Welcome to Call to Decision
Subject: Traffic - Tom Hyland's story, Right to Travel
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2008 15:20:20 -0800
From:
To:
This is the story about Tom Hyland of New Mexico. Perhaps Tom's
comments can guide you in fighting against efforts of state
governments to make you pay for the right to travel. Jack and Margy
Flynn say this about his traveling case:
---- http://citizensoftheamericanconstitution.org ------
The second court order below dismisses a case, with prejudice,
brought by the Santa Fe, New Mexico police department against a
Citizen who voluntarily surrendered his "driver's license", his
registration and insurance to the state Motor Vehicle Department
and freed himself from the fraudulent, deceptive and unilateral
contract imposed upon him, under color of law, and one lacking
full disclosure. Several months later he was arrested, his truck
confiscated, and criminal charges were filed against him. Because of
the Constitutional methods used, the tow truck operator, who had
been warned by the police not to return the truck until the Citizen
produced a driver's license, registration and insurance, returned
the truck to the Citizen, against the firm orders of the police.
If the laws, rules and regulations with which this
Citizen was charged were valid and enforceable, then
the case would not have been dismissed, with prejudice,
and the Citizen would have been fined and/or jailed.
He was not. To the best of our knowledge, this is one
of the few cases in the Country in which an unrepresented
Citizen has prevailed in court against the massive fraud
being perpetrated upon Citizens throughout this Nation,
by the licensing, registration and insurance fraud being
mandated by government, in defiance of the Constitution
and without Constitutional authority.
------------------------
***********************************************************
STATE OF NEW MEXICO
CITY OF SANTA FE
IN THE MUNICIPAL COURT
CITY OF SANTA FE
v.
No. L-201-TR-20048
943
Thomas Hyland ,Defendant
NOTICE OF DISMISSAL
The complaint filed in this case is dismissed with prejudice.
Art Michaels
Prosecutor or complainant
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on this 15 day of Jan. 2005,
this notice was either mailed to the Defendant or his
attorney, or given to the Defendant or his attorney in
person.
Art Michaels
Prosecutor or complainant
Note: The signature of prosecutor Art Michaels did not scan, so we
used italics to state his name.
-----------------------
Now, Tom tells the story in his own words.
Tom Hyland
A LONG STRANGE TRIP
I have lived in New Mexico for over 40 years, and 18 of those years
in Santa Fe County. Most of my friends are self-created types who
work for themselves, as this is also my lifestyle. Having made a
living since the age of 17 as a sign maker and graphic designer, has
enabled me to appreciate the freedoms my lonely schedule affords me,
and I have attracted similar life-styled friends who are fiercely
independent and curious as to the workings of our government and
encroachments upon their rights. It is my impression that individuals
who remain employed throughout their lives are less likely to have
the time to study, question, or oppose authority. The true reality
of the original intent of our nation is that We The People ARE the
authority. All agents, officers, and officials of this nation are our
servants, but because it is human nature that a government unchecked
will grow into an abusive and dangerous entity, the servants of this
nation must pledge an oath to defend and protect the Constitution,
which is the foundation of all law and the guarantee that your
Rights will remain inalienable.
In my studies I learned many years ago that the driving code is
commercial in nature. I obtained my first drivers license at the
age of 14 after completing a drivers training class at Roswell High
and have been a licensed driver until July 26, 2004. On that day,
I visited the New Mexico Motor Vehicle Division headquarters in
Santa Fe and returned my license, registrations, license plates,
Certificates of Title, and anything else that had the word MVD
printed upon it. I requested the secretary to print out the latest
summary of my "Client History" which defined me as a "Non-Driver"
with one surrender and no violations.
By law, the only individuals who are required to license themselves
and their vehicles are those who are involved in the commercial
activity of transporting goods or paying passengers for a living. We
The People have a Right to own the cars we have purchased and
travel upon the public Right of Way. However, it has been written
since the times of horse and buggy that the commercial activity
of transportation shall be a regulated privilege. "The right of
the citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport
his property thereon, either by carriage or by automobile, is not
a mere privilege which a city may prohibit or permit at will, but
a common law right which he has under the right to life, liberty,
and the pursuit of happiness." Thomas v. Smith, 154 SE 579.
In my meeting with the directors of the MVD, I opened the books of
laws defining these commercial activities and read aloud certain
passages describing jurisdiction and intent. I asked the directors
if they could prove anywhere, in written law, that the Citizen
must relinquish his right to travel and subvert that freedom into a
paid-for privilege. The directors were unable to interject any proof
at all except to say I am welcome to my opinions. I was reading from
a page titled "Definitions" and I pointed out that the title atop
this page wasn't "Opinions." From New Mexico Administrative Code
Title 18, section 18.2.3.12, is the definition "Driving of Motor
Vehicles": "The department of public safety hereby adopts Part
392 of Title 49 of the Federal Regulations with no amendments." I
offered the page from 49 CFR 392 for them to peruse, which begins
with the headline: "Driving of Commercial Motor Vehicles." At that
point, the directors went silent and I told them I would return
the following Monday and close my account.
About two months later, I was detained in a traffic stop by a Santa
Fe police officer whose probable cause for stopping me was her
observation that there was no license plate on my pickup truck. I
showed this officer an Affidavit, executed on the day of July 24th,
attesting to the items returned to the MVD. I showed the officer the
printout from the MVD database of my status as a non-driver. And,
I produced the same definitions from Title 18 and the Code of
Federal Regulations I mentioned in the previous paragraph. This
officer was confused and unable to reach a decision without calling
her commanding officer, and this other fellow arrived shortly
thereafter. He read over the same facts, laws, and evidence, and
ordered that my truck should be towed away, and held in ransom,
until I became, once again, a participant within the commercial
driving codes defined by Title 18. At the moment the front wheels
of my truck were lifting off the ground, the original officer said,
"So, tell me some more about your rights." I replied, "These are
your rights, too, but you told me earlier that you didn't want to
hear anything about the Constitution or my rights." She replied,
"Yeah.... that's correct."
I immediately phoned Sheriff Greg Solano to inform him of this
attack upon my rights and my property. The Sheriff, in America, is
the only elected police officer, and he has the authority, and duty,
to protect and defend his citizenry against all enemies, foreign
and domestic. The Sheriff has the authority and power to eject
any agent from any federal agency operating without court ordered
warrant, be it FBI, CIA, IRS, ATF, ICE, or any other problematic
initials, that are operating within the boundaries of his county
jurisdiction. Every phone call to my sheriff went unanswered. Over
the next two weeks, I wrote the sheriff two letters. In a written
letter to me, Sheriff Solano replied, "... until such time as a
court of law rules that citizens may declare themselves sovereign,
I cannot act to assist you in this matter. As you well know, I am
sworn to uphold the constitution and the laws of the federal, state,
and local governments. As part of that responsibility, I must rely on
court rulings on matters such as yours." We The People created the
Sheriff. We created the courts. We create the judges. And there is
no court that has the authority to determine if we are sovereign,
or not. Sheriff Solano wrote that he must uphold ALL laws. The
lawful definition of a law officer is the first paragraph to NMSA
29 (New Mexico Statutes Annotated), titled "Law Enforcement." It
reads, "29-1-1. It is hereby declared to be the duty of every
sheriff, deputy sheriff, constable and every other peace officer to
investigate all violations of the criminal laws of the state which
are called to the attention of any such officer or of which he is
aware, and it is also declared the duty of every such officer to
diligently file a complaint or information, if the circumstances
are such as to indicate to a reasonably prudent person that such
action should be taken, and it is also declared to be his duty to
cooperate with and assist the attorney general, district attorney
or other prosecutor, if any, in all reasonable ways. Failure to
perform his duty in any material way shall subject such officer to
removal from office and payment of all costs of prosecution."
It was 30 days later when my truck was returned to me. The
third letter I wrote to the tow truck operator, apprising him
of his criminal activity of accepting stolen property, under the
lawless orders of the Santa Fe Police Department, and their ikely
unwillingness to pay for his defense in an upcoming civil trial,
convinced the man that it would be best to remove this truck from
his possession. Not knowing when my property would be returned, I
had to buy another truck, as I live almost 15 miles from Santa Fe,
and I had no practical means to work, or buy food, or attend to my
affairs. I need to work, to earn money, however, driving to work
is not a commercial activity. If my only activity was transporting
signs, then I would be involved in commercial transportation. Driving
to work, the grocery store, or bringing a bowl of soup to your
grandmother is your right.
But... is it really MY truck? When you go to a car dealership, and
if you pay the entire amount, no financing through a bank or loan
company, you are given the "Title of Origin" or "Manufacturer's
Statement of Origin." This is the true title to the car. The
car manufacturer builds the car and owns this property until it
is delivered to the car dealership. The car and "MSO" is handed
over, for the wholesale payment, and now, the dealership owns
the car. If the customer purchases the car with full payment,
he is given possession of the car and the perfect title, the
MSO. Unwittingly, that individual seeks out the nearest MVD office,
hands over the perfect title in exchange for the MVD fabricated
"Certificate of Title", it says "MVD" right on it, and now THE
STATE OWNS YOUR CAR in a commercial privilege defined as "driving. "
Your full compliance is met when you attach a license plate, with
registration sticker, to the bumper, and you carry the drivers
license on your person. This is what gives the cops the authority
to have your car towed away, because, in reality, the state owns
your car. If somebody shoves a gun in your face and demands your
wallet, that is called "robbery." If your property or your money
has been stolen away without your knowledge or consent, that is
called "conversion." To have been duped into a situation where you
unwittingly waive your rights and ownership of property and convert
those precious belongings into paid-for privilege, is "fraud." To
be held before a judge, or by armed police, and to be forced to
pay fines or suffer imprisonment, is "coercion", "racketeering",
and "extortion." I have brought charges against 34 individuals,
working within the machinery of government of the State of New
Mexico, and I will say more about that later.
On January 15, 2005, I appeared at the Santa Fe Municipal Court
for a pre-trial hearing to review the charges brought against me
during that traffic stop in September. The prosecuting attorney for
the City of Santa Fe, Art Michael, was stunned when I described
to him that there was no nexus connecting me to the New Mexico
MVD. Mr. Michael asked me if he may shake my hand. I allowed this
and he said, "You are the first person, ever, to come in here and
tell me this." All charges against me, no license, no registration,
no insurance, were dismissed, with prejudice.
On June 23, 2005, I was detained late one evening when a New
Mexico State Police officer observed that one of my headlights was
defective. Only minutes earlier, I became aware of the headlight,
and was turning my brights on, and off, when other cars neared, and
was intent on returning home and fixing this light immediately. This
traffic stop resulted in three citations, once again, for the
identical charges listed above. However, considering me walking
home several miles in the dark, the officer waived the truck being
towed. In the ensuing months leading to a trial by jury, I mailed the
state cop so much information regarding the fraudulent nature of the
MVD, and his own upcoming performance at my trial to testify against
me, that this individual quit the police and became a security guard.
I requested specifically that my rights to a trial by jury be
secured, and this was granted by the presiding judge, Sandra
Miera. However, as the trial approached, I asked the judge to certify
a subpoena that called for Santa Fe Prosecuting Attorney Art Michael
to appear and testify on my behalf. I wanted Mr. Michael to describe
to the jury how he dismissed the identical charges now brought
against me once again, in my previous appearance at the Santa Fe
Municipal Court. When Judge Miera was presented with the subpoena
to certify, she recused herself from the case. And within minutes,
the case was reassigned to Judge George Anaya, but right to trial
by jury was subverted to a "hearing." A hearing is a judicial venue
in which your fate is decided by only one person, a judge. The word
"hearing" does not appear in the Constitution, because of its biased
and unfair nature, and the framers of our Constitution underlined
that only true and fair due process of law could be met within a
trial by jury.
