas, for a period of TWO-WEEKS in 1992 at which time he was unceremoniously FIRED “NOT ELIGIBLE FOR RE-HIRE”.


    That's right. On 8-17-1992, Eddie Craig was HIRED for a "PART-TIME" job as a county "JAILER" in Nacogdoches County, Texas and he was "FIRED" TWO WEEKS LATER on 8-31-1992 ("NOT ELIGIBLE FOR RE-HIRE")! It is this TWO WEEK TENURE as a "PART-TIME JAILER" in Nacogdoches County, Texas that Eddie Craig refers to as his "CAREER IN LAW ENFORCEMENT" as a "DEPUTY SHERIFF" for during which he claims he became an “EXPERT” on traffic, travel and motor vehicle codes.


    Accordingly, Eddie Craig NEVER obtained any "valuable inside knowledge" of traffic law or traffic law enforcement. Second, Eddie Craig NEVER received any training in traffic law or in traffic law enforcement. Finally, Eddie Craig NEVER even once sat behind the wheel of a law enforcement vehicle, much less made a single traffic stop. (So much for Eddie Craig's "EXPERIENCE" in his "CAREER" as a "LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER" and "DEPUTY SHERIFF".). He is a complete FRAUD and CHARLATAN.

    OTHER FACTS ABOUT EDDIE CRAIG:
    REAL law and amateur legal theories ARE NOT the same thing. Instead, REAL law and amateur legal theories are the exact OPPOSITES of one another. Eddie Craig does not use REAL law in court. Instead, he only uses amateur legal theories in court (the same amateur legal theories that he peddles in his videos, seminars and on the radio). For this reason, Eddie Craig has LOST EVERY SINGLE ONE OF HIS OWN CASES, including HIS OWN MISDEMEANOR SPEEDING CASE. State of Texas v. Eddie (Eugene) Craig, Case no. C-1-CR-12-100045, offense date 12-12-2011, ARREST date 06-25-2012, CONVICTION date 06-28-2013, Travis County, Texas. What's more, Eddie Craig has done no better in his civil cases. He has been sued for failing or refusing to pay his debts on FOUR separate occasions. HE LOST ALL FOUR TIMES. Some "expert".


    EDDIE CRAIG'S LACK OF QUALIFICATIONS:
    EDDIE CRAIG (with his lack of education, his ignorance of the law, his delusional belief system, his worthless, amateur legal theories, his lack of honesty and his 100% failure rate in court in ALL of his own cases) IS "LIVING PROOF" THAT THOSE WHO PRACTICE LAW (AND THOSE WHO TEACH THE LAW) SHOULD:
    1). BE REQUIRED TO HAVE A FOUR-YEAR COLLEGE EDUCATION (a "Bachelor's Degree");
    ]2). BE REQUIRED TO ALSO HAVE AN ADDITIONAL THREE TO FOUR YEAR LAW SCHOOL EDUCATION (a "Juris Doctor's Degree");
    3). BE REQUIRED TO PASS THE STATE BAR EXAM (takes three days);
    4). BE REQUIRED TO UNDERGO A RIGOROUS STATE CHARACTER AND FITNESS BACKGROUND INVESTIGATION WHICH TAKES SEVERAL MONTHS OR YEARS (NO MENTAL HEALTH HISTORY, NO CRIMINAL HISTORY, honesty, credit history, interviews of employers, teachers, former co-workers, neighbors, relatives, taking finger print samples, taking hand writing samples, etc.).
    5). BE LICENSED BY THE STATE AND BE SUBJECT TO THE CONTINUOUS OVERSIGHT AND DISCIPLINE OF THE HIGHEST OFFICE OF THE JUDICIAL BRANCH OF STATE GOVERNMENT, THE STATE SUPREME COURT (in order to protect the public from INCOMPETENCE and FRAUD of the very type committed by Eddie Craig).


    ABOUT SNOOP4TRUTH:
    Snoop4truth is a legal expert and whistle blower who exposes online hoaxes. Snoop4truth did not reveal this information to harm Eddie Craig. Instead, Snoop4truth revealed this information solely to reduce the CATASTROPHIC DAMAGE that such INTENTIONAL FRAUD inflicts upon the American people every single day. Had it not been for Eddie Craig's role in the "FORMER DEPUTY SHERIFF HOAX" Snoop4truth would not have exposed this information here.


    The message to all hoaxers and charlatans? Just tell the truth.
    Last edited by snoop4truth; 2nd January 2019 at 20:47.

  5. Link to Post #5
    United States Avalon Member
    Join Date
    30th September 2015
    Age
    59
    Posts
    169
    Thanks
    76
    Thanked 275 times in 114 posts

    Default Re: Eddie Craig & the "former deputy sheriff hoax"

    "THE COURTROOM TRACK RECORD OF EDDIE CRAIG AND OTHER AMATEUR LEGAL THEORISTS"

    (Under Construction).
    Last edited by snoop4truth; 2nd January 2019 at 20:33.

+ Reply to Thread

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts