My Hellish Encounter With Arizona Police

Author Topic: My Hellish Encounter With Arizona Police  (Read 1356 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline fanof2012

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 186
My Hellish Encounter With Arizona Police
« on: September 30, 2015, 09:16:03 PM »
I was supposed to visit the Peyote Way Church near Willcox, AZ to enjoy a nice peyote ceremony under the lunar eclipse on 9/27. Instead, I end up getting assaulted, kidnapped, and robbed at gunpoint by the Arizona cops and then spent 30 hours in Arizona jail. I got pulled over on Loop 202 in Phoenix by a highway patrolman for going over the speed limit, and I turn on my cell phone camera to get the incident on film and when the cop comes to my window, I started reciting Eddie Craig's traffic stop script at http://logosradionetwork.com/tao

The cop makes it clear he has no clue what I was talking about when I made it clear I was not operating in a commercial capacity, and when he threatened to arrest me I told him I felt in fear of my life and ordered him to cease and desist. At that moment he reaches in my car (and I must say I think he probably would've bashed out the windows if I rolled them up, but not rolling them up was a mistake on my part), yanks me out, handcuffs me, and kidnaps me and commits armed robbery by towing the car.

So I was forced to spend 30 hours which includes a lunar eclipse night in Arizona jail. I witnessed my fellow prisoners and I get our due process rights violated at every turn. And rest assured, I will easily get these charges dropped and I will sue the shit out of the Arizona cops for this! And what a funny coincidence that this happened in Maricopa County, AZ which is under the jurisdiction of Joe Arpaio, the same Arizona sheriff who I was supporting in his crusade to expose President Obama's birth certificate as a fraud.

Oh, and I would like to make it very clear that I have no intention of not using the previously mentioned traffic stop script in the event I get pulled over again. As far as I am concerned, the hassle is totally worth it as I will be able to sue the police for a fortune in the end and I will have the last laugh. I do hope that encourages everyone else out there who is reading this to never let the fear of what police might to do you keep you from invoking rights and refusing to obey laws that don't apply to you. And if you lose your job because you got arrested, all you have to do to make a living is sell drugs and live off welfare paychecks.

Offline snoop4truth

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 32
Re: My Hellish Encounter With Arizona Police
« Reply #1 on: September 04, 2017, 03:53:03 PM »
EDDIE CRAIG & THE "FORMER DEPUTY SHERIFF HOAX" !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

FIRST, SEE THE HOAX HERE:
 1). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uWLf...i85eskflg7W71F . (See title.).

 2). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fzMi...6siUxz&index+1. (See title.).

 3). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=paNIHT8msFw . (See description below title.).

 4). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cvI_tvt5cfA . (See description below title.).

 5). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=paNIHT8msFw&t=79s . (See description below title.).

 6). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8KeLe1LKpMI&t=9s . (See description below title.).

 7). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=paOff8DDztk&t+13s . (See description below title.).

THE HOAX:
Eddie Craig is an amateur legal theorist who 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 claims that he was a "DEPUTY SHERIFF" in Nacogdoches County, Texas. Eddie Craig claims that during his "CAREER" 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 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" for which he claims he "left the Air Force".

ANALYSIS:
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".). http://scholar.google.com/scholar_ca...n&as_sdt=40006

NOTE:
For more "Eddie Craig Hoaxes", see the comment entitled, Eddie Craig & The "No Commerce, No Driver's License Needed Hoax". IT CONTAINS LINKS TO HIGHLIGHTED CASE LAW ON THAT VERY SUBJECT. For more on driver's license law, see the comment entitled, Rod Class & The "Right To Travel Hoax" & The "No Driver's License Required Hoax". IT ALSO CONTAINS LINKS TO HIGHLIGHTED CASE LAW ON THAT PARTICULAR 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 in a long series of FAKE posers, pretenders and impostors (see below) who INTENTIONALLY MISREPRESENT the law and the legal system in order to incite hatred and violence against the very people that "We the People" ELECT to enforce our laws which are made by the very people that "We the People" ELECT to make them.

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.

TRACK RECORD OF OTHER "AMATEUR LEGAL GURUS" LIKE EDDIE CRAIG:

1. Amateur Legal Guru, ANTHONY WILLIAMS, is ARRESTED and JAILED TWICE in Florida for relying on the SAME EXACT amateur legal theory peddled by Eddie Craig ("No driver's license needed IF NOT ENGAGED IN COMMERCE"). Three minute video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cLbXtscZBM8 . This does not include the TEN (10) MORE ARRESTS and INCARCERATIONS of WILLIAMS in Tennessee for relying on the SAME EXACT amateur legal theory peddled by Eddie Craig described above. Here, WILLIAMS actually LOSES a lawsuit he filed against the State of Tennessee for requiring him to have a driver's license to drive a motor vehicle despite that he was "NOT ENGEGED IN COMMERCE". https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&as_sdt=40006 .

2. Amateur Legal Guru, CARL MILLER (REAL name "Richard John Champion") is a MULTI-CONVICTED FELON who has been INVOLUNTARILY INCARCERATED in at least one MENTAL INSTITUTION (The Ypsilanti Psychiatric Hospital, which has since closed). MILLER has a 100% FAILURE RATE in court (just like everybody else who peddles amateur legal theories). If you have a Pacer.org account, log on and read the Petition which "Champion, Richard" himself hand-wrote and which he filed in miedce (Fed. Dist. Ct. E.D. Mich.) case no. 2:2004-cv-74693 on 12-01-2004. Note that MILLER admits that he was in a MENTAL INSTITUTION at the time he filed this action after having been FOUND GUILTY OF "SEVEN [(7)] COUNTS" OF "VIOLATION OF [HIS] PROBATION" FOR "POSSESSING WEAPONS AS A CONVICTED FELON". For More MILLER LOSES, see other cases on Pacer.org and on "MACOMB COUNTY CLERK OF COURT" (Macomb County, Michigan Clerk of Court).

3. Amateur Legal Guru, WINSTON SHROUT, is CONVICTED and IMPRISONED for decades for BOTH tax evasion and for passing FAKE checks drawn on his imaginary "TRUST ACCOUNT" at the U.S. Treasury in accordance with amateur legal theory. https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/orego...ts-us-treasury. http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/i..._taxes_fo.html
http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/i...witness_s.html
http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...cial-documents
http://www.pamplinmedia.com/ht/117-h...uilty-of-fraud

4. Amateur Legal Guru, TIM TURNER (Rod Class' life-long IDOL and TEACHER), LOSES ALL OF HIS OWN CASES and goes to prison for 18 years for peddling amateur legal theories on how to avoid federal income taxes (just like Class peddles). https://archives.fbi.gov/archives/mo...x-fraud-scheme .

5. Amateur Legal Guru, KARL LENTZ, always LOSES ALL OF HIS OWN CASES and ALWAYS PAYS HIS OWN TRAFFIC TICKETS AND FINES just like everybody else who peddles amateur legal theories. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QMP21qDU58w. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GaGOSVb2-bQ

6. Amateur Legal Guru, DEAN CLIFFORD, always LOSES ALL OF HIS OWN CASES and GOES TO PRISON just like everybody else who peddles amateur legal theories. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=--MqtMNe-us
https://redice.tv/red-ice-radio/fina...months-in-jail .
http://globalnews.ca/news/2220411/ju...g-courts-time/

7. Amateur Legal Guru, JOHNNY LIBERTY (REAL name, "John David Van Hove"), LOSES ALL OF HIS OWN CASES and GOES TO PRISON just like everybody else who peddles amateur legal theories. FIRST, SEE THE HOAX HERE: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w9a9PYp94T8&t=152s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SMn-JzfJq00
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hXWWprTTNLs&t=275s
THEN, SEE THE TRUTH HERE:
https://www.justice.gov/archive/tax/txdv05251.htm
http://www.dailytidings.com/article/...News/306029998
https://www.justice.gov/archive/tax/...05vanhove.html https://www.plainsite.org/dockets/1w...sa-v-van-hove/

8. Amateur Legal Guru, RONNIE DAVIS, LOSES ALL OF HIS OWN CASES and GOES TO PRISON just like everybody else who peddles on amateur legal theories. https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/...charge-florida
https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/...-get-plea-deal
http://www.theledger.com/news/201705...ges-takes-plea
https://arrests.pascosheriff.org/arr...okingNo=183919
http://tampaarrests.net/a/13k2oAA/Ronnie_Lee_Davis
https://pascocountyarrests.com/news/davis-ronnie-lee/

9. Amateur Legal Guru, Lyle Hartford Van Dyke (the real author of "Silent Weapons For Silent Wars"), always LOSES ALL OF HIS OWN CASES and goes to prison because he used amateur legal theories (in both breaking the law and in "defending" himself). http://redcatsboards.yuku.com/topic/...n#.WDYUm1KFPIU . http://www.plainsite.org/dockets/4wu...v-nolan-et-al/ . http://www.plainsite.org/dockets/4wu...v-nolan-et-al/ . GO TO PACER.GOV. See all five LOSES filed under the name "Van Dyke, Lyle" and "Van Dyke. Lyle Hartford".