On October 12, 2005, the hearing regarding arraignment for my
second incident was conducted at the Santa Fe County Magistrate
Court. The entire affair ended in less than 30 seconds when
Judge Anaya dismissed all charges, with prejudice. "Dismissed with
prejudice" means that the matter has been put to rest, forever, with
no grounds to ever open or re-examine again. Dismissed "without"
prejudice leaves the case vulnerable for further controversy.
On the afternoon of September 22, 2006, I was near the plaza in
Santa Fe and had just locked my truck and was walking away when a
Santa Fe police officer drove up and announced, "Hey... you were
not wearing a seat belt." I asked him, "Isn't it a bit late to be
discussing whether I was wearing a seat belt or not?" He didn't
answer that question but asked to see all of my credentials. When I
told him where my credentials went, and how long ago, the officer
retreated to his police cruiser to confer with headquarters on
the radio. Whoever he was speaking with told him to not issue
any tickets, only warnings. The "warning" section of the traffic
citation states that you are admitting that laws have been violated,
but there will be no fines issued or court dates to meet. I refused
to admit that I had broken any laws and signed "All Rights Reserved"
just before my signature.
When you receive a traffic ticket, there is a headline atop the
page that reads, "Uniform Traffic Citation." Uniform means this
is the same procedure, the same laws, the same jurisdiction from
state to state. It is the same company doing business over every
square inch of this country. This isn't only a New Mexico fraud,
but a fraud that we suffer in every state in the union. An unpaid
parking ticket in Oregon, from five years ago, will prevent you from
renewing a driver's license in Rhode Island tomorrow afternoon. With
a driver's license, you have no right to be on the road, you have
no right to park your car on the street.
After these three incidents had passed, I considered the state of
affairs which is my life. Having read and absorbed the Constitution
and a great many driving codes, plus, other laws regarding income
taxes, building codes, and further studies too numerous to mention
in this article, I came to the conclusion that I am very much like
a human yo-yo. My public servants will continue forever to yank
my up and down like a toy on a string, unless I devise a civil
suit that will expose the treachery and deceit of this fraud that
has been robbing the American people for over 90 years. "The claim
and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a
crime." Miller v. U.S. 230 F 486, 489.
PART II
Part One of this story described the many facts, laws, and evidence
I have acquired regarding the jurisdiction of "driving", which is
defined in every state as "driving a commercial motor vehicle." The
only individuals required to hold a drivers license are those
involved in the commercial transportation of goods or paying
passengers. This reality has been underlined by over 100 Supreme
Court cases, federal and state, upholding and protecting our Right to
Travel. In July 2004, I closed my account at MVD when I surrendered
every item fabricated by that agency and received proof from their
official data base of that transaction. Since then, I have incurred
great expenses, losses, and inconvenience, however, I knew that I
would encounter many obstacles on the road back to Our Liberty.
In preparing a body of evidence that could be used in a court of law
to prove my case, I began issuing a series of letters addressed to
my public servants. The First Amendment to the Constitution states,
in part, ... "Congress shall make no law prohibiting the right of the
people to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." I
wrote several letters, and finally, affidavits, explaining the
jurisdiction of commercial traffic code, and how I had ended all
contracts with the MVD, and the ensuing events that unfolded. These
letters and affidavits were addressed to the Governor, the entire
Supreme Court, the Attorney General, Secretary of State, Speaker of
the House, Senate Pro Tem, Director of MVD, Secretary of Taxation &
Revenue, Mayor of Santa Fe, all city counselors, Chief of Police,
arresting officers, and several other individuals working within
their personal and private capacities within the government agencies
of New Mexico.
