STATEMENT OF FACTS NOTICE to DIRECTOR of DMV Steve Gordon

STATEMENT OF FACTS

Ronald E. Valentine Jr.                        Date: 8/19/2019

11323 Huston, St. Unit #6                                                            

North Hollywood, Ca. 91601               Certified Mail # 7017 1450 0001 0814 1022

[My VIN # SAJAD4BG4HA957281]

[Driver License # A5697435]

Attention: Mr. Steve Gordon

I, Ronald E. Valentine, am requesting confirmation that my private NON-COMMERCIAL automobile be UNREGISTERED, Vin # SAJAD4BG4HA957281 and with an additional REQUEST for information for acquiring EXEMPT plates for my private Conveyance as is required of California DMV under 188 Cal. 734; 207 P. 251; 1922 Cal. LEXIS 477.

I WILL THANK YOU IN ADVANCE FOR READING THIS LETTER IN ITS ENTIRETY.

As will be made painfully evident herewith, a Private automobile is not required by any law, code or statute to be recorded. Any recording (pledge) of Private automobile to any agency such as The Department of Motor Vehicles/DMV is strictly voluntary. Any recordation/contract that has been done was a fraudulently conveyed act, as the recording agency/DMV has no jurisdiction over my personal Private Property. The voluntary pledge that was done without just compensation was done through fraud, deceit, coercion and withholding of facts, which can only be construed as fraud and unjust enrichment by agency as well as a willful malicious act to unjustly enrich the recording agency/DMV and its public servants of the state of California.

There should be no arbitrary deprivation of life or liberty, or arbitrary spoliation of property. (Police power, Due Process) Barber v. Connolly, 113 U.S. 27, 31; Yick Yo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356.

The Duty of the Licensor / DMV Commissioner

The information created and surrounding the stricti juris doctrine regarding a particular license which may, or may not, be represented by and revealed within the contents and control of a license agreement -- “but must be revealed upon demand, and failure to do so is concealment, a withholding of material facts (the inducing, contractual consideration) known by those who have a duty and are bound to reveal.” Dolcater v. Manufacturers & Traders Trust Co., D.C.N.Y., 2F.Supp. 637, 641.

Use defines Classification

    Private Automobile is NOT required to be registered by Law.

The California Motor Vehicle Code, section 260: Private cars/vans etc. not in commerce / for profit, are immune to registration fees:

(a) A “commercial vehicle” is a vehicle of a type REQUIRED to be REGISTERED under this code”.

(b) “Passenger vehicles which are not used for the transportation of persons for hire, compensation or profit, and house-cars, are not commercial vehicles”.

(c) “a vanpool vehicle is not a commercial vehicle.” and;

“A vehicle not used for commercial activity is a “consumer goods”, ...it is NOT a type of vehicle required to be registered and “use tax” paid of which the tab is evidence of receipt of the tax.” Bank of Boston vs Jones, 4 UCC Rep. Serv. 1021, 236 A2d 484, UCC PP 9-109.14. And;

“It is held that a tax upon common carriers by motor vehicles is based upon a reasonable classification, and does not involve any unconstitutional discrimination, although it does not apply to private vehicles, or those used by the owner in his own business, and not for hire.” Desser v. Wichita, (1915) 96 Kan. 820; Iowa Motor Vehicle Asso. v. Railroad Comrs., 75 A.L.R. 22.

“Thus self-driven vehicles are classified according to the use to which they are put rather than according to the means by which they are propelled.” Ex Parte Hoffert, 148 NW 20. And;

“In view of this rule a statutory provision that the supervising officials “may” exempt such persons when the transportation is not on a commercial basis means that they “must” exempt them.” State v. Johnson, 243 P. 1073; 60 C.J.S. section 94 page 581.

See New Jersey Motor Vehicle Code Chapter 3, Section 39:3-1. Certain vehicles excepted from chapter which reads: “Automobile, fire engines and such self propelling vehicles as are used neither for the conveyance of persons for hire, pleasure or business, nor for the transportation of freights, such as steam road rollers and traction engines are excepted from the provisions of this chapter.”

See Annual Report of the Attorney General of the State of New York issued on July 21, 1909, ALBANY NEW YORK, pages 322-323 which reads: “There is NO requirement that the owner of a motor vehicle shall procure a license to run the same, nor is there any requirement that any other person shall do so, unless he proposes to become a chauffeur or a person conducting an automobile as an employee for hire or wages. Yours very truly, EDWARD R. O’MALLEY Attorney General.

Automobiles classified as vehicles

"``[H]ousehold goods''...did not [include] an automobile...used by the testator, who was a practicing physician, in going from his residence to his office and vice versa, and in making visits to his patients." Mathis v Causey, et al., 159 S.E. 240 (Ga. 1931).