10. Amateur Legal Guru, ROD CLASS, is a FUNCTIONALLY-ILLITERATE amateur legal theorist with barely a high school education, a history of PSYCHIATRIC PROBLEMS and a history of LOSING EVERY SINGLE ADMINISTRATIVE AND JUDICIAL CASE IN WHICH HE HAS EVER BEEN INVOLVED (more than 73 consecutive cases in a row and still counting). CLASS is also a TWO-TIME, WEAPONS-RELATED, CONVICTED FELON who has BEEN PLACED ON THE UNITED STATES "TERRORIST WATCH LIST". More importantly, CLASS is a professional HOAXER and CHARLATAN who manufactures and peddles ELABORATE HOAXES to intentionally DEFRAUD the American people.

I.Q. TEST: See a pattern here? All are UNEDUCATED. All are EXPERTS at DUPING a gullible public and all have a 100% FAILURE RATE in court.

Offline snoop4truth

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 32
Re: My Hellish Encounter With Arizona Police
« Reply #2 on: September 04, 2017, 03:57:10 PM »
EDDIE CRAIG & THE "NO COMMERCE, NO DRIVER'S LICENSE NEEDED HOAX" !!!

FIRST SEE THE HOAX HERE: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B3nok7Cby28 (Go to video FIRST. Then, go to 54:00-112:00; 118:00-120:45; 133:00-134:00 & 235:00-236:30.). These are the exact times of the hoax exposed below.

THE HOAX:
Eddie Craig falsely claims that the STATES CANNOT require drivers to have driver’s licenses to drive motor vehicles UNLESS THEY ARE ENGAGED IN “[interstate] COMMERCE". But, this is exactly BACKWARDS (OPPOSITE to the truth).

THE TRUTH:
The STATES CAN require drivers to have driver's licenses to drive motor vehicles ONLY IF THEY ARE "NOT" ENGAGED IN "[interstate] COMMERCE".

BACKGROUND:
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. http://www.annenbergclassroom.org/pa...le-i-section-8 . This clause empowered the FEDERAL government to regulate driver’s licences ONLY IF the driver WAS ENGAGED IN “COMMERCE among [between] the several states” (“interstate COMMERCE”). The tenth amendment empowered the STATES to regulate driver's licenses IN ALL OTHER CONTEXTS (meaning OUTSIDE of "[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" ENGEGED IN "[interstate] COMMERCE". But, Eddie Craig does not know this.

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW:
The U.S. Constitution divided the powers between the FEDERAL government and the STATE governments. This division of powers WAS BASED ON LEGAL SUBJECT MATTER. The FEDERAL government was empowered to regulate a TINY LIST of legal SUBJECTS that were expressly delegated to it in the U.S. Constitution. Under the tenth amendment, the STATES were empowered to regulate EVERYTHING ELSE (ALL OTHER LEGAL SUBJECTS). Under this division of powers, 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. This means that in terms of subject matter, FEDERAL law and STATE laws ARE "OPPOSITES" OF ONE ANOTHER. Thus, it is NOT true that STATE traffic & transportation codes are "based on" the FEDERAL traffic & transportation codes, BECAUSE FEDERAL CODES AND STATE CODES REGULATE "OPPOSITE" LEGAL SUBJECTS ("[interstate] COMMERCE" v. ("NON-[interstate] COMMERCE"). But, Eddie Craig does not know this.

APPLICATION:
FEDERAL driver’s license laws ONLY APPLY to drivers of motor vehicles WHO ARE engaged in “[interstate] COMMERCE”. STATE drivers license laws ONLY APPLY to drivers of motor vehicles WHO ARE NOT engaged in “[interstate] COMMERCE”. So, 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). 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 this.

HOW WELL DO EDDIE CRAIG’S LEGAL THEORIES WORK IN COURT?
Answer: They don’t! EDDIE CRAIG ACTUALLY LOST HIS OWN MISDEMEANOR SPEEDING CASE because he used this very same amateur legal theory in court ("STATE driving laws do not apply to me unless I am engaged in [interstate] COMMERCE.") . State of Texas v. Eddie (Eugene) Craig, Case no. C-1-CR-12-100045, Offense date 12-11-2011, ARREST Date 06-25-2012, CONVICTION Date 06-28-2013, Travis County, Texas. What’s worse, Craig CONTINUED to make and post videos online in which he peddled this very same amateur legal theory AFTER he LOST that case (after 6- 28-2013), AFTER HE KNEW THAT IT DOES NOT ACTUALLY WORK!