Each and every letter was specified individually to notify and
remind that public official of their personal connectedness to the
machinery of government, and their duty and oath, which would enable
them to receive a complaint, and then rectify the problem. The
letters, and then affidavits, were a primer of facts, laws, and
evidence that would inform that official of the specific nature of
the commercial driving code, and the sovereign Citizen's Right to
Travel as a guaranteed life right, and not a paid-for privilege.
As I described in Part One, the driving code dissolves your Right to
own the very car you paid for, and your Right to free passage upon
the streets and highways of this land. When you receive a traffic
ticket, there is a headline atop the page that reads, "Uniform
Traffic Citation." Uniform means this is the same procedure, the
same laws, the same jurisdiction from state to state. It is the same
company doing business over every square inch of this country. This
isn't only a New Mexico fraud, but a fraud that we suffer in every
state in the union. An unpaid parking ticket in Oregon, from five
years ago, will prevent you from renewinga drivers license in Rhode
Island tomorrow afternoon. With a drivers license, you have no right
to be on the road, you have no right to park your car on the street.
Not one individual replied or answered any of my letters. Nobody
replied to the affidavits, though they were warned that you
cannot rebut an unanswered, unchallenged affidavit by the time
it is presented as evidence in a court of law. It was a peculiar
and unsettling feeling to me that not one of the 34 individuals I
wrote felt any compulsion or duty to respond or inquire regarding
the injustice of this wide ranging malady nor did anyone express
any thoughts regarding my well being or concerns.
The civil case titled "Thomas Hyland v. the machinery of government
of the State of New Mexico" was filed at the New Mexico First
Judicial District Court on December 27, 2006. From the paragraph
"Relief Demanded" is this: "Plaintiff Hyland demands that the
rule of valid and Constitutional law be reinstated in this instant
case, to accomplish the following: (a) Defendants be penalized for
their fraud, collusion, and conspiracy to commit fraud, conversion,
extortion, racketeering, and conspiracy to deny and deprive Plaintiff
of his Constitutional Rights, and the Court direct the Defendants
to use their authorities to correct, forever, these crimes upon
Plaintiff and all other constituents of Defendants. (b) Stop,
permanently, the unwarranted detainment of motorists, upon the
alleged probable cause that they do not display Motor Vehicle
Division license plates, registration stickers, or seat belt
compliance, as these codes only pertain to the "licensed driver",
that individual who is involved in the commerce of transporting
goods or paying passengers upon the streets and highways of
America as an occupation. (c) Restore Constitutional governance
to the State of New Mexico, as intended by the Constitutions, and
to restore a Constitutional Republic, as required by Article IV,
Section 4, of the Constitution of the United States of America." (d)
Award plaintiff damages for pain, suffering, mental anguish, and
emotional distress arising from the unlawful deprivation of his
Constitutionally guaranteed Rights, which are priceless........."
On Friday afternoon, May 11, 2007, I was compelled to appear at
the unconstitutional venue of a hearing, (read Part One to better
understand the unconstitutional nature of a hearing) presided by
Judge James A. Hall. Purpose of the hearing was to rule on Motions
to Claim and Exercise Constitutional Rights, Motions for Default
Judgment against 17 Defendants who failed to answer the case, motion
to proceed towards Trial by Jury against the one individual who did
answer, that being Sheriff Greg Solano, and Right to Trial by Jury,
which is granted in the federal and state Constitutions. Counsel
for the defendants filed motions to dismiss and motions denying
proper service for all defendants. Judge Hall committed sedition,
insurrection and treason when he: (a) denied the Constitutional
Rights Motion, which means he denied my right to claim rights,
the Constitutions, all Rights guaranteed therein, his oath, and
due process of law; (b) denied the Right of trial by jury without
fee. Both the federal and state constitutions protect the Right to
trial by jury. If you've read this entire article this far, then you
probably know what I'm getting at. You cannot be made to pay for a
right. The New Mexico Constitution, Article II, Section 12 states:
The right of trial by jury as it has heretofore existed shall be
secured to all and remain inviolate." The efforts of Hall extracting
fees from the Citizenry to exercise basic Rights guaranteed in the
Constitutions could be compared to the moneychangers who set up
business in the temple.