"Debtors could not avoid lien on motor vehicle, as motor vehicles are not ``household goods'' within the meaning of Bankruptcy Code lien avoidance provision. In re Martinez, Bkrtcy.N.M., 22 B.R. 7, 8." 19A Words and Phrases - Permanent Edition (West) pocket part 94. See Laws of New York 1901, Chapter 53, page 1316, Section 169a.


“Privately owned Buses not engaged in for hire Transportation are outside the jurisdiction of Division of Motor Vehicles enforcement of N.C. G.S. Article 17, Chapter 20***” 58 N.C.A.G. 1 (It follows that those Citizens not engaged in extraordinary use of the highway for profit or gain are likewise outside the jurisdiction of the Division of Motor Vehicles.)

 “The following shall be exempt from the requirements of registration and the certificate of title: 1.) Any such vehicle driven or moved upon the highway in conformance with the provisions of this Article relating to manufacturers, dealers, or nonresidents.” 2.) Any such vehicle which is driven or moved upon a highway only for the purpose of crossing such highway from one property to another. ****20-51(1)(2) (comment: not driven or moved upon the highway for transporting persons or property for profit.) (Case note to North Carolina G.S. 12-3 “Statutory Construction”)

The California Constitution in Article I, Section 8 (and similar statements made in all other state constitutions), mandates that no one "be compelled to be a witness against himself," is in agreement with the Supreme Court ruling in Haynes v. U.S., 390 U.S. 85, 88 S.Ct. 722, wherein the ruling was that to force anyone to register anything is communicative, and such communicative evidence is precluded by the 5th Amendment.

"No State government entity has the power to allow or deny passage on the highways, byways, nor waterways...transporting his vehicles and personal property for either recreation or business, but by being subject only to local regulation i.e., safety, caution, traffic lights, speed limits, etc. Travel is not a privilege requiring, licensing, vehicle registration, or forced insurances." Chicago Coach Co. v. City of Chicago, 337 Ill. 200, 169 N.E. 22.

The fundamental Right to travel is NOT a Privilege, it’s a gift

granted by the Creator of all things present and unseen, and restated by our founding fathers as Unalienable and cannot be taken by any Man / Government made Law or color of law known as a private Code (secret) or a Statute,

To Wit:

"As general rule, men have natural rights to do anything which their inclinations may suggest, if it be not evil in itself, and in no way impairs the rights of others." In Re Newman (1858), 9 C. 502.

"Traveling is passing from place to place--act of performing journey; and traveler is person who travels." In Re Archy (1858), 9 C. 47.

"Right of transit through each state, with every species of property known to constitution of United States, and recognized by that paramount law, is secured by that instrument to each citizen, and does not depend upon uncertain and changeable ground of mere comity." In Re Archy (1858), 9 C. 47.

"Traffic infractions are not a crime." People v. Battle, 50 Cal. App. 3, step 1, Super, 123 Cal. Rptr. 636, 639.

"First, it is well established law that the highways of the state are public property, and their primary and preferred use is for private purposes, and that their use for purposes of gain is special and extraordinary which, generally at least, the legislature may prohibit or condition as it sees fit." Stephenson vs. Rinford, 287 US 251; Pachard vs Banton, 264 US 140, and cases cited; Frost and F. Trucking Co. vs. Railroad Commission, 271 US 592; Railroad commission vs. Inter-City Forwarding Co., 57 SW.2d 290; Parlett Cooperative vs. Tidewater Lines, 164 A. 313.

Freedom to travel is, indeed, an important aspect of the citizen's "liberty". We are first concerned with the extent, if any, to which Congress has authorized its curtailment. (Road) Kent v. Dulles, 357 U.S. 116, 127.

The right to travel is a part of the "liberty" of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment. So much is conceded by, the solicitor general. In Anglo Saxon law that right was emerging at least as early as Magna Carta. Kent v. Dulles, 357 U.S. 116, 125.

US Supreme Court, Reno V. Condon, Jan. 12, 2000: “The activity licensed by state DMVs and in connection with which individuals must submit personal information to the DMV (the operation of motor vehicles) is itself integrally RELATED TO INTERSTATE COMMERCE.”   [emphasis, mine]

I’m pleased to see that this form is called “STATEMENT OF FACTS,” because everything written here is FACT and LAW, such as these additional definitions:

“TRANSPORTATION” - Black’s Law Dictionary, 4th Ed, 1951- “The removal of goods or persons from one place to another, by a carrier.”  Railroad Co. v. Pratt, 22 Wall. 133, 22 L.Ed. 827; Interstate Commerce Com’n v. Brimson, 14. S.Ct. 1125, 154 U.S. 447, 38 L.Ed. 1047; Gloucester Ferry Co. v. Pennsylvania. 5 S.Ct. 826. 114 U.S. 196. 29 L.Ed. 158.

(As noted above, the definition of TRANSPORTATION is no longer to be found in the DMV’s definitions in their code, nor is it to be found in the RCW.