DISCLAIMER:
The ownership, management and staff of InfoWars are not responsible for the false claims of Eddie Craig. They had no way to know (and did not know) that Eddie Craig was not telling the truth.

NOTE: Advising people what to say to law enforcement officers and to judges may constitute the unauthorized practice of law in Texas, a crime. Victims who have paid for classes, seminars and/or books involving Eddie Craig may be entitled to a refund under STATE or FEDERAL law.

THE LAW:
You will note that Eddie Craig's amateur legal theory HAS A 100% FAILURE RATE in court!

 1. https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...&as_sdt=400062.

 2. http://scholar.google.com/scholar_ca...&as_sdt=400063.

 3. https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...&as_sdt=400064.

 4. https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&as_sdt=40006

 5. https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&as_sdt=40006

 6. https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...2&as_sdt=40006

 7. https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...2&as_sdt=40006

 8. https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&as_sdt=40006

 9. https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&as_sdt=40006

 10. https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&as_sdt=40006

 11. https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&as_sdt=40006

 12. https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&as_sdt=40006

 13. https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&as_sdt=40006

 14. https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...&as_sdt=400068.

 15. http://scholar.google.com/scholar_ca...n&as_sdt=40006 (SEE ENTIRE CASE)

 16. http://scholar.google.com/scholar_ca...=40006

CONCLUSION:
The FEDERAL government has the constitutional power to require drivers of motor vehicles to have driver's licenses IF THEY "ARE" ENGAGED IN "[interstate] COMMERCE". The STATES have the constitutional power to require drivers of motor vehicles to have driver's licenses IF THEY ARE "NOT" ENGAGED IN "[interstate] COMMERCE". Either way, A DRIVER'S LICENSE IS REQUIRED.

APPLICATION:
So, if you are a driver who has proven that you ARE "NOT" engaged in "interstate COMMERCE", then you have just proven THAT YOU ARE GOVERNED BY STATE LAW (which requires you to have a driver's license to drive a motor vehicle and which requires you to otherwise comply with all other STATE driving regulations). But Eddie Craig does not know enough to even realize this.

ABOUT EDDIE CRAIG:
Eddie Craig claims that he is a "FORMER DEPUTY SHERIFF" and an "EXPERT" in the law. 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". Craig uses this his TWO-WEEK tenure as a PART-TIME JAILER as the basis for his "CREDIBILITY" as an "EXPERT" on traffic, travel and motor vehicle codes. But, Eddie Craig is not credible and is not an expert in the law.

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 revealed this information here.

The message to hoaxers and charlatans? Just tell the truth.
 

Offline snoop4truth

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 32
Re: My Hellish Encounter With Arizona Police
« Reply #3 on: September 04, 2017, 04:00:34 PM »
THE "RIGHT TO TRAVEL HOAX" & THE "NO DRIVER'S LICENSE REQUIRED HOAX"

FIRST, SEE THE HOAX HERE: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=afCz8AjvYdY&t=421s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L6SGIfO4ug4&t=69s

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 AND TO ENTER ANOTHER STATE. It has NOTHING to do with "DRIVING" anything. Under the law, there is no such thing as a "RIGHT TO DRIVE" a motor vehicle. But, Rod Class and other amateur legal theorists do not know 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 "COMMERCE" AMONG ["BETWEEN"] THE "SEVERAL STATES" ("interstate commerce"), a narrow subject governed by FEDERAL law. See Const., Art. 1, Sec. 8 (listing ALL POWERS of Congress). http://www.annenbergclassroom.org/pa...le-i-section-8 . https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/commerce_clause.

THE TRUTH: But, what Rod Class and other amateur legal theorists do not know is that STATE LAW 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 NARROW FEDERAL CONTEXT OF "INTERSTATE COMMERCE" (IN ALL OTHER CONTEXTS). http://www.annenbergclassroom.org/page/tenth-amendment. 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 this.

NOTE: For a detailed explanation of just how irrelevant "COMMERCE" is to driver's license and traffic & transportation law, see the comment by Snoop4truth entitled "EDDIE CRAIG & THE "NO COMMERCE, NO DRIVER'S LICENSE NEEDED HOAX".

