TITLE 18
CRIMES AND PUNISHMENTS
CHAPTER 7
ARRESTS AND SEIZURES OF PERSONS OR PROPERTY -- SPECIAL OFFICERS
18-703.Illegal arrests and seizures.Every public officer, or person pretending to be a public officer, who, under the pretense or color of any process or other legal authority, arrests any person or detains him against his will, or seizes or levies upon any property, or dispossesses any one of any lands or tenements, without a regular process or other lawful authority therefor, is guilty of a misdemeanor.
18-703 clearly states that any arrest or detention can ONLY be by "regular process" or other "lawful authority." If not, then the cop has committed a misdemeanor! That is what you need to know.
So, what does "regular" mean? Webster gives it many connotations; but that is for the WORD "regular." In a Statute it can only have ONE meaning or it is ambiguous and the Statute would be void for vagueness. Statutes do not use words, they use "terms of art." So the "TERM"regular means "agreeable to law."
1. Conformed to a rule; agreeable to an established rule, law or principle, to a prescribed mode or to established customary forms; as a regular epic poem; a regular verse in poetry; a regular piece of music; regular practice of law or medicine; a regular plan; a regular building.
Get it?
Black's 4th says it more succinctly,
REGULAR. Conformable to law.
So what then is the law? The supreme law of the land; the Constitution and laws of the United States made in Pursuance thereof. See the Supremacy clause, Article VI.
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
Do you understand that? It is critical that you do. State laws and State constitutions are trumped by the National Constitution!And the State judges are BOUND thereby! In our "traffic" (Right to Travel, Right of Way) case, it's the 4th amendment. See the attached paper "Article the fourth applies to ALL seizures." However, it only applies IF you have declared your status and standing as being "entitled" to constitutional protections. Tickets are NOT unconstitutional; they are NON-constitutional. Read my paper on Idaho's inferior non-constitutional legislative courts.
Pursuant to 18-703, there are only four reasons for which you can get "pulled over." Any such arrest or detention constitutes a "seizure" and must be by "a regular process" or"lawful authority" meaning that it mustbe "conformable" to the "law" embodied in the requirements of "Article the fourth" AKA, the fourth amendment.
1. Warrant. (Regular process; 4th amendment and I.C. 19-603)
2. Committed or about to commit a "crime" (apublic offense or felony) - (Lawful authority, I.C. 19-603. Also, a private person may arrest under I.C. 19-604.)
3. To assist PeaceOfficer to prevent breach of peace. (Lawful authority; I.C.18-707; also, officer has immunity when requesting emergency assistance, I.C. 18-711.)
4. Pretext. (Without a warrant or first hand personal knowledge or probable cause; for an "infraction" which is NOT a crime (see below); or by a presumption of de facto STATE membership and consent to operation of State Statutes OR fabricated "offenses" or "civil public offenses," which bring about "civil actions" with "criminal sanctions attached.")
TITLE 49
MOTOR VEHICLES
CHAPTER 1
DEFINITIONS
49-110.Definitions -- I.
(5)"Infraction" means a civil public offense, not constituting a crime, which is not punishable by incarceration and for which there is no right to a trial by jury or right to court-appointed counsel, and which is punishable by only a penalty not exceeding one hundred dollars ($100) and no imprisonment.
Their "stops" are almost always a number 4, pretextual,which does NOT constitute "regular process" or "lawful authority!" That would be under the pretense or color of any process or other legal authorityas stated in the Statute! See the difference? "Color (mere appearance) of process" or "legal authority" is NOT "regular process" or "lawful authority!" That which is lawful is ALWAYS legal; but that which is legal is NOT always lawful!
PRETEXT. The reasons assigned to justify an act, which have only the appearance of truth, and which are without foundation; or which if true are not the true reasons for such act. Vattel, liv. 3, c. 3, 32. --Bouvier's Law Dictionary
Webster's 1828.
PRETEXT', n. [L. proetextus.] Pretense; false appearance; ostensible reason or motive assigned or assumed as a color or cover for the real reason or motive. He gave plausible reasons for this conduct, but these were only a pretext to conceal his real motives.
Synonyms from Webster's 1913. Pretense; excuse; semblance; disguise; appearance.
Read my "Article the fourth" case cite paper again. It is enlightening to say the least; shocking, to say the most! You only are required to tell them your name--and to produce no documents; BUT, that is ONLY if you are under suspicion of criminal misconduct NOT for an infraction! (See the recentHiibel v. Nevada case at the end of the paper.)
The Ninth Amendment Proclamation purges you from the pretextual presumption that you are a member of the DE FACTO STATE and that you are subject to State Statutes. You are now only subject to the Rule of Law in the course of the common law as embodied in the guarantees and protections of the National Constitution.
Now you have status and standing, by and through a solemn declaration of domicil, to secure and to enforce your Rights! You are now "entitled" to, among other things, a true and lawful Trial by Jury (not a "jury trial" or a "trial by a jury" or "trial by order of a court before a jury" or "trial by consent") in a court of record;in the course of the common law; with an injured party; they must show "actual harm;" sworn and verified complaint; the people of the state as a party; presumption of innocence; magistrate is independent of the tribunal.
Further analysis: What does it mean when the "State" (NOT the people of the state) is a party to the action? The answer is in Article III, section 2 of the National Constitution, which trumps the State Constitution and laws.
"In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction."
How do you like THEM apples?! This is clear and unambiguous. So if you are charged by the State as a party, remove the case IMMEDIATELY to the supreme Court citing this section and the Supremacy Clause! I guarantee they will refuse to hear it! I can tell you already that the attorney judge wordtwisters have "held" that, although the supreme Court has "original" jurisdiction when theState isa party,the State has "concurrent" jurisdiction and that they can try the case. I say bullshit.
Also notice that "supreme" is in lower case. So what is the "Supreme Court?" A different animal from the "supreme Court" that's for sure. See my brief paper on the definition of "Capitonym," attached for your perusal.