Hall stated he wanted the case determined on its merits, which is
this story I am telling, yet, he dismissed Sheriff Solano from the
case without any consideration, fact, or law, whatsoever, for the
merits of the case concerning Solano. Hall ignored the Certificate as
to the State of the Record, attested to by the court clerk, stating
that 17 defendants were in default, and in contradiction to court
rules, denied my Motion for Default Judgment. Hall stated that the
Supreme Court can modify, restrict or overturn the Constitution,
and can "interpret" the Constitution, which again, is sedition,
insurrection, and treason. Hall disobeyed the Code of Judicial
Conduct, including the requirements to be unbiased, fair, just and
impartial in the conduct of his duties before the court.
There has been a second hearing slated for June 8, to determine if
the case shall move towards trial concerning 33 remaining defendants,
though 17 of those defendants were certified "defaulted" by the court
clerk, and thus, lawfully, there would be no further controversy
regarding those individuals, except that Hall has revived their
status as defendants in cause, in an attempt to erase their record of
default, which places a fraud upon the court, and further exemplifies
Hall's behavior as traitor to his oath and the people he swore to
serve and protect. Diligent work has been accomplished by myself
and several Citizen witnesses at this hearing and we have filed
charges against James Hall for treason. "Crime is contagious. If
the government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law;
it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites
anarchy." Olmstead v. United States, 227 U.S. 438.
The actions of "Affidavits of Observation of Treason, Active in
the First Judicial District Court by James Hall, Acting as Judge,
Pursuant to his Oath", delivered to state and federal officers,
should bring this man down and remove him from any claim to position
or retirement benefit. However, the performance of Mr. Hall, and his
dismissal, might be only the beginning of the results of corruption
that has been festering within our Judicial District Courts. If
you visit the public records of Dun & Bradstreet, the corporate
financial data base, you will learn that the First Judicial District
Court has incorporated itself as a "Private Company" since the year
2002. Its chief executive officer is one Patricio Serna, who may
be the same Patricio Serna who sits as a member of the New Mexico
Supreme Court. It appears that every District Court in New Mexico
has incorporated and is open for business, privately. This might
explain how the case I presented, based solely on facts, evidence
and Constitutional law, has been attacked by "opinions" and statutes
inferior to the Constitutions. Also, a "conflict of interest" would
be an enormous understatement to describe a "court" where the "CEO"
is one of the defendants in my case. There is a growing interest
among the supportive parties to this case to reveal the putrid rot
that is being flaunted on public record as a court that displays
total indifference and arrogance regarding its original duties and
purpose, which are to uphold the Constitutions, the People's Rights
guaranteed therein, and to serve justice. I thought the courts were
for the people, but alas, we have had these stolen away and now they
belong to small and private groups. The major goal of any company is
to reap profits for its officers and shareholders. In view of this
diversion from the original intent of our Constitutional justice
system, it is perhaps inevitable that Mr. Hall would develop a
clouded view as to where his allegiance lies.
By Tom Hyland
5 Bishop Lamy Road
Lamy, New Mexico
(505) 466-7525
PLEASE DISSEMINATE THIS NEWSLETTER AS WIDELY AND DEEPLY AND BROADLY AS YOU
POSSIBLY CAN. THE MORE CITIZENS WHO BECOME AWARE OF THIS FRAUD, THE MORE
LIKELY A HUGE GRASS ROOTS MOVEMENT WILL ARISE, SPREAD AND STOP THIS
SYSTEMATIC SCAM.
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! MSN Messenger