THE LAW:

1). OVER A CENTURY AGO, THE SUPREME COURT HELD THAT, in the absence of FEDERAL legislation on the subject, THE STATES HAD THE RIGHT TO REQUIRE ALL DRIVERS OF ALL MOTOR VEHICLES TO HAVE DRIVER'S LICENSES, WHETHER OR NOT THAT DRIVER WAS ENGAGED IN "INTERSTATE COMMERCE".

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_ca...en&as_sdt=4,60

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) FEDERAL legislation regulating ONLY those drivers WHO WERE ENGAGED IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE. Under the tenth amendment and under this decision, 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 OPPOSITES of one another (FEDERAL law requires drivers of motor vehicles who ARE engaged in "interstate COMMERCE" to have driver's licenses and STATE law requires drivers of motor vehicles who ARE “NOT” engaged in "interstate COMMERCE" to have driver's licenses. EITHER WAY, A DRIVER'S LICENSE IS REQUIRED TO DRIVE A MOTOR VEHICLE.

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

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_ca...2&as_sdt=40006 .

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_ca...n&as_sdt=40006 .

https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...2&as_sdt=40006

3). THERE IS NO "RIGHT TO DRIVE".

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_ca...n&as_sdt=40006 . (NEAR THE END OF THE CASE)

4). "RIGHT TO TRAVEL" DEFINED.

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_ca...n&as_sdt=40006 . (SEE BOTH SECTIONS.).

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

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_ca...2&as_sdt=40006 .

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_ca...n&as_sdt=40006

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_ca...n&as_sdt=40006

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_ca...n&as_sdt=40006

6). State requirements for driver's licenses DO NOT VIOLATE THE "RIGHT TO TRAVEL".

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_ca...n&as_sdt=40006 .

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_ca...n&as_sdt=40006

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_ca...2&as_sdt=40006 .

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_ca...n&as_sdt=40006 .

7). A person may freely exercise their "RIGHT TO TRAVEL" without "DRIVING" ANYTHING by walking, riding a bicycle or horse, or as a "PASSENGER" in an automobile, bus, airplane or helicopter.

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_ca...n&as_sdt=40006 .

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_ca...n&as_sdt=40006 .

8). AMATEUR LEGAL THEORIES ALWAYS LOSE.

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_ca...n&as_sdt=40006

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_ca...n&as_sdt=40006 .

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_ca...n&as_sdt=40006 . Note that this is the same person who stars in the 3 minute video below.

9). WHAT ABOUT CASE LAW THAT AMATEUR LEGAL THEORISTS CITE IN SUPPORT OF THEIR HOAX? Ex: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9MZrB0TRFYI

 Amateur legal theorists ONLY CITE case law that says a person has a "RIGHT" to: a). "TRAVEL"; b). "USE THE ROADWAYS"; c). "LOCOMOTION"; d). "PASSAGE"; e). "FREE TRANSIT"; and f). "USE ORDINARY CONVEYANCES".

Note that the word, "DRIVE" is conspicuously absent in all of these cases.

But, amateur legal theorists DO NOT CITE case law that actually says that a person has a "RIGHT TO DRIVE A MOTOR VEHICLE WITHOUT A DRIVER'S LICENSE" (because no such law exists) AND THOSE ARE THE ONLY WORDS THAT MATTER.

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 73 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. (Google "Judge DALE Hoax", "Debra Jones Hoax", "Private Attorney General Hoax", "14th Amendment, Section 4 Bounty Hunter Hoax", "All Government Agencies Are 'Private Entities' or 'Private Contractors' Hoax" (A.K.A. the "BOMBSHELL: FOURTH Administrative Ruling Hoax"), "Property Into Other Peoples' Names Hoax", "Lawyers Have No Authority Hoax", "Right To Travel Hoax", "My Paperwork Would Have Overturned Every Prior Case Hoax", "The Supreme Court Loves My Paperwork Hoax", "The Private Attorney General 'Certificate' Hoax" (A.K.A. "Why Was Rod Class In Washington, D.C. In The First Place?"), "The Federal Reserve Notes Are Not Money Hoax" (A.K.A. "The Harold Stanley Case Hoax"), "The United States is a Corporation Hoax" (A.K.A. "Title 28 U.S.C 3002(15)(a) Proves That The United States Is A Private, For Profit Corporation Hoax"), the "Court Registry Investment System Hoax" (A.K.A. The "C.R.I.S. Hoax"), the "Embezzling Federal Funds Hoax" and numerous other 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 DAMAGES 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.