“COMMON CARRIER” - Black’s Law Dictionary (8th ED, 2004 at 275) - a carrier that is “generally required by law to transport …passengers or freight, without refusal, if the approved fare or charge is paid.”

So CLEARLY, the words “motor vehicle,” “transportation,” and “carrier” are all COMMERCIAL terms.

“The use of the automobile as a necessary adjunct to the earning of a livelihood in modern life requires us in the interest of realism to conclude that the RIGHT to use an automobile on the public highways partakes of the nature of a Liberty within the meaning of the Constitutional guarantees. . .” Caneisha Mills v. D.C. 2009

For me to continue to travel with registration, license plates and a driver’s license, would NOT ONLY BE immoral of me, but it would also constitute fraud and the impersonation of a commercial driver.

"It is settled that the streets of a city belong to the people of a state and the use thereof is an inalienable right of every citizen of the state.”  Whyte v. City of Sacramento, 65 Cal. App. 534, 547, 224 Pac. 1008, 1013 (1924); Escobedo v. State Dept. of Motor Vehicles, 222 Pac.2d 1, 5, 35 Cal.2d 870 (1950).

I am respectfully requesting that the DMV honor my rights by UNREGISTERING my car and voiding the Driver’s License, which I was defrauded into believing I was required to keep. I do this strictly as a courtesy to you, to whom I am not obligated to prove anything, nor to whom I am beholden concerning anything having to do with my natural and inalienable rights. Whenever I travel in my automobile, I am NOT engaged in commerce and am IN FACT pursuing my life, liberty and happiness.

I provided you with the Motor Vehicle Transportation License Act of 1925 which clearly states: “Those who transport no persons or property for hire or compensation, by motor vehicle, have been determined in the Bacon Service Corporation case to be lawful exemptions.” (See re Schmolke (1926) 199 Cal. 42, 46.)

It is COMMON SENSE that a human being has the inalienable right to travel in his private property (automobile) and go to the store for food he needs in order to survive without having to pay some fictional entity for that right. Rights are not to be regulated.

This letter of FACT is to provide the DMV with an opportunity to close your books on me by UNREGISTERING my non-commercial automobile VIN # SAJAD4BG4HA957281 and voiding the non-commercial “Driver’s” license # A5697435, which I’ve been defrauded into believing I was required to apply and actually pay for all of my adult life. I would like to add to my request that I am seeking information on attaining/acquiring EXEMPT plates for my private automobile which you are lawfully required to furnish under 188 Cal. 734; 207 P. 251; 1922 Cal. LEXIS 477.

Your prompt compliance is of utmost importance for my well-being and safety due to the fact that Policy Enforcers (Peace Officers, Police Officers, Traffic Cops) might illegally detain me and demand proof that I am a commercial “Driver” (which I am not), and who might then, when they do not get any proof of my COMMERCIAL activity on the highways/byways/roadways, potentially damage my household good/automobile and/or steal it, then at gunpoint kidnap me and throw me in a cage, possibly injuring or even murdering me—an unarmed, non-combatant man exercising his right to travel. Unfortunately, Traffic Cops/Policy Enforcers do this every day all over our Republic

Please understand that the information provided in this document, is

merely a small fraction of evidence put before you. If I am wrong, and there is actually a law that specifically states in plain English that any and all travelers NOT engaged in COMMERCE on the highways/byways/roadways are obligated to register their private property, apply for a Driver’s license, buy forced insurance and have State-issued license plates on their automobiles, please send me the information, and let these 7 pages of proof of my claim be nothing less than an inspiration to you and an example of the volume of evidence I will be expecting from you. And remember, I said LAW, not Statutes, Codes and Regulations, which I have repeatedly PROVEN to YOU are NOT laws, as so ruled by the Supreme Court itself.

If you cannot prove to me, a mere traveler, that I am legally subject to the DMV’s COMMERCIAL Statutes, Codes & Regulations when traveling, or if you simply refuse to do so, I will expect nothing less from you than a letter assuring me that my automobile has been UN-REGISTERED and my COMMERCIAL Driver’s License & license plates voided. With this, I will expect some form of written contract for my exempt plates to protect myself from policemen who do in fact physically injure, illegally detain and incarcerate, and often murder travelers for nothing more than exercising their right to travel.

By the terms and conditions of the agreement contained in this presentation, you are under obligation to timely and good faith answer, object, rebut, refute, comply and or otherwise respond within a ten (10) day period.

We the People must put an end to tyranny, greed, extortion, lies and violence and take back our rights. We are all human, and we all have rights. You are a human, so make note that the natural, inalienable rights I exercise daily I do for you and yours.

Thank you for your time and attention to this very important matter.

Sincerely,

By: Ronald E Valentine Jr.

Secured Party Creditor 1-308/1-207