Home   Red Light   FAQ   Testimonials   Guarantee   Order   Site Map   Contact  

 

 

 
Left Nav Panel
RELATIVE TO THE COMMON LAW DEFAULT PROCESS
Common Law & Common Law Default Process
Common Law Default & Traffic Tickets
Traffic Court
Sovereignty
Name In All Caps
Yick Wo v. Hopkins
Right To Travel
Law vs. Legal
Definitions & Terms
Carla – Atlanta, Georgia
"INCREDIBLY AWESOME!!! is how I would describe the Ticket Slayer Common Law Traffic Ticket Default Process. I just served and filed your legal documents and my case was dismissed when I went to traffic court."
  Thomas – Dallas, Texas
"A friend told me that I should use Ticket Slayer to get my traffic ticket dismissed in traffic court. I tried out your default process on my traffic ticket and I am happy to say that it worked like a charm."
  Eric– Los Angles, Calif.
"My family and friends just can't believe that, I just got my third traffic ticket in two years dismissed using your Ticket Slayer default process. Thanks Ticket Slayer your common law default process has saved me thousands of dollars in fines and increased insurance premiums!"
Riverside, California —
Traffic Court Judge puts it on record!
A California Superior Court judge dismisses the traffic case of a Ticket Slayer customer on the written court record, stating; "Court finds good cause exists to dismiss case due to lack of prosecution." The dismissal of this case was the direct result of the default of the prosecutor.
No Prosecutor or A Cop Acts as Prosecutor in Traffic Court
— CLICK HERE —
The ‘Civil’ Traffic Ticket “It ain’t no crime”
...at least that is what the state claims!
— CLICK HERE —
A truly fantastic web site containing a treasure cove of vital information every freedom loving person can use to help themselves to reclaim their God given rights and freedoms!
Bookmark This Site
 
Tell A Friend About Ticket Slayer
 
 
 
 
Right to Travel Information
 
In Fond Memory of Charlie Sprinkle
 
"The Goatman of Ojai"
PAGE 1 OF 7
 
For over thirty five years Charlie Sprinkle successfully exercised his right to travel. Very few people in recent times have been as successful as my dearly departed friend Charlie in exercising their right to travel. It was a right Charlie Sprinkle secured for himself though his own prowess, self education, and sheer determination. In the early seventies Charlie forced then California Governor, Ronald Reagan to concede that God granted Charlie the right to travel freely (without a driver's license and vehicle registration) upon the public right of ways of California.
Charlie Sprinkle — 1939-2009

There are several YouTube video interviews with Charlie Sprinkle on the net. Most are fairly short and fun to watch. Charlie was a very entertaining man. I would encourage you to watch some. History books don't record all the great men and women, and especially the ones whom the powers that be would rather you didn't learn about. Just go to YouTube.com and do a word search for Charlie Sprinkle, and/or Charles Sprinkle. The Goatman of Ojai by Melinda Pillsbury Foster is a very color account of how Charlie Sprinkle forced the State of California to end its mandatory vehicle inspection program back in the early seventies.

Why is a right to travel section included on this web site? For a couple of very good reasons. The first reason is because I wished to honor Charlie Sprinkle and two of his greatest personal accomplishments. The other reason is because it is important for everyone to know that they have God given rights, and the state has no lawful authority to restrict our rights, including our right to travel freely without a driver's license and vehicle registration.

Before you get all charged up about your right to travel and decide to burn your driver's license and take the car tags off of your car, please know that the powers that be will do any and everything to keep you from freely exercising your right to travel. The federal courts have found, or more correctly, invented ways to block right to travel cases from being heard by the courts. This is just more proof of the fact that we no longer have an American Justice System, rather we have an American System of Injustice!

 

Driver Licensing vs. the Right to Travel

Source: The Forbidden Knowledge

The entirety of what you find below is transcribed exactly from what was sent to me by a fellow liberty-minded person. It is itself a transcription of a brief, not a direct, per-character copy of the brief. This is unfortunate, but I'm trying to nail down some of the references, and especially some of the cases in which this particular brief was used. --Karl Kleinpaste, March 14, 1995.

The following has been used in at least three states (Pennsylvania, Ohio, and West Virginia) as a legal brief to support a demand for dismissal of charges of "driving without a license." It is the argument that was the reason for charges being dropped, or for a "win" in court against the argument that free people can have their right to travel regulated by their servants.

The forgotten legal maxim is that free people have a right to travel on the roads which are provided by their servants for that purpose, using ordinary transportation of the day. Licensing cannot be required of free people, because taking on the restrictions of a license requires the surrender of a right. The driver's license can be required of people who use the highways for trade, commerce, or hire; that is, if they earn their living on the road, and if they use extraordinary machines on the roads. In other words, if you are not using the highways for profit, you cannot be required to have a driver's license.

This brief or the right it demonstrates is no substitute for either being safe on the road or for learning the subject of rights versus regulations thoroughly before attempting to use or act upon this information.

 

BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF NOTICE FOR DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION

NOW, comes the Accused, appearing specially and not generally or voluntarily, but under threat of arrest if he failed to do so, with this "BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF NOTICE FOR DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION," stating as follows:

 

ARGUMENT

If ever a judge understood the public's right to use the public roads, it was Justice Tolman of the Supreme Court of the State of Washington. Justice Tolman stated:

"Complete freedom of the highways is so old and well established a blessing that we have forgotten the days of the Robber Barons and toll roads, and yet, under an act like this, arbitrarily administered, the highways may be completely monopolized, if, through lack of interest, the people submit, then they may look to see the most sacred of their liberties taken from them one by one, by more or less rapid encroachment." Robertson vs. Department of Public Works, 180 Wash 133, 147.

The words of Justice Tolman ring most prophetically in the ears of Citizens throughout the country today as the use of the public roads has been monopolized by the very entity which has been empowered to stand guard over our freedoms, i.e., that of state government.

 

RIGHTS

The "most sacred of liberties" of which Justice Tolman spoke was personal liberty. The definition of personal liberty is:

"Personal liberty, or the Right to enjoyment of life and liberty, is one of the fundamental or natural Rights, which has been protected by its inclusion as a guarantee in the various constitutions, which is not derived from, or dependent on, the U.S. Constitution, which may not be submitted to a vote and may not depend on the outcome of an election. It is one of the most sacred and valuable Rights, as sacred as the Right to private property...and is regarded as inalienable." 16 C.J.S., Constitutional Law, Sect.202, p.987.

This concept is further amplified by the definition of personal liberty:

"Personal liberty largely consists of the Right of locomotion -- to go where and when one pleases -- only so far restrained as the Rights of others may make it necessary for the welfare of all other citizens. The Right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, by horsedrawn carriage, wagon, or automobile, is not a mere privilege which may be permitted or prohibited at will, but the common Right which he has under his Right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Under this Constitutional guarantee one may, therefore, under normal conditions, travel at his inclination along the public highways or in public places, and while conducting himself in an orderly and decent manner, neither interfering with nor disturbing another's Rights, he will be protected, not only in his person, but in his safe conduct." [emphasis added] II Am.Jur. (1st) Constitutional Law, Sect.329, p.1135.

and further...

"Personal liberty -- consists of the power of locomotion, of changing situations, of removing one's person to whatever place one's inclination may direct, without imprisonment or restraint unless by due process of law." 1 Blackstone's Commentary 134; Hare, Constitution__.777; Bovier's Law Dictionary, 1914 ed., Black's Law Dictionary, 5th ed.

Justice Tolman was concerned about the State prohibiting the Citizen from the "most sacred of his liberties," the Right of movement, the Right of moving one's self from place to place without threat of imprisonment, the Right to use the public roads in the ordinary course of life.

When the State allows the formation of a corporation it may control its creation by establishing guidelines (statutes) for its operation (charters). Corporations who use the roads in the course of business do not use the roads in the ordinary course of life. There is a difference between a corporation and an individual. The United States Supreme Court has stated:

"...We are of the opinion that there is a clear distinction in this particular between an individual and a corporation, and that the latter has no right to refuse to submit its books and papers for examination on the suit of the State. The individual may stand upon his Constitutional Rights as a Citizen. He is entitled to carry on his private business in his own way. His power to contract is unlimited. He owes no duty to the State or to his neighbors to divulge his business, or to open his doors to investigation, so far as it may tend to incriminate him. He owes no such duty to the State, since he receives nothing therefrom, beyond the protection of his life, liberty, and property. His Rights are such as the law of the land long antecedent to the organization of the state, and can only be taken from him by due process of law, and in accordance with the Constitution. Among his Rights are the refusal to incriminate himself, and the immunity of himself and his property from arrest or seizure except under warrant of law. He owes nothing to the public so long as he does not trespass upon their rights.

 
PAGE 1 OF 7
 
CONTINUE